Points of Order (Hansard, 24 June 1996)

§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance and, I hope, your assistance, on a matter that I raised with you last week: the tabling of early-day motions.
I understood you to say that, when the judicial inquiry into child abuse in Clwyd was set up by a motion of this House, the matter would become sub judice. I understand that, but, on Thursday evening, I attempted to table a motion on child abuse that related to a period before that which is being investigated by the judicial inquiry, whose terms of reference are from 1974 onwards. The motion I attempted to table related specifically to 1971. You said that you would use your discretion in these matters. I am asking you to use it in this matter.

§ Madam Speaker
As the hon. Lady knows, I have not seen the early-day motion to which she refers. Without giving a commitment, if she would like to resubmit it, I shall certainly take a look at it.

§ Mr. David Ashby (North-West Leicestershire)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to the Defamation Bill with which we shall deal shortly. Would you prefer me to raise it then?

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman may raise his point of order now.

§ Mr. Ashby
I am much obliged, Madam Speaker. I raise this point because you are the person who supports Back Benchers and looks after their rights. You will recall that the Defamation Bill had its Second Reading three weeks ago in similar circumstances to those of today. The debate started at about this time, and there was a 7 o'clock vote. I believe that I was one of only two Back Benchers who spoke. I may be forgiven for having felt that I had something to offer the House on that occasion because I felt that, having been a victim, I had a knowledge of the subject. I had much information to give the House about what happens to victims and about how improvements could be made.
I was somewhat surprised—I should not have been, but I was—that I was not selected for the Committee. None the less, I tabled many amendments with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and he was ready to speak to them. I attended the Committee, although not a member, I was unable to participate, and had to sit in the public—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. What is the point of order?

§ Mr. Ashby
The point of order relates to my rights as a Back Bencher. I was surprised to find that most of the amendments that I had tabled were not called on that occasion. Notwithstanding that, I tabled many amendments—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. We have a lot of business before us. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me why I have not selected some of the amendments that he has tabled, the answer is that the Speaker never gives reasons for the non-selection of amendments. He asked about the 50 Committee of Selection. That is not the Speaker's business. I hope that I have dealt with his point of order, and that we can speedily move on to the very important Bill before us.

§ Mr. Ashby
I should like to continue with the point that I was making.

§ Madam Speaker
I am a most tolerant lady. I ask the hon. Gentleman to put his point so that I can deal with it.

§ Mr. Ashby
What is a simple Back 13encher to do when he is ridden over roughshod by the Government and by the Speaker and not able to put his points?

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I very much resent the hon. Gentleman's last comment. For most of this morning, I carefully examined the amendments that he tabled. Like every Speaker before me, I will not give the reasons why I cannot select them. If he were to examine them more carefully, he would know very well why they are unacceptable.

§ Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, over the weekend, Albert Tong was arrested for deportation, and subsequently suffered what is thought to have been a mild heart attack. The Minister of State, Home Office said that the Home Office had not been informed that he had health problems. She later accepted that, although the Home Office had been told, Ministers had not.
Today, it has been revealed that an immigration office letter specifically said that the Secretary of State had been informed and had considered that fact. In that light, should not the Minister come to the House to explain what inquiry she has undertaken and how the letters were sent? Can you do anything to help that happen?

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman appears to be asking the Government to make a statement. If there was to have been such a statement, we would all have known about it, because it would have been on the annunciator by 1 o'clock today.

§ Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that you would prefer to take points of order on the Defamation Bill now rather than at the beginning of proceedings on it. You have selected new clause 9, with which are associated several other amendments, including amendment No. 21. On Report, we do not normally debate clause stand part. However, amendment No. 21 only partially amends clause 13, to which it relates.
If new clause 9 were carried, we would take amendment No. 21 as consequential. It would effectively leave a space in which the new clause could be inserted. If I understand the situation correctly, it would not be possible to vote against clause 13, which has deficiencies other than those covered by the amendment. If that is the case, when that rather innovative clause returns to the 51 Lords, where it arose, perhaps they would be able to take into account the fact that we had not been able to vote on it.

§ Madam Speaker
I hope that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. If new clause 9 is not carried, I can accept a Division on amendment No. 21. That will clear the matter up.

