Points of Order (Hansard, 9 March 2001)

§ Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which you have been given notice. It is my unpleasant duty to inform the House that, at the sitting of Standing Committee F yesterday evening, I drew attention to the presence of the right hon. Ann Widdecombe, the Member for Maidstone and the Weald, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, Mr. James Cran, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the hon. Member for Cotswold, not being members of the Committee, in the part of the Committee Room reserved for members of the Committee.
The right hon. and hon. Members having declined to withdraw, the Committee ordered: That the Chairman do report Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. James Cran and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown to the House. The right hon. and hon. Members continued to decline to withdraw, so I adjourned the Committee for grave disorder, without putting any Question. The Committee therefore did not complete its consideration of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill yesterday, as it had been instructed to do by the order of the House on 29 January.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Let me reply to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).
I strongly deprecate any defiance of the Chair in a Standing Committee, whatever the alleged justification for such conduct. I am most grateful to the Chairman of the Committee for dealing so calmly with the deliberate disruption of the Committee, in what must have been a difficult situation.

§ Mr. Forth
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears that the Committee in question is left in a rather odd position. You will know that the House, through the peculiar and, I think, increasingly unacceptable procedure of programme motions, required the Committee to complete its deliberations by 7 o'clock yesterday evening. We know, because the Chairman has been kind enough to tell us, that the Committee was unable so to do.
I think that the House needs your advice on where we go from here. We seem to be in limbo. The Committee has been unable to comply with the requirements of the House through its programme motion, the only motion of which I am aware to determine the Committee's proceedings. Therefore, the House needs your guidance on how we can best tackle the situation.
Perhaps I might ask a further question. If a further programme motion has to be introduced, will it be amendable? Will proper notice be given of it?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I will not allow the right hon. Gentleman to ask me a series of questions at this stage. He raised a point of order and asked where we go from here. The answer is that we will consider the Orders of the Day. This is a problem for the Government, and they 527 will sort it out. The Chairman has reported, the Government have heard him and, as I have said, they will sort things out.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the member of the Committee who, on the advice of the Chair, moved the motion that the right hon. and hon. Members in question should be reported to the House, I should be grateful if you would confirm that consideration on Report and on Third Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill will be able to proceed next week, and that procedures can be introduced for that. Will you also confirm that the principal effect of the action will be to ensure that debate on other matters important to the House is not held?
Will you, Mr. Speaker, say whether, when considering what action to take in relation to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her hon. Friends, you can take into account the fact that her action was deliberate and premeditated? As she stated in the Financial Times, it was a protest that was to have the effect that the Bill could not be reported and to delay the passage of the bill". I ask you to take into account her statement to the Mirror that this was an 'official Opposition protest.' Does not that show that she and her colleagues are not fit even to be in opposition, let alone in government?

§ Mr. Speaker
The answer lies with the Government themselves. Unfortunately, the Chairman was unable to complete the business that the House gave the Committee, and the Chairman then did the proper thing. The Government will have to table a special motion before we can consider Third Reading and the other matters that the Minister raised.
I disapprove of the conduct of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), but it is for the House to make a decision on her conduct. That is the answer to that question.

§ Mr. Clarke
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I confirm that the Government will be tabling a motion on Monday to the effect that has been indicated for the House to consider at that time.

§ Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are the guardian of the rights of Back Benchers and the guardian of effective scrutiny of parliamentary legislation. We were confronted yesterday with a situation in which 56 clauses, six schedules, 42 Opposition amendments—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Lady refers to Back Benchers, but she is not a Back Bencher. What is her point of order? I do want to hear a rerun of what 528 happened in the Committee. Its Chairman has reported and told me all that I want to know. Does she have a proper point of order, because that was not one?

§ Miss Widdecombe
My point of order was that, as the guardian of parliamentary scrutiny, be it by Back Benchers or the official Opposition, is it your view that the situation such as one that arose yesterday—

§ Mr. Clarke
That is not a point of order.

§ Miss Widdecombe
Yes, it is. Fifty-six clauses, six schedules, 42 Opposition amendments and 10 Government amendments—some of which had huge implications for civil liberties—were all to be considered in a matter of hours. Is that a satisfactory situation?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is not a matter for me. However, it is a matter for me to say to the right hon. Lady that she should not have been in that Committee.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be grateful if you could advise the House on the proper procedure to be followed, given that the disgraceful conduct of right hon. and hon. Members in the Committee last night appears not only to have been premeditated, but undertaken with the active support and preparation of members of the Committee—the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I would be grateful if you could advise the House whether it is in order for hon. Members to be party to a conspiracy to disrupt the proceedings of the Committee and to have prepared for and supported that disruption.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not want to hear a rerun of last night's proceedings. I say again: this is a matter for the House. If any right hon. or hon. Member is unhappy with the conduct of any other Members, it is up him or her to table a motion and it can be debated. The Chairman of the Committee did the correct thing and he has reported to me.

