MILFORD HAVEN (TIDAL BARRAGE) BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 20 July 1959)

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Donnelly.

§ Mr. Donnelly
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to substitute for the words that stand on the Notice Paper another Motion which reads as follows, and I understand that I can only do this—

§ Mr. Speaker
I am afraid that would be out of order. Such a Motion requires notice. The hon. Member must put his amended form of Motion on the Notice Paper so that the House is aware of it.

§ Mr. Donnelly
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that one can move an alternative Motion by leave of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am afraid not. It requires notice, unless the hon. Member wishes to move this Motion.

§ Mr. Donnelly
In those circumstances, Sir, I beg to move, That the Milford Haven (Tidal Barrage) Bill [Lords] stand re-committed to the Committee of Selection with an Instruction that the said Bill be not referred to the Committee to which it was previously referred.

Hon. Members
Object.

§ Mr. Speaker
What day?

§ Mr. Donnelly
Tomorrow.
On a point of order. May I ask the Chairman of Ways and Means when he proposes to allocate time for the Motion to be debated in view of the objection being sustained?

The Chairman of Ways and Means
I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

§ Mr. D. Howell
Further to that point of order. Could you advise us, Mr. Speaker, not only on the question of this Bill—the Corporation Bills of Lancaster and Halifax have received similar treatment—what right we have to raise matters when an entirely new procedure seems to be brought into Private Bills stopping the cross-examination of witnesses and behaving in a manner which some of us feel is not in the best interests of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
Speaking offhand, I think that the only way for the hon. Member to do it is by Motion.

§ Mr. Donnelly
Further to that point of order. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very important principle involved here which, in view of the Summer Recess coming along, raises certain problems of procedure in the House. It is not a question of prejudging these Bills but of the procedural question which is involved. Could you give us your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how we can examine the procedural issue as far as the House is concerned?

§ Mr. Speaker
My first suggestion was—it is the only one which occurs to me—to put down a Motion and have the matter properly discussed in debate. I can see no other way.

§ Mr. Fletcher
Further to that point of order. May we take it, Mr. Speaker, that if such a Motion is put down time will be made available to debate it? What troubles us is that the Chairman of Ways and Means said that he could not indicate now when time could be given to debate my hon. Friend's Motion. What the House would be interested to know is whether some time before the 843 end of the Session time would be made available for such a debate.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a matter for me. I cannot say when these matters will be attended to.