Privilege / Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous

Debates pp. 7943-4

Background

During Oral Questions, Mr. Nesbitt (Oxford) rose on a question of privilege, without notice having been given, and proposed that, in view of the admitted refusal of the Government to make payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, the motion of Mr. Baldwin (Peace River) standing on the Order Paper should be now put. It would be one way, claimed Mr. Nesbitt, "to test the views of the Members of the House on this continued lawbreaking". [The motion of Mr. Baldwin sought to create a special committee of five Members to examine the circumstances of the Government's refusal to make the payment required by the Act.) This issue of non-payment had been considered the day before as an adjournment debate under the terms of Standing Order 26, and the Speaker had previously rejected an application that the Government's action constituted a prima facie case of privilege.

Issue

Is there a prima facie case of privilege? Did the motion of Mr. Baldwin merit consideration as a privileged motion?

Decision

The issue of the Government's refusal to pay is not a prima facie case of privilege. For similar reasons, the motion of Mr. Baldwin has not been given priority on the Order Paper.

Reasons given by the Speaker

"... if there is to be further or continued debate on this very important matter, it should not be done under the guise or under the umbrella of a question of privilege." The motion of Mr. Baldwin is essentially a non-confidence motion or a censure motion "which ought to be debated either as a formal substantive motion, on which the usual private Member's notice has to be given, or as a supply motion which would require the vote of the House".

Sources cited

Journals, June 19, 1959, pp. 582-6.

Debates, September 13, 1971, pp. 7739-40.

References

Journals, September 16, 1971, pp. 801-2.

Debates, September 16, 1971, p. 7863; September 17, 1971, pp. 7942-3.