NEW WRIT (BERWICK-UPON-TWEED) (Hansard, 19 July 1973)

§ Mr. Dick Taverne
(Lincoln): I beg to move, That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county consitumcy of Berwick-upon-Tweed in the room of Antony Claud Frederick Lambton, Esquire who since his election for the said county constituency bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the county of Buckingham. I seek once more to move the writ for the Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election. Since the last occasion when I raised this matter, some tell days ago, the situation has changed in that the Conservatives in the constituency have now adopted a candidate and have therefore removed any further reason for delay, and we have also had an explanation from the Leader of the House as to why the writ has not been moved. That explanation is, quite simply, that August is an inconvenient month.
First, if August is an inconvenient month, that is the Government's own fault. There has been no explanation whatever by the Leader of the House about the contrast between Ripon, where the cause of the by-election arose later and where the writ has been rushed through to take a by-election in July, and Berwick-upon-Tweed, where the cause of the by-election arose earlier and where we now face a delay until November at the earliest. In fact, all three by-elections now pending could have been held in July if the Government had wished.
Secondly, it seems that perhaps the explanation, according to newspaper reports and perhaps as confirmed by the lukewarm nature of the Leader of the House's defence, is that the Government themselves may have favoured an earlier by-election in Berwick-upon-Tweed but that local politicians preferred to delay it in order to suit their own political convenience. If that is the case, it is quite intolerable.
A few local politicians should not have the right to deprive their own constituencies of representation. They are the last people to judge, as my own experience in Lincoln shows. But in Lincoln 736 the delay was not backed by the votes of 194 Members in the Lobby. It is hardly a noble sight when 194 national representatives allow themselves to be dragooned into voting for the electoral convenience of a small group of local politicians, and in particular I ask what happened to those Conservatives who, I understand, during the delay in holding the Lincoln by-election used to chant, "Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln" to voice their objections to the delay.
Lastly, I turn to the argument of inconvenience itself. I certainly concede that an August by-election is not ideal, but I suspect that what some Conservatives have in mind is the parallel with the election at Stratford-on-Avon in 1963. That was, of course, a disaster. The circumstances were not dissimilar, except for the timing. I remind the House that Mr. John Profumo resigned on 5th June 1963, while Lord Lombton resigned on 1st June 1973. The by-election at Stratford-on-Avon was fixed for 15th August, whereas the by-election for Berwick-upon-Tweed will be in November or December.

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Smethwick)
When my hon. Friend described the Stratford-on-Avon by-election as a disaster, I think he should have added that it was a disaster for the Conservative Party. It was a great success, although not a victory, for the Labour Party.

§ Mr. Taverne
I bow to my hon. Friend's expert knowledge of the Stratford-on-Avon by-election. I was trying to imagine myself inside the mind of the Conservative Party in seeking reasons for the delay, and to those following that course of reasoning the Stratford-on-Avon by-election was a disaster.
But neither electoral disadvantage nor marginal inconvenience outweigh the disadvantage of a constituency being left without a Member of Parliament for five or six months. There is no question about hon. Members representing neighbouring constituencies being able to make up for this disadvantage. Perhaps I may again cite the experience at Lincoln. Whilst Lincoln was without a Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) looked after the constituency and we must all agree that there is no more conscientious Member than he. Yet, although he dealt admirably with 737 the individual cases which came to him, when I was re-elected on 1st March I faced a huge backlog of individual cases. This involves not only individual cases but wider considerations.
My constituency is at present in the news for other reasons. Some crucial and controversial planning decisions, in which the Department of the Environment might have been interested, were passed by the Lincoln Council while Lincoln had no Member of Parliament. Everybody in the House knows that constituencies cannot operate properly if they are without their Member of Parliament. Therefore, the overriding consideration should be for the House to ensure that a vacancy lasts for the minimum period.
If the Government wish to move the writ just before the recess, I shall withdraw my motion. If the Government discover an ingenious way of moving the writ during the Summer Recess, provided that there is no long delay—say, within a period of three months from the time of the seat becoming vacant—again I shall withdraw my motion. I am sure that everybody in the House agrees that for a seat to be unrepresented for five to six months is too long a period, and that indeed it is a constitutional outrage. During the by-election I pledged that I would end this kind of fiddle. This is what the motion is all about.

