HC Deb 18 February 1980 vol 979 cc27-9
Mr. Speaker

On Friday last I undertook, in response to a request from the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), to look into the matter of the delay that occurred in the locking of the doors during the course of the first Division on that day. The basic reason for the delay was the absence of Division sheets in the L to Z desks in the Aye Lobby. The missing lists were eventually discovered in the drawer in the other Division desk. I am satisfied that that was a simple human error and that there is no question of there having been any malicious attempt to disrupt the business of the House.

With regard to the timing of the order to lock the doors, the House will be aware that Standing Order No. 34, by which the procedure on Divisions is governed, lays down that the Speaker directs the locking of the doors After the lapse of at least six minutes from the direction to clear the Lobby. On 12 March 1975, my predecessor ruled that the period of six minutes should be extended to eight minutes, in order to allow hon. Members time to come in from Norman Shaw North. In doing so, he did not, however, change the period from a minimum period to a fixed period. Since that ruling was given, the occupants of the Chair have always regarded themselves as working on a period of at least eight minutes.

It therefore happened last Friday that when the Deputy Speaker was informed by a number of hon. Members that the Division sheets were missing and that they had therefore been reluctant to pass the Tellers without their names being recorded, he decided to defer ordering the doors to be locked until he was satisfied that the sheets were available and that the hon. Members in question had had the opportunity to return to the Lobby. In my view, that was an eminently sensible decision and an absolutely justified use of the discretion of the Chair. Had it not been taken, the Division might well have had to be held again, to the general confusion of Members, and it would have been a waste of time.

Mr. Stoddart

I am most obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for making that statement. It has clarified the matter, and hon. Members will know the position in the future.

I should like to take this opportunity, however, of refuting the suggestion that was made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) that it was a time-wasting exercise. It was not. I believe that it was a relevant point of order, and your ruling clarifies the issue to my satisfaction and to that of other hon. Members.

Mr. Freud

On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? I hope that he is not seeking to raise the matter about which he wrote to me, concerning privilege. That matter is not allowed to be raised.

Mr. Freud

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 21 January I wrote a personal and urgent letter to the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security in respect of a dying constituent who had, in the eyes of my local social services department—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman and I know the correspondence that has passed. Even if he is not raising the matter to which he referred, I have said before that it is a waste of the time of the House to seek to raise, under the guise of a point of order, a dispute with a Minister. I apply the Standing Orders of the House, and I can rule only on the Standing Orders and on our customs and courtesies. I must indicate to the hon. Gentleman that if there is a dispute about his not having received a proper reply, or if there has been a delay or anything of that sort, I am not a court of appeal against Ministers.

Mr. Freud

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Speaker. My point is not what you have suggested it might be. I asked the Minister to investigate the case as a matter of urgency. Today, four weeks later, I still have not received a reply from the Minister. I have received a letter from solicitors retained by the medical profession—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already indicated to the hon. Gentleman that the letter from the solicitors, to which he referred—with which we have dealt privately—cannot be raised here on the ground of a point of order.