§ Mr. SpeakerYesterday the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) asked me whether it was in order for a Motion for a new writ to be moved by any hon. Member of the House. I said that I would inquire into the matter, and I have now done so.
Motions for new writs are moved normally, but not necessarily, by the Chief Whip of the party to which the hon. Member vacating the seat belongs. Although any hon. Member can move for a new writ, the hon. Member must give notice to Mr. Speaker's Secretary of his intention to do so, so that the forms of proceeding shall be correct when the hon. Member puts his Motion before the House.
Private hon. Members might be reminded that, owing to the operation of the "same Question" rule, if a Motion is negatived it cannot be made again in the same Session of Parliament.
I might add, to illustrate the strength of the convention, what was said by the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Sir Anthony Eden, in 1944. He said:
It is really the time honoured privilege of a party to move its own writs and I do not think anybody would wish to abandon that right…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1944; Vol. 396, c. 662]
§ Sir Harmar NichollsI am indeed grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for clarifying the position. As I understand it, it is a convention that the party whose seat is vacant moves for the writ, but that any hon. Member could move for it, although he would risk, should it be negatived, spoiling the chance of the writ being issued during the rest of that Session.
Does that mean, in practical terms, that if an hon. Member of the Opposition moved for the writ he would risk it being 824 negatived by the majority party and thereby fail to achieve his aim, whereas a back-bench hon. Member on the Government side would stand less of a risk because his attempt would be more likely to receive the approval of the House?
In practical terms, therefore, it appears that it would be unwise for an hon. Member of the Opposition to flout this convention, whereas a back bencher on the Government side has every right, if he believes that enfranchisement should take place, to move for the writ, so testing whether or not he will get the support of his party.
§ Mr. Charles PannellBefore you reply to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I submit, with the greatest courtesy, on a point of order, that it would be most unwise of the Chair to answer hypothetical questions of that nature?
I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Chair must rule in the context of the timing and circumstances when something arises. With respect to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), with whom I have a friendship, the questions which he asked are really for the hon. Members who wish to raise such matters. It is for them to do their own research in the Library. The responsibility should not be thrown on Mr. Speaker in advance of a hypothetical set of circumstances.
May I, in raising a point of order, take your Ruling a little further, Mr. Speaker. Any hon. Member who researches into this matter will find that it has been for the convenience of all parties in the House to wait on occasions for a considerable time before introducing writs. The only party of which I can think which might receive some advantage by not waiting for this length of time is the Liberal Party, and then only because of its size. I could understand the position of, for example, the Birmingham, Lady-wood by-election.
I merely rise to beg you, if this is not impertinent, Mr. Speaker, not to commit yourself by giving any Rulings in advance.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) for anticipating the Ruling which I was about to give when he rose. It is not the duty of Mr. Speaker to advise hon. Members of the results that 825 may flow from a Ruling. They must apply their own political minds to the problem. Mr. Speaker does not have a political mind.