Points of Order (Hansard, 20 April 1993)

§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few minutes ago the deputy leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), said that, even if the motion were passed tomorrow, there would be no possibility of a vote in the Committee stage.
I know that this is a difficult question, and I would have posed it to you earlier had I known that the matter would arise, but would you consider overnight whether the House could defy a decision taken in the House that amendment No. 27 should be put forthwith? If the motion is carried tomorrow, the House will have said that it is to be put forthwith. Therefore, will you, Madam Speaker, consider overnight whether the deputy leader of the Labour party inadvertently made a serious error when asking her question?

§ Madam Speaker
I cannot anticipate what is likely to happen tomorrow.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the exchanges on the business statement, it was suggested that the issue was a House of Commons matter. Unfortunately, the Leader of the House did not have an opportunity to make clear whether there will be a Government three-line Whip on Tory Members to vote against the motion in order to defend the original decision not to call a vote on amendment N. 27.

§ Madam Speaker
That is a serious issue, but not one that relates to the change of business. I shall move on. I think that Mr. Banks has a point of order. Is that right?

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
Yes, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
As usual.

§ Mr. Banks
Yes, Madam Speaker; but this one might actually be a point of order. You will be aware that questions tabled to the Prime Minister on the cost of security provision for the Prime Minister are always given the ministerial response that, on security grounds, it is not policy to divulge security costs, which people can understand. However, in today's edition of The Guardian, in the diary column of all places, is an item that says that the cost of protecting the Prime Minister's home at Great Stukeley was £1.2 million in the year to 31 March 1993.

§ Dame Peggy Fenner (Medway)
That is less than the cost of protecting Salman Rushdie.

§ Mr. Banks
Yes. Some might think that to be a high cost and that Group 4 could provide the service more cheaply; but it would probably supply tea and biscuits to those trying to break in.
If that information can be provided to a county council, surely it should be made available to hon. Members when they make such inquiries.

§ Madam Speaker
I advise the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything that he reads in the press. On the more serious point, that is entirely a matter for Ministers who have to take responsibility for any refusal to answer certain categories of question.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago you said that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was important, but that it was not a matter for business questions. The motion to be debated on Wednesday, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and supported by a number of us—we do not believe that it can be personalised in the way that some are trying to do today—should be subject to a free vote. Therefore, would it not be unfortunate, to say the least, if there were any impression inside or outside the House that the vote at the conclusion of tomorrow's debate will be subject to whipping, be it by the Government or the Opposition Front Bench? It should be a free vote, and I hope that that will be confirmed by all concerned.

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Procedure Committee and should well know that whether there is a free vote or otherwise is nothing to do with the Speaker.

§ Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to the transcript of the interview that the Chairman of Ways and Means gave to the BBC television programme "Scottish Lobby" last Sunday in which he explained that his decision not to allow a vote on amendment No. 27 was based upon his judgment that two other Opposition amendments, new clauses 74 and 75, were slightly more workable. Will you therefore confirm that, if those new clauses were withdrawn by the Opposition, a vote could be taken on amendment No. 27, so that there would be no necessity for tomorrow's debate on early-day motion 1782?

§ Madam Speaker
I cannot comment on proceedings in Committee.