| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Sir Peter Emery (East Devon): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not giving you full notice of my point of order, but may I refer you to motion No. 4 on the Order Paper concerning the business of the House? The motion is to dispose of proceedings on a motion. Although that is not unusual in the House, it is most unusual, if not unknown, that we should be asked to pass motion No. 4 before we know about the motion on which debate will be curtailed.
We are being asked to limit debate on modernisation of the House of Commons procedures, yet we have no knowledge of what the motion will contain. Once we pass motion No. 4, it will be possible for the Government to put anything in the modernisation motion, have only an hour and a half's debate on it and ride roughshod over the House. Surely you, Madam Speaker, must defend the rights of the Opposition to know what all this is about and try to assist the Government in getting such things right--even at the beginning of their period in office.
Madam Speaker:
I am sure that such a distinguished person as the right hon. Member would not allow the Government to ride roughshod over the House.
Mr. William Cash (Stone)
rose--
Madam Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman should keep his seat until I have finished.
The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) raises an interesting point, but it is very technical. He knows full well that one voice raised in objection to the motion tonight will mean that the whole thing will have to start all over again. He could therefore do just that if he is in the House at that time.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any request from Government Front Benchers to make a statement on benefits for lone parents? If you have not, will you arrange in future that all hon. Members automatically receive tickets to speeches made by the Prime Minister in which he makes major policy announcements?
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
Does the hon. Gentleman have a similarly comic point of order for me?
Mr. Jenkin:
I shall try to make it amusing. Social Security questions were rather dominated by a speech made by the Prime Minister that was released only at precisely 2.30 pm this afternoon. Is it not something of a discourtesy to the House that major policy announcements should be made away from the House, and at a time when we are discussing the very same subjects? Most right hon. and hon. Members do not have to hand the relevant material held by Ministers, which puts us at an unfair
Madam Speaker:
No, no. As far as I am concerned, the business of the House so far has been dominated by the Order Paper and questions that have been asked and answered across the Floor of the House. It is not for the Speaker of the House to determine when a Prime Minister makes a speech. No Prime Minister has ever consulted me about the time and date on which he is about to make a speech.
Mr. Cash:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Many may have noticed that we have not had a statement before the House from the Prime Minister following either the Noordwijk European Council meeting or the NATO-Russian pact which was signed recently.
First, I suggest that that is unprecedented. Secondly, there is something rotten in the state of this country in the way in which we are being treated if we are to be subjected to such important decisions being taken without a statement being made to the House. There is a grave danger of the House being treated by this new Government with about as much contempt as Lord North and George I treated the American colonies in the 18th century.
Madam Speaker:
Members on the Government Front Bench have no doubt noted what the hon. Gentleman said. Perhaps he might seek to catch my eye on Thursday at business questions. As he well knows, it is not for the Speaker to determine when statements are made; the Speaker is told when the Government wish to make statements. If he looks my way on Thursday, I shall do my best to call him.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Social Security questions, 18 of the tabled questions were answered. Eleven of them were asked by my hon. Friends and seven by Opposition Members. Although those exchanges offered the official Opposition a massive opportunity to rise to ask questions, they failed to do so again and again. It was left to those on the nationalist and Liberal Benches to do that. Within a Parliament, should not an Opposition oppose and not decompose?
Madam Speaker:
That was barely a point of order for me. I hope that the next one is.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, during the recess, there was a major announcement about defence policy concerning a comprehensive review of our armed forces, which will include all aspects of its work and shape. That statement even contained comments about what sort of response the Government expected from the Opposition parties--most unusually for a Government statement. Surely it was a discourtesy to the House that that announcement was not communicated to the House in the ordinary way by means of a statement on the Floor of the House.
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman may like to take up that matter with the shadow Leader of the House through the usual channels. That is how decisions on statements are made.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that I am right that the Bill was published in the recess. Having returned from the recess, we now find ourselves with that Bill; we are to debate its Second Reading today; and further proceedings on it could commence as early as Thursday. Are you satisfied that that time scale is proper and gives adequate time for hon. Members to consider the Bill properly and, in particular, to table amendments, and for outside interests to play their legitimate role? In the light of that, can you give us guidance about whether it would be appropriate to table manuscript amendments?
Madam Speaker:
The right hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. If he looks at the back of the Bill, he will see that it was printed while we were still in session, on 22 May, giving the two full weekends that are normal and which I consider reasonably adequate. In answer to his last point, I think that about 14 days is long enough to table amendments, and I would not accept manuscript amendments.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard (South-West Norfolk):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The Bill was not available until the morning of 23 May, when, I believe, the House was in recess.
Madam Speaker:
I was not aware of that, as it is printed on the Bill that it was available on 22 May. I take on board the right hon. Lady's point.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The Bill has been introduced in undue haste and the Library tells me that there is no compliance cost assessment so we have to rely on the explanatory and financial memorandum. I believe that that memorandum is both incomplete and inaccurate: it does not cover the additional cost to the taxpayer of the increased numbers of children to be educated in the maintained sector; of increasing staff; and of the capital required to expand the system.
Can you advise me, Madam Speaker, whether we can proceed with a Bill that so obviously misleads us as to its financial implications and, more particularly, whether the proceedings this evening on the money resolution should be delayed pending a proper compliance cost assessment from the Government?
Madam Speaker:
Let me deal with the last point first. The money resolution can adequately be dealt with, as has always been the case since the new procedures were introduced, in the discussions on the Bill. The other matters that the hon. Lady raised are matters for debate, and she should put her points to Ministers at the Dispatch Box to see what their response is.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Before all this discussion ends,
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If you get further points of order about these matters, perhaps you could refer hon. Members to the final chapter of my book, "How to Leave Office Gracefully (or, anyhow, as gracefully as possible)".
3.38 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |