HC Deb 01 May 1969 vol 782 cc1650-1
Mr. English

With regard to the next item on the Order Paper, the Motion by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), I wonder whether you could give me your advice, Mr. Speaker.

I observe from the Notices of Questions and Motions of 23rd April, 1969, which is the first opportunity that Members had to observe this Notice of Motion, that it is said that the item was omitted from the relevant page of the Notices of Motions given on Tuesday 22nd April. As you know, there are provisions regarding dates by which Notices should be given, and the object of these, presumably, is to allow Members adequate information of the events that are to occur.

In this case, through no fault of the hon. Member, who, I assume, put this in writing, in the normal way, for some cause, which it might have been better to have set out at some point, it was omitted from the Order Paper. Therefore, Members have been deprived of a day of notice that they would otherwise have received, although the actual length of notice put in by the hon. Member is presumably correct.

May I submit that in cases of error of this kind it might be better if notice was deemed to have been given on the day on which it was printed?

Mr. Speaker

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is asking that I should punish a Member who actually conformed to the Standing Orders, but whose late notice was because of an error on the part of the printer of the Orders of the Day. I do not think that the House would want me to do that.

The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) gave due notice of the subject of his Motion on 22nd April, which was, in fact, the last day permitted under Standing Order No. 5(7). By an inadvertence this was not published the following day among the Notices given, and a corrigendum was, therefore, inserted at the end of the Notices the day after that, on page 6171. I am sorry that an error was made, but I would not want to punish an hon. Member for an error which was made by my Department.

Mr. English

Further to that point of order, Sir. I entirely accept—I am sure that every other hon. Member would—that there is no desire to punish the hon. Member. I would ask you to consider whether we could not have some procedure in future to give us the notice that we are otherwise entitled to. Possibly, for example, the hon. Member's Motion could have been deferred to an alternative date. There is no procedure for this, and we are in the situation of having had a notice, in theory, which, in practice, we have not had.

Mr. Speaker

Order. As was the case when we reformed the almanack, centuries ago, the hon. Member reminds me of those who said "Give us back our 11 days". There is no way of giving the hon. Member the extra day that he lacks without damaging, to a considerable extent, either the business of the House or of the hon. Gentleman who Motion we are now to debate.