House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Jul 1990

Column 177

Points of Order

3.30 pm

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Amplification has been cut down yet again. Television audiences can hear very well, and hon. Members can hardly hear at all, but I suppose that it does not really matter.

Mr. Speaker : Order. It does really matter. If and when the House resolves to make the experiment of television permanent, I understand that the Committee will consider the quality of the microphones in the Chamber.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you clarify for the assistance of the whole House the exact rules on points of order during Question Time? While I appreciate that you were in a difficult position during questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, it has always been understood that points of order are taken at the end of questions, not in the middle.

Mr. Speaker : For the edification of the hon. Member and of the whole House, I refer him to Hansard of 12 February 1987, when I spelt out that matter in great detail. If a point of order which needs my immediate attention is raised during a debate, I have to take it. Similarly, if a point of order is raised in Question Time needing my immediate attention, I have to hear it. But I do not take points of order on other matters until after private notice questions and statements on Standing Order No. 20 applications have been dealt with.

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which relates to Question 8, from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). Is it not a fact that the Lord President of the Council and the Prime Minister, when she is here, are responsible for questions that relate directly to her, and that the question of the hon. Member for Harrow, West was not related to the responsibility of the Lord President of the Council, but was simply party political propaganda on behalf of the Conservative party?

Mr. Speaker : I have to make a judgment on that. This House is here to discuss policies. If a question has some relation to a calculation of the Government's costs, for instance, then it is entirely in order to ask it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) : Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), Mr. Speaker. Not only was it difficult to hear his point of order but it was difficult to hear your response, too. Is it not appropriate, Sir, that the amplification in this place should be turned up before we hold the debate on whether television is to continue--so that Members can hear what is going on and the House can make the right decisions? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I hope that I may be granted some tolerance to answer this question. If there were not so much noise from the Back Benches it would be perfectly possible to hear the answers. When the House resolves to make permanent the televising of the House, no doubt the quality of the microphones in the Chamber will be looked at ; but I have had few complaints about that quality so far.

Column 178

The fact that Members cannot hear is directly related to the amount of noise on the Back Benches near the Member who is speaking.

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed that in recent weeks, when the Prime Minister has been away, the deputy Leader of the Opposition has usually put a question to the deputy Prime Minister. Is that conventional? I had always thought that the Leader of the Opposition should put the question to my right hon. and learned Friend. Does the Leader of the Opposition think--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that : it is perfectly in order.

Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As someone who uses a hearing aid in the House of Commons, may I ask that Members speak clearly so that the people of this country who are deaf can understand what they are saying? The House should understand that thousands of deaf people in this country rely on proper information being conveyed to them from the House so that they can enjoy their democratic rights as citizens.

Mr. Speaker : I am not certain whether there was a point of order in that for me. The present microphones have a wide range, so if Members create noise behind or in front of a Member who is on his feet, their voices are picked up also.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the same subject of audibility. On many previous occasions when something abusive or unparliamentary--or even merely someone's name--has been said in the House, you have said, "I did not hear it," and that was the end of the matter. But today you changed that ; you did not hear the name of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) mentioned, but once there was an outcry from other Opposition Members, you accepted their word although you had not heard the name yourself. Was that in order--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am grateful to be monitored by the hon. Gentleman so regularly. I frequently say that I have not heard comments made from a sedentary position--often by the hon. Gentleman himself. In this case, the hon. Member who raised the matter did so because he claimed that he had been named in the question asked by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), and I was on my feet to prevent that question from going any further.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was quite a bit of noise and the amplifiers may not be working properly, but I listened intently to the deputy Prime Minister answering the question from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). May I take it that, when he was talking about money, he was referring to the plethora of frauds at Rover and Harrods and to all the other Government fiddles that have taken place? Did he say that? If so, I should like to join in--

Mr. Speaker : Order. We are in grave danger of straying well out of order. Ten-minute rule motion--Mr. Harry Cohen.

Column 179

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Mr. Norman Tebbit.

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford) : May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that--quite inadvertently, I am sure--you referred to the occasion "when" this House would take the decision to extend the televising of the House. You did not put in the word "if". You should emphasise that no decision has been taken to make the televising of our proceedings a permanent feature. That is a decision for the House. I am sure that that is what you meant to say.

Mr. Speaker : If the right hon. Member will kindly read Hansard tomorrow morning, I think he will see that, in answer to the first question from the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) I said, "if and when."

Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Obviously hon. Members should be heard. They should also be seen. Could the lighting be increased? It is evident during supplementary questions that some hon. Members are called before others. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. Something should be done about it. Could we have a league table showing who gets called and who does not?

Mr. Speaker : It is a good point. I have a league table. I have a computer, and I do my utmost to ensure that every hon. Member gets a fair share of time in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is not deprived in that respect.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) rose--

Mr. Speaker : Nor is this hon. Member.

Mr. Corbyn : Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, what opportunities there will be for the House to contrast the treatment of those who sought to defend mining communities during the miners strike, with international working-class support, with the treatment of a number of

Column 180

former Cabinet Ministers who have lined their pockets by accepting directorships for which they get hundreds of thousands of pounds a year--

Mr. Speaker : Order. This is not the time to debate matters of that kind. There are other matters to be debated today. Ten-minute rule motion-- Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : I called the hon. Member last time, but I know the television cameras are still on. So I shall call him.

Mr. Davies : On the point of audibility, Sir, you said that you had received few complaints. I hope that it may assist you in attempting to assess the feeling of hon. Members, which I know you try to do fairly, if I add a complaint of my own. There seems to be a remarkable amount of ambiguity and a reluctance to concede explicitly that, as the television operators have demanded that our microphones should be turned down, we are suffering from the problems about which we complain. Can we have a clear explanation of whether televising the House has led to us suffering from this problem?

Mr. Speaker : This matter has often been raised before. The hon. Member should know that the microphones have not been turned either up or down. They are as they were before. The fact that hon. Members cannot hear what is said in the House is entirely due to the behaviour of other hon. Members in the House. Just so long as we have this kind of barracking from the Back Benches--and even, sometimes, from the Front Benches--we shall be unable to hear, even if we do replace the microphones.

Mr. Faulds : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to correct you, Sir, but the technical problem is nothing to do with the turning down of the mikes ; it is the amplifiers that have been turned down, so that television audiences do not get a mumble in the background. That is the problem, and that is what we are suffering from.

Mr. Speaker : Let us see if we can now get on with the ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.

Column 181

Mortgage Assistance

3.43 pm

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : I do not have to worry about the volume, because I have a very sound set of proposals.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill further to regulate the relationship between mortgagor and mortgagee ; to make provision, in circumstances in which a mortgagor is unable to meet mortgage repayments, for shared ownership of a property between mortgagor and mortgagee ; to permit local authorities and housing associations to assume the responsibilities and rights of mortgagees in certain circumstances ; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the resources and requirements of local authorities and housing associations in respect of shared ownership of housing ; to make provision for a mortgagee to rent a property to its mortgagor if he is in repayment arrears ; to place a duty upon lending institutions to make arrangements for the management of a mortgagor's debt before seeking repossession of a property ; to make the cost of shared- ownership purchases eligible for housing revenue account subsidy ; and for connected purposes.

The Bill could just as easily have been called the Mortgage Rescue Scheme Bill, or the Mortgage Choice Bill. It is a radical measure that is both innovative and important. It is important because it addresses the serious problem of home repossessions because of mortgage arrears which are getting worse because of the Government's high interest rate policy. We now have the highest interest rate in the industrialised world. Interest rates are the Government's sole weapon to tackle the consumer credit boom that they unleashed to win the last general election. As United Kingdom production has not kept pace, we have a £20 billion per annum balance-of-payments crisis. By using interest rates, the Government are taking it out on recent home buyers.

Interest rates are reflected in mortgage rates, which have increased from 9.8 per cent. to 15.4 per cent. in just over a year. The average new mortgage holder in the United Kingdom is paying £144 a month more, and £250 a month more in London. The chief executive of the charitably owned estate agency, Andrews, said, "It is absurd to expect young people with expanding familites to take on 25-year home loans, budget for repayments out of tightly controlled incomes and then have their monthly mortgage commitment soar within six months." That is what has happened, and many hundreds of thousands of households have been trapped because high mortgage rates have become an integral part of the Government's economic strategy.

It has led to an arrears time bomb. Recently, I asked a couple of parliamentary questions about the numbers of people who were six to 12 months in arrears. the Treasury Minister replied that, on 31 December last year, the figure was some 58,000 households. It is significant that he chose December : a more recent date would have revealed a much higher figure, as it has rocketed since then. When I asked the Minister about those between one and six months in arrears, he refused to answer, saying that he had nothing more to add. The Council of Mortgage Lenders certainly had something to add, saying that more than 500,000 people are in that category and the numbers are soaring. In its July newsletter, the Council of Mortgage Lenders said that in 1989, there were some 47,093 repossession orders in England alone, and that there had been a marked increase in the south-east.

