DEFERRED DIVISION (Hansard, 24 July 2002)

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
Order. I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day.
On the Question on the business of the House, the Ayes were 13, the Noes were 289, so the Question was negatived.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you can confirm that the deferred Division whose result you have just announced, whereby the Question was negatived by a very large majority, was on a Question that referred to business conducted on Monday 22 July; therefore, we were voting today on the nature of the business that took place two days ago. I think that that is an accurate account. Is that not the ultimate absurdity and does it not bring the House into disrepute?
Is it not also the case that, although the motion was in the name of the Leader of the House, it was negatived, I am told, at the behest of the Government Whips? Has not 1044 the Leader of the House been undermined by his own Whips for the second time in only a few weeks or months, and do we not therefore face a crisis in the House of Commons? The Leader of the House is being systematically undermined by his Whips and his parliamentary colleagues.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the more important question is, can you now refer the matter of deferred Divisions to the Procedure Committee? Surely you, as a staunch defender of the House, its procedures and its rights, cannot accept either the position in which we find ourselves—that of voting today on a matter that was dealt with two days ago—or that the Leader of the House has been put in a position of such embarrassment. This situation must be of as much concern to you as it is to my colleagues and me, and I hope that you can assure us that something will be done about it.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Today's circumstances might demonstrate that there is a problem with the House's present rules on deferred Divisions. The Sessional Order resolved on 28 June 2001 requires the Speaker to defer a Division if his decision is challenged after 10 o'clock, or after 7 o'clock on a Thursday. The deferred Division must then take place on the next Wednesday on which the House sits. That is what happened today in conformity with the House's rules. The Speaker has no power under those rules to cancel a deferred Division. It is up to any right hon. or hon. Member to refer to the Procedure Committee any matter which it is thought deserves careful consideration.
As for whether the ultimate absurdity has been reached, I think that we will have to serve many more years in the House before that happens.

§ Mr. Forth
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful for your response, and I am certainly prepared to rise to the highly acceptable challenge that you have laid down. However, may I press you a little further? Can you say whether Mr. Speaker or you, as Chairman of Ways and Means, are sufficiently concerned about the issue—given the difficult position in which, I fear, you and Mr. Speaker have been placed by it—to give the House or me a little encouragement to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is not for the Chair to encourage or discourage any Member of Parliament to raise a matter with the Procedure Committee. Right hon. and hon. Members have sufficient wit and savvy to know when it is proper to take up a matter in that way, and I am sure that it will be done. What has happened is instructive and it will, no doubt, be noted by members of the Procedure Committee.