Points of Order (Hansard, 5 December 2001)

§ Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When answering my question yesterday about the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry, the Minister of State, Scotland Office said that he understood that, in relation to funding for the ferry, the Liberal Democrat Ministers in the Scottish Executive were rather mean about the matter".—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 150.]
I have a letter from Jim Wallace, one of the Ministers concerned, in which he writes that the Minister of State comprehensively misrepresented … the position of the Liberal Democrat Ministers I have also received a letter from the Minister of State, who apologises for inadvertently misrepresenting the views of the Liberal Democrat Ministers. As the original misrepresentation was made to the House, I trust that he will come to the House and apologise for his mistake. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received any request from him for the opportunity to make such a statement?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)
I have no knowledge of such a request. The Minister of State is not present to respond to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but will, no doubt, read the points he has put on the record.

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have in my hands a document headed "Labour thugs attack MP", in which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) makes a number of deeply serious allegations against other Labour Members, including Whips. He alleges that there have been both verbal and physical attacks on himself. In particular, he singles out the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) as attempting to intimidate him into believing that if he did not stop criticising Government legislation, the Whips would not prevent other Labour MPs further physically attacking him. Those are extremely serious allegations. Similar allegations are made against the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd), who has personally and physically intimidated me in the past in this very Chamber.
Have you had any notification, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether Mr. Speaker has received a formal complaint from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who has said in a press release that he is making such a complaint? Furthermore, what action can you take not only to protect Members of this House from attack by other Members, but especially to protect dissident Labour Members from physical attack and intimidation by their own Whips? This is a most serious matter and action needs to be taken.

§ Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As somebody who has occasionally voted against the Government, I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) is more likely to launch a charm offensive than to intimidate anybody.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Any complaint of the sort to which the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) 362 referred should be made in the normal way that is laid down by the House, and will, no doubt, be dealt with accordingly.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak as the representative of a number of parties that are not represented on the House of Commons Commission, despite the Prime Minister's claim that it is an all-party body. I might well be inclined to support the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), which appears on the Order Paper but for which no date has been fixed. Can I ask through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what procedure of the House Members from my party or from the other parties that are not represented on the House of Commons Commission can use to bring the matter and principle of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to the Floor of the House for discussion, debate, Division and decision?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The control of business in the House is entirely in the hands of the Government.

§ Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice on matters that will arise after consideration of the ten-minute Bill? Motion 4 deals with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. I do not think that you were in the Chair for any of the relevant periods last night, but I am sure that your colleagues will have told you that the House was eventually adjourned on a Government motion in the middle of a debate on an Adjournment motion while the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was on his feet.
I should like guidance on the following matters. First, is the resumed debate on the Adjournment motion that we were discussing when the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was speaking, or are we back to the substantive motion?
Secondly, given that the original sittings motion was superseded by the Adjournment motion, which was in train when the House was adjourned formally, will we have a decent period for debate on the sittings motion? Does time begin again for that purpose? Some of the normal conventions on closure cannot apply if times for both debates are added together. Are we starting again?
Will you assure us that the Parliamentary Secretary, who was properly in his place yesterday evening and kindly undertook to reply to matters that were raised, will have the opportunity to do so when other colleagues have contributed?
I believe that we have never had occasion to deal with my last question. Today's Order Paper contains a motion on the business of the House that cannot have been tabled until extremely late last night. Is it in order generally for the Government to table motions when the sitting is suspended, or can that be done only when the House is sitting? Will you confirm that the business of the House motion was not tabled during the two periods when Madam Deputy Speaker suspended the House for 10 minutes in the early hours of this morning?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I will do my best to answer the hon. Gentleman's points of order. First, we are discussing the substantive motion today. Secondly, no new time will 363 be allowed; contributions that have already been made will count and hon. Members who have spoken will not be entitled to speak again. Thirdly, the Parliamentary Secretary has the right to respond to the debate if he so chooses; it is a matter for him.
On the point about the Order Paper, the Government always have contingent instructions to take care of circumstances such as those that we are considering.

§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)
Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the guardian of the conventions of the House, will you confirm that the usual channels do not exercise the right to speak in the Chamber? Is not it therefore rather cowardly, and against those conventions, to make allegations against a member of the usual channels? Colleagues regard my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) as so friendly that he has been given a job in the Whips Office this year that allows him to carry a large stick with which to defend himself against several hon. Members.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I do not believe that the House wants to go over that matter again. However, it is normal for an hon. Member to inform hon. Members if he intends to refer to them in the House.Hansard will record what has been said today.

§ Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that last night's sitting in secret was the first since the second world war?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
No, it was the first since 1958.

§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You referred to the fact that the House sat in secret; there is therefore no record of the sitting. How will hon. Members who were not present know who took part in the debate and who can participate in today's debate?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Those problems arise when the House sits in private.