Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Hansard, 10 March 1993)

§ Mr. Graham
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a comparatively new Member who has been in the House of Commons for six years, may I say that I have recently spent weeks on end in the Standing Committee on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill where we discussed the abolition of the wages councils. On that occasion, the Government called for secret ballots and the right to have recorded votes, but here tonight we have seen Government Members standing up to vote. Is that democracy, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Will you please rule on that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am duty bound to operate by the proposals of the Select Committee on Procedure.

§ Mr. Fatchett
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to take you back to your ruling on the point of order during a Division when an hon. Member was told to wear a hat. The penultimate paragraph of page 366 of "Erskine May" states: Only when a question of order arises during a division may a Member speak seated and covered. My hon. Friend did exactly that. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might argue that there has been a change of practice—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. There have been a number of points of order. To which hon. Member and to which point of order is the hon. Gentleman referring?

§ Mr. Fatchett
I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the matter. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
I should like to refer to the footnotes in "Erskine May". One argument that may have been available to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that there has been a change of practice. The footnotes on page 366 refer to parliamentary debates, and it is important to put them on the record. They read: Part Deb (1883) … c 854; … (1886) … (1904) … (1945–46)". The footnotes also state: See also 2nd Report from the Sessional Committee on Procedure, … (1976–77),". Some long-serving Members will recall that there was a debate on this issue in 1979–80 and a further debate in 1983–84. There has been no subsequent debate or reference.

§ Mr. Speaker
Weatherill always allowed a point of order during a Division when an hon. Member wore a hat or was covered in some other way. I shall refer to personal experience. Under Mr. Speaker Weatherill, I raised a point of order during a Division and I wore a handkerchief, as if I were on the beach at Blackpool. It was knotted in the peculiar seaside way and looked appropriate. Mr. Speaker Weatherill accepted that point of order.
With respect, Mr. Morris—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; we have spent so much time in Committee 1028 debating Maastricht that you will understand my mistake—the footnotes on page 366 show that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington was in order, and it would be appropriate for you to recognise that. We all make mistakes and I think that you have made a mistake on this occasion and should allow my hon. Friend to make his point of order in the appropriate way, the way in which he was behaving. We need clarification.
If we are to protect minorities, the practices of the House should not be changed from the Chair. They should be changed only with the agreement of the House, and there has been no such agreement or debate. My hon. Friends have not been able to contribute. This is an important change in procedure and should not be made unilaterally by the Chair. I contend that you are out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington was in order and should be upheld.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am not seeking to change the procedure. I am guided by the Procedures Committee's recommendation in 1977, subsequently endorsed by the House, that the definition of "covered" was wearing a hat. It need not necessarily be an opera hat: it may be a handkerchief. Some of us wear handkerchiefs in that way in the summer in strong sunlight, especially those of us who are a little short of hair. It is clear that an Order paper is not a hat.

§ Dr. David Clark (South Shields)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your ruling is important, because—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I did not make a ruling: I gave the reference on which the ruling was based.

§ Dr. Clark
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was your reference to the Order Paper a ruling, and are you saying that custom and practice since 1977 has been changed and the understanding is that hon. Members' heads will not be deemed to be covered if they are wearing paper, as has been the custom? To clarify the situation, would it be helpful to suspend the House for a short time so that the matter can be sorted out through the usual channels, because you are making an important ruling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I can envisage a situation where a properly constructed paper hat was appropriate, but not an Order Paper.

§ Mr. Connarty
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I attempted to raise a point of order on motion' No. 13, which you decided to ignore and go on to a vote. As a new Member of the House, I have today been to the Library to get my speaking record in the House because people in my constituency may wish to see the contribution that I have made. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether I was recorded as voting on motion No. 13. Would I have had the right to vote because I came in when the vote appeared to be taking place? I wish to have recorded for my constituents whether or not I was involved in the vote on motion No. 13, which is very important. Despite the gesticulations of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), I still wish to know whether I was recorded in the vote on motion No. 13.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows, and I clarify, that under this procedure names are 1029 not recorded. However, the hon. Gentleman is known as an assiduous hon. Member and his constituents will know him as such. They will know that he was here this evening and raised an important point of order.

§ Mr. Bennett
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you will reflect on the proceedings in the House in the past hour. I suggest that they do not do the House much credit. However, I suggest that the Opposition have a legitimate right to express their disquiet, and the attempts to curtail the voting tonight shows simply that the usual channels have failed to deal with the problems that have arisen over private Bills.
Will you reflect on the fact that, by using this voting procedure, you have become involved in those arguments and have allowed the procedures of the House not to be shown in their best light? Would it not be a good idea to revert to the normal voting procedures so that we can continue and perhaps during the next vote, in the Division Lobbies, the usual channels can sort out the many problems which have developed over private votes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I repeat what I said at the beginning. I am taking each motion on its merits. I have not decided that every one of the motions will be taken on a rising and sitting basis, and I certainly made a note earlier to consider that.
The House proceeded to a Division—

§ Mr. Connarty
(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to know whether the hat which I am wearing will fit the description of being covered—or must I turn it this way? Must I also put my hand in my jacket? Is this sufficient covering?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
In my judgment, for this evening, it is.

§ Mr. Barnes
(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On Standing Order No. 39, under which the votes are taking place, although I have put my name down as a Teller I am not absolutely sure what it is that we are voting on according to the Standing Order. Are the votes taking place on challenging your decision, or are they on the motions on the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
They are simply on whether the Ayes or the Noes have it.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we be serious for a moment? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman should be heard. I shall finish the Division and then return to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.
So that there is no confusion, I confirm that we are voting on motion No. 16.