HC Deb 02 February 1967 vol 740 cc791-8
Mr. Speaker

I wish to make two statements and then to give a Ruling on the matter of Privilege raised with me yesterday.

First, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) raised a rather small point about whether cleaners might come into the Chamber between the morning sitting and the afternoon sitting. Under the Sessional Order which governs morning sittings, the sitting is suspended at One o'clock, or just before One o'clock if the business peters out. When the sitting is suspended, the Mace remains on the Table. I am of the opinion that it would create a dangerous precedent if we began the practice of allowing strangers to enter the House while the Mace was on the Table.

The second matter was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) about when the vote should be taken on the Motion of the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) for leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule procedure. Yesterday, I referred to the Sessional Order of 14th December which the House carried and which I have to administer. I endeavoured to dispose of one or two misapprehensions in the minds of hon. Members. In my own words, the Sessional Order which the House discussed "involves all kinds of new complications".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 517.]

It is my duty to draw the attention of the House to a point which arises from the decision which the House took on 14th December. The Motion for leave to bring in a Bill relating to travel trade registration moved by the hon. Member for Blyth—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

Where is he?

Mr. Speaker

—would, in the normal course, have been put to the House last night immediately before we reached the Adjournment Motion. Owing to the Count of the House, the Adjournment Motion was never reached. In consequence, the Chair will have to put the Question on yesterday's Ten-Minute Rule Bill tonight immediately before the Adjournment Motion is moved by the Government Whip.

The third matter is the important question of Privilege raised with me yesterday by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). He referred to certain events which he claimed occurred when the House was being counted on the night of 31st January.

First, I should say that the hon. Member is quite right in thinking that any misbehaviour in the Lobby, such as the use of offensive expressions or insulting words or threats, although not committed in the actual view of the Chair, may, nevertheless, constitute a contempt of the House, with all the consequences which flow from that.

All that I have to decide now, however, is whether the hon. Member has made out a prima facie case of contempt or breach of Privilege which would justify me in according priority to this matter over the Orders of the Day. I have now asked the Serjeant at Arms whether any disorder occurred in or near the Chamber that night, and he has reported to me that there were no incidents of an exceptional character and no disorderly behaviour.

I gather that it is not unknown for Whips to use their powers of persuasion in dealing with their fellow Members. I recognise that there may have been some degree of friendly intervention, but I do not think that it constituted any infringement of the rules or practice of the House. If physical violence had been used, then the matter would have had a very different issue, but I understand that such was not the case.

Although the present matter may appear to the hon. Member for Peterborough to affect Privilege, I cannot, therefore, rule that it should be given precedence over the Orders of the Day. In judging whether a prima facie case of breach of Privilege has been made out, I do not, of course, preclude him from raising the matter by other means. My Ruling merely restrains him from obtaining priority for any Motion which he might have desired to put before the House at this time.

Mr. Heath

May I raise a point of order and ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about the business on the Order Paper for the rest of the day? The next item after the Bill—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am wondering whether we should deal with that point now. I can take it now if the right hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

Would it not be more in order for us to raise points on the Rulings which you have given, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

It would be tidier.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, the matter which I raised earlier on which you have been good enough to rule? Some of us rather resent the approach of the Leader of the House to this matter. This is not at all a matter of party politics or party divisions. We are sincerely desirous that the proceedings of the House should be properly arranged. Some of us gave warnings about the consequence of morning sittings whatever arrangements were made for Divisions. You said that a vote would take place at the end of today's business on something which was dealt with yesterday morning. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that this is only the beginning of some of the procedural difficulties which we shall be in—

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid that nothing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised is a point of order for me, although it is very interesting.

Mr. Turton

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not in this difficulty? The travel agency Bill is not on the Order Paper, which means that those hon. Gentlemen who object to that Bill are in the position, reading the Order Paper, that they have no knowledge that the Bill is being taken. Apart from that, with respect to your Ruling, is it not quite specific in the Sessional Order that a Division which is deferred from 12.30 is taken that day and not on any other day? Have we power to overrule that Sessional Order and enable it to be taken on the day after? I would ask you to give consideration to those two facts, and rule that the Bill should not be brought forward without notice tonight.

Mr. Speaker

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have given consideration to the points which he has raised. This is an abnormal circumstance. In the ordinary course of events, what would have happened, according to the Sessional Order, is that the Ten-Minute Rule Bill would have been divided on some time early this morning at the end of that day's business.

