HC Deb 25 June 1965 vol 714 cc2113-5

As amended, considered.

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Speaker

The following Motion is not selected: That the Amendments to Page 1, line 7, of the Bill, in the names of Sir John Hobson and of Mr. Sydney Silverman, be considered before new Clauses. The first Amendment selected is new Clause No. 1—"Restriction on releasing on licence those sentenced to life imprisonment for murder"—in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and other hon. and right hon. Members. I propose, if that is acceptable, that the House should discuss with it the other new Clauses, No. 2—"Release on licence of those sentenced for murder", No. 3—"Reference by Secretary of State to Judicial Review Tribunal", and No. 4—"Composition of Judicial Review Tribunal".

If so desired, I will call new Clause No. 2 for a separate Division.

Mr. John M. Temple (City of Chester)

On a point of order. May I raise a point of order with you of which I have given notice to you through your officials Sir? This is with reference to the posting in the "No" Lobby of selection of Amendments. This morning I came to the House about 10.20 and immediately went to the "No" Lobby to see the selection of Amendments for this stage of the Bill. At approximately half-past ten I went to your office and asked whether the selection had been made. I was given to understand that the selection had, in fact, been made, but at that particular moment the selections were not posted in the "No" Lobby. I was given privilege of seeing your selected list of Amendments at that time, for which I was extremely grateful. I went to the "No" Lobby and found that the list of Amendments, during the time I had taken in going to your office, had been posted in the "No" Lobby. The posting of these Amendments had been some time between 10.30 a.m. and 10.35 a.m. I suggest that it is not giving time to those of us taking an interest in this Bill to study the course of the debate for today if before the business proceeds we are allowed only something under 25 minutes to plan the course of our speeches and cover the points in the right order.

I respectfully suggest to you that further time should be given so that the House may be able to see the range of Amendments which you have selected rather earlier. I hope that on a future occasion the list of selected Amendments for a Friday might be posted rather earlier in the morning.

Mr. Speaker

I am obliged to the hon. Member. I think that this is probably my fault, but it just shows how one can get into trouble when one tries to help people. I rather think that when the hon. Member and I first came to this House no publication whatever was made of selected Amendments. The Chair then invented the practice, with a view to helping, if possible, of making a provisional selection and getting it posted in the Lobbies. Now, because on one occasion the posting is late—I say that this is probably my fault—I am in trouble and seemingly unhelpful.

Special difficulties arise on a Friday, but as from certainly seven o'clock yesterday, owing to my own exertions, the provisional selection of Amendments has been available in my office to anyone who would like to go there. I am sorry if inconvenience has been caused and I hope that in this particular arrangement there will be none.

Sir John Hobson (Warwick and Leamington)

On another point of order. I understood you to say that I was to move the first new Clause and that you would consider the second on which a Division can be taken if required.

I did not understand what was the position about the third and fourth new Clauses. The first and second, whichever is adopted, if passed, would provide that there should be a reference to a judicial review tribunal, in accordance with the Act, but there would not be a judicial review tribunal nor any powers or duties for it under those new Clauses. Admittedly, if neither the first two new Clauses is adopted, the third and fourth would fall, but if either the first or second new Clause is adopted the matter would be left in the air with no scheme to support it.

The whole thing being one scheme, although divided into Clauses, I ask that there should be Divisions on new Clauses Nos. 3 and 4 if new Clause No. 1 or No. 2 is passed.

Mr. Speaker

Most certainly. All this is provisional. It has to be. All that I have suggested so far is that I think that it would be convenient that the discussion should extend to new Clauses 3 and 4. The proper course to take I shall know when I hear what happens to new Clauses Nos. 1 and 2.