§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise all such increased payments into and out of the Consolidated Fund and the National Loans Fund as may result, under sections 19 to 21 of the Transport Act 1962 (borrowing by the British Transport Docks Board and other Boards; loans by the Secretary of State and Treasury guarantee of Boards' other borrowing) from an Act of the present Session extending the powers and duties of the British Transport Docks Board with respect to the Port of Felixstowe and vesting in the Board the share capital of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company.—[Dr. Gilbert.]
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)I should like to inquire a little about the Money Resolution. I am sorry it is such a thinly attended House. I expect this is because of the generally non-controversial nature of today's business.
We had no Whips on this side. Our first debate today was on international trade, which was so clearly non-controversial that my hon. Friends were not asked to be here. It is also well known that my hon. and right hon. Friends do not intend to divide later against the money for British Petroleum. As the interim business was only a Private Bill—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have allowed a long preamble. The hon. Gentleman should now come to the Money Resolution.
§ Mr. RidleyIn such a thinly attended House, it is difficult to make oneself heard, Mr. Speaker. I was waiting to gain the attention of the House and was merely making the point that it is odd that we should have so much interest in this Bill on an evening when hon. Members could have spent their time at the cinema or the theatre. I do not know whether this is because of difficulties in the Whips' offices. I do not know whether the Liberal Party crisis—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has ignored the warning I gave a moment ago. We are discussing the Money Resolution. While we have all enjoyed his preamble, I hope he will now get to the Resolution.
§ Mr. RidleyThe point I was coming to, Mr. Speaker, is that the Resolution will bring the total public expenditure to more than 60 per cent. of gross national product which is over the maximum amount the Home Secretary has said he would tolerate. I was, deviously I admit, working round to that because it is relevant to the contentious political climate in the Liberal and Labour Parties. However, I leave that point because, as always, I wish to bow to your request that I should stick firmly to the Money Resolution, Mr. Speaker.
I do not see why we need this resolution. The British Transport Docks Board has said that the £5,238,225 it will cost to implement the Bill can be made available without the need to borrow from public funds. Yet we are being asked to pass a Resolution which allows the Board to borrow from public funds specifically for the purpose of investing in the Felixstowe Docks.
I do not intend to divide the House because hon. Members have given their verdict on the principle of the Bill. Of course I do not know what other hon. Members may wish to do, but I shall simply ask a few questions.
Why do we need this Money Resolution when the money is already available? I have the accounts of the Board with me, and in short-term and long-term investments it has £6 million liquid. Why cannot the Board spend that money? If it has £6 million liquid, why has it not paid it back to the taxpayers already?
This is the Board that was described by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) as a shining example of the success of public enterprise. He held it out as one of the great examples of the commercial success of the nationalised sector. I have to acquaint the House that it has capital employed of £154.9 million, on which it made profits last year of £1½ million, which works out at 0.45 per cent., and the Board, in all its history, has never paid one penny in taxation.
If the Board is prepared to stack up millions of pounds, why cannot it pay 543 a dividend? In the previous Labour Government's time there was an invention called public dividend capital. We used to use the initials "PDC", which was said to mean "payment deferred constantly ". Why cannot the Board pay a dividend to the taxpayers? If the Board is so rich that it can buy the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, why cannot it pay back something to us who finance it? Why must it have more money? Why does there have to be a Money Resolution? Why cannot the Board be allowed to spend its money on Felixstowe Dock instead of asking for more? Why does nationalisation always take money from the Exchequer, whereas the private sector always has to pay money into the Exchequer? Why cannot the process be reversed?
If we pass the Money Resolution, it will directly add to our financial problems. The amount is only £5¼ million, but, in an admittedly desperate economic situation, £5¼ million will be taken out of the public purse and put into the private sector. It will be given to the shareholders of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, who will spend the money, thereby increasing the pressures of demand and the money supply. Although the amount is small, it is a token of the way the Government behave. On every occasion when there is opportunity for public retrenchment and reform, all they do is spend more public money.
