4.8 p.m.
I beg to move,
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explained earlier, the Government thought it right to introduce this Bill to give immediate effect to the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. The effect of it is that the Conference recommended that the limit on candidates' election expenses should be £1,072 instead of £750 as at present, plus 6p instead of 5p as at present for every six county constituency electors, or for eight borough constituency electors. The Bill will give effect to that recommendation, except that the figure of £1,072 has been rounded up to the figure of £1,075."That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the limits on candidates' election expenses at elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and for connected purposes."
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Carr, Mr. James Prior, Mr. Gordon Campbell, Mr. Francis Pym and Mr. Mark Carlisle.
Representation Of The People
Bill to increase the limits on candidates' election expenses at elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and for connected purposes, presented accordingly, read the First time; and ordered to be printed. [Bill 85.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
4.9 p.m.
I object, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that there are very few people in the House who know what is happening. As I understand it, this House is about to pass some legislation on to the statute book. Despite all the difficulties, I have just about managed to follow what is going on. I shall be grateful if you, Mr. Speaker, would confirm that we have now reached the Second Reading stage.
The Question is, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I suggest that when the House of Commons is passing legislation, for it to go not at a trot but at a disgraceful gallop, such as has happened, is totally contrary to any decent traditions of this House.
Where are the Opposition?
It does not matter whether there are 630 hon. Members or only two hon. Members in the Chamber. There are frequently only two or three hon. Members in the Chamber when legislation is being passed. But hon. Members who might be interested in the legislation which we are now being asked to pass should have not only a technical but also a real and practical opportunity to read the Bill. I have just looked at the first 50 words or so of the Bill. I have not had time to read the whole Bill, although I guess that there are only about 200 words in the text.
If this country had a written constitution—some day we must get round to having something of that sort—no doubt what we are being asked to do now would be impossible. No sensible country would permit the passage of two bits of legislation in the manner which we are now adopting. We are now considering the second piece of legislation, having galloped through the first piece in 30 seconds flat. I have no doubt that the proposal in the Bill has been looked at very thoroughly and professionally by Mr. Speaker's Conference. But I have not heard any statement of the reasons why the Bill should be passed. So far as I noticed, the Minister did not even intend to offer any explanation to the House on Second Reading. No doubt he will now get up and say something. We were going to give a Second Reading to the Bill without the Minister saying a word. That is entirely wrong. I appreciate that technically he does not have to say anything. But it is reasonable for the Minister, in presenting a Bill and asking for it to be passed, to offer for the record, if for nothing else, an explanation of the figures in the Bill. I do not know whether the provisions in the Bill are good or bad and I shall not allow it to be passed without that being recorded. I hope that the Minister will give an explanation of the figures in the Bill, how they have been arrived at, why these figures in particular rather than other figures have been adopted, and why he suggests that it is necessary for the House to pass the Bill urgently this afternoon rather than in a proper way. If the case is good enough and the figures can be justified, I suggest that the haste with which the Bill is going through can be taken only as a criticism of the Government for bringing on a General Election in a situation in which they do not give time for Parliament to pass sensible legislation applying to the conduct of the election. I look forward to an explanation from the Minister.No doubt, when I have made my point, Mr. Speaker, you will rule whether I am out of order. The Bill concerns the forthcoming election. As we know Parliament will be dissolved tomorrow and we shall cease to be Members of Parliament. I seek your aid, Mr. Speaker. I heard—I wonder whether correctly—that there was a proposal that the hon. Members who go to the European Assembly should continue to do so during the course of the election campaign.
Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman at once. That is a different matter, which will also come before the House quite separately.
Will it be today?
Tomorrow.
May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and bring my point of order to a conclusion?
Is the point of order on this Bill?
It may be, after you have heard me through, Mr. Speaker. The Bill concerns candidates at elections. There is a proposal that people who are not Members of Parliament should be able to go to the European Assembly. According to Article 138(1) of the Treaty of Rome, delegates to the Assembly
Therefore, whatever the Government may produce tomorrow must be out of order in relation to the Treaty of Rome."shall be designated by the respective Parliaments from among their members".
Order. Whatever may or may not be in order regarding the Treaty of Rome, the matter which the hon. Gentleman is raising is out of order now.
4.15 p.m.
We are engaged in a manifestly grotesque travesty of parliamentary procedure. There seems to be only one copy of the Bill.—[Interruption.]— at least I have been handed one, which is a draft of the Bill. The copy which I have been kindly given by the Minister has significant obliterations in white ink upon it, so the latest thought must have been applied to it.
This is a grotesque travesty which can be justified only by the shambles of the Government's position and the grotesque situation into which they have driven the country.4.16 p.m.
I do not for a moment agree that it is a grotesque travesty of the procedures of the House. It is an extremely prudent provision that Parliament should, even at this late hour, make it possible for candidates to spend slightly more on elections than they have been able to spend previously.
I welcome the Bill. It is some years since the limits on expenses were raised. The Bill will better enable many candidates to go into the forthcoming General Election and to lay before the people of the country their views upon which the election will be decided. For these reasons, I welcome the Bill and hope that it will have a speedy passage.4.17 p.m.
I am not against the Bill, but in a Second Reading debate hon. Members are entitled to say whether they support a Bill and to put forward their reasons. We are going into the General Election and every hon. Member present, whatever his party, will be asked certain questions by the voters. One question will be why the old-age pensioners, those on social security benefit, the sick, the infirm and the lame have to wait months or years to get anything done for them.
People who ask this question will be told by Government supporters that the Government have great difficulty in getting legislation through Parliament. Yet here, almost within hours of Parliament being dissolved, we see that the Government—who cannot do anything to help the sick, the aged, the infirm and the lame—can bring in legislation overnight. We shall probably support the Bill, but I suggest that it shows to the electorate that when it suits the Government's purpose—whether in conjunction with the official Opposition I care not—Parliament can work swiftly.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers), who always seems to be attending the Council of Europe——Would you exercise your authority, Mr. Speaker, over the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) who is continually shouting and interrupting my hon. Friend?