§ Sir Terence Higgins
I understand that very well, but it may be that we come first to the amendment, which goes only part of the way that one wishes to go. It would be strange to vote against an amendment of which one is in favour when one cannot subsequently go further by voting against the clause itself.

§ Madam Speaker
New clause 9 comes before amendment No. 21, so the House will be voting on new clause 9 before we reach amendment No. 21.

§ Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be for the benefit of the House to clarify the situation. Any vote on amendment No. 21 would come at the end of all the proceedings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) will make clear, the Opposition are not suggesting that new clause 9 is the best possible solution. It will be suggested that new clause 9 is a possible alternative, but not better than complete deletion, which will still be an option open to the House after the debate on amendment No. 40.

§ Sir Terence Higgins
That may be so, and I shall need to think about it. Would I be right in thinking that, if amendment No. 21 were carried, the new clause would be knocked out?

§ Madam Speaker
No. What is the right hon. Gentleman asking? If we carry new clause 9, what we do on amendment No. 21 will depend on what the House indicates are its wishes at the time. I am in the hands of the House. We have to deal with new clause 9 first; we shall reach amendment No. 21 much later in the proceedings, by which time the House will have made up its mind how to deal with it.

§ Sir Terence Higgins
I am so sorry to persist, Madam Speaker, but this is a matter of constitutional importance. If we vote for new clause 9, we then reach amendment No. 21, which knocks out virtually all of clause 13. The amendment proposed goes only part of the way towards removing deficiencies in the original clause.

§ Madam Speaker
My advice is that the Bill would go to the House of Lords for it to consider the position. That is all we can do—once we have made our decisions, all we can do is refer the matter to the House of Lords for it to make a decision.

§ Sir Terence Higgins
Madam Speaker, in that case, the position is clear and the House of Lords will need to consider it. We shall not have an opportunity to knock out clause 13 completely.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have just had a statement from the 52 Secretary of State for Social Security as a consequence of a decision taken by judges. He has proposed that the House should consider primary legislation to rectify the position. There has been a development on defamation over the past few years: judges have developed the law to allow them to interfere in awards made by juries, contrary to the previous opinion of judges and common law.
We have a difficulty: although seven groups of amendments have been selected for debate this afternoon, there are also two new clauses to debate. One subject was clearly a matter of interest—on Second Reading, in Committee and, in relation to some of the proposals, on Report—but unfortunately it was not possible to table an amendment which would have had the same effect as some of the new clauses and which would have returned to the House the question whether judges should be able to overturn jury awards. That is one area of defamation in which I do not have a personal interest.
The House faces a difficulty in accepting what the judges have determined the law to be, without being able to consider the subject in detail, either in Committee or on Report. It would be helpful to the House to know how it could consider the matter while debating the Bill.

§ Madam Speaker
That is not a point of order for me. It is a matter that will become clear in debate across the House, but it is not a point of order for the Chair of the House.

§ Mr. Bottomley
I am not criticising the Chair—I fully understand the Chair's role in allowing the House to consider points made by right hon. and hon. Members. As one of the new clauses has not been selected, and as it is not possible to table an amendment, it will not be possible for the House to effect the law as developed by judges. As the previous question and answer session with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security demonstrated, when the judges believe that the law is not as Parliament believes it be, the House should have an opportunity, when considering a relevant Bill, to consider the sort of amendment or clause that has been tabled, but not selected.

§ Madam Speaker
I can select only the new clauses and amendments that are in order and that relate to the Bill. As I said earlier, I cannot give reasons for the non-selection of some new clauses and amendments, but many of them did not relate to the Bill and were out of order. I cannot select amendments that do not directly relate to the Bill. I can take no further points of order on the subject.

§ Mr. Bottomley
I think I must explain—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has just explained everything.

§ Mr. Bottomley
I am not challenging the role of the Chair; I spoke specifically in support of the role of the Speaker. How can the House consider judge-made law if it is not possible to move an amendment that is in order and if the new clause that has been tabled is out of order? That is the dilemma for the House.

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman can vote on new clauses or amendments in any place, either in 53 Committee—I believe that he was a member of the Standing Committee—or on the Floor of the House. It is up to the House to make its decisions. Those are not points of order that can be resolved in this way. We must move on.