§ Lords amendment: No 33, in page 19, line 6, after "authority" insert "(a)".
§ Mr. AncramI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. AncramThese amendments are consequential the new clauses dealing with compulsory purchase and the rights of pre-emption, and provide that the contribution to be made by the Secretary of State under clause 15 shall also be made in respect of the top-up payments made by the housing authority under these two clauses. I hope that this will find favour.
§ Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have separate votes on each of the three amendments?
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 7.
1346| Division No. 441] | [11.39 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Burt, Alistair |
| Amess, David | Butcher, John |
| Ancram, Michael | Butterfill, John |
| Arnold, Tom | Campbell-Savours, Dale |
| Ashby, David | Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Carlisle, John (N Luton) |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Cash, William |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Chapman, Sydney |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Chope, Christopher |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) |
| Baldry, Tony | Conway, Derek |
| Beith, A. J. | Coombs, Simon |
| Berry, Sir Anthony | Cope, John |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Craigen, J. M. |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Bottomley, Peter | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Dover, Den |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Durant, Tony |
| Bright, Graham | Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) |
| Brinton, Tim | Evans, John (St. Helens N) |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Evennett, David |
| Browne, John | Fallon, Michael |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Fox, Marcus |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Fraser, J. (Norwood) |
| Gale, Roger | Penhaligon, David |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Gorst, John | Powley, John |
| Gow, Lan | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Raffan, Keith |
| Hancock, Mr. Michael | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Harvey, Robert | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Hayes, J. | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Heddle, John | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
| Henderson, Barry | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Rowe, Andrew |
| Howard, Michael | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Howells, Geraint | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Johnston, Russell | Spencer, Derek |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Lester, Jim | Stern, Michael |
| Lilley, Peter | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Lord, Michael | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Maclean, David John | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Major, John | Thorne, Neil (IIford S) |
| Maples, John | Thurnham, Peter |
| Marek, Dr John | Tracey, Richard |
| Marland, Paul | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Mather, Carol | Waddington, David |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Merchant, Piers | Walden, George |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Wallace, James |
| Miller, Hal (B'grove) | Waller, Gary |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) | Watts, John |
| Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) | Whitfield, John |
| Murphy, Christopher | Wolfson, Mark |
| Neubert, Michael | Wood, Timothy |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Yeo, Tim |
| Norris, Steven | |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Osborn, Sir John | Mr. John Hunt and Mr. Ian Lang. |
| Page, Sir John (Harrow W) | |
| Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| NOES | |
| Dixon, Donald | Evans, John (St. Helens N) |
| Nellist, David | |
| Parry, Robert | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) | Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. David Alton. |
| Skinner, Dennis | |
| Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
§
Lords amendment proposed: No. 34, in page 19, line 9, at end insert—
or
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 4.
1347| Division No.442] | [11.51 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) |
| Amess, David | Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) |
| Ancram, Michael | Baldry, Tony |
| Arnold, Tom | Bermingham, Gerald |
| Ashby, David | Berry, Sir Anthony |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Bevan, David Gilroy |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Biffen, Rt Hon John |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Boscawen, Hon Robert |
| Bottomley, Peter | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Merchant, Piers |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Bright, Graham | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Brinton, Tim | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) |
| Browne, John | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Murphy, Christopher |
| Burt, Alistair | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Butcher, John | Norris, Steven |
| Butterfill, John | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Osborn, Sir John |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Page, Sir John (Harrow W) |
| Carlisle, John (N Luton) | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Cash, William | Penhaligon, David |
| Chope, Christopher | Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Conway, Derek | Powley, John |
| Coombs, Simon | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Cope, John | Raffan, Keith |
| Craigen, J. M. | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Dixon, Donald | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Dover, Den | Rowe, Andrew |
| Durant, Tony | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Evennett, David | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Fallon, Michael | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Fox, Marcus | Spencer, Derek |
| Gale, Roger | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Stern, Michael |
| Gorst, John | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Gow, Ian | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Hancock, Mr. Michael | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Harvey, Robert | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Hayes, J. | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Henderson, Barry | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Thorne, Neil (IIford S) |
| Howard, Michael | Thurnham, Peter |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Tracey, Richard |
| Howells, Geraint | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Waddington, David |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Walden, George |
| Johnston, Russell | Wallace, James |
| Lang, Ian | Waller, Gary |
| Lilley, Peter | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) | Watts, John |
| Lord, Michael | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Whitfield, John |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Wolfson, Mark |
| Maclean, David John | Wood, Timothy |
| Major, John | Yeo, Tim |
| Maples, John | |
| Marek, Dr John | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Marland, Paul | Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Michael Neubert |
| Mather, Carol |
| NOES | |
| Nellist, David | |
| Parry, Robert | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Skinner, Dennis | Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. David Alton. |
| Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
§ 12 midnight
§
Lords amendment proposed, No. 35 in page 19, line 13, leave out
"as the case may be"—[Mr. Ancram]
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 5.
