CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL (Hansard, 27 April 1984)

Hon. Members
Object.

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given you prior notice. I submit that it is out of order for an objection to be made if it kills off the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill — or any other worthy or unworthy Bill — on the grounds that it is clearly the rule of the House that speeches cannot be made and no effective interventions can properly be effective other than from a standing position. "Erskine May" is absolutely clear on the point. On page 418 it says: Members must speak standing and uncovered. In cases of sickness or infirmity, however, the indulgence of a seat may be allowed, at the suggestion of a Member and with the general acquiescence of the House. I did not hear any request for indulgence from the Government Whip, who made his intervention from a sedentary position. If he is sick or infirm, it is not a matter that he has placed before the House, other than indirectly, through his assumption of the office which he holds. "Erskine May" continues: Only when a question of order arises during a division may a Member speak seated and covered. There was no Division, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, declined to allow one, and if the hon. Gentleman's head is covered, all appearances are to the contrary.
It has been suggested that when an hon. Member objects he is not speaking and that therefore the rule does not apply. That cannot be right, assuming that it is an articulate utterance which the Government Whip is making—I accept that that is open to some doubt. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "speak" as follows: To utter or pronounce words or articulate sounds". I do not know whether the word "Object" is articulate or inarticulate, but it is certainly intended to influence the House. The dictionary continues: to exercise the faculty of speech". No doubt the Government Whip intends to do that. It then says: to express one's thoughts in words. If that is not overstating what the hon. Gentleman did, that was no doubt his intention. The man certainly spoke, but 1065 when he speaks seated he cannot effectively affect the business of the House, let alone kill off the Bill. Nor are those quotations selective. I have others all of which say much the same.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point. I am grateful to him for mentioning to me in advance that he intended to raise this matter. What has happened in the House this afternoon is perfectly consistent with the practice that has been followed for a considerable time. If the hon. and learned Gentleman feels that the matter should be clarified beyond all doubt, remedy is open to him—he can draw it to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure or table a motion.
It would help the Chair and, I am sure, the House if an hon. Member who wished to express objection to a Bill would do so loudly and clearly, so that there is no doubt that an objection has been taken.

§ Mr. Janner
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is not a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure, of which I am a member. It is a matter for the Chair, which you, Sir, occupy. Where a person utters words or articulates sounds with ordinary modulation of the voice rather than gasping, groaning, moaning, sighing, belching or other things which the Government Chief Whip and other Whips normally do in the course of their duties, it is speaking. Therefore, it is for the Chair to rule and the matter should not be sent to a Committee from which it may or may not emerge before the next general election.
I ask for a ruling from you, Sir, as to whether it is proper for a Government Whip or anyone else to raise an objection from a seated position. It is contrary to the public interest, and, despite tradition, I suggest that it is contrary to the traditions of Parliament that a person can take part in a debate and make an articulate sound which kills off a Bill, and is therefore an important step, without at least standing so that he can be recognised—unless of course he is ashamed to do so, in which case he should hold his peace.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I thought that a ruling was implicit in my earlier remarks, when I suggested that, until the matter is pursued further and clarified, we should continue in accordance with the practice that we have used certainly since I have occupied the Chair during the past 12 months. I repeat that it would help if hon. Members objecting would do so loudly and clearly——

§ Mr. Janner
And standing, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Are you appealing to hon. Members to stand when they make their objection?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
It did not seem to me that the large volume which the hon. and learned Gentleman held in his hand was the Standing Orders of the House, the rules of procedure or even "Erskine May".

§ Mr. Janner
It is "Erskine May".

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The interpretation of an expression may be in a book that the hon. and learned Gentleman has borrowed from the Library, but it is for the House to decide upon such matters. Until the House has decided otherwise, I so rule.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you accept 1066 that there is a wider responsibility involved in this procedure, in that the British public in other places find it strange that important and relevant Bills can be killed off without the person who killed them off being identified in the Official Report? I put it to you that the Official Report is lacking if an hon. Member who objects to the passage of legislation is not named. Would you consider this matter and tell the House whether you believe that there is a broader principle involved that should he taken into consideration, and perhaps consider amending your ruling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
My task is to interpret the Standing Orders and rules which the House has decided and to have regard to the practices that we have adopted in such matters. It has never been the practice of the House to identify by name in the Official Report those who have taken objection to a Bill. I repeat that it is open to the House, if it decides that matters should be otherwise, to take steps to change the rules.

