§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) invited me on 16th March to give a ruling on the deferment of Private Members' Bills. This I now do. The House may remember that the situation arose when the hon. Member, though not in charge of a Bill or authorised by the Member in charge, wished to have a Bill deferred for three weeks.
The provisions of the Standing Orders are quite clear. Paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 1 states that an Order of the Day not disposed of shall be deferred to such sitting day as the Member in charge of that order shall appoint. For many years it has been the practice of the House to assume that the Member in charge would wish the next available Private Members' Friday to be appointed in the absence of any instructions to the contrary made either in the House on his behalf or by informing the Clerks at the Table.
I may add here, since the hon. Member himself raised it, that when the Clerks at the Table mention "Friday next" to the Chair when a Bill is read over and objected to, they are not themselves naming a day but merely indicating to the Chair that they have no instructions to the contrary from the Member in charge. It is the Chair and the Chair alone who appoints the day.
There is a series of rulings both by my predecessors and myself deprecating attempts by opponents of a Bill to prejudice its progress by naming too distant a date for its deferment. The Chair is, however, placed in a dilemma in determining what is too distant a date since this may differ from Session to Session and, indeed, as a session progresses. In one of the earliest rulings in 1887, Mr. 780 Speaker Peel substituted a date three months ahead, for one, four months ahead. But I think that it would be generally agreed that in present circumstances a three months' deferment would almost certainly kill a Bill, and a date of even three weeks ahead might on occasions severely prejudice its chances.
I should like to have a further opportunity for reflection on this, and I hope that the House will allow me to do so. In the meantime, I would welcome any advice that the Procedure Committee could give the House, and I hope that it might be able to find time to consider the matter reasonably soon.
§ Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford)I am indebted for your interim ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether in the further consideration that is given, it will be possible for you to take into account the fact that many Bills which are presented to the House by hon. Members, or taken up by hon. Members, have come from another place. When it appears that, week after week, the Member in charge of a Bill, or any Member authorised by him, fails to turn up to name a day, surely it is in the interests of the House to allow such Bills, which are put down without serious intent and which are cluttering up the Order Paper, to lapse or to be postponed so that in effect they are taken off the Order Paper. I hope that that serious point will be taken into consideration when you review the position, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think there are quite a number of important considerations of that nature. That is why I should like to have the advice of the Procedure Committee. I hope hon. Members will have an opportunity of putting this kind of point. I do not think it is a matter on which I should rule without further consideration.