HC Deb 18 January 1977 vol 924 cc82-8
Mr. Abse

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On today's Order Paper in my name and that of other hon. Members there is an Instruction to the Committee on the Scotland and Wales Bill asking that power be given to the Committee to divide the Bill into two Bills—one relating to Wales and the other to Scotland. You have already dealt with the only other Instruction which came before the House prior to dealing with the Committee stage of the Scotland and Wales Bill.

We are about to embark upon the first amendment which impinges upon Wales in the Bill and it seems necessary that those of us who are in support of that Instruction should ask you first to rule that the Instruction is in order. It would then he seen that we have an opportunity, if we so wish, to take the necessary steps to ensure that Wales will have a Bill of its own in which the matters affecting Wales can be considered, disentangled from the provisions relating to Scotland.

I put my point of order at this stage because there are hundreds of amendments down now which solely impinge upon Scotland. If we proceed as it appears to be intended, we shall proceed in a way which can only lead to the severe neglect of issues which affect Wales. The people of Wales will be disadvantaged and perhaps ultimately a Bill could be presented to them which is ill-considered and ill-digested, upon which we could not expect to have a referendum.

It is not possible to proceed to my second point unless we have a ruling whether the Instruction is in order, unlike the previous Instruction upon which you gave your ruling last week.

Mr. Speaker

It is not possible for the occupant of the Chair to give a ruling on remaining Orders of the Day. It is customary to give the ruling when Orders come up for discussion. May I anticipate the hon. Member by saying that I hope that he is not seeking to raise with me the further point about the placing on the Order Paper of this motion, because he did not put down the Instruction until after the Committee stage had started, unlike the right hon. Lady the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) who got her Instruction down in time. The matter involves the remaining Orders of the Day and there it must remain unless the Government seek to give it precedence.

Mr. Abse

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the position is as you indicate—that it is an option open to the Government and not an option open to you to accelerate this Order so that the House has the opportunity to consider an important principle. I am sure that you will appreciate that if it is not dealt with at this time we shall begin to embark on consideration in detail of the Bill in Committee and will therefore not finally lose the opportunity to divide the Bill but leave it to a stage at which a division of the Bill would cause considerable embarrassment.

Although I am aware that there appears to be a practice as described in "Erskine May" that such a motion should be tabled prior to the Committee stage, we have a unique constitutional proposition in this case. I am inviting you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that this long-established practice should be departed from.

Surely it is open to the Leader of the House to co-operate and assist in this problem since he, above everybody else, will not wish to take advantage of the position by trying to deprive Wales and the House of having an opportunity of considering its own Bill.

I again press the point that the opportunity is afforded to depart from precedent and that in any event it is open to the Leader of the House to assist us if he really wants Wales to have a fair opportunity to discuss a Bill of its own. Since that is so I ask again whether an opportunity can be made for consideration of this Instruction to be accelerated so that the House can decide whether it wants the two Bills disengaged so that they can be considered on their own merits.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let me make it quite clear that I will not take a string of points of order on this question. I have given a ruling that the practice has been long established. This Instruction cannot be given priority by me.

Mr. Kinnock

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker

Is it on the same question?

Mr. Kinnock

It is on the general question.

Mr. Speaker

I am not taking points of order on that Instruction.

Mr. Kinnock

The point of order is on the general question of Instructions. In particular it relates to the appropriate time for tabling them.

As a Welsh Member, Mr. Speaker, you will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and I and many other hon. Members have sought over the last two years to convince members of the Government of the necessity and desirability of dividing the propositions for devolution between two Bills. You have said, Mr. Speaker, that precedent shows that there is an appropriate time at which the Instructions may be put down. One of the attractive features of this House is its flexibility in trying to maximise the benefit to the nation of whatever it does. However, if an Instruction were to be put down at a late stage in a Bill—for example, on this matter—the accusation could be made that its sponsors were attempting to wreck the Bill. At this stage, therefore, before we have embarked upon discussing the Welsh considerations, there would appear to be a case for the reconsideration of the general—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let me make myself clear. It is not my fault that the Instruction was put down when it was. I have to abide by the rules and practice of the House.

Mr. Dalyell

May I raise a different point of order, Mr. Speaker? Would this be a convenient moment at which to ask whether, in the light of the discussions last Thursday, you and the Chairman of Ways and Means and the other Chairmen have reached any decision on the guidelines that ought to be set out as to what is relevant and what is not relevant during the debate?

