§ That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.—[Mr. Caplin.]
§ Question agreed to.
§ Mr. ForthOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance and clarification. It has been suggested that motion 6 may be subject to what has come to be known as the deferred Division process, so although the debate would be held now the Division, and therefore the determination of the substance of the motion, would be taken next Wednesday, on a ballot of Members. However, the motion refers to the conduct of business on Monday. It would be bizarre if the House were to be asked to vote on the motion on Wednesday, when the business had already happened on Monday. Before we launch into debate on the motion—it has no time limit, happily, and we may have much to say about it—it would be helpful if you could resolve that oddity. I hope that you can help.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI hope that I can. The right hon. Gentleman is correct. If the House wishes to divide on this motion, the Division will be deferred until half-past 3 next Wednesday. It is for the House to decide whether it wishes to agree to the motion.
§ Mr. ForthFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect, how can that he? Only by a Division can we decide whether the House will follow the pattern of business laid down in the motion, which would allow three hours for the Adjournment debate on Monday. How will we know whether the debate should last for three hours on Monday, if we do not have the vote until Wednesday? Perhaps I am being obtuse—that is not entirely unknown—but I fail to see how we can know on Monday what substantive decision the House will make on Wednesday. If it will help you to help us, I confirm that I may ask my colleagues to test that point by dividing the House on the motion, just to see what will happen.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerIt is open to the House, if it so wishes, to agree to the motion this evening without a 538 Division, in which case the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman outlines would not occur. With regard to the other matters that he raises, the Chair is not responsible for the wording of motions on the Order Paper or the circumstances that surround them. Perhaps that helps the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a more serious issue than it appears. We have spotted a flaw in procedure. We know that when the Government change the constitution they seldom think about the real implications, and when the House agreed to the bizarre procedure of deferred Divisions the Government did not anticipate a case such as this. It is surely a nonsense for the House to make a decision on Wednesday about a matter that has already happened. If the House were to vote against the motion on Wednesday, it could not influence something that had happened two days earlier. That is obviously nonsense and I suggest that it is an abuse of the procedures of the House for the Government to attempt to proceed in that way. I suggest that the business managers confer urgently, with a view to withdrawing the motion, so that we may proceed in a more orderly way.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerIt is not possible to withdraw the business at this time, but the Government Whip might wish to refrain from moving it. Otherwise, I cannot add to the points that I made earlier in response to the initial point of order. Of course, the House and those responsible for the matter will have heard the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made.
§ Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I am deeply worried by what has happened. Undoubtedly, the current procedures of the House are flawed. The House would look stupid if we went ahead with the business on Monday but then voted in a deferred Division on Wednesday that it should not take place. Is it within your power to suspend the House so that the issue can be discussed with the Leader of the House—whom I saw standing in the Chamber only a few moments ago, so he is here—to resolve the issue satisfactorily? I am not seeking to make life difficult for you, for the House or for the Government, but this nonsense should be sorted out before the House of Commons makes a fool of itself.
§ Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is present, would it be possible for him to assist us in resolving the matters that have been raised?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerAgain, I have listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). I am sure that the whole House will have heard them. I have no power to suspend the House, although, as I have said already, the motion could be withdrawn.