HC Deb 05 February 2004 vol 417 cc925-6 1.37 pm
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (Con)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that the next item on the Order Paper relates to the Standing Committee on the Higher Education Bill, and that the Bill has generated an extraordinary amount of interest on both sides of the House, and among many people outside it. In the light of that, could you say whether you received any representations from Ministers earlier today, indicating that they intend to rethink their approach to this Committee in two important respects? First, should they not revise yesterday's decision to ram through the Committee of Selection a balance of membership of the Standing Committee that violates the injunction of "Erskine May" that membership should reflect the balance of votes on Second Reading? Secondly, should they not revise their view that the Standing Committee should meet for only 12 sittings, which is clearly an inadequate amount of time? Given that many people outside this House are observing closely how we consider this Bill, would not a rigged and truncated Standing Committee be worse than no Committee at all?

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab/Co-op)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) is misleading the House. It is my—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman goes any further, perhaps he would like to rephrase the beginning of his remarks.

Mr. Foulkes

Indeed, I will. I think that the hon. Gentleman has inadvertently stated something that is not correct. My understanding is that two rebels—if we can call them that—have been appointed to the Standing Committee, and that the Government's majority on it does not reflect their majority in this House as a whole; rather, it takes account of the vote that took place on this issue. [Interruption.] Well, that is certainly my understanding of the position. Yet again, Opposition Members are trying to make a party political point, and I hope that you will make it clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is not a point of order.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that there are 16 Labour Members on that Committee—of whom one was a rebel, the other Member in question having abstained—and nine Opposition Members? If the vote on Second Reading had been properly reflected, the Government would have a majority on that Committee of only one, rather than their existing majority. Is it not a disgrace that they could not do what "Erskine May" says they should do?

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may help the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think I can probably deal with the matter.

With regard to the initial point of order, I have received no representations of the sort that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) mentioned. "Erskine May" makes it clear that the Speaker cannot interfere with the Committee of Selection, but I understand that the Committee has complied with the provisions of the Standing Order in nominating Members for the Committee considering the Higher Education Bill.

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In an interview on the BBC's "Today" programme this morning, and in evidence to the Defence Committee only a few hours ago, the Secretary of State for Defence said that he "did not see" the newspaper coverage after publication of the September 2002 dossier reporting that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction could be fired within 45 minutes and were long range and capable of reaching Cyprus. However, in his evidence to the Hutton inquiry on 22 September 2003, he was asked: Are you aware that on 25 September…a number of newspapers had banner headlines suggesting that this related to strategic missiles or bombs? The Secretary of State answered, "I can recall, 'yes'". What avenues are open to Members to secure a statement by the Secretary of State to establish which version is correct?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling on the previous points of order, and you are, of course, entirely correct to say that the Committee of Selection, on which I sit, did indeed comply with the Standing Order. However, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members find it difficult to understand how the Committee of Selection complied with "Erskine May". Perhaps the matter should be clarified for future Committees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have nothing to add to my earlier ruling.