§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I hope that these are not points of frustration. I think that they are, but it must have been obvious that by no means could I call all hon. Members, even those who are directly affected. I am prepared to listen to points of order that relate to our Standing Orders and procedures.
§ Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the obvious disquiet that remains among many hon. Members about the Government's statement with which we have been occupied for the past hour, would you consider a request for an emergency debate on this serious issue?
§ Madam SpeakerNo, I cannot do that. As hon. Members know, if they catch my eye they can raise this matter on the motion for the Adjournment.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. There can be nothing further to that point of order.
§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had an approach from the Secretary of State for Employment with a view to his coming to the House to make a statement about the collapse of Astra Training Services. which, before it was privatised, provided training for 100,000 people a year but which may now be going out of existence? From this very day, trainees from Astra will no longer get their expenses and there is increasing evidence of financial sharp practice by the company. Most hon. Members, or at least Opposition Members, would have expected the Secretary of State to have been here because he has much explaining to do.
§ Madam SpeakerI have not been informed that any Minister seeks to make a statement today.
§ Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Your reply suggests that you have not had an approach from Ministers to come to the House to demonstrate the Government's contempt and disgust at the news that one of the girls who was pardoned by the King of Thailand has been offered £67,000 to make a film. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will make sure that she makes absolutely no money from this disgraceful deal.
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is right: I have had no request from any Minister to make a statement today.
§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When you took over your duties as Speaker, you explained that you would follow the practice of previous Speakers and not allow points of order during Question Time but would hear them at this time or at 3.30 pm. We understand the good reasons for that. They are that points of order, many of them not entirely genuine, were often allowed and they disrupted Question Time. However, that practice creates a difficulty, such as occurred today when, inadvertently, questions to the Lord President of the Council were started a full minute early at 3.24. That meant that it was not possible to call questions 769 Nos. 40 and 41 for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and certain matters could not be raised. The difficulty that that presents to those of us who always behave immaculately in the House is that there was no mechanism for raising a genuine point of order at that time and allowing the questions to be asked in a proper way. Hon. Members were denied the possibility of raising the serious matter of the vermin that have been sighted in the dining areas of the House.
§ Madam SpeakerI take points of order during Question Time only exceptionally and if they are immediately relevant. There are far too many abuses if I allow a lot of discretion in these matters.
§ Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, we rise tomorrow for the summer recess. The order in connection with which we have just heard a statement comes into force on I August this year. Can you tell me how I can make it absolutely clear that I am delighted that two thirds of my constituency has received assisted area status—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I think the hon. Member is demob-happy. I cannot allow such a point of order.
§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can a Minister from the Department for Education come to the House before the recess to deal with a point raised in a national newspaper on Saturday? It was said that an opted-out school in my borough is refusing to take blind and partially sighted children because it does not suit its criteria. That is a serious matter and we should have the opportunity to debate it with an Education Minister.
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman should try catching my eye on the motion for the Adjournment.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You recently gave guidance on the sort of words that hon. Members are not allowed to use in the House. When we come back from the summer recess, Opposition Members will wish to criticise Ministers—and will continue to do so, day in and day out. Will we be able to use the expression that the Prime Minister used about three of his Cabinet colleagues, or do you believe that such language would lower the tone of the House?
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)rose—
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Member for Bolsover need not rise; I can see his hackles rising. Is this further to that point of order?
§ Mr. SkinnerYes, Madam Speaker. As you know, many years ago, a Member of Parliament referred to "Members of Parliament for hire". It was suggested that such an expression was, prima facie, a breach of privilege and the matter went before the appropriate Committee because those Members of Parliament were not identified. Now we have an example of the Prime Minister specifying that three members of his Cabinet were, to use his word, "bastards". We do not know who they are. Some of today's newspapers have speculated that they are the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Wales—and one other.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not a point of order for me.
§ Mr. SkinnerOf course it is.
§ Madam SpeakerNot at all. I am not concerned with the language that is used outside the House. I am, however, very much concerned with the language that is used inside the House and therefore I ask all hon. Members to use moderate language. That is the proper, courteous method of debate in the House.
§ Mr. WinnickBut it was the Prime Minister.
