PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 20 March 1951)

THE EARL OF DROGHEDA

My Lords, rather more than a year ago there was a Division of the House during the Committee stage of a Bill, and there was a majority of one. That led to an inquiry as to what would have been the result if, in fact, the votes had been equal. The answer was that it was very doubtful. As your Lordships know, no one has a casting vote in this House, and one is left to seek written authority and guidance 1176 from precedents, in order to find out what the position is. The only written authority is that contained in the Companion to the Standing Orders, which says (page 38): If the Contents and Not-Contents are equal, the Question is, according to the ancient Rule of the Law, 'semper prœesumitur pro negante' resolved in the Negative. That is all very well, but of course it depends on how one puts the question who is "negante." Two different results might be obtained, according to whether the Chairman said "The Question is that the clause be omitted," or "The Question is that the clause stand part of the Bill." The precedents are themselves contradictory, and no one could quite tell what the results would be on any given occasion.

This matter was brought before the Committee on Procedure of the House, and it was felt that, though this is a point which very seldom arises, it is of some importance. It was felt that we should know where we are, and should have some rule to which the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, or the Chairman of Committees as the case may be, can refer, and so obtain the right answer. It is for that reason that this new Standing Order is brought before the House. The suggestion is that when there is equality of votes: In relation to Bills and subordinate legislation the practice of the House is governed by the principle that no proposal to reject or amend a Bill or instrument in the form in which it is then before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such rejection or amendment. That would mean, for example, if a Bill were amended in another place and then came to this House, that unless there was a majority in favour of the alteration of the Bill as amended, the amendment would remain. Similarly, if on a Motion that the House go into Committee on a Bill the voting was equal, the House would go into Committee. But as regards all other matters we should be governed by the principle that has obtained hitherto, in theory, at least: that the Question before the House shall be decided in the negative unless there is a majority in favour. I hope that I have made myself reasonably clear. I beg to move that the Standing Order be approved.