Points of Order (Hansard, 16 February 1994)

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given you notice. Yesterday, I received a copy of a document that has been issued by an Indian-based organisation. It calls on people living in the United Kingdom to boycott the goods produced in the constituencies of a number of hon. Members. It names 13 Labour Members, two Conservative Members, one Liberal Democrat and one Labour Member of the European Parliament—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. May I have the hon. Gentleman's attention? I have no indication of the subject that he is seeking to raise with me. It seems that it may well concern a matter of privilege, so he should write to me about it and I will certainly consider it. I think that it would be wise if the hon. Gentleman did not try to pursue the point of order now, because I believe that it could be a matter of privilege.

§ Mr. Madden
I am uncertain of that matter, Madam Speaker. I wrote to you and I left a note in your office earlier today.

§ Madam Speaker
No. I have not had any notice from the hon. Gentleman other than to say that he wished to raise a point of order with me. I have had no notification of what the hon. Gentleman wanted to raise. If he is uncertain about the matter, all the more reason why he should write to me.

§ Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister, however inadvertently, to mislead the House during Question Time by saying that the deputy leader of Derbyshire county council is appealing against his conviction for fraud? In fact, that appeal has already failed. Was not my hon. Friend underestimating the extent to which the bunch on the Opposition Benches—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order. It was only yesterday that I was able to answer a genuine point of order, when I reminded hon. Members that they are abusing our system of points of order. They are not using the procedures correctly. Points of order should be about our Standing Orders and procedures and should not continue debate, which most points of order seem to seek to do.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A number of points of order have been raised about the answers given by executive agencies. I do not wish to resurrect the argument about executive agencies providing letters in answer to parliamentary questions that have been put down.
During the process of clarification, in March 1993 the then Home Secretary gave a list of matters relating to the prison service which were to be answered by the director general. You may recall, Madam Speaker, that those answers were to be printed in Hansard. The scope of that procedure, which has been agreed and accepted by the House as a matter of order and procedure, is now being widened.
957 I tabled a question about the inquiry by the prison service into the sad suicide of a constituent of mine, Anthony Robert Madden, in Armley gaol on 26 June 1993. I asked for a copy of that report to be placed in the Library.
That matter did not come within the terms of the answer given on 25 March 1993 in Hansard.In effect, it means that the Home Office is now widening the range of matters to be dealt with by the director general, without any reference to the House. That is always a danger. It is important to raise points of order when that happens because we should retain accountability for those executive agencies, particularly on a matter concerning a tragic suicide in a prison, when it appears as though the prison authorities were trying to cover up—with the connivance, I am afraid, of the Minister.

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have had no indication of the matter that he has raised on a point of order and therefore I do not happen to have Hansard of 25 March 1993 in front of me. The hon. Gentleman may like to pursue the matter further with the Home Secretary, or perhaps he could seek advice from the Table Office. He knows that I do not give advice about procedure across the Floor of the House. If he does not wish to follow my suggestions, I should be very willing to see him to consider what I can do about the matter.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you rule regularly that statements by Ministers are not a matter for you, unless you are notified, and then, obviously, the House is informed. I should simply like to ask your advice, because, today, the news has contained general reports of the large police presence at the proposed M11 route in east London.
In the past, when an incident has got out of control and led to injuries or death, it is then the subject of a statement before the House. I seek your straightforward advice on the best way to try to get the issue of the M11 route raised before problems arise rather than after. The problem is that, 958 if we wait for the next Home Office or Transport questions, the event will be over. When would be the best opportunity to raise such matters while the events are still current?

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is asking for procedural advice. I have just made it clear that I do not give procedural advice. Tomorrow happens to be Thursday; perhaps he should look at the business for Thursday.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you consider re-examining the practice of giving private responses to hon. Members on issues of privilege? I shall not go into the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), but when you rule in private, by implication, unless hon. Members ask my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member who raises an issue of privilege, the rest of the House is denied that response. However, a public interest issue may well arise out of the action taken by that organisation in regard to the 17 Members of Parliament concerned. Will you reflect on my request and consider it?

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Speaker of the House has total authority over matters of privilege. It would be a complete departure if the entire House were to be informed of the ruling. If the hon. Gentleman and others are seeking to change that, they must use the normal channels.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that that is your position, but there is clearly a public interest issue. It is alleged that 17 hon. Members are affected by an individual organisation. Surely the wider public have a right to know, even though, as Speaker of the House, you may feel that your responsibility remains only to my hon. Friend.

§ Madam Speaker
I cannot make a statement on those matters, but if hon. Members who raise them were to reflect, they might find other methods by which they could bring them to the public's attention.