Column 182

The Association of London Authorities reported that, in 1989, well over 600 households had been accepted as homeless in London as a result of repossession. Probably many more people have been rehoused by local authorities, but other reasons have been given. All the signs are that there will be a substantial increase in those numbers this year.

My Bill is timely and necessary. It would help a large number of hard- pressed mortgage payers who are currently suffering because of high mortgage rates and they are fearful of repossession. Let me outline the main proposals. First, a mortgage payer would be able to convert part- ownership, scaling down his ownership in the property, so that the repayments become manageable. Effective, it would buy people time over a five-year period.

Secondly, a mortgage payer could convert to shared ownership, so that a local authority or housing association could take over the mortgage with rights in the property. That local authority or housing association would then receive the revised mortgage payments, and the rent and its capital would be returned when the property was sold. The purpose of such a scheme would be for repayments to become manageable for the mortgage payer. My Bill contains a mechanism to prevent soaring house prices from causing such damage. If there were excessive lending by the building societies, the part -ownership period would be longer and the local authority could charge a transfer fee on the building society to take over that mortgage. The third option would be for the mortgage payer to convert from ownership to rental with the local authority. That is Labour party policy, and it would avoid people being thrown out into the streets. That would enable a mortgage payer to get back on his feet ; there would be nothing to stop him repurchasing the property, as the Bill does not interfere with right-to-buy provisions. If a mortgage payer, through no fault of his own, cannot maintain the repayments, even under a shared ownership scheme, he could enter a rental arrangement with the local authority so that he would not be evicted. The fourth major provision in the Bill would place a duty on the lending institutions to seek contract with mortgage payers to sort out alternative arrangements prior to any court action for repossession. It is a scandal that a minute or two minutes in court without the mortgage payer knowing what is happening can cause someone to lose his home. That is happening at the moment, and my Bill would stop it.

The fifth major provision of the Bill is that the Secretary of State for the Environment will have to report regularly to the House on the special funds that he will provide to local authorities, such as the new borrowing arrangements to enable them to undertake shared ownership schemes and the special grants to housing associations. The housing finance regime would have to be altered. Of course a cost would be involved, but it would be a capital cost, because it would increase local authorities' borrowing allocation. In the meantime, revenue--repayments and part rents--would be coming in. It would benefit local authorities' income generation and it would mean less, not more, on poll tax bills. It must be cheaper than the cost of homelessness and the wasteful cost of bed and breakfast. My Bill would apply only to mortgage payers in genuine difficulties and not to those who are in wilful arrears. That would be easy to operate, because the criteria

Column 183

for whether they were in wilful arrears would be the same as the definition of intentionally homeless in the homeless legislation. The question must be asked : if I can provide some protection and choice for hard-pressed mortgage payers, why cannot the Government? There was nothing in the Budget or in the Finance Bill, which we shall consider next week, and they still have nothing to offer. They simply do not have the political will, because they do not care about struggling home buyers.

The Prime Minister recently spoke of a scheme to convert rents to mortgages, about which she gave no details, but that does nothing to stem the current flood of mortgage repossessions. I remind the Government that there is no choice if there is coercion, and high rents are coercion. Once ordinary people are on the Government's scheme, they lose all their rights of security because of the high mortgage rates that prevail.

My challenge to the Government is to accept my Bill and their scheme. Otherwise, they are only pretending to deal with this serious problem ; they are only teasing about owner-occupation when they are prepared to snatch away home ownership.

The principal solution is low interest rates--that is the main part of Labour's policy--but there is a strong case for providing the protection and choice that I propose for mortgage payers. They certainly should not be made to bear the brunt of the national economic mismanagement. My Bill is a new way to defend and to extend home ownership, and I commend it to the House.

3.54 pm

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) rose--

Mr. Speaker : Is the hon. Lady seeking to oppose the Bill?

Mrs. Gorman : I seek to oppose the Bill, not because I lack sympathy for the very small number of people who find themselves in difficulties with their mortgages, but because the solution of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr Cohen), which includes yet more regulations, this time to be imposed on the mortgage lending business, is likely to have an opposite effect to that which he intends because building societies will be even less likely to want to help people whose incomes are fairly low and who may be unable to maintain their payments at the original level.

