§ 5.5 pm
§ Mr. SpeakerAs I undertook to do yesterday, I have made further inquiries of the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means about the Division that took place at 9.51 on Tuesday evening. As will be seen from the Official Report, having collected the voices, the Deputy Speaker stated her opinion that the noes had it. As "Erskine May" states on page 400, if the declaration of the result by the Chair is challenged, a Division takes place.
The Deputy Speaker's declaration was challenged, by a shout of Aye, as the Official Report shows, and a Division followed.
What the Official Report does not show, since it was purely mechanical, is that, for the avoidance of any confusion, the Deputy Speaker collected the voices afresh, and then ordered the Lobbies to be cleared. Yesterday there were at least two occasions when the Chair took a similar course when Members did not appear to be totally clear what was happening.
In response to a point of order from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the Deputy Speaker indicated that she was satisfied that there was no defect in the procedure by ruling that the Division was in progress. Nothing out of order occurred.
§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for that explanation. In my view, two matters arise from it.
The first concerns the conduct of private business and the Government's attitude to it, which has made this a highly contentious issue on the Floor of the House. Without putting words into your mouth, Mr. Speaker, I believe that you share some of the doubts about the way in which such business has been handled. When the Prime Minister comes to vote on a private Bill, although there is no Whip, that in itself makes the matter highly contentious.
Secondly, following what you have said, I believe that the matter of the voting procedure should perhaps be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. There is great doubt, especially among the Opposition, about the developments that have taken place, and although I do not contradict your statement about the factual situation, the position is still highly unsatisfactory from our point of view and I must register that fact in the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI thank the right hon. Gentleman. I listened with interest to what the Leader of the House had to say about the Select Committee report on private business. I think that it would be wise for a debate to take place on this so that the House can pronounce judgment upon it.
§ Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday I raised a question about rules and procedures. While not wishing to cast any aspersions at all on the person who was in the Chair, I put it to you that the rules and procedures are clearly laid down and you are the custodian of them. I put it to you that if the rules are breached—I accept your statement that in this instance they were not—nothing that then follows can make that breach correct. I hope that in your ruling you will state clearly that if any such instance occurs in the 514 future the rules will be followed, and it will be hard lines for either side of the House if the procedures are not followed.
§ Mr. SpeakerI can assure the House that I have considered the matter in great detail. My view is that the rules were followed. It frequently happens in a Division that the occupant of the Chair states, "I think the Ayes have it" or, "I think the Noes have it". The Chair may repeat that twice before the shout of "Aye". Nothing different occurred on Tuesday.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is true that occupants of the Chair often say, "I think the Noes have it" or, "I think the Ayes have it." In fact, it is the sort of statement that is made quite regularly, as it was yesterday—not because there was any doubt, but because it was the phrase to use. It is not that the occupant of the Chair is not sure; it is just a statement. There were continuing votes yesterday right through until the early hours of the morning. The Chairman of Ways and Means used that phrase many times, not because there was any doubt, but because that is the way that things are done.
I asked you yesterday to listen to the tapes, Mr. Speaker. Some may say that "Erskine May" has nothing to do with tapes, but "Erskine May" is a very old instrument of our proceedings. We have tapes available, and anyone listening to a tape of that incident will realise that no Government Member, or any Member supporting the motion, said Aye. There was a distinct shout of "No" —[Interruption.] Listen to the tapes. There was a distinct shout of "No", with the result that the Chair said, "I think the Noes have it," in the traditional fashion, not in a doubtful manner. Members on the Conservative Benches recovered their senses, realised that they had lost the vote and shouted "Aye". I contend that at that point we had won the vote.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes that view, because he said so yesterday. As my predecessors in the Chair have frequently ruled, Hansard is the official record, not the tape. On this occasion there was no discrepancy. The fact that no hon. Member shouted "Aye" on the first time of asking is irrelevant. The Chair's opinion that the Noes had it was challenged. There was nothing different about that procedure—it is followed every day and, indeed, was followed last night.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall take further points of order if the House is of the view that the immigration debate is of lesser importance. However, there is quite a demand from hon. Members to take part in that debate, which must end at 7 o'clock. The Front-Bench spokesmen are bound to take some time on it, and that will leave little time for Back Benchers.
