§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Mr. William PriceOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Second Reading deferred till Friday next.
§ Mr. Keith Speed (Lords Commissioner of the Treasury)I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
§ Mr. William PriceOn a point of order.
§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)On a point of order.
§ Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division—
§ Mr. Laurie Pavitt(seated and covered) (Willesden, West)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek the advice of the Chair. We find ourselves going into the Division Lobbies on the Question, "That this House do now Adjourn". There was to be a debate listed for the Adjournment by Mr. Speaker on the most important matter of cancer. In the event of the Motion now being carried, will the hon. Mem-
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)After the result of the Division, may we have a statement on the intentions of the Government?
§ Mr. Ian Mikardo (Poplar)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any precedent for your refusal to take a point of order before the Division which has just been announced?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am sure there are. The rationale of it was that the points of order had been made in quick
§ ber for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), who had the Adjournment debate on cancer of the breast in females, get the opportunity to bring that subject before the House at some other time, or does the procedure of the House mean that that can no longer happen?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am afraid that it does mean that in view of the fact that I did not see the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) rise in his place to open his Adjournment debate.
§ The House having divided: Ayes 33, Noes 53.
927| Division No. 53.] | AYES | [4.2 p.m. |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. |
| Benyon, W. | Gorst, John | Osborn, John |
| Biffen, John | Gray, Hamish | Parkinson, Cecil |
| Body, Richard | Grylls, Michael | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| Boscawen, Robert | Hastings, Stephen | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Bray, Ronald | Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia | Warren, Kenneth |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher | Hunt, John | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | James, David | Worsley, Marcus |
| Cormack, Patrick | Kimball, Marcus | |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. Gen. James | MacArthur, Ian | Mr. Keith Speed and |
| Dykes, Hugh | More, Jasper | Mr. Hugh Rossi. |
| Farr, John |
| NOES | ||
| Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) | Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) | Pardoe, John |
| Ashton, Joe | Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) | Parker, John (Dagenham) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Hardy, peter | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Jeger, Mrs. Lena | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Booth, Albert | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Sandelson, Neville |
| Buchan, Norman | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Kaufman, Gerald | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara | Latham, Arthur | Silverman, Julius |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) | Lestor, Miss Joan | Spearing, Nigel |
| Davidson, Arthur | Lipton, Marcus | Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) |
| de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Tomney, Frank |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | McCartney, Hugh | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Mackie, John | Watkins, David |
| English, Michael | Maclennan, Robert | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Mikardo, Ian | |
| Foot, Michael | Moyle, Roland | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Fraser, John (Norwood) | Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Mr. Kevin McNamara and |
| Freeson, Reginald | O'Halloran, Michael | Mr. William Hamling. |
§ succession and were quite obviously the same non-point of order. Therefore, I did not hear any real points of order.
§ Mr. MikardoFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the first place, one of the hon. Gentlemen who rose to put a point of order had not risen before, and therefore there was surely no basis for belief that he was on the same point as had been raised by other hon. Gentlemen. Second, even admitting the virtual omniscience of the Chair, how can the Chair know what an hon. Member is going to say until he has started to say it?
§ Mr. McNamaraBefore the vote, several hon. Members were seeking to raise points of order. Only one of them was heard, and that hon. Member was called by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, by some strange telepathy, you knew what he was going to say. In future, how can one communicate with you, by telepathic means or otherwise, so that you can define whether a point of order will be a fresh one or a repetition of previous points of order?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI feel sure that consistent, orderly behaviour in this House would be its own telepathy.
§ Mr. William PriceOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Assuming, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I had a point of order—the Chair did not know whether I had or not since I had not been given a hearing—under what circumstances can the Chair refuse to take that point of order? I have not been in the House long—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too long."]—if the Facist sitting in the second row back on the benches opposite would shut up, I will resume—but I was under the impression that points of order took precedence over the other business of the House. How is it that, as the hon. Member introducing a Bill, I am denied the right to put a valid point of order, which I am still prepared to put to you, given the opportunity?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe Chair has already stated on what grounds it recognises genuine points of order. It recognised none at that time and was entitled to make that decision.
§ Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)Surely my hon. Friend should now be able to put his point of order. We should then be able to judge whether it should have been accepted before. Certainly, the House is in a grave difficulty if it is now to be said that when these Bills are put to the House, as they were just before the vote, no points of order are to be permitted during that period. Alternatively, if it is said that, during that period, the Chair is to select those who are to be allowed to put points of order, this is introducing an 930 entirely new arrangement into our proceedings. I suggest that the only way out is for the Chair to hear what my hon. Friend wishes to say in his point of order, and then it might be possible to see how the House can remedy a situation which, as far as I can recall, has never happened before.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend is quite capable of stating his own point and has just had a chance of doing so.
§ Mr. William PriceOn a point of order—
§ Mr. William Hamling (Woolwich, West)On a point of order—
§ Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow)On a point of order—
§ Mr. MoreOn a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that the hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate and who has been waiting all afternoon to raise the matter which he has selected, will still have 15 minutes in which to conduct that debate if he is able to start now?
§ Mr. HamlingFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has just expressed in a Division that it is not adjourning. There is, therefore, ample time, once we have cleared up these points, for an hon. Member on this side of the House to move the Adjournment, and then the hon. Member who is scheduled to have the Adjournment debate will have half an hour in which to develop the point he has chosen.
