Points of Order (Hansard, 13 July 1992)

§ Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to item 21 on page 1258 of today's Order Paper? The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) seeks to insert my name as a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and to delete the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey).
Standing Order No. 104 requires Any Member intending to propose that certain Members be members of a select committee, or be discharged from a select committee, shall give notice of the names of Members whom he intends so to propose, shall endeavour to ascertain previously whether each such Member will give his attendance on the committee, and shall endeavour to give notice of any Member whom he proposes to be discharged from the committee. I received no such notice, and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was not told by the hon. Member for Tayside, North that he intended to have him discharged from the Committee. However, I received a rather charming letter from the hon. Member for Tayside, North after the event, which opens with the words Dear Norman, I have transgressed. That has great appeal to me because I am a Scottish Presbyterian and those who have transgressed add up to the sum total of humanity.
The hon. Gentleman went on to appeal at the end of his letter Please forgive me. I am afraid that forgiveness is not within my gift or that of any of us in the House—and I can assure you of that, Madam Speaker, as a Scottish Presbyterian.
I hope that you will use this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to at least reiterate the fact that hon. Members should act with good manners towards each other and should not seek to add or delete names on the Order Paper without fulfilling the conditions of Standing Order No. 104.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I am quite capable of dealing with a Standing Order between two Scottish Members. May I hear from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)?

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) is wrong in one respect. I wrote to him before I took any action. Unfortunately, one did not know the names until Thursday morning. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman before I went to the Table Office to table my amendments very late on Thursday evening. I have also spoken to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), the other Member involved. In fact, I spent all of Saturday with him.
I tabled the amendments on the Order Paper because I believe that there are aspects of selection, election and the election of the Speaker which must be addressed. I thought that that was the opportunity for the House to address those matters, and that was the vehicle that I used to get those matters addressed.

§ Madam Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) for giving me notice of his point of order. He has done his homework and he knows that Standing Order No. 104 requires an hon. Member to endeavour to ascertain whether any hon. Member whom he intends to propose for a Select Committee will give his attendance on the committee", and that should be done before notice is tabled of a proposed nomination.
I ask the hon. Member for Tayside, North whether he took steps, before he tabled his amendments, to consult the hon. Members for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), whom he wishes to be omitted from the Committee? Did the hon. Member for Tayside, North consult those two hon. Members? Did he get a clear indication from them before he tabled the amendment? That is the question that should be answered. Is the answer yes or no?

§ Mr. Bill Walker
The answer clearly is that yes, I have discussed the matter with both hon. Members. No, I did not discuss in detail what I planned to do, because I did not have the time to do so and very few Scottish Members, other than those on the First Scottish Standing Committee, were here on Thursday.

§ Madam Speaker
This can be touched upon in general debate later. However, this is not simply a matter of common courtesy, although I am very keen to uphold common courtesy in the House. This is a matter of upholding our Standing Orders, and that I intend to do. Therefore, I rule that I am not able to select the two amendments, and that is the end of the matter.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There may have been another transgression, this time on the part of the Leader of the House. As a matter of common courtesy, last Thursday I telephoned the office of the Leader of the House to express an interest that, in business questions, he would make an announcement about European Standing Committee B, chaired by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), and the Libyan order. At column 473, he announced the business of 13 to 16 July, and said: The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday"— and Hansard states "21 October". It was not at all clear. Indeed, from recollection, I think that he said "on Wednesday", to consider European Community Document No. 5894/92 concerning relations with Libya. He went on to say: It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the provisional business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:"—[Official Report, 9 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 473.] He then listed that business. We might be forgiven for thinking that the Libyan order, which was originally arranged for tomorrow, was going to be held on Wednesday.
The urgency is this: the Scottish police were incandescent with anger when they discovered what has happened in the courts in New York on the Pan Am wilful atrocity—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the merits and demerits, which I cannot listen 830 to. He has put his point of order to me. The Leader of the House provides information for the House, and it is of course for the Chairmen of Committees to determine the time of their sittings. The hon. Gentleman has been very explicit in his point of order, and I am sure that it has been taken on board by the Leader of the House.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. There can be nothing further to that point of order, because I am now dealing with it. The Leader of the House has heard what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has had to say, and I cannot allow a debate on a point of order.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
At a later stage in our proceedings today, we shall discuss departmental Select Committees, and set out on the Order Paper are the names that have been put forward on behalf of the Committee of Selection. You will remember, Madam Speaker, that when those Committees were set up and approved by the House in June 1979, they were meant to oversee and to inquire into the work of the various Departments; hence the reason why they came into existence and will be re-established in this Parliament.
Would it therefore be right for Ministers, under any kind of instruction, to decide who should be on those Committees? Cabinet Ministers' own Departments will be scrutinised by the proposed Select Committees. I therefore ask you to rule on whether, in the circumstances, that would be right in what is recognised as a free vote. Labour Members were not whipped on the issue, and Conservative Members, I understand, have not been whipped, but I understand that Ministers have been asked to support the motions from the Committee of Selection.

