§ 61. Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the level and use of United Kingdom budgetary aid to the administration of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
§ Mr. Chris PattenA total of £1,460,000 has been approved for the current year. Budgetary aid is provided to cover an overall deficit on the recurrent account. Its purpose is to enable the Government to maintain a minimum reasonable level of public services until means can be found of generating additional sources of revenue.
§ Mr. SpearingDoes the Minister remember the substantial capital investment in a controversial airport on the Turks and Caicos Islands associated with an equally controversial Club Mediterranée project, on the advice of the Foreign Office, to eliminate that very deficit? When will the deficit be eliminated? Is the Department responsible, not for development, but for the general grants in aid?
§ Mr. PattenI can tell the hon. Gentleman about the impact of tourism, which I think is the main point behind his question. In our judgment, Club Med has had a beneficial effect on the Government's income through increased tourism. The number of visitors has increased substantially. That should help to deal with the budgetary question.
§ Mr. HindOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that Transport questions 4, 6, 17, 18, 26, 28, 33, 43, 44 and 46 deal with the effects of deregulation under the Transport Act 1985. Significantly, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who asked question 43, every other hon. Member who tabled questions on the same subject was absent. They include five members of the Labour Opposition, one Liberal and one member of the SDP. That means that others interested in the topic were denied the opportunity of asking supplementary questions.
Does this mean that those members of the Opposition who did not bother to turn up are satisfied with my right hon. Friend's wonderful policies and that they illustrated their satisfaction by their absence? Will you, Mr. Speaker, permit me now to ask—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. No, I will not. I did not think that the hon. Gentleman was rising earlier, otherwise he might have had his chance. There were a number of absentees today. If hon. Members cannot be present for questions they need only let my Office know and their questions will not be called.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you became Speaker of this House you undertook to protect Back Benchers' rights. I believe that you have done so to a greater extent than any other Speaker since I have been here. In the context of the protection of Back Benchers, is there not a right to get answers from Ministers, not necessarily on judgment or policy, but on fact and personal behaviour? For example, I asked the Attorney-General whether he did or did not threaten Sir Robert Armstrong with the DPP and the constabulary? Are we not entitled to a straight answer—yes or no—either "I did threaten him" or "I did not threaten him", 686 rather than a complete evasion? On matters of personal behaviour by Ministers, however senior, are we not entitled to a yes-no answer to a yes-no factual question?
§ Mr. SpeakerI thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his point of order. All that I can do is to give Back Benchers an opportunity to ask questions. I am not responsible for the answers.
§ Mr. SkinnerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you have just said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not get a response from the Attorney-General, will you look into whether it is possible for the Attorney-General to answer questions more frequently? The matter could go before the appropriate Committee. When the Attorney-General came into the Chamber today, he looked ill, and I thought that he did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow because he did not quite feel up to it, but when the Attorney-General answered other questions, he did so very fully. He spent two or three minutes answering questions on other issues—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have already dealt with that matter. I cannot be responsible for the answers that are given. The hon. Gentleman is sitting opposite the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, so perhaps he should put his question to him.
§ Mr. WilliamsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know you accept that the interests of Back Benchers should be protected, but we are in some difficulty, as the Government have assured us that we cannot ask people such as the Cabinet Secretary what happened because, as officials, they are not supposed to answer such questions, and, ultimately, responsibility to inform the House lies with Ministers. But when hon. Members table questions—I am not even talking about unexpected supplementary questions — the legitimate response can only be yes or no. When we ask a serious question, such as whether the law was threatened against the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office, we cannot obtain an answer. At some stage we shall have to ask you to give us some guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how, in the light of what has been said about Westland, the rights of Back Benchers can be protected against ministerial abuses arid the refusal of Ministers to answer our questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerOpposition Front Bench spokesmen and Back Benchers would not expect me to take responsibility for deciding whether answers to questions are correct. I have no idea whether they are, and that has never been part of the Chair's function.
§ Mr. WinnickOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will agree that Back Benchers should be able to question Ministers. Earlier today I went to the Table Office to ask when I could table a question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I was notified. I found out that the right hon. Gentleman answers questions very infrequently, and that when he does so it is for five minutes only. The right hon. Gentleman has been making the most outlandish attacks on the BBC. Your would argue, Mr. Speaker, as I would, that if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wishes to do that, so be it, but as the right hon. Gentleman has been taking a much higher profile than any of his predecessors, will there be some opportunity, when the new Session begins, to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions more frequently? When he 687 comes to the Dispatch Box, can it be for more than five minutes at a time? The present situation is entirely unsatisfactory.
§ Mr. SpeakerI should refine the advice that I gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is not a matter for the Procedure Committee, but, normally for the usual channels to decide on the frequency of questions and the length of time in which they are answered.