§ Mr. ParkerOn a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member who arrived first at the Public Bill Office today put in 70 Ten-Minute Rule Bills, thus taking all the possible available time until December, 1970, if the Session lasts that long?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are on a serious issue.
§ Mr. ParkerWhat action can be taken to remedy this outrageous abuse of our procedure?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice this morning, when he came to see me in company with a number of his colleagues, that he intended to raise as a point of order the practice in the Public Bill Office governing the giving of notice for Motions for leave to bring in Bills under the Ten-Minute Rule.
As the House knows, applications for the right to introduce Bills under the Ten-Minute Rule on future dates were made at 10 o'clock this morning at the Public Bill Office. I have been informed that one hon. Member, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), arrived at a somewhat earlier hour than his fellow Members, and, when the office opened, put his name down for a future date together with the names of 70 other Members who had requested him to act for them for future dates.
In consequence, Members who had also arrived very early, and who next sought to set their names down for future dates, found that under the rules of the House there was little opportunity left for them through the whole of the Session.
I know that it is often the practice of Members in tabling Motions and dealing generally with the business of the House, to hand in not only their own names, but those of their fellow Members, and under the rules of the House as they stand there is nothing in the letter of the law with which the hon. Member for Tiverton has not complied. Whether he has observed the spirit of the law is a matter 640 which I can leave only to the determination of the House. Mr. Speaker has no power to vary at his own discretion the rules which the House has laid down.
All that I can rule now, therefore, is that the present procedure for receiving notice of Motions for Ten-Minute Rule Bills was observed. It is for the House, not Mr. Speaker, to change the rules if that course would seem desirable.
§ Mr. MacDermotOn a point of order. As one who was present this morning, Mr. Speaker, may I with the greatest respect submit that you have been misinformed on a material point about what took place.
Before coming to that, may I, on the mere legal question of the construction of Standing Orders, ask whether you have considered the wording of Standing Order No. 5(8), as well as the wording of Standing Order No. 13. Standing Order No. 13 is extremely vague and does not indicate, because the passive tense is used, which hon. Member should hand in the notice of Motion. But in my submission Standing Order No. 5(8) is worded in such a way as to carry with it the necessary implication that the notice of Motion to the Public Bill Office must be handed in by the hon. Member who is seeking the leave of the House. If you have not had time to consider that point, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask that you might consider it further.
May I turn now to the question of what actually took place. You said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that you had been informed that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that the hon. Members in whose names he was purporting to hand in notices of Motion had requested him to put in their names. The hon. Gentleman, as we would expect of him, was very frank, and when we raised this question in the presence of the Clerk of Public Bills he conceded that only one of the 70 Members had personally requested him to do so, and he named that hon. Member. He added that some other hon. Members had signed the piece of paper which he handed in. It transpired later that they number three out of the 70. I think that another hon. Member present in the room who had in previous conversation protested against the proposed conduct himself hurriedly added his name to the piece of paper.
641 The matter did not end there. Another hon. Member who was present had said to a number of others before the Clerk of Public Bills came in that he was unaware that his name was on the list of names to be handed in by the hon. Member for Tiverton, and said that he had not given authority to anyone for the hon. Member for Tiverton to do so. When I repeated this to the Clerk of Public Bills there was no denial that that had been stated. Another hon. Member whose name was among the—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. and learned Gentleman will make his point briefly.
§ Mr. MacDermotI appreciate the lateness of the hour, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am trying to state these facts as briefly as I can.
As I have said, I submit, with respect, that you have been misinformed, Mr. Speaker, and I conceive it my duty to lay what I believe to be the true facts before you and the House as quickly as possible.
Another hon. Member whose name is on the list informed a number of us that he had given authority to three of his hon. Friends to hand in a Motion in his name, but that the hon. Member for Tiverton was not one of those three. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that an agent has no power to authorise another agent; he cannot pass on the agency. So none of those three hon. Members was able to authorise the hon. Member for Tiverton to act for that hon. Member.
A number of hon. Members who arrived shortly before 10 o'clock and whose names were on the list were patently unaware that their names were on the list of the hon. Member for Tiverton, and said so. When the attention of the Clerk of Public Bills was drawn to this matter, he said that he could not question the honesty of the hon. Member for Tiverton, but that the hon. Member had stated himself that he did not consider that in any way would his honesty be impugned if the Clerk ruled against him on the admitted fact which I have stated.
