§ 10. Mr. Tom Coxasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the London borough councils with whom he has discussed the future of the dial-a-ride service; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mrs. ChalkerWe are in full discussion with the London Boroughs Association. We have also made contact with the Association of London Authorities, but we are still awaiting its response to our invitation to join the discussions.
§ Mr. CoxIs the Minister fully aware of the increasing concern of the disabled and the organisations that represent them about the uncertainty of the future of the service? As the service is now being developed in London, it is the Government's duty to put some pressure on authorities such as the borough of Wandsworth, which will not make 10 any commitment. It seems that the hon. Lady cannot be aware of the concern and could not care less whether the service continues or dies. It is up to the Government to help the disabled now that the service is in being.
§ Mrs. ChalkerIt is my firm intention that the scheme shall be determined by the London boroughs, which are talking with us, and that includes Wandsworth. As a resident in that borough, I at least have some say in what goes on within it. The only doubt that is being put in the minds of the disabled about the dial-a-ride scheme is coming from those who are campaigning against the Government's policy. It is they who are worrying the disabled. I can assure the disabled that we are discussing the future of the dial-a-ride scheme. We recognise the importance of it, and the purpose of the talks is to find the best way of continuing to meet the need. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will desist from scaremongering, if that is what he has been doing.
§ Mr. EggarIs not the way in which the GLC is spending ratepayers' money and stirring up concern among disabled people completely disgraceful? Is my hon. Friend convinced that the way in which the GLC spends money on this scheme provides the best value for money for disabled people?
§ Mrs. ChalkerI am sad to say that the GLC is not spending money in the best possible way. What we have been doing with the London branch of the national advisory unit for community transport to make its schemes develop in the most effective and efficient manner is the best way in which we can help not only to maintain the dial-a-ride system but to provide other systems to enable disabled people to get around. I shall continue to ensure that that happens, whatever the GLC does.
§ Mr. MeadowcroftIs the Minister aware that one reason why the disability organisations wish to have a better relationship with London Regional Transport is that they do not necessarily consider themselves to be clients of social services and, therefore, within the purview of the London boroughs? Does the hon. Lady accept, therefore, that it is desperately important that people who rely on dial-a-ride should be able to look forward to that kind of relationship with LRT?
§ Mrs. ChalkerThe hon. Gentleman's statement bears out the steps that LRT is taking with the new heads of its unit and one of its board members, who is directly responsible for the transport of disabled people in London. A number of the organisations for the disabled have already told me that they are pleased with the steps that LRT is taking through that unit to help disabled people to use conventional and new forms of transport in the future.
§ Mr. SnapeDoes the Minister accept that if the Department of Transport returns to the GLC the ?50 million that the Department improperly filched from it, due to the incompetence of the Secretary of State, much more money will be available for the dial-a-ride scheme and other schemes? That is a fact, and not scaremongering.
Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of the sub judice rule is to protect juries from being improperly influenced and that the rule has no relevance to a civil case, when a judge hearing an appeal is specifically precluded from referring to Hansard? It is about time that 11 Ministers, especially those in the Department of Transport, were responsible for their actions and stopped hiding behind their own cowardice.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe sub judice rule would apply to civil cases.
§ Mrs. ChalkerThank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall be guided by you. One of the problems of the dial-a-ride scheme—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) would listen, I might be able to give him an answer to his question. The point about the dial-a-ride scheme is that we must effectively serve the needs of disabled people. Their needs can be best identified by those who are closest to them at local level. We are seeking to obtain the best value for money so that dial-a-ride can best help those who cannot get on conventional transport, and we shall continue to do that.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Not now. I shall hear points of order later.
§ Later:—
§ Mr. SnapeOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During an earlier exchange I referred to the judgment by the court last Friday that the Secretary of State for Transport had acted
unlawfully, irrationally and procedurally improperlyin taking from the Greater London Council the sum of £50 million to fund London Regional Transport. The Secretary of State's reply during that exchange was that the matter was sub judice.First, my information is that by lunchtime today no official notice of appeal had been received by the court. Is the matter sub judice because the Secretary of State says so or because of some action taken by the Department of Transport?