When my hon. Friends have been challenged about how they would cut public expenditure, they have given examples. This is one more example to add to the list. If only the Government would desist from being financially irresponsible by making available money which they do not have, we might not have such a serious economic crisis. If the Board has £5¼ million to spare, it would be better to pay it back into the Exchequer and leave the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to be taken over by European Ferries. The private sector transaction would make no difference to the public sector or to the money supply.
These are such simple ideas that it is worth asking the House to dwell for a moment on the absurdity of our position. We have been through a week when the pound has been falling hourly. We have constantly been told that we have a public 544 expenditure explosion which is almost un-containable. Yet the Government cannot be diverted from their determination to go through every little piece of Socialist dogma, spending money on any bright idea they have even when, as tonight, they are faced with such an economic and industrial argument. They are still determined to go ahead, spending money. It is that more than anything else which loses them confidence in the international money markets, destroys their credibility as responsible people and damages employment prospects and prosperity. If they insist on pursuing this Money Resolution, the retribution will not come by a vote in which they will be defeated. It will come by a further diminution in the value of our currency and the confidence in which this Government are held.
§ 10.25 p.m.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth (Hertfordshire, South-West)The whole House is obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) for drawing our attention, with his accustomed wit and good humour, to some of the deficiencies in the legislation before the House this evening.
I should like to add to my hon. Friend's comments that it is a curious fact that the Money Resolution refers to public expenditure when in actual fact the statement makes it quite clear that no demand on public funds is intended or required.
Furthermore, when we examine the Money Resolution, we are led to believe that it has not gone through the customary satisfactory drafting processes which we might expect. I have taken the opportunity of looking at the guidance given by the Treasury on the drafting of such matters, set out in a document referred to as "Supply and other financial procedures of the House of Commons", published by the Treasury for official use.
It draws attention to the procedure which is applicable particularly in the case of a Private Bill. It points out what the procedure might be, and I hope we shall have an assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the proper procedures have been observed in regard to what should happen when there is an incidental money clause requiring a Financial Resolution.
545 At that point we require to know that a letter has been sent by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the Clerk of the House of Commons. We then find that we draw on the normal procedure for Bills which are sanctioning expenditure, and we find there that where there is such a Resolution we must make sure that there is an identity of interest between the clauses contained in the original Bill, which are in italics, and the terms of the Money Resolution before the House. When we compare that with Clause 3 on page 3 of the original Bill, we see immediately that there is a disparity between the two things.
This raises the question whether we are satisfied with the terms in which the Money Resolution is drawn up. It is also clear, to quote from "Erskine May", that a Money Resolution
must not be more detailed than the terms of the corresponding clause in the bill as that might unduly restrict the power to move amendments.The Money Resolution draws specific attention tosections 19 to 21 of the Transport Act 1962 (borrowing by the British Transport Docks and other Boards …".The Bill has no restriction as to sections.I suggest that the Money Resolution is more restrictive than the terms of the Bill, and therefore restricts our ability to place amendments before the House. In these circumstances I suggest that we need an assurance from the Financial Secretary that he has carried out his proper duty in accordance with the wishes of the House.
§ 10.29 p.m.
§ Mr. David Lane (Cambridge)As I have a direct constituency interest in the matter, I should like briefly to support my hon. Friends and remind the House of one or two of the main arguments which have not been answered, and of the reasons why we should not pass this Money Resolution.
First, the promoters of the Bill and the Government have not answered the argument that overwhelmingly the port users and the port workers of Felixstowe are opposed to the proposed take-over by the British Transport Docks Board.
Secondly, they have not answered the argument that overwhelmingly the shareholders of the company are opposed to this take-over.
