HC Deb 09 November 1988 vol 140 cc325-6 4.36 pm
Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, referring to the behaviour of the Minister for Sport. He has treated this House with contemptuous disregard, both for its rights and its purposes, for the third time is succession, in making, or seeking to make, statements of great importance outside this House. He held a press conference at 3.30 pm when he should have been making an oral statement to the House on the subject of his football membership scheme.

Matters of considerable substance are involved in the Minister's statement. For example, it contains a completely unprecedented constitutional point. According to the scheme, the Minister for Sport proposes to insist that Scottish football supporters attending matches at Wembley or elsewhere in England should be required to register with an English or Welsh football club. That is an unparalleled proposal, it insults all Scottish football supporters and it will be completely impracticable.

The proposal also requires information about convicted persons to be supplied by the courts, fed into computers and used at football matches. You will know Mr. Speaker, that under British law it is unlawful for the courts or the police to provide information about convictions. That makes the Minister's proposals ludicrous in the extreme.

The proposals will also infringe civil liberties. The report contains nine objections from the football authorities. In those circumstances, I submit that the Minister should be required to make a statement to the House.

Mr. Speaker

If hon. Members look at the Order Paper, they will see what business is before us. I see no hope of any time being available for a statement to be made except perhaps very late tomorrow morning. Whether a Minister makes a statement to the House about any subject is not a matter for me. I know that hon. Members often feel annoyed that certain information is imparted by way of written answer rather than by oral statement, but statements eat into the time allotted to the main business of the day; and the Government must take responsibility for deciding how many there should be.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a constitutional question. There has been absolutely no consultation in Scotland or any suggestion that this document has anything to do with Scotland—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already ruled that this is not a matter for me.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

As long as it is not on this matter.

Mr. Carlisle

My point of order concerns the courtesies of the House. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook spoke about the courtesies of the House and the Minister making a statement. I seek your guidance in regard to hon. Members obtaining a document by deceit, and going to sporting conferences. The right hon. Member—

Mr. Speaker

Order. What documents hon. Members get hold of is not a matter of order in the Chamber. I have already ruled that whether a statement is made is not a matter for me. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has been here a good length of time. He must not disobey the Chair. I cannot take further points of order on this matter.

Mr. Carlisle

My point of order is not to do with the statement. It concerns whether it is in order for Privy Councillors to have documents such as this while they are embargoed and to publish and talk about them before the House has had an opportunity to hear what they are about. That is what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did today. He discussed and criticised this excellent document before it was announced in the House. Is it right that the House should not be given an opportunity to discuss the document first? Is it not a discourtesy to the House that the document has been taken and discussed before the Minister has had an opportunity even to answer the question on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker

Whether hon. Members get documents and how they get them is not a matter of order in the Chamber. I repeat that this is not a matter for me.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was quite clear to every hon. Member that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) obtained the report by deceit. I do not know whether that makes the Minister a liar as it was the Minister who supplied my right hon. Friend with the copy that he has with him. We would like you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. Member for Luton, North to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Luton, North, who I think cheated on his point of order, used the word "deceit". I thought that he was referring to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Will he please withdraw the allegation?

Mr. John Carlisle

I consider it deceitful, but—

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Please withdraw the allegation.

Mr. Carlisle

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has expressed—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I give the hon. Member one chance to withdraw the allegation.

Mr. Carlisle

I withdraw the allegation of deceit.