§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in the hope that we can finally put this matter to rest. Is it not correct that once the occupant of the Chair makes a correct ruling—as, in the eyes of my hon. Friends, Madam Deputy Speaker did the other evening—you have no power to review that decision? Is that not where the matter should rest? Once a decision has been made, it is final. It is the same for any referee involved in any activity.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is correct, and that is what I said to the House yesterday. However, I did undertake yesterday to have further discussions on the matter, and that is exactly what I have done.
§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is important that a wrong ruling is not put on the record. The House should remember that Mr. Harold Lever was credited with having voted when he was not within the precincts of the House. When the matter was raised on a point of order the next day, Mr. Speaker Lloyd, after taking advice—and it was I who suggested that he did so—ordered that a correction be made in the Journal. It is not correct to say that if an error has been made it is incapable of correction. It can be corrected.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is right in what he said about that incident; but it was not what occurred on Tuesday.
§ Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling, which has cleared away much of the vagueness in my mind—a vagueness which, I admit, is not uncommon. Two aspects still concern me and I ask for your further help.
As a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, I need to be able to speak with some clarity. My first point relates to the emphasis that has been placed on occupants of the Chair at other times and on other occasions. Great importance appears to be attached to the gathering of the voices. I have been directly involved on certain occasions and said "No" to a Government proposal. Business has continued and my "No" has been ruled out of order on the ground that I had not said it loudly enough. That appears to run counter to the ruling that you have just given.
Secondly, you said yesterday that you had no right to review the matter. Do we need your permission to take the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure? Would you be prepared to discuss it with that Select Committee?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is not for me to do that. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee and the matter is certainly within its terms of reference. Therefore, he should raise it.
§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take you back to the events of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill on 15 July 1986?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Is the hon. Lady's point of order on the same matter?
§ Mrs. ClwydYes.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am genuinely concerned about the business today. I say again to the House that I hope that I shall not be the recipient of letters from hon. Members saying how sad it was that they were not called to speak in the debate. I shall take the hon. Lady's point of order, but it must be relevant.
§ Mrs. ClwydI hope that it is, Mr. Speaker, as it appears to be a mirror image of what happened on Tuesday. On 15 July 1986 you were in the Chair and we were debating the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. I moved a new clause on which a vote was called. Hansard records:
§ "Mr. SpeakerThe Question is, That the clause be read a Second time. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.
§ Mr. SpeakerOf the contrary, No. I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. The Question is, That the clause be added to the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.
§ Mr. SpeakerOf the contrary, No. I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it."
The problem was that the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), did not shout "No". He then leapt up and said:
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was, of course, listening carefully to your calls from the Chair on new clause 2 to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. Due to the noise in the Chamber I was unable to hear the motion that was put. Consequently—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I put the Question very slowly and I was looking at the hon. Gentleman when I put it. I did not hear any objection to it."—[Official Report, 15 July 1986; Vol. 101, c. 952.]
As a result of your ruling that evening, Mr. Speaker, the debate had to be reconvened on 28 October. It is a mirror image of what happened on Tuesday, so I wonder why the ruling is different.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present, but when the Question was put on Tuesday both "No" and "Aye" were shouted—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, they were not"] I ask hon. Members to read Hansard. The Deputy Speaker said:
The Question is the motion on the Order Paper.As many as are of that opinion say Aye.To the contrary No.
§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At 1 o'clock today, in line with what I understand to be the convention of the House, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), an Opposition spokesman, was provided with a copy of the King's Cross inquiry report, which was embargoed. I understand that that embargo was broken by the hon. Gentleman, who held a press conference and quoted extensively from that embargoed report.
I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you protect not only Back Benchers, but Labour Front Benchers. If they cannot be trusted to take embargoed information and treat it as such, the Government should not provide them with the information. We need your protection, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a matter for the Government. I cannot be held responsible for what individual hon. Members do outside this Chamber.
§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you and the House accept that when my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) met the press this afternoon, at no time did he make any reference to the embargoed report? Although the pledge from the Department of Transport was that the report would be available at 1.30, it was not available until considerably later, by which time my hon. Friend had written out the notes that he intended to impart to the press—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Will the hon. Member complete his remarks?
§ Mr. SnapeConservative Members are always too interested in scoring political points. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East rightly pointed out the discrepancies in the Government's stories of expenditure on London Underground Ltd., and the figures have been readily available for many years. Indeed, they were studied by many Conservative Members before they participated in the exchanges this afternoon. In view of what I have just said, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his remarks and refrain from making cheap party political points. He was not present, so, predictably, he does not know what he is talking about.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. On that note, I think that we should move on.