Points of Order

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order under the Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871 for the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, if it so chooses next week, to require witnesses appearing before it to do so under oath? Can you confirm that if they did appear under oath, any false evidence would be subject to the penalties for perjury under the Perjury Act 1911?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

You are correct about the Act; the decision on whether to take evidence on oath is a matter for the Select Committee and therefore it would be for the Committee to do that. On perjury, you are absolutely correct.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for Transport to table a written ministerial statement, as he has done today, that says only that an oral statement will be made later the same day? This appears to be a clear attempt to avoid committing to an oral statement on a matter of great importance prior to seeing whether Members of the House apply for and are granted an urgent question. It was only after an urgent question was granted that he agreed to make an oral statement today, thus leaving a written ministerial statement on the Order Paper purposeless and empty of content. Is this not an abuse of the WMS procedure? Surely it cannot be right for Ministers to attempt to manipulate the procedures of the House to attempt to avoid facing it in person in this manner. May we have your guidance please, Mr Deputy Speaker?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of that point of order. I do not believe that there has been any breach of the House rules.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I recently tabled a question for oral answer from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. In fact, I believe that it would originally have been Question 11 on the Order Paper today. I subsequently received a letter telling me that my question was outwith the Department’s remit. It was about the computer games industry, which is a big business in my constituency—I repeat the word “business”. Many people are involved in developing the games, which is innovation, and most people involved are graduates from the university of Abertay, which would suggest a high level of skills. I am at a loss as to why the question was refused. In which circumstances can Departments refuse to answer questions from people in this House?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I can completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration at losing the opportunity to ask an oral question, and that frustration builds up. Transfers are the responsibility of the Department and not me, and I know that the Table Office does its best to advise hon. Members of a possible transfer. The frustration carries on, but this is not a matter for me to decide.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are just about to proceed to our business on the Sovereign Grant Bill, but because of the timetabling that has been agreed there will be no Second Reading. I know that you are not responsible for that, but it is worth putting down a marker that these are very important subjects. We have waited since 1760 for this important reform but I am not sure that it is so desperately urgent that we do not need Second Reading. Perhaps in future we can so conduct our business, particularly with sensitive matters such as this, which concern the Head of State, so that we get a Second Reading of important Bills.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Let us see what the Minister says when he moves the motion.

Bill Presented

Cycles (protective Headgear for Children) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Annette Brooke presented a Bill to require the wearing of protective headgear by children while riding cycles; to prescribe penalties for contraventions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 4 November 2011, and to be printed (Bill 220).