HC Deb 10 December 1984 vol 69 cc751-2 4.13 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In today's Supplementary Estimates 1984–85, the note by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury states: The Revised Supplementary reflects token provision which is sought in respect of a contingent liability arising under an indemnity given by the Attorney-General for unrecovered costs and other expenditure incurred by the sequestrators appointed by the High Court as officers of the Court in enforcement of the Court's order in the case of Taylor and Foulstone against National Union of Mineworkers (Yorkshire Area) and National Union of Mineworkers. In effect, that means that the Government will underwrite any costs that arise in the meantime and that are incurred by the sequestrators. Without any precedent, the Government will interfere directly in a court judgment in which they are not in any way involved.

My point of order is that there is no statutory authority in principle with regard to this issue. Do the Government intend to introduce a Bill and will they make an early statement to the House? It is outrageous that Mr. Bernard Ingham gave a full press briefing at No. 10 this morning, but the Government have not had the guts to come to the House to make a statement. I ask that the maximum pressure be brought to bear on the Government so that they make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is not a matter for me, but the Government Front Bench will have heard what he said.

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may remember that we raised a point of order about the increasing of the supplementary benefit deemed payment from £15 to £16 and that within a few hours we almost had a statement in the House. How can we get the Government to make a statement on this issue, especially as it looks like nothing more or less than political interference in a court action? It is vital that hon. Members should have the right to hear a statement and to ask questions of the Treasury about how once again it has managed to interefere in this industrial dispute.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot advise the hon. Gentleman, but the House well knows my view that it should always be told first of what is going on.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the use of the words the Revised Supplementary reflects token provision mean that this matter should be debated either during the debate on the Consolidated Fund or on a Supply day dealing with Supplementary Estimates? Is it not within the power of the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on this subject, particularly when he knows that any matters affecting the interests of mineworkers should be brought before the House in the current sensitive situation? Is not it an affront to our procedures for the right hon. Gentleman to fail to respond in the way expected when he knows what our orders require?

Mr. Speaker

Of course this issue is debatable during the debate on the Consolidated Fund. However, it is entirely open to the Opposition to choose the subject for a Supply Day—or Opposition Day as it is now called—if they so wish.