§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to supply a Member of Parliament with inaccurate information? I refer specifically to the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) and the fact that a former civil servant—Mr. Mark Higson, an Iraq desk officer—stated that a draft reply to my letter of 3 May 1989 was misleading because the truth was untenable.
Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman not to come to the House to make a statement on that matter? Is it in order for him to ignore the facts and mislead hon. Members in such a way?
§ Madam SpeakerI cannot hear points of order involving allegations of inaccurate answers or statements. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the House has been deliberately misled, he must deal with the matter by way of substantive motion—as I think he knows—and not by a point of order to me at this stage.
§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I recently received representations from a constituent who had been too ill to make them previously —and, as you know, I have also been ill and therefore unable to raise the matter earlier. In the light of those circumstances and the detailed arguments set out in a letter that I delivered to your office today, will you now consider the contents of that letter and then return to the House and rule as follows?
First, will you rule that the motion carried on 23 July 1993—
That this House has confidence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy"—was invalid in so far as it related to the question of adopting the social protocol, because a motion on that matter had been defeated only the previous day? It is contrary to the long-established rules and procedures of Parliament to attempt to reinstate a negatived resolution or decision within the same Session. I refer the House to the chapter of "Erskine May" that deals with the process of debate.Secondly, Madam Speaker, will you rule that the motion carried on 23 July was invalid because insufficient notice—only a matter of hours—was given; and, thirdly, 26 that the motion carried on 23 July, being null and void for the reasons I have given, did not comply with the terms of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which is accordingly not yet in force?
This is a very detailed matter, and I believe that you, Madam Speaker, will require some time to consider the letter carefully. I do not expect any decision today.
§ Madam SpeakerThat is most kind of the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I have not yet even seen his letter. However, I will read it carefully. If the need arises, I will make a statement—but only if the need arises.
§ Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to access to the House. In keeping with many of my colleagues in Norman Shaw South, I am horrified by the new barriers that have been placed between us and the House. Eight minutes is not long, and if someone has a faulty card, that could lead to such a delay that some right hon. and hon. Members may not be able to reach the Lobbies in time.
Furthermore, when I passed through those monstrosities this morning, I was told by a police officer, "It really isn't suitable sir, for you to bring luggage through here." Is it seriously suggested that right hon. and hon. Members emerging from the underground station carrying luggage will have to walk to the New Palace Yard entrance? Will you, Madam Speaker, please order the removal of those gates and revert to the use of the police officers?
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I understand the feeling of the House on this matter, and I want no further points of order on it.
I have examined the matter over many months. I do not like the reason for the gates, but I believe that it is appropriate to have them. There is a gate at the side that does not require card access, if the hon. Gentleman wants to use it. I do not discuss security matters across the Floor of the House. I will consider the matter further if the hon. Gentleman wants me to do so and, if I think it necessary, will refer the question of Division time to the appropriate Committee. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that security matters should not be discussed across the Floor of the House.