SHERIFFS' PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL (Hansard, 15 February 1961)

§ Mr. G. M. Thomson (Dundee, East)
On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, do I understand that we are not to have the Second Reading here in the House now?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)
In the event of the Motion moved by the Secretary of State for Scotland being carried, the Bill will be taken upstairs and not on the Floor of the House. There can be no debate on this Motion, according to Standing Order No. 60 (4).

§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You will be aware that we have already had the Second Reading of this Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee. We have already discussed the principle of the Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee, and this Order is, in fact, for the Second Reading.

§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillan (Western Isles)
Further to that point of order. There was a precedent some months ago when it was reported back to the House, in the ordinary way, that the Scottish Grand Committee had considered the principle of the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Bill. The Secretary of State then moved the Second Reading.
It was ruled then that it was in order to proceed to discuss an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, or the Motion for the Second Reading. It is right to draw your attention to that precedent. It was done formally then, and we did not take advantage of it to 1694 have a full discussion on the Second Reading.
The present situation is similar. There is a Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill. Surely this is a perfectly ordinary Motion, which can be followed by ordinary procedural discussion, with a possible vote at the end?

§ Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was in the Chamber at 10 p.m. last night and I do not remember the Standing Order being suspended for the Second Reading of this Bill, which is, I believe, not exempted business.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I understand the Bill to be exempted, which meets the point put by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser).
I shall now deal with the previous points of order, for which I am obliged. I understand myself to be correct in putting the Question, moved by the Secretary of State, which is that the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee. I propose to put it as soon as I have read to the House the Standing Order, under which I am acting, No. 60 (4), which reads: When the order for the second reading of any such Bill has been read, a motion to be decided without amendment or debate may be made by a Minister of the Crown 'That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee '. It goes on—and I propose to read this passage, although I think it is not relevant to the Question?— Provided that' this paragraph shall not apply in the case of any b,',11 to the second reading of which notice of an amendment has been given by not less than six Members. I am not aware that notice of any amendment has been given by not less than six Members. Therefore, I conceive it to be my duty to put the Question, and 1 propose to put it now. The Question is, That the Bill he committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

§ Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Can you explain how this is exempted business? It does not say so on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The answer is, under Standing Order IA.

§ Mr. Lawson
Do we understand that this business is exempted? Not only is the exemption not mentioned on the Order Paper, but the business was not exempted at 10 p.m. last night?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
If I may, I will read to the House what I am acting under. Standing Order 1A (1), subparagraph (d) says: Proceedings in pursuance of any Act of Parliament save in so far as Standing Order 95A (Statutory Instruments, etc. (procedure)) otherwise provides or in pursuance of any Standing Order of this House; ". That covers the exemption as far as I understand it.

§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If we drafted a manuscript Amendment, would you be prepared to accept it?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is not allowed. The only proviso against my doing my duty and putting the Question to the vote at once is: Provided that this paragraph shall not apply in the case of any bill to the second reading of which notice of an amendment has been given by not less than six Members. As notice has not been given, so far as I am aware, by six Members, I would like to put the Question.

§ Mr. G. M. Thomson
Further to that point of order. May I seek your guidance as to whether the Question you are about to put to the House, That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Grand Committee, is debatable? I submit to you that many of us on this side of the House feel that in the light of what has happened in the House during this night there is a very strong case for the rejection of this Motion and for the taking of the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I thought that I had made that clear in reading the Standing Order. Standing Order No. 60, paragraph 4, reads: 1696 When the order for the second reading of any such bill has been read, a Motion to be decided without amendment or debate … but, of course, a vote can be taken on it— may be made by a Minister of the Crown, ' That the bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee'. That Motion has been made by a Minister of the Crown.

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillan
I thought that it was interrupted by a point of order. Is it not the case that at the moment the Motion before the House is for a Second Reading?

§ Mr. MacMillan
That is the understanding on this side of the House. Otherwise, we would not be troubling you further with the matter. That is as far as we have got.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
No. I hope that I can make the position clear. The question of Second Reading has not been moved by anybody. The Secretary of State for Scotland rose, as I heard him, and proposed, That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee. That is what I heard the Secretary of State do. I believe it to be my duty to put that Question without amendment or debate.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
On a point of order. I think that the House is in some difficulty. We have had this Bill under consideration in the Scottish Grand Committee— not the Standing Committee—where we considered the Bill in relation to the principle. As I understand the position, we have not had the Second Reading of the Bill. Only this House can give a Bill a Second Reading and this House has not yet given the Bill a Second Reading. As I understand, a Bill may not be committed to any Standing Committee, or even to a Committee of the whole House, until after it has had its Second Reading and, so far as I am aware, this Bill has not had a Second Reading.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
As far as I understand, all the earlier stages have been complied with. On that understanding, I must put the Question now without further debate.