Sometimes I wish I could exercise my authority over the hon. Gentleman himself, who often intervenes in just the same way.
I am sorry that you said that, Mr. Speaker. I have no objection to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks—who spends most of his time in the Council of Europe and who comes to Parliament when it is being dissolved in order to show that he sometimes attends—making inane remarks. I am concerned about a general principle——
Will the hon. Gentleman say what we have done for the pensioners, the chronic sick and the aged? Never have a Government done more than we have done in this Parliament.
Order. I must intervene here. It is not right to have too wide a debate, and perhaps I may to some extent be at fault, since the Bill would implement a recommendation from my Conference. Yesterday it seemed to the majority of that all-party Conference that something should be offered to the three parties on the basis of an effort to make up the difference in purchasing power since the figures were last laid down. Perhaps I may reveal that I was doubtful whether the parties would agree that something should be done about it in time, but it so happens that they have agreed to do so. It has been done purely in an effort to help candidates of all parties.
I say at once, Mr. Speaker, that no castigation or adverse comment of mine should be taken as reflecting upon you or your Conference. I pay immediate tribute to you personally and to your Conference for both the excellent work which you have done and the speed with which you have arranged for this measure to be introduced. That was in no way the point of my complaint.
If I may now revert to the comments of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, I am not concerned here with what the Government have or have not done. I am not concerned with what either Government have done. For nearly 30 years now, I have been a Member for Parliament, and my experience has been that all Governments constantly say that they cannot do this, that or the other because they have no time, but when it suits them they can overnight bring in a measure to meet their purposes. I welcome the Bill now before us, but that should not preclude me from saying that, while I support the principle, I hope that when there is a Labour Government after the General Election they will not refuse to do things which ought to be done on the ground that there is no time. This is not the only example. In Northern Ireland affairs, the Government of the day, when it suited them, could bring in a measure to do what they thought essential. I hope that when we come back to power I shall not have to attack my right hon. Friends because they will not do something essential and excuse themselves on grounds of lack of time. If they do, I shall have to remind them that it is possible, and I shall ask them to bring in a number of progressive measures to help the underprivileged. I shall press them to do it as expeditiously as the House is now expected to pass the present Bill.4.22 p.m.
I see nothing in the Bill, which arises out of the recommendation of your Conference, Mr. Speaker, which deals with the hour for the closing of polls. At the last General Election, the closing hour was 10 o'clock, I believe, and many people regarded this as unrealistic and too late. I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend could say something about that, since many people feel that 9 o'clock would be perfectly suitable.
I am afraid that the matter which the hon. Member raises is outside the scope of the Bill. Perhaps I may add that my conscience cannot allow me to accept any sort of halo for acting quickly, since the Conference has been sitting for well over a year and we have many items still to deal with, such as the one which the hon. Member is now raising. But we thought that there was something immediate which we should offer to the House as a matter of urgency, and that is covered by the proposals in the Bill. If a Speaker's Conference is set up again, it will have to consider the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your explanation.
4.24 p.m.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and your Conference, for what you have recommended on the question of expenses. I have thought about this matter extremely carefully, and, from my point of view, I know that it would be extremely difficult to conduct a proper election campaign on the existing limits. I know that the recommendation came as the result of a meticulous survey, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and your Conference very much indeed.
4.25 p.m.
I have no wish to detain the House, but as this will be the last time I speak in this place, at least for some time, I feel that I might be allowed to say that I am not altogether happy about the recommendation embodied in the Bill, although I was a member of your Conference, Mr. Speaker.
I fully accept that there is a strong case for raising the permitted level of expenses to take account of the disastrous inflation which has been raging during the present Government's term of office, but to increase the limits to this extent only a week or two before polling day will give constituency party organisations which already have money in the kitty an opportunity quickly to increase the amount which they spend during the campaign. This will be of considerable advantage in a number of constituencies, and I regret to say that one party in particular is likely to gain from it more benefit than others will. Also, I regret that nothing has been done to change the differential between borough and county constituencies, which cannot, I believe, be justified in its present form. Most of all, I regret that Mr. Speaker's Conference was not allowed to discuss not just how much money should be spent but how the money should be provided, and, in particular, the question of State contributions towards election expenses such as one finds now in a large number of democratic countries, and such as are proposed to be introduced even in the United States in 1976. We were not able to consider that matter because the Prime Minister vetoed the suggestion when it came from this side of the House.
Does my hon. Friend mean that one man can dictate to a committee or conference what the House should or should not do? We know that the Prime Minister is a petty dictator, but are we to take it that he had authority to say what Mr. Speaker's Conference should do?
Perhaps I should intervene at this point. It is a well accepted tradition that matters may be considered by a Speaker's Conference only if they have the agreement of the main political parties. It is not a matter of individuals. The parties have to agree on the agenda.
Perhaps I phrased it infelicitously, Mr. Speaker. But the fact remains that the representatives of the Opposition wished that matter to be considered by your Conference. The Government side refused to allow its inclusion in the terms of reference. That is one reason why, although I shall not vote against the Bill today, the welcome which I give it is lukewarm, to say the least.
May I be allowed to say another word, Mr. Speaker?
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the leave of the House, so be it.
Since, purely adventitiously perhaps, I am the only occupant of the Opposition Front Bench at the moment, I should not wish it to be thought that I was churlish or less than deeply grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the speed with which you have brought this matter before the House. But may I repeat, none the less, my complaint that the Government's way of conducting their business has produced an utter travesty of a method for dealing with the Bill.
4.28 p.m.
Most of us understand the purpose of the Bill very well. As you have said, Mr. Speaker, the intention is merely to implement a recommendation of your Conference. Great respect is always paid to the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference, which consists of hon. Members from all parties.
