Hon. Members:

Object.

Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are approaching motion 11— [ Interruption. ] Motion 12; I apologise. It is a little unhelpful to Members of this House, as the Order Paper seems to be describing the motion in the wrong way. It says:

"If opposed, this item cannot be taken after 10.00 pm."

and:

"No debate after 10.00 pm."

Normally, if a Member objected, that motion would then have to be brought back by the Government. I have spent some hours studying Standing Orders today, however, and that appears not to be the case. If we object, a deferred Division will occur. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the motion is in its entirety—except for a very small part—exactly the same motion as was rejected by this House just a few days ago. You will also know that under Standing Orders one has to rescind a motion before one can bring it back again. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are determined that this House has the power to control the Executive. It seems to me that this is a prime example of such behaviour, because not only do we have, shall we say, misleading information on the Order Paper, but the Government are bending, if not breaking wholesale, the rules of this House to get their way. I hope that you might be able to say something that will stop the Government Whip from moving motion 12.

John Bercow (Speaker)

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, to which my response is as follows. Motion 12—

John Bercow (Speaker)

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, who certainly cannot be accused of napping.

Motion 12 is correct and in order. The rubric is incorrect and Mr. Bone is right to highlight that point. I understand why he was led down the path down which he has been led, but the House is bound by its Standing Orders not by the rubrics. The Table Office has asked me to convey its apologies for the error.

I can also say to the hon. Gentleman that it is true that a similar motion was on the Order Paper, I think in June—if I am correctly advised, on 25 June. The hon. Gentleman said that this motion was almost entirely the same but for a small point, and I do think that the "but for the small point" is rather significant in this matter. The original motion had proposed that the meeting on Wednesday 9 September should take place between 1 o'clock and 3.30. It is now intended that it should take place between 2 o'clock— [ Interruption. ] Order. I do not need advice from Mr. Blunt on this matter. I am giving a full and comprehensive reply to the point of order properly raised by the hon. Member for Wellingborough. That revised time is a noticeable difference, the motion is in order, the error has been explained and I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is a full and fair response to the point of order that he has properly raised.

Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. By coincidence, my point is not unrelated to the previous one. The motions for the Regional Grand Committees state where the sittings "shall" take place. Motion 12 refers to the sitting in Nottingham, but I am interested in the one for Bedford on 8 September. The Standing Orders of the House require that the location in such motions must be "specified". For instance, they must specify a particular council chamber, community centre or whatever. Just naming the town or city is pretty bland and difficult.

I have looked at what happens with Scottish Grand Committee and so on, and I wish to pray that in aid as a precedent. For example, the motion for a sitting of that Committee will state that it will take place in the council chamber, Stirling. This motion is not good enough.

John Bercow (Speaker)

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I will not get drawn into a wider debate about Scotland but, on advice, I think that I can safely say that there is no requirement for a designated, precise location of the kind that he specifies. I have looked at page 113 of the Standing Orders, and at Standing Order 117A(2)(a), which states that a Regional Grand Committee can

"sit on a specified day at a specified place in the region to which it relates or at Westminster".

The answer— [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for Wellingborough will allow me to deal with the point: I appreciate his eager anticipation of what he thinks that I am about to say, but if he could contain himself for a moment he might hear what I in fact have to say in response to the legitimate point of order from Andrew Mackinlay. The answer is that "Bedford", for the purposes of the Standing Orders, is sufficient.

The hon. Member for Thurrock may strongly disapprove of that and think that it should be subject to change and improvement, but my job tonight is simply to respond to his point of order and to tell him not what ought to be, but what is. I can advise him that "Bedford" is sufficient under the Standing Orders.

Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I hope that you will reflect on this matter overnight. I prayed Scotland in aid because the precedents show that the motions for all the other Grand Committees specify where they are to take place. They do not just name a town. Logically, one could turn up at Bedford and ask, "Has anyone found a Grand Committee anywhere? Point me to the Grand Committee." That would be like asking, "Is this the road to British socialism?" I think that such motions need to be specific.

John Bercow (Speaker)

The hon. Gentleman's views are very clearly and firmly on the record. As he knows, I always listen to him with interest and respect, but we cannot now get involved in a wider debate about other locations to which he thinks that a reformed or better Standing Order should, in different circumstances, apply. What I am saying to him is that a number of these motions have been passed previously, and that the motion with which we are dealing tonight—or, if I may say so, were about to deal—relates not to Bedford or indeed any part of Scotland but to the east midlands and, within that, probably to Nottingham.

Crispin Blunt (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Reigate, Conservative)

rose—

John Bercow (Speaker)

In a moment. It is to the substance of motion 12, which Mrs. Hodgson was ready to move a moment ago, that I want very soon to return—but I have a feeling that there is a point of order beating in the breast of Mr. Blunt.

Crispin Blunt (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Reigate, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The sedentary intervention for which you reprimanded me was based on my experience in a Standing Committee when the Government were defeated on a programme motion. They came back after some discussions with a motion that was extremely similar to the original one. I confess that as the Whip on that Committee, I was not fast enough on my feet to object to the motion. I took private advice later and was told that the motion was so similar to the one that the Committee had rejected that, had I objected, there would have been grounds for the Chair to consider that the motion was in violation of Standing Orders.

Can you give guidance to the House? The House rejected a very similar motion on the Regional Grand Committee on 25 June. The Government have moved the timing by one hour, which does not appear to be consistent with the spirit of the position that the House took on that motion. Is it really satisfactory to have this narrow difference? When a motion is defeated, how similar a motion can one come back with?

John Bercow (Speaker)

I have listened to that point of order, which the hon. Gentleman developed at a leisurely pace, and I have to say to him that the insertion of the word "really" in the middle of his question does not make the question any more valid or legitimate than it would otherwise be. For the hon. Gentleman simply to say, "Is it really satisfactory?", I am afraid will not do.

I know that the hon. Gentleman would not for one moment seek to entice or inveigle me into a continuing argument about a matter upon which I have already ruled. I know that he would not do that because, as my long experience demonstrates to me, he always wants to behave in an orderly manner. So I want to say once and for all to the hon. Gentleman, who I know will get it and accept it straight away, that the point has been raised by the hon. Member for Wellingborough and indirectly by others, and I have already ruled on it.

If, at another point in time, the hon. Gentleman wants to have discussions with a variety of people over a cup of tea or in some other way on these matters, that is open to him. But as far as tonight, the Standing Orders and this motion are concerned, I have ruled on the position, and that, frankly, is the end of the matter.

David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was just reflecting on the point made by Andrew Mackinlay, and I perfectly well understand your ruling that the motions are in order, but it occurs to me that somebody needs to tell the hon. Gentleman where to go— [Laughter.]—and there are but four sitting days before the long recess for that process to take place. Perhaps you could discover what the mechanism is for hon. Members who will wish to attend, no doubt, the Grand Committee relevant to their region to find out where they are to find the Committees in these large cities when we are about to go into recess and they will not be in their normal offices.

John Bercow (Speaker)

That can be regarded as quite a helpful point of order. The hon. Gentleman's concern for the proper sense of direction, in a geographical sense, of the hon. Member for Thurrock is greatly appreciated.

I am advised by those who know that the precise location is the council chamber. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to spoil a good point by asking me without notice to demonstrate that I know precisely where in the building in Bedford the council chamber is, because I would not be able to satisfy him. It is safe to say that the hon. Member needs to know in the next few days. I think that I have given the basic answer, and if there is any further scope for clarification, I am sure that between now and the summer recess it will indeed be provided.

It was an interesting series of points of order, but we should now move to motion 12.