§ Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, in reply to a point of order from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), you advised him to seek to pursue the question of hon. Members visiting his constituency without his knowledge in another way, rather than by raising it as a point of order.
I took your advice, following a visit last Friday to my constituency by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who were presenting industry awards to a firm in my constituency. Neither hon. Member informed me that he was coming. Their visit was accompanied by much publicity.
I took the matter up with the Ministry of Defence, which informed me that the Minister was not on official business but on a Tory party central office visit. Is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to parade himself around the country, at the behest of central office, giving the impression that he is acting in an official capacity, without informing the Member concerned? That is a double disgrace.
§ Madam SpeakerMy only concern is that a Member or Minister should go to another hon. Member's constituency without the courtesy of giving notice. It is my opinion that the hon. Gentleman should have been given notice of the Member or Minister going to his constituency. That is my responsibility, and I try to uphold it.
§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I recall that it is also an important courtesy of the House that, if one hon. Member intends to mention another hon. Member, he should give notice. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) did not give me notice, and I suspect that he did not give notice to my hon. Friends the Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames).
§ Madam SpeakerThe point of order did not relate to the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Hughesrose—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. It is time that hon. Members took their buckets and spades and went off on holiday, if this is all that they can do.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that you signed the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday's business. Item 8 was a Government motion relating to European Community water policy, to which I and two of my hon. Friends moved an amendment that, unusually, was selected—no doubt because it related to the debate Upstairs.
As you will know, under Standing Order No. 102, no debate is allowed on such amendments, even when they are selected. If the amendment had been accepted, it would have had important implications for the European Community and its procedures. Can you tell me whether 147 representations to change that Standing Order should be made through you to the Procedure Committee, by means of an early-day motion or by letters to the Procedure Committee? There is widespread concern about the way in which we handle these matters.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)Now that is a point of order.
§ Madam SpeakerIt certainly is a point of order, because the hon. Member for Newham, South knows well our proceedings in the House, follows them carefully and makes proper points of order. I think he is aware—if not, I inform him and the House of this most interesting and important point—that the Procedure Committee is at present examining all these matters. The report will be produced as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could I ask your guidance on a matter of order relating to the subject of the Opposition debate this afternoon? I presume that the subject was originally precipitated by what was thought to be the leak of a Government document. As it now transpires that the leaked document was produced by a Labour prospective candidate, have you had any representations about changing the subject of the debate this afternoon?
§ Madam SpeakerNo, I have not had any such representations. The debate is on the motion as outlined on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before we go away with our buckets and spades, is there any way in which we can obtain a statement from the Ministry of Defence about the replacement maritime patrol aircraft? Up to 200 jobs at British Aerospace at Prestwick depend on the decision, and the fear is that it is being delayed to enable the Chancellor to give some pre-election tax cut bribe. That is undermining the position of jobs at Prestwick. Can you force a statement before we go away tomorrow?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is well aware that I cannot force the Government to make a statement, but he should also be aware that there will be an opportunity in a debate tomorrow for him to raise the matter and obtain a response. I am sure that, if he looks at tomorrow's Order Paper, he will find a method of doing that.
§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For many years, it was the practice in the House not to name civil servants who could not defend themselves on the Floor of the House. While I understand that a determined attempt by the 148 previous Prime Minister to politicise the civil service has led many civil servants to believe that they have a different role, is it not deplorable that hon. Members should denigrate in the House those who do not have a right to defend themselves?
§ Madam SpeakerI have always held firmly to the view that those who do not have a platform on which to defend themselves in the House should not be named by hon. Members in that way. I have tried to uphold that principle, and I hope that it will continue.
§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you have overall responsibility for the papers of the House, could I ask you to be kind enough to speak to those who vet the wording of motions, and ask them to ensure that sloppy phrases such as "knee-jerk opposition" do not occur in official motions again?
§ Madam SpeakerThe point has been taken, Sir Patrick.
§ Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. While I am sure that all of us agree with the general principle that one should not refer to civil servants who do not have a right to defend themselves in the House, surely the action of the Opposition Front-Bench team in bringing the matter before the House has brought it into the public domain?
§ Madam SpeakerI have made my views known on that.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. This is like zero hour in India. I do not believe that hon. Members have genuine points of order, but think of them at the last moment.
§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)On a genuine point of order, Madam Speaker. Many of us tabled questions to the Chancellor for Thursday in good faith, on the understanding that there had been an announcement and there would be business on Thursday. We are suddenly given notice that we are to be deprived of that opportunity to question the Chancellor or to ask him to answer the charges. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has just defamed a civil servant, and we now have no opportunity to set the record right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, it is a gross discourtesy to the House and to the civil servant.
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman, and perhaps many more like him, will have to wait until October. I hope that he can keep his cool until then.