The recommendation which Mr. Speaker's Conference reached is a matter of common sense, being intended to help us to deal with the effects of inflation which we know so well and to help candidates to conduct an election campaign in the way they have always done. It will help candidates to meet higher printing bills, for example, without running the risk of overspending and transgressing the law. That is the simple purpose of the Bill, and I believe that almost all hon. Members are in favour of it.4.29 p.m.
Obviously, the provisions of the Bill will be extremely welcome to candidates of all parties, and we do not oppose it in principle. But I think it legitimate to observe, Mr. Speaker, that the recommendation of your Conference is an explicit recognition of the appalling inflation and atrocious rise in the cost of living which has taken place under this outgoing Conservative Government.
Only a week or two ago, a Minister told us quite calmly that there had been a rise in food prices of—I think it was—48½ per cent. since this Government came to power in 1970——And it has gone up again since then.
Of course. It goes up every day. That is one of the reasons why we on this side welcome the forthcoming General Election, so that my party, which will then, I believe, be in government—I shall not be here myself—may take practical steps to redeem the present Prime Minister's promise to cut prices at a stroke, or take steps which would reduce inflation at a stroke. The Conservative Government have been totally unsuccessful in redeeming that promise, and the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference is, as I say, a recognition of that fact.
The second matter to which I draw attention is that rushing through this Bill in one day or overnight——In a few minutes.
is part of the necessity which arises from the Prime Minister's decision to call the General Election with what is really a quite unseemly rush.
He is abdicating.
As I have said, the early election is welcomed by the Opposition. We have always said the sooner the better. But I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Clement Attlee, at the conclusion of one of his periods of government, announced with general consent from all parties at the time that he was against so-called "snap" elections, that he would not have one, and therefore that he had decided to give a fortnight's clear notice from the day of the announcement of the election to the start of the campaign. That would have been much more decent. It would also have meant that we should not have entirely lost, as we shall now, one or two very valuable pieces of legislation. One which was to have its Second Reading tomorrow is the Children Bill, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen). That could not have gone through all its stages, but we could have had a very valuable Second Reading debate.
Although we welcome the election, it is most regrettable that it should be taking place with such an unseemly rush.4.31 p.m.
Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I was not all surprised that a Bill could be rushed through all its stages so quickly. I recall what happened with a more important Bill about Northern Ireland, which was rushed through this House in an afternoon and which had a much greater effect than the present one.
However, in my view we should ask ourselves why it is necessary to put any limit on election expenses. It is being done so that unfair advantage will not be given to very wealthy candidates who otherwise would be able to use their wealth unfairly to obtain election to this House. Despite all the respect that we have for Mr. Speaker's Conference and the recommendations which it produces, we as back-bench Members must satisfy ourselves that unfair advantage is not being given to wealthy people. For that reason, it is necessary to examine the proposals in the Bill. I do not suggest that the Bill gives any unfair advantage. But it is interesting to try to work out quickly what the new upper limits for election expenses will be. In a county constituency of approximately 50,000 electors, for example, it appears that the upper limit will be in the region of £1,600. I should like the Minister to say what it is at the moment so that we may see by how much the amount is being increased. I hope, too, that he will justify it if he can so that we may hear from his own lips some admission of the tremendous inflation which has gone on under this Government.4.33 p.m.
As a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference, perhaps I might make one or two comments.
I comment kindly upon the remarks of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), who, I understand, is retiring after long and distinguished service to this House. However, the hon. Gentleman spoke as though inflation were a purely British phenomenon and did not obtain in any other country. He suggested, rather naively, that there might be a future Labour Government which would be able to contract out with ease from the inflationary tendencies affecting practically every other progressive industrial country. Mr. Speaker's Conference had to deal with a very narrow matter here. I accept that the Bill appears to be a rush job and that it should not have been done in this way. However, the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) will appreciate that in the normal course of events a Speaker's Conference is a fairly leisurely body which considers these matters maturely and that had this Parliament gone on for another six months or a year we should have considered this matter in greater detail. We are confronted with an immediate problem, and it would serve no good purpose for any candidate of any party in any constituency if we refrained from passing this measure today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, to take only printing, that costs have escalated in such a way that without some increase in expenses the presentation of a reasonable programme by any candidate to his electors would be impeded seriously. I remind hon. Members that what is proposed is no more than a modest increase to restore the value of money to what it was in 1970. With more mature consideration, a future Speaker's Conference will examine this matter in detail and make recommendations. This Bill merely implements the immediate wish of Mr. Speaker's Conference to see that candidates up and down the country can present their programmes adequately to their electors.4.36 p.m.
The Bill is designed to remove some of the more obvious anomalies which have arisen from the increase in printing costs and so on. However, there is a wider issue, which is that election messages by candidates need to be put across more effectively than in the past simply because there is much more Government involvement in the life of the nation and there are more issues to be explained.
There is the possibility that electors would have been disfranchised if they had not been given an adequate opportunity to know what their candidates were feeling. What is more, without such an increase there would have been a greater risk of this election becoming a TV election, which we should all deplore.4.37 p.m.
I assure the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) that I intended no discourtesy to him or to the House in not saying anything immediately on moving the Second Reading of the Bill. He will remember that on begging leave to introduce the Bill I explained its purpose and effect. No hon. Member appeared to want a longer explanation than that which I gave——
I am afraid that I did not hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's elaborate explanation of the purpose and effect of the Bill. At that stage I was rushing out of the Chamber in order to obtain a copy of the Bill, and his speech was so long that he was concluding it when I returned.
I did not say that I had given an elaborate explanation. The hon. Gentleman must not assume that a lengthy speech necessarily means greater clarity—in his speeches or anyone else's.