§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Nobody wishes to deprive the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) of his Adjournment debate, and I understand that he will have half an hour from the time the Adjournment of the House is moved. Would it not be possible for the Adjournment to be moved and defeated before half an hour has elapsed, and by that process being repeated, for my hon. Friends to discuss hare coursing or whatever subject they 931 wish to debate, still allowing the hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate to have the final half hour? Is that a correct interpretation of the procedure of the House?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe correct interpretation would seem to this occupant of the Chair to be that when the Adjournment is moved, the hon. Member who has his name down on the Order Paper to raise a certain matter on the Adjournment would then raise that matter.
§ Mr. EnglishFurther to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am questioning you on a matter of order and not on a matter of custom. On the latter, none of us wishes to deprive the hon. Member for Norwich, South of his full half hour of the last Adjournment debate. Meanwhile, however, am I correct in saying that we would be in order in having a series of Adjournment debates prior to the last one?
§ Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)On a point of order. The House finds itself in unusual circumstances. Normally, when it comes to a Second Reading on a Friday, if there has been sufficient discussion of a Measure, or if the Chair considers that sufficient time for that discussion has elapsed, it allows a vote to be taken on the Question "That the Bill will be now read a Second time."
In today's circumstances, four o'clock arrived and presumably it was thought that sufficient discussion of the Bill had not taken place. If we are to proceed, will there come a time when you will have to judge, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when sufficient discussion has occurred to enable a vote to take place on the Question "That the Bill be now read a Second time"?
For many years the issue with which we are concerned has been discussed and the former Government said that it would find time for this matter to be debated. Am I right in assuming that you will take the course I have described, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after a certain time has elapsed?
§ Mr. HamlingFurther to the points of order that have been raised with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I remind you that the House has not, in fact, adjourned, so that it is still technically in order for the debate on hare coursing to continue?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat is quite incorrect. [Interruption.] That debate was interrupted at four o'clock under the Standing Order.
§ Mr. Michael FootOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that the position of the House at the moment is that it is perfectly possible for points of order to be raised by hon. Members who wish to raise them—including, I trust, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) who, some of us believe, has not had an opportunity to put his point of order—and that then, after those matters have been disposed of, it will be for the Government to move the Adjournment under the normal procedure, and then the hon. Member who officially has the Adjournment debate will have his full half-hour in which to conduct that debate?
Meanwhile, I understand that the House is fully in order in making representations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that my hon. Friends, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, have the fullest right to put points of order to you; and I trust that you will listen to what my hon. Friend has to say and will judge upon it.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWhat hon. Members do about raising points of order is not a matter for me to rule on now. If they wish to do so, they may do so.
§ Mr. KaufmanOn a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I refer you back to the situation which existed at four o'clock when my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) sought to put a point of order to you at a time when you were reading out the Titles of Bills and calling for the House to say whether it accepted those Bills or objected to them. There was a precisely similar situation during the last Session when the Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill came on at four o'clock. On nine Fridays in succession, when Mr. Speaker, who was then in the Chair, called the Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill, hon. Members on 933 the other side of the House called, "Object", and then, before Mr. Speaker moved on to call the next Bill—there was a series of Bills—I rose on a point of order asking Mr. Speaker whether he would direct that the names of those objecting should be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The substance of that point of order at this moment is irrelevant, but the point I put to you very seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that the precedent is very relevant indeed, namely, that in a situation in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, today saw fit to decline to accept a point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, Mr. Speaker in fact accepted a point of order. I should like to ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why you refused to do what Mr. Speaker himself did.
§ Mr. HamlingOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would help the House if at the earliest possible moment the Leader of the House would come to the House and deal with this situation. It is very unusual that the House should find itself in this position. Certainly feelings on this side of the House are very strong on the matter. Perhaps it might help if the Leader of the House made a statement on Monday about this very irregular position in which we find ourselves at twenty minutes past four o'clock on a Friday afternoon.
§ Mr. William PriceOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I make one thing clear? If I may say so, you appear to be under a misapprehension. As I understand it, you said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that I had had the opportunity to put my point of order and had not done so. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I did not seek to do so. What I was asking was whether at this late stage you were prepared to listen to a point of order which you had decided in advance, without hearing it, was out of order. I still submit to the Chair that I had a genuine 934 point of order and that I was refused the opportunity of putting it to you.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerHowever that may be—and I make no comment on it—the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) has had two opportunities when on his feet to put his point of order, and I have not heard it.
§ Mr. PriceMay I make a suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which may be helpful to the House? Would you send for Mr. Speaker?
§ Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Page 296 of Erskine May refers to four o'clock, and ten o'clock with respect to the other four days of the week, including a reference back to page 292. Could you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say which procedure we have adopted heretofore in the argument on any Motion moved? Would the debate continue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) says, for 30 minutes after the Motion was proposed, or longer? May I ask why it would be longer than 30 minutes—if, indeed, that is the contention of some hon. Members? Or is it for 30 minutes, under the Standing Order dealing with exempt business, which we normally move at 3.30 p.m. or, I presume, on Friday at 11 a.m.? That, of course, has not been done. We have the situation that the Adjournment Motion was not carried. How can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule that the debate could last longer than 30 minutes?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe debate on the Adjournment Motion runs for 30 minutes from the time it starts.