HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES (Hansard, 26 February 1993)

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While the Select Committee on Procedure will always make its own choices, is there not a case for the Chair to request an examination of this problem? The hon. Member who blocked a private Member's Bill made a personal statement of apology to the House after the event, yet today the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has been blocked again by a single person. Ought not the Select Committee to look at this disgraceful case? Disabled people feel badly cheated. Is there anything that the Chair can do to persuade the Select Committee?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for nearly 30 years. With his experience, he knows the procedures of the House and where representations can be made. I am bound by the procedures as they exist.

§ Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and your colleagues in the Chair repeatedly tell us that you are the guardians of our rights as Back-Bench Members. When there has been adequate debate on a measure which has widespread support and for which there is a general willingness that it should go into Committee, but the Government Whip, acting under instructions, has deliberately attempted to kill it off, to where do we go for protection as Back-Bench Members—or do we not have any protection?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has the protection of the Chair under the procedures of the House as they exist, and he knows that it is up to the House to change those procedures if it so chooses. I am duty bound to enforce the procedures as they exist.

§ Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Labour Members blocked item No. 7 on today's Order Paper—the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill —in a similar way—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot now make a plea for, or a speech on, that Bill.

§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We seek your protection. The Minister, in the debate on the motion, clearly said that the Government would instruct the Whip to say "Object" even after a long debate in which not one hon. Member said that he would vote against the Bill. Should we not throw ourselves on your mercy, as you are the Deputy Speaker, and ask you to ensure that the Minister says that he is the person who is objecting to the Bill rather than the poor Whip, who will take the rap?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Hon. Members know full well that I am not responsible for what any hon. Member says. I cannot take responsibility for matters of policy.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that, when an hon. Member objects at this stage of the private Members' Bill procedure, technically he is objecting to the Bill being given a Second or Third Reading without debate? When a Bill has received a whole day's debate, whether in this House or another, and it is held up by a single person objecting to it, is there any way whereby that hon. Member—he is a Member of Parliament and has been voted for in his constituency, whatever other office he may hold—can tell the House why he is doing so? If he cannot do that, is there any way in which his reason can be made public outside the House?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for many years, and he is aware that this morning we debated a motion, not a Bill.

§ Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to your ruling. I think that you should initiate a full inquiry into the procedures for private Members' Bills on Friday afternoons when we come here either to object or agree to the Second Reading of a Bill. I ask you to do that in the interests of Back Benchers, who rarely have the opportunity to promote private Members' Bills. When they have that opportunity, the Government then try to stall a Bill's progress. We object strongly when, at the end of a debate on such an emotive subject as the rights of disabled people, which has gone on from 9.30 am to 2.30 pm, the House cannot come to a decision. In all probability, the Bill would have been supported by all hon. Members; nobody disagreed with it. Had it got on to the statute book, it would have introduced into legislation important rights for disabled people.
If the House is not prepared to act on behalf of disabled people, all right hon. and hon. Members should be in the Chamber on a Friday to object to all the other Bills that might be before the House but are less deserving of finding their way on to the statute book than a measure that would protect the disabled. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask Madam Speaker to conduct an inquiry to ascertain whether we can properly resolve the issue and enable the House, at the end of a Friday sitting, to have its way and to make the decision it wishes to make.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member, too, has been a Member of the House for many years. He must know that the issue that he has raised is one for the Procedure Committee. If hon. Members feel strongly about the matter, as they clearly do, they should write in their 1198 numbers to that Committee to make the point. I shall be happy to have a copy of whatever submission they make. I hope that we can now leave that matter.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Is this a new point of order?

§ Mr. Skinner
Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They are all new, are they not?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Not necessarily.

§ Mr. Skinner
For the past 23 years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have heard you and others tell Back-Bench Members on a Friday that they can go to the Procedure Committee and, somehow or other, get these matters resolved. Let us talk in this place as if we are grown-ups. The truth is that the Procedure Committee has refused to do anything to change the system whereby a Government Whip can object to a Bill by using one word, and one word only. By that means he is able to kill off a Bill that would help 6.5 million inhabitants of this country.
We know that the Procedure Committee has done nothing. It is no use talking like belly warns and saying, "Go to the Procedure Committee." We know that nothing is happening. I think that something should be done. Members who are now in the Chamber, headed by my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), should make their proposals clear to the Procedure Committee. It would be helpful, Mr. Morris, if you were to give us a chuck-on —a helping hand. It would be helpful if you were prepared to join us and to say that the procedure should be changed. It is not good enough for us to keep complaining and for the occupant of the Chair to say, "Go to the Procedure Committee."
The result is that for 14 years or more this Tory Government have been stopping the disabled from enjoying the benefits that would flow from the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Let us make a fresh start. Instead of telling us what to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why do you not—you are an elected Member—join in the campaign to stop a daft routine that is used to attack many of our constituents every Friday?

§ Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall talk while wearing two hats: I shall speak as a former Government Whip who perhaps killed more private Members' Bills on the Floor of the House than any other Member who is now present and as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, which reported almost exactly a year ago.
I wish to put the matter into perspective. When the Committee was set up, I thought that it would receive many complaints about the way in which private Members' Bills were handled. I think that I am right in saying that virtually no suggestions were put to the Committee by hon. Members, and I and the members of it wrote to every Member to ask for their views on the sittings of the House. It would have been extremely relevant to raise the issue with which we are now concerned. As I have said, virtually no one wrote to us to propose changes in the handling of private Members' Bills. Let us remember that.

§ Mr. Sheerman
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that the water is becoming rather muddied. The Chair has a responsibility to protect Members. Surely it has a responsibility also to protect the ability of Members properly to represent their constituents. The situation with which we are faced on a Friday afternoon is not something that we want to take to a Committee. We want it to be known that when someone, say a Whip, shouts, "Object" behind his hand, our constituents, including disabled people, know that the order went from the Prime Minister to the Minister to the Whip. The procedure should be above board and clear, not hidden in a subterfuge, as we have seen this afternoon.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is certainly not a point of order for the Chair.