SALE OF VENISON (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL (Hansard, 24 May 1968)

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
On a point of order. I have on the Order Paper, order No. 29, a Bill, the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill, for Second Reading. On previous occasions when the Bill has been reached it has been objected to. The point I am raising is that we have had a discussion on this Bill in this Parliament. Therefore, I am wondering whether it is in order, and whether it is not an abuse of Parliament procedure, for hon. Members to have the right merely to say "Object" to the Bill—

§ Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)
The hon. Member is talking out another Bill.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)
Order. I am being addressed on a point of order.

§ Mr. Heffer
For the hon. Member's information, I asked Mr. Deputy Speaker beforehand if I had the right to raise this matter at this time—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would conclude his point of order.

§ Mr. Heffer
I would like your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether it is now correct for any hon. Member continually to object to this Bill under the rules of our procedure. In my estimation, they are not in order and have not been in order for the past few weeks.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The answer to the point of order is quite simple. We 1183 have not yet reached the hon. Member's Bill. When we come to it, he will be able to move its Second Reading and the rules of the House make it clear that it will be open to any hon. Member to object to it if he wishes to oppose it.

§ Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)
Further to that point of order. This raises a most important constitutional issue. I have now been in a number of Parliaments when, under this procedure, one or two hon. Members have specialised in coming in at ten minutes to Four and shouting "Object"—without being identified, without the country knowing who is objecting—to a number of Bills with which they had no concern and in which they had never expressed any interest. The constitutional argument which is advanced in justification and defence of this procedure is that the House could not be expected to give a Second Reading—that is, approval in principle—to a Bill which it had never debated. But my hon. Friend's Bill—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. At this stage, I can have only points of order. The hon. Member now appears to be raising what he considers a matter of constitutional importance relating to our procedure. This is not the occasion to raise that matter, which is a matter of debate. All that I can do is observe the rules of order which the House has laid down. Since the hon. Member has asked my advice, I must tell him, beyond any doubt at all, that, under the present rules of order, it is open to any hon. Member to object at Four o'clock to any Bill proposed for Second Reading.

§ Mr. Mendelson
May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to an important precedent when a debate on this matter was allowed at Four o'clock by one of your predecessors. What I was going to say briefly was that my hon. Friend's Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill, which is down as No. 29 on the Order Paper, is quite different from those Bills which have never been debated in the House. It has been debated for three hours.
Therefore, the constitutional justification of any unidentified hon. Member to be entitled to shout "Object" does not exist. We should know who he is; 1184 we should have the name of any hon. Member who does shout "Object." The country should know who is objecting—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue this matter. It is not a point of order—

§ Mr. Mendelson
It is a point of order.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is a matter which he may well find other opportunities to raise. When the point of order was put to me, I was on the point of putting the Question, as I was duty bound to do, That the Sale of Venison (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill be now read the Third time.

§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)
Further to that point of order. A relevant point on which I would seek an explanation from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or from Mr. Speaker, is that the Standing Order concerned permits discussion on unopposed business after Four o'clock. This sort of discussion has taken place in the past. It does not permit opposed business to take place after that hour. But, Sir, I would like your explanation of why the mere shouting of "Object" by an hon. Member who has not been called by the Chair is regarded. Normally, interruptions which are not made in order are not so regarded—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The answer is that Standing Orders provide that only unopposed business can be taken at 4 o'clock. Unopposed business can be taken. If any hon. Gentleman shouts "Object", it is an indication to the Chair that that business is opposed and, therefore, does not fall to be taken by the House after 4 o'clock. Standing Orders are quite specific about it. If hon. Members want to propose that the Standing Orders should be changed, they have opportunities of doing that, but this is not the time to do it.

§ Mr. English
My point is that, if an hon. Member stands up, is called by the Chair and then opposes a Bill, that is clear to the House, to the country at large, and becomes opposed business. In that event, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would be quite right not to take it at 1185 that hour. But if an hon. Member merely makes an utterance whilst sitting in his place, you are preventing discussion by hon. Members not opposed to the legislation—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It has been the custom of this House for many years past that the way in which any hon. Member can indicate that a proposed Measure is opposed is by shouting "Object'" from his place without rising to his feet. That has been the custom for many years. If it is desired to change the custom of the House or the Standing Orders, hon. Members have opportunities of doing that, but I must rule that this is not the occasion for doing it.

§ Mr. Mendelson
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, before the Bill which is numbered 29 on the Order Paper is reached, this is the only occasion when the point can be pressed. Once "Object" has been shouted, there can be no further discussion o:i it. Therefore, I would press my question, because we have not yet received an answer from the Chair. How can a Bill which has been debated, unlike the others, fall under Standing Orders? Under Standing Orders, it is only Bills which have not been debated which can be objected to in this way.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It is nothing to do with whether or not Bills have been debated. It is only Bills in respect of which any hon. Member shouts "Object" that I am entitled under Standing Orders to deal with at 4 o'clock. Now we must proceed.