§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order of which I gave you notice earlier this afternoon. You will have read reports that Lord Lester QC has submitted evidence to a Committee in the other place, in which allegations are made that hon. Members of this House received money for asking questions and promoting commercial interests. Is any action being taken by appropriate Committees in this House to invite Lord Lester to submit any evidence that he may have in support of those allegations to Committees of this House, and to invite him to amplify any evidence that he has submitted to the other place in support of those allegations? [Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I am conscious of the allegations that have been made about Members in this House by a Member of the upper House. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) can take action himself. He can refer the matter to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I hope that he will do precisely that.
§ Mr. Mike O'Brien (Warwickshire, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following the inadequate answers at Question Time, have you had a request from Ministers to make a statement about the great public concern that exists about the Government's proposals to slash expenditure in relation to airport security?
§ Madam SpeakerNo, I have not had such a request.
§ Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the most unsatisfactory and misleading nature of the reply that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, may I give notice that I wish to seek an Adjournment debate on the topic of Cambodia and non-governmental organisations?
§ Madam SpeakerI do not think that the hon. Gentleman can put it that way as he did not have the substantive question, but no doubt he will apply for an Adjournment debate in any case.
§ Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have the Government given notice of their intention to make a statement following the extraordinary and loutish behaviour of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for industry and local government, during an incident yesterday when he allegedly attacked a demonstrator with a pickaxe and was subsequently interviewed by Strathclyde police? That behaviour was unbecoming of a Minister. Are we entitled to a statement in the House?
§ Madam SpeakerI have not received any indications from the Government to the effect that they are seeking to make a statement of that nature.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will of course be aware that on Friday the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), who is the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, effectively obstructed any discussion of a Bill designed to protect calves. He was not in his place today for the 20 questions that he had tabled and I assume that he had not the guts to respond to the points that would undoubtedly have been raised. Would you deprecate his discourtesy to you in that he did not even notify you that he would not be attending and did not withdraw his questions, although he had the time to come here on Friday and, with the connivance of the Secretary of State, obstruct a Bill?
§ Madam SpeakerOn the hon. Gentleman's second point, a number of hon. Members are extremely discourteous to me and to Ministers by not informing us that they will be absent. They are always reprimanded. I was not in the Chair on Friday afternoon, but I followed Hansard carefully. Nothing untoward took place. The hon. Member to whom the hon. Gentleman refers certainly spoke for something like 25 minutes on Friday, but I noticed that an Opposition Member spoke on an earlier Bill for 30 minutes. I therefore think that it was even stevens.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. This matter seems to be giving rise to points of order with which I have dealt. We have urgent business before us.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. Sit down. Points of order concern breaches of the procedures of the House, not political matters or point scoring. If breaches of the House's procedures are involved, I shall hear points of order.
§ Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would have been apparent to anyone watching the BBC news on Friday evening that the appearance was given that the Bill under discussion had been talked out—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I have dealt with that matter. Whatever the appearance given on television, it has nothing to do with me. My concern is only for what happens in the House.
§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you assist by telling us what would be the constitutional repercussions, which would almost certainly be serious, if an organisation that is now £17 million in debt, which has only one asset valued at £9 million, which was about to sack a third of its staff and whose head was the Prime Minister, became bankrupt? What would be the constitutional position—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I am not prepared to deal with a constitutional question of that nature across the Floor of the House without further information.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. Sit down. It is a total abuse of points of order.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. One at a time.
§ Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. About a minute ago, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) attacked the reputation of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is not 21 present to defend himself. Can it be said that the Under-Secretary said clearly on the radio at 1.30 pm that he had picked up the pickaxe—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. It is nothing whatsoever to do with me who said what on radio or television. I have enough to contend with, dealing with what happens in the House.
§ Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you are aware that I am a co-sponsor of the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French). I am sure that you are equally aware that the Bill, which has support from all quarters and from many widows, including some in my constituency, was objected to by Opposition Members on Friday. Do you have any powers to restore the Bill to its former position on the Order Paper?
§ Madam SpeakerThe answer is no.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of your answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), and in view of the fact that all matters that arise in the House are clearly under your control, will you confirm that it is none the less in order that any procedural matters that may be regarded as bringing Parliament into disrepute can be raised with the Nolan committee?
§ Madam SpeakerI think that I need notice of that question. If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I shall deal with it with all the seriousness with which it was asked.
§ Mr. Douglas French (Gloucester)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance in relation to another aspect of the events on Friday, when the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill was objected to by Labour Members? On Thursday, I received from Opposition Treasury spokesmen an assurance that the Labour party would support all stages of the Bill on Friday. Would you confirm my understanding that if the Bill had passed all its stages on Friday, it would not have interfered with the progress of business in the Standing Committee considering private Members' Bills?
§ Madam SpeakerI cannot comment on guarantees given across the Floor of the House; that is nothing to do with the Chair. What support the two parties give or what commitment they give to a particular Bill is purely a matter of the relationships between the parties concerned.
§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I also seek your guidance? As you know, I do not make a habit of raising points of order unless I have a feeling of genuine grievance. Would you seek a report from Madam Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair for the earlier part of Friday? A number of hon. Members, of whom I was one, came for an important debate on the Proceeds of Crime Bill. Several hon. Members had written to say that they wished to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. We were discouraged from speaking out of a fear that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) wished to talk out 22 the Bill, as he had talked out, on the previous Friday, the Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill, which was supported by a number of hon. Members. Can nothing be done to ensure that a serious Bill, which has all-party support and which is first in the list for debate, can be debated properly over three or four hours without the danger of it being talked out by Opposition Members who seek to further the progress of their own Bills?
§ Madam SpeakerI hope that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising my Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman raised a question about the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair. I want to be clear about the point of order that he is putting to me.
§ Mr. GreenwayI was not criticising the Deputy Speaker; I was making the point that she would tell you about what happened earlier on Friday. A number of us who had written to you saying that we wished to catch your eye in that important debate felt dissuaded from contributing because we wished to avoid a repetition of what had happened the previous Friday when a Bill was talked out. This is a serious problem, which the House must address. If there is all-party support for a Bill, it is surely right that we should have a proper debate without the danger that one or two hon. Members will seek to talk it out so that they can further the progress of their own Bill. You will know that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has a Bill that will be before the House this Friday.
§ Madam SpeakerI understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The proceedings of this House rest with hon. Members themselves. I have read carefully the whole of the debate on Friday. I shall look particularly at the points that the hon. Gentleman has put to me. I shall see whether there is anything further that I need to do.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerI have finished with that point; I have dealt with it.
§ Mr. SkinnerMy hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) spoke for only five minutes—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You gave a firm ruling—almost a rebuke—some weeks ago that in debates on education, Ministers should not seek to name the schools and sons of hon. Members, thus putting their education at some risk of media publicity. Given that the gutter press is now harping on that theme, can you at least instruct hon. Members not thus to put the children of other hon. Members in the firing line for the sake of cheap political points?
§ Madam SpeakerI have already given a firm ruling on that matter, on which the majority of the House supports the Chair. I am not concerned about the gutter press. Questionnaires come round to all hon. Members, including me. For some of them, I have something in my office that is called a round file, and they go there.