§ Mr. Robert Mellish (Bermondsey)
It might be convenient to the House if I express a point of view on behalf of the Labour Party on this matter, and at the same time seek to clear up some of the statements which have been made concerning the issue of writs so far as I am concerned as the Opposition Chief Whip. I should like to think that I am also speaking on behalf of the Government Chief Whip.
The procedure since 1911 has been that, by procedure and practice of this House, either the Opposition Chief Whip or the Government Chief Whip on behalf of their respective parties move writs when seats become vacant. This practice has worked reasonably well since 1911, but it is right that there have been some instances on which both major parties have been rightly criticised in the past. I wish to put on record that some of these criticisms have been unjustified 738 and I propose to reply to some of these criticisms today.
To take the case of the hon, and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), much has been said about the delay in moving the writ there. I wish to remind the House that at the time when the hon. and learned Gentleman resigned, he no doubt expected the writ to be moved within a few days to suit his own personal convenience. I took advice on this matter—not from any caucus, but from those who are responsible for running elections. I learned that Lincoln happens to be a constituency which has a record, for reasons best known to Lincoln, of enormous movements on the register. I was assured that past records showed that if I were to move the writ before the new register came into being, I would disenfranchise a vast proportion of those who might otherwise have the right to vote. In the event, I moved the writ at the earliest opportunity on the new register so that within a matter of days from the time when the new register came into being, the writ was issued. As a consequence I was assured by the experts that around 14 per cent. of those who voted at the Lincoln by-election were able to do so because I moved the writ when I did.
I want it to go clearly on the record that there is no substance in the idea that there is a great, dire plot in the moving of writs. There are many things to be taken into account, as any political agent—and political agents are a responsible body of men, including those in the Liberal Party, I hope—will explain to anybody who is interested. It is the oldest part of the register which causes great confusion, hardship and, if I may so call it, sometimes an undemocratic arrangement in local constituencies. These matters are taken on board by any Chief Whip when he is taking advice on the moving of a writ.
Long before the matter of the Berwick-upon-Tweed writ was raised, a letter was sent on 2nd January 1973 by the Government Chief Whip on behalf of that right hon. Gentleman and myself. The letter was addressed to Mr. Miller, Secretary of the Mr. Speaker's Conference and reads: I think you may know that Mr. Pym and Mr. Mellish would welcome the Speaker's Conference looking at the question of the 739 issue of writs at by-elections. The terms of reference of the Conference may specifically refer to this. Otherwise, presumably there would be an opportunity for the Parties to give evidence on the issue. I think that proves conclusively that we are concerned about the matter of a form of regulations in regard to the moving of writs, taking into account the problems which arise towards the end of an old register, problems which can never be ignored.
Speaking for myself as Chief Whip, and not necessarily speaking on behalf of my party, I regard it as wrong for a writ to be outstanding for four months or longer. It may be that when Mr. Speaker's Conference has considered this matter, it may well say there should be a minimum period before the writ is issued. It would be possible for an hon. Member to die on one day and for some mischievous person in the House to move the writ the next day. Therefore, there must be some sense of understanding in the matter. Therefore, there surely must be some rule governing the period between the death or resignation of a Member and the time when a writ is issued.
The other problem to be considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference in regard to the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed is that the Government are prohibited by the Standing Orders from moving a writ in the month of August. If such a writ were allowed, this would enable the by-election in Berwick-upon-Tweed to be held early in September. I believe that this embargo should go. I make this statement today to assure my hon. Friends that I am anxious that this matter should be cleared up. There is no question of any connivance on either side of the House. I hope that there will be a little more trust and understanding on these matters than has been shown in the past.