§ Mr. David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I share the concerns of many Members about the progress of the Bill and the difficulties that lie behind it. Given the issues that arose last night, I examined "Erskine May" to determine what an ordinary Back Bencher like me would be able to do if he or she felt that massive civil liberties issues such as can be found in this Bill had not been properly debated. I can find nothing in "Erskine May" to tell me how an ordinary Back Bencher can amend the time allocated to a Bill. Can you, Mr. Speaker, give me guidance on how an ordinary Back Bencher can alter the procedures so as to ensure proper debate?

§ Mr. Speaker
We have business before us today, but these matters can be debated. The right hon. Gentleman will know that a programme motion is amendable. I am in the hands of the House on these matters. It is not for me to decide the programme motion; it is a matter for the House.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I served on the Committee to which the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) referred. May I seek clarification on two matters that follow the hon. Gentleman's report to you and to the House? First, am I right in thinking that any motion to deal with Members who came into the Committee and disrupted its proceedings will take precedence over all other business?
Secondly, will you clarify whether it is open to any Member to propose how we now proceed to deal with the Criminal Justice and Police Bill? Like many Members, I share the concern that a very severe guillotine was imposed on the Bill and, like many Members, I would like us to reconsider the remaining timetable for the Bill's progress. I would be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you could tell us whether it is open to me and my colleagues and to Members of any party to table a motion on Monday, so that we can return to an orderly process for completing the Bill's scrutiny within a period that allows all matters to be given proper consideration.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall answer the point of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Any hon. Member or party spokesman can table a motion; that is perfectly in order. The Government have control over the priorities of the House, and Government business will take priority, but any hon. Member can table a motion.

§ Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you advise me, as a Back Bencher, how I can table a motion to draw to the attention of the House the appalling conduct of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in frustrating the will of the House as expressed in the resolutions passed by it and in setting, as the shadow Home Secretary, such an appalling example to the youth of this country when we are debating steps to deal with such behaviour?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a matter for me.

§ Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Programming Sub-Committee of the Committee convened on a number of occasions to discuss whether it would be possible to have an extra day of Committee consideration. On each occasion, that suggestion was voted down by the Government. On another occasion, the Opposition sought to sit to all night to complete the Bill's consideration, and that suggestion was voted down. Is it possible to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee of Standing Committee F, so that we can discuss the matter again? It would help the House if the Government were prepared to be not so arrogant and would give us the time to consider important matters to do with police training, police organisation, the funding of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Heald
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down. The answer to his question is that it depends on the type of motion that is tabled and the type of motion that is agreed.

§ Mr. Charles Clarke
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the House aware that, on five separate occasions, we extended the times of the Committee's sittings to meet the points made by the Opposition?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for the clarification that you have provided about the facility that exists for any Member to table a motion of, in effect, censure. Given that part of the argument revolves around the adequacy or inadequacy of time for the consideration of the relevant matters, will you advise the House on whether any motion of censure would be automatically time limited or potentially subject to a guillotine?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman may have a view on what is part of the argument, but the argument as far as I am concerned is that a Chairman has reported to me that a Committee has been disrupted. The House will be entitled to debate that matter if the House so desires.

§ Mr. Forth
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am getting a bit weary of points of order on this matter. I want to get on to the business of the House.

§ Mr. Forth
This is a genuine new point, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State has helpfully told the House that he will table a motion in the name of the Government to try to resolve this matter. I did not catch whether he said "on Monday" or "for Monday". You will know, Mr. Speaker, that there is an important distinction. If the Government were to table a motion at the very end of business today, it would give rise to the question of how far hon. Members would be able to consider it and to table amendments to it. If the Government tabled such a motion, would manuscript amendments therefore be sympathetically considered on Monday? The Government's indecent haste in trying to dig themselves out of this mess has created a difficulty and that may not allow Members the proper occasion, which you would want to protect, to consider and to seek to amend the motion. Your guidance would be very helpful on this matter.

§ Mr. Speaker
The matters that the right hon. Gentleman raises are hypothetical; I cannot answer hypothetical questions.

§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I thank you for your ruling? What you have said is of great and permanent importance, namely, that the progress of business is a matter for the Government and any comments on the conduct of Members are a matter for the House. You have quite properly and importantly reminded the House that you are 531 not in the Chair to discipline Members as an individual Speaker or to progress Government business. If that point has been established by the exchanges today, I think that we have made real progress. I hope that your ruling is duly recorded in "Erskine May".

§ Mr. Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Perhaps on that note we can move on to today's business.

§ Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I ceased to be a Deputy Speaker a long time ago.

§ Mr. Luff
I apologise, Mr. Speaker. We need some clarification. I believe that the Minister indicated that he would be tabling a motion today for debate on Monday.

§ Mr. Clarke
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Luff
So he is not saying that. I think that it would be helpful if you, Mr. Speaker, could encourage the Minister to say exactly what the Government intend to do.

§ Mr. Speaker
Quite frankly, in a sense I am not interested in what the Government want to do. It is up to them to decide how they act. We do not need clarification at this stage. All I need to do is to ask the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.