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order. When we discussed this matter first in the House it was on a Motion that in relation to the principle the Bill be remitted to the Scottish Grand Committee. That was done and the final thing put by the Chairman of that Committee was that he should report to the House that we had debated the matter in principle. With all due respect, there is nothing on the Order Paper reporting that to the House.
I expected we should have two stages, one at which a report was made that the Bill had been considered in relation to its principle and a request for a Second Reading, and, after that, a request that it should be sent to the Scottish Standing Committee.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I have satisfied myself as best I can that these stages have been duly complied with. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I understand that they have been duly complied with.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
There are four Orders of the Day, and this is the fourth—Second Reading of the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Bill. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that if we had ever had the Second Reading this would not have been among the Orders of the Day. It follows immediately after National Health Service [Money] Report. The Motion for Second Reading has not been before the House.

§ Dr. J. Dickson Mahon (Greenock)
I have looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Scottish Grand Committee which discussed his matter, and I would draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the following: The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Bill has been—"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 7th February, 1961; c. 5.]

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member is putting me in difficulty, because I do not believe that I can take cognisance of what happened in the Scottish Grand Committee on that occasion. I understand the procedure I am now carrying out to be the normal procedure. I should like to be allowed to carry it out in that sense. If I am wrong, then, of course, I accept full responsibility.

§ Mr. G. M. Thomson
We very much appreciate the difficulty you are in on 1698 this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because it has been raised without notice, and we apologise for that. We have no wish that a situation should arise which might prove that inadvertently you had given the House wrong advice. May I ask whether the Leader of the House in this situation would tell the House he is prepared to leave this matter over for more mature consideration?

§ Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)
We are all in considerable difficulty. There really is genuine confusion about what exactly has taken place. My right and hon. Friends are convinced—and I think that they have good reason for their point of view—that the Second Reading of the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Bill has not taken place and that the House has not given its approval. If that is the case, surely we cannot proceed to the further Motion which was moved by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I would suggest that, in all the circumstances, the simplest thing—because we realise the complexities of the procedure in this matter, at this hour of the morning—would be for the Government simply not to proceed further with this matter for the moment. I would ask the Leader of the House when he would make a statement on this, either clarifying the matter so that we are satisfied that what he proposes to do is correct, or, as I would think more sensible, withdrawing it for the time being.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)
On a point of order. I think that I may be able to assist the House because I, not unnaturally, have had to study this point with great care during the last four years. My understanding, which I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is quite clear, that on a Minister of the Crown moving the Motion that I did move—

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. W. Hamilton
The right hon. Gentleman never moved it.

§ Mr. Maclay
That is precisely what I did.

§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillan
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Maclay
I am on a point of order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State is on a point of order, and he must make his point of order before he is interrupted.

§ Mr. Maclay
The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt me when I am speaking by saying that I am telling lies. What I have said is correct. I have the formula in front of me, and I have underlined the words which I read out. The words were: I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee". The next stage, as I have understood it over the years, is that Mr. Speaker will put the Question to be decided without amendment or debate, and on its being agreed the Bill is deemed to have been read a Second time and committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.
That, I humbly suggest, is the procedure that has been followed on every occasion on which this device has been used.

§ Mr. Thomas Oswald (Edinburgh, Central)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman begged to move a Motion, but midway through moving it a point of order was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), which you accepted. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Scotland did not complete the statement that he has read to the House. I contend that the Motion about to be moved by the Secretary of State for Scotland was not moved.
It must be within your recollection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that, as you justly do whenever an hon. Member raises a point of order which you think is justified, you accepted the point of order raised by my hon. Friend. The Minister did not move the Motion that he has said he did. I respectfully submit that the Motion has not yet been moved.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I think that the House must allow me to perform the functions of the Chair when I am in it. I am satisfied that the Secretary of State for Scotland moved the Motion, and I hope that the House will accept that from me.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
Further to the points of order that have been raised, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have been trying to get a copy of Standing Orders, but I have 1700 not succeeded. I was trying to recall the appropriate Standing Order, which I remember being made.
I think that what the Secretary of State for Scotland read just now is, in fact, written into the Standing Order, and what he said may, therefore, be an explanation of the whole position. I think that that is so. I regret that we have had this rather prolonged discussion on points of order, but the Secretary of State for Scotland, in giving his explanation, did not make it clear to me that he was reading from the Standing Order. If what he said was a quotation from the Standing Order, I think that we had better accept that.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Perhaps I owe the House an apology for not having read it in full. If the House will allow me to read it in full now, there will be no doubt.