Secondly, I understand that any press inquiries about the original court case made to the Department of Transport over the weekend were deflected by that Department on the ground that the matter was sub judice.
Thirdly, is it fair or proper for Ministers to hide behind the sub judice rule, when the purpose of that rule is to prevent the improper influencing of members of the jury rather than to prevent a judge from reaching a decision on the merits of a case?
If the House is not allowed to call Ministers to account, there is little purpose in Question Time or in asking Secretaries of State to come before the House.
§ Mr. Ridleyrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Before the Secretary of State answers, perhaps I could clarify the issue. The resolution of the House on 23 July 1963 makes it clear that matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court should not be referred to in any question to a Minister, including supplementary questions, and this rule applies during the period when notice of appeal is given and until that notice of appeal has been decided. I am not aware whether the notice of appeal has been given.
§ Mr. RidleyFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have given notice to the court of intention to appeal. That is not the same as formal notice of appeal, but, as far as I am concerned—I am not talking about Opposition Members—it would clearly be improper for 12 me to respond in any way on the substance of the matters about which we have given notice to appeal. Perhaps I should not have used the phrase "sub judice", but that is why I refused to comment on the points of substance.
§ Mr. SnapeFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to give us a ruling as to when the sub judice rule applies? Does it apply when a Minister says that his Department intends, at some unspecified time, to appeal against a judgment with which he disagrees and as a result of which he has been found to be acting
unlawfully, irrationally and procedurally improperlyor does it come into effect when a physical application is made to a court that the original judgment be set aside?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs I understand it, the matter is sub judice when a formal notice of appeal has been given.
§ Mr. SnapeThen, further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely the Secretary of State is accountable for his actions and should have replied to the questions put to him during Question Time. As, in my limited experience, this situation is unprecedented, I ask you to allow an extension of Question Time so that the Secretary of State can be held to account for those unlawful, irrational and procedurally improper actions of which he has been found guilty by a court. When one reflects on the odium that the Government have poured on elected members of the GLC because of their attempts to run public passenger transport in London, it makes one feel that it is grossly improper to allow the Secretary of State to get away with hiding behind a sub judice rule which, as you have just ruled, does not exist.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House knows that I am not responsible for answers or supplementary answers from the Front Bench. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Tony BanksFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that we have exhausted this subject.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have already said that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. I cannot allow an extension of Question Time. We have a busy day ahead of us.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. SpeakerWell, ask it.
§ Mr. SnapeFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not get any pleasure from doing this at this time of the day. However, you ruled that if a matter was sub judice the Secretary of State could not be expected to reply to questions on it. We have just heard that the matter is not sub judice, but the Secretary of State is still refusing to answer the question. I appreciate that you cannot tell the Secretary of State when or whether to answer a question in the House. However, I hope you will agree that it is a gross abuse of the proceedings of the House for the Secretary of State to claim something that is false. I am not allowed, by the rules of the House, to say that the Secretary of State was telling lies, but I am bound to say that I would have great difficulty in finding any other way 13 to describe his conduct this afternoon. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of the rights of all hon. Members, both Front and Back-Bench Members, to give a specific ruling that the Secretary of State is wrong and to call him to account and ask him what he is prepared to do about it.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have given a factual ruling. I cannot go any further. The Secretary of State is responsible for what he says in answer to a question. He can answer it, but he need not do so, and that is a matter for him.
§ Mr. RidleyPerhaps I might help. It is for you to rule, Mr. Speaker, whether a matter is sub judice. I made it clear during Question Time, and I repeat it now, that, as I have given notice of my intention to appeal, I shall not reply to questions that would prejudice that appeal when it comes on. That does not apply to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), but it does apply to me.
§ Mr. Tony BanksFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give us your guidance on another point? Although you cannot require the Secretary of State to say anything specific about this matter, will you ensure that in both the Local Government Bill Committee tomorrow and in the rate support grant debate on Wednesday—because this judgment has an impact on the proceedings on both those measures—no one will be banned from saying something on the ground that the matter is sub judice, when it is clearly not sub judice?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The sub judice rule would not apply to legislation anyway, so the matter is open to the hon. Gentleman.