Points of Order (Hansard, 30 January 1992)

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that we are not going to have a rash of points of order. If this is a genuine point of order, the hon. Gentleman may make it.

§ Mr. Dalyell
It is a genuine point of order relating to the drafting of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, which is to be taken next Wednesday. A problem arises when both Front Benches agree on something but others have doubts. I cannot complain about the Minister of State, Scottish Office, as he has been extremely courteous about the many queries that I have put to him. However, he said that he would take away clause 48, which is the same as section 77 of the Education Act 1944, and ask the parliamentary draftsmen to come up with a solution. Some of us think that this may be mission impossible. The crucial point for you, Mr. Speaker, is when we are going to see this key amendment. The whole attitude to the Bill will depend, first, on the amendment that is produced and, secondly, on whether we shall have time next week to consult vice-chancellors and others as to its acceptability to them. I wonder whether this matter could be raised.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have not been able to look at the amendments to the Bill, but I shall bear carefully in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

§ Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)
During the questions arising from last Tuesday's statement on trade union reform, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) bellowed from a sedentary position that I was sponsored by Lloyd's. As, for some reason, this statement was considered sufficiently significant not only to enter the Hansard record but also to be broadcast by the BBC in "Yesterday in Parliament", may I take this opportunity to put the record straight? Regrettably, Lloyd's has never considered it worth its while to sponsor me. Indeed, sadly—unaccountably perhaps—no one has ever considered it worth his while to sponsor me. Unlike the hon. Member for Workington, I am not sponsored by a union. As he has such a successful track record in securing sponsorship, perhaps he will put me in touch with any other generous sponsors that he knows of.

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the fact that he is sponsored by his constituency.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
As the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to say his piece, perhaps the record should be put straight. I am sponsored, but, as you, Mr. Speaker, will know, I receive from my union no moneys—no personal remuneration, no out-of-pocket expenses. In the Register of Members' Interests, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) declares, under "Trades or Professions", that he is a member of Lloyd's

§ Mr. Oppenheim
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is not a sponsorship.

§ Mr. Oppenheim
I should like to make a point very briefly, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman does not know 1093 the difference between being a name at Lloyd's, which these days, regrettably, generally costs one money, and being sponsored, which means receiving money, it is not surprising that he is on the Opposition Benches. Presumably the union that sponsors him expects something for the money that it pays.

§ Mr. Speaker
May I have a point of order that I can answer, please?

§ Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this point of order as a genuine friend, not a special friend.
Question No. 4 to the Prime Minister today was a closed question about May day. Normally, following your reasonable practice, you call a Member from one side and then the other. Therefore, there was an opportunity for those of us who are interested in May day to ask a question. Reasonably, you chose to call the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). It quickly became obvious that the hon. Lady had made a mistake, which is easily done and has been done by most of us; she thought that it was an open question. On reflection, would it not have been fairer if you had then called another Opposition Member instead of letting our opportunity go, simply because the hon. Lady had made an understandable mistake? We were all punished because she had not read the Order Paper correctly.

§ Mr. Speaker
What might have been fair in the hon. Gentleman's view would have been unfair to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), whose question I just managed to reach. It is a question of balance.