546 Thirdly, they have not answered the argument that the take-over would be bad in general both for Felixstowe and for the country. I underline only one reason here, that the shift to State control of this port is very likely to undermine the whole reputation which it has built up. It is well known that Felixstowe has captured much of the deep-sea container trade, including that of American companies, and there is a big risk that if this take-over goes through, much of that trade will be lost to rival ports, such as Rotterdam.
I come, then, to my direct constituency interest. It is that any decline in the activity and prosperity of Felixstowe would reduce the income flowing to Trinity College in my Cambridge constituency, which is the owner of much of the land concerned.
I need not repeat the arguments so well put earlier in the evening by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison). But, simply for the benefit of hon. Members who were not present, this is another reason why I am opposed to the Money Resolution which will enable this take-over to be put into effect. The income which flows is used for the general purposes of education and research and for the benefit not only of Trinity College but of other less well-off colleges in the rest of the university through the equalisation fund—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)Order. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) will relate his speech to the Money Resolution.
§ Mr. LaneI am trying to do that, because, to my simple mind, it is the Money Resolution which will make possible the carrying into effect of this Bill, and I am reminding the House of one of the harmful effects which we fear.
The money that is channelled through Trinity College also goes to many good causes in my constituency right outside the university. So, if the activity of Felixstowe declines through this Bill, made possible by the Money Resolution, education generally and good community causes in my constituency will suffer.
As there was misrepresentation earlier of the attitude of Trinity College, let me make it clear in this context that the college, as an objector, is not satisfied 547 with the assurances so far given by the promoters of the Bill.
If the Money Resolution is passed and the State steam-roller is allowed to override the opposition, not only will there be yet another chunk of unnecessary public expenditure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has reminded us, but the consequences will be lower efficiency in the whole of the British port industry, another set-back for democracy, and a blow against the wishes and interests of many individual people.
§ 10.32 p.m.
§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, really as a point of order, that, notwithstanding that the last two lines of the Money Resolution read:
… the powers and duties of the British Transport Docks Board with respect to the Port of Felixstowe and vesting in the Board the share capital of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company ",Clause 5 of the Bill is not printed in italics, although the clause potentially creates a charge upon the Revenue and should not therefore be amended by the House of Lords, since that would be in breach of the privilege of the Commons.The clause which executes the last two lines of the Money Resolution should properly have been printed in italics so that the prerogative of the House of Commons to control expenditure is not abrogated. Since it has not been printed in italics, it is a defective Money Resolution, and, therefore, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it would not be proper for the Money Resolution to be withdrawn, since it entails powers which, on examination, are not found to be printed in italics, thereby preserving the prerogative of the House of Commons solely to control the voting of Supply.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman will have noticed that there is part of the Bill which is printed in italics. The Money Resolution applies to that part of the Bill.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopI have noticed that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no complaints about the powers in Clause 3 which are covered by the Money Resolu- 548 tion. "Erskine May" states that all clauses which create a charge must be printed in italics. It is not good enough that one clause in the Bill is printed in italics when the Money Resolution extends to other clauses which are not in italics.
The point which I have put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is supported in "Erskine May", not, as you have rightly said, with respect to Clause 3—about which I lodge no complaint. The last line in the Money Resolution is covered not by Clause 3 but by Clause 5.
On pages 3 and 4 the Bill reads:
As the price for the ordinary stock of the Company vested in the Board by virtue of section 4 (Vesting in Board of ordinary stock of Company) of this Act the Board shall, subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (5) of this section, forthwith after the appointed day pay to the persons holding the ordinary stock units of the Company immediately before the appointed day, being the persons then registered in the Company's register of stockholders, the sum of £1.50 for each stock unit so held.Because that reference to subsection (3) is not printed in italics, it would be open to the House of Lords to substitute £1 million for £1.50, in which case a major charge on public funds would be created. No one can deny that that is at variance with the advice in "Erskine May." "Erskine May" gives advice and is not part of our Standing Orders, but it is a major point of privilege that the House does not give a right to increase a charge on public funds to the Lords.Unless Clause 5 is in italics, it would be amended in the Lords to increase the charge on public funds. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I submit that it is your clear duty not to allow the Question to be put on a Money Resolution which is in breach of the privilege of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIt may be of assistance to the hon. Member and to the House if I express the view that what is not in italics does not, in fact, extend the powers of another place and, therefore, as part of the Bill is in italics, that part is the one which is covered by the Money Resolution.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopThat does not happen to be what the Bill says, nor does it happen to be what the Money 549 Resolution says. The Money Resolution covers:
vesting in the Board the share capital of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and I have contributed what I can. If any further time is spent on this point of order there will be no answer from the Minister.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopThe Minister is not responsible for maintaining the privilege of the House. That is the responsibility of the Chair. The Chair has not explained how the House of Lords is prevented from increasing the charge on public funds which is not printed in italics on page 4.
