§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Patronage Secretary deliberately attacked me in response to the question that I asked, claiming that I was part of some mass non-payment campaign advocating that people should not pay. That is not my position. I believe that the measures within the legislation are draconian and would present great problems to people who did not pay. I will not pay, on exactly the grounds presented about the democratic and constitutional nature of the measure. As an elected representative of the people, I believe that I have a moral duty to oppose it.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is certainly not a point of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is exactly what happens when we get non-points of order of that kind.
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. Gentleman like to advise Government Members which labour laws we should ignore?
§ Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)In response to my business question to the Patronage Secretary, in which I stated that Hansard contained a clear commitment by the Secretary of State for the Environment that there would be an early debate on the transitional relief scheme audit, the Patronage Secretary said that I might have misunderstood my right hon. Friend. On 18 January, my right hon. Friend said:
It will not be debated until we consider the transitional relief scheme orders later this month."—[Official Report, 18 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 427]If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to change his position on that undertaking about a debate, is it not the well-established practice that he should forthwith come to the House and make a statement clarifying his position?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that is a matter for the Patronage Secretary to report to the Leader of the House.