§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)
None of us was born yesterday. Although I welcome the spirit in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has spoken, it is undeniable that both parties—the Opposition Chief Whip as well as the Government Chief Whip—have used and abused the procedures for moving or not moving writs 740 according to party convenience at the time. It is time it was stopped.
Despite whatever differences anybody may have with the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), I think the House would agree that he has performed some service in bringing this matter to some kind of decision. If the matter goes before Mr. Speaker's Conference, that is fine, but the fact remains that, unless something is done before Mr. Speaker's Conference makes its recommendations, Berwick-upon-Tweed will be disfranchised for six months. Mr. Lambton is no longer the Member, the constituents have now no Member to represent them and there will be many heart-breaking cases which will not be dealt with, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said. There is no reason at all why, if the two Chief Whips are acting in good faith—and I have no reason to suppose that they are not—they should not get together between now and next Wednesday to decide to bring forward in the House an alteration of Standing Orders. [Interruption.] The Chief Whip will answer me. Where there is a will, there is a way. We can do virtually what we wish in this House if there is a will. If the Government were determined to have the by-election in Berwick-upon-Tweed before next November the two Chief Whips could get together and formulate an alteration of Standing Orders which would enable the writ to be issued during the recess.
If this cannot be done, there is, I suggest, another alternative. A direction or recommendation could be issued to Mr. Speaker's Conference that this matter should be given a degree of urgency, and an interim report issued on it if necessary, in the next two or three weeks, to enable the Government to move the writ during the recess.
I think that at least one of these two proposals is possible. In any event the present situation is indefensible. As the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln said, it is a constitutional outrage that the constituency, for the convenience of the local or national party, should be disfranchised for such a long period.

§ Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot (Brighouse and Spenborough)
What the Opposition Chief Whip said has provoked me, too, into remembering that I was not born 741 yesterday. My memory is that in the immediate post-war period the party agent in my constituency said that as a post-war measure of economy, we had gone from a register published twice—or as many as four times—a year, to an annual publication. Surely, as part of our economic growth, we might ask the Leader of the House to consider whether registers could be up-dated more frequently. In any constituency, I understand, 10 per cent. of the people on the register change their addresses and there are problems with postal votes. In these days of computers the up-dating of registers should be comparatively simple. I hope that Mr. Speaker's Conference will consider whether the registers can be up-dated more frequently.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)
The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) appears to be the only man in step, according to him. He is setting himself up, as he said a week ago in a speech which was virtually the same as that today, as a political gadfly. I have been in this House only three years, which is not as long as the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his two incarnations, but I have been here long enough to realise that the House can work only if it works within a set of conventions. It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman in a sudden flush of enthusiasm donning a white sheet and deciding that he is the only one who knows what is best. He has always had a reputation, if I may put it to him courteously, for intellectual arrogance. He must not arrogate to himself the job of keeper of the conscience of this House.
I was one of the 190 or so hon. Members who voted against the motion last week. I was not dragooned into it. Having heard his argument, I was convinced to the contrary. I am not prepared to be accused by him of being party to any fiddle.

§ Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)
I do not wish to repeat what I said when this matter was last debated, but it is useful that we now appear to be moving towards agreement before we even start discussions in Mr. Speaker's Conference. I welcome what the Opposition Chief Whip said. It is 742 unfortunate that the by-election writ for Berwick-upon-Tweed has not been moved. Therefore, the Government are faced with taking a decision about holding the by-election in August which I agree is not a good time, particularly in that constituency, where there is a big tourist trade. If there is some light emerging from this debate I hope that we shall accept that these incidents have been useful.
What the Opposition Chief Whip said regarding Lincoln is not a new argument. He put it at the time, and I did not accept it then. My hon. Friends and I did not agree that the balance of the advantage lay in leaving the constituency unrepresented until more voters came on to the register, but that is a matter in which we agree to differ.
If we are to revise the rules, let us revise them in such a way that whichever party may have responsibility to move a writ can do so during the long recess. Some constituencies, with the best will in the world, remain disfranchised for some time.

§ Mr. Mellish
Through the death or resignation of a Member, the hon. Gentleman could face a situation in which, if he made these good will efforts to see that people were represented at constituency level, he would have to move the writ so that the by-election took place a week before the register was revised. If the election agent said that that was shameful, would the hon. Gentleman say, "I will not do that, but will consider the electorate as a whole"? Would the hon. Gentleman not accept this?