If the Money Resolution is allowed to be put to the House and accepted, the privilege of the Commons to control supply is abrogated and a charge is potentially placed on public funds by amendment in another place. The whole purpose of the italics rule is to prevent that. That is not a matter for a Minister to reply to. A Minister is not responsible for maintaining the privilege of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWhat is in italics is there to draw the attention of the House to matters which hon. Members should have their attention directed to. It does not affect the powers of the House of Lords.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopThis is exactly why Bills which originate in the House of Lords and which abrogate the privilege of the Commons, in that they impose charges, must have printed in italics those clauses which do so. They are deleted from the Bill by the Lords before they give a Third Reading to the Bill. It is not just to draw attention—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. This is a House of Commons Bill. If the hon. Gentleman were dealing with a Bill from the other place, there might be something in what he says.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopI am well aware that the Bill originates in the House of Commons, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we are discussing a Money Resolution which, if it is passed, will activate—that is the word used in "Erskine May"—a clause which is not printed in italics. This House 550 must not by its own rules of privilege pass a Money Resolution activating a clause which imposes a charge but which is not printed in italics. That is the clear precedent. If you rule otherwise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will establish a new precedent depriving the House of Commons of the power, unique as between the two Houses, to control Supply. You will be creating a precedent of which I should have thought some hon. Members below the Gangway on the Labour Benches would strongly disapprove.
§ The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert)Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, Clause 5 does not need to be in italics because it provides for payment by the British Transport Docks Board for the company, and as the Board is finding the money from its own resources no special money needs to be voted by the House for it or approved by Money Resolution.
§ 10.44 p.m.
§ Mr. Russell Fairgrieve (Aberdeenshire, West)In 40 seconds I should like to put four quick questions on the Money Resolution, the purpose of which some of us think to be merely to advance the cause of doctrinaire Socialism.
Does the taxpayer benefit by what is proposed? Do the users of the dock benefit? Do the workers in the dock benefit? Do the owners of the dock benefit? Nobody benefits by it.
In other words, the whole point of the Bill is irrelevant, and the Money Resolution should be defeated.
§ Mr. Patrick Mayhew (Royal Tunbridge Wells)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister's contribution is blown out of the water by the terms of Clause 3(1), which is partly printed in italics and relates to
powers, duties and obligations of the Board ".If it is properly thought necessary by the draftsmen to put that in italics, why is it not necessary for Clause 5 to be in italics?
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Sir David Renton (Huntingdonshire)I think that perhaps the Minister might be able to help us further in the light of his experience as a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He will correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that ever since financial matters 551 were taken away from the competence of the House of Lords by the Parliament Act 1911 it has been not only customary but a rule of this House that legislation going from this House to another place shall be put in italics when there is a charge on public funds. The reason for that is, first, as a warning—a red light, if hon. Members opposite prefer that term—and, secondly, in order to make it perfectly clear that the matter is vetoed from alteration by another place under the Parliament Act.
The Minister, in support of your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, has argued—I would be grateful if you would consider whether his argument was sound, because I have some doubts—that the provision of funds by the Docks Board out of its own funds is not a charge on public funds.
