Points of Order (Hansard, 18 December 1996)

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for giving you only relatively short notice of my point of order, but it is on a serious matter that has been brought to my attention. Yesterday, I tabled four questions. The first was to the Lord Chancellor's Department, asking whether the new Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland had ever been a Mason or a member of the Orange Order.
The other three questions were to the Home Office. Two were on the intolerable strip searches to which Miss Rosaleen McAliskey has been subjected in Holloway prison, and the fourth was on why prisoners may receive The Times but not The Irish Times, The Daily Telegraph but not the Belfast Telegraph, the Daily Mail but not the Irish News, and The Sun but not the News Letter.
Those questions were accepted—although not in that form—by the Table Office and were sent to the Stationery Office, where they were received by those appointed by the House to accept and to check such questions.
Those questions did not appear on the Order Paper. When I asked at the Table Office—I apologise again for giving such short notice—I was informed that they had been lost by the privatised HMSO. In my experience of almost 31 years as a Member of Parliament, that has never happened before. Those at the Table Office were most apologetic, but the matter was not their responsibility.
My point of order is to ask whether you, as Speaker and therefore champion of the House and protector of our rights, have received an apology from the newly privatised HMSO for that flagrant dereliction of its duty, and whether apologies will be received by the other hon. Members who suffered as a result of that dereliction. How shall we be protected in future? We table questions not only for our interests, but for the interests of the general public and those asking us to make their opinions and voices known.

§ Madam Speaker
I had some indication of this matter only while I have been in the Chair since 2.30 pm, so I have not been able to follow through any investigations. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that several questions—not only from him but from other hon. Members—were missing. As far as I can understand, this is an unprecedented lapse. I assure him that, as soon as it was noticed, investigations were put under way.
The hon. Gentleman can be assured that, as soon as I have the opportunity this afternoon when I leave the Chair, I shall want to follow through personally on the investigations to see what happened. The hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Members, whose identities I am not aware of at this stage, will certainly receive an apology. We must learn from these mistakes.

§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)
On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the controversy that arose last night as a result of the votes in the House on Monday evening. There appears to have been nothing less than a conspiracy to pervert the outcome of the votes. If such behaviour goes on with impunity, does it not give a green light to people to follow similar practices in future? Surely the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

§ Madam Speaker
Similar points of order have been put to me yesterday and this morning. The Speaker has 960 no business involving herself in the arrangements between the political parties in the House. It is not the business of the Speaker to become involved in such matters.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At 12.30 pm today, the Leader of the House gave an interim report on the appalling events in Lima last night, saying, among other things, that British subjects could be involved. As the issue involves the safety of embassies around the world and the problems of copycat action, it is a matter of considerable importance, not only to Japan and Peru. Have you received a request from the Government to make a statement on the issues?

§ Madam Speaker
The direct answer is no, I have not, but of course we still have the day's proceedings to go through. Should the Government feel it necessary or right to make a statement, we can always deal with that later in the day.

§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)
On a different point of order, Madam Speaker—please excuse my voice. May I express to you, in your role as the much valued and respected protector of all Members of Parliament, my concern about developments in the business of the House over the past 10 days?
On 5 December, reported in column 1203 of Hansard, the Leader of the House said—we appreciate the fact that he now gives us much longer notice of business—that there would be a debate on the Protection from Harassment Bill. It was agreed through the usual channels that the debate would last only one day. That seemed appropriate, because it would have allowed me to attend the inaugural meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention.
On 12 December, the Leader of the House announced that there would be a debate on the common fisheries policy. I challenged that—as reported in column 425 of Hansard—because every hon. Member from the highlands and islands of Scotland has a clear interest in the common fisheries policy, which has implications for our constituencies. I understand from my investigations that it was subsequently decided through the usual channels that two days would be required to discuss the Protection from Harassment Bill, but I had no notification of that, as a Member of Parliament from the highlands and islands.
I had to make a difficult decision on Monday. Fortunately, there was no fog or frost, and we managed to get back to Westminster via normal channels, without having to charter a Royal Air Force plane, in order to vote.
Would you, Madam Speaker, look at the conflicting responsibilities that are placed on individual Members? The issue did not concern individual constituencies; it was a general issue for all Members of Parliament from the highlands and islands. What action can be taken to ensure that we are never placed in the same ludicrous position again, especially in the light of subsequent events? As you know, I had raised points on the matter in the House before those events occurred.

§ Madam Speaker
I very well remember the hon. Lady raising the issue in business questions. As she will appreciate, the matter is for the usual channels, 961 particularly the Leader of the House. I very much understand that some Members have responsibilities—parliamentary, not constituency responsibilities—outside the House. I take to heart what she has said this afternoon, and shall make it my business to talk the Leader of the House to see what can be done, so that hon. Members are not placed in such a position in future.