1348| Division No. 443] | [12.01 am |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Amess, David | Maclean, David John |
| Ancram, Michael | Maples, John |
| Arnold, Tom | Marek, Dr John |
| Ashby, David | Marland, Paul |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Mather, Carol |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Merchant, Piers |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Baldry, Tony | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Berry, Sir Anthony | Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Murphy, Christopher |
| Bottomley, Peter | Neubert, Michael |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Norris, Steven |
| Bright, Graham | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Brinton, Tim | Osborn, Sir John |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Page, Sir John (Harrow W) |
| Browne, John | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Penhaligon, David |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Burt, Alistair | Powley, John |
| Butcher, John | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Butterfill, John | Raffan, Keith |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Carlisle, John (N Luton) | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Cash, William | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
| Chope, Christopher | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) | Rowe, Andrew |
| Conway, Derek | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Coombs, Simon | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Cope, John | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Craigen, J. M. | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Spencer, Derek |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Stern, Michael |
| Dover, Den | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Durant, Tony | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Evennett, David | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Fallon, Michael | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Fox, Marcus | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Gale, Roger | Thorne, Neil (IIford S) |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Thurnham, Peter |
| Gorst, John | Tracey, Richard |
| Gow, Ian | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Waddington, David |
| Hancock, Mr. Michael | Walden, George |
| Harvey, Robert | Wallace, James |
| Hayes, J. | Waller, Gary |
| Henderson, Barry | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Watts, John |
| Howard, Michael | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Howells, Geraint | Whitfield, John |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Wood, Timothy |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Yeo, Tim |
| Johnston, Russell | |
| Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Lord, Michael | Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. John Major. |
| Lyell, Nicholas |
| NOES | |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | |
| Nellist, David | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Parry, Robert | Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. David Alton. |
| Skinner, Dennis | |
| Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
§
Lords amendment proposed: No. 36, in page 19, line 14, after "completed" insert:
1349
or in which the payment under section (Purchase of certain and by authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) or (Rights of pre-emption etc.) of this Act was made, as the case may be" —[Mr. Lang.]
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places; and he declared the "Ayes" had it; twelve Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
§ Question agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In so far as I raised my point of order during a Division—I gather that within our procedures a Division in fact took place — surely the result of the Division should not have been announced until my point of order had been heard. Is that not so?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the precedent has been set for heads to be covered rather than for hats to be worn. That being so, the Division that has just taken place was surely not a valid Division of the House.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerSo far as I am concerned, it was certainly valid. It was a recommendation of the Procedure Committee approved by the House. I did not see any hat.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sat in my place following the procedures laid down by precedent in "Erskine May" and I called "point of order" three times before the announcement was made.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI said that I would take the point of order after the Division. That is quite within the accepted procedures.