Building societies have a liberal attitude and, contrary to the impression that the hon. Gentleman gave, many mortgage companies enter into dialogue with people who find themselves in difficulty. I urge him, using his capacity as a Member of Parliament, to approach building societies directly with such cases. I have done so on behalf of some of my constituents, with great success.

The main fault of the Bill is that it does not tackle the underlying problem in housing--that over the years the Labour party has constantly sought to regulate, to bully and to control the private-sector landlord, so that the only option open to people on low incomes is to buy or to seek housing from their local council. When I was young-- [Interruption.] --which was not all that long ago--working-class people like us had a choice in housing, a choice in rented housing in the private sector. The Labour party has destroyed that choice by its constant bullying of the private landlord. The Conservative party is trying to bring back the private landlord. If the hon.

Column 184

Gentleman is seriously concerned about the plight of these people, he should urge his own Front Bench to lay off attacking measures that will restore confidence to the private landlord. Every time our party suggests some liberalisation, the Labour party offers threats to any landlord who tries to rent out his property.

There is a great deal of empty property available, as all hon. Members are aware. Most of that does not come up for rent, because the owners are frightened that, if we ever suffered under Labour legislation again, their properties would be sequestrated because the Labour party does not believe in the private rented sector. In raising this proposal to help tenants, the hon. Gentleman is neglecting the role that his party has played in creating this problem. For that reason, I oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker : The question is, That the hon. Gentleman have leave to bring in the Bill. As many of that opinion say aye. [ Hon. Members :-- "Aye."] To the contrary, no. [ Hon. Members :-- "Come on."] As the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has spoken against the Bill, she must say "no".

Mrs. Gorman : No.

Question agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Don Dixon, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Eric Martlew and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

Mortgage Assistance

Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the relationship between mortgagor and mortgagee : to make provision, in circumstances in which a mortgagor is unable to meet mortgage repayments, for shared ownership of a property between mortgagor and mortgagee ; to permit local authorities and housing associations to assume the responsibilities and rights of mortgagees in certain circumstances ; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the resources and requirements of local authorities and housing associations in respect of shared ownership of housing ; to make provision for a mortgagee to rent a property to its mortgagor if he is in repayment arrears ; to place a duty upon lending institutions to make arrangements for the management of a mortgagor's debt before seeking repossession of a property ; to make the cost of shared- ownership purchases eligible for housing revenue account subsidy ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : I have dealt with points of order. Is this connected with the ten-minute Bill?

Mr. Cryer : Yes. I noticed that you cautioned the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who opposed the

Column 185

Bill. You said that it was customary--as it is--for any hon. Member who opposes a ten-minute Bill to follow that opposition by pressing the matter to a Division.

Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that you did not call a Division on the ten-minute Bill because the sole voice against this excellent Bill was that of the hon. Member for Billericay, who was mistaken, as she usually is? It is a poor reflection on the Conservative Benches that they cannot find one supporter for their misguided representative.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. If an hon. Member opposes a Bill, he or she must shout "No" on the first occasion. When I put the question again, if my saying, "The ayes have it" is not challenged, a Division is not called. None the less, if an hon. Member speaks against a Bill, but does not carry it to a Division, he or she takes up the time of the House. There may therefore be a case for considering the procedure in the light of the time taken from subsequent debates.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am still on my feet. This is an estimates day, which is a prized opportunity for Back-Bench Members--especially, in this case, Welsh Members and those from the south-west--to debate flooding. Points of order take up time, just as much as opposition to ten-minute Bills.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I will take points of order if they are related to this matter.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether one way of trying to overcome this problem-- if you had the authority ; obviously you would tell the House--might be that, if information was given to your office that an hon. Member wanted to oppose a ten-minute Bill, which is the normal procedure, that hon. Member could state whether he or she intended to seek a vote. It is a mockery if an hon. Member has 10 minutes in which to propose a potential Bill, but then another hon. Member, from another party, argues against it but refuses to call for a vote. Surely that is a waste of time.

I believe that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) refused to call for a vote because she knew full well that the Opposition would have won without hesitation. The hon. Lady therefore wasted the time of the House by putting forward a feeble case and then refusing to call for a vote. Surely that is a form of political cowardice. Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. Let me deal with one thing at a time. I must, of course, operate the rules as they are at the moment. At the moment, I am required to give an hon. Member who wishes to oppose a Bill the opportunity to do so. What I was saying a moment ago was that, given the pressure of time on subsequent debates, perhaps the Select Committee on Procedure should now look at this matter again.

