Points of Order (Hansard, 23 February 1988)

§ Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise an important point of order arising from the Prime Minister's answer to my question this afternoon. The Prime Minister stated that the contract between the South of Scotland Electricity Board and British Coal will come to an end at the end of March. Opposition Members challenged her on that from a sedentary position and she went on to say that, if that were the case, there was no problem. However, only within the past few days, British Coal has taken the South of Scotland Electricity board to court.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This appears to be a continuation of Question Time. What is the point of order for me?

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
It is a genuine point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am sure that every hon. Member who raises a point of order has a genuine reason for doing so, but I cannot say whether an answer is right or wrong.

§ Mr. Strang
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The important point is that the matter is before the courts. British Coal and the SSEB are currently before the courts seeking a decision on whether the contracts applying to Longannet and Cockenzie end at the end of March or in 1992. Did the Prime Minister breach the sub judice rule?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do my homework on these questions. I am not aware that any date has been set down for this case.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter which concerns the whole House, regardless of Government or Opposition support. It is the practice of Ministers to refer to a document and say that something will be found in it, but when one studies the document one finds that what Ministers have asserted is in it tends not to appear in the document specifically.
The House will recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred us to a document in the Library. It so happens that, in the Library, there is the letter of 23 February from Sir Peter Middleton, permanent secretary to the Treasury, to Sir Peter Walters, chairman of BP, but nowhere in that document is there any undertaking of the kind that the Chancellor said that we would find. It is a gross abuse of the House of Commons for Ministers to refer to documents that are not immediately available. There is certainly something in those documents, but, lo and behold, when we read them, what is asserted to be in them tends not to be there. That is a ministerial abuse of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to follow that up in a subsequent question. I cannot deal with it.

§ Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise an important point of order regarding Prime Minister's Question Time. You will be aware that a serious incident occurred in my constituency this week. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) referred to the matter during Question Time. That serious incident resulted in the death of a young man and, subsequently, in a foreign Government deciding to hold an inquiry into the event at Aughnacloy. I tried to intervene, without success, in Prime Minister's Question Time today, as I have done time after time during the past eight months.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must understand that I am obliged to balance questions in the House and I shall seek to call hon. Members who have not previously been called to ask questions of the Prime Minister. I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about his constituent, and I am sorry about that, but, with the best will in the world, I cannot possibly call the hon. Gentleman whenever an incident occurs in his con-stituency. There will be other opportunities.

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

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The matter does not arise. I am sorry, but I have already called the hon. Gentleman once during Prime Minister's Question Time. He will be called again, but I cannot call him just because he rises. Many hon. Members rise to ask questions.

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

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. No, it does not arise.

§ Sir John Farr (Harborough)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a point of order regarding Standing Committee proceedings tomorrow. The Hansard for last Wednesday's proceedings of Standing Committee C is not yet available. That will not necessarily prevent the Committee from proceeding, but it is a grave discomfort for Committee Members. I should be most grateful if you would investigate the matter.

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall look into that.

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was not this afternoon an example of the difficulties that the House gets into because, Sir, of your new practice of postponing points of order until a later time in the day? There was an occasion this afternoon when the Prime Minister should have been called to order immediately, but, because of your intervention in postponing the point of order, it could not happen. We are now in the difficulty that a matter has been raised on which you have postponed a decision—quite rightly—and we shall require another ruling from you.
Would it not be advisable to reconsider this arbitrary introduction that you, Sir, created, of postponing points of order which are relevant when they are raised, but are not relevant one, two or three hours later?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not propose to go back on this matter. It is certainly not an arbitrary ruling of mine. I am merely returning to what used to be, and has always been, the practice in this House.
162 The trouble with having points of order arising out of questions is that, by their very nature, they invite a continuation of Question Time. I think the whole House agrees that the present practice is for the best.

§ Mr. Faulds
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not hearing any more from the hon. Gentleman about that; I have dealt with it.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for you to enlighten me? I understood you to say that you were reverting to an old practice of the House. I have not been an hon. Member for long, but other hon. Members keep telling me that the old practice was to raise points of order when the questions arose. Would it be possible to learn when the old practice became a new practice, to be superseded by an old practice?

§ Mr. Speaker
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that. In the Parliament before last, that practice began to grow, when the Speaker of the day took the view that, in order not to disrupt Question Time, he would take points of order at the end. I have reverted to the practice that previously existed. I shall be happy to send the hon. Gentleman details of the statement that I made at the time—I do not have it with me now.

§ Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice. Last Thursday, a Home Office Minister declined to answer eight questions that had appeared on the Order Paper on the ground that the case in question was sub judice. The case, however, was not referred to the House of Lords and was not sub judice. I should be grateful for your clarification on that point, and for your confirmation that there was nothing to prevent the Minister from answering questions on the subject. Is it not about time that Ministers stopped sheltering behind the sub judice rule?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking about the case of the Birmingham six. I can tell him that, from the latest information I have, it is not sub judice under the rules of the House.

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you explain to the House when and why the system was changed whereby hon. Members could rise and say they were not in agreement with what had been said in reply to their questions and would seek to raise the issue on the Adjournment?

§ Mr. Speaker
That has not been changed; it frequently happens even today. I shall take one more point of order, but we have an important debate on steel—

§ Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
I am telling the hon. Gentleman that a large number of hon. Members want to take part in the steel debate, on which there is a time limit.

§ Mr. Eadie
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who wrongly left the Chamber. I want to put it to you that when we are dealing with rules that you have decided arbitrarily, we must sometimes reflect on whether, in the light of our experience, they require reconsideration—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman did not say "arbitrarily".

§ Mr. Eadie
I am saying that you decided the rule. If you decided it, it is arbitrary. I should welcome correction from you, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
I should be happy to send the hon. Gentleman the ruling that I made at the time, with the background to it.

§ Mr. Eadie
I am continuing with my point of order, Mr. Speaker, whether you like it or not.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not mind at all; it is a question whether the hon. Gentleman's colleagues will object.

§ Mr. Eadie
I was raising the issue whether you should consider what happens to our procedures in the light of experience. What was drawn to your attention this afternoon happened because of the procedure of taking points of order after Question Time. It certainly looks as if the Prime Minister, or the Executive, was protected today, when, as was drawn to your attention, the right hon. Lady made a statement about a matter that was about to come before the courts. When the Prime Minister of the country makes a statement, I am sure that it will be transmitted to the courts and could, to some extent, prejudice, or help to prejudice, any decision by the courts.
I am referring to the issue of the SSEB coal contract in Scotland. All I am asking you to do, Mr. Speaker—I know that you are in a hurry, but I rarely raise points of order—is to consider, in the light of what has happened today, the fact that as you are the protector of Back Benchers you do not want to over-protect the Executive. To some extent, the Prime Minister abused privilege this afternoon, and you listened to that.

§ Mr. Speaker
Of course, it is my duty to ensure that Back Benchers' rights are protected. As far as I am aware —I briefed myself before Question Time—the case has not been set down for a hearing before the courts. It is therefore not sub judice. If I am wrong, I shall, of course, apologise to the House.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you rightly suggested much earlier, there have been variations on the procedure of points of order during the time that you and I have been Members of the House. It is true that for a long time points of order were raised on questions immediately after they occurred — indeed, that was so for the greater part of the time that I have been here. A few months ago, in 1987, you took it upon yourself to try to be firm and to have all points of order raised after statements so that they could all be collected together. It may not have been the only reason, but certainly one of the criteria for that was the fact that Ministers, who are busy people, arrange to make statements and want to get away from points of order that could occur straight after Question Time, before a statement or business questions might delay them. I can understand that, even though I might not agree with it. You, Mr. Speaker, might have taken a different view.
I have raised this subject before and I am concerned about it. It is fair to say that if the practice stays for as long as you hold your office, Mr. Speaker, and Back Benchers' points of order immediately after questions are disbarred, Front Benchers, who in times of heat, passion and argument, may want to break that rule must be expected to abide by it. As I have said before, there was a slight 164 variation on the rule on one occasion. I suggest that 1f it applies to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members it must hold fast at all times for all Front Benchers.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am always prepared to keep such matters under review. I am merely going back to the practice that always obtained in the past. The trouble with asking hon. Members whether a point of order arises out of questions is that the inevitable answer is, "Certainly, Mr. Speaker; of course it does." We then get two slots for points of order in that way. That wastes the time of the House and in any event Ministers do not get an opportunity to reply to the points, because Question Time is over.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. At one time, you made a distinction between hon. Members who wanted to raise points of order directly arising from questions and those who raised other points of order. If you give that further reflection, you will see that, if Question Time ends at 3.30 pm and an hon. Member cannot raise his point of order arising out of it until 5 pm, and in the meantime there have been two statements, and so on, the point of order loses a great deal of relevance.
As you have repeatedly stated, Mr. Speaker, that one of your functions, like that of your predecessors, is to protect Back Benchers—we have limited rights in many respects about asking questions and being called — I should have thought that there was a very strong case for a trial period of six months to see what occurs. Hon. Members who want to raise points of order arising from questions should be asked to do so immediately after Question Time.

§ Mr. Speaker
Points of order are one thing. As to the practice of the past, the hon. Gentleman needs only to look at Hansard of those days to find that very rarely —almost never —were they points of order; they were points of dispute about a statement or an answer given to a question.