§ Mr. Clement Freud (Cambridgeshire, North-East)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What happened would appear in Hansard the day after the event as, "Hon. Members: Object." By using the words, "Hon. Members", it tends to taint all hon. Members with what might well be an invidious decision taken by one person. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consider carefully, after the proper explanation of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), whether it might be right to identify the person who objects rather than to leave the objection as though it were the decision of the entire House or of a multitudinous number of hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
If sufficient hon. Members share the view that has been expressed that the practice should be changed, they will take action through the appropriate procedures, which is the Select Committee on Procedure or by way of a motion. However, until the House has decided otherwise, I must act in accordance with the practices that we have followed for some time.

§ Mr. Janner
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your courtesy, Sir. I am not asking you to do other than to interpret the rules of the House as set out in "Erskine May". In view of what you said, Sir, I wish to make that plain. The rule in question is that hon. Members must speak standing. The only footnote is that lady Members are permitted to wear hats when speaking. Where a person is speaking—that is, producing sounds other than in a single voice"——

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. and learned Member is merely repeating the point he made earlier. I accept that the hon. and learned Gentleman feels strongly about the matter, but I hope that I have given him sufficient guidance. It is for the House to decide whether a monosyllabic utterance constitutes speaking to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman may clutch to his bosom a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary or whatever, but it is for the House, not for some lexicographer, to make a decision. I hope that we can proceed.

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your problem, because I also chair some difficult meetings from time to time and I recognise that problems can arise. As you have said that the House should decide, which I accept, would 1067 it not be wise for the matter to be left in abeyance and for no decision to be taken or ruling to be given until the House has decided? Could we not leave the matter in abeyance until the House decides exactly what ought to happen in future?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member. If by leaving the matter in abeyance until the House has had a chance to reflect and come to a decision he means that we should continue to pursue the practice that we have adopted over a considerable period——

§ Mr. Heffer
indicated dissent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
—that would be a sensible way to proceed.

§ Mr. Janner
Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be good enough to refer the matter to Mr. Speaker for his considered response to the points that I have made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Mr. Speaker is an eager reader of our proceedings and I have not the slightest doubt that by the time the Official Report is on his desk on Monday he will quickly have taken the point.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order relates to a matter that came before the House previously. There was some protest and consideration by Mr. Speaker about whether it was proper for the Government to intervene when the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), came before the House. That matter is subject to your consideration or to that of Mr. Speaker in the context of the deliberations that have already been brought to your attention by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). The objection would appear from the Standing Orders to be defective, because it was made from a sedentary position. I do not have the Standing Orders in front of me. It may also be defective because it appears to have been made by a Minister or Government Whip—although one cannot be clear—instead of by a private Member acting in his or her own capacity in the context of private Members' business.
I ask for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether that is appropriate in this context, as it was ruled to be unfortunate and inappropriate for a Government Whip to intervene and influence the way in which hon. Members voted on private Members' Bills when the matter was before the House before the recess.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Nothing in our Standing Orders or procedures precludes any hon. Member, whether he sits on the Government Front Bench or anywhere else in the Chamber, from taking or making objection to a Bill before the House on a Friday.

§ Mr. Janner
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have not fully dealt with the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. and learned Gentleman should not rise to his feet while I am on mine.
1068 Again, it is open to the House, if it so wishes, to make changes in procedure and to do so through the appropriate steps, which I suggested earlier. Mr. Janner, a further point of order?

§ Mr. Janner
I respectfully suggest, Sir, that it is in the power of the Chair to say now that the rules should be applied. I am not taking the point of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I simply take the point that a person cannot effectively intervene from a sedentary position and I shall ask the House in due course to consider whether the intervention made in that way has in fact blocked that Bill or whether that Bill will now proceed because the objection was out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot say that the objection is out of order. In so far as there is any substantial point of order in what he has said, I think that it is that on which I have already ruled and given guidance to the House. I think that we ought to get on. Doubtless, before we do, all hon. Members wherever they sit, will have taken note of the comments made and, I hope, will respond to them if they find it necessary to take any further objection.