§ Mr. Arthur LathamOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have already intimated to you that I wished to ask you to rule on two points and to submit the contents of this point of order to the Procedure Committee.
The first point relates to today's debate and to the votes at 10 o'clock. You will recall that at one time it was thought that the debate on the announcement about public expenditure made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been taken on a Government motion to which there would have been an opportunity for the Opposition to table an amendment. You are aware that in that event there would have been representations to you, as on two previous occasions, arguing the case for the calling of a second amendment.
On Thursday last, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced that the debate would take place on an Opposition motion and that it was unlikely that the Government would table an amendment. Therefore, it then seemed possible that 70 Labour Back Benchers would be able to avail themselves of the opportunity to submit an amendment to the Opposition motion. As you know, Mr. Speaker, half-a-dozen Labour Members came to see you last Thursday night to press the case for the calling of a second amendment. In that situation that would have been within your discretion, although it might have competed with other amendments from minority parties in the House.
In the event, there now appears on the Order Paper, in the name of the official Opposition, a motion which is understood to be virtually unamendable. That means that an opportunity to table an amendment has been lost by 70 Labour Members. I understand, Sir, that by percedent and indeed by specific reference to "Erskine May" you are unable to call the Back-Bench amendment. Will you confirm this and give reasons for that decision? Will you consider referring the situation to the Procedure Committee so that they may take these matters into account and also consider the general 1214 policy about the Chair calling second amendments?
The second point which I wish to raise relates to Standing Order No. 18(10) in the context of outstanding amounts to be granted from the Consolidated Fund. That Standing Order makes provision for a Member to give notice of objection to a class of expenditure. It was at one time thought possible that the 70 Labour Members who will be unable to promote their own amendment might have been able to divide the House and to express a view in the Division Lobby, or to raise an objection tonight to the first of the 12 Defence Votes. However, I now understand that it is being argued that notice must be given on the Order Paper, and therefore that means that it would not be possible for the Chair to accept an oral objection in the Chamber or written notice.
May I invite you to rule on that matter, and also to consider whether the position should be examined by the Procedure Committee? It would appear that the rules of the House in this instance, whether deliberately or otherwise are designed more to frustrate than to permit the expression of Back-Bench opinion. Some of us feel that the present situation is extremely unsatisfactory.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member was good enough to give me notice this morning that he would raise this question. It is an important question. From time to time the occupant of the Chair is in difficulties about the selection of amendments, especially when more than one minority party—apart from minority groups—table amendments. I shall welcome consideration of this matter by the Select Committee on Procedure.
I ought to make it clear that there was one little slip in what the hon. Gentleman said. I would not have had the right to call a second amendment today. That firm rule holds good unless there is a motion on the Order Paper so entitling me to do.
With regard to Standing Order No. 18, I must tell the House that where it says that notice must be given it means notice to the House and not to me and it therefore must appear on the Order Paper.