---

Column 690

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Shersby, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Steen, Anthony

Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Summerson, Hugo

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thorne, Neil

Thurnham, Peter

Twinn, Dr Ian

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Wells, Bowen

Widdecombe, Ann

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. William Hague and

Mr. Richard Holt.

NOES

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Boateng, Paul

Callaghan, Jim

Dalyell, Tam

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Dixon, Don

Eastham, Ken

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Foster, Derek

Foulkes, George

Fraser, John

Fyfe, Maria

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Haynes, Frank

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Lambie, David

McFall, John

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Madden, Max

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Maxton, John

Michael, Alun

Mullin, Chris

Pike, Peter L.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Prescott, John

Skinner, Dennis

Spearing, Nigel

Turner, Dennis

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Wilson, Brian

Worthington, Tony

Wray, Jimmy

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Tom Cox and

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Pakistan Bill [Lords] , the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords] , the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [Lords] , the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords] and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, unitl any hour.- - [Mr. Sainsbury.]

10.22 pm

Mr. Harry Ewing : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have had plenty of time to think about my point of order because it is perfectly obvious. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as an occupant of the Chair, give me one example during all your time in Parliament and all your time as Mr. Deputy Speaker when you accepted a point of order in the middle of another point of order? When you have answered that, I shall raise another point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I remind him and the House that a point of order relating to a closure invariably takes precedence over anything else.

Mr. Ewing : You seem to make up the rules as you go along, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- [Hon. Members :-- "Oh."] That has never happened before and it is totally unacceptable. I want to put on record my anger and

---

Column 691

disgust at the conduct of the Chair during the debate. I am very serious about this. Normally it is the occupant of the Chair who asks an hon. Member to retire from the House because of his or her conduct. I am leaving the House now in protest about the conduct of the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The matter that I have explained to the House is clear and it is of very long standing : a point of order relating to a closure invariably takes precedence.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be fair to say that when an hon. Member moves a closure, that is a motion for a closure? If the hon. Member concerned raises a point of order, he places the Chair in the position of trying to take one point of order over another. Am I right in saying that all that the hon. Member had to do--which probably was not done in this case--was to move,

"That the Question be now put."?

Is not it wrong in principle, according to Standing Orders, for an hon. Member to rise on a point of order during another point of order? Would not it be better if the hon. Member concerned moved the closure as such, rather than on a point of order, so that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could resolve the matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is no need for an hon. Member to say, "On a point of order," before the closure is moved. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the procedure of which he has reminded the House.

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Had you any indication from the sponsor of the Bill that he intended to move the closure, bearing in mind the fact that many of my hon. Friends still wanted to participate in the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not disputing the judgment of the Chair. If a closure motion is moved, the Chair has to decide whether to accept it. It is then for the House to decide on the matter. All that the Chair has to decide is whether to accept the motion.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just heard a press report that the IRA has accepted responsibility for the bombing of an Army recruitment office in Halifax some weeks ago. As there has been silence from all quarters about who is responsible for that outrage, which could have resulted in civilian deaths, but fortunately did not, I am wondering whether you have been notified by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he intends to make a statement in the near future about the bombing and responsibility for it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Lady has raised a serious point. It is not possible for a statement to be made now, but I am sure that what she has said has been heard by the Government Front Bench.

---

Column 692

Orders of the Day

Pakistan Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

10.26 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secondary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill's purpose is, I hope, welcome. It is to modify existing domestic legislation in order to place Pakistan on the same footing as other Commonwealth countries, following its return to the Commonwealth on 1 October of last year, after a decision by consensus of the other member countries, of the Commonwealth.

As became clear during discussion of the Bill in the other place last year, it also provides a reminder of the close relations between our two countries, and of the very considerable amount of good will towards Pakistan that exists in Britain. The relations between us are, of course, of long standing, but they are by no means purely historical. Pakistan is an important trading partner for Britain, and we are the largest overseas investor there. We have a major aid programme, with projects in irrigation and the social sector, among other areas. We consult and co-operate with Pakistan on a wide range of issues. The Pakistan Interior Minister was one of those who visited London for the world ministerial drugs summit held here at the beginning of April.

Pakistan is a major Islamic country. We particularly welcome Pakistan's return to the Commonwealth at this important time in the organisation's history. As we proceed with the high level review of the role of the Commonwealth in the 1990s, there will be much discussion between the secretariat and other members of the Commonwealth. We look forward to Pakistan's contribution to these discussions. Its renewed membership of the Commonwealth provides it with an additional and important forum in which to set out and exchange views at a time when developments in the world are taking place at a particularly rapid pace.

The return to democracy in many parts of the world has been one of the most encouraging developments of the last few months. Pakistan was some way ahead of recent events, returning to full democracy with elections in November 1988. We were particularly pleased to be able to welcome Prime Minister Bhutto to London a few months later, in July last year. That very successful visit included talks on many key issues. Mr. Speaker had the opportunity to see the Pakistan parliamentary system when he visited last autumn. since then, we received in January a senior delegation from the Pakistan Senate, headed by its leader, Mr. Sajjad.

One worrying note is the tension which has developed between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. As we have repeatedly made clear to both sides, we very much hope that that tension can be reduced, and that discussions between the two countries can provide some resolution of the situation. Neither country's interests can be served by continuing the dispute which has developed. We welcomed the meeting between the two Foreign Ministers in New

---