§ 4.2 pm
§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In case there has been any inadvertent misleading of the House, I should be grateful if you would ask the Minister whether, although not formally represented, Government officials were present at the court hearing.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is not for me to ask that question.
§ The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer)To make it absolutely clear, the Government were not able to make their representations to the court. [HON. MEMBERS: "Were you in court?"] The Government were not able to make their representations in the court—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer the question—simply because it was an ex-parte injunction. Therefore, the Government were not able—the Government had the advantage of the fact that an official was present in the court. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] The situation is perfectly clear. The court's order has to be received as an order in its fulness, otherwise no lawyer will advise on it. I know that to be true because I asked for advice when the material was not in front of us. Advice was not forthcoming because no lawyer worth his salt will give advice on an order the contents of which he has not got.
§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)Further to that point of order—
§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)On a point of order, Mr.Speaker. May I remind you that during the one hour of Question Time there was only one question—No. 11—that directly concerned the House, and that was about the finances of the EEC? The taxpayer contributes £1.6 billion to the EEC and is directly concerned about the fraud in the EEC. On the other hand, for instance, you allowed a discussion of about 10 minutes on the situation in the middle east. I have no doubt that every citizen of the middle east will be waiting to hear tomorrow what the House of Commons has said about its problems. Surely it is wrong to have a truncated discussion of the EEC in questions to the Foreign Office. It is a disgrace that we, on behalf of the British taxpayer, could discuss that issue for only two minutes. Is there not a very strong case for a reconsideration of our procedures, so that, at the very least, we get the old quarter of an hour in which we can discuss this country's most important alliance?
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall hear hon. Members, further to that particular point of order.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)Further to that point of order, Mr.Speaker. I am on your side. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) does not mean to criticise you, Mr.Speaker, and it is very difficult, but we had two questions on a place called Bophuthatswana. I think about 5 per cent. of hon. Members in the House know where it is. As a result of those two questions, we had five supplementary questions. On the European question we had—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think we should have a debate on the matter. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. If he had been present, he would know that there was no further supplementary question apart from that of the hon. Gentleman who asked the question on the second of those two questions on that country, which I too find it difficult to pronounce.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am on my feet. On the point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), it is a difficult judgment at Question Time. We went slowly today, because there were very long answers, and some supplementary questions with very long answers, too. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
On the EEC question, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to go back to what happened in, I think, the last Parliament, he should pursue the matter through the usual channels.
§ Dr. CunninghamOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not now clear from the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that Government officials were present yesterday in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court? Is it not also clear from the Minister's answer that the Government, and especially the Secretary of State, prevaricated, obfuscated and delayed for six hours before ensuring that the decision of the court was put into practice, thus ensuring that, in spite of the decision of the judge, deliveries of the leaflet went ahead throughout today? Is not that a constructive contempt of court? Is it not a further contempt of the House that the Secretary of State is not here to answer for all those matters?
§ Mr. GummerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's point of order, if it is one, is entirely without foundation. The situation is that, the moment that we had any inkling that Greenwich had obtained some kind of order, I sought immediately to get the details of that order. The moment I got them, I immediately took action upon them. If Greenwich had wanted us to deal with it earlier, it could have arranged its affairs in a way which would have meant that we would have known—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot have an extension of Question Time now.[Interruption.] Order. We shall doubtless return to this matter on other occasions.
§ Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)rose—
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am on my feet and I must ask the House to listen to me. We have a Committee stage today, followed by a Ways and Means resolution, followed by a prayer. We have a long day ahead of us and we should now move on.
§ Mr. RookerI have a point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, on this matter, not for the Minister. It involves 871 your decisions and your control of the Order Paper. Until today I had never been seriously questioned at the Table Office about the term "poll tax" in a written question, but today I was. I raise this with you, Mr. Speaker because I was told, "Soon, Mr. Rooker, decisions will have to be taken about this," and clearly those decisions will have to be taken by you. I do not ask you to rule on this now, but point out the words "poll tax" appear twice on the front cover of the leaflet about which the previous exchanges occurred. Indeed, it is commonly known as the "poll tax".
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House should allow me to hear.
§ Mr. RookerI am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling so that hon. Members are free to use expressions and to table questions in the common parlance of our constituents—as agreed by the Government, who now know it as the poll tax. I ask for your consideration of this matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is the first that I have heard of it, but I shall look into that matter.
§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)Since when has a point of order been an extension of Question Time?
§ Mr. SpeakerVery frequently, I am afraid.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.[Interruption.]I am not hearing any more questions on this matter under the guise of a point of order, but if they are on a different matter, I shall hear them.
§ Mr. Nellistrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerIs it a different matter, Mr. Nellist?
§ Mr. NellistIt is a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I will hear any points of order that are not concerned with the poll tax, or the community charge, or whatever any Member of the House likes to call it.
§ Dr. ReidMy point of order does not specifically concern the poll tax or the community charge, but I ask your guidance on procedure in the House, Mr. Speaker. If a statement were to be made and a long question session followed on a matter of great national importance, such as the Government's handling of taxpayers' money, and if, after an hour and a half of such questions it was discovered, following the closure of that question session on a point of order raised by the Opposition Front Bench, that all those questions had been predicated on an initial statement that had concealed information from Members of the House, would it be in order, in circumstances concerning the poll tax, or whatever, for an Opposition Member to be justified in demanding that we should have a further extension of questions to elicit the true information on that subject?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a hypothetical matter.
§ Mr. Alex Carlilerose—
§ Mr. Winnickrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am not taking any more points of order on the private notice question, but I will take points of order on a different matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerI will take Mr. Carlile's point of order if it is on a different matter.
§ Mr. CarlileMy point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerns the position of Ministers who may have acted in contempt of court. If it happened—and from what has been said it appears that it happened—that a Minister who had knowledge of an injunction ignored it for six hours, will you, Mr. Speaker, ask the Attorney-General to advise this House in a statement whether that Minister was in contempt of an order of the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat would be a matter for the courts.