Points of Order (Hansard, 2 July 1991)

§ Mrs. Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter which should be of some concern to hon. Members and where there is a danger that the views of the House will be ignored.
Yesterday, the Government announced in a written parliamentary answer to a presumably planted question the details of the sell-off of the short-term division of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, despite the fact that the privatisation Bill has not completed its parliamentary proceedings and that this is a highly controversial matter about which many hon. Members have expressed concern, particularly because of their worries about the services that will be provided to British exporters by the preferred bidder, a Dutch company. Surely the Minister responsible should be prepared to come to the House and defend his views publicly and to answer as fully as possible the concerns and questions of hon. Members.

§ Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a Member of Parliament for the Cardiff area where all the staff of the division of ECGD that is being privatised work. Those people are shocked that their fate has been consigned by way of a written answer, that the decision has apparently been taken by the Government even though the legislation may come back to this place in the light of the fearful hammering that it received on Second Reading in another place, and that the decision is being made that Amsterdam is the proper place for deciding the fate of the financing and reinsuring of Britain's exports. I consider that Cardiff is a proper place for insuring Britain's exports and it is open to question whether the democratic process in this House and in the other place has yet resulted in that decision.
Therefore, under what rule, other than the rule that the Government believe that it will go to Amsterdam—it is all part of the deep laid plot for the British Government to go from clogs to clogs in three generations—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We seem to be entering into the arguments of the matter. I have had no intimation from the Government that a statement is to be made on this subject, but doubtless the fact that it has been raised from the Front Bench will be borne in mind. If a statement is required, I suggest that negotiations take place through the usual channels.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall take the point of order from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) first, as I was given notice of it.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has emerged today that the Secretary of State for Scotland was told at a private meeting on Tuesday 4 June of the impending closure of the Dalzell platemill. At the meeting, the right hon. Gentleman told British Steel that the closure was solely a matter for the company.
On the same day, the Prime Minister sent a letter of public support to the Dalzell shop stewards. Surely the House is entitled to a statement from the Secretary of State 180 for Scotland—or at least an intervention in Thursday's debate—explaining exactly why the Conservative party can say one thing publicly in Scotland, while at the same time selling the workers down the river by saying something else at a private meeting in London.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. An opportunity will arise on Thursday to probe the matter.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
I have two points of order, Mr. Speaker, but they are related.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not think so.

§ Mr. Banks
In that case, I shall try one.
We have just heard a long statement from the Home Secretary in which many of us have a considerable constituency interest. It is most annoying for us to see copies of such statements being distributed in the Press Gallery when none are made available to us by the Vote Office. Those of us who have not been called find ourselves in double jeopardy, as we cannot even make our own remarks on the Home Secretary's statement because copies are not in the Vote Office.
My second point concerns procedure. When a Minister seeks permission to link two parliamentary questions, I assume that you, Mr. Speaker, can deny him that permission. It strikes me as entirely inappropriate for a Minister to link questions 6 and 18 when it is clear that question 18 will not be reached, and that certain assiduous Back Benchers will not be called as a result.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman himself is an assiduous Back Bencher, and he has asked two questions. I will answer the first.
I assume that copies of today's statement were embargoed until after it had been made. This is, however, an important point, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) might well put to the Procedure Committee. It has often occurred to me that it would benefit the House if copies were issued the day before statements were made, so that hon. Members could ask their questions against a background knowledge.

§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I asked this morning for a private notice question—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is not in order to mention such matters in the Chamber.

§ Mr. Hind
Have you, Mr. Speaker, received a request from the Department of Health for permission to make a statement on the licensing of the drug RU486? Many of my colleagues have noted from The Sunday Times and yesterday's Evening Standard—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I dealt with that point of order yesterday, when I told the hon. Gentleman that I had received no notice that the Government wished to make a statement on the subject. I have nothing more to add.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Today is an Opposition day, and hon. Members are taking time out of the debate.

§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to go over the ground of this afternoon's statement, but I should like to know 181 whether you have received a request for the Government to explain, by means of another statement, whether they have any powers to prevent the entry into the United Kingdom of an EEC national—M. Le Pen, who is due to address a conference in two days' time at the—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is a bogus point of order if I ever heard one.

§ Mr. Nellist
No, it is not.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to abuse the procedure.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I have tabled a ten-minute Bill dealing with the question of refugees and asylum-seekers, and, like other hon. Members, I am now being asked to respond to the Home Secretary's statement. I wish to reflect accurately what the Home Secretary said.
Given that copies were not available in the Vote Office —which has just confirmed that it had no idea when the statement was coming, although I have seen journalists brandishing copies—will you make the strongest possible representations to the Home Office? Will you tell the Home Office that, if a Minister makes a statement here and copies are given to members of the Press Gallery, that is fine, but hon. Members expect to have copies as well—at the same time, if not earlier?

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has a fair point. Hon. Members should be treated equally with members of the press—[Interruption.] Order. I am trying to be helpful.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your knowledge that the Scottish Grand Committee is not sitting this week because the Secretary of State for Scotland has to accompany the Queen on royal duties in Scotland. Do you think that the Secretary of State should be at the royal garden party on Thursday or at the House of Commons answering questions on the closure of the Dalzell works?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not know what is happening in Scotland on Thursday.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. On the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), if Mr. Le Pen wishes to come to Britain and he is an EC national, I judge that he will have no problems. There is no point of order for me in that matter.

§ Mr. Jim Sillars (Glasgow, Govan)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from your comments about the distribution of statements. I am not in a position to complain about that because minority parties and the Opposition Front Bench receive copies, so I am being objective. You said, Mr. Speaker, that in your view Back-Bench Members should be treated equally with the press. Perhaps you should reconsider that because there is a significant difference between us and the press in that we are elected to represent people.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not quite understand the point. But I repeat that hon. Members should be able to ask their questions against a background of knowledge. It is particularly distasteful for Members of Parliament to be asked detailed questions by the press in the Lobby when they have not seen the statement.

§ Mr. Nellist
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I finish the point of order that I raised earlier? This place is, in a sense, the guardian of law and order in this country. I am asking for your ruling on how we seek to raise the fact that, given the nature of the individual concerned, there might be problems on Thursday with a noted racist such as Le Pen addressing a conference a few hundred yards from this building in which Sessional Orders pertain of which you are the guardian. Can something be done about it?

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
May I help on this point?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not need help. The hon. Gentleman is not yet Mr. Speaker. This is a matter for the police, not for me.