Points of Order (Hansard, 14 November 1989)

§ Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday, the Lobby was briefed on the basis that today we would hear a statement on the White Paper on community care. This afternoon, a written answer was deposited in the Library, which opens with the following sentence from the Secretary of State for Health: I am pleased to be able to announce that our White Paper, 'Caring for People: Community Care in the next Decade and Beyond' will be published on Thursday 16 November. As the House will immediately appreciate, Thursday is the one sitting day of the week on which it is not possible to make an oral statement to the House. That is presumably why that day was chosen. This choice of date is an affront to the House. In 15 years as a Member of Parliament I cannot recall a single occasion on which a Minister was prepared to say that a White Paper was ready for publication but will not be published until the day on which the House rises.
The House knows how pressing is this issue. It also knows from the press reports how controversial some elements of that White Paper will be, such as the proposal to put the home help service out to private contract. I submit that it would be an outrage if that White Paper was produced on the day on which the Secretary of State could avoid answering questions in the House.
As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, it is the function of your office to defend the right of the House to challenge and scrutinise Ministers. I invite the representatives of the Government who are present, including the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State and the Chief Whip, to assure the House that, if it is not possible to produce this White Paper before Prorogation, the White Paper will not be published before the House sits again.

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will hear them all at once.

§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support entirely what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has said. It is a scandal and an outrage that this procedure is being used. That is compounded by the fact that the press is now carrying reports that the Health Bill, which will be produced only six or seven days after the White Paper, will contain the Government's implementation of contents of the White Paper. Does that not show the contempt with which the Government are treating the House of Commons?

§ The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the House will know, this White Paper arises from a statement that I made in the House a short time ago, setting out the policy and the Government's decisions in the light of the Griffiths report on community care. That statement was reasonably non-controversial. Large parts of it received a welcome on both sides of the House. It was my intention to produce this White Paper before the House rose, but I regret to say that it is still with the printers and it is not possible to produce it before Thursday this week.
186 The publication of this White Paper would not normally give rise to any need for a statement. Nor are its contents, as leaked by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), accurately described. The White Paper will follow quite naturally from the statement that I made a few weeks ago.
It was precisely to avoid allegations that I was trying to smuggle out the White Paper on the day the House was prorogued that I decided to answer that written question today and to acknowledge openly that it would not be possible to produce the White Paper before Thursday. I shall be in London on Thursday and shall be freely available, and if the White Paper produces a sensational new controversy, I look forward to answering in the usual way. However, I do not think that it will contain more than useful detail. It certainly will not enlarge the level of controversy beyond the very limited extent to which there is controversy around this statement at the moment.

§ Mr. Robin Cook
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State may well be in London on Thursday, but the House will not be sitting on Thursday. That is the point at issue. I am entirely willing, if the Secretary of State is going to tell us—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter which touches on the privilege of the House. If the Secretary of State is telling the House that he cannot produce the White Paper today or tomorrow because of printing difficulties, that is entirely acceptable. However, I invite the Secretary of State to assure the House that the White Paper will not be published while the House is not sitting, and that it will be retained until an occasion when the Secretary of State can make a statement to the House and can answer questions in the House.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have spent about 18 months being accused of dragging my feet over Griffiths and community care and of not producing policy quickly enough. I am now producing a White Paper as readily as possible in line with the statement that I made to the House. Everybody wishes to know the detail of the policy, and the White Paper is being eagerly awaited. I do not propose to delay it and have explained the reasons why it cannot be produced before Thursday.
If the hon. Gentleman is alarmed by the reports, created by his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, that the White Paper is somehow about privatising home helps and the caring services, he can be reassured that it contains no such proposals, and that it is in line with the statement that I have given.

Several Hon. Members
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not think than any further points of order can arise—

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The whole House knows that this is not a matter of order for me—

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The House knows that this has really been a question and answer session across the Dispatch Box. It is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Hughes
rose—

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
No, I will not—[interruption] I will not take it because it is not a matter of order for me. I will take any other points of order.

§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)
On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw to your attention and to the attention of the House written question No. 289 on today's Order Paper, on the Government's response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan and others concerning detention under the prevention of terrorism legislation. This is a matter of such importance that my hon. Friends and I were astounded to learn that, not only has that written question been tabled—we believe it to be what is known in the House as a planted question—but the Government have used the written answer to make a statement on this most important matter.
When the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 was going through the House, as a member of the Standing Committee I recall that we were assured that, when the matter of permanent derogation came up, the Secretary of State for the Home Department would make a statement to the House. We believe that it is an abuse of the House that, yet again, the Government have smuggled out a most important decision on a day such as this under the guise of a written answer.

§ Mr. Speaker
Of course, it is not a matter for me whether questions are answered in the form of a written answer or not. It is not a matter of order. Whatever sympathy I have with having statements made in the House, they tend to greatly delay our business. I must remind the House that today we have a timetable motion, followed by opposed private business and then a prayer. The House will appreciate that the opposed private business can go on for three hours, whatever time it is entered upon, which might affect the time for the prayer.

§ Mr. Cryer
rose—

§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I will take Mr. McNamara.

§ Mr. McNamara
I will bear in mind what you have said, Mr. Speaker, but what concerns me is that in their reply the Government talk about the threat posed by terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland and then state: The power to hold terrorist suspects for a period of up to seven years"—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. McNamara
Seven years.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It may be, but that is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is referring to an answer to a question.

§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker.
Is it a different point of order?

§ Mr. Cryer
Yes.

§ Mr. Speaker
In that case, I will hear it.

§ Mr. Cryer
Do you recall, Mr. Speaker, that when, in the past, statements have not been made and publications have not been provided, there has been some difficulty with Black Rod getting into the Chamber and bringing the Session of Parliament to an end? Black Rod needs permission to enter the Chamber because of the age-old tradition that, as the representative of the monarch, Black Rod can enter only with our permission. If the Government do not provide information—it has happened in the past—the Commons might refuse Black Rod entry, and that refusal would be in order.

§ Mr. Speaker
I certainly hope that that kind of disruption would not happen—[Interruption.] Order. We establish the identity of Black Rod, but he has a right to enter the Chamber.

§ Mr. Wallace
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Is it on a different subject?

§ Mr. Wallace
Yes. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that, often late at night, the House is invited to approve what in the past were called rate support grant orders and what are now called revenue support grant orders. In a recent revenue support grant instrument, a substantial error was made by the Scottish Office in regard to the amount due to the city of Glasgow district council. It is my information that the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to issue a statement in Scotland tonight on that matter. As there is an admission that one important error has been made, and as it is likely that other important errors may appear in measures passed by the House, do you agree that it would be more appropriate for the Secretary of State or another Scottish Minister to explain that error to the House and be available to be questioned about it?

§ Mr. Speaker
It may be more appropriate, but it is not a matter relating to order in the Chamber.

§ Mr. Corbyn
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When making his application under Standing Order No. 20, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) raised the question of a letter from the chief of the London ambulance service—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have dealt with that matter. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman any further.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. No. I have told the House that, whatever happens tonight, opposed private business may go on for three hours. That will affect the prayer. I believe that, in the interests of the whole House, we should now move on.