I do not know where one finds the definition of "public funds", but I can say that the Estimates Committee, the Expenditure Committee and the former Public Accounts Committee, round which so many of the rules in this matter were built, took it upon themselves to look into the accounts of all kinds of public bodies because of the use of the expression, which brought it within their terms of reference, that these public bodies were handling "public funds".
In other words, italics need to be used not merely where there is a charge directly upon the taxpayer through the Exchequer, but also where there is a charge on public funds. We know that the nationalised industry in this case is able to resort to the Exchequer, and does, for a fair amount of its capital expenditure. If I am wrong about that, I concede the point. But it seemed to me in the hon. Gentleman's intervention that he may have taken too narrow a view of the expressions "public funds" and "charge upon public funds".
§ Mr. RidleyOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that what the Minister told us must be wrong because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, if in another place their Lordships were to remove the sum of £1.50 from Clause 5 and substitute, say, the sum of £15, a charge in the region of £50 million would 552 fall upon the taxpayer. The Docks Board, with all its over-liquidity and because of its unprofitability, would not be able to find the sum of £50 million, and would have to come back to the Exchequer to borrow under the National Loans Fund provisions and this Money Resolution. There would be no doubt that the charge would fall upon public funds if their Lordships were to amend Clause 5.
I therefore formally move that the promoters of this Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Privileges as causing a breach of the privileges of this House. I therefore ask you to adjourn the debate and to rule tomorrow as to whether in your judgment it is right that they should appear before the Committee of Privileges for a breach of privilege.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am not prepared to accept that motion.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopFurther to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I referred to "Erskine May", which is advisory. A further examination of "Erskine May" has elicited Standing Order No. 168 of the Standing Orders for Private Business. It is binding upon the Chair and is in no way discretionary. The side heading reads
Charges affecting public revenue to be printed in italics".The Standing Order itself readsSubject to the provisions of Standing Order 156A (Modification of practice as to charges on public revenue) all charges in any way affecting the public revenue, which occur in the clauses of any private bill, shall be printed in italics in the bill when presented to the House.We find that Standing Order No. 156A has nothing whatever to do with this matter and, therefore, does not modify it. That Standing Order readsIn the case of a private bill, it shall not be necessary to comply with the standing orders and practice of this House relating to provisions authorising charges upon the public revenue, by reason only that the Bill contains provisions authorising expenditure by a local authority which would or might operate to increase the sums payable by way of Rate Support Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.I submit, therefore, that it is not within the discretion of the Chair to waive the provision of Standing Order No. 168 which controls the Money Resolution on a Private Bill.
§ Dr. GilbertFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful for me to remind the House that under Standing Order No. 89 expenditure to be a charge on public funds must be payable out of either the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That in no way nullifies Standing Order No. 168. The only question that arises is whether Clause 5 constitutes an imposition of a charge against public funds. Clearly it can. It affects public revenue, and it cannot be seriously contended that if Clause 5 is amended in the way to which I alluded earlier an increased charge on public funds may not arise. This is, therefore, a clear case where Standing Order No. 168 applies and must govern the Money Resolution.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I have listened to all that hon. Gentlemen have said. I am perfectly satisfied that the Bill has been italicised in the correct manner.
§ Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that there is considerable confusion here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has pointed out, subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 156A all charges in any way affecting public revenue in Private Bills shall be printed in italics. With great respect, I fail to see how this Bill cannot affect the public revenue. I suggest that the proper course would be for the Minister to withdraw the Money Resolution and think again.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have looked at the Standing Orders and listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
§ Mr. LaneFurther to that point of order. With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and meaning no disrespect to the Minister for Transport, would it not be helpful, before we proceed further, to have the presence and advice of a Minister from the Treasury as public expenditure is involved?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat is not a point of order for me.
