§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns motion 9 on the Order Paper, which was placed there only this morning. Is it in accordance with the rules of the House for the Government to place on the Order Paper a proposal that we should give them the authority, without debate or discussion, to participate in the drafting of a European arrest warrant that would entitle any other member state to arrest in the UK a citizen of our nation whom it believes to have voiced an opinion contrary to its laws? That is an important and significant undermining of our rights and freedoms, in that it would deprive our Government and courts of the right to object to extradition even if they believed it to be unfair and unreasonable.
Do you consider it is right to place on the Order Paper a proposal of that sort in a way that makes no provision for debate? If by chance it is in order, can you give me an assurance that, if the order is objected to at 10 o'clock tonight, its approval will be delayed until the House has the opportunity to vote on it tomorrow under the deferred voting procedure? I am sorry to take up the time of the House, but it is a very important point.
§ Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I want to answer the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), and my answer may assist the right hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I am satisfied that everything that has been done conforms with the rules relating to the consideration of such documents. I understand that the document was debated in European Standing Committee B yesterday and reported to the House in the usual manner. I can confirm that, if the motion is objected to after 10 o'clock tonight, it could give rise to a deferred Division tomorrow afternoon.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your ruling, you referred to a document that was debated yesterday in European Standing Committee B, which I attended. Unfortunately, that document is not the final text that will be agreed at the European Council meeting to take place shortly. Therefore, the House has not scrutinised the final form of the instrument in question. I believe that that is in breach of Standing Orders and the resolution of the House of 1998 that insists that nothing of a European legislative nature shall be agreed or passed without full scrutiny taking place first. Because we did not have the up-to-date document, such scrutiny did not take place.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman raises a new issue. I shall consider it and get back to him and, if necessary, to the House.
§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerIs it on the same matter?
§ Mr. WilkinsonYes, I serve on the Committee.
734 May I point out that not only was the document that we were discussing out of date—it related to a Council meeting that took place on 31 October—but a French document exists that relates to an interim discussion that took place at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. French is a working language of the Community and, had a translation of that document been produced, it would have been entirely germane to our proceedings. It was not produced, so our proceedings essentially considered a document that was out of date. Will you bear that point in mind?
§ Mr. SpeakerI will bear that point in mind. I give the same assurance that I gave earlier. I will look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and, if necessary, to the House.
§ Norman Baker (Lewes)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek to raise a point of which I have given you prior notice. It relates to the guidance that you helpfully gave the House recently on parliamentary answers. You indicated that Ministers should be as open and as helpful as possible in response to Members' queries.
As an example, I draw your attention to an answer that I received from the Leader of the House yesterday when I asked him if he could list the orders made through the Privy Council under the royal prerogative in each year from 1997 to date. He said that the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost, but an answer to an identical question tabled on 3 March 1993 at column 203 listed all the orders in full detail.
I tabled another question to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about flights carrying radioactive material, and that was met with the answer:
This Department does not hold statistical information of this nature."—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 286W.]However, when I tabled an almost identical question in 1997, it elicited facts about how many flights had occurred and about the nature of the radioactive material involved—high, low or intermediate grade.Sadly, it seems that Ministers are not paying attention to your guidance and are being less helpful. I will, of course, draw the matter to the attention of the Public Administration Committee, but would be grateful if you would issue further advice to Ministers to inform them that they should listen to what you have said and ensure that questions are properly answered.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman has answered his question himself. He can go to the Public Administration Committee if he so wishes. He referred to individual questions and replies, but I cannot give a ruling on them. He can pursue the matter and, if he studies my rulings, he will see that I have provided more than one piece of advice on the subject.
§ Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a great deal of confusion about the possibility of further troop deployments to Afghanistan. This morning's Washington Post reported:
Britain has agreed to lead an international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan for up to six months".735 That fact seems to have been confirmed by the Prime Minister who said this afternoon:We have indicated in principle a willingness to play a leading role in any UN-mandated force to provide stability in Afghanistan.Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any indication that the Government are likely to make a statement on that matter in fulfilment of the Prime Minister's assurances that the House would be informed first about changes and developments in Government policy.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not received such an indication, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that news of this nature should come to the House first and I hope that it will.
§ Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You probably heard about this matter on the "Today" programme this morning. A BBC report says:
The Government has now"—I stress now—accepted a recommendation from the public administration select committee that ministers should tell Parliament firstof any policy changes. But you will recall that you have said on numerous occasions that policy should be announced in this place first, and I was in the House when your predecessor Speaker Boothroyd made the same point.Is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister is now saying that the Government will carry out that policy, thus implying that that was not previously the case? Even though Ministers frequently said that this place received information first, it did not. Could you, Mr. Speaker, meet the Prime Minister or someone from the Cabinet Office to determine when the policy will be instigated.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Prime Minister failed previously and has now made a statement to say that he has changed his mind, then a sinner has repented. We should all rejoice in that.
§ Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during Health questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) asked about the recruitment of HIV-positive people as nurses in the NHS. It was clear from the response of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), that she had no idea, which is understandable, that my hon. Friend had received a written answer confirming that that was happening. However, she went on to criticise my hon. Friend for raising what is a serious issue. She suggested that he was stigmatising people with AIDS and that it was unhelpful to raise the issue in the House. If hon. Members are not supposed to raise questions of such a serious nature in the House of Commons with Health Ministers, where are they supposed to raise them.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was able to raise the matter with the Minister. I allowed him to do so. That will always be the case for hon. Members. The Minister's response is not, however, a matter for me.