HC Deb 07 July 1977 vol 934 cc1571-7

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Before calling the Lord President of the Council to move the next motion, I should inform the House that I understand he would wish to move it in a slightly different form by substituting, for the existing words of sub-paragraph (c), the words on research undertaken in the proper performance of those duties". Mr. Speaker is satisfied that this does not extend the scope—[Interruption.]

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could we wait a minute until the noise has subsided?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Perhaps it would be wise if I were to start at the beginning again.

Before calling the Lord President of the Council to move the next motion—

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

Which motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is the motion which appears as Item No. 3.

I understand that the Lord President would wish to move it in a slightly different form by substituting, for the existing words of sub-paragraph (c), the words on research undertaken in the proper performance of those duties". Mr. Speaker is satisfied that this does not extend the scope of the original notice and that it is proper for the motion to be moved in the altered form.

I think that it would be for the convenience of the House for there to be a single debate on Items 3, 4 and 5 on the Order Paper, together with the amendments to Item 4 in the names of the hon. Members for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). After Item 3 is disposed of, I shall ask the Minister to move Item 4 formally, at which stage the amendments which have been selected can formally be moved by the hon. Members concerned.

In this connection, hon. Members will observe that two of the selected amendments are in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. In normal circumstances, an hon. Member cannot move more than one amendment to a single motion because it involves speaking more than once. As hon. Members will know from page 391 of Erskine May", however, this rule is relaxed in the case of certain types of motion relating to procedure. Although this present motion does not fall exactly within the categories described, Mr. Speaker regards it as cognate to them and has, therefore, informed me that he is prepared to allow the hon. Member to move both of his amendments which have been selected, should he wish to do so. When Item 4 and the amendments have been disposed of, I shall then call the Minister to move Item 5 formally.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was a very long statement as a preamble to this debate. It began by your advice to the House, and it was the first news I had received, and, I suspect, that the House will have received, of the fact that the motion on the Order Paper is to be amended in some kind of manuscript form by the Government.

We have had no notice of this amendment. It may be an amendment which may be perfectly in order and which does not alter fundamentally the sense of what is proposed. Nevertheless, without notice having been given to the House, I should have thought, as a matter of procedure, that right hon. and hon. Members would take a great deal of exception to it.

If I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you subsequently went on to describe the nature of the debate and how everything might be discussed together, and how various matters might or might not be cognate to something else, in a way, if I may say so, that is most extraordinarily unusual.

Whereas these motions and amendments are important matters and are directly relevant to Members of Parliament as such, nevertheless they are not of such a character or of such urgency that the House of Commons should be required immediately to proceed with them.

We have had no explanation of any kind whatsoever. I certainly have not. I do not know whether the Government have made any endeavour to give any explanation to the official Opposition or to any other party or right hon. or hon. Member of the House. In the light of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am bound to say that I take the view that it would, therefore, be perfectly in order and correct in the circumstances, and of no disadvantage to anybody, not to proceed with these items.

Let the motion be put down on another day—next week or the week after, it matters not which—in a form which is correct and accurate. If that procedure were acceped, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would enable the House to consider the ruling that you have just given and the ruling that you have conveyed from Mr. Speaker. Some of us would like to see what that ruling is before we proceed. In making this request and suggestion, I do not think that it is unreasonable or is preventing Government business from getting ahead. It is perfectly possible for the Government to take this matter on another night and in another form when we have had time to consider what you have said.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think it is better to deal with one point of order at a time. The only manuscript amendment, if I may describe it as such, covers 10 words. If it will be of any help to the House, I will read the words again: in sub-paragraph (c), the words proposed are on research undertaken in the proper performance of those duties". That is a matter which has been considered by Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker has asked me to convey to the House that he is satisfied that there is no reason why that should not be proceeded with.

Mr. Pym

I am sorry to intervene again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I feel that even if one word is added to what appears on the Order Paper there needs to be a very good explanation of why the House should proceed. Whereas in relation to some motions and situations it might be justified and the House might agree that in all the circumstances it would be necessary, right and appropriate to proceed, in the circumstances of this particular matter there is no need to proceed with it. You have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the amendment covers 10 words, and you cannot deny, Sir, that there were other aspects to your proposals for the debate which were slightly complicated, to say the least, and right hon. and hon. Members might wish to consider them.

Whereas I in no sense challenge what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or what Mr. Speaker has said to the House, nevertheless I think that when 10 words have to be altered without notice to anybody this is not a correct, proper or parliamentary manner in which to proceed. In view of the fact that the Government business will not be lost in any way, and that nobody will be disadvantaged by a postponement of a week, or whatever it might be, I respectfully suggest that that would be the right decision for the House to come to.