I say with respect to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) that what he said about the financing of political parties was not quite the complete picture. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) suggested on behalf of the Opposition that this was a matter which might be added to the terms of reference of Mr. Speaker's Conference. The hon. Member for Romford is right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not think that it was an appropriate matter for Mr. Speaker's Conference. To complete the picture, however, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agreed that it was a matter which should be discussed, and he offered at that stage to meet my right hon. Friend the Lord President, the hon. Member for Hitchin and other representatives of the Opposition to discuss what would be an appropriate forum if it was the wish of the Opposition that that should be raised.I do not dissent from the account which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just given. But I still hold the view that this matter should have been considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference and that the effect of the Government's action is that consideration of this very important matter has been delayed beyond the end of this Parliament.
I accept that the Government's decision made it impossible to discuss this matter in the context of Mr. Speaker's Conference. However, an offer was made immediately to the Opposition of meeting, if they wished, to discuss what would be an appropriate forum for a matter of such major importance as the whole basis of the financing of political parties.
As I said briefly in introducing the Second Reading of the Bill—the hon. Member for Islington, South-West may feel that it was introduced inadequately—the purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the recommendation by Mr. Speaker's Conference on the maximum limit of candidates' expenses. I have been chided, if that be the right word, by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) and other hon. Gentlemen about the speed with which the Bill has been brought forward. As Mr. Speaker pointed out before vacating the Chair, the recommendation from the Conference arrived with the Prime Minister only yesterday. Therefore, it is difficult to see how we could have brought forward the Bill earlier than today. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that, in accordance with the tradition of the House on matters of this nature, we always await the views of Mr. Speaker's Conference before introducing legislation. The Government take the view, which I believe has the support of the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House, that, having received this recommendation, albeit only yesterday, it is right to act on it immediately because Mr. Speaker, in his letter to the Prime Minister, said:Therefore, it clearly was the wish of Mr. Speaker's Conference, and I should think of the House, that the recommendation should be carried through before a forthcoming election. Inevitably, it means that the Bill must be carried through this House and the other place before Parliament is prorogued."The Conference decided today (by 14 votes to 1) that, as a temporary measure and in the context of a possibly impending general election, the limits of expenditure per candidate should be raised".
Did I hear the hon. and learned Gentleman aright that the report, in effect, that he is reading to us from Mr. Speaker's Conference indicates that it was not the unanimous view of those who voted on the point that the Bill should be passed? Will he tell the House how many of the total number of Members of the Speaker's Conference voted one way or the other on that decision?
With respect, that is a matter for Mr. Speaker's Conference. Members of the Conference are present in the House. I read part of a letter from Mr. Speaker to the Prime Minister. This is the formal way in which the Conference's recommendation on such matters is always conveyed. I thought it right to read the appropriate terms of that letter, which I will repeat:
It then goes on to deal with the figures. I was saying that, in the spirit of that letter of recommendation, the wish of the majority of that Conference was that its proposals should be implemented before a General Election took place. The effect of the recommendation was to raise what is the recognised flat rate of any candidate."The Conference decided today (by 14 votes to 1) that, as a temporary measure and in the context of a possibly impending general election, the limits of expenditure per candidate should be raised".
We are going through a process of legislation by an unusually fast means, and I do not apologise for interrupting the Minister in these circumstances. Will he confirm that there are nearly 30 Members of the Speaker's Conference and that therefore we are acting upon a recommendation of roughly half of those members voting one way or another with one dissentient voice against the proposal that the House is considering?
Were there any absentee miners?
I will attempt to confirm the technical size of the Speaker's Conference. The hon. Gentleman, referring to voting one way or another with one dissentient, seems to imply that there were many directions in which the members were voting. The voting was 14 to one. Therefore, the Government thought it right to implement the recommendation.
The effect of the Bill is to raise from £750 to £1,075 the basic flat rate maximum expenditure per candidate. Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended the figure of £1,072, but the Government thought it appropriate to round it up to £1,075 and to raise the per capita fee or expense, which is different, for both borough and county constituencies. On top of the new figure of £1,075 there will be 6p instead of 5p as at present for every six county constituency electors or eight borough constituency electors. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond) asked whether I could spell out what that means. Taking the two examples that I have here—they are not quite the same as the example given by the hon. Gentleman, but with a rapid mathematical calculation he will be able to relate them to his example—it means that for an electorate of 65,000, which is an average electorate today, in a borough constituency the present limit of £1,156 rises to £1,562 and in a county constituency the limit of £1,291 rises to £1,725. In effect, the increase for a county constituency is a maximum of 33·6 per cent. and for a borough constituency 35·1 per cent. Without wishing to get involved in the various political comments that have been made about inflation and matters of that kind—I have a feeling that there will be plenty of time to do that in the next few weeks—I feel sure that no one would reasonably suggest that those percentage increases were out of line with what we know has been the increase in the price of printing, for example, during recent years and since the matter was last reviewed.I notice that there is no increase in the personal allowances of candidates. On a technical point, am I correct in saying that if a candidate exceeds the £100 allowed the excess would have to come out of the additional amount provided under the Bill?
My immediate response to my hon. Friend is "Yes, that is so." The only effect of the Bill is to raise the maximum permitted amount which may be spent during the course of the campaign. I believe that the limit on what one should be enabled to spend in promoting one's return to this House should be reasonable so that a mammoth advantage should not be extended to an extremely wealthy candidate. At the same time it should be adequate to ensure that the candidate can appropriately put his case so that people may vote knowing the issues involved.
I think that the feeling of many people—clearly it was the feeling of Mr. Speaker's Conference—was that the present limits, if not raised, would not be adequate to achieve the second part of the aim of a limitation on expenses, bearing in mind that to exceed the maximum laid down is an unlawful electoral practice. I commend the Bill to the House. Again without wishing to get involved in the various political comments that have been made, may I say that the contribution by the hon. Member for West Ham, North was about as arrantly hypocritical as would be consistent with many other contributions made by him during this Parliament when he had the nerve to talk about this Government having done nothing for the sick, the aged and the infirm.I did not say that. If the hon. and learned Member will study HANSARD he will see that I said that all Governments claim that they have not time and cannot give legislative time. I went on to explain that when it suits them they can find time. I did not pass any comments about what they do or what they have not done. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw that remark.
