§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an entirely different matter and I do not think that it will raise hackles as much as the previous one. It is about what happened last night at about 9.50 pm. Madam Deputy Speaker took your place in the Chair. There was a likelihood of a closure motion, but it never materialised. The Ayes were called because nobody else stood up and there was no call. That appears in column 261 of Hansard for last night. Madam Deputy Speaker, as Seond Deputy Chairman said:
As many as are of that opinion say Aye.There was no answer. She continued,To the contrary No.At column 262, Hansard records:
Madam Deputy SpeakerI think that the Noes have it." At that point, we had defeated the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. The Tories realised that they had made a grave error. They had not shouted, but then they decided to shout, "Aye." which is recorded in Hansard accordingly. They were too late. Hansard continues:
"Madam Deputy SpeakerClear the Lobbies."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; vol. 140, c. 261–2.]
Since I have been a Member of Parliament, Governments of both parties have made mistakes, but on each occasion, as with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill some time ago, if a mistake was made, the thing had to stand. In those circumstances, the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill would have had to start from scratch in the next Parliament, not halfway through its proceedings, as at present.
The Clerks told me last night that they were a bit unsure themselves, so I went to hear the tapes. They are quite clear. Before you make a decision, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to hear them. They are much clearer than I expected, bearing in mind the noise that can occur when a Division is being called for. There is not a single whisper of an Aye, but there are distinct Noes. We can all get copies of the tapes nowadays.
The Associated British Ports(No. 2) Bill is important, and it was strongly contested by Opposition Members. We even had one or two Conservative Members support us in the Lobby. We cannot be messing about with procedures in the House when a Division is called and the Government make a mistake, or those who are promoting a Bill make a mistake. There is a question about who should have done the shouting, but the plain fact is that they did not deliver the voices. I am therefore asking you to listen to the tapes, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will find that Hansard has recorded it absolutely accurately. I believe that, in accordance with previous procedure, the Bill's progress should be halted and that if it is to go further, it should have to start again in the next Parliament.
§ Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerBriefly, please. I think that it has all been said.
§ Mr. RedmondWith respect, Mr. Speaker, I request your understanding, tolerance and guidance, because I am a relatively new Member and I am unsure of our 328 procedures. I am in no way criticising Madam Deputy Speaker for her error. We are all human and can honestly make mistakes. The rules of the House, however, are clearly laid down. If Conservative Members failed to follow the House's procedures correctly, the House's decision must still stand. Although Madam Deputy Speaker made a mistake, it is incumbent on you to consider what has been said and to rule that the Opposition were correct and that the Bill fell.
§ Mr. SpeakerI always look at Hansard, particularly when I have not been in the Chair. I have looked at Hansard to see what went on last night. I see that a point of order on this very matter was raised at the time by the Shadow Leader of the House and that the Deputy Speaker dealt with it. Thereafter, no further complaints were raised on the matter. If there was any concern about the matter, it should certainly have been raised last night, not now.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot back-deal. There was an opportunity to deal with the matter last night. We cannot back-deal on a matter which the House has already resolved.
§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This seems quite extraordinary to me. We raised a point of order at the time. We registered our concern and suggested that if the tapes were consulted they would show that what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said is correct. I do this in no spirit of criticism of the Deputy Speaker, but this seems extraordinary to us. We raised the issue and raised the question of the tapes. They could not be heard immediately after the Division or while it was going on. Hon. Members have listened to the tapes and think that it would be right and proper for you to listen to them as well, as they bear out what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has asserted.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe tapes are not the official record. I have regard to what appears in Hansard. I have no authority to overrule any decision which has been taken by the occupant of the Chair, and I do not propose to do so.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have no power to overrule an earlier decision.
§ Mr. CryerYou seem to be implying, Mr. Speaker, that there must be a range of points of order to give testimony and strength to what we are saying. Since the Division took place last night, this is the first time that you have been in the Chair and the first opportunity that we have had to raise points of order. The point was made clearly last night and we thought that it had been registered. This is the first moment that we have been in a position to raise the matter again because it is the first opportunity that we have to refer you to the record in Hansard. Like you, Mr. Speaker, we recognise that the House depends on Hansard. If a mistake has been made and that fact is demonstrated in Hansard, there must be some facility for rectifying the mistake and the decision that was taken by the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have no power to order that. The matter should have been pursued last night—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was."]—with the occupant of the Chair. It was so raised and it was dealt with. I have no power to overrule that.
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, after Madam Deputy Speaker said
I think that the Noes have it",there appears the following line:Hon. Members: Aye.—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 262.]Surely that solves the problem.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have read Hansard, and I see nothing out of order on this issue. Ten-minute Bill—
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Cohen. Ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman cannot raise a point of order on the issue with which I have dealt. I have dealt with it.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to what has been printed in yesterday's Hansard.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have dealt with that. Ten-minute Bill.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerTen-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt may be, but there is no precedent. It would be a precedent if I ruled on something which the Deputy Speaker did last night. Ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.
§ Mr. RedmondOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWe must not let him get away with it.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Who must not let him get away with it?
§ Mr. SkinnerIt is here in Hansard.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have read yesterday's edition of Hansard.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall hear what the hon. Member for Workington has to say, and that will be it.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursIf you read what the Deputy Speaker said, Mr. Speaker, you will find that she did not reply to the point of order which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). She said:
Order. If I am to be heard, I ask hon. Members to listen."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140. c. 262.]330 I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the point of order has not been responded to by the Chair. I believe that we have a right to a full and considered response from you, Mr. Speaker. If that cannot be done today, perhaps you will be able to respond tomorrow.