§ The Question is as on the Order Paper—
§ Sir John Eden (Bournemouth, West)With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although you have given your ruling on this matter, I think that it would be extremely helpful if you gave a brief explanation to the House. A reasoned case, as I am sure you will agree, has been made in relation to a Standing Order of this House. Therefore, I think it right that, where confusion exists, you should explain how your ruling is sustained by Standing Orders. Is it possible for you to explain briefly how your ruling falls within Standing Orders? My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has carefully brought chapter and verse to sustain his case, which has made a considerable impact on hon. Members on both sides of the House. [Interruption.] It is clear that this matter should not be steamrollered out of the way. It merits a proper explanation as to how the case presented by my hon. Friend should not be held to rule at this time.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have listened to all that has been said and done my best to explain my view. I have given my ruling that the Bill is correctly drafted.
§ Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
§ Mr. StaintonWe are starting a new point of order. Is that correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I wonder whether my hon. Friends are happy with that terminology—that we are starting a new point of order.
I find myself utterly confused and disturbed. A very reasoned argument has been put before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Admittedly, it has been put at some length and perhaps it might have been better had it been put more shortly. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) took pains to describe his viewpoint to you with great consistency and humility. Therefore, I can only repeat my perturbation regarding your ruling. A mere—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Hon. Members who are familiar with Standing Orders will know that it is now my duty to put the Question as on the Order Paper.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerAs many as are of that opinion say "Aye"?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerTo the contrary "No".
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI think the Ayes have it.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerClear the Lobbies.
§ The House proceeded to a Division—
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. Norman Fowler(seated and covered) (Sutton Coldfield)On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker—
§ Mr. Ridley (seated and covered)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I have put the Question and ordered the Lobbies to be cleared.
§ Mr Ian Gow(seated and covered) (Eastbourne)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a serious issue concerning the rights of this House and of another place. Is it not in accordance with the traditions of this House that before a Division takes place you should give a reason for the decision you have given?
Mrs. Elaine Kellet-Bowman(seated and covered) (Lancaster)On a point of order—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerMay I deal with one point of order at a time? Standing 556 Orders make it quite clear that I have to put the Question at the time I did put the Question. Therefore, there is no other procedure than for us to have a Division.
Mrs. Keilett-Bowman (seated and covered)With all due respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I submit that you did not put the Question, but only ordered "Clear the Lobbies".
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerPerhaps if there was a little less noise it would be possible to hear what was going on. At the moment I am trying to take the names of the Tellers.
§ Mr. Norman Fowler (seated and covered)On a point of order—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe Question is as on the Order Paper. As many of that opinion say "Aye", to the contrary "No". Ayes to the right, Noes to the left. Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Walter Johnson and Mr. Cryer. Tellers for the Noes, Mr. Jopling and Mr. Shelton.
§ Mr. Norman Fowler (seated and covered)On a point of order. With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House is in some difficulty, not having had a reply to the point put by my hon. Friend. That is to say, that no explanation has been given of your ruling. With due respect, it is extremely difficult to come to a conclusion without that ruling being given before a vote takes place.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI had in fact heard everything said and took it into consideration in giving my ruling. Under Standing Orders, the Question must be put at the time I put the Question. I had no alternative but to put the Question.
§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop (seated and covered)On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Orders certainly do not provide that you shall put the Question on a motion which is itself out of order because it is in breach of privilege. Therefore, surely, the Question must not be put until you have finished taking points of order on whether the motion is within order and can or cannot be put to the House.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have ruled on the point the hon. Member puts to me. 557 It is clearly laid down in Standing Orders that the Question must be put three-quarters of an hour after the business started.
§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop (seated and covered)Further to the point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) was addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a new point of order, about the validity of the motion which is now purported to be before the House. Surely you must hear such points of order, particularly when the motion is apparently in defiance of Standing Order No. 168, before the Question is put.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Member is wrong. The Standing Order makes
§ it clear that the Question must be put at a certain time, and that is what I did.