§ Mr. Steel
The record of my predecessors—nothing untoward has occurred in my term of office—is that they moved writs for by-elections between one and three months after the death of a Member. That is a reasonable period. That was not the case in Lincoln. It was not a question of the party having the by-election a week before the new electoral register came out: it was a question of having it in the autumn. No one would have an election just before the publication of a new register. The election at Lincoln could have taken place in December.

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)
I would like to put a question 743 to the hon. Gentleman, because he has addressed himself to this matter in a reasonable way. Does he recall that, in the case of the Carmarthen by-election in 1957, Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris died on 22nd November, 1956 and the Liberal Party, which had the right and duty to move the writ, extremely sensibly waited for the new register to be published and held the by-election three months and one week later, on 28th February, 1957? I am not engaging in a large controversy here today, but I put it to the hon. Member that his party at that time realised in that context the sense of waiting for the new register.

§ Mr. Steel
I do not deny that. I said that my predecessors moved writs within three months, which was reasonable. That was the case in Carmarthen and it did not interfere with the production of the register. The Speaker's Conference is at present discussing the question of publication of registers. Computerisation gives new possibilities on that account.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior)
One thing which the debate has shown is that nothing is quite so easy, straight forward or simple as some people like to make out. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) has strong views on this matter, and there are strong views in all parts of the House. I respect this and have a good deal of sympathy for these views.
The hon. and learned Member has already put this matter to the House once, on 10th July, with considerable determination, and despite the lack of support he then received. While I sympathise with his general point, I cannot agree, as I told him on that occasion, that the Government should have moved the writ to enable the Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election to be held this month or next.
I should like to go through the reasons again. When a Member of Parliament has to resign his seat as suddenly as did the former Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, there is general recognition that it is reasonable to allow constituency parties a little time to choose new candidates. To have held the by-election this 744 month would in the circumstances have been too soon. The case is different from that of the other two by-elections being held this month for the reasons which I have just explained.
There is, in the case of Ripon, an additional reason. The late Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott had already announced his intention not to stand at the next election and a candidate had been adopted in place of him. Therefore it was reasonable to say that we had a candidate there and we could start the election. In the case of Berwick-upon-Tweed there was no candidate. Therefore a candidate had to be selected.
My point is that circumstances are bound to vary between constituencies, and it is a nonsense necessarily to equate the experience of Lincoln with that of Ripon, Berwick-upon-Tweed or almost any other constituency. There will be differences in the times when a by-election should be called.
Nor do I believe that many people in Berwick would have thought it sensible to hold a by-election next month. I think that that is pretty well agreed in the House today.
In this case it is a pity that, because the writ cannot be moved in the recess following the resignation of a Member, our procedures do not allow the by-election to be held in September. I have looked carefully into whether there is any way in which we might get round this difficulty. I must tell the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that there is not.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
Why not?

§ Mr. Prior
I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why it is not possible. I have considered whether we could now pass a resolution calling upon Mr. Speaker to issue his Warrant during the recess. However Section 1 of the Election of Members During Recess Act 1858 provides: It shall and may be lawful for the Speaker of the House of Commons for the time being, during any recess of the House as aforesaid, to issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for election of a Member of the House in the room of any Member who has, since such adjournment or prorogation, accepted any office whereby he has, either by the express provision of any Act of Parliament or by any previous determination of the House of Commons vacated 745 Moreover, Section 4 of the same Act goes on to provide that the Act … shall not in any way apply to the acceptance of any of the following offices; that is to say the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty's three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham … It seems clear, therefore, that were this House to pass a resolution calling upon Mr. Speaker to issue his Warrant during the recess, we should be calling upon him to perform an illegal act. I do not think that any hon. Member would regard that as being appropriate.
I have also considered whether we should ask Mr. Speaker to issue his Warrant now to take effect during the recess. I am afraid that that also would be contrary to the law. Paragraph 1 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Representation of the People Act 1949 provides that the writ for a by-election shall be issued … as soon as practicable after the issue of the warrant for the writ. I am afraid that that wording also seems to be quite conclusive.
In order to move the writ during the course of a recess on an occasion such as this, it will require a change in the law. It is not enough just for Mr. Speaker's Conference to say that it wishes to change the law. A Bill will have to be brought in during the usual course of our business and eventually become the law of the land. Until that happens there is no way by which we can do it.
It is not a matter of Mr. Speaker's Conference simply passing a resolution. It is not even a matter of Mr. Speaker himself, if he wished to do so, saying that he will move the writ. He is not empowered to do so.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
If the whole House were to agree that the Government should be enabled to issue the writ during the recess, would not it be possible in one day to repeal the legislation which prevented the Government from doing so?