§ Mr. Cyril SmithOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, I was a member of the Procedure Committee which discussed the question of wearing a hat to raise a point of order during a Division. The Committee specifically said that if the head was covered rather than a hat actually being worn the point of order was valid. The hon. Gentleman's head was covered and he was entitled to have his point of order heard during the Division.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI think that this is an occasion —[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order and he should listen to the reply. I think that this is an occasion on which we need a bit of good temper and common sense. I will certainly have another look at this, but I understand that there was a recommendation. I told the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that I would take his point of order after the Division and I have done so.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Taking the point of order after the Division affects the reason why I wished to raise it in the first place. The precedent for the action that you took occurred on 1 July 1975 in relation to the Industry Bill 1350 when the then Government decided to use what was then Standing Order No. 36, now Standing Order No. 38. Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, then Member for Devon, North, made the following point, which I believe is relevant today. He said:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you assist the House by giving a little further elucidation of your most recent ruling? I understand that you are relying upon Standing Order No. 36, which provides that if in your opinion a Division is unnecessarily claimed, you may disallow it. Are we to take it, Sir, that that is a qualitative or a quantitative criterion? While accepting the ruling which you have just given, may I ask you whether it is not a fact that if your discretion in the future is merely to be determined by numbers, it would be a criterion which would spell the doom of every minority in the House, including the official Opposition."— [Official Report, 1 July 1975; Vol. 894, c. 1368.]I do not raise this specifically to defend the interests of the British Liberal party. Whoever minorities are and whatever form they take, I believe that it is very wrong indeed that a procedure should be used which prevents them or any other minority group from expressing an opinion. I find it very hard—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I have refreshed my memory of those proceedings. Indeed, I have studied them very carefully. In giving my judgment, I said nothing about its being qualitative or quantitative and I have wide discretion.
On the other point, I must say that a point of order cannot be allowed to interfere with the procedure of a Division. I am anxious to help the House and to be fair. I have given my judgment and used my discretion. I studied the proceedings carefully before I came to any decision.
§ Mr. Cyril SmithFurther to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Part of the job of the Chair is to protect the rights of Back Benchers and minorities. The only way in which minorities can make a protest in the House is by using the procedures of the House, but they tend to mess up the cosy arrangements between the two major parties. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the implementation of Standing Order No. 38 denies a minority party in the House the only method available to register protest.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI listened carefully to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). He believes that the implementation of Standing Order No. 38 is unfair to some hon. Members, but my job is to implement the Standing Orders, to use my discretion, and at the same time to protect the House. That is what I want to do. After the three votes it seemed to me that I should use my discretion. I did that, and I feel that in so doing I was helping the House.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursFurther to the point of order. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, accept that your decision tonight is based upon a quantitative criterion? Can you explain—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerIf the hon. Gentleman reads the Standing Order he will find that I have discretion, and that I have to protect the whole House and its orders and procedures. If hon. Members feel that they have been prejudiced, I am sorry, but I try to be fair.
§ Mr. SkinnerFurther to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the 1974 Government we were engaged in a similar incident when the Speaker decided to count the heads in the Chamber. The reason that he gave was clear. 1351 A group of us — all Labour—decided to take on the Government. It became apparent to Mr. Speaker, after several proper divisions, that the hon. Members who were voting were the same. He decided that because they were the same in all the votes he could invoke the then Standing Order No. 36.
Tonight has been different. Several Divisions have taken place and in the latter stages Divisions have been called by the Liberals. It is ironic that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can ascertain who is voting by counting heads when the Liberals have not followed their voice with their vote on several previous Divisions. The Liberals have appointed Tellers and we have voted. You have a problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Liberals are appointing Tellers and not voting, but you are unsure what will happen on this occasion.
The irony is that on the last occasion the Liberals, who had no intention of voting on previous occasions, suddenly decided to stand up.