If I have the wrong words, I apologise. I formed the impression that the hon. Gentleman said that we could rush the Bill through speedily to look after the expenses of Members of Parliament and had done nothing for the sick, the infirm, the elderly and the lame. I thought that that was the impression he wished to leave with the House. With my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers), I believe that, whatever may be said during the election campaign, this Government have done more for the infirm, the chronically ill, the severely disabled and the elderly than any other Government for many years.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[ Mr. Hicks.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee.
[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair.]
Clause 1
Limits On Parliamentary Election Expenses
Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
4.52 p.m.
I want to protest, Mr. Murton. For three or four weeks the Government have been toying with the idea of having an election. At the last moment they bring in this Bill. In no way have we had the chance of putting forward amendments, even had we wished to do so. Before we pass Clause 1, my hon. Friends and I might well have wanted to increase or decrease some of the amounts. We might well have wanted to present positive suggestions or amendments. But by their dictatorial attitude the Government, led by the Prime Minister, have precluded us from exercising our democratic right of putting forward amendments.
In case the Minister of State gets it wrong, let me say that I am not suggesting that the amounts are more or less, better or worse, than any other Governments have prescribed. I want to get it clearly into the Minister's head that my complaint is that, when it suits the purpose of the Government, they bring in legislation in such a way as to prevent back benchers from having their say.I want the hon. Member to be absolutely clear about this matter. Mr. Speaker's Conference was considering the election when we heard that an election might be imminent and we transferred our attention to this urgent matter. The Government therefore could not possibly have brought this recommendation to the House any earlier than today because we finished our consideration of it only at our last sitting this week.
I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). I take this opportunity of paying my tribute to the Father of the House and recording the great respect and admiration I have for him. I am sorry that he is retiring because whoever succeeds him cannot be in any way akin to him. I am sorry that he is going.
My point about time is not directed at the right hon. Gentleman or the Conference. It is twofold. First, the Government have known for three or four weeks that they might be abdicating and running away. Therefore, the Government could well have said to Mr. Speaker's Conference "We felt we might start running away today or tomorrow, or the week after, and we will ask you to bring in your report because we know we will do a bunk."Order. I fear that the hon. Member is straying somewhat. I remind him that it would be perfectly in order to complain as he did at one time that there may be no time for amendments to be considered, but beyond that point I fear he has got badly out of order.
I may have digressed a little, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Father of the House gave me an opportunity of dealing with his interjection. Nevertheless, I still think that it is relevant to the extent that if I come to adduce reasons why I think that the clause should not stand part—I accept that the reasons may be manifold—it is because I have not had even an opportunity of getting a copy of the Bill. My hon. Friend has been more fortunate in obtaining a copy, but he told me that he has not had a chance to look thoroughly at it in order to consider the possibility of framing an amendment. Surely I am in order, therefore, to say that one of the reasons I may have ideas about allowing the clause to stand part is that my hon. Friend and I may well have had an adequate amendment which we might have joined in proposing. Further, with his great knowledge and ability, the Father of the House might also have given me an opportunity to discuss with him the possibility of tabling an amendment. It is on that ground that some protest should be made before Parliament dissolves tomorrow.
What does the clause mean in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) when it says:
What does "first published" mean? Does it relate to the "A" and "C" registers? I believe that the new register comes in on either 15th or 16th of this month."register of electors to be used at the election (as first published)"?
I should like to ask a question about Clause 1 as well. The clause maintains the differential between expenses allowed in parliamentary elections in a county constituency and a borough constituency. The Minister was kind enough to give me examples of constituencies with 65,000 electors. I forgot the difference between the county and the borough. I think it was somewhere in the region of £2,000.
It means that the new maximum of a borough of that size will be £1,562 and for a county, £1,725.
The difference between the two is still about £140. I know that the Bill narrows the differential a little, but it still maintains it. I should like an explanation why there should be a difference. I appreciate, as anyone must, that there is some travelling involved when one has a county constituency compared with a borough constituency. But the main increase in costs of an election, in my experience, has been in printing election addresses and not in a candidate travelling around various small villages. One could argue that it is cheaper to rent meeting halls in villages than in cities.
Will the Minister tell us whether there will be a further examination of this matter following the election? If so, will it be possible to look into why there should be a differential between two types of constituency?5.0 p.m.
I welcome what the Government are trying to do in this clause. As a representative of a county constituency, I should like to illustrate to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond) the sort of extra expenses that one has to face. My own county constituency is an area about 1,600 square miles with over 100 different branches. One can easily travel in a straight line diagonally from the south-west of the constituency to the north-east and cover 50 or 60 miles without reaching the constituency boundary. That is a constituency in the dense East Midlands. In a county constituency in some of the more remote parts of Britain, those figures would be even larger.
A candidate has to get to all corners of his constituency and doing so will be no cheaper in the days that lie ahead than it was at the last General Election, especially as it is forecast that by the end of this week the price of first-grade petrol will have risen to 54p a gallon. I welcome what the Bill does to help candidates meet their necessary expenses. I should have preferred a still bigger differential to allow for the large increase that county candidates will have to pay for petrol in the coming weeks.Now that there has been time to consider the Bill more thoroughly, I believe that there is a case for allowing candidates enough expenditure to issue the necessary literature to explain their positions. As I tried to suggest earlier, there will be a particular problem if candidates find that they have completely to reset the type that they may have used on previous occasions.
If, for example, a candidate who used a typeset on his previous manifesto which said,"We utterly reject the philosophy of compulsory wage control"—
Who said that?
I am quoting from a booklet humorously entitled "A Better Tomorrow", which was the Conservative Party manifesto in the 1970 General Election.
