HC Deb 04 July 1986 vol 100 cc1362-6

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members

Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Second Reading what day?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

I did not hear an objection.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

This is an abuse of the procedures of the House.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton (Fife, Central)

Shut up.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are about 35 Bills on the Order Paper that have still to be considered. We seem to be gathered for what is to be the July massacre of all those private Members' Bills by virtue, I suspect, of a grey and anonymous Whip uttering in a very muffled way the word "Object".

You will recall that on other occasions when Bills that would have provided considerable benefits to worthy sections of the community have been killed in this way we have protested that those who wish to kill them should at least have the guts to identify themselves, so that their names are on the record as opposing those measures.

Many months ago a Bill that I introduced was accepted without opposition, but it was later killed off by somebody who uttered in a very quiet voice the word "Object". I raised this matter on that occasion, and I ask you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to require the person who objects to a Bill — in this case merely to give somebody who is refused entry to this country the right of appeal — to identify himself. If the rate of refusals continues as at present, 20,000 people will be refused entry to the United Kingdom this year. The only right of appeal that they have is when they leave—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into the merits of the Bill. I understand his point of order and I shall deal with it.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is high time that those who shout "Object" behind cupped hands should be identified in Hansard. When somebody shouts "Object" in the House of Commons, the whole House should hear it, not just Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Deputy Speaker. An objection must be heard by every hon. Member. The fact is that the hon. Member who is sitting close to you, the millionaire hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), was the person who shouted "Object" to this Bill, and he has shouted "Object" on previous occasions. He objected to the removal of standing charges for pensioners, and he ought to be ashamed of himself. It is time that pensioners boycotted Sainsbury's stores.

It is time that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not fall prey to the nonsense of those who whisper "Object" instead of letting the whole House hear them so that the names go into Hansard. They should have the guts to make plain what they are doing—that they are ripping off pensioners and objecting to a Bill relating to immigration that has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It ill-behoves the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to keep muttering from a sedentary position about these Bills, some of which deal with employment, when Cleveland has the highest rate of unemployment in the country.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), on a number of occasions I have been the victim of a ruling from the Chair that some of my more eloquent contributions from a sedentary position should not be recorded in Hansard. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was involved in a little altercation a few weeks ago about what is or is not recorded in Hansard, should the person making the contribution not be on his feet.

About 30 Bills have come before the House towards the end of the Session—I am a supporter of the Bill that we are now discussing—and it is our last chance to pursue them. I ask you to rule that if it is good enough for the occupant of the Chair to say that a joke by my hon. Friend for Bolsover or myself cannot be recorded in Hansard because we have not stood up and identified ourselves, similarly any hon. Member objecting to Bills should not have his objection registered in Hansard unless he — in this case the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury)—stands and identifies himself as killing the Bills on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand the points of order raised by the three hon. Members. As they said, this matter has been raised on previous occasions. I have taken the opportunity to study past procedures and precedents, and it might be helpful to the House if I describe the procedure. As I said, similar points have been raised on many occasions over a number of years, and Procedure Committees have considered the practice.

The practice of the House does not require an hon. Member to rise to signify an objection. If there is no objection to a Bill when the title is read, its opponents can easily preserve their anonymity and still secure the deferral of the Bill by giving their voices as "No" when I put the Question. Hon. Members have never been required to rise to give their voices when any Question is put to the vote.

I understand that the current work of the Procedure Committee includes consideration of the arrangements for private Members' Bills. Hon. Members may wish to put their points to the Committee. Until the House approves any change, I am bound to follow current practice.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful of you were aware that there is a conspiracy by three hon. Members, who are skulking behind the Clerk's Table, who appear to have come to the Chamber with the preordained purpose of destroying every one of the private Members' Bills. If they did the decent thing and stood up and said who they were and what they represented, the problem would be solved and we would know exactly what interests were being served in destroying these very important private Members' Bills.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I cannot add to what I have already said. I have reminded hon. Members that if they are dissatisfied, as clearly some of them are, with the existing procedures and current practice, they can put their points to the Procedures Committee.

