§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you and the Home Secretary notice of this question and I am grateful that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is present. On the Order Paper for 6 December questions 180 to 189—10 questions that I asked—related to the Home Secretary's responsibilities. The questions were for a named day. Four related to information concerning consultations that he had had, or had not had, with various bodies, including the high commissioners for the Commonwealth, three police consultative committees relating to the federations of the police and the London consultative committees that have been established. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would answer those questions, along with others that are not relevant to this point of order, as soon as possible. Of course, those answers, and the questions, did not appear in the Official Report for that day. As hon. Members might know, if a holding answer is given, the question is not published until the holding answer becomes a substantive one, so no one would know that the questions had been asked, or that the Home Secretary had not replied to questions that fairly related to what he had or had not done up to that time.
My point of order is to ask whether our practice could be adjusted to ensure that non-printing of such questions and answers be confined only to matters that you or the Table Office reasonably regard as unanswerable at the time. Otherwise, other Ministers could fail to answer reasonable questions, as the Home Secretary has—in this case, he has failed to do so in time for a debate that is taking place today.
§ Madam SpeakerI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The questions were printed on the Order Paper. He is quite right that they did not appear in Hansard. As I know that he is careful not to abuse the system of tabling questions for answer on a named day, I have some sympathy with his point of order. Ministers will have heard this exchange. I cannot, of course, oblige them to answer in any particular case. I believe that the Home Secretary is seeking to catch my eye. Although I will not allow a debate on the matter, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be able to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for giving me notice of the question that he proposed to raise. I have had the matter investigated. I apologise for the fact that the hon. Gentleman's questions were not answered in time for the debate. In so far as it is possible so to do, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone 698 (Miss Widdecombe), will answer them in her winding-up speech up this evening and we shall answer the remainder as soon as possible—I hope within 48 hours or so.
§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is in his place on the Front Bench, may I ask whether there has been any indication that we might have a statement on the law relating to the carrying of knives, bearing in mind the murder of my constituent, Philip Lawrence, on Friday? It is of great importance to St. George's Roman Catholic school in Maida Vale, its acting headmaster, staff, pupils and teachers, that they should know that they will have proper security in and out of school. Is there any chance of a statement?
§ Madam SpeakerI cannot allow the Home Secretary to go on answering questions. The point of order is for me. I have not been informed that there is likely to be a statement on that issue. However, senior Cabinet Ministers are available on the Front Bench and will have heard the hon. Gentleman's request.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret that I have not had the opportunity of giving you or the Home Secretary notice of my point of order.
Clause 1 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which we are about to consider, empowers
the Secretary of State to designate by order countries where there is in general no serious risk of persecution.That is the so-called "white list".You will know, Madam Speaker, that I and several other hon. Members have, over the past month, been asking when the Home Secretary intends to publish the list. I have just been told by the Home Secretary's office that it is intended that the list will be contained in a statutory instrument under the negative resolution procedure. That means that the list, and the powers that flow from the Bill, will be in force before the House has an opportunity to debate or consider properly the countries on the list. As these matters are truly concerned with life-and-death issues, would you reflect on whether this procedure is appropriate for such a vital matter, bearing in mind that Second Reading takes place today? If you share my reservations about the proposed procedure, will you prevail on the Home Secretary to adopt a more appropriate procedure?
§ Madam SpeakerThis is a case where hon. Members who oppose the procedure must persuade the Home Secretary to change it during the course of the debate. It is a normal procedure of the House. Although the hon. Gentleman has put his own connotation on it to say that the matter is more serious and important than anything that we have touched on or debated for some time, these are matters that must be discussed in exchanges across the Floor of the House today. We must now get on with the debate.