HC Deb 15 March 1990 vol 169 c683 4.24 pm
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. Speaker

That is certainly not a point of order.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

This 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. Speaker

I think that is a matter for the Patronage Secretary to report to the Leader of the House.