§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will remember, at business questions the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I asked the Leader of the House whether he could give us any information on a supposed decommissioning scheme for the fishing industry. The Leader of the House replied that he could give us no such information. The entire Scottish press corps believes that such a statement will be made at 5 o'clock in Scotland by the relevant Minister. Will Government Front Bench Members tell us what is going on? Is there to be a statement or is there not to be a statement? In this pre-election panic, why are the Government so anxious to avoid scrutiny by hon. Members in this Chamber?
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, in reply to me, the Leader of the House suggested that a general conservation package was still being considered. If it is true that a statement is to be made in the next 10 to 15 minutes, it is very unlikely that such a package was still being considered as recently as an hour ago. I have a high regard for the Leader of the House and I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House by suggesting that the Government are at sixes and sevens. At the very least, I know that you, Mr. Speaker, deprecate the idea of making statements to the press when, first and foremost, they should be made in this place.
§ Mr. SpeakerAn opportunity may arise tomorrow if such a statement is made in Scotland.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that during business questions I raised the issue of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food placing 650 letters on the Board. They were all stamped. Normally, hon. Members are limited to six letters on the Board every day. On what basis can the Minister use the Board in that way? It seems quite wrong. Any statement by the Minister can be made at the Dispatch Box. It should not be necessary for Ministers to abuse the facilities of the House in that way. In particular, when we recently considered the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which the Minister voted against, he could have made a statement without filling the Board with material for hon. Members.
The matter is important because, in the period before the election, if every Minister takes the opportunity to spend taxpayers' money in that way, we shall be inundated. I assume that the Minister is using his power to abuse his position. Do the rules apply to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the same way as they apply to other hon. Members, or are Ministers entitled to commit such abuse?
§ Mr. SpeakerI understand that, following an application by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food early this morning stating that letters were required to be delivered urgently today to each Member of the House, they were accepted for handling by the Members' letter board. I am informed that the correct 1140 postage was paid on all those letters, should they need to be forwarded to Members. I have not had an opportunity of studying the letter, but I think this procedure might be examined by the Administration Committee in future.
§ Mr. CryerI am grateful for your response, Mr. Speaker, but I assure you that I have examined the letter —presumably you also received one—and there is absolutely nothing of any urgency about it. That suggests that Officers of the House have been misled by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food claiming that urgency was the key matter in terms of using the internal facilities of the House.
§ Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth)I have a copy here.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not had a chance to read it yet. I can dispose of the matter by saying that I will certainly look into it.
§ Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think I need to hear it. I shall look into the matter now.
§ Mr. NelsonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are looking into the matter—I am grateful for that assurance—the issue on which many hon. Members receive the most correspondence is animal welfare. That excellent and informative letter was very gratefully received by me and many colleagues. It was excellent that the Minister sent it to us.
§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept your assurance. I received that letter early today and I went immediately to the Serjeant at Arms to complain. It is a very important and sensitive matter. Animal welfare is an important subject, but the letter was not urgent. It will simply encumber hon. Members' pockets for the rest of the day. I am sure that most hon. Members will never read it. It might be worth taking that point into account during your consideration.
§ Mr. SpeakerHon. Members sometimes complain that they have not received information before they depart for their constituencies at a weekend, so the matter needs to be balanced. I have no idea how urgent the letter was.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Let us face it, Mr. Speaker—you have not seen the letter, but it was sent to 650 Members of Parliament using first class stamps. That equals £117. One hundred and seventeen quid has been spent by the Ministry—not by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The suggestion was that the Minister paid for it out of his own pocket, but he did not. It has come out of the taxpayer's pocