HC Deb 21 July 1975 vol 896 cc43-5
Mr. Speaker

The House will remember that at the beginning of the proceedings last Friday, the Solicitor-General presented a petition on behalf of the Attorney-General, and that after the petition had been read the Solicitor-General moved a motion for leave for reference to be made in court to certain Reports of Debates.

It is in accordance with precedents—"Erskine May", page 797—for such a motion to be made without notice. However, it is also in accordance with precedents—"Erskine May", page 360—that if objection is then taken, notice must be given of the motion so that it may be debated on a future day.

Discussion of a motion, of course, does not necessarily imply objection to it, and it is sometimes not entirely clear at what point objection emerges. Last Friday I allowed the debate to continue for some time until it was absolutely clear that objection was taken. Had an hon. Member at once shouted "Object", that would have stopped the debate.

As, perhaps, I did not state this clearly enough at the time, I thought it right to restate the proper procedure to the House for the avoidance of doubt in the future.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As reported in col. 1935 of Friday's Hansard, speaking to his motion for a petition, the Solicitor-General said: I should also make it clear that there is no question today, not only of debating the merits of the matter, as you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, but of taking any steps on behalf of the Government. This is not the Government's motion. As reported three lines later, the right hon. Gentleman said: and it is in no sense a motion by the Government."—[Official Report, 18th July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 1935.] However, the Order Paper today at page 10494, Item No. 5 states: PETITION OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SAMUEL CHARLES SILKIN, Q.C., HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL: Adjourned debate on Question [18th July]. This item has an asterisk. On page 10492 of the Order Paper it says: Those marked thus * are Government Orders of the Day". I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how it is that on today's Order Paper a motion appears as a Government Order of the Day whereas three times on Friday the Solicitor-General denied that is was Government business.

Mr. Speaker

I understand that this is in accordance with the rules and precedents of the House. It is being taken in Government time and, therefore, it now earns the asterisk.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance we are all seeking. As this is Government business, would it not be more appropriate if it were made the immediate business rather than the last business of the day? After all, great principles are involved. The Secretary of State for Employment is being arraigned by the Attorney-General. Even if this were not Government business, it would be of enormous interest to the House and an important constitutional point. Surely it should not be discussed in the depth of night but as soon as possible'? Cannot the Government change their business around so that it is the first order after the main debate?

Mr. Speaker

Fortunately, that is not a matter for me.

Mr. English

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Subsequent to the short debate we had on Friday, by about 3.30 p.m that day the High Courts of Justice had discovered that the documents they were requesting were not in existence. They were in existence—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must try to save the time of the House. This will be a germane point for the hon. Member to make at the appropriate time, which will be when the motion on the petition is considered. It is not a point of order for me now.

Mr. English

As the motion that we are discussing relates to an incorrect petition, presumably at some stage a correct one will be laid? Will that have to be the subject of notice as well?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must wait and see.