Points of Order (Hansard, 20 December 1988)

§ Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask for your guidance on certain contentious matters concerning the future of the Scottish Affairs Committee and the impact of the Government's motion which is to be debated later tonight. I have no wish to tackle the merits of the proposal. The Opposition, as you know, Mr. Speaker, believe it to be a shabby and unsatisfactory affair, but what disconcerts and concerns me is that the motion in the name of the Leader of the House seems to be drafted badly and is unspecific in its intent. It notes: the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate Members to serve", but draws no apparent conclusion from that. The rest of the motion dealing with the supposed role of the Committee of Public Accounts and other Select Committees is mere decoration. The kernel of the motion is: That this House recognises the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate Members to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. 104(2);". I am entitled to say, seriously, so what? The motion lacks specificity and seems to be ambiguous. I genuinely do not know what the effect would be if it were to be passed and I ask for your help in defining the impact of the motion on the machinery of the House, if it were to be passed.
As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, it must be seen against the background of the terms of Standing Order No. 130, which deals with the setting up of Select Committees on departmental business and states that those Committees shall be appointed, and Standing Order No. 130(2), which lists the Scottish Affairs Committee as one that is to be set up. It says that such a Committee should have a membership of 13 and a quorum of five. As I understand it, the motion in the name of the Leader of the House does not seek to alter that. It appears, therefore, that the Committee will continue to exist in a state of limbo or suspended animation. Can the Committee be brought to life at any time? If so, what is the machinery for doing that? Standing Order No. 130 has a mandatory tone, stating that Committees "shall be appointed". That must be balanced against the executive role given to the Committee of Selection in Standing Order No. 104(2). Is the Committee of Selection affected by the passing of the motion and is it to take the instructions of the House from it, because it is not specific? Is it to cease its efforts to form such a Committee, given the terms of Standing Order No. 130? What message is there for the Committee if the motion is passed? I believe that there is no specific message.
I shall draw a parallel with an example from another discipline. If, as a solicitor, I presented this motion in my local sheriff court, the bench would give me a rough passage and would want to know what I was inviting it to do and what the motion meant. The House is in genuine difficulty. Therefore, can you, Mr. Speaker, answer my questions and clarify the situation?

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Allow me to deal with the matter. I thank the hon. Gentleman for having given notice of the matter, because I have been able to look into it in some 296 detail. The motion on the Order Paper is in order, but I can confirm that if it is passed later tonight it will not prevent the Committee of Selection from coming forward with names for the Scottish Affairs Committee if it subsequently found itself able to do so.

§ Mr. Dewar
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be fair to make the interpretation that there is no instruction that it is not to continue its search for that membership?

§ Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Rumours are spreading through the building that my Member of Parliament—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)—is planning his much heralded demonstration some time today or tomorrow with the aim of getting himself named. There is, of course, to be a debate tonight. Can you, Mr. Speaker, give some idea of when the demonstration may take place so that my hon. Friends can be here not only to witness it but, if necessary, to vote overwhelmingly in your support and speed the hon. Gentleman back to Glasgow where he can finish his Christmas shopping?

§ Mr. Speaker
All sorts of rumours circulate at this time of year. I know nothing about such matters.

§ Mr. Jim Sillars (Glasgow, Govan)
Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you should rule the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House incompetent, insofar as it is irregular under the rule of anticipation. Bearing in mind your statement that the Select Committee still has the ability to tackle the matter, I put it to you seriously that the motion falls within that rule. As you are aware, you have considerable powers in this respect. "Erskine May" states on page 380: Stated generally, the rule against anticipation … is that a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated. In effect, that means that you, Mr. Speaker, must apply a test: what is the most effective form of procedure on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? You must ask whether it is this motion or Standing Order No. 130. Standing Order No. 130 is a rule of the House; the motion is not. Standing Order No. 130 is clear and precise, and it is mandatory rather than discretionary.
May I also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to page 381 of "Erskine May" which states: A matter already appointed for consideration by the House cannot be anticipated by a motion". Standing Order No. 130, combined with Standing Order No. 104(2), says that there must be a nomination from the Select Committee. The Select Committee has made no report to us since 13 January, and on 13 January the Chairman of the Select Committee asked for the advice and instruction of the House. That has not yet appeared, but obviously we can now expect a further report.
"Erskine May" also says: in determining whether a discussion would be out of order on the ground of anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time under Standing Order No. 26.
There is a distinct probability of the matter being brought before the House under Standing Order No. 26 in 297 relation to your ruling. On those grounds, you should rule the motion irregular and incompetent and strike it off the Order Paper.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, you expect hon. Members on both sides of the House—this will disappoint the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the lad who asked you about a demonstration—to respect and obey the rules of the House. How do you, and others responsible for the Order Paper and the Standing Orders, expect us to respect the rules when they are manipulated and when the Government cheat in this fashion?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have looked carefully at this matter, as I expected the hon. Gentleman would raise a point of order on it. The motion on the Order Paper is in order; I am satisfied of that. The hon. Gentleman asked about the rule of anticipation. The rule against anticipation is applied only if an alternative proposal is likely to be anticipated. We are not expecting a motion from the Committee of Selection at present.
I realise that there are strongly held views about the contents of the motion, but such opinions should be expressed in the debate that is to follow rather than in points of order addressed to me. It may assist the House if I announce now that I have made full use of the motion on the business of the House which was passed last Friday and have selected all three amendments for Division at the end of the debate. That will give hon. Members an opportunity to register the distinctive point of view that the amendments represent. That is the end of my role in this matter. We cannot pursue it in points of order, at the expense of an important social security debate.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. What would happen if the Opposition failed to nominate any Members to a Select Committee through the usual channels? How would the House deal with that?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a matter for the Chairman of the Select Committee.