I should like to know, in view of the fact that you are unsure of the hon. Members who will vote, whether you can call Standing Order No. 38 into play on this occasion, because hon. Members who voted were not the same as those who voted on previous occasions.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerStanding Order No. 38 gives the occupant of the Chair discretion if he feels that a Division is being unnecessarily claimed. That was my judgment. I ask the House to accept it. Let us get on with the debate.
§ Mr. Simon HughesMr. Deputy Speaker, Standing Order No. 38 allows hon. Members to challenge your discretion, to decide that a Division is unnecessary by rising in their places. The previous two Divisions have involved considerably fewer hon. Members than those who were standing in their places when you sought to assess the mood of the House. But you allowed a Division, in the full sense of that word, to take place on those occasions.
It seems inconsistent to allow the House to be divided when, as I recollect, the hon. Members voting "No" in the Division were variously five, four and six, and then not to allow a Division when the number of hon. Members standing in their places was more than that. The best assessment that you would be able to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that a larger number of hon. Members wished to record their vote.
I ask for a ruling about the procedure that allows Divisions to take place when the results show that only a handful of hon. Members have voted, yet disallowed Divisions when a greater number of hon. Members, from whatever party, show that they wish to proceed to a Division.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I am anxious to protect minorities in the House. If my discretion were based quantitatively on the number of hon. Members who had previously voted, I would be in danger of prejudicing minorities. I used my discretion and found that the proceedings had reached a stage where a Division was being claimed unnecessarily. I assure the House that I gave my ruling in good faith. I hope that the House will accept that. Wo ought to proceed with the debate.
§ Dr. MarekOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can help me by saying whether it is in order 1352 to listen to a point of order raised by Liberal Members, all of whom have been absent until 45 minutes ago, who have come into the debate just recently and seem to be voting—
§ Lords amendment proposed: No. 37, in page 19, line 19, leave out "and"—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the "Ayes" had it; twelve Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
§ Question agreed to. [Special Entry.]
§ Mr. Simon HughesOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a simple point of order. Is it not proper, and therefore necessary, for how Members who feel that they wish to delay the amendments to be able to force a Division? Is not any Division called for that purpose necessary to protect the interests of the House?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI remind the hon. Gentleman that I am the servant of the House, and my task is to interpret the Standing Orders to the best of my ability. That Standing Order in fact gives me the right to do what I have just done. I hope that we shall be able to proceed.
§
Lords amendment proposed: No. 38, in page 19, line 20, after "repurchase" insert
or of any payment under section (purchase of certain land by authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) or (Rights of pre-emption etc.) of this Act, being a case in which there has at any time been a disposal of a relevant interest in the defective dwelling concerned by the housing authority or any authority being their predecessor"—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the "Ayes" had it; thirteen Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
§ Question agreed to. [Special Entry.]
§
Lords amendment proposed: No. 39, in page 19, line 20 at end insert—
and
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the "Ayes" had it; fourteen Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
§ Question agreed to. [Special Entry.]
1353§ Mr. John FraserOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since these proceedings may seem a little arcane to those outside, perhaps it could be recorded that the Liberal party has just voted against a 100 per cent. housing subsidy to local authorities.
§ Mr. Simon HughesOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the last matter was a point of order—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I said that it was not a matter for the Chair; therefore, it was not a point of order. I have already ruled on that.
§ Lords amendment proposed: No. 40, in page 19, line 21, leave out "either case" and insert "any of those cases" —[Mr. David Hunt.]
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division—
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order when he has received the hat and makes it in the proper way.
§ Mr. Beith (seated and covered)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that your task —[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has every right to raise a point of order, and the House and the Chair are entitled to hear him.
§ Mr. BeithThank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not only that I might have difficulty in making myself heard but that you were having difficulty in making yourself heard when giving the number of the amendment to which you referred when you began this Division. It was inaudible from where I was sitting.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am sorry about that; I believed that I had made it clear. It is Lords amendment No. 40.
§ Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places; and he declared the "Ayes" had it; twelve Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
§ Question agreed to. [Special Entry.]
§ Lords amendments No. 41 to 46 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]