NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) AMENDMENT BILL (Hansard, 19 June 1972)

§ Mr. Whitehead

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for taking two more minutes from the time that has been allocated for the grave matters to be discussed today.

I wish to bring the attention of the House to the ruling at Four o'clock on Friday when the House was considering the Lords Amendments to the National 51 Health Service (Family Planning) Amendment Bill. The last two Lords Amendments, one inserting a new subsection and the other removing the old one, were considered and debated together. The Question was put at two minutes to Four o'clock. Because hon. Gentleman shouted "No" and did not put on Tellers when a Division was called, the formal putting of the final and consequential Amendment fell after the stroke of Four o'clock. The Chair accordingly ruled that further consideration should be deferred until today. However, today's business is public business, and there is no more time this Session for Private Members' business. So, although the Bill has passed every stage in both Houses with overwhelming support and is complete and final except for one formal assent, technically it falls.

Mr. Speaker Lowther in 1919—the case is quoted on page 290 of Erskine May—ruled that interrupted business could be taken after Four o'clock on a Friday. On that occasion, further consideration of Lords Amendments went on for half an hour after the time of interruption. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling, either now or perhaps tomorrow, on the procedure in a case such as that of last Friday, when a final series of Lords Amendments had been approved without a Division, whether the Bill should be allowed to fall on this technicality of one last formal assent coming after the stroke of four o'clock.

I am sure that all of us wish the procedure of this House to be followed, but also that the proceedings should conform with what appears to be common sense. I wonder whether you could rule on this dilemma, Mr. Speaker, which is a dilemma not merely for the sponsors of the Bill but for the whole House if Private Members Bills are to be meaningful.