HC Deb 17 December 1968 vol 775 cc1169-74
Mr. Speaker

I shall now hear two points of order, which the hon. Members concerned kindly postponed.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to raise on a point of order certain matters concerning Standing Orders, our rules of procedure and Erskine May with reference to the Petition presented to the House this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).

Standing Order No. 98 lays down that, after a Petition has been ordered to lie upon the Table, it must be referred to the Committee on Public Petitions. Rule of Procedure No. 95 states that the Committee on Public Petitions shall examine all public Petitions after they have been presented and make periodic reports to the House.

Erskine May, at page 855 of the 17th Edition, states, among other matters: The reports of this committee"— that is, the Committee on Public Petitions— printed at intervals during the session, point out, not only the subject of each petition, but the number of signatures to which addresses are affixed, and which are written on sheets headed by the prayer of the petition, the general object of every petition, and the total number of petitions and the signatures in reference to each subject. The counting and checking of signatures and addresses is, I understand, usually done by the clerk of the Committee, assisted by other clerks in the Journal Office, the Table Office and other offices of the House. I understand that those who perform this task receive some remuneration for their trouble based, I believe, on every 3,000 signatures counted. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr gives the total number of signatures on his Petition this afternoon as 1,086,590. Under our present rules, every one of those must be counted and rechecked.

Whatever may be the cost of doing that—I do not imagine that any of us would in any way resent our clerks receiving some remuneration for their trouble—the time factor must be of some importance here. To the best of my calculation, were 1,000 signatures to be counted and checked by one clerk every day, including Sundays, the operation would take that one clerk 2¾ years to complete. I cannot believe that it would be the wish of the House that a clerk, possibly taking 24,090 man hours, should be occupied in deciding whether, for example, Mr. and Mrs. McTavish, of Cape Wrath, are the same Mr. and Mrs. McTavish, of the Mull of Kintyre.

I wonder, therefore, Mr. Speaker, whether you would advise the House on how best we might deal with this Petition. Might it be possible for the Leader of the House now to move that for the purposes of this Petition the Petitions Committee be relieved of the requirements of Rule of Procedure No. 95 read in conjunction with the passage in Erskine May which I cited, so that eventually the report might have to include not the number of signatures but only the number of separate sheets of signatures.

It would appear to me, Sir, that that would ensure that the time of our hard-worked clerks was not unduly overburdened by counting and checking over 1 million signatures on what must be a truly historic Petition.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I am indebted to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) for his observations, which, curiously enough, ran on lines parallel to my own view. I listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), whose neighbour I am in Ayrshire. In Scotland, we all respect the name of Younger. He is a very popular Member in my constituency—more popular than I am, especially after certain times on Friday and Saturday night.

However, the hon. Gentleman's Petition brings a new problem. A total of 1,086,590 signatures is a very large number for the clerks to count, and there will be a large sum of money to ask the country to pay at a time when hon. Members opposite are calling for a reduction in public expenditure.

With this Petition there are certain difficulties which are not associated with any other Petition. As one who respects Parliament and the rights of Parliament and the rights of hon. Members to petition Parliament, I regard the tradition of petition with great respect, and I do not think that we should do anything to diminish the respect in which this historic custom is held.

However, questions have been asked about this Petition and, without wishing to discuss them, I think that there are certain matters which will impose additional burdens on the members of the Committee. For example, I have been asked how many of the signatures are those of women and children under 16. I have been asked whether foreign subjects visiting Scotland have had the opportunity to sign. I have been asked—and I am not expressing any opinion—whether it is true that large numbers of foreign subjects, who have not understood the issue, but who have been part of the large tourist traffic which comes to Scotland, to the Edinburgh Festival, going on to the Highlands and to Stirling Castle, have added their names. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely that, if it is possible, we should check the address of every signatory.

