§ Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are probably aware, when astronomers discover a new star, there are special procedures for registering it. I wonder whether you follow any special procedure when you spot a new political party in the House. For example, will you instigate an investigation and action to change the Short money as a result of the hon. Members for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) ceasing to be members of the Labour party? Will you expect the size of that new political party to increase, as other non-community-charge-paying Labour Members join it?
§ Mr. SpeakerI regularly look for stars in the Chamber, and I believe that the stars are on the Floor of the House. However, I am not certain that such a point of order falls within my area of responsibility.
§ Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for Social Security to be allowed to make a statement on the withdrawal of moneys from Mirror Group Newspapers' pension fund? The revelations from MGN show that there is a gaping hole in the law covering pension funds. There is no legal provision for an independent chairman, 50 per cent. independently elected employee representation on the board, or full and up-to-date disclosure of information covering a fund's financial state or the allocation of its surpluses.
As there is no provision either for fully protecting the interests of fund members, the Government's proposed regulation on self-investment is irrelevant to what has been revealed in respect of the MGN pension fund. Millions of employees and pensioners are deeply worried about the future of their pension funds as a result of the MGN revelations, so will you, Mr. Speaker, use your good offices to seek an early statement to the House by the Secretary of State, so that the public's doubts and apprehensions can En allayed?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Perhaps I can save time. That matter was raised at business questions and in points of order to me last Thursday. I said then that it seemed to me that the Consolidated Fund Bill would provide an opportunity to debate it—possibly at some length.
§ Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may support the request of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Such a debate would give right hon. and hon. Members—particularly those whose constituents, like mine in the north-west, are suffering from the loss of their MGN pensions—an opportunity to ask the Opposition to account for the way in which some of their members who were trustees of the MGN fund behaved in a wholly negligent way.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat point could also be raised in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Leaving aside cheap party political propaganda, I put it to you, in all seriousness, that literally millions of people in this country will rely when they retire on occupational pensions. They know that, if anything went wrong, they would lead a life of poverty or near-poverty. Concern about that is likely to spread beyond those immediately affected by the revelations about Robert Maxwell's actions at Mirror Group Newspapers. Would it not be right for the Secretary of State to come to the House to say what steps are being taken to try to ensure that the sort of dishonesty and crookery that went on at MGN is not being repeated elsewhere? The people of this country are entitled to know that.
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot say anything more. If that topic is submitted as a subject for debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I will certainly give it careful consideration. Such a debate would give the hon. Members who have raised those points of order an opportunity to participate, and for a Minister to respond.
§ Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerWhat more can I say?
§ Mr. KingYou kindly reminded the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Consolidated Fund Bill may provide an opportunity to debate the MGN pension fund, but I wonder how far such a debate could go—particularly in respect of references to Mirror Group Newspapers, the Daily Mirror, payments to the Labour party, advertising in Labour party journals, and so on. Would we not be touching on areas that are sub judice, or which are the subject of possible legal action, which may or may not be taken? Would an application for a full debate on Robert Maxwell, Mirror Group Newspapers and the Labour party be permissible?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe shall have to consider the sub judice rule in relation to what is said, but at present I can see nothing sub judice in this matter.
§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a spirit of Christmas unity, may I agree with the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)? A full debate on the issue would indeed be very helpful to us all. It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he wishes to raise a matter that may be embarrassing to his hon. Friends.
Would it not be a good idea, given the suggestion that all these shady capitalist things happen on only one side of the House, to discuss pension funds and how they are to be controlled? Regardless of what company is involved in such matters and of whether it has a socialist supporter, a Conservative supporter or no political supporter at all, it is our duty as a House to enable everyone in the country to feel that his or her pension is well protected.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. Gentleman is called to speak in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill or the Adjournment motion, he could well raise those points then.
§ Mr. Beaumont-DarkI appeal to your Christmas spirit, Mr. Speaker. Will you allow such a debate?
§ Mr. SpeakerThose are not matters for me.
§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark): it does not matter whether those involved in fraud, the rip-off of investors of the misuse of pension funds belong to any political party, or to no political party. There have been plenty of City frauds and scandals involving Conservative supporters. This is just the latest in long line of such scandals, which besmirch the country's financial institutions as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is right to point out that revelations such as these terrify people whose lifelong pension contributions are at the mercy of those responsible for the action taken at Mirror Group Newspapers. It will seem strange to them that the House has not been given the opportunity to hear a statement on the matter, or to debate it. I strongly support my hon. Friend's request for a statement.
§ Mr. SpeakerAny statement is for the Government—what has been said will have been heard by the Home Secretary and other Ministers. As I have said, there will be opportunities for hon. Members to debate this matter during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, if the subject is submitted.
§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerIs it a different point of order?
§ Mr. SpeakerAbsolutely different?
§ Mr. ShawYes, Sir.
Can you say, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be in order, during any debate on the Maxwell group pension fund fiddles, to raise the subject of the fiddles carried out by the Labour Government in 1976—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That point of order seems to be related to the matter that we have just been discussing.
§ Mr. Michael Irvine (Ipswich)rose—
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerNo, I do not think that we need to hear any more points of order. Let me tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that I heard what he said about this matter on Thursday, and I agree with him.