On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have read in the newspapers this morning that two terrorist suspects restrained under the control order legislation have absconded—one of them some months ago. You will remember that the control order legislation was only passed, after the longest ever sitting of the House of Lords, when the Home Secretary gave an undertaking to report back on the operation and effectiveness of the legislation. Accordingly, quarterly statements are made to the House.
On 11 September, the statement from the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety said:
“There are 15 control orders currently in force, six of which are in respect of British nationals.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2006; Vol. 449, c. 122WS.]
It then outlined details of applications to modify those orders. There was no mention of a breach of orders, an escapee or a risk to the public. That statement may be true, but it is not the whole truth. Has the Home Secretary indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, whether he intends to come to the House to explain why such information was withheld?
Order. I am going to stop the right hon. Gentleman, because he put an urgent question before me, and for reasons that I do not have to give to the House, I refused that urgent question. But it appears to me that he is pursuing that urgent question on the Floor of the House. He is drawing the occupant of the Chair into this matter. He can table parliamentary questions and seek answers to these matters. I will say no more on this.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Order. I am saying no more on the matter. I have given a ruling.
It is a slightly different point.
It needs to be a bit more than slightly different.
It is entirely different.
It has gone from “slightly” to “entirely”. I will hear it if it is entirely different.
You have just indicated, Mr. Speaker, that an urgent question was requested. You will know that I also requested an urgent question. My understanding was—I would appreciate your clarification on this—that Members who request urgent questions should not disclose that fact in the House. It may be that you have just changed that ruling, in which case I would very much like to know.
I have not changed the rule. If an hon. Member puts an urgent question before me and pursues the same question on a point of order, I am entitled to tell the House that the urgent question was refused. It would defy all logic to say otherwise. I will not allow hon. Members, even Front Benchers, to try to push a point of order when they tried to get an urgent question. By the way, as Speaker, I am always very generous about urgent questions, so when I refuse them, I have good reason to do so.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that and I am not criticising. I simply want to know whether Members like me who request urgent questions are entitled to say that fact in the House on appropriate occasions.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not supposed to say so in the House. But of course, it is more than an open secret when an application for an urgent question goes before me in the Speaker’s Office. Of course, it should not be mentioned on the Floor of the House, except—I give this ruling—where a right hon. or hon. Member tries to pursue something on a point of order that has been refused only a few hours earlier. In my view, that was the case here.