HC Deb 23 May 1978 vol 950 cc1359-61
Mr. William Hamilton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a question which is important to other hon. Members. You will know that, last Friday, I tabled an Early-Day Motion on the Civil List. Having recalled what "Erskine May" said about the characteristics of parliamentary language being good temper and moderation, I carefully framed my motion to fit in with that description. However, when I took the motion into the Table Office, a Clerk demurred and suggested that it might be construed in another way by yourself and those who perform those functions.

There the matter was left until yesterday, when I received the revised version of my Early-Day Motion, which, in terms used in this House, consisted of a whole series of wrecking amendments. The final version which was put to me bore little relation to the version which I orginally put forward, including the title. The title was completely unacceptable and was altered in toto.

I shall get into deep trouble with my very large number of supporters in the country when they see the motion, which purports to be in my name, but which in fact is not my wording.

Mr. Fairbairn

Then the hon. Gentleman should not have put it down.

Mr. Hamilton

I was faced with that situation. The language that I wanted to use was parliamentary language; there was not an expression there which was deeemed by "Erskine May" to be un-parliamentary. Nevertheless, they were deleted. This should concern all hon. Members.

One of the great attributes which we sometimes claim for this House is freedom of speech within certain bounds. I thought my motion was couched within those confines, and I object very much. I feel a great sense of frustration that I cannot express the very strongly held views I have on these matters in the way I want to express them. I understand, of course, that there are limits to what one can say, but I thought that I was well within those limits in my original version.

If it is not possible to put motions down on the Paper, then I feel almost tempted, obliged to publish the original version and let people outside judge what exactly this kind of censorship means in this House. I hope this will be dealt with in some seriousness. I regard it myself with some seriousness and I hope you, Mr. Speaker, will make some judgment on it.

Mr. Mawby

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I looked at the motion put forward by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) this morning and I felt that it was outrageous.

Mr. Hamilton

It was very modest.

Mr. Mawby

I felt it was something to which I should put down an amendment. I just wanted to give you that information, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I am much obliged. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and the House will know that I take very seriously the responsibilities that the House has put into my hands concerning motions on the Order Paper. When I considered the original draft of the hon. Member's motion, I took the view that it contained certain expressions which were irregular or unbecoming, and therefore, as "Erskine May" points out on page 373, "disorderly".

It is a well-established practice that the Speaker exercises his discretion in disallowing such expressions. It would not be right for me or for the hon. Member or anyone else to say what they were.

I should add that I am surprised that the hon. Member has raised the matter because I thought that the hon. Gentlehan had accepted the ruling. Obviously I was not under the impression that a motion had gone on the Order Paper without his agreement. If that is so I shall gladly look into the matter, but his amended motion, which I understood had been sent to him and accepted by him, has appeared on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hamilton

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is true to some extent, but when one is faced with an amended version, one either accepts it or one does not get anything down at all. There was a Biblical expression that was ruled out of order. I shall not repeat it, but I see nothing unparliamentary in using a Biblical expression in an Early-Day Motion. It is true that I went into the Table Office with the amended version which was put to me, and that is what the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has described as "outrageous". Yet it is the version proposed by the Officials of the House. The original was much stronger meat. I object to my beer being watered.

Mr. Speaker

Let me make one thing clear. The motion is not proposed by any Officials in this House. What they did was to try to help the hon. Gentleman to remove the parts which were considered to be disorderly.