Several Hon Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Michael English.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

The change, Mr. Deputy Speaker is of some importance in that the original motion said "employing a research assistant" and now it does not. There is a difference between recruiting a person for a fee and actually employing that person, and doing the work oneself.

In so far as your ruling concerns myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for his ruling, because enough hon. Members support my amendments to enable them to move the amendments that stand in my name, although I could not have spoken more than once. I assure Mr. Speaker, and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members that I had not intended to speak more than once. I should not have attempted to do so. I believe that Mr. Speaker's ruling is a simplifying one and saves greater complexities in procedure than would otherwise be necessary.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you and to Mr. Speaker for the ruling that has been given on this matter and the manuscript amendment which we have submitted. I think that when the House has examined the manuscript amendment it will realise that it is a minor matter. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will listen to me, I repeat that those who examined it will discover that is is a minor matter.

However, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) says that he thinks it is causing difficulty for hon. Members, and if, as he says, he would prefer that the matter should proceed on another occasion, I am prepared to concur with his wishes. I hope the House will understand that we shall have to seek time—no doubt at approximately this time of night—to get the matter through. It is the Government's intention that it should pass through the House. We believe that this is fair to all hon. Members. However, in view of the representations of the right hon. Gentleman and the apparent support of some hon. Members, I am prepared not to proceed with the matter now.

Mr. Pym

It is only right and proper for me to respond at once to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He has appreciated quickly and immediately what our feelings are and what the situation is. I think that he has taken entirely the correct decision. I make no comment about the extent or nature of the amendment, but in terms of House of Commons procedure the right hon. Gentleman has taken the correct course and I am grateful to him.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not before encountered a situation in which the Chair merely reads out how someone would like a motion on the Order Paper to appear instead of reading out the amendment in the form of leaving out whatever has to be left out and inserting whatever has to be inserted. Is not this an astonishing way of dealing with our proceedings?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If we had proceeded, the hon. Gentleman would have found that the matter had been made perfectly clear had it been moved in its amended form.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Beaconsfield)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it really possible for a motion, of which notice must be given, to be moved in a different form? It is quite another matter if a manuscript amendment is moved as that would be amply covered by precedent. Surely it cannot be the case that an hon. Member gives notice of a motion only to say that he will move it in another form, with Mr. Speaker concurring in that.

Mr. George Cunningham

In view of the objections which have been raised to the proposal that my right hon. Friend the Lord President has brought forward, I feel obliged to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the responsibility for what hon. Members are objecting to probably rests with me rather than with my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend knows, but others do not, that the suggestion that the change of wording should take place by some means or other was mine. I rather assumed that it would by means of an amendment. I imagined that it would be an improvement in the language that was required, not a change of substance but a change that could have avoided misunderstanding about the meaning at some later stage. I did not envisage a substantive amendment. That being so, and given that a short time ago the House voted to proceed with the business after 10 o'clock although opposed, surely it is more sensible to proceed with it, given that the only people who have directed their minds to this change of wording know that it has no substantive content. At least, I ask hon. Members to acquit the Lord President on this occasion of any discourtesy to the House and to direct their criticism at me.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify the position? I understand you suggested that we should consider Items 3, 4 and 5 and any amendments thereto together and vote on them separately. After that, there was an objection from the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) because 10 words in sub-paragraph (c) of Item 3 were changed without prior notice to him.

I suggest that even if the right hon. Gentleman's objections are valid—in my opinion they are not—there would seem to be no reason why we should abandon Items 4 and 5 because of possible changes to Item 3. Even if the changes in Item 3 are not acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends, or even to some of my hon. Friends, I do not understand, when there are more hon. Members in the House than usual, why we should abandon the whole of the proceedings in order to support, complement or implement an understanding between the two Front Benches.

This of all subjects is not a matter only for the two Front Benches. Although we may not be able to proceed with Item 3 because of a procedural change, I do not see why we cannot go ahead with Items 4 and 5 tonight.

Mr. Foot

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has approached the matter, but I do not think that it would be for the convenience of the House to proceed with some of the motions and not with all of them. That would lead to difficulty. I assure my hon. Friend, that of course it is the intention of the Government to present these motions to the House at an early date. We have every intention of securing the support of the House for these proposals because they are of importance to Members of Parliament generally.

As I have said, however, I have not moved any of these motions and I have indicated that I do not intend to move them. Even my hon. Friends in their most persuasive mood will not now persuade me to change that view. I suggest that the best course is for the House to meet to deal with them on another occasion.