§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop (seated and covered)Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has not been determined, until you have finished taking points of order, that there is a valid motion to put to the House pursuant to the Standing Order you quoted. As the motion is apparently in breach of Standing Order No. 168, that matter must be properly determined before you put the Question.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI had already given a ruling on that matter. We then proceeded to a Division, in accordance with Standing Orders.
§ The House having divided: Ayes 223, Noes 179.
561| Division No. 99.] | AYES | [11.00 p.m. |
| Anderson, Donald | Dormand, J. D. | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) |
| Archer, Peter | Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Jones, Barry (East Flint) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Duffy, A. E. P. | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Ashton, Joe | Dunn, James A. | Judd, Frank |
| Atkinson, Norman | Dunnett, Jack | Kelley, Richard |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Eadie, Alex | Kerr, Russell |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Edge, Geoff | Lamborn, Harry |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Hey wood) | Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Lamond, James |
| Bates, Alt | Ennals, David | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) |
| Bean, R. E. | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Evans, loan (Aberdare) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Lipton, Marcus |
| Bishop, E. S. | Faulds, Andrew | Loyden, Eddie |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Luard, Evan |
| Boardman, H. | Flannery, Martin | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Mabon, Dr J. Dickson |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | McCartney, Hugh |
| Bradley, Tom | Foot, Rt Hon Michael | McElhone, Frank |
| Bray, Or Jeremy | Ford, Ben | McGuire, Michael (lnce) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Proven) | Forrester, John | Mackenzie, Gregor |
| Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | Maclennan, Robert |
| Buchan, Norman | Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) |
| Buchanan, Richard | Freeson, Reginald | McNamara, Kevin |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Madden, Max |
| Canavan, Dennis | George, Bruce | Magee, Bryan |
| Cant, R. B. | Gilbert, Dr John | Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh) |
| Carmichael, Nell | Golding, John | Mahon, Simon |
| Carter, Ray | Gould, Bryan | Mallalieu, J. P. W. |
| Cartwright, John | Gourlay, Harry | Marks, Kenneth |
| Castle, Rt Hon Barbara | Graham, Ted | Marquand, David |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Grant, John (Islington C) | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Cohen, Stanley | Grocott, Bruce | Meacher, Michael |
| Coleman, Donald | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert |
| Colquhoun, Ms Maureen | Harper, Joseph | Mikardo, Ian |
| Concannon, J. D. | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Millan, Bruce |
| Conlan, Bernard | Hart, Rt Hon Judith | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) |
| Corbett, Robin | Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen) |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Heffer, Erle S. | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) |
| Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Horam, John | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony | Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten) | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Moyle, Roland |
| Dalyell, Tam | Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Davidson, Arthur | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Hunter, Adam | Newens, Stanley |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) | Noble, Mike |
| Deakins, Eric | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Oakes, Gordon |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Ogden, Eric |
| Delargy, Hugh | Janner, Greville | Orbach, Maurice |
| Dell, Rt Hon Edmund | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Ovenden, John |
| Dempsey, James | John, Brynmor | Park, George |
| Doig, Peter | Johnson. James (Hull West) | Parry, Robert |
| Pavitt, Laurie | Shore, Rt Hon Peter | Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) |
| Peart, Rt Hon Fred | Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C) | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Pendry, Tom | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) | Ward, Michael |
| Phipps, Dr Colin | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) | Watkins, David |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Silverman, Julius | Weetch, Ken |
| Prescott, John | Skinner, Dennis | Wellbeloved, James |
| Price, C. (Lewisham W) | Small, William | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Price, William (Rugby) | Snape, Peter | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Radice, Giles | Spearing, Nigel | Whitlock, William |
| Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) | Spriggs, Leslie | Williams, Alan (Swansea W) |
| Richardson, Miss Jo | Stallard, A. W. | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) |
| Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Roderick, Caerwyn | Stoddart, David | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| Rodgers, George (Chorley) | Stott, Roger | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Strang, Gavin | Woodall, Alec |
| Rooker, J. W. | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley | Woof, Robert |
