Points of Order (Hansard, 17 July 2000)

§ Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, extremely damaging reports were circulated that the Challenger 2 tank, made in Newcastle, could not fire German ammunition. It is a fact that, within days, there is to be a decision by the Greek armed forces on whether to buy Challenger 2 or a German tank. I know that my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement is extremely concerned that thousands of jobs on Tyneside and elsewhere in northern England have been put at risk. Have you had any notification that Ministers of the Crown intend to come to the Commons to blow this damaging nonsense to pieces?

§ Madam Speaker
I have not been informed by the Ministry of Defence or any other Department that a Minister wants to make a statement on that matter, at least today.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a pukka point of order, Madam Speaker, that has lasting significance for the House. 1 refer to the difference between the questions that can be tabled in the Commons and in the Lords. I believe that your office has had some notice of the background to this matter. Today, I attempted—I make no criticism whatever of the Clerks at the Table Office—to table the following question to the Home Secretary: In the light of the decisions of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v. Weiz and the Attorney General's reference No. 3/1999 on 26th May, whether they will refer to the Law Commission the question whether the statutory restrictions on the use of DNA to be found in section 64(3B) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be maintained or relaxed; and, if not. why not
I have a lasting interest in the use of DNA in the criminal context, believing that it is of great value in establishing guilt and also in quickly proving innocence and allowing many people to be cleared who might otherwise hang around for months under suspicion. No one doubts that my question is highly significant. The Table Office, in detail with which I shall not bore the House, rejected part of the question and said that it did not fall within Commons rules. However, for once, the question was not dreamed up by me—although I am deeply interested in it—but came from the fertile and formidable legal mind of Lord Ackner, who tabled it in the other place.
In the twilight of your Speakership, Madam Speaker, could you bequeath to us a statement about the desirability of some synchronisation between the Commons Table Office and the Lords Table Office? As the Lords makes more and more claims for itself, surely it is a question of sauce for the Commons gander and sauce for the Lords goose? If the House of Lords is to change, there should be some synchronisation of the criteria used in the Table Offices. Personally, I would like the Table Office rules in the Commons relaxed so that we can ask what we really mean.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that there has not been in the past nor will there be—certainly for as long as you are Speaker—any tightening of the 31 rules and criteria applied by the Table Office? Many hon. Members feel that a change has taken place, possibly since roughly May 1997—without putting too precise a date on it. The House would be grateful, in the context of the point of order from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), if you could give us that assurance.

§ Madam Speaker
I am pleased by the tribute that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) paid to the Clerks of the Table Office, who do a very good job on behalf of all Members of this House. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a little notice of what he called a "pukka" point of order. I would not quite say that, but it was long one and, having had notice of it, I have been able to make thorough inquiries.
I have seen the notice to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which he read out to the House. I am satisfied, as he is, of course, that it has been dealt with under our rules. What the House of Lords does in relation to questions is entirely a matter for that House, just as our rules are a matter for this House. As hon. Members know, our rules have evolved over many years and have been examined and reconfirmed by the House on several occasions. There are several areas in which our procedures differ from those of the House of Lords, but I see no reason why that should be changed. If the House wishes the procedures to be synchronised with those of the House of Lords, it must decide that that should happen. However, it is a matter for the House, not for the Speaker or for individual Clerks. If the House wishes to synchronise procedures with the House of Lords, it must table the proper motions to achieve that.

§ Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to ensure that journalists do not put a spin on the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—that there has been a tightening of the rules on the tabling of questions since 1997—will you confirm that there has been no change whatever?

§ Madam Speaker
There has been no change whatever. The Clerks at the Table and all the Clerks throughout the House operate, as they have always done, on the basis of helping and assisting individual Members in the best interests of those individual Members.