§ Madam Speaker
The whipping of various parties in the House is nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair. The hon. Gentleman knows that very well. I have no idea what the whipping is tonight or whether it exists or not. That is not my business. I am present anyway, irrespective of whether hon. Members are present. I shall be here for that business. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, it is a matter entirely for the House and for every individual Member of the House, whether a Minister, Back Bencher or whatever, to make up his or her mind. Of course, hon. Members are free to go into the Division Lobbies on the matter.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Is this a separate point of order?

§ Mr. Walker
May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to use your influence? You will understand the compressed time scale involved from the time when the orders were published, to the time when hon. Members may table amendments, and today. I ask you to use your influence in matters as contentious as membership of Select Committees and ensure that more time is given so that hon. Members can fulfil the necessity—I accept your ruling—to consult others involved.

§ Madam Speaker
Yes, I quite understand that there needs to be a period of consultation, and I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point.

§ Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a member of European Standing 831 Committee B. Two weeks ago, we received our usual notification by letter from No. 10 Downing street, stating that, on Wednesday, we would discuss Libyan sanctions. It seems as though the situation has changed, and there has been no proper explanation. Could you advise us where we go from here?

§ Dr. Godman
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I be allowed to explain that there is informal notification of meetings of European Standing Committees A and B? My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) is right. We were given the usual informal notice that, as members of Standing Committee B, we would meet this week to discuss relations with Libya. To put it bluntly the matter has been put on the back burner. The Government do not want the debate, because a Minister would have to come to the meeting and be cross-examined by the members of the Committee. Something curious is going on here.

§ Madam Speaker
As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, an informal notice is a means of notification. It is informal until there has been formal notification of the matter.

§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It seems curious that, when the Leader of the House announced the business for this week he apparently—according to Hansard—mentioned the business for Wednesday 21 October in the announcement of this week's business. He subsequently made a second statement about the business including that for the week of Wednesday 21 October. It seems an odd way to announce things. I wonder whether, when the Leader of the House made that statement he said "Wednesday" or "Wednesday 21 October".

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Mr. Marlow. Is it further to that point of order?

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
It is further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and your ruling. Supposing—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. If I have given a ruling, I do not take points of order retrospectively. I have given a ruling, and I understood that the Leader of the House wished to speak. He may well be able to clear the matter up for us.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)
Clearly, in the light of the points that have been made, it is sensible that I should say a word further to the point of order. In response to an informal request from an hon. Member, I carefully checked the words that I had in front of me, which, indeed, referred to Wednesday 21 October. I have no reason to doubt that I used those words, as recorded in Hansard. Obviously, I am sorry if it has given rise to some confusion among hon. Members; that is the last purpose that I had in mind.

§ Mr. Marlow
On a new point of order, Madam Speaker. Just supposing that members of the Government, who also happened to be Members of Parliament and of this honourable House, all voted one way this evening, or assuming that members of the Government, who also happen to be members of this House, were disproportionately present this evening when the voting took place, would you look upon that as a coincidence or something else?

§ Madam Speaker
I would look upon it as the sort of fairy story that I used to have read to me when I first joined my political party.