I have now to decide what has to be done to protect the fact that it was decided that the Ten-Minute Rule Bill should be divided on, and I must ask the House to accept my Ruling on this rather difficult and possibly unique occasion.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you were not in the Chair at the time, I am sure that you do not realise that, near the time when the vote on this Bill would have taken place, the proposer of the Bill was not in the House. It was for that reason that I called—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman cannot argue the merits of what flows from the Sessional Order, which the House of Commons adopted by a majority on 14th December. I do not question the hon. Gentleman's word. It is quite possible that the mover of a Resolution, Motion or Ten-Minute Rule Bill may not be in his place when, some hours later, a division is taken. All this flows from the Sessional Order. I have just to administer it.

Mr. Lewis

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Is this on the same issue?

Mr. Lewis

Mr. Speaker, all that I am putting to you, for the record, is this. I am not disputing your Ruling. I am asking that, when this matter is considered, it should be borne in mind that if an hon. Member has a Ten-Minute Rule Bill and lie is not here when it is likely that the Question will be proposed by you on that Bill, it is not reasonable that he should have a second chance to ask the House to support that Bill, or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker

That is a matter that I shall have to consider when the occasion arises.

Sir E. Boyle

Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I am sure that none of us wants to make too much of the point, but Erskine May, on page 265, quite specifically says that the Order Pa per gives the agenda of the sitting for the current day. It goes on: An item which requires notice but is omitted from this paper cannot be taken. Surely it is a matter for real consideration by the House whether an item not included on the Order Paper may properly be taken.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One quite appreciates that, faced with this awkward situation, you had to decide what you felt was best to be done. May I suggest that the appropriate action to be taken, when a Motion disappears from the Order Paper in this way through a Count, is for the Motion to be put on the Paper restoring it to the Order Paper, as has been done to the Government Motion, though in somewhat controversial circumstances?

Mr. Speaker

This is something which we shall have to look at. As far as Erskine May is concerned, the difficulty is that the Sessional Order of 14th December was carried by the House after the publication of the last edition of Erskine May, and I have to try to marry the two. It is not easy. I would only assure hon. Members that the Chair and its advisers gave great consideration to these issues.

Mr. Heath

On this particular point of order, Mr. Speaker, the House will agree that you are facing almost insuperable difficulties. The point about the Sessional Order is that notice is given that the item is to be taken on that morning, and the House is aware that, if it is challeneged, it will be taken that night, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have an opportunity to be in the House to vote upon it. After last night's incident, no one was aware that it would be taken, because of the new circumstances. Would it be helpful for the House, in view of the fact that you have said that it is a unique occasion and that there will have to be a decision again later, for notice of this item to be given for next Monday, when hon. Gentlemen would be informed and could come to vote if they wished to do so?

Mr. Crossman

On this point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the whole of this unique situation arose because your decision was not carried out, owing to a Count being imposed on the House suddenly and without warning from the back benches opposite against their own side? If we had gone on normally, it would not have happened.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are on a difficult point of order. The Chair is not concerned at any stage of this consideration how or why a Count or any difficulty arose. All that it is faced with is the difficulty itself, and how we are to cope with it.

Mr. Maude

The difficulty with which we are faced is this. We recognise that the Sessional Order lays down that, if a Division is called in the morning, it must be held that night. Does the Sessional Order make any provision for it to be held the next day? My impression is that it does not.

Mr. Speaker

That is why the Chair is ruling on it—[Interruption.] Order. A am sure that the House is trying to help the Chair. The Chair is ruling on this because there is no specific provision that I have been able to find in the Sessional Order for what happens to a Motion or a Ten-Minute Rule Bill which was to be taken at the end of the day when that day is broken by the House being counted out.

Mr. Heath

May I return to the original point? In the absence of anything in the Sessional Order, would it not be the normal procedure to do as has been done with the Consolidated Fund Bill and give notice for some future date that the Bill will be restored to the Order Paper and that the vote will be taken just before the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker

I should imagine that that would normally happen in the case of Government or Opposition business. Probably it would not have occurred to the hon. Gentleman who had his Ten-Minute Rule Bill. But it seems to me to make sense that we might adopt the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has put forward, and that we invite, in this case, the usual channels, to put on the Order Paper on Monday for Division the Ten-Minute Rule Bill which should have been taken this morning.

Mr. Heath

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for that Ruling.

May I raise a point of order about the next substantive item of business?

Mr. Speaker

I think that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) wants to raise a further point first.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On your Ruling about Privilege, Mr. Speaker, naturally the House will accept it. But I think that it is correct to put to you that the basis of your Ruling to some extent runs contrary to the precedent which I quoted to you. The then Speaker accepted "prima facie" as meaning without actual violence being used.

Mr. Speaker

When the hon. Gentleman submitted the case to me, he called my attention to the alleged precedent. He ought not to need assurance that I have studied the alleged precedent. It by no means militates against what I have ruled.