§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford)Friday 6th April.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)I take it that the hon. Gentleman has the leave of the promoters?
§ Mr. WellbelovedNo, I have not. I do not think that the hon. Member who is technically in charge of the Bill is with us but, as you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, under Mr. Speaker's ruling of recent date it is only an agreeable custom that the Member in charge should name the day. Provided that a Member of the House names a day not too far distant in an attempt to thwart the passage of the Bill, Mr. Speaker did not rule on that occasion that it would be unacceptable.
§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that discussions between Members of this House and the Law Society are still continuing either directly or indirectly, and it would possibly be a good idea if the Second Reading were deferred.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI think it would be better if we observed the normal practice then if the hon. Member named a day later on.
§ Mr. Wellbeloved6th April. I am perfectly prepared to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerUnless the Member in charge has given instruction to the contrary, it must be Friday next.
§ Mr. WellbelovedFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under the Standing Orders of the House and, indeed, in Erskine May there is no definition of such a person as "the Member in charge." This is a practice which has crept into parliamentary proceedings as so many other things do. It has no standing in our orders of conduct. Mr. Speaker's ruling stated that, provided the date proposed for the Second Reading of a Bill was not so far ahead as to be a deliberate attempt by an opponent to obstruct the passage of a Bill, he would accept it. In fact, the dates available for Private Bills of this nature are quite extensive and go on to 20th July. On 6th April, if the Bill comes up for Second Reading then, there are still a further five occasions after that when it could get its Second Reading and go to Committee.
I therefore suggest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that what I have done is entirely consistent with Mr. Speaker's ruling. I am not naming a date which would make it impossible for progress to be made with the Bill. I have named a date a few weeks ahead, and if the Second Reading of the Bill were deferred until 6th April it would give ample opportunity for discussions to take place between hon. Members, the promotors of the Bill and the Law Society, to see whether it would be possible to come to some acceptable method of proceeding with this Bill.
§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for the Bill to be read a Second time next Friday.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI will answer that in a moment.
In answer to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), I am sure that he will understand that w^ could not reach a fruitful situation if we entered into a discussion of this matter at the moment. There is, therefore, only one thing which the Chair can do in these circumstances. The hon. Member—and I mean this in the nicest way—knows his remedies if he does not agree. I do not think he will take those 846 remedies. I now rule that it be Friday next.
§ Second Reading deterred till Friday next.