Column 186

Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you share my boredom at bogus points of order being raised during television time. Would it not be a good idea if you were given a switch and could turn off the television cameras whenever an Opposition Member made a bogus point of order?

Mr. Speaker : I am somewhat of an expert in bogus points of order. The problem is that there seems to be a tendency to raise points of order during television time--I put it no higher than that, and I would not wish to make any accusations in the Chamber. We all know the television cameras transmit live until 3.50 pm and I have found from experience that, if there is no statement or private notice question, points of order tend to be raised and seem to cut off, almost automatically, at 3.50 pm. I sometimes wonder what the reason for that might be.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I call Mr. Tony Banks.

Mr. Corbyn : I rose before my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I waited until we were alone to raise this point of order. [Laughter.] I could be wrong on this-- I usually am--but has it not been the case until fairly recently that, when an hon. Member rises to oppose a ten-minute rule application, there is a vote? That was the convention. However, that has changed at some stage and an hon. Member is now allowed simply to voice opposition. I wonder whether you can confirm that, Mr. Speaker, because your point about this matter being considered by the Select Committee on Procedure is most relevant.

Mr. Speaker : The rule has always been that an hon. Member may speak against a Bill, provided that the shout of "No" is heard. That is the objection. However, I repeat that that is not a good practice and that we should consider whether to allow what are almost free kicks to continue in view of the time that we need in this place to debate other important matters.

Mr. Corbyn : Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker, at 4.2 pm. I welcome your suggestion that the Select Committee on Procedure should consider ten-minute Bills because, as you know, I take them seriously. A Bill is often introduced at this stage, carried without Division or, as in this case, carried with opposition but no Division, yet it can be killed off on a Friday afternoon by one of the Government Whips muttering, "Object."

When the Select Committee on Procedure considers this matter, perhaps it should also consider whether there might be some way by which, if an hon. Member goes to the effort of introducing a ten-minute Bill--a serious piece of legislation and a serious proposal--and it is carried at that stage, it cannot be objected to by the simple expediency of the Whips. We should ensure that it is properly dealt with and brought back to the House as a serious piece of legislation. It should not be dismissed as a mere 10- minute speech by one hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker : The danger is that the public could be misled by the procedure of the ten-minute rule. The Bill that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has asked leave to bring in today has not been passed. The hon. Gentleman has simply asked leave to introduce his Bill.

Column 187

When the Select Committee on Procedure looks again at this matter, perhaps it might also reconsider the procedure whereby it is possible to introduce a ten-minute Bill after the last day on which there is an opportunity for its Second Reading on a Friday. In many ways, a ten-minute Bill is an empty gesture at this time of year.

Mr. Tony Banks : I have one next week.

Mrs. Gorman : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have taken the opportunity to rebuke me for opposing a ten-minute rule Bill--which I did, but I also called "No" and it was your choice to decide whether to call a Division. It ill behoves you, Mr. Speaker-- [Interuption.] --to accept points of order which are critical from Opposition Members, who are not backward in opposing ten-minute rule Bills. There are few opportunities in the House for Back Benchers who feel strongly on subjects to make their views known. This has been one such occasion. I may be in a minority now but, to paraphrase Disraeli, there will come a time when the House will follow me on this subject.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Lady must not get upset. I was certainly not rebuking her. She was perfectly in order in doing what she did ; she was following the procedure. I was questioning that procedure, not what the hon. Lady did.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with an important matter. The fact of causing a Division to take place is often a deterrent to hon. Members getting to their feet and speaking on an issue. The knowledge that one is about to cause a vote to take place by one's Opposition acts as a deterrent to speaking. Is a precedent now being created by which hon. Members will be able to air their views and then not have to do anything about it? If so, we shall be opening a whole can of worms, which could result in hon. Members airing their views, secure in the knowledge that they need not take the matter further.

Mr. Tony Banks : That is what we have been talking about.

Mr. Flannery : I hope that my hon. Friend will be quiet and heed what I am saying. I am making a sound point. Mr. Speaker and I fully appreciate the point I am making.

Mr. Winnick : Hear, hear--said by a former headmaster.

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is an old hand, and he must be aware that the point that he raises is precisely the issue that we have been discussing for the last 10 minutes or so. We have been agreeing that perhaps the procedure should be looked at, and I hope that it will be.

Next Section

Home Page