Points of Order (Hansard, 18 May 1994)

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker, to seek your guidance. I have just been given what appears to be the wholly authentic information that, overnight, what has been described as a stack of amendments will be tabled to the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [Lords] for consideration this Friday. I am informed also that the express purpose of the amendments is to delay still further the Report stage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was subjected to such odious treatment here on 6 May. If that is so, it must be a gross and contemptuous affront to this House.
I have been asked by disabled people to express again their deep anguish and anger at the tactics being used to deny them full citizenship. It must be, at the very least, discourteous to the House to table, overnight, numerous amendments whose purpose, I am told, is to wreck the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, when many right hon. and hon. Members will be leaving the House tonight to attend the funeral on Friday of our late and beloved colleague, John Smith, and will not even have seen the amendments before they leave.

§ Madam Speaker
I cannot comment on what is at the moment a hypothetical situation. Friday's proceedings will be regulated by the Chair when the time comes.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed that the Minister of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) that if he persists in asking questions of the nature that he did, funds given to organisations in my hon. Friend's constituency would be at risk. [Interruption.] Oh yes—let there be no doubt about what we heard. The Minister should be asked to withdraw his remark. When something similar happened in 1981, I complained to the Privileges Committee, because Ian MacGregor, then chairman of the British Steel Corporation, was involved. The Privileges Committee held a number of sittings to adjudicate on whether that incident took place, because it was seen as a threat. On that occasion, the threat was that funds would be cut off from my own constituency, for investment in the British Steel Corporation. Will you, Madam Speaker, ask the Minister to withdraw his comments?

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Nothing that I heard was out of order. However, I compliment the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) because he is dealing with the matter in precisely the right manner.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order. Madam Speaker. I apologise for my voice, but I am sure that it will soon come back. [Interruption] Well, I would not wish to take a vote on that.
Will you, Madam Speaker, give further consideration to the point that was raised by my right hon. Friend? I wonder whether you understand—I am sure that you do, but I put it in that way—the feeling of anger that exists among disabled people at the way in which the Bill, which is aimed to help them, is being obstructed and frustrated at every turn by the Government. Is there any way that you 812 can try to ensure that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is allowed to be debated again on the Floor of the House, instead of the obstruction that the Government—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. That is not within my authority, and the hon. Gentleman and the House know that it is not.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given the Minister concerned prior notice.
In a written reply to me on 25 April, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) stated that the Government intended to make an order under section 22 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to lift a layer of protection from three species of birds of prey. He said that the Department of the Environment had consulted some 7,000 organisations, including, I might add, the British Association of Tortoise Keepers, and the British Cactus and Succulent Society, though I have never seen a bird of prey seize either a tortoise or a cactus.
However, it appears that the Government sent the consultation paper to the wrong branches of the Government's advisory bodies: the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and English Nature, with the result that the latter's ornithologists were never properly consulted.
In a further reply to me on 3 May, the same Minister stated—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is entering into a debate. What is the point or order for me? What would he like me to do about it?

§ Mr. Banks
What I should like you to do about it is get some justice back into this place, when a Minister has, perhaps inadvertently, misled the House, because he said that the Association of Chief Police Officers had been in favour of lifting protection from birds of prey. ACPO—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing a case. He must not argue a case across the Floor of the House. What he is saying to me is that he does not believe that the information that was provided to him is correct.

§ Mr. Banks
No, the organisation concerned has stated publicly that the Minister has misled the House.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I am on my feet. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who knows his way around the House and how to put matters right, will use the procedures of the House to do so.

§ Mr. Banks
That is precisely what I am trying to do, because I want the House to know exactly what has happened—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. On points of order, it is not a question of the House knowing. Points of order are something that I have to deal with. If the hon. Gentleman wishes the House to know, he must use the Order Paper, through either questions or early-day motions. That is the way to inform the House, and not to use points of order, which is an abuse of our system.

§ Mr. Banks
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. That is the end of it. I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman knows how to use the Order Paper to correct something. If he uses that method, the whole House will know what the position is.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Question Time, when I asked a question about water disconnections in England and Wales in relation to the position in Scotland, where disconnections are illegal, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) said, "I am an Englishman and I can only speak for England." I ask, therefore, whether you will disqualify him and people who think like him from voting tonight on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, because he has no right to do so. That Bill is not wanted in Scotland.

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has high hopes, which will not be fulfilled.

§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your help in ensuring that an issue of public debate is reflected in the House? Like everyone else, I heard on all the news bulletins this morning, including interviews with the President of the Board of Trade, about plans to privatise the Post Office. There were also the lead stories in a number of national newspapers. You will know that the duty of the House is to reflect the debate, concerns and interests that are being voiced in the country.
Has there been a request from the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House on that privatisation, not least because if it goes ahead for a sale of £1 billion, which is the figure being quoted, my constituents' property will be sold against their will, without a vote? I want to know when the £1.5 million per constituency, which, pro rata we should receive—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether a Minister is coming to the House to make a statement on that matter. No Minister has informed me that he or she is seeking to make a statement today.

§ Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is related to, but separate from, that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on a matter concerning the procedures of the House—and, indeed, the responsibility of the House and its Members. I understand that one of your roles is to protect the rights of hon. Members—and, in so doing, to protect the rights of the House and to uphold the House's dignity, and respect for the House and its decisions. I raise this matter not only to seek clarification for myself and colleagues—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]
The matter on which I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, is the authority of decisions made by the House. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) moved a motion that was carried by the House; what I—like members of the public—cannot understand is the fact that the Government have chosen to ignore decisions reached by the House. I believe that, as a result of that, the House has been brought into disrepute. I wonder what remedy there is in the House to ensure that a decision made by the House can be put into effect.

§ Madam Speaker
There is nothing mandatory about the House's decision. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend our procedures in any way, he may wish to make some reference to the Procedure Committee. I think that he already knows that references have been made to the Committee in relation to private Members' Bills.

§ Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since entering the House in 1987, I have been repeatedly reminded that this is a unitary Parliament governing a unitary state, and that every citizen in that unitary state is entitled to the same protection under the laws passed by the House. Can you explain how it is possible that disconnecting consumers from the water supply can be illegal in Scotland, while consumers are being disconnected from the supply in England and Wales?

§ Madam Speaker
The answer is no.

§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek clarification on a matter that arose in your exchanges with my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? You told my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby that the matter of the threat issued by the Minister might be dealt with by way of an Adjournment debate. Do you accept, however, that Opposition Members feel the utmost concern about the fact that a threat to withdraw funding was made? We feel that such a threat must not be a matter only for the individual Member involved; it may be a matter for the whole House. Potentially, the issue of such a threat could be a breach of privilege which ought to be dealt with by means of the proper procedures.

§ Madam Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman believes that it may be a breach of privilege, he should write to me. I think that I have answered correctly, and that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has taken the right action—in proposing to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

§ Sir Michael Neubert (Romford)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I revert to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)? I do not know the nature, number or sponsors of the amendments tabled to the Bill that is to be considered on Friday. May I point out to you and to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I served on the Standing Committee? It was unexpectedly controversial—there were a number of Divisions—and hon. Members could well have taken the opportunity to table amendments on Report. Can you confirm, therefore, that that does not necessarily bear the interpretation that the right hon. Gentleman has placed on it?

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. That was not a point of order but an explanation; all the same, it was helpful. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Roger Berry (Kingswood)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I make a similarly helpful comment in relation to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill?

§ Madam Speaker
Order. No. I have taken points of order about that, and I understand the feeling of the House. We must now wait and see what happens on Friday.