In my respectful submission, this did not amount to the position you were apparently informed about—namely, that the hon. Member stated that these other hon. Members had requested him to act on their behalf. I suggest that this matter 642 needs very more thorough investigation and that it would be quite wrong to allow the whole of private Members' time until next December to be pre-empted on the basis of transactions such as this.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopI am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) for giving me notice that he intended to raise this matter.
First of all, I intended to queue myself through the night in order to secure a favourable position for the Bill I have given notice of. I then inquired of the Public Bill Office whether I could as well give notice on behalf of other hon. Members to save them the ordeal of sitting through the night—an ordeal which no other hon. Members availed themselves of—and was informed that I could give notice for any other hon. Members wishing to give notice of Bills and that there was no limit on the number. That is the quite specific answer I got to a quite specific question put to the quite specific authority for ruling on these matters.
I did then queue throughout the night without any other hon. Member, from either the Government benches or the Liberal bench, being present.
§ Mr. RoebuckThe hon. Gentleman should get married.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have asked for brevity. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) must now come to 10 o'clock this morning.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopI did not quite catch that, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI asked the hon. Gentleman to come to the question of what happened at 10 o'clock this morning.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopIt was not until after 8 o'clock this morning that any hon. Member from the Government or Liberal benches put in an appearance. When 10 o'clock came, I handed in, first, my own Bill, and gave notice of it, and then a considerable number of Bills in the names of hon. Friends who wished notice to be given of their intention. Without exception, they had either given the Bills to me themselves or the Bills had been given to me with concrete assurances that it was their wish.
It was at that point that there was a certain amount of discussion with the 643 Clerk of Public Bills, because the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North raised the question whether a commission or request to give in a notice can, as it were, be sub-contracted. I did indeed say that, if the Clerk ruled against me, so be it. The hon. and learned Gentleman has half reported a number of conversations, but without naming their originators, some of whom are present, so that they cannot speak for themselves as to whether his report is accurate.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. There are important debates ahead. I have asked both sides in this controversy to speak briefly.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopIn view of your appeal for brevity, Mr. Speaker, if you wish I shall not continue answering specific points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but will merely conclude by saying that it was a case where the early bird got the worm and that the frustration of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who preferred to spend the night in bed, is understandable in the circumstances rather than commendable.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart)I hope to save the time of the House. I take the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) that this matter should be investigated. The Select Committee on Procedure is being set up and will be available. I believe that this matter should be examined by that Committee.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I remind the House that I have ruled that what happened conformed with the letter of the law. Whether it conformed with the spirit of the law is a matter for the House. The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) submitted further legal arguments to me. I have looked at Standing Order No. 5(8). It does not deny the interpretation which the Clerk placed on it.
§ Mr. C. PannellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing in the Standing Order that deals with the extraordinary situation that arises when this House has a "nut case" on its hands. Last Friday, we were discussing whether 644 there was decreasing esteem for this place. I want to charge you that you must protect the House against this sort of thing. With great respect, it is not so much a matter of the decision you gave on the best knowledge available to you up to the time my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) spoke, but the fact that, that statement having been made by an hon. Member, we all expect to be believed.
In such circumstances, you must surely look again at this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have rather more respect for the Chair than most people. I am not speaking in the imperative sense to Mr. Speaker in person. I am speaking in the imperative inasmuch as, the argument having been put, Mr. Speaker, as the servant of the House, is under an obligation to the House.
Our procedure will be made a laughing stock for another year. What the Leader of the House says is no good at all. What we are saying, with great respect, is that if your Ruling stands, Mr. Speaker, we must bow to it, but the Leader of the House has a flat duty to put a Motion on the Order Paper today.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman has answered his own earlier point of order. The Chair can only rule whether something is in order. I said much earlier that if what has happened does not conform to the spirit of the Standing Order, it is for the House to determine what it should do.
§ Dr. WinstanleyHas it been brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that it has been widely stated, as a justification for this disreputable act, that Liberal hon. Members had decided to act similarly? May I, on this point of order, say that, while this suggestion was made outside the House by someone unconnected with the House, it was utterly and unanimously rejected by the Parliamentary Liberal Party as being improper, a gross interference with private Member's business and an action more characteristic of Conservative hon. Members than of Liberals—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder—
§ Dr. WinstanleyMy point of order, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerBriefly, please.