Mr. Nellist

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without challenging the precedent that you have explained, and respecting your suggestion of correspondence with the appropriate Committee, may I ask you to confirm that it is open to Government Whips, should they so wish, to stand and identify themselves as Government Whips when they make an objection? Were they interested in openly declaring that it was the Government's decision, and not the decision of individual hon. Members, to block the private Members' Bills, they—for example, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) — could stand and identify themselves as Government Whips.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have made it clear that there is no obligation on any hon. Member to rise when he wishes to signify an objection.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to tax your patience on this matter, because you have sat through many similar protests that Back-Bench Members have raised on Fridays when Bills are slaughtered by the Government.

I was not sure whether you responded to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made about taking an objection, and whether it is only the Chair that has to hear the objection. One can only assume that the three Whips, who have moved very close to you, have done so so that they can make their objection known quietly and without drawing attention to their wider shame. If the Whips who object on behalf of the Government do so loudly enough, we might be able to identify them, even though they are sitting down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Chair has to hear the objection. 1 heard objections to the Bills that have already been dealt with.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to tax you further either, and you have been in the Chair often when this matter has been raised, but this is an important issue for the House. I understood you to say—please correct me if I am wrong—that the practice is based on precedent. Precedents can be changed. What original authority gave rise to this custom or usage in the House? Hon. Members have raised this matter at 2.30 pm on a Friday so often that it is quite clear that if there is any room for the Chair to make a decision which changes our practice, without the matter going to the Procedure Committee, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker and others who can advise might well look into this issue.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In considering this matter, can it please be borne in mind that the practice to which Opposition Members so strongly object was followed consistently by the Labour party when it was last in power?

Several Hon. Members

We were not here then.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We had better not get into a debate about how this procedure has been used in the past. Perhaps I can deal with the additional point that has been raised. What I said is based on current practice, but it also stems directly from Standing Order No. 1, and it might be helpful if I deal with that.

The opportunity of objecting to items of business is not confined to private Member's Bills. Under Standing Order No. 1, any item of business taken after the moment of interruption — 10 pm on Monday to Thursday and 2.30 pm on Friday — which is not specifically exempted by Standing Orders or by a business motion can be blocked by any indication of objection. I might add that Government motions are not infrequently blocked by this procedure late at night.

Mr. Nellist

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for rising again, but, as your rulings are coming out they are triggering queries in my mind. As I understand it, if I were successful—I have not been so far—in making an application under Standing Order No. 10 to have an emergency debate on the detention of trade unionists in South Africa, you would ask the House whether I had leave for such a debate, and you would require 40 hon. Members to rise in their places to show that the specified number of hon. Members backed the application. Does it not seem equitable that, as hon. Members are required to demonstrate support by standing on their feet for an application under Standing Order No. 10, Government Whips should stand up to identify themselves when they kill off Bills? Should not the Procedure Committee consider that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is making a point that he can put to the Procedure Committee, but he will not tempt me into making comments on the procedures and Standing Orders of the House. It is my job to ensure that they are observed and correctly carried out, and that is what I am endeavouring to do.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie (Glasgow, Rutherglen)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It strikes me that this practice has obtained for a long time. When I was a member of the Government, it also happened. Many of us, whether members of the Government or Back Benchers, have undoubtedly not liked the practice. I suspect, although I shall not ask whether it is the case, that it causes considerable embarrassment to the occupant of the Chair that he must rule in this way. Concern about the practice is undoubtedly growing, and I ask that colleagues write to the Procedure Committee and that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, direct the Clerk of the House to report our exchanges this afternoon to the Procedure Committee, so that it may discuss the matter at some length and make recommendations to the whole House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is not for the Chair to direct the Procedure Committee on its business. However, I feel sure that the hon. Gentlemen who have raised these points will put the matter to the Procedure Committee. As I said earlier, I understand that it is on its terms of reference at present, so the opportunity is there. I hope the House feels that we have had a good run on this and that we should proceed with our business.

Before the points of order, the Second Reading of the Immigration Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill was objected to and I was about to say: Objection taken, Second Reading what day?

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.