If a candidate had in his manifesto, as this one did, the following words—and if now he has to present to his electorate a case for having wage control and for completely paralysing the industrial life of the country because he has it, I think he will require rather more than £1,500 to get his case over. That is only one example."We utterly reject the philosophy of compulsory wage control"—
Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that even if we doubled the sum to £3,000 any printer could help to explain away a deliberate lie like that.
I should like to agree with my hon. Friend, but throughout my short life I have been impressed by the capacity of the Conservative Party for putting over the most enormous whoppers with a straight face and sometimes getting away with it—as it did in 1970.
If, for example, in his previous literature, a candidate had said: "We will stop further nationalisation", as was said in "A Better Tomorrow" on page 7, and he now has to justify taking over Rolls-Royce and so on, he too will have a problem. If a candidate said in his previous literature:he would need a lot of literature and would have to go to a good deal of expense—more than £1,500, I should have thought—to explain why the Department of the Environment building figures issued last week were the worst figures for the completion of houses since 1959——"We will reverse the decline in building, make home ownership easier again and concentrate Government subsidies where they are most needed",
Order.
I will not proceed with this.
No, I would rather hope that the hon. Member would not do so. The question of what a candidate prints in his election address is very much a matter for his own judgment. I am sure that many of them are very good at precis.
Can I raise a point of order on this?
Yes, of course.
I said earlier that, had there been time, my hon. Friend and I might have had the opportunity, from which we have been precluded, of increasing the amount suggested to £3,000 or £4,000, which might have given the candidate whom my hon. Friend is trying to help the opportunity of dealing with this problem. The fact that we have been precluded from doing that is sharp practice on the part of the Government.
The hon. Member is simply repeating his hon. Friend's argument.
As I said, Mr. Murton, I do not want to go on reading "A Better Tomorrow". That would be an abuse of the practices of the House-almost as much of an abuse as it is to try to put through an important piece of legislation such as this with no explanation of its content.
Surely my hon. Friend sees the flaw in his argument. If we were to increase the amount allowed for all candidates, many candidates of the Labour Party, for instance, would not need to spend that money at all, because they would have no need to redraft their manifesto. They have kept all their promises in full view and in front of the electorate and will carry their new ones out as soon as they come into Government.
I can speak with some authority on that point, because my constituency, both before I became the candidate and at the last election when I was the candidate, boasted that it had either the cheapest or one of the cheapest elections in the country. The reason was that we did not have to give the electors a lot of plush literature to bamboozle them. We simply stood on the record and the people knew their candidate well enough to vote accordingly.
But I will not go into the question of what people should put in their election manifestos. That is certainly not for me. What I am saying is that if someone has stocks of past literature with some of these statements, he will be in some difficulty. I am sure that many Conservative candidates have stocks of past literature which in other circumstances they would be able to send out saying simply "This is the manifesto we fought on last time, and we still stand by these policies"—with only a brief covering note. That would be a great help to them in getting votes, because it would show that they still stood for the same policies and had done what they had promised. But if they have in that past literature statements like this one, on page 18 of "A Better Tomorrow",they will have completely to re-set the type and have a new text. They will need more than the brief covering note—and will have to spend probably much more than £1,500."The increase in the cost of new houses and the hightest mortgage interest rates in our history have prevented thousands of young people from becoming owners of their own homes",
Would my hon. Friend please deal with my point? He is asking for fantastic sums of money. If all the Tories had to deny all those lies, it would cost thousands upon thousands of pounds, since they would have to change every page of that document. Every promise has been broken. The taxpayers should not be asked to pay thousands of pounds on top of the huge sums that this Government have cost them in order to deal with the lies that they told at the last election.
Order. I just wish to point out that the taxpayer is not being asked to pay under this clause.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that I could go through this document—the Conservative manifesto for the last election, "A Better Tomorrow"—and find several statements on each page which have not been adhered to. But if I were to do that, this Committee stage would go on for a very long time. I will therefore rest my speech by repeating that if the Government and their candidates have in their old literature categorical statements like
"We utterly reject a philosophy"—
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. With great respect, it is not often that I attempt to correct the Chair, but a moment ago I said that the taxpayers would be paying part of the expenses. I have never known the Chair to correct a statement made by an hon. Member when he makes a political point. I may or may not have been right, but with great respect, Mr. Murton, that is not the job of the Chair. The Conservative Party receives out of taxation income large donations from big public companies, and those are from taxpayers' money. It is contributed to the Tory Party. Therefore, some of this money will be used.
Perhaps I could explain to the hon. Gentleman that the point that I was attempting to draw to his attention was that the matter had no relevance to this clause.
It is a very valuable point all the same.
I was explaining that there will be Conservative Members—like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). who has recently entered the Chamber—whose old literature, such as "A Better Tomorrow", will contain categorical statements such asBecause that sort of statement is in their old literature, because what they are doing now is totally different from those statements, and because they have paralysed the nation's industry in order to adhere to policies which they not only did not put before the electorate at the last General Election but which they explicitely abjured at the time of that election, they will have to throw away all the old literature and produce new literature. In those circumstances, the proposition coming from Mr. Speaker's Conference is probably far too modest. We ought to have a differential with a factor of, perhaps, two to one, with the Conservative Party being allowed to spend twice as much—in this General Election only, as a one-off thing—because it has to produce so much new literature. We must not blame Mr. Speaker or his Conference for not initiating this proposal. It would never have occurred to Mr. Speaker that the Conservative Party could ever have got itself into a situation in which it was at one election totally opposed to the philosophy of wage control and at the next election making it almost the major plank in the issue and the whole reason for the election. We ought to feel a measure of sympathy for those Conservative candidates who will have to stand on their heads in the coming General Election. Whatever assistance we can give them in the way of money they will certainly need in order to put over the policies for which they now stand but which they were previously totally against."We utterly reject the philosophy of compulsory wage control.'
You will probably be relieved to hear, Mr. Murton, that I shall not make a speech or ask a question. I wish to make only an exclamation.
Although there are two clauses in the Bill, it is really a one-clause Bill. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), no one saw the Bill until about an hour ago. No one could have tabled any amendments to it. A great number of Members of Parliament who are not at present in the Chamber do not know what we are talking about. This debate is rather pointless. Very often Members of Parliament are blamed—sometimes rightly—for voting for or against something or for accepting something about which they do not know very much. We are often accused of being guided by the Whips. I doubt whether the Whips of either side know the contents of this clause. My simple exclamation is that I consider that this discussion is pointless. The Bill could have been introduced by some other method. I am sorry that it has been rushed in such a manner. I have not put my point at such great length as the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, but I mean more or less the same thing.5.15 p.m.
If the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) had been present during the Second Reading debate he would have heard some of his hon. Friends put matters at slightly greater length even if less lucidly than himself.
We all appreciate the inability of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) to draw any form of an audience outside the House, which makes him feel that it is necessary to use this clause as a means of making his political speeches in the House. I would only add that, having listened to the quality of his election speech, I am not surprised to see that his majority dropped by over 4,000 at the last General Election and was the biggest drop in the Labour majority of any of the three candidates for Islington, South-West.As I have fought only one General Election in my constituency, perhaps the Minister can explain how he can draw a comparison between one election and another.
The hon. Member received over 4,000 fewer votes than his predecessor.
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. During this short debate you have very wisely ruled on one or two points of order, pointing out that certain things had been said which were not relevant to the debate. May I ask whether the Minister's statement just now was relevant to the debate?
Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I do not think that it was relevant in any way.
The Minister has very kindly answered that point of order.
Will my hon. and learned Friend answer the serious point which I raised?
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about the meanings of the words "as first published". I understand that the effect of that phrase now is that it covers every name on the electoral register, even the names of people who are not yet entitled to vote but who are on the register because they become of age to vote during the period when the electoral register is in existence. On that register there will be the names of those who, although not entitled to vote when it comes into force on 16th February, become entitled to vote during the course of the year. The use of the words "as first published" is apparently to make it clear in assessing the total amount which can be used on the per capita side of election expenses. One takes account of names on the register, even those who have not yet become of age to vote.
The Minister has just said something which causes me some dismay. Does he mean that the words "as first published" mean that provided that the name is on the register the cash allowance can be claimed, and the person can vote even though the whole street in which he lives is in a clearance area? I shall continue at length in order to enable the Minister to ask his advisers to give him the information required, which he does not have at present.
I see now that his adviser is getting the information. Does that phrase mean that one has the right to object if one knows that Smith, Brown, Black or Blue are on the register but are not legally entitled to be on it? We shall now have a situation in which Smith, Brown, Black and Blue will not only be entitled to vote, although illegally on the register, but the candidate concerned can get an extra allowance. The Minister is now saying that we shall have a right to object. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) might be on the register as living in Westminster Square. He would be on the register, but he would not have the right to contract out and to say that he should not be on it because he was not living there. In addition to the fact that he would have the right to vote, the candidate in the Westminster area—a Tory—would be able to get extra money to help to fight for electors who should not be on the register. Is that the situation we are confronted with? Are we to allow them extra money? That is what Irish politics was all about. I hope the Minister has this wrong.With a system where part of the payment depends on the number of electors in the constituency there must obviously also be a system under which the number of electors on which that allowance is based may be decided. I gather that that number has been taken as being the number of names to appear on the electoral register and that is the effect of the clause.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading what day?
Now, Sir.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
I cannot cake a point of order in the middle of putting the Bill. I am bound to put the Bill immediately without debate. I will take the point of order as soon as I have disposed of the Bill.
You have not heard my point of order.
I cannot take it now.
It is on the point of whether you can take it now or not.
I cannot take it until I have put the Question on the Bill.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree that normally the procedure you propose to adopt would be followed, but normally we would have the right to put down a motion that the Third Reading should not be taken. I have not had the opportunity of putting such a motion down. I agree that normally you must put the Question without debate unless there is a motion on the Order Paper. Neither I nor my hon. Friends, however, have had the opportunity of putting down a motion and, therefore, I am being denied the right of a Third Reading debate because, correctly, you say that I cannot put down such a motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you, again, correctly, have to put the Question. This is an abrogation of the democratic right of back benchers.
I may not even want to take part in the Third Reading debate, but I want to stand up for the rights of back benchers irrespective of whichever Government are in power. I want to protest at the shady practice adopted by the Government in denying back benchers the chance of exercising their democratic rights.Further to the point of order——
Maybe I can clear this up without any help from the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham). The relevant Standing Order is Standing Order No. 56, which says:
"The question for the third reading of a public bill shall be put forthwith unless notice has been given by not less than six members of an amendment to the question or of a motion that the question be not put forthwith."
I have not had the chance.
I quite understand what the hon. Member means when he says that he has not had the chance, but we are in somewhat unusual circumstances in that I am bound to put the Question straight away without debate.
Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Standing Order provides that the Third Reading shall be taken without debate unless six hon. Members put their names down to a motion to the contrary. The question is what opportunity has occurred of six Members putting down their names to take advantage of the Standing Order to have a debate on the Third Reading? Are you willing now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take the names of six hon. Members to ask for a debate on Third Reading? This is a point of some substance, and I know that the circumstances are unusual, but when the Government are introducing legislation in these circumstances they must consider the question of the Standing Orders.
There is nothing now to be said which could not have been said on Second Reading. Any comments hon. Members may have could have been made a little sooner than this. We are on a procedural matter, and I am bound to carry out the Standing Orders as they are laid down.
You have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the circumstances are rather unusual. Will you please explain how unusual they are and why that should be?
I do not think it needs any explanation from me of why the circumstances are unusual. There can be no one left in the country who does not realise that they are unusual. I will leave it at that, and I hope that the hon. Member will accept what I say.
