Object.

:Debate to be resumed what day?

On behalf of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Monday next.

Object.

Consideration deferred till Friday 13 July.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) moved that his Bill be now read a Second Time, I honestly did not hear any hon. Member say "Object"—[HON. MEMBERS: "We did."] If you heard an objection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could you tell us from whom it came?

Order. We have been round that course on many previous Fridays. As this is the last effective Friday for private Members' Bills, perhaps it would be as well if I were to remind the House that this is a well-established procedure. I clearly heard "Object", which means that the Bill—

rose—

rose—

rose—

Order. I have not finished. I also remind the House that the Select Committee on Procedure has considered this procedure fairly recently and has advised against any change to it. The Committee, of course, gave its reasons for so doing.

It might also be as well if I remind the House that the procedure of objection is not available only at 2.30 pm on a Friday; it is used frequently on main sitting days at 2.30 pm to stop private Bills. It can equally be used to stop Government motions at various times. If an hon. Member shouts "Object" to any of those categories of Bill, that does not necessarily mean that he objects to the Bill as such. He may merely be objecting to the Bill proceeding without debate or scrutiny. I hope that that helps to clarify the position for the House.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the House is grateful to you for the explanation that you have just given of the present position. You did not call me when I sought to rise a little earlier—I should have shouted that I wanted to make a point of order. Great indignation was felt by my hon. Friends about the way in which the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) sabotaged a Bill—and subsequently glorified in that fact—which is of great social importance and of great importance in terms of law and order in many parts of the country. Happily, that is not the case in my constituency, but there is a major problem in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) which he was seeking to alleviate, with the support of all of us.

I do not know whether the Select Committee on Procedure can be persuaded to reconsider that matter, but there is something badly wrong with our procedures when a Bill that is desired by many people, by the forces of law and order, and especially by women is sabotaged. The hon. Member for Brent, East gave us a lecture, but he was not even well informed. I shall not go into the details now because this is a point of order, but there must be a strong case for the Select Committee on Procedure being asked to reconsider that matter. Parliament is a living and continuing thing. It may take a view one day, but if abuse continues to occur, I believe that the Select Committee should be asked to reconsider.

I fully understand what the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), said, but what occurred today was in order. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman feels that the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee, who better to do that than he?

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I say through you, Sir, to the Father of the House, for whom I have infinite respect, that I believe, as a member of the Procedure Committee, that he has made a good point? However, I must point out to him that there was a difference between the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) dealt with the Sexual Offences Bill and the method used by those who objected to my Protection of Badger Setts Bill. My hon. Friend objected openly to the Sexual Offences Bill. He will have to take whatever public criticism comes his way and he will, no doubt, endure it in his customary fashion.

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), I clearly heard the objections to my Protection of Badger Setts Bill from the hon. Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). The difference between them and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East is that they want to wear the cloak of anonymity. Every hon. Member must in the end be accountable for his or her actions. I respect the views of any hon. Members who wish to use the procedures of the House to kill off a Bill if they believe that that is in the best interests of their constituents, or of whatever other interests they serve. However, they ought not then to be able to claim anonymity.

I was not here at 9.30 when a number of points of order were raised because last week I named the hon. Member for Devizes who objected to my Bill. I understand that he has received a number of threats. I utterly deplore them. Anyone who issues threats ought to realise that, far from the hon. Member for Devizes being criticised by the public, as he ought to be, he could gain their sympathy. I hope that anyone who is considering such foolhardy actions will bear that in mind. The Bill will return to this place, when the hon. Members for Romsey and Waterside and for Devizes will undoubtedly endure public criticism for having killed off the Protection of Badger Setts Bill.

Order. The matter has been well ventilated on both sides of the House. We must now get on.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I shall take it when I have dealt with the remaining orders.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 20 July.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Object.

Object

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

I feel lucky. Friday 13 July.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 20 July.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next, Sir. That was a disgraceful objection.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My Bill—the Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill—was not moved. I am pleased to say that the Government have agreed to assist in securing a piece of land in a prominent part of London on which to place a fitting tribute to Raoul Wallenberg, and I shall therefore not be taking the Bill any further. Let me take this opportunity to thank all the hon. Members on both sides of the House who have helped to bring about this unique event.

I was a member of the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill. I was greatly disturbed—for reasons that I have already mentioned—by the way in which objection to the Bill was handled; however, there has been a happy ending to the story. Let me simply say that the Bill was intended to secure a memorial to one of the great heroes of the 20th century, whom the United States made an honorary American citizen. Surely the least that we can do is mark his sacrifice, and his dedication and devotion in saving at least 100,000 lives through personal endeavour by ensuring that the piece of land so generously offered by the Government is sited prominently in our capital city.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a particularly observant occupant of the Chair, you will have noticed that, during the slaughter of the innocents that traditionally takes place on this day every July, many hon. Members objecting to ten-minute Bills—most of them Opposition Members—have stood to record their objections. Should not the names of such hon. Members be recorded? At least hon. Members who attempt to say publicly why they oppose certain Bills would then be able to do so.

The Elimination of Poverty in Retirement Bill has been presented seven times in the two most recent Parliaments, and has always been objected to, usually by a member of the Trappist tendency on the Conservative Benches. That has caused grave disquiet to many pensioners who would like to see some light at the end of the poverty tunnel.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to discuss the Bill. What is his point of order?

