§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)On a point or order, Madam Speaker. Tomorrow, Scottish Members table Scottish Questions under the new procedure, but even under that new procedure we still will not have the right directly to question all Scottish Office Ministers. That is extremely frustrating for Scottish Members. Could that be referred to the Procedure Committee for further consideration?
For example, I am sure that today many Scottish Members would have wished to question the Law Officers on whether they had available to them information from the American air force before they initiated proceedings against the current Lockerbie suspects. But even the basic democratic question of "What do you know and when did you know it?" is not available to Scottish Members. Does that not amount to an abuse of Scottish democracy?
§ Madam SpeakerIf I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is referring to Standing Order No. 94B, which does not envisage Ministers who sit in the other place answering questions in the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he may wish to pursue the matter. The only way that the matter can be pursued is by putting it to the Procedure Committee and asking it to consider the matter.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Page 165 of "Erskine May" makes the point that control of the accommodation and services of the House
is vested in the Speaker on behalf of the House.I mention that because it may reassure us that we will not find, one of these days, that the building is being privatised like the Treasury building over the road. This is an apt opportunity to make it clear that the Palace of Westminster will not be turned into offices and a hotel by private speculators. Otherwise, the rumour may grow that, if it can be done over the road with the Treasury building, perhaps this building will be next.
§ Madam SpeakerFrom time to time, many of us complain about this building—that we do not have sufficient accommodation or that it is not as modern as we would like. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Quite right."] That may be so, but, I would defend this building until my last breath. I shall be the first to the barricades to safeguard it as it stands.
§ Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister perhaps inadvertently to mislead the House and to suggest that I have evacuated my children at any stage 142 to schools outside the local authority, when all my five children have always attended local authority schools in the district in which they reside?
§ Madam SpeakerI missed the point, if that was the point, that the Prime Minister made, but the hon. Gentleman has put the record straight for himself.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to press you on this matter, but you will remember that three months ago I intervened and asked whether you would rule on occasions when Ministers exploited the children of hon. Members by raising these issues in the House. You ruled that you believed that it was wrong. Today, the Prime Minister has done it in relation to five hon. Members. Would you assert those rulings whereby hon. Members are advised that they should not make such statements?
§ Madam SpeakerI did not think today that the Prime Minister was exploiting the children of hon. Members. I thought that he was exploiting the hon. Members themselves and the attitudes that they took. I am careful in listening to the exchanges across the House on these matters. I am sure that the House knows that I deprecate the use of families like footballs across the Floor of the House. We have to be careful. It is reasonable, however, for hon. Members on both sides of the House to be attacked politically because we have a platform on which we can reply. That is the way in which it should be done.
§ Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerIs it another point of order on this matter?
§ Madam SpeakerI have made my ruling. I will hear no more points of order on the matter. The House knows clearly where I stand. The hon. Member said that it was a point of order on this matter. Has he changed his mind? He has thought of another one.
§ Mr. BruceI rose on a point of order in relation to a completely different matter, Madam Speaker. I thought that you had finished and I apologise for interrupting your flow. My point of order deals with access to the House. On Sunday, you may have seen on the BBC "On The Record" programme a picture of people queuing to get into the Gallery of the House. The person introducing the subject said that people had to get in a queue to lobby their Member of Parliament, which is incorrect. I wonder whether you have any powers to keep the fourth estate in line on this matter. Perhaps we should take their passes away for a week or so, so that they would more accurately reflect how people can lobby their Member of Parliament.
§ Madam SpeakerI shall consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. The Select Committee on Broadcasting could consider the matter. I have not seen the programme. I have quite a lot of other interesting things to do on a Sunday evening.