§ Mr. SpeakerI understand that the Deputy Speaker put the Question again and collected the voices. That is what Hansard clearly shows. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, it does not show that she collected the voices again. Ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.
§ Mr. DobsonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The rules of the House are fairly clear, and they are intended to protect hon. Members on both sides of the House. You, Mr. Speaker, and the other occupants of the Chair do your level best to ensure that they provide that protection. Yesterday, it was clear that there was discontent about the nature of private Member's Bills and the way in which they pass through the House with Government support. There was high feeling on both sides of the House.
Whatever there was in terms of feeling, however, there were no voices to be heard at the appropriate time. I have no wish to criticise Madam Deputy Speaker, but we think that she got it wrong. If the matter is left as it stands, it will set a precedent for it will mean that the voices no longer matter. In future, there may be some instances where the Opposition would welcome the fact that voices did not matter, but the Government might not like that. We would like a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, on whether the voices will continue to matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerCertainly the voices matter. My ruling is a simple one and the House has heard it. I have no power or authority to overrule the decision of the occupant of the Chair at the time.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThere is no ruling.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have no power to reverse what happened yesterday.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerThe voices were collected and the Division took place. Mr. Harry Cohen—ten-minute Bill.
§ Mr. Frank Cook (Stockport, North)On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOh, God! Yes. What is it?
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)No, Mr. Speaker—Frank Cook actually.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt was intended to be a compliment.
§ Mr. CookI apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not responding immediately when you agreed to hear my point of order. I was struck dumb by my sudden promotion.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I am a recent appointee to the Select Committee on Procedure. If I cannot understand what is happening, Mr. Speaker, there may be other members of the Select Committee who find that they are in similar difficulties. Perhaps I should recount my experience of sitting on the far end of the Opposition Front Bench as a Whip. When I did not say No loud enough when voices were being collected, Mr. Deputy Speaker said that the call was not loud enough, that that was hard luck and that we 331 had lost the Division. The collection of voices is important. That has been the position in the past and it continues to be the position.
The issue is, when are procedures total and finite and when are they to be ignored? We have already heard, Mr. Speaker, that there was no ruling and that the House merely went on with the Division. If we do not have a ruling and if no guidance is given, I shall be lost. I shall be unable to fulfil my functions and carry out my responsibilities as a member of the Select Committee on Procedure.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that we should get on with today's business—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the House feels strongly about the matter, hon. Members should ask the Select Committee on Procedure to give Mr. Speaker authority to overrule other occupants of the Chair—
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThere was no ruling.
§ Mr. Speaker—who took a particular decision. At present, I have no authority to do that.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThere was no ruling.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe House cannot possibly ask Mr. Speaker to do something for which he has no authority and which he cannot do.
§ Mr. DobsonI think that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you, with Madam Deputy Speaker and the Clerk, were to review what happened last night, and then to give a ruling for the future. We are not necessarily asking you to overrule what happened last night. We are asking you to take the course that I have suggested, in your role as the protector of everyone's rights in this place. We ask you to give a ruling on the application or otherwise of the Standing Orders that apply to voices, which clearly were not complied with last night. I think that everyone would agree that they should be authoritative.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman raised a point of order at the time. He should have persisted with the matter last night.
§ Mr. DobsonI have no wish to embarrass you, Mr. Speaker, as the occupant of the Chair. You seek to persuade us to make brief points of order, not to pursue them and not to continue to take up the time of the House. I thought last night—it is clear that my colleagues took the same view—that once we had had the opportunity of listening to the tape, we might get some response from you, Mr. Speaker. It was clearly unreasonable to ask Madam Deputy Speaker to leave the Chair to listen to the tape to ascertain what had gone on.
I find it a trifle upsetting to be told now that having raised a point of order at the moment that the issue arose, that point of order does not count. It seems that I am being 332 told that I should have persisted with it. I do not know what I should have said to Madam Deputy Speaker when she said:
A Division is now in progress."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 262.]Should I have tried to interrupt the Division? We are asking you, Mr. Speaker, to review what happened last night, not necessarily to overrule it. We wish you to clarify exactly where we stand in relation to the Standing Orders.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe really should get on. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The authoritative record is Hansard, not the tape. What matters is what the occupant of the Chair hears and what is recorded in Hansard. In fairness, it must not ask the Speaker to overrule the occupant of the Chair when he has no authority so to do.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThere is no ruling.
§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on this important matter. Is not the normal procedure that which happened yesterday—that the Second Deputy Chairman said,
I think that the Noes have it."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 262.]She did not say, "The Noes have it. The Noes have it", as often happens, which is usually an invitation to the other side who wish to oppose to shout. Is it not correct that Madam Deputy Speaker then heard the point of order made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and made a ruling by continuing the Division, which was the end of the matter?
§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is not asking you to overrule Madam Deputy Speaker but to look at the matter. Fresh evidence has been raised and there is no reason why, without any commitment, you could not discuss the matter with the people concerned and come back to the House. I put that as a sensible suggestion to you.
§ Mr. SpeakerIn order to conclude this matter, I will discuss what happened last night with the Deputy Speaker. She has already mentioned it to me this morning, but I shall discuss it with her further. I think that we should now get on.
§ Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerNo, I cannot say more than I have said. Is the point of order on a different matter?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not made any ruling.