The fact that an election may be coming along has absolutely no effect on the procedures of this House.
Order. The hon. Member is on the wrong beam there. This House will be dissolved tomorrow——
It is not dissolved today.
Therefore, the Government have made a statement about the business for today and that business is being taken. There is nothing we can do to alter that.
I have not finished my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was saying that obviously the imminence of an election does not affect the rules of the House. I know that it has affected today's business but it does not mean that something has been validly done if otherwise it would have been invalidly done. Will you say now whether you will accept a manuscript motion from six hon. Members that the Bill be not read a Third time? If you are not prepared to accept that the House will clearly be in a ridiculous situation because of the circumstances in which the Government can therefore bring forward a Bill which no one knew about. Hon. Members would have been obliged to put something on the Order Paper yesterday to stop a Bill of which they knew nothing having an automatic Third Reading today.
This is a serious point and were it to be the case that the House had manifestly transgressed its rules of order it would at least be alleged outside that the measure had been improperly dealt with and it might be open to question.Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Other occupants of the Chair, including Mr. Speaker, have in times past—and we know that the House is guided by precedent—agreed that when, for reasons that neither the Chair nor the Table can control, hon. Members have not had the time or opportunity of putting down either a motion or an amendment the Chair would accept a suitable motion. Will you consider this further, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I could continue speaking while you look up the precedents.
I must try to dispose of this matter as quickly as possible.
Further to the point of of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If hon. Members were so anxious to have a debate on Third Reading, surely, as it has been two hours since the Bill was introduced, they have had ample time to get six names on a piece of paper and submit them to the Chair for consideration. The only reason that Labour Members are trying to prolong the proceedings is that they did not think of that course of action before.
I do not need any help from anybody about this. Also I do not need any more points of order. I am sorry but I cannot oblige either hon. Member, much as I should like to do so. If I had the power under Standing Orders to use discretion this is just the sort of case where I should like the chance to use it, but I cannot use it. I am absolutely precluded from that, and I must put the Question straight away.
For the first time since you have occupied the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you replied to me rather abruptly. You seemed to call upon my head a certain amount of ridicule by telling me that I should know why the situation was unusual, and that if I did not the rest of the nation did. My sole point was that the House had not yet been dissolved. It is still in session and we should obey our rules of procedure now, as we always have done in the past.
I take the opportunity immediately to apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I had no desire to ridicule him. I was trying to add some lightness to the debate, which was perhaps becoming a little heavy. Now I must put the Question.
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must insist as a matter of principle that I and five other hon. Members have the right to oppose Third Reading, provided we submit our motion in time and have the approval of the Chair. I have been refused the right which is given to me by Standing Orders. The Chair has the right to oppose my claim, if I am not acting in accordance with the Standing Orders. I shall not agree to Third Reading unless the matter is cleared up, so that we have the right precedent for the future. If you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would accept a manuscript motion I should be willing to accept that statement and not submit it. But I want the principle established that you would say "Yes", provided I was willing to act in accordance with the Standing Order and give notice. That would suit me.
I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. He could have helped himself earlier if he had taken the opportunity of putting down a motion before I came to Third Reading. That was not done. I was in the act of calling the Bill for Third Reading when the hon. Gentleman sought to raise a point of order which I told him I could not take. I have tried to be as lenient as I could be with the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
Conservative Members should shut up.
Order. We must try to be as good tempered as we can be and finish our work here in a good spirit. I try only to carry out the rules of the House as I understand them. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept—
rose——
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows well enough that when I have finished what I am saying I shall call him. He must not interrupt me. It is quite out of character and is something which is not done in the House.
I cannot take the motion which the hon. Gentleman seeks to move because I am expressly precluded from doing so. Such a motion must be put down before we come to Third Reading. I judged that we had arrived at Third Reading, so there is nothing the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member can do, not having put down a blocking motion by then. I hope that I make myself quite clear to the hon. Gentleman and that he will not pursue the matter further, because I should like to think, after being with him for many years in the House, that he and I could part on the best of terms.I agree unreservedly with your last point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot agree with the first. Before you put the Question, I immediately rose. I could not have submitted the blocking motion, because at that time the Report stage had not been completed. I did not know until the Committee stage was ended whether any manuscript amendment was proposed and whether the Chair would accept it. I did not know until the Report stage whether amendments which might have been moved and accepted in Committee were agreed on Report, so I had to wait until the Report stage. When you asked "Third Reading, what day?" and were told "Now", I immediately rose. I complied with every part of the Standing Order and asked for permission, before you put the Question, to submit a manuscript blocking motion. I still claim that I am in order, and I am sorry that I cannot accept your ruling.
On a point of order. I should like to understand what are apparently the rules of the House.
; If the hon. Gentleman will sit down, I shall tell him exactly. The rules are that a blocking motion must be on the Order Paper or, in a case such as the present, when we have had to change the business of the day, in the hands of the Chair before the moment arrives to put the Question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not keep the House unduly now.
I am trying not to be a nuisance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but under what authority is the Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time" being put immediately after Report? The Bill was reported to you unamended by the Chairman of the Committee. You then asked "Third Reading, what day?" and a voice said "Now". What authority lies behind that call of "Now"? Has the House agreed to take the Third Reading immediately after the Committee stage? It would be quicker to defer Third Reading for an hour and let us get on with another Bill while the motion is put down, a motion which would not in fact block Third Reading.
I cannot accept that suggestion. The position is quite clear. We are working under Standing Order No. 56. The procedure I went through is the normal procedure that we go through on all Bills. I am sorry that I cannot accede to the request of the hon. Members for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham). I hope that I have explained thoroughly why I cannot do so. I am bound by the Standing Order. Now that the hon. Members have had their say, I hope they will allow me to put the Question.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 ( Third Reading):—
The House proceeded to a Division;—Mr. Michael Jopling and Mr. Adam Butler were appointed tellers for the Ayes but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.