§ Madam SpeakerI am not concerned about which Minister or Member was involved; I ask that moderate language be used at all times in the House.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that everyone is aware of the importance of the debates and decisions that featured on Thursday and Friday. I wish to raise three points of order relating to them which could have constitutional significance. I have given notice of them.
The first point relates to the text of the social charter. I was informed by the Government in a written reply—it can be found in column 295 of Hansard for 22 July—that they have never published or publicised the text of the social charter. The social charter was debated during the passage of the Bill through the House and last week. If and when there is any further legislation relating to this central matter, as there may well be, can we be assured that the text will be available to those affected beforehand, on the Table of the House and in the Vote Office?
The second point is of more profound significance. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that for several hundred years it has not been the practice of the House to reverse, within a short time at least, a decision which has been taken. Page 362 of the 21st edition of "Erskine May"—the Boulton edition—says:
Proposing a negatived question 'a second time for the decision of the House, would be, as stated earlier, contrary to the established practice of Parliament. Sufficient variation would have to be made, not only from the form but also from the substance of the rejected question, to make the second question a new question.A very similar question was proposed on Friday to the one that had been negatived the day before. However, in the second there was a distinction, to some extent, because there was no preamble reference to section 7. The second motion asked us to have confidence in the policy of the Government in the social area rather than simply noting it. While the wording may have varied to some extent, the purpose and the effect of accepting both would have been the same. The only change was in method, in that the word "confidence" was introduced in the second motion. Presumably that was on your ruling—otherwise it would have been out of order—and that was at least one area in which the substance was changed.The use of the word "confidence" introduced a whole range of circumstances that attach to that word and are habitually used in motions of no confidence. But this time it was the opposite; it was proposed by the Government and used in a new way. In using it, the Government might be said to have introduced a hybrid element. The motion had three purposes: to approve the social policy, to show confidence in the Government and to trigger section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act.
771 It is well known that a vote of no confidence would have resulted in at least a request to the Crown for the dissolution of Parliament. I put it in those terms because whether the request would be granted might be a matter of constitutional debate. But that is beside the point. What should have been taken into consideration is the consequence of a successful request and its effects on hon. Members' livelihoods and those of their families.
The use of the royal prerogative, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in his speech on Friday, resides with the Crown outside the control of the House, albeit on the advice of a Minister or a collection of Ministers, as we are told happened in this case. That is a novel use of this particular power and revives the prerogative powers of the Crown, albeit on the advice of a Minister, against the rights and privileges of hon. Members to speak and vote without constraint on their livelihoods and persons.
The question of documentation on a matter of great constitutional importance; the use, perhaps the precedent, of a hybrid form of confidence motion; and the way in which these matters impinge on the prerogatives and the rights of this House, established in the late 17th century and part of our constitution, are of very great importance.
I do not expect a ruling or comment from you on these matters today, Madam Speaker, in view of the short notice and the short lapse of time since those events. I would ask you to consider them, to note what is said elsewhere, and, if you see fit, to say something about them after the recess.
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman did not give me notice of all the matters that he has raised. I can deal with them because they are precise, although he took some time to explain himself.
First, I do not want to be tedious and repetitious 772 because I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's first point when the matter was raised with me last week by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave then. The hon. Gentleman seems to allege that Friday's debate was out of order because it amounted to a rescinding of a resolution that was reached on Thursday. The debate was not related to the rescinding of a resolution as the House did not come to a resolution on Thursday. There are no rules that are specifically directed against second attempts to obtain a resolution when the first attempt has failed. I quote "Erskine May", which says that the House must
instinctively realise that parliamentary government requires the majority to abide by a decision regularly come to, however unexpected".At the outset of proceedings on Friday, I stated that, in my opinion, the Prime Minister's statement of the previous evening had created a new situation and that both the Government motion and the Opposition amendment were perfectly in order. The result of the Division at the conclusion of the debate confirmed my view that that was the case.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you noticed that in connection with the summer Adjournment motion I have tabled an amendment stating that it might be convenient to allow an extension of debates, for example on Wednesday and Thursday, relating to assisted area status?
§ Madam SpeakerIt was remiss of me not to announce that there are two amendments on the Order Paper, neither of which has been selected.