§ Mr. Maxwell HyslopOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to put to you a point of order, of which I have given you notice, concerning today's proceedings on the first Government Order of the Day.
On 10th December 1962, your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, ruled as follows:
… if it be possible for the view to be taken that this Bill is a Hybrid Bill it ought to go to the examiners."—[Official Report, 10th December 1962; Vol. 669, c. 45.]Not only is it possible to take the view that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is indeed a hybrid Bill. You have yourself ruled that prima facie it is a hybrid Bill. Though the House can, by resolution, specifically set aside a ruling by Mr. Speaker, at no time since Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster ruled as quoted has the House resolved to set aside that ruling.Until now, the House has not proceeded further with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill since you ruled it to be prima facie hybrid. You were therefore entitled to assume that the House would either proceed in accordance with the ruling of your predecessor or pass a resolution setting it aside before attempting to proceed in a manner which defies it.
1518 Unless and until the House resolves to set aside that ruling, it is not proper to put to the House a Question nor to accept a motion for debate which defies that ruling. The motion on today's Order Paper headed
Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill (Allocation of Time)has the effect of contravening Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's ruling. I submit that it would not therefore be proper for the Chair to allow this motion to be moved nor the Question on it put without a specific resolution being first passed by the House to set aside Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's ruling.Secondly, I can find no precedent for the Question being put on an allocation of time motion which restricts debate on a hybrid Bill without the Standing Orders Committee, of which the Chairman of Ways and Means is Chairman, having recommended a suspension of Standing Orders. The effect of so doing is that, having deprived the petitioners of the opportunity of appearing in support of their petitions, the House would itself be prevented from giving proper consideration to the Bill on the Report stage and Third Reading. Without the safeguard of a recommendation from the Standing Orders Committee that Standing Orders can safely be dispensed with, it would be unwise to allow a Question to be put that its own proceedings should be truncated.
Again, Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the propriety of the House having put to it by the Chair an allocation of time motion on a hybrid Bill after the Standing Orders Committee has reported, it is an undeniable fact that no such report has yet been received by the House from the Standing Orders Committee, and until it is received I submit that this is an additional reason why, on precedent, the Chair should be unwilling to call the mover of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill (Allocation of Time) motion.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), with customary courtesy, gave me notice in writing of the exact points that he has raised, and this has given me an opportunity to give consideration to the question.
1519 I do not question the accuracy of his quotation from a ruling given by one of my predecessors. However, I must point out that the present circumstances are very different. In the case of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the House itself has decided, on 27th May, that the Standing Orders which may apply to the Bill should be dispensed with and that no examination of their application should be made. It follows from this that the Bill does not need to be referred to the examiners.
The hon. Gentleman suggested further that the House ought not to proceed with the allocation of time motion without a recommendation from the Standing Orders Committee that the Standing Orders applicable to the Bill should be dispensed with, but, for the reason I have already given, it follows, too, that the Standing Orders Committee has no responsibility for considering whether Standing Orders should or should not be dispensed with.