HC Deb 14 November 1988 vol 140 cc761-4 4.19 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that in question No. 8 my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) asked the Secretary of State for Social Security to publish a long term strategy for child benefit. As Hansard will show tomorrow morning, in a supplementary question I began with the following words: "If the Secretary of State were to undertake a long-term strategic study of child benefit, would he look at the effects over the long term of the freezing of other benefits, such as the pensioners' Christmas bonus which has been frozen since its inception?" Is it not in order to compare two benefits, exactly in the same way as you allowed the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), during questions on the statement, to compare British Leyland's state subsidy and to make allegations about British Steel's state subsidy, particularly since £5 billion has been lost since 1979 by not uprating the pensioners' Christmas bonus? As Nye Bevan would have said, "Why look in the crystal ball when you can read the book?"

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Gentleman studies Hansard carefully tomorrow morning I think he will see that on no fewer than two occasions I tried to get him back to the question of child benefit. Although Ministers do not link questions with others that appear further down the Order Paper, I always try to do so. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the Order Paper, he will see that his question No. 25 relates to child benefit allowance. He asks the Secretary of State for Social Security

what would be the value, in 1988 prices, of the child benefit allowance, had it since its inception been increased annually by the equivalent of the rise in the value of: (a) the retail price index, and (b) average earnings. That would have been a very good question to ask.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), in his application under Standing Order No. 20, referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have said that his Back Benchers need to be educated. It is clear from the reports that have been published since then that my right hon. Friend said no such thing and that in fact he was answering a question from a journalist who had made that statement. Is it not—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already said that I cannot allow an application under Standing Order No. 20 on the subject. What journalists say is not a matter for me.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On question No. 5, the Secretary of State for Social Security said in answer to a question from me that the elderly are a burden to others. That was very hurtful and dehumanising. I ask that in future—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot have a re-run of Question Time.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you able to guide the House about Standing Order No. 20 applications in general? I ask you to reflect on a particular matter. Most Standing Order No. 20 applications relate to the actions of Ministers when exercising their ministerial responsibilities. However, when there is a Standing Order No. 20 application that relates to action that has already been taken by a Minister the probability of that action being raised in debate at a future date is quite distinct from a request that the Minister should take action in the future. Could you reflect on the fact that the longer the period from the time when the Minister took that action to the time when a debate may take place on a future occasion may affect the efficacy of the debate and the ability of the House to deal with a matter that is retrospective rather than prospective?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman knows that the criteria for Standing Order No. 20 applications are that the matter must be urgent, specific and important. Standing Order No. 20 applications must be raised at the first opportunity and notice must be given to me, whenever possible, before 12 o'clock. I have to make difficult decisions as to whether those applications meet the criteria. I did not find that to be so in today's cases.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that you accept that one of the Opposition's duties is to scrutinise the activities of Ministers. The Session is coming to an end. We on this side of the House believe that much has to be done to explain the discrepancy between what the journalists wrote yesterday and what the Chancellor said—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to perpetuate the Standing Order No. 20 application that was made by his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from question No. 7. A factual question was asked about when Ministers first knew of the Chancellor's briefing. We have to accept that what journalists say is not a matter for you, but it is a matter for you when the House finds difficulty in establishing factually what happened. In the politest way, I asked whether it was on the Friday, Saturday or Sunday that Department of Social Security Ministers—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is no good raising that matter with me as a point of order, because I could not possibly know the answer to it.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put it to you as the defender of Parliament's rights that this is an issue of great importance to the House of Commons. The Chancellor has not come clean. It is your duty to defend our rights. If he—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady will know that I take that as a prime charge. I do defend the rights of the House of Commons. There was a private notice question last week on this very matter, which I granted.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said earlier that matters have to be raised as soon as possible after they have occurred. I see your point, as does the House. Do you accept that during Question Time, at which both of us were present, there was an altercation between members of the Opposition Front Bench and Treasury Ministers on whether Department of Social Security Ministers knew about the Chancellor's intervention? You will have noticed that various Ministers refused to answer that question; they blocked it successfully and did not answer. This is the first available opportunity that any Opposition Member has had to make a Standing Order No. 20 application. It was only at that point that a question about the matter had been asked in the House, notwithstanding what—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is very helpful, as I would expect him to be because of his position in the House, but he must know that whoever occupies this Chair must have regard to all sorts of considerations, in particular the criteria laid down in the Standing Order. I cannot he held responsible for what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box. That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you not agree that on some occasions when you rule that a Standing Order No. 20 application is not a matter of urgent debate it may become so later? For example, the Chancellor's meeting with the press could become the subject of further debate while Parliament stands prorogued. If that happened but Parliament had been unable to debate what the Chancellor said, would it not mean that far from Parliament being the forum of the nation the press would become that forum? If the press were to continue to debate this matter during Prorogation, would you be prepared to review the case for an urgent debate?

Mr. Speaker

I take every case on its merits. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is at the moment hypothetical.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you, as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission, will look during Prorogation into the matter of a private body that runs a magazine which purports to represent the views of the House of Commons. It has carried the portcullis for a period without official authority. When the League Against Cruel Sports produced a portfolio, I recall that it was rapidly told to drop the portcullis.

This private magazine is not accountable to the House. We cannot ask questions about how much profit is being made. We cannot ask whether its pages are being abused by being opened to the Tory leader of Bradford council to justify his swingeing cuts. These are important matters. If the magazine were accountable to the House, a judgment could be made about it, but it is being run by an all-party clique of hon. Members. They can do what they want. They are not accountable. The magazine should not be described as having connections with the House. It is a private magazine with a small circulation, but it uses the imprimatur of the House of Commons. There should be some element of accountability, but it is noticeably absent. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will look into the matter during Prorogation.

Mr. Speaker

Order. This matter has been raised before. I think that it was discussed by the House of Commons (Services) Committee. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make further points, his right course is to draw them to the attention of the Services Committee.

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Dalyell

Yes. Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, who was my first Speaker, used from time to time to appeal to the good will of the Leader of the House in difficult situations such as we have with the Chancellor. Can we reinstate the concept of the good will of the Leader of the House? He might vouchsafe some kind of statement on this matter which obviously concerns serious hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker

The Leader of the House is here. I know that he is a man of good will. I am sure that he will have heard what has been said.