§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)
I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to assist the House, and I take his point that the writ must be issued as soon as Mr. Speaker's Warrant is issued. That is understandable. It is a secondary document. But I thought that it would be possible for a motion to be passed in this House 746 authorising Mr. Speaker to issue his Warrant at a later date. In other words, because of the terms of the motion, the Warrant would not be issued until that later date. Then, as soon as the Warrant was issued, the writ would be issued.

§ Mr. Prior
The point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is a possibility that I have investigated. I am advised that it is not possible, and I must accept that advice.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West, of course it would be possible to take a Bill through the House of Commons in one day, but I am not certain that their Lordships would take it through in one day. In any event, I do not believe that we should get ourselves into a situation of that kind on this matter, and I hope that the House will not press me to do so today.
As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, this is an issue which has been put to Mr. Speaker's Conference. Every day that goes by shows that there is a growing recognition that our procedures at the moment are not correct in this situation. I think that the sooner that they can be changed, the better, and I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker's Conference will be wishing to do so.

§ Mr. David Knox (Leek)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this matter is going to Mr. Speaker's Conference? As I understand it, the leaders of the parties must agree before such a reference can be made to it. We have been told that the two Chief Whips agree. But do the leaders of the parties agree that Mr. Speaker's Conference should consider it?

§ Mr. Prior
I can now confirm that the leaders of the parties agree to it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to the Leader of the Opposition some time ago. I know that the Opposition agree that it should be put to Mr. Speaker's Conference. I know that the Liberal Party agrees. I can confirm that it is going to Mr. Speaker's Conference.
The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln made his point, and I have given him today a full explanation of the Government's view, as I did on 10th July. I accepted his main general point on 10th July by saying that we would put this 747 matter to Mr. Speaker's Conference, and the House then decided to move to the next business.
I am puzzled to know, frankly, why the hon. and learned Gentleman has felt it necessary to raise the matter again today. Although the House has quite enjoyed the debate, the hon. and learned Gentleman is taking up the time of the House unnecessarily. On the previous occasion 1 felt that he was raising a constitutional point of some importance rather than seeking to make any political capital. I find it rather more difficult to take that view on this occasion. I hope that I am wrong about that, because I do not believe that the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed would easily understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman should seek to make a political issue out of this case.
In any event proceedings of this kind clearly cannot be repeated indefinitely. I remain anxious to avoid a situation in which the Government could not move the writ during the spill-over period or if Parliament were to be recalled for any reason during the recess. I assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman also is anxious to avoid that situation. Therefore, I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.

§ Mr. Taverne
There are two questions at issue here. The first is the general one concerning what our procedure should be under the constitution. The second is the particular case of the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed.
On the general issue, what the Leader of the House said today even more firmly than before, and supported by the Opposition Chief Whip, certainly is satisfactory. But that does not meet the particular case with which we are concerned, where it is a choice between an inconvenient election in August and disfranchisement for between five and six months. Accordingly I shall oppose the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

§ Mr. Prior
May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the only effect of what he is doing now is to put off the date when the by-election can take place by a further three weeks and possibly more? In view of the assurances which have been given, I do not believe 748 that the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing his own case any good by carrying it to the extent now of denying to the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed the possibility of an election at the earliest possible date.

