§ Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [18 November].
§ Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Everyone knows that when the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) shouts "Object" to this Bill, he is doing so on behalf of the Government. I remind the House that the Bill has been approved, with modifications, and gone through all of its stages in another place. However, this House has not yet been allowed to have a Division on the Second Reading of the Bill which would assist 5.5 million disabled people. The Bill has the overwhelming support——
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's point of order is. He is now arguing the merits of what has happened to his Bill. He must raise a point of order for me to answer.
§ Mr. WareingThis is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, in view of the overwhelming support of disabled people's organisations for the Bill, I feel that I must ask for your advice. I believe that today is the day on which private Members' Bills can receive a Second Reading, unless the Government provide extra time. The Leader of the House is present and he knows that, when eight Ministers were brought back to the House on 18 November last year to prevent the Bill from receiving a Second Reading by means of a closure motion, they were whipped—officially or unofficially——
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again but he is now getting into argument. I must know the point of order on which I can help him.
§ Mr. WareingI should like your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether, through you, I can call on the Leader of the House to give an undertaking, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the Bill, that the Government are willing to allow the House to declare its view on the Bill. I believe that there is cross-Bench support for the Bill.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerAs I think the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order for me. We have followed the customary procedure today. The title of the hon. Gentleman's Bill was read out, objection was taken by hon. Members and, as a result, no Question can be put.
§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The objection that 662 was raised from a seated position by the Government Whip has no validity in effect, nor is it in accordance with the rules of the House. I had proposed to raise this matter in connection with the Diplomatic Immunity (Revision and Interpretation) Bill, but, as the Government Whips have seen fit, from a sedentary position and with the joys of anonymity shrouding them, to kill off a mass of useful and excellent private Members' Bills without having the guts or the decency to stand up and admit what they are doing or to face up to the electorate or the House, I have no alternative but to raise the issue now.
I refer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to page 418 of "Erskine May" where it is stated with absolute clarity that
Members must speak standing and uncovered.other than incases of sickness or infermity".I believe that that reference is to sickness of the body. In this case it says:the indulgence of a seat may be allowed, at the suggestion of a Member"—none has been made—and with the general acquiescence of the House",which the Whip certainly does not have. It continues:A Minister answering a series of questions has been permitted, on grounds of infirmity, to remain leaning on the dispatch box.A number of Ministers have done that this week, due to infirmity of case and of reasoning. It does not apply to this sort of matter, where there is only one question, which is whether the Minister or the Whip has been speaking.As "speaking" is not defined in "Erskine May", but is clearly defined in all dictionaries, including the Shorter Oxford, we have no alternative but to follow it. It says that "to speak" means
To utter or pronounce words or articulate sounds".This "object" is presumably an articulate sound even if it is in inarticulate form.In those circumstances, it is clear that the Minister or the Whip is making an utterance from a seated position which is unparliamentary, improper and contrary to the rules of order. The fact that it may in the process destroy the rights of the chronically sick and disabled is one factor. The fact that it may, in the case of my Bill, come on a day when the rules on diplomatic immunity have been shown to be papably, clearly and disgracefully out of order is another matter. But for the Chair, it is a question of order. To speak as the Whip has seen fit to do and to articulate that unpleasant and destructive sound as he has done with such a series of explosions, so far destroying 36 measures, many of which were excellent, is contrary to the rules of order. Therefore, these Bills, if properly moved, should be allowed to continue on their way.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. and learned Member and the House will recollect that this point was raised by the hon. and learned Member on 27 April 1984. The Deputy Speaker in the Chair then made it clear, as I make it clear now, that the procedure which was followed was in order. If the House does not like the existing procedure, the best thing is to suggest that the Procedure Committee consider the matter. If it wishes, it can make recommendations to the House, and the House can come to a decision. It is my job to uphold the customs and practice of the House as they exist at present.
§ Mr. JannerI accept your ruling of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I have the honour to sit on the Select Committee on Procedure, I shall convey what you have 663 just said. Meanwhile would it be proper and in order to invite the Whip to have the guts to stand up and make his objection standing, if he wishes to object?
§ Mr. PavittFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I entirely accept your ruling and am as usual seeking advice. On a previous occasion, an invitation was given to the Leader of the House. You will remember that, when the original Act was passed, the noble Lord, Fred Peart, did precisely what was requested by Opposition Members and gave extra time. The original Act was passed only because of the intervention of the Leader of the House who gave time for it.
§ Mr. PavittMay I ask you, Sir—on a point of order —whether, in view of the representations already made, which the Leader of the House will have heard, you will through Mr. Speaker's Office make representations to the Procedure Committee to say how highly unsatisfactory the present procedure is and ask for a report in the next Session after the summer recess?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. May I deal with this additional point first? The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) will realise on reflection that this is not a matter for the Chair. If hon. Members are dissatisfied with our existing procedures, they have recourse to a Committee which can consider their views. It would not be correct for the Chair to try to lead the Procedure Committee or any other Committee. It is the job of the Chair to carry out the rules and practices which have at some time been decided by the House.
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill? My recollection is that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) won a high place in the ballot on this matter. His Bill was defeated by an unprecedented vendetta led by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) on behalf of the Government, and since then the Government have continued the vendetta. Now that all the stages of the Bill have been passed in another place and it could become law, thus freeing many disabled people from the heartbreak and discrimination that they have suffered for so long, it is once again faced with this vendetta by the Government. Can you advise me of any way in which the matter can be raised in the few remaining weeks of this Session so that the many disabled people who are looking forward to some comfort from the Bill can get some hope from this Parliament?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerAll that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the procedures that have been followed are correct. It may make him feel a little better if I say that many Government motions have been stopped by the word "Object". The procedure does not apply only to private Members' Bills; it applies to private Bills and to Government motions. The hon. Gentleman might feel a little better after that additional explanation.
§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have clearly ruled that 664 the traditional procedure of being able to object from a seated position should continue. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) suggested that people lacked guts and decency if they remained in a sedentary position. That being so, he is presumably advocating that people should stand to object and be identified. Can we assume that he will urge any of his colleagues who object to a Bill to stand and have their names recorded in Hansard?
§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important measure for the disabled, whose rights are being obliterated by one word from a Government Whip. I seek your advice on this matter, because the Government have always disclaimed responsibility. Private Members' motions and Bills are supposed to be debated on Fridays. How can we make it clear in the Official Report that the Government are killing the Bill?
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)I think we have probably achieved that.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe traditional method is that the Official Report records objections. It does not record names, from whichever side of the House the objection comes. I reiterate that, if the House does not like the existing procedures, the remedy is in its hands. It can alter them if enough hon. Members wish to alter them.
§ Mr. JannerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any reason why the record should not name an hon. Member who raises an objection if that person stands and raises it?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerIf the House wishes to change the procedure, that is a matter for the House. It is certainly not a matter for me.
Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.
§ Mr. WareingI intend to name a day, Sir, because I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise our strong feelings and that the Bill will return to the House before the end of the Session. Because I believe that the procedure is ludicrous—outsiders will think it ludicrous —I intend to name the day notionally as Friday 27 July.