Water Fluoridation Bill (Hansard, 5 March 1985)

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret not having given you notice of this point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I think might well be a complex and technical one. Therefore, I shall be as brief as I can. The last time this issue arose—the issue that we have not got on to yet, but which we may be about to debate — was on 26 February. On that occasion, at 11.45 pm, after an hour or so of debate, I sought to raise a point of order. A little while after I got up to raise a point of order, the deputy Patronage Secretary—my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope) — got up to move, That the Question be now put. There followed from that engagement a series of points of order from myself to the Deputy Speaker who was here at the time. The Deputy Speaker who was here at the time put the Question. That the Question be now put. He did so on the basis that my hon. Friend had risen to his feet before I had risen to my feet to make my point of order.
There was a dialogue between me—wearing a hat, as was appropriate at the time — and the Deputy Speaker—

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
He ruled.

§ Mr. Marlow
He ruled, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that we should proceed with the Division. Since that time, we have had the opportunity to look at the Official Report. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Official Report has tape recorders and means of deciding these things, and of knowing what is what. In the Official Report you will find that I raised my point of order before my hon. Friend got to his feet to move, That the Question be now put.
11 pm
The point of order that I was seeking to make was important because it related to Standing Order No. 31, which is entitled "Closure of Debate" and which says: After a question has been proposed a Member rising in his place may claim to move, 'That the question be now put,' and, unless it shall appear to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority". The point that I was endeavouring to make at the time and which, sadly, was not made, was that although, as we see from the Official Report, I made my point of order in time, I was unable in the circumstances to point out that the rights of the minority had been infringed, for we know that, apart from its spokesman, the Liberal party—

§ The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
Order. I think that I have understood the substance of the hon. Member's point of order. The matter to which he refers is always within the discretion of the Chair, and the closure always takes precedence. There is no doubt that everything was quite in order.

§ Mr. Marlow
I appreciate what you are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I assure you that I am not being awkward. The occupant of the Chair at the time stated that I had got to my feet after my hon. Friend the Member for 876 Northavon, but we have since discovered that that was not so. My point, therefore, is that the decision of the Chair was made without the proper information. In other words, the Chair had the wrong information when the decision was made. Had Mr. Deputy Speaker, then in the Chair, heard the point of order that I was seeking to make, he might have ruled differently. That is why this is a matter of some substance, which we should consider at this stage.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Either way, the matter was within the discretion of the Chair. The ruling which was given was quite in order.

§ Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with a matter of voting principle. You may be aware that on that occasion there was an alleged Whip—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have already ruled on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is now raising a further matter on the same point of order. I said that the matter was within the discretion of the Chair, the occupant of which gave his ruling and, as I said, he was quite in order.

§ Mr. Fairbairn
I appreciate the ruling that you have given, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am raising a different matter, one of principle, out of which the objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) arose. It arose because there was an attempt by the Government, under the false pretence that there was a free vote, to have a forced closure—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, what the Whips may have been deciding is not a matter for the Chair. I have ruled on the issue. The matter is straightforward and the House should accept the ruling.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification because one of your responsibilities is to support Back Benchers and ensure that their interests are protected in the House. We can now speak with hindsight and with the benefit of the Official Report of what occurred on 26 February, and at column 288 there appears the true record of what took place.
While not seeking in any way to imply that the Chair could not take a particular decision, may I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it was in order, when an hon. Member was on his feet—as is clearly established from column 288—raising a point of order, for the occupant of the Chair not to take that point of order before any other business moved by another hon. Member?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is saying that unless the closure took precedence, points of order could be raised ad infinitum and delay the closure. The closure takes precedence. That was the ruling of the Chair. It is my ruling tonight and I cannot take any further points of order on that matter.

§ Mr. Marlow
If I could just—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman is pursuing the matter, I repeat that the closure takes precedence. If that were not so, points of order could be 877 raised over and over again and delay the proceedings of the House. If the hon. Gentleman is pursuing that issue, he is wasting the time of the House.