§ Dr. WinstanleySince this position will now clearly lead to retaliatory action, which could bring the House into disrepute, is there nothing that you can do, Mr. Speaker, to restore the position?
§ Mr. SpeakerOn the first issue, I have no indication of what goes on in the minds of Liberals, or Conservatives, or Socialists at all. On the second point, the fact remains that if things remain as they are all the time for Ten-Minute Rule Bills for the whole of this year and all of next year, I believe, to Christmas, will have been preempted—
§ Mr. MendelsonWhat does the Leader of the Opposition think?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Whether the House itself will take action to alter that in some sort of way is a matter for the House, but the hon. Member is right to say that action of this kind might automatically lead to retaliatory action of some kind or other.
§ Mr. William HamiltonMay I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? You have given a Ruling based on information which you have received, presumably from the Clerk of the House and from the Clerk in the Public Bill Office. Some of us disagree with that Ruling and we can presumably take necessary action by a Motion on the Paper. Presumably, also, the Leader of the House can take action. He will know very well that the Procedure Committee recommended that Ten-Minute Rule Bills be taken at the end of the day's proceedings. That might be a fruitful field for his researches.
But has the fact been drawn to your attention, Sir, that an Opposition Whip was involved in the exercise this morning, so presumably the Opposition as a whole were involved? Unless the Leader of the Opposition gets up and denies specifically all knowledge of it, we must assume that the Opposition as a whole were involved in what is essentially a private Member's exercise.
This is a very serious matter. It is bound to lead to retaliatory action. I am inclined to congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell- 646 Hyslop), as I am sorry that I did not think of it first. But there will come a time, no doubt. Retaliatory action can be taken in this and other fields—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes. In the meantime, it is quite clear that, whatever the letter of the law might be, whatever the letter of the Standing Order might be, there has been a serious infringement of its spirit. The House should take serious note of that.
Perhaps I could suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that he now freezes the position as it is until such time as he and the House alter Standing Orders to ensure that this time is not pre-empted until December, 1970, or whenever it is, that we start from the beginning again, and that the Standing Order is so amended as to prevent an hon. Member from presenting a Bill for anyone other than himself.
I doubt very much whether the Clerk in the Public Bill Office has the authority to accept the oral word of one hon. Member that he is speaking on behalf of another 70. There is very strong prima facie evidence that he was doing nothing of the kind. There is a conflict of evidence here. It is no good Mr. Speaker or the Clerks or anyone else saying that this or that is their interpretation of the Standing Orders. We are sovereign. We shall decide, by Motion or otherwise, what the interpretation of these Standing Orders is. If there is an abuse of them, the remedy stands in our own hands.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe remedy stands, if there is an abuse of the Standing Order, in changing the Standing Order to make what the hon. Member alleges to be an abuse impossible. But the administering of the rules of the House is in the hands of the Chair until those rules are changed.
On the earlier part of the hon. Member's question, Mr. Speaker was aware of all the facts which have emerged during this discussion, including what the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) told the House this afternoon. These things were told to me when a group of Members of Parliament brought their complaint to me this morning. I hope that we can now get on—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This problem will not be solved this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "It must be."]—inside the House. All that the Chair can rule is on the matter of order, and that I have already done.
§ Mr. IremongerFurther to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). I personally arrived at the House at a quarter to six this morning and handed to my hon. Friend my own signed Bill and he handed it in for me. Therefore, it is quite wrong for his integrity to be impugned by hon. Members opposite—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Things are difficult enough as it is. No one has impugned anyone's integrity.
§ Mr. DarlingMay I ask, on this unfortunate episode, whether you would have authority, Mr. Speaker, to give precedence to Bills which are presented to the House under Standing Order No. 37, so that the Bills which have been put down, rightly or wrongly, by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would not be taken on the days for which they have been put down?
§ Mr. SpeakerI will certainly look into that.
§ Dame Irene WardI have been a member of the Select Committee on Procedure for very many years and I have been aware of the Standing Order which governs the handing in of Private Members' Bills under the Ten-Minute Rule. I also had a Bill which I hope will be taken in the House, in due course, because I have asked for it and I think that I have a right to do it.
