| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Howarth: My point of order is quite simple, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm to the House that a motion such as that moved last night is simply not debatable? If an objection had been registered, the Committee could not have been formed until some time in the future, thereby delaying the matter.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct--and he has now put a correct point of order to me. He could have objected to the motion last night. That would have delayed the establishment of the Committee, and the matter would have come before the House again. The hon. Gentleman could have objected if he had wished to do so, but, out of kindness to the House, he did not.
Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The concept of internal exile is constitutionally very vague and almost unknown. Is it in order for you to discover whether the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar)--who has not, to the best of my knowledge, been seen in the precincts of Westminster, or certainly in the Chamber, since shortly
after the election--and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who has not been seen in the Chamber for a week, have been told by the Government Whips Office that they must not come to the House? If that is so, they would not be able to represent the interests of their constituents.
Madam Speaker: Let me deal with one point of order at a time. That is not a matter for me.
Madam Speaker: I am not concerned with the internal matters of any political party. As far as I am concerned, the matter has been referred to Sir Gordon Downey, who, in turn, will no doubt inform the appropriate Committee. I am concerned with that process, and not with the internal matters of any political party.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are the guardian of the rights of Parliament, and we poor, miserable, downtrodden Back Benchers look to you to act in just that way.
The Leader of the House says that the Prime Minister is personally satisfied with the explanation that he has been offered by the Secretary of State for Wales. The House, however, and particularly the Opposition, are not satisfied. Who is supreme in this matter--the House or the Prime Minister? May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to clarify the point? Will you ask the Prime Minister to come to the House to re-clarify the situation, where he may have inadvertently not quite got his answer right yesterday?
Madam Speaker:
I have no authority, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to demand that any Member or Minister come to the House to make a statement. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further to secure a debate, he must do so through the usual channels.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a question of the accuracy of the Official Report. In the context of the questioning of the Prime Minister yesterday during Prime Minister's Question Time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, he raised matters concerning the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith).
The Prime Minister said:
Madam Speaker:
If the hon. Member is seeking to amend in any way the Official Report, he must see the right hon. Gentleman who made the statement--the Prime Minister--along with the Editor of Hansard.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you confirm that
Madam Speaker:
All I can say in response to the hon. Lady is, "Well said."
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that items of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are tremendously important to the House, especially when they refer, as in this instance, to events surrounding a Secretary of State, a member of the Government.
In answer to a question earlier, the Leader of the House referred to the Prime Minister's reply, and said that he had carried out a full investigation. I ask you, as Speaker, to ensure that the details of that investigation, as to who was consulted before the Prime Minister responded to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, are tabled and made available to the House.
Madam Speaker:
I have no authority to require a right hon. Gentleman or any Member of the House to put before the House any investigations that he has carried out that are of an internal nature, which in this instance they obviously are.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you able to confirm that most periods of business questions, both in this Parliament and in the previous one, lasted for very nearly an hour? At least that was the position sometimes. Today, in your discretion, you brought the proceedings to an end at about 4 o'clock or 5 minutes past 4.
As a result, I was unable to catch your eye to raise with the Leader of the House the important question of new age travellers in my constituency. May I ask you, Madam Speaker, that on other occasions Back Benchers who wish to raise constituency matters with the Leader of the House may be given a somewhat longer opportunity to catch your eye?
Madam Speaker:
As I thought, the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a point of frustration, not a point of order. I can tell him and the House as a whole that business questions, on average, last 35 minutes. That is the average since I have been Speaker. I keep a record, and I always have the details with me.
Mrs. Ann Taylor, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Davies and Dr. David Clark, presented a Bill to make provision for the alteration of salaries payable under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 30].
Madam Speaker:
I have a short statement to make for the guidance of hon. Members who may wish to take part in the debate. I wish to make it clear that the debate on the order may cover all matters for which all Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. As many hon. Members know, police and security are the principal excluded subjects. I hope that that is of some guidance to hon. Members.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy):
I beg to move,
The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, authorises spending of almost £4,000 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sum voted on account in March this year, that brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments to almost £7,000 million, which is an increase of just over 4 per cent. on the 1996-97 outturn.
The order also authorises the use of additional receipts to meet an excess vote in 1995-96. The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet, which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office. I remind the House that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office on law and order services are not covered by the order.
"I have just made it clear that I investigated the matter this morning. There is no truth in these allegations."--[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 838.]
Subsequently, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has denied that position. Is it possible to have the Official Report corrected?
4.14 pm
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
I welcome the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) to the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that they will continue the bipartisan approach that we took on Northern Ireland matters in the previous Parliament.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |