Statutory Instruments, &c. (Hansard, 18 July 1995)

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)
We now come to motion 6.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may have been made aware of the exchanges that took place earlier between Back-Bench Members on both sides and Madam Speaker in respect of the next two orders and in respect of the fact that the Daily Mail and other bidders are engaged in mopping up the radio stations in the Chilterns and elsewhere. Madam Speaker said that she might be able to make a statement on the question of privilege in view of the fact that, although the matter has been spoken about in the House of Lords, apparently Members of the House of Commons have not had a chance to debate it. The only way in which hon. Members can do anything at all tonight is to make an attempt to challenge the payroll vote. Did Madam Speaker convey anything for us to hear in respect of the two motions? Will the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage withdraw them?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I was aware of the situation. Madam Speaker has not given me any information on the matter.

§ Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may help the House if I tell hon. Members that I have received a reply from Madam Speaker about whether there was a breach of privilege by the takeover panel on the basis of the lobbying of Members. Her reply was that in her view, there was no breach of privilege by that body.

§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not concerned with the privilege issue. It has come to my knowledge, since the comments by Madam Speaker this afternoon, that there is a serious constitutional matter. We have been discussing with Members of the House of Lords the fact that a precedent has been set in the past few days. A motion that went before a Standing Committee of the House of Commons and was defeated, rather than coming to the Chamber for scrutiny, was then tabled in the House of Lords, very unusually, for debate last night on a motion that, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, was not contested by the Opposition, so it had a relatively clear run. It is now back this evening, but not to be discussed. Not many Members would know, if we had not raised the matter today, that the motion had been defeated in Standing Committee—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is turning into a debate. Hon. Members will be aware that this matter has to be decided forthwith. It is, of course, open to hon. Members to vote either for or against, according to their choice.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Is this a different point of order?

§ Mr. Corbyn
My point of order is this. How did this statutory instrument ever get to the House of Lords if it had not been to the House of Commons first?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
It can go to either.

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

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Is it a different point of order?

§ Mr. Sheerman
I have been in the House since 1979. I have never seen such evidence of obvious chicanery. Hon. Members are being prevented from discussing an issue. This influences your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as others. A monopoly run by the Daily Mail will take over the franchises—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I can operate only according to the rules in this House at this moment. I have told hon. Members that if they wish to vote against the motion, they can do so. I am now going to put the Question.