§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order on a statement which the Paymaster General is to make this afternoon to the House on a White Paper called "Building Businesses—Not Barriers", and which was made in the other place at 11.30 am.
You will recall the concern expressed on both sides of the House about unelected Secretaries of State in the other place making statements. To deal with that difficulty our procedure has undoubtedly been for statements to be made at the same time in both Houses of Parliament. Today the practice of issuing statements at the same time after Question Time has been broken. Today the statement was given by the Secretary of State for Employment in another place after its Question Time on the last day of the sitting at 11.30 am. Despite the Opposition's protests that that would mean that the elected Members of this House would learn of the contents of that statement through the media—a practice deplored by both sides of the House—the Government insisted on making the statement, and gave the justification that the rules of the other place required it.
Apart from the fact that the statement could have been given in both Houses at another time, the Secretary of State for Employment, in making a statement to the other place, has clearly given a calculated snub to the rights of the elected Members of this House.
It now becomes clear that a second statement is to be made in the other place at 3.30 pm, so it would have been possible for two statements to be made simultaneously in both Houses. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that this Government decision is a calculated snub to the democratically elected rights of Members of this House, and I ask for your protection.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make that point, but I am not responsible for what goes on in another place.
§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be helpful if I offer a few words of explanation. The deregulation statement today is an important announcement, which I am sure the House will wish to have before the spring Adjournment. To do that, we had to have an announcement on the last sitting day of the other place. That means that it sits at a different time, and earlier than this place. It is an unusual and extremely rare occurrence. I recognise that this causes genuine difficulties. Perhaps we could discuss this through the usual channels here and in another place to seek to ensure that it does not occur again.
§ Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)On the point which has just been made by the Leader of the House, I understand that the House of Lords is hearing a Government statement now at 3.30 pm. The point which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made is that it would have been perfectly possible for both statements to be made, as normal, at the same time. I hope the Leader of the House will return to that matter. On the business statement, could I ask the right hon. Gentleman to note that at a time—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have not heard it yet"] Very well.
§ Later—
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)May I follow up the point made by the Leader of the House? With your good offices, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Leader of the House to convey the feelings of this House that it is quite unacceptable that the Commons should have a secondhand statement and dog-eared answers. We bitterly resent the fact that this House is losing out because of yet another struggle between two publicity-mad Cabinet Ministers, both of whom are jostling to get their statements out first so that they may be first in front of the television cameras.
§ Mr. BiffenThere is a serious problem here; I accept that at once. I hope that the matter can be resolved by proper consideration through the usual channels. I do not think that the somewhat over-generous rhetoric which the right hon. Gentleman has just used will enable that to be done. In answer to the specific point about the statement on the Calcutt report, to be made shortly by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and which will be subsequently repeated in the House of Lords, that is not strictly analagous with the statement which was made by a departmental Minister who sits in the House of Lords, and which is then followed by a statement in this place. There is a problem which can be resolved by proper and measured considerations through the usual channels, and I hope we may proceed in a constructive sense.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Points of order take time out of business questions. I think that many of these questions could be raised with the Leader of the House at business questions, because they are patently not matters for me.
§ Mr. LeightonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerWell, I will take it, but it must be a matter for me.
§ Mr. LeightonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that, today, I heard Lord Young in an interview on "The World at One" with Sir Robin Day discussing his statement in another place before we had it in this House? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that right and proper?
§ Mr. SpeakerI heard it, too. I share the views that have been expressed and I also listened with care to what the Leader of the House said about them. I do not think I can say any more.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerWell, I will try.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the truth — we all know what has happened—that the Secretary of State for Employment insisted on making a statement himself this morning?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have no idea.