Points of Order (Hansard, 19 February 1986)

§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from written question No. 153 on today's Order Paper from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) in the answer to which the press was informed of a No. 10 briefing this morning that the Government intended once again to readjust the monthly unemployment statistics downwards.
You will recall that on a previous occasion, Mr. Speaker, when the Government readjusted the unemployment figures downwards on 12 November 1982, by over 200,000 it was covered by a statement to the House, and that on the second occasion, in April 1983, when the readjustment downwards was more than 350,000, it was included in a statement by the Chancellor to the House.
It is an affront to the House that the non-elected Secretary of State for Employment is not accountable to this House for his actions. Indeed, he is in contempt of the House and past practices in hiding away this further readjustment of the unemployment figures in a written reply, particularly when, in employment questions yesterday, the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment addressed himself to the question and did not answer it.
May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of rights in the House, to appeal to other quarters to see whether a statement can be made to the House tomorrow about a further fiddling down of the unemployment figures?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not responsible for answers given to written questions. The hon. Gentleman's point of order will have been heard by the Government Front Bench.

§ The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—there seems to be a curious lack of Labour Members on their feet inclined to join in on it. I believe that written answers should be given to the House. I do not approve of the practice whereby the press obtains answers before the House. I regret that that has taken place. The question has been answered by way of written answer. It is a perfectly routine answer which speaks for itself. I advise the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to address himself to its contents. I think that he will find that it will cause little excitement.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, you said that, whenever a point of order was raised to which a Minister responded, the response would be treated as a statement. I want to make it absolutely clear before I raise my other point of order that I hope that my point of order will not prejudice the rights of my colleagues to have another crack at the Minister in calling for a statement on the unemployment figures.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is always helpful to me. I called him on a point of order. Will he please put his point of order to me?

§ Mr. Skinner
During Environment Questions, the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government said when I called for an inquiry into Sellafield that I had not shown any interest in 320 contaminiation and pollution in the coal industry and associated industries. I wish to point out that the Minister—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is an old hand. He knows the rules better than most.

§ Mr. Skinner
This is a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member knows equally well that it is not in order to continue—

§ Mr. Skinner
It is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that it is not in order to continue Question Time by means of a point of order. Many things are said in the House with which hon. Members disagree. The hon. Member will put his point of order to me, not to the Minister.

§ Mr. Skinner
It is a point of order for you. Mr. Speaker. It is well-known in the House that, when an hon. Member misleads the House about another hon. Member. it is a matter for the Speaker. The Minister said that I had not participated in any exercises against contamination, other than Sellafield. In defending this call for the Minister to withdraw that misleading statement, I point out that in 1976 I called for the closure of a plant in my constituency because Coalite Industries Ltd. was producing dioxin. The Minister in question then was working for Arnold Weinstock, and trying to get the nuclear power industry contracts. The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government has a duty to withdraw his statement.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that the whole House would agree that there is no dispute about the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He is an assiduous Member. There is no controversy about that.

§ Sir John Farr (Harborough)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you please help me? How can it be possible for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to ask for your ruling on how the formula for unemployment figures is calculated and for that question to be in order, yet only the other day your office advised me that I could not raise with the Chair questions about the actions of the Select Committee on Defence in exceeding the powers given to it under the Standing Orders? Your office told me that I could not raise that matter with you in relation to the conduct of the House.
It seems strange that a technical detail, such as the formula for compiling the unemployment figures, can be raised on a point of order, yet what is transparently happening in relation to certain Select Committees, such as the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and the Select Committee on Defence, which are exceeding the powers laid down by Parliament in the Standing Orders, cannot be raised on a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member has raised an important point. I should like to say to the whole House that we are getting into the habit of having points of order raised virtually every day which have absolutely nothing to do with me but have to do with the Government Front Bench. The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) is right. When a right hon. or hon. Member gets to his feet on a point of order, I have no idea what he will say. If hon. 321 Members went to the Table Office for advice, they would receive exactly the same advice that the hon. Member for Harborough received.

§ Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can understand your concern—I am sure it is shared throughout the House—at the number of times that it has been necessary to use the facility of points of order to try to secure information which truly and genuinely should be volunteered by the Government by direct means to the House of Commons so that they can be cross-questioned. When a Government resorts to other means—press leaks, written answers or press briefings —to ensure that they are not scrutinised in the House, can you suggest any way of dealing with the matter other than by raising points of order?

§ Mr. Terry Davis (Brimingham, Hodge Hill)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you said recently on a similar occasion, may I ask you to rule that the comments made by the Paymaster General on a point of order were equivalent to a statement on which he can now be questioned by hon. Members?

§ Mr. Speaker
I rule in particular circumstances and, if I may put it this way to the House, I am sure the House will agree that it is a question of the context in which things are said and done. It would be an unfortunate ruling if I were to say that every time a Minister got to his feet to assist the House it became a statement. That might mean that Ministers would never get to their feet, and that would not be to the benefit of the House.

§ Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is about the third time in 12 years that I have raised a point of order in the House. Is it not an abuse of the procedures and privileges of the House for the Minister who was answering questions yesterday and was asked specifically about the subject of employment statistics not to answer that question or give the House the information when today a written answer has been given which suggests a change? Surely the Government cannot have arrived at a change of policy in 24 hours. Surely Back Benchers have rights. The Government have ignored and abused the privileges of hon. Members.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is an Opposition day, so hon. Members are taking time away from Back Benchers and the Opposition in raising points of order. I have no responsibility for answers given to questions.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that this will be a constructive point of order. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), when he was asking his question, gave a rather colourful description of an hon. Member. He mentioned my constituency, implying that he was referring to me. I now understand that he did not mean my constituency. I wonder whether he could have an opportunity to put the record straight.

§ Mr. Speaker
Certainly not. Fortunately, my microphones do not always pick up the colourful descriptions.

§ Mr. Robert Litherland (Manchester, Central)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, referring to Question Time. Yesterday, in Prime Minister's Question Time, you 322 allowed five questions on the subject of Afghanistan. Today, in Environment Questions, you allowed two questions on housing in Manchester when quite a number of Members wanted to speak.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is an important point. I think that the whole House would be interested to know about it. It was a rare occasion in Prime Minister's Questions yesterday when we had a substantive question. Most of the questions to the Prime Minister are open and are basically on the same subject. I took a judgment today, and I accept that we did not get far with Environment questions. I decided that the matter of the Sellafield leak was of major interest to hon. Members and I allowed questions on it to run a little.

§ Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is using the hon. Gentleman's own time, but I will take the point of order if it is legitimate.

§ Mr. Rogers
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the statement made by the Paymaster General earlier. Am I right in understanding that the answer to a written question was given without his knowledge or consent? I see that he is nodding. Will he confirm that that is the truth? An answer to a written question was given without his consent. I see that he is nodding. That is enough.

§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I remember correctly, on Monday, when we had an exchange on the subject of British Leyland, you said that those hon. Members who were not called on that occasion would take precedence next time the subject was raised. I have constituents working for Austin Rover, Land Rover, Unipart, Self-Changing Gears and other parts of Leyland. I and other Labour Members did not get the chance today to raise the question of the dismissal of the senior shop steward of the Transport and General Workers Union at Land Rover, Solihull, for opposing privatisation. I wanted to bring that to your notice. I want to bring to your notice our resolute opposition to privatisation of BL, in whole or in part, with American or British capital.

§ Mr. Speaker
I did say that. I am sorry that I did not call the hon. Gentleman. I think that I should have done so.