HC Deb 25 April 1963 vol 676 cc425-7

Sir FRANK MARKHAM and Mr. JOHN MACKIE, Tellers in the No and Aye Lobbies respectively in Division No. 96, came to the Table.

Sir F. Markham

I have to report, Sir, that in Division No. 96, taken on 24th April at 4.4 p.m., the number of the Ayes was incorrectly reported by us as 76, but that, in fact, the correct number was 68.

I also have to report that the number of the Noes was incorrectly reported by us as 68 but that, in fact, the number was 76.

Mr. Speaker

An appropriate correction will be made in the Journal, recording the numbers in the Division as being Ayes, 68, Noes, 76, with the result that, on that occasion, the Noes had it. It follows that the proceedings relative to the Motion for leave to bring in a Bill after the Division on the Question put pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 were null and void.

Mr. Marsh

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want, first, to apologise for having unwittingly involved you in this difficulty—the problem arises from bringing amateurism into the House. May I quote a precedent that I find in the 16th edition of Erskine May—

Mr. Speaker

Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say what his point of order is?

Mr. Marsh

Certainly, Sir. I submit, that subsequent to the voting, I was, in fact, given leave to bring in a Bill. The Bill was handed to the Clerk. With the support of the precedent I have, I am asking whether or not the Bill is already in the possession of the House, regardless of the subsequent changing of the voting figures.

My precedent is in page 515 of the 16th edition of Erskine May and it goes back a long way—in fact, to 23rd May, 1604. The House then resolved specifically, in regard to its privileges, that No speaker from henceforth should deliver a Bill, whereof the House standeth possessed, to any whosoever, without Allowance and Leave as aforesaid, … May I, therefore, respectfully submit that the Bill was brought before the House and should remain as on First Reading?

Mr. Speaker

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in his misfortune, but, owing to the Division which resulted in it revealing, upon correction, the fact that he never had leave to introduce the Bill, the formalities through which he went were null and void, and the Bill is not in the possession of the House.

Mr. S. Silverman

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Accepting, as one must, that the proceedings of the House at that point were, for the reasons given, null and void, may I submit to you that it perhaps follows from that that we can begin de novo and my hon. Friend can be given an opportunity to introduce a Bill again so that we may ascertain what really is the view of the House about it?

Mr. Speaker

I think that the right course is this. If the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) wants to know what he can do in the circumstances, on a procedural basis, perhaps he will be good enough to consult the Officers of the House, or myself, at a convenient moment, when we shall do our best to advise. I think that time at this moment belongs to other hon. Members.