§ Mr. Marlow
I, above all others, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not wish to waste the time of the House. Of course the closure takes precedence. I am saying that Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the time to which I refer, allowed the closure on wrong information because he thought that a point of order had not been raised at that time. As we now know, a point of order had indeed been raised. Had Mr. Deputy Speaker at the time known that that was the case, he may well have made a different decision. You yourself were not here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but your colleague who was may at this stage wish to reconsider the decision that he then made. I think that this is a perfectly proper point.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have made it clear to the House what the procedures are. We now come to amendment No. 6.

§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
I rise only—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With amendment No. 6, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 17.

§ Mr. Lawrence
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that I have taken no part in anything which might remotely deflect us from the following important business. I think that in the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) there is an important point of principle for the House, and I ask for your advice. You said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you had exercised your discretion and, of course, your discretion is binding.
In the courts the question of discretion is a matter entirely for judges and will not be reconsidered by the Court of Appeal in a certain category of cases. But the Court of Appeal has ruled that before it can decide whether there has been a proper exercise of discretion by the court there must be an opportunity to consider the facts so that the discretion can be properly exercised. If there is a situation in the House which calls for the exercise of the discretion of Mr. Speaker, must there not be some period in which Mr. Speaker must consider the arguments for and against or give an opportunity for the arguments to be rehearsed? If not, it cannot properly be said that there is an exercise of discretion.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
rose—

§ Mr. Lawrence
I should like to finish my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not wishing to delay the proceedings.
It is important that we should have a ruling on what the position is when an hon. Member—a minority, perhaps — is seeking to raise an issue and the occupant of the Chair, Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker, decides to ignore him and then to say, "As an exercise of my discretion I accept the closure." That seems to be a situation in which Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker cannot give expression to the rights of the minority. If he is so quick off the mark, there is no opportunity for the exercise of discretion. As the courts have had to decide this very issue — whether there is an opportunity for the exercise of dicretion — so Parliament, which is itself a court, and which in many respects mirrors the justice of the courts, should come to some decision for the guidance of minority Back Benchers. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to refer the matter to Mr. Speaker, or to which 878 ever body considers these matters, for future consideration. It seems to be a matter of the utmost importance if we are to safeguard the rights of Back Benchers in this place.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have listened very carefully to the hon. and learned Member for Burton(Mr. Lawrence), but I must remind the House that we are not in the courts — we are in the House of Commons. I remind the House of Standing order No. 31, which states that unless it shall appear to the chair that such motion"— that is, a motion "That the question be now put" is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question, 'That the question be now put,' shall be put forthwith. Mr. Deputy Speaker did that, and I have reiterated that decision to the House. I hoe that we can now proceed to discuss amendment No. 6.

§ Mr. Lawrence
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course I accept what you have said, but the important phrase is unless it shall appear to the chair The point of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North is that there must be some opportunity for Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker to be able to form an impression on the facts, so that it can be said that something "shall appear" to him. Otherwise, all that happens is that an hon. Member rises on a point of order, the closure is moved, and there is no opportunity for anything to "appear" to Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of Standing Order No. 31. The occupant of the Chair must make his decision forthwith. He made his decision forthwith, exercising his discretion. I call Mr. Best to move amendment No. 6.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are about to debate some very important clauses. For the benefit of the whole country, it is important that we should realise—and I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would be the first to appreciate it—that there are free votes and free votes. Back Benchers have a free vote, but Ministers have not.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for me. I call Mr. Best.

§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before my hon. Friend moves the amendment, would it be appropriate for me to raise a point of order about an article that appeared in New Scientist last Thursday entitled "How fluoride might damage your health". The article adduces new evidence not previously available to the Department of Health. Had that article appeared before the Bill was. Introduced—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that matters relating to the debate that is to take place are not matters for me. I call Mr. Best.

§ Mr. Brown
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be appropriate, before we debate the Bill further, to have a statement of the Government's intention with regard to the—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not a matter for me. I cannot ask the Minister to make a statement to the House.