Points of Order (Hansard, 18 April 1990)

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

§ Mr. Speaker
I will take Mr. Heller first.

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
During his statement, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said several times that he could not answer the points raised by hon. Members because there could be, there might be or there may possibly be a case pending before the courts. Is that a new doctrine in the House? I have always understood that, when a case was before a court, we did not have the opportunity or the right to question Ministers on that matter, because the issue was before a court and comments here could prejudice that case.
I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I have never before heard a Minister make a statement and say, "I cannot answer the hon. Member"—who had raised a perfectly legitimate question that the Minister should answer—"because there could be, there might be or there may possibly be a case before the courts." Is that a new doctrine, Mr. Speaker? Is that allowed in the House? Is it not time that Ministers should be told that, when there is not a case before the courts, hon. Members who ask questions have a right to be given answers to those questions?

§ Mr. Speaker
In the first place, I am in no way responsible for answers that are given. Secondly, on the question about doctrine, it is not a doctrine upon which I can make a judgment. I understood that it was the judgment of the Secretary of State himself that, if he was to answer certain questions, that might be prejudicial. It is not a matter for me.

§ Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle)
During the recent question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Trade and Industry from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), like several of my hon. Friends, I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) ask from a sedentary position what my hon. Friend was being paid for his question. Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? If you did, do you agree that the hon. Member for Walsall, North should apologise to the House and withdraw what he said?

§ Mr. Speaker
It was a highly charged Question Time. I did not hear—[Interruption.] Order. There was a good deal of noise and I did not hear everthing that was said from a sedentary position.

§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to reflect on two points that arise from the statement made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. First, while you are right in saying that you have no responsibility for the content of the answers given by the Secretary of State, if the phrase "I have nothing to add" goes unchallenged, through you and the Table Office, it becomes a blocking motion whereby further written questions may not be tabled.
The second and shorter point that I ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, is that only five hon. Members were still standing at the end of the statement and many of us were also seeking to rise at the end of the statement about the murder of the Observer journalist when, again, we were 1436 not called. Like myself, other hon. Members may wish to raise constituency interests and perhaps you could bear that in mind the next time—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments is a matter of speculation, because no such question has been tabled. On the second part, I remind him and the whole House that it would be easy for the Chair to allow questions on statements to run out. It would be equally unfair to hon. Members who wish to participate in subsequent debates. I have mentioned today—

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
This one is more important.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Well, it is an important debate, in which there is a great interest. I have to make a judgment on these things.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that hon. Members who are now rising do not wish to raise points with me that they might have put to the Secretary of State had they been called.

§ Mr Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because of the great care, consideration and surveillance of the Department of Trade and Industry, one of my constituent companies took months to obtain a licence to export non-military goods—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That can be dealt with on another occasion. It is not a matter for me.

§ Mr. Dickens
My constituent company would expect me to be called.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. No. It might have expected that, but many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the next debate.

§ Mr. Dickens
There were only three hon. Members left standing on each side.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is very selfish for the hon. Member to believe that he should be called in preference to his colleagues.

§ Mr. Skinner
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether there is a special Standing Order which has escaped my attention in respect of the protection of Ministers when they are under fire. It is becoming increasingly evident to many of us on this side that there must be an order which you observe which is a kind of "protect Nicholas Ridley society". In view' of the last time on the Fayeds and again today—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is a disreputable charge for the hon. Member to make. He would be absolutely the first to come to me if he was cut out of a subsequent debate.

§ Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are constantly exhorted at Question Time to get through as many questions as possible. Today you managed to get through no less than 43 questions. Unfortunately, however, you did so only because 30 Labour Members who had important questions on the Order Paper did not turn up to ask their questions. Those of us who are interested in Trade and Industry questions seek your protection to allow us to raise important 1437 matters. I wonder whether consideration could be given in such circumstances to your looking through the long end of a telescope to see hon. Members who are not here in order that questions that are on the Order Paper are asked and brought before the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member was called twice, so I do not think that he has any crib.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you confirm that when a senior member of the Cabinet asks to make a statement in the House he makes it not only on behalf of his Department but of the Government as a whole? Might not it have been better to use other procedures? Four Departments wanted the matter questioned—the Treasury for Customs and Excise, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry. In view of the suspicion that the Ministry of Defence has displayed a Nelson eye for some time on the Iraqi orders, is not it unacceptable, as the Defence Secretary was present and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was sitting by his side, that when I simply asked for the date when the Department first knew about the matter—a simple, artless, factual question—I did not receive an answer? One should not be told that it is a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that the hon. Member should table a question to the Secretary of State for Defence on such matters.

§ Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I called the hon. Member on the statement, but I will call him again if it is a point of order that I can answer.

§ Mr. Page
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), for which I thank him, and as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has not had the courtesy to withdraw his remark, may I make it clear to the House that I am paid by no Government and no Government agency?

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
I rise on a point of order to try to establish better in my mind the criteria that you, Mr. Speaker, adopt when deciding how long ministerial statements will be allowed to run. We have just returned from a fairly generous Easter recess—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Some of you."]—Some of us have. During that time, the matter which was the subject of the previous statement was running as a major item on all the news bulletins and was on the front pages of all the newspapers. There was—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that we have had enough of that.

§ Mr. Banks
I am just trying to ask you, Mr. Speaker, how you decide how long a statement will run.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will tell the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Banks
That is all I asked.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is very offensive—

§ Mr. Banks
You have been offensive to me, Sir.

§ Mr. Speaker
—but I will tell the hon. Gentleman. The Chair has an obligation to balance the time available in the House and the hon. Gentleman has frequently been to see me to express his distress at not being called in debate.

§ Mr. Banks
No, I have not.

§ Mr. Speaker
Then I hope he never will.

§ Mr. Banks
There would not be much point.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have to balance these matters. There is great pressure to take part in the coming debate. As a result of these points of order, I regret that all the hon. Members who wish to participate are unlikely to be called.

§ Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am deeply disturbed at the failure of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement this afternoon about the slaughter of the four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment outside Downpatrick during the recess. The impression is gaining ground among people in Northern Ireland that IRA murders are so commonplace that the Government do not feel that they have to make a statement, which would give Members from Northern Ireland an opportunity to put questions about the security situation in the Province. As there is this crisis of confidence, and the Ulster Defence Regiment is under attack not only from the IRA, but by its propagandists, surely the Government should come to the House to make a statement about those murders and allow Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland to question them.

§ Mr. Speaker
That will have been heard by the Leader of the House, but whether statements are made is not a matter for me.