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)
Could I bring the House back, for I think it is an important point, to the point raised by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) about the period of validity of registers. There is no doubt that many hundreds of thousands of people are, at each General Election, local election or by-election, disfranchised by our present system of annual registers compiled in October, brought into operation the following February and having a duration until the following February.
This is a matter of great concern to hon. Members such as myself who have constituencies where there is a considerable amount of slum clearance and new building. In my constituency there is a large number of houses, perhaps as many as 1,000, in course of construction, many of them almost ready for occupation. It is a moot point whether all of them will be occupied, because of the problems of bringing people into occupation of large new estates by 10th October. If the thousands of people concerned are not in residence on that estate by 10th October they will not be able to vote in the constituency for a further 15 months and, unless special arrangements are made to find them, they will be disenfranchised at the next General Election.
I greatly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take full account of the extremely important point made by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. This is a form of disfranchisement which is not a matter of controversy between the parties. We should consider finding some new arrangement for allowing people to vote other than this hard-and-fast single annual register.

§ Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)
I should like to make two simple points which may have some slight influence on the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne). The point he made today was that he committed 749 himself to raising this matter in his election campaign. I think this is a matter to be treated with considerable respect. He gave a reason for raising the matter the second time. The argument put forward in a friendly way by the Leader of the House was that he could understand why it was raised the first time, but he found it a little difficult to understand why it was raised the second time. An hon. Member who commits himself to bringing forward a matter feels bound to go on with it though he does not succeed the first time.
The hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind, on the other side of the argument, that it is now fully and publicly agreed, though until today there has been some doubt about this, that the parties are referring this matter to Mr. Speaker's Conference. Today as a result of this second debate there is a new fact established on which there was some doubt, although perhaps there should not have been.
This is something which the hon. and learned Gentleman can report to those to whom he gave his undertaking, people who are not necessarily of any political party. In view of the danger that these electors may not be able, for a full period of 12 months, to exercise their right and as there is now a reference to Mr. Speaker's Conference—public debate has been advanced by what has been done in these two debates—he would serve best both his own undertaking and the interests of his electors by withdrawing the motion so that a vote need not be forced this afternoon.
The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that on the last occasion he introduced this matter many hon. Members took no part in the debate and did not seek to allege motives or to raise the temper of the debate. I say this in the same spirit today. I think he would serve all the interests he has in mind best if he would withdraw the motion now, so that we can proceed in the manner suggested.

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Smethwick)
I wish to descend from the grander horizons, on which there seems to be general agreement, to the interests of the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed. Do I interpret aright the remarks of the Leader of the 750 House a few moments ago that, were there to be a recall of Parliament in September, he would then move the writ for the election at Berwick-upon-Tweed? If that is the case, I should not like to be party to any action this afternoon that could possibly delay that happy outcome.

§ Mr. Prior
This, in fact, would be the effect—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)
The right hon. Gentleman must ask for the leave of the House.

§ Mr. Prior
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have leave to speak again?
The effect of allowing the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) to move his motion this afternoon—even if it were defeated—would preclude any chance of moving the writ until the new Session, which would probably mean November. I should not like to give a specific undertaking that if we were recalled in September, we should move the writ, because it would depend on when we were recalled. But, if there were a recall, I think it most likely that the writ would then be moved, but one hopes that the chances of being recalled in September are remote.

§ Mr. Taverne
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify this a little? He says that if the House were recalled in September he would consider—he would not give an undertaking—moving the writ. He is not suggesting, I take it—though I wish that he were—that he would consider recalling the House, as, I think, one of his hon. Friends suggested, for the purpose of moving the writ.

§ Mr. Prior
I do not think that I should be very popular if I did that. What I am suggesting is that if, this afternoon, we followed the course of voting on this issue, we should preclude the writ being moved not only in the event of a recall of Parliament but also in the overspill as well, and we could not move it until the new Session. I am certain that, having made his point, the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to deny the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed the possibility of having a Member as soon as possible. I think that he has made his point. The Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has said this, 751 and so has the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), and I hope that, in the spirit of the House of Commons, we can pass on to other business.

§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)
I think that we all agree on the points about the electoral register and so forth, but I suggest that the entirety of these two debates is based on a fallacy. To the best of my knowledge and belief, hon Members opposite were criticised for issuing the writ for Ripon—in the view of local people—too early. I suggest that many people who live in Berwick-upon-Tweed are not quite as keen as some hon. Members are that they should be faced with a by-election at the present time.