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and assistance as a Back Bencher who will be greatly affected by the motion. Can you, Sir, confirm that there is no way that a Back Bench Member can be ordered or instructed to attend a Select Committee? Can you also confirm that if any Select Committee does not perform its role adequately it does a disservice to the objectives laid down for the Select Committees when they were first set up?

§ Mr. Speaker
The House could order an hon. Member to attend a Select Committee.

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)
Further to the points of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), Mr. Speaker. If the House passes the motion in the name of the Leader of the House, we shall in effect be giving official recognition to a breach of Standing Order No. 130. My question is simple: how can this House, or any sane assembly, give official recognition to a breach of its own Standing Orders without first suspending or amending those Standing Orders?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is the matter raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), and I have already ruled on it.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
Further to the. point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to pursue the matter about anticipation. How can we be sure that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is not about to come before the House, further to his report of last January, and make an announcement on this matter? Does not the matter therefore fall within the rule of anticipation?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not known at present that any such announcement is expected.

§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), you said that you did not anticipate any announcement coming from the Committee of Selection. As the meetings of the Committee of Selection are held in private, and as no report has been published by the Committee in recent weeks on this subject, I would ask you, Sir, how you have knowledge of something which I should not have thought was immediately within your knowledge.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have no knowledge that that is likely to happen.

§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that yesterday certain allegations were made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). I brought those allegations, which were inaccurate and untrue, to your attention last night. Through your good offices and those of the usual channels, I received an apology from the hon. Gentleman which said: You make it quite clear in the record that you were not seeking a higher personal salary, and for that implication that my remarks may have carried I do apologise. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his letter and consider the matter closed.

§ Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having checked Hansard early this morning, may I say that I had intended to make a full statement of apology in the House but, having received advice on the best practice, I wrote to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and I felt that the matter would rest there.
However, having begun to read my letter publicly on the Floor of the House, the hon. Gentleman has done himself and the House less than a service in reading only the first paragraph of my letter. I made it clear to him that I apologised for the fact that it could have been interpreted from my remarks yesterday that he was seeking a higher salary. I went on to say that I utterly deplored the practice of Labour Members in seeking greater facilities. If the hon. Gentleman wants to read only half the letter, I have no reason to apologise for the view that I expressed yesterday that we have adequate resources for our secretarial allowance, and it is disgraceful that the matter should have been raised in this way.

§ Mr. Speaker
It will soon be Christmas. An apology has been made. May we leave the matter there?

§ Mr. Peter Rost (Erewash)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday, the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), through points of order to you, made 299 some personal allegations against me in my absence based upon and quoting from The Guardian of last Thursday. The article is inaccurate and legal action is in hand.
My interests in and contribution to energy efficiency for the last 18 years are well known inside and outside the House. Where those involve commercial interests, they are declared. I deeply resent the accusation that in pursuing such interests I am motivated by personal gain, I have brought the House into disrepute or that I have or seek commercial interests that may abuse my position as a Member of Parliament. I deeply resent and deny the accusation that I have pursued or would seek to pursue any interests that might work against the United Kingdom economy or industry. The contrary is the truth.
I seek your protection, Mr. Speaker, and ask you to invite the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North and for Sunderland, South to withdraw their damaging and inaccurate allegations made behind the cloak of parliamentary privilege.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has made his personal position absolutely clear.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for delaying the House by mentioning yet again the motion in the name of the Leader of the House. When my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that if the motion was passed it would breach one of the Standing Orders of the House, the Leader of the House nodded his head in agreement. Is it in order for the Government to table a motion which, if passed, would breach a Standing Order of the House? If it is in order, does it mean that any Opposition party could table a motion which, if passed by the House, would breach its Standing Orders? It is a serious matter.

§ Mr. Speaker
The motion does not breach the Standing Orders of the House. It recognises a difficulty, but, as I told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), even if it were passed, it would not prevent the Committee of Selection from coming forward with names for a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

§ Mr. Sillars
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
No. I have dealt with the point of order.

§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you were to look at item No. 39 on page 735 of the Order Paper, you would see that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has consistently called for more facilities to be made available to Members of Parliament. This would cost a considerable amount—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a continuation of an argument that arose yesterday. It is not appropriate to carry it on today.