| Rose, Paul B. | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Rowlands, Ted | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) | |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Tierney, Sydney | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Selby, Harry | Tinn, James | Mr. Walter Johnson and |
| Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) | Torney, Tom | Mr. Bob Cryer. |
| Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) | Tuck, Raphael | |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Glyn, Dr Alan | Morrison, charles (Devizes) |
| Alison, Michael | Goodhart, Philip | Mudd, David |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Goodhew, Victor | Neave, Airey |
| Baker, Kenneth | Goodlad, Alastair | Nelson, Anthony |
| Banks, Robert | Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Newton, Tony |
| Beith A. J. | Gray, Hamish | Normanton, Tom |
| Bennett Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Onslow, Cranley |
| Benyon, W. | Grist, Ian | Page, John (Harrow West) |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Grylls, Michael | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby |
| Bitten, John | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Parkinson, Cecil |
| Pattie, Geoffrey | ||
| Biggs-Davison, John | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Percival, Ian |
| Blaker Peter | Hampson, Dr Keith | |
| Body, Richard | Hannam, John | Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Prior, Rt Hon James | |
| Bottomley Peter | Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) | |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) | Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Hastings, Stephen | Raison, Timothy |
| Havers, Sir Michael | ||
| Brocklebank-Fowler, C. | Heseltine, Michael | Rathbone, Tim |
| Brotherton, Michael | Higgins, Terence L. | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) | ||
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Holland, Philip | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Hordern, Peter | Ridley, Hon Nicholas |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Budgen, Nick | Howell, David (Guildford) | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Hunt, David (Wirral) | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Ross, Stephen (lese of William) |
| Carlisle, Mark | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) | Ross, William (Londonderry) |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | James, David | Roosi, Hugn (Hornsey) |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Clark, William (Croydon S) | Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Shepherd, Colin |
| Clegg, Walter | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Silvester, Fred |
| Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Kimball, Marcus | Sims, Roger |
| Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) | ||
| Cope, John | King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Cormack, Patrick | Kitson, Sir Timothy | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Corrie, John | Lamont, Norman | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
| Costain, A. P. | Lane, David | Speed, Keith |
| Crouch, David | Sinclair, Sir George | |
| Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
| Dean, Paul (N Somerset) | Latham, Michael (Melton) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) |
| Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Lawrence, Ivan | Sproat, lain |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Le Marchant, Spencer | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Stanley, John |
| Durant, Tony | Loveridge, John | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Luce, Richard | Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Macfarlane, Neil | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Elliott, Sir William | MacGregor, John | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
| Emery, Peter | McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Eyre, Reginald | Marten, Neil | Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) |
| Fairgrieve, Russell | Mather, Carol | Trotter, Neville |
| Fell, Anthony | Maude, Angus | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Fookes, Miss janet | Mayhew, Patrick | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Forman, Nigel | Miscampbell, Norman | Viggers, Peter |
| Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) | Moate, Roger | Wainwright. Richard (Colne V) |
| Fox, Marcus | Monro, Hector | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Fry, Peter | Montgomery, Fergus | Walker Rt Hon P.(Worcester) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Wall, Patrick |
| Weatherill Bernard | Wiggin, Jerry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Wells, John | Winterton, Nicholas | Mr. Michael Jopling and |
| Whitelaw, Rt Hon William | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) | Mr. William Shelton |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise all such increased payments into and out of the Consolidated Fund and the National Loans Fund as may result, under sections 19 to 21 of the Transport Act 1962 (borrowing by the British Transport Docks Board and other Boards; loans by the Secretary of State and Treasury guarantee of Boards' other borrowing) from an Act of the present Session extending the powers and duties of the British Transport Docks Board with respect to the Port of Felixstowe and vesting in the Board the share capital of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you intend to order it to be entered in the Journal of the House that Standing Order No. 168 concerning Private Business has now been suspended, since it has clearly been abrogated?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have nothing to add to what I have already said.