I have one final illustration. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration said that on a recent visit to Katmandu he had seen an appeal to sign the Petition. For the benefit of hon. Members who do not know where Katmandu is, I should say that it is not in Argyllshire, nor in Sutherlandshire. Here was an attempt to raise signatures in a country in which a large number of people understand only Chinese. Will any scrutiny be made of whether the inhabitants of Nepal have had the Petition translated into their native language before it was presented to them?

I have said enough to show that, if it is possible without adding to public expenditure, about which I am very much concerned, along with the Leader of the Opposition, there should be at least a sample scrutiny to find out whether any foreign subjects have signed the Petition, whether it has been circulated in a foreign language and whether women and children have signed it.

Finally, I want to ask about the destination of the Petition. What is to happen to this huge pile of documents which the officers of the House brought to the Chamber? I suggest that it should be sent to the Ministry of Defence so that an invitation may be sent to bona fide signatories to join any Scottish ré giment they choose.

Several Hon. Members

rose —

Mr. Speaker

I remind the House that we have much business ahead.

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

On a point of order. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked whether foreigners had signed the petition. No doubt that will be looked into. The hon. Gentleman said that yesterday the Minister of Defence for Administration said that he had seen the petition in Katmandu, but that is not what the Minister said. The right hon. Gentleman said that on his visit to where the Gurkhas come from he had seen on a vehicle a sticker saying, "Save the Argylls". The hon. Gentleman was, therefore, entirely incorrect. To those who know that the Gurkhas are fine troops it is no surprise that in the land of the Gurkhas there should be recognition—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are not talking about posters in Katmandu; we are talking about petitions.

Mr. Campbell

The question was whether foreigners had signed the Petition. It may well be that no subject of Nepal has signed the Petition, but, none the less, the Gurkhas, who are a fine regiment, would recognise the qualities of another fine regiment and would wish to show support for it.

Mr. Arthur Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

On a point of order. This is a rather more serious point. Is there any way of protecting the dignity of the House from propaganda stunts of this kind? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame. Withdraw."] Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that this Petition asks the Government to withdraw from the colonels of the Scottish Regiments the right to dispose of the Scottish regiments as they think best? Would it not be very bad for the House to appear to be removing from Scotland a right to settle its affairs in Scotland?

Mr. Speaker

We cannot drift into arguing the merits of the Petition.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

On a point of order. Is there a Motion before the House? I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) had put a point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, and I was wondering whether there was to be a ruling.

Mr. Speaker

The Chair would be able to deal with the point of order if hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), did not ask other points of order.

Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East)

On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said that he had been asked a number of questions about this Petition. I think that there should be the most rigorous inspection of the names, for I have been asked a question. I have been asked by students of the Sunday Press whether this was a Petition to save the Duke and Duchess of Argyll and it may be that a number of people have signed the petition under a misapprehension.

Moreover, can you say, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any possibility of the Committee which will examine the Petition calling before it a number of persons who are supposed to have signed the Petition to examine them on the circumstances in which they signed it and what was said to them before they signed it?

Mr. Speaker

May I first say that a Petition to the House of Commons does not upset the dignity of the House of Commons. We are dealing with an unusual problem, because this Petition is particularly large. One hon. Member wants to reduce the work of the staff in examining the Petition and another hon. Member wants to add to the work of the staff by increasing the matters which the Committee would examine.

I must deal simply with the point of order. It is not within my power to direct that signatures need not be counted, because the House ordered, when setting up the Committee on Public Peti- tions, that the report of the Committee should set forth in respect of each Petition the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses. The office clerks examining the Petitions have, therefore, to satisfy themselves that each signature appears to be a valid signature with an address; otherwise, it is not counted.

It is not unusual to find names attached to a Petition which are clearly not genuine signatures, or which are not accompanied by addresses. An order to report the number of signatures has been included in the Committee's order of reference ever since the Committee was first appointed in 1833. The number has to be officially verified, as it has been found in the past that the number is sometimes over-estimated by those who prepare the Petition.

The Committee on Public Petitions will examine the Petition and no doubt hon. Members who are members of the Committee will note the observations made.