§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to Question 9 on additional special constables, which was asked by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)? The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) used his supplementary question as an opportunity to ask a question about Mike Tyson. He is perfectly entitled to try his luck and I do not blame him for that. Indeed, we all try to do that occasionally. The Home Secretary gave a long reply on what I accept is a matter of public interest. However, the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Walsall, North made no attempt to relate the matter to special constables. Has a precedent been set? Can we use any question on the Order Paper as an opportunity to ask about a matter of public interest, just because a Minister is taking a decision on that matter?
§ Madam SpeakerI believe that the supplementary question was in order on this occasion because the question on the Order Paper refers to "additional special constables". The Home Secretary was asked whether additional special constables were needed to police what was about to take place. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) knows, I try to be very careful not to allow hon. Members on either side of the House to raise issues and questions that do not relate directly to the Order Paper. I am most concerned about that and ask hon. Members to help me in that, as the hon. Gentleman has done today. I shall continue to watch the matter in the future.
§ Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the implications for procedure in the House of a report in The Guardian today. It is reported that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) wrote a letter on 14 May 1998 to a noble Lord, setting out his tactics for blocking a number of private Members' Bills. In that letter, he stated that the Government should not get the Fireworks Bill
as punishment for letting their backbenchers play around with hunting.Does the right hon. Gentleman put chasing foxes before the welfare of children and animals?In terms of procedure, is it right for a Member to seek to persuade the Government to prevent hon. Members from exercising their right to introduce private Members' legislation in the House?
§ Madam SpeakerI appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his point of order, but he will understand that I can respond to it only in so far as it concerns the Chair. The proceedings on the Fireworks Bill in the 1997–98 Session were entirely in order. There is nothing in the press report that requires a ruling from me.
§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that on 17 November last year—[Laughter.] We know that you have a wonderful 675 memory. On 17 November last year, the opening sitting of this Session, we passed a Sessional Order stating:
That the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House during the Sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioner aforesaid.You will have heard that the Home Secretary had a meeting with the Commissioner this morning, but the motion that we passed last year has been flouted.What discussions have you had with the Serjeant at Arms so that he might imbue the police with a little more verve to get on with clearing the streets, not only so that right hon. and hon. Members may have access to the House, but so that those going about their business in the metropolis may not be disrupted?
§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Three times this morning I passed the demonstration in Whitehall. Members of Parliament have access by various means from parliamentary buildings on to the embankment and into the House of Commons. The behaviour of the Metropolitan police on this occasion has been exemplary—they have dealt with a difficult situation in which large numbers of women and children have been sitting along Whitehall. I should not like our sessional use to be in some way a criticism of the Metropolitan police.
§ Madam SpeakerThe House will have heard the Secretary of State answer a supplementary question today relating to the matter. I regret it if some hon. Members were delayed in reaching the House today, as I regret inconvenience that has been caused to the public. I went out at 12.45 pm today to look at the situation, and I found some hon. Members coming in, including the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), walking along as if nothing had happened. She told me that she had no problems getting through, but I expect that of the hon. Lady.
As the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) says, the matter is serious and a Sessional Order requires the Commissioner to disperse all assemblies and proceedings that cause obstruction or disorder within the area covered by the order on any day when Parliament is sitting. Of course I recall that. We go through those orders when Parliament is opened and we take them seriously, as I do.
I discussed this morning's events with the Home Secretary, who was kind enough to telephone me to give me his view. I do not disclose what is said by the right hon. Gentleman or other Ministers, but I had confidence in what he said. The Home Secretary and I agreed that 676 there was a clear breach of the Sessional Order. I know what action he took as soon as he was aware that there was some disturbance. I have been given an assurance by the Home Secretary that there will be a full investigation to try to ensure that there is no recurrence.
The hon. Member for Aldershot mentioned the Serjeant at Arms. I know that he has been doing his best all morning to deal with the problem on behalf of hon. Members.
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of obvious public anxiety and the seriousness of the situation between Eritrea and Ethiopia, have you received any requests from the Foreign Office to make a statement about its efforts to invoke a United Nations-sponsored ceasefire and peace conference to settle an appalling conflict between two very poor countries where many innocent lives are being lost for no purpose?
§ Madam SpeakerNo, I have received no indication that the Foreign Secretary wishes to make a statement on that.
§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)Further to an earlier point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that the House is grateful for your ruling on Question 9. However, I seek your guidance on a general issue. If it transpired from the Official Report that an hon. Member had referred neither to the wording nor the meaning of the question on the Order Paper, should other hon. Members deduce that such a precedent should not be imitated?
§ Madam SpeakerIf an hon. Member put a supplementary question that did not relate to the substantive question, I hope that I would stop him midway. I try to do that on such occasions. Earlier, I explained why I allowed the supplementary on Question 9. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further, he can do that through an early-day motion.
§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At noon today, an announcement was expected about the future of the millennium dome. At 2.30 pm, no announcement had been made. As you know, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport chairs the Millennium Commission. Has he approached you to say that he will come to the House to announce whether the dome will be sold early, or to explain the future of the dome, which was the shining light of new Labour?
§ Madam SpeakerI am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I do not believe that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is seeking to make a statement on that issue today.