Mr. Speaker

The Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy Speaker, is in charge of the Committee stage. It is not for me to advise him.

Mr. Heffer

May I raise a point of order about your ruling, Mr. Speaker? I appreciate the great difficulty you experience on this matter. To be frank, however, may I appeal to you for a little more flexibility? This is a matter that deeply concerns hon. Members. They feel very strongly about it, and as part of this unfortunate—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to challenge my ruling in that way. I have made my position quite clear and I must observe the practice of the House of well over 100 years—

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not taking points of order relating to the ruling I have given.

Mr. Abse

My point of order does not relate to that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I want to be as flexible as possible but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have given my ruling and that there can be no points of order on it. I see no advantage in taking the time of the House on this matter.

Mr. Heffer

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that where an hon. Member feels that there is a matter that he must raise with you, if you have already given a legitimate ruling about it he is not allowed to raise it? If that is so, the whole concept of democratic discussions and debate is being eliminated in the House, and I for one would object to that most strongly.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The basis of democracy will be greatly challenged if the rulings of the Chair are continually challenged and not accepted.

Mr. Abse

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given a ruling which makes it abundantly clear that it is not possible for the Instruction to be dealt with at this stage. However, the House, feeling some concern, as I am sure it does, would wish to have your guidance about the future. There is precedent which makes it quite clear that an Instruction can be given at any time before a guillotine motion is moved.

However, there is a second point upon which I particularly require guidance and which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will bear in mind. It would appear from the direction given in 1931 by Mr. Speaker of that time that when a guillotine motion is moved it is possible for an amendment to be put down to that motion calling for the division of the Bill. That ruling was given in 1931 in relation to a Finance Bill.

Recognising, as I do, how bound you are by precedent, and how difficult it therefore is for you to move away from it, I believe it is important for the House to be told whether you take the same view as was taken by Mr. Speaker in 1931, should my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House presume at some stage to table a guillotine motion, that it would be open to us to put down an amendment to any guillotine motion. Of course, it would be possible for my right hon. Friend to take steps before then, as you have indicated, Mr. Speaker.

I should like to know therefore whether we may feel assured that on the basis of precedents—precedents which prevent us from dealing at this stage with the Instruction now on the Order Paper—you will adopt the approach adopted in 1931 and permit an amendment to the guillotine motion calling for the division of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has presented his point. I shall look into it and not reply off the cuff.

Mr. Mendelson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Recently my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and I and other hon. Members respectfully suggested to you, after you had given a ruling and said that you could not permit discussion of it, that we did not wish to challenge your ruling but wanted to present a point of view. We asked whether it was possible to do so. We argued then, and I argue today, that it must be possible to present a point of view without challenging your ruling. After due consideration you told us the following day that we had been quite right in so raising the matter. Therefore, I submit, with respect, that it is quite right for us to raise the matter in the same way today, without in any way attempting to challenge your ruling.

If, as is within the recollection of the House, on an occasion not so far away it was possible long after the beginning of the debate to declare a Bill to be a Hybrid Bill, it must be possible to give very deep thought to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on this important matter of a Bill of the gravest constitutional importance for the future of the United Kingdom.

I am being deliberately brief, because no one has any intention of making light of this matter in order just to spend time. I believe that on this matter, having followed carefully the opinions expressed since Second Reading in the part of the United Kingdom that is most directly concerned by this particular demand, it behoves all of us to give the most careful consideration before we come to a decision as to what the procedure should be. I therefore submit that my hon. Friends are absolutely right and that a decision on how you rule on the matter, Mr. Speaker, should be postponed for the usual period so that more counsel can be taken and a proper decision can be arived at.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was not casting a reflection upon my ruling, and I believe that he meant it.

I have already given considerable thought to this question. I have taken advice. I have looked into the custom and the practices of the House. That was why I was so definite in my ruling. I could not promise the House that if I considered the matter for a fortnight I would come to a different decision. In the earlier case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I was seeking to interpret the rules of the House and the Standing Orders and to follow them. That is what I am doing here. I am trying to abide by the proper practices of the House. I assure hon. Members that I have given the most careful consideration to this matter.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and to his hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for the way in which they have now accepted my ruling.