Points of Order (Hansard, 23 April 1990)

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have an important debate today, which is timetabled. However, I shall take the points of order.

§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. This relates to the tabling of questions on the Iraqi gun episode. We have just seen how interdepartmental relationships are inexorably involved in that problem. On Thursday, I tried to table questions, one of which was to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he first informed the Ministry of Defence that there might be——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member knows that he has been in communication with me about that matter, and that I have given him a ruling on it, and he cannot mention it in the Chamber.

§ Mr. Williams
I understood that that was exactly what I could do.

§ Mr. Speaker
No.

§ Mr. Williams
Disgraceful.

§ Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention, in the interests of the rights of Back Benchers, the inherently ridiculous situation that took place today when two spokesmen were timetabled to answer questions at the same time—3.10 pm? Hon. Members had correctly tabled questions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). Questions to the Church Commissioners are important to many people in this country. It is absolutely absurd that questions to two spokesmen should be tabled at the same time. If it is not in your power to deal with the matter, Mr. Speaker, will you ensure that it is referred to the Procedure Committee?

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman will look at the order of questions, he will see that it is made plain that, on Monday 21 May, questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have precedence over those to the right hon. Member answering for the Church Commissioners. However, I accept that that does not look clear on today's Order Paper, and I will endeavour to ensure that it is made plainer to hon. Members when the Order Paper is next printed.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you an important matter, and I want your advice as to how we should proceed. It is in connection with the reported decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to accept that a child could be transferred, at the parent's wish and on racial grounds, to another school.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, that decision has plunged local education authorities into great uncertainty and it seems to fly in the face of assurances by the former Secretary of State for Education and Science that the Government abhor racial discrimination. If the Secretary of State for Education and Science shows no sign 26 tomorrow that he wants to make a statement on that important matter, will you, despite the time discrepancy, be prepared to consider another application for a private notice question?

Several Hon. Members
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. May I deal with one hon. Member at a time?
Unless the situation has changed, I do not know whether it would be possible for me to do that. The matter was first brought to the attention of the Commission for Racial Equality on 2 April and the Secretary of State for Education and Science replied last week. It is a continuing matter.

§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)
On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. If there is to be a statement, will you ensure that it is a full statement including, the fact that at the same time as Mrs. Kearney was asking for her child to be moved a Muslim, Mr. Bosnena, asked for his two children to be removed—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If and when the Secretary of State for Education and Science makes a statement, I will certainly consider calling the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)
Further to the important point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), Mr. Speaker. As the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already made a number of statements outside the House through his press spokespersons about his alleged position in respect of the matter, will you make it clear to the Secretary of State that it is an affront to the House for such statements to be made outside the House and not inside? We need to have the Secretary of State here to clear up the matter.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Leader of the House will certainly have heard what has been said, and the House knows my strong feeling on the matter. If statements are made on important matters that touch the interests of hon. Members, they should always be made here first.

§ Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), Mr. Speaker. Is not the Order Paper clearly defective in stating that questions to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) will start not later than 3.10 pm, when in fact there were no questions to him at all? May I also submit, Mr. Speaker, that your answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton is not satisfactory because you said in response to him that, week after week, there might be no opportunity to put questions to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. Surely that is not satisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby answered no questions today, and from the ruling that you have just given, Mr. Speaker, it appears that that could easily happen i n future as well.

§ Mr. Speaker
There are some Mondays on which questions to the right hon. Member answering for the Church Commissioners take precedence, but I cannot accept that the Order Paper today is defective. However it is misleading, and I shall ensure that in future it is made much plainer.

§ Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The press is full of the issue. The Minister has made a major point, which tends towards racialism and has been construed as such, and it is vital that he now clears the air and tells us something about the issue as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is as may be. I repeat that I do not deny that it is a matter of considerable controversy in the press. I am sure that what has been said has been heard on the Government Front Bench.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I gave your office and also the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) notice, relating to what occurred in the House on Friday? In the debate on the Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks Bill) the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes spoke for 93 minutes. His was one of a number of long speeches. It appears that, unlike some hon. Members, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes did not give notice to the answering Minister that he would not be present for the answer to his pretty lengthy speech.
This sort of behaviour does no credit to the House of Commons. That was assented to by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, whose business it was. I must admit that, at 11 o'clock last Friday, I interrupted business to try to raise legitimate questions on the Defence Export Services Organisation secretariat in relation to the Iraqi Government. I took up about three minutes. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there was an attempt to speak for that length of time with the object of not having other business heard. I admit that I was No. 3 on the list, but ten-minute Bills are surely qualitatively as good as those that are drawn by ballot. There really should be no difference. I think that you assent to that Mr. Speaker. In the circumstances, besides the Procedure Committee looking at the matter, could you and the Leader of the House consider what is an absolute abuse of private procedures in the House?

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Well, I will hear it.

§ Mr. Leigh
If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is not only an hon. Friend but a personal friend. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy of Friday's Hansard, and I see that everything that my hon. Friend said was perfectly in order and was most interesting. He dealt in some detail with a report from—it is not a household name—Professor Li Wan Po——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not think that we need go into it all over again. On the general position, of course it is not possible for the Chair to put a 10-minute limit on speeches on Report stages of Bills. I confirm that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was mostly in order. I have looked carefully at Hansard, and I see that on one or two occasions the Chair intervened, but the hon. Member was in order. As for being present for winding-up speeches, I hope that the whole House will stick to the long 28 convention that hon. Members remain for winding-up speeches and hear replies to arguments that they and others have made in the House.

§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course I apologise to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who was courteous enough to give me notice that he would raise this point of order. Indeed, I was not present for the intervention by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, but I had indicated to him, via the assistant Whip who was on the Treasury Bench, that I would be unable to hear his response.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I have been in charge of some business that is currently before the House. I have been on the receiving end of some fairly long speeches—longer speeches than the one that I made on Friday. I have never made any complaint about any speech of whatever length, even when it has been to the detriment of the Bill with which I have been concerned. I simply urge you to bear in mind the fact that I do not believe that Mr. Deputy Speaker upbraided me for being out of order at any stage. I have listened to speeches on a certain piece of legislation for which I am responsible and the same Mr. Deputy Speaker was required to bring hon. Members to order on many occasions.

§ Mr. Speaker
Honour is now satisfied.