Points of Order (Hansard, 18 July 1995)

§ Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that this evening the House will consider the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1995, which was considered in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. last Wednesday and rejected on a vote. It was also considered last evening in another place by their Lordships when it was passed but opposition was expressed to it.
Is it correct, Madam Speaker, that the Statutory Instruments Committee having rejected the order, the Government can bring the order before the House after 10 o'clock when no debate is to be allowed, though I understand that a Division may be called, on a matter of enormous importance to the shareholders of Chiltern Radio, many of whom are my constituents? If the Government can ignore what the Statutory Instruments Committee said last week and bring the order before the House, what is the point of having such a Committee in the first place?

§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have no constituency interest in this, but it seems strange that the Statutory Instruments Committee last week failed to approve the order. It was rejected in the Commons—a point raised eloquently last night by two members of the other place—and the Government used a wheeze to introduce the order: the wheeze that, traditionally, the Front Bench in the House of Lords does not oppose an order of this kind, introduced in this way.
We have just been discussing parliamentary scrutiny. In this instance, parliamentary scrutiny does not exist. The issue is important: the Government have wheedled to get their own way. First they cannot pass the measure by means of parliamentary scrutiny in a House of Commons Committee; then they bounce it into the House of Lords, preventing us from subjecting it to proper scrutiny here. Now it has returned to the House, but we shall not be able to debate it or tell any of our colleagues, on the Floor of the House, what has occurred. It would require a very diligent Member of Parliament to discover that such wheedling insinuations were being made.

§ Sir David Madel (Bedfordshire, South-West)
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is going to make the same point.

§ Sir David Madel
It is on a constituency matter, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
All right, I will hear it.

§ Sir David Madel
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Chiltern radio station to which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) referred is in my constituency; a number of its employees are my constituents, and share my hon. Friend's anxiety. I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will be able to rule in accordance with what he has sought.

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is not absolutely correct. When the statutory instrument went 1486 before the Committee, it did not reject it; it voted—on the Chairman's casting vote—that it had not considered the instrument.
Standing Order No. 101 gives the Committee no power, once the vote has been taken, other than to report the matter to the House, and that is what is taking place. Nothing irregular has occurred. Although the motion may not be debated tonight, it must still be decided, and hon. Members may vote against it if they wish. Nothing irregular has occurred in this place; Standing Order No. 101 requires the procedure that has taken place to be carried out.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
There can be no further point of order. I have just answered the point of order, and I cannot change the Standing Orders. I cannot take a further point of order. I am trying to be helpful, but I have already given the answer.

§ Mr. John Carlisle
On a separate point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that you should know that the takeover panel has instructed Chiltern Radio not to use any form of political lobbying in relation to the legislation. Indeed, the panel has prevented it from approaching Members of Parliament on that very basis. At the same time, the hostile bidder, Great Western Radio, is employing the lobbying firm GJW. On that basis, is it right for the takeover panel to have banned political lobbying?

§ Madam Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, this sounds very much like a matter of privilege. I hope that he will go no further now, but will immediately write to me about the matter if what he says is correct. If he had said that in the first place, I might have been able to be more helpful. I hope that he will write to me straight away.

§ Mr. Sheerman
On a fresh point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman cannot raise it. It is now a matter of privilege.

§ Mr. Sheerman
The point relates to privilege.

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman cannot relate it to privilege. I am sorry; I am trying to be helpful to the House. Points of order cannot be related to privilege. I am waiting for a letter from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), and the hon. Gentleman must not now disturb that procedure.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
I know that the hon. Gentleman understands our procedures.

§ Mr. Spearing
The whole House is grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for the information relating to a possible Division on motions 6 and 7. If the timed debates that precede those motions are completed at or after 10 pm, will the motions be automatically exempted? If no order applies—either automatically, under Standing Orders, or by resolution—am I not right in thinking that neither motion, if objected to, will be passed tonight?

§ Madam Speaker
I am advised that that is not correct. The Questions on the motions must be put.

§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am reluctant to intervene, but, on the basis of what you have told the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) in regard to motion 6, if the hon. Gentleman wrote to you before the motion was reached and you therefore decided that a prima facie breach of privilege might be involved, would you then not put the Questions on the motions?

§ Madam Speaker
Not necessarily; I would have to consider what the hon. Member for Luton, North had told me. He ought to write to me speedily, however, and I ought to try to deal with the matter speedily, if I am to be allowed to do so. Basically, this is a matter for the Government, but I want to consider what the hon. Gentleman has told me when I examine it in the context of privilege—if I am allowed to do so.