§ Dr. Dickson Mahon
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
No. Standing Order No. 60 says: (2) On the order for the second reading of any such bill being read, a motion to be decided without amendment or debate may be made by a Minister of the Crown, ' That'. the bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee ', and if, on the question thereupon being put, not less than ten Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, Mr. Speaker shall declare that the noes have it. (3) A bill so referred to the Grand Committee shall be considered in relation to the principle of the bill, and shall be reported as having been so considered to the House and shall be ordered to be read a second time upon a future day. (4) When the order for the second reading of any such bill has been read, a motion to be decided without amendment or debate may be made by a Minister of the Crown, 'That the bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee'…. Having read that to the House, I am going to put the Question.
The Question is, That the Bill be committed to the Scottish—

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Mr. MacMillan.

§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillan
When that is put to the House, it will go to the Scottish Standing Committee, but that does not decide anything about the Second Reading of the Bill as distinct from consideration of the principle.
1701 From precedent established not long ago, I know that it is possible to have a Second Reading debate on a Scottish Bill on the Floor of the House, the House reserving the right to decide whether it shall have a Second Reading after it has been discussed in principle upstairs. I am thinking of the precedent of the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Bill, when I did put down an Amendment. But even if there had not been an Amendment by me on the Order Paper, the House still would have reserved to itself the right to decide whether a Bill should have a Second Reading or not. After that stage, there would be the order to send it upstairs. But, surely, the House of Commons cannot be denied its right to say whether it will accept and give a Second Reading to a Bill. Therefore, the question must and will arise—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The answer, as I see it, to the hon. Member's point is that the House must decide this, and decide it by vote. I am not allowed to permit debate upon it. I feel that the matter is clear enough now for it to be put to the vote without further points of order.

§ Mr. MacMillan
I quite sympathise with your position, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I am in some difficulty myself. I should not for a moment wish to pronounce dogmatically upon it. I only want the matter to be clear, and I do not in the least wish to harass you. The Order which is referred to in the Standing Order surely comes after the House has decided whether it will give a Second Reading or not. The Order could not be permitted to be read until the Second Reading had been agreed by the House. I cannot possibly understand how we could eliminate the whole right of the House of Commons to decide whether a Bill is to have a Second Reading. It would seem quite unconstitutional and very odd if it were so.
I should hate to see you in the position of reading the Order for sending the Bill upstairs for the Committee stage without having given the House previously an opportunity to decide whether the Bill should have a Second Reading. That is the point at issue. The House of Commons reserves to itself, even from the Scottish Standing Committee, the right to decide whether it will give a Second 1702 Reading to a Bill. Is it to be deprived of the right to discuss the merits of the Bill and whether it should have a Second Reading? There can be no precedent for that.

§ Mr. Charles A. Howell (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
I rise on a Scottish matter only in an effort to help you and the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Lest it should transpire subsequently, on a reading of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) was right in saying that the whole of the Motion was not read out to you, before the interchange of points of order, would it be within your competence now to invite the Minister to move the Motion again in full, on the ground that his original reading of it was interrupted?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am obliged to the hon. Member for that point of order. If, in fact, what is being put under my authority turns out to be wrong, certainly it can be raised again. But I do now tell the House that I am convinced that I am correct in what I am doing, and I invite the House to accept my Ruling and allow me to put the Question now, without further points of order or discussion.

§ Mr. Hamilton
It seems to me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it would be highly unsatisfactory, with all respect, if you were to say that you were satisfied that such-and-such had happened if, subsequently, the OFFICIAL REPORT showed that it did not, in fact, happen. We might be in a position similar to that in which we were last week. It would be much simpler, would you agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if the House were now to adjourn so that we might look at the OFFICIAL REPORT and see whether what the Secretary of State said conforms with the facts?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion for the Adjournment.