The point is, as I know perfectly well, that the situation is unsatisfactory: the whole House and you, Mr. Speaker, will agree with that. But the House is very much indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell Hyslop), because, by his activities and his honourable dealings in this House— [Laughter.] It is no good anyone laughing: I am prepared to stand here until the House rises unless I am allowed to have my say.
I was saying that I think that the House is indebted to my hon. Friend, because, as he is an hon. Member of this 648 House and always acts in an honourable way, he has, by his action, drawn the attention of the House to the need for a reform of this Standing Order. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for having done that. When people come to look at the history of these times, it will be a great pity if they think that this House, in these difficult days, could not take a victory in the way in which it has been achieved.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am sure that the hon. Member for Tiverton will appreciate the compliment which the hon. Lady has paid to him.
§ Mr. John MendelsonThere are only two brief points to which, in my submission, you have not yet replied, Mr. Speaker. One was the material point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) when he asked you, Mr. Speaker, whether in considering this matter, not only now, but ever since it was brought to your notice earlier in the day, you had been aware that, as we have now heard from the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) himself, not all hon. Members gave their names to him directly but that there was an intermediate agent, who I understand to be one of the official Opposition Whips, namely, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More).
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. With respect, I have already dealt with that point. I have told the House that the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) informed me this morning, as he informed me this afternoon, of the very point which the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has made and I said that that did not affect my Ruling.
§ Mr. MendelsonMy second point concerns the advice which you, Mr. Speaker, have given the House that the way in which to deal with this situation is to change the Standing Orders. This leaves the House in a most unsatisfactory situation. It is the job of all hon. Members to protect the standing of the House in the country. I say this without any unfriendliness towards the hon. Gentleman 649 concerned, as he well knows, but surely it is not possible to say that only one party will from now on have the right to submit Private Members' Bills and to defend that in the country.
I therefore invite the Leader of the Opposition, who often addresses the House on the dignity and standing of Parliament—and I put the same question to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—whether he can combine it with his responsibility to leave us for the next 12 months as a laughing stock in the country and allow people to think that the House of Commons cannot conduct its affairs in a manner in which a stamp collecting society would be able to conduct its affairs.
This is not a matter for retaliation; that would be the worst possible way out. Neither side of the House should be childish about it. An escapade has been originated by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). He has had his laugh, but now it is for the leaders of the main parties to get together and to ask him to abandon this nonsense and to start de novo. This would be in accordance with the dignity of the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe House will have noted with interest the words which the hon. Gentleman has addressed to it.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We have a lot of business ahead of us.
§ Mr. TurtonIs not what is happening now becoming an abuse of the procedure of the House? The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), quite properly, asked you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. You gave your Ruling and subsequent questions either must be aimed at challenging that Ruling or directed to the Leader of the House to take control of the situation. It would be better to leave this matter until a later date, when the Leader of the House can make his own suggestions and, I hope, arrange a debate on this matter.
§ Mr. PeartI would have hoped that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would withdraw. The Leader of the Opposition could use his influence in that direction. On the other hand, I said that there should be a further investigation. I agreed with my hon. 650 and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) holds a different view, I believe that this problem should be the first business of the Select Committee on Procedure, which will be set up tomorrow.
§ Mr. HeathI rise formally to support what the Leader of the House has said—that this matter should be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. I well recall the early days of the 1951 Parliament when a group of hon. Members below the Gangway who were then in opposition, led by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and ably supported by the then hon. Member for Hornchurch and the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), who is still with us, organised Ten-Minute Rule Bills for their own party purposes by putting down sufficient Bills on one day to preclude all other Government business.
We readily agreed that we were outwitted and the matter was referred to the Select Committee on Procedure, as a result of which the rule was made that not more than one Ten-Minute Rule Bill could be put down on one day.
Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite and those on the Liberal benches will now admit that they have been outwitted on this occasion. You, Mr. Speaker, knowing all the facts, have said that nothing out of order has been done. I am sorry if hon. Members opposite cannot admit that they have been outwitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I agree with the Leader of the House that this matter should be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. I am confident that we can find a solution to this problem.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Leader of the House has said that this matter should be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. I have listened to a wide cross-section of views on all the issues which have been raised. I must move to the next business.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Mr. Ian Lloyd. A point of order.