The point of order is this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I am here nearly every Friday at this time to discuss these issues. You must be aware of the disquiet in the House about the anonymity, of objectors: it is tantamount to a secret vote. In an elected Parliament, everything should be open and above board. If the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) wishes to oppose the abolition of deer hunting—or the excellent Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to protect badger setts—let him stand up and say so.

rose—

Order. If I deal with the point of order from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), I may short-circuit later points of order.

This matter was dealt with at length by Mr. Speaker at the beginning of our proceedings today. I have repeated what he said, and made one or two additional points in the light of points of order. There is nothing that I can add.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and on a separate matter, relating to the business that has just gone through.

I realise that silent objections are not a matter for the Chair; you and Mr. Speaker have made that clear. One of this week's issues, however, has been behaviour that discredits Parliament. People outside complain regularly about Bills that are killed rather than being allowed to be voted out. If their future is determined by a vote, people understand; if it is determined by an unnamed objector, they do not, and they do not regard that as a democratic process.

Will you clarify another point, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I understand from the Vote Office that many of the Bills in the long list that has just been read out have not been printed. If that is so, am I right in thinking that, in effect, hon. Members will have no opportunity to move the motion for Second Reading? Would it be possible in future for the Order Paper to show whether a Bill has been printed, and, if it has not, for it not to appear on the Order Paper? There was a long list of Bills that had been printed, but it was made longer by the Bills that had not been printed. The general view is that Bills that are serious attempts at legislation should he printed. They should be seen as serious legislation, whereas that status should not be accorded to Bills of hon. Members who, as it were, fly a kite but never draft or print the Bills.

rose—

May I deal with this, because it is probably a separate point? The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) makes a valuable point, because sometimes the procedure is somewhat confusing. If there were no objection to a Bill that had not been printed, we would not allow its Second Reading to be moved. The hon. Gentleman may wish to put his other point to the Select Committee on Procedure.

Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Gentleman has a point. I have no hesitation in objecting, and being identified as somebody who had objected, to the Protection of Badger Setts Bill and the Abolition of Deer Hunting Bill. I do object—I made this point earlier today—to the promoter of the Bill abusing points of order by making a speech about an objection to which, without a further abuse of the points of order procedure, the hon. Member who has objected has no opportunity to reply. The actions and words of the promoter of a Bill can be misconstrued by people outside who have an interest in it. I hope very much, as a result of the many points of order raised this morning and the clarification given from the Chair by you, Sir, and Mr. Speaker, that the public outside will begin to appreciate that objections to Bills are often merely an attempt further to discuss measures such as the Protection of Badger Setts Bill, which I want to see on the statute book in an amended form.

Further to the points of order made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), Mr. Deputy Speaker. He is right that people should be clear about the procedures of the House. The points that he made were valuable. People are confused not only by the procedure that we have just gone through but about some of the Bills that are brought before the House.

In a point of order, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) suggested that he did not know who had objected to his Elimination of Poverty in Retirement Bill. Anyone who did not know that I had volubly objected to it would have to be lacking in all sensory perception. The real abuse is that the Bill had no chance of succeeding. It would never have been in the programme of any party and the hon. Gentleman is misleading people, for his own political advantage, into believing that it had any chance of succeeding.

These are all valid points to put to the Select Committee on Procedure, if the hon. Gentleman so wishes.

rose—

rose—

Order. Both hon. Members who are now standing have had a go. I will call them again, but I am extremely anxious to hear what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) wishes to say in his Adjournment debate. I should like to get on to that pretty quickly.

Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman was most disingenuous: he said that his only reason for objecting to the Protection of Badger Setts Bill was that he wanted further debate. He knows that there will be no further opportunity to debate it on the Floor of the House unless the Government allocate time for that. He was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill and we had three full sittings, at which he made all the points that he wanted. If he had allowed the Bill to proceed today, it could have gone to the other place, where the further debate could have been held. The hon. Gentleman should not try to pull the wool over the House's eyes.

We cannot debate these matters now.

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, spurious points of order were made about my Consumer Guarantees Bill. Mr. Speaker ruled that the procedure that I used to change the date from today to 20 July was perfectly in order, but will you confirm that?

I forced a voted on the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill, which resulted in it being dropped arid moved to Monday. I believe that this is a genuine point of order. Will you confirm, Sir, that the Government can allow time for a debate on that day and could allow time for my Consumer Guarantees Bill to be considered in Government time? That would show that the Government are concerned about consumers, not about manufacturers who produce shoddy goods.

I should not want to deal with that point off the cuff. I am not exactly sure about that, and I should want to give the hon. Gentleman wholly accurate advice. I suggest that he seek advice afterwards from the Clerks, who I am sure will be able to tell him exactly what happens.

rose—

Does the hon. Member wish to speak on the Adjournment?

No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to raise a point of order. I should like to put on record my gratitude to the hon. Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for bringing a little glasnost into the Chamber. They have at last said that they are opposed to the debating—not to the passage—of the two Bills with which I am associated.

That is untrue. Do not tell lies in the House.

I heard the hon. Member for Harrow, West say something that I believe to be fully out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The comments by the hon. Members for Harrow, West and for Romsey and Waterside re-emphasise the point that the House needs to debate procedure once again. If a Member who has the support of thousands, if not millions, of people wishes to bring to the attention of the nation the problem of the impoverishment of elderly people, that does not mean that the relevant legislation will be carried by the House. I am pretty sure that Conservative Members would vote against it. I am sure that you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is the function of the House to debate measures brought forward by individual Members through the proper procedure.

We cannot debate these matters now. I have let the House have a good run.