§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. To find any kind of precedent—even an inexact one—for what occurred last night we must go back to 11 December 1974, and the colourful days of Bob Mellish. You, Mr. Speaker, were an Opposition Whip then, so you will remember those days well.
This is a matter for the Chair, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend no criticism of Mr. Deputy Speaker's decision to allow the closure of the business at half-past two in the morning. The point of order for you is this: do you, as Speaker of the House of Commons, have any right of objection on behalf of the House to refuse amendments that have been devised in the other place, as in this case on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, which might not have been accepted by the Table Office of the House of Commons because they alter the basic structure of the Bill, so that we have gone through Second Reading and the Committee stage of that Bill on the basis of a false prospectus? The House gave a Second Reading to a Bill very different from that amended by the House of Lords, which was before us last night.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, reflect for 24 hours on the issues involved, and, having done so, make a statement to the House tomorrow?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that I need do that. Although I was not present at 2.30 this morning, I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Mr. Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair, so I am well aware what went on. The only reason I can rule out of order Lords amendments coming back to the House is if they have financial implications for the House of Commons which have not previously been provided for. Indeed, I shall be doing that later today.
§ Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the next 24 hours, while you are reflecting on that matter, perhaps you would also reflect on what your position will be if, at the beginning of tomorrow's debate on the European Community, a very large number of Members on both sides of the House rise to speak—and I fully expect that to be the case, given the discussions that I have had with my colleagues of late. Would it be within your power, Mr. Speaker, to mention to the authorities of the House and the usual channels that 862 the debate is fundamental to the future of the House and to the conduct of the intergovernmental conferences, with a view, perhaps, to extending the debate over two days so that all those hon. Members who wish to speak—there may be 650 of them, for all I know—may have an opportunity to do so?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter for me. If the hon. Gentleman spoke to his Chief Whip, he would probably get a better answer than I can give him. I am bound to say, however, that although I have not seen the full list of those who wish to participate in tomorrow's debate, I have seen a preliminary list and there are a great many names on it. It would certainly help the House greatly if we had more time.
§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise, but I want to refer to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am not quite sure what it is that you will be doing later today. You said that you would be ruling amendments out of order. There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments accepted last night took the provisions of the Natural Heritage Bill (Scotland) outside the terms of the money resolution. There can be no ifs or buts about that. Is it those amendments that you will be ruling out of order today or if not, what will you be doing? I was not quite sure what you meant.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is on to the right point. The amendments that I shall rule out of order today are those that go beyond the terms of the money resolution. The amendments selected yesterday did not go beyond the terms of the relevant money resolution, or they would not have been selected.
§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), can you confirm that, in accordance with the convention of the House, if a former Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—puts her name on the list of speakers in tomorrow's debate, she will have the privilege of being called early?
§ Mr. SpeakerIn making my selection, I have many difficult problems to consider, but it is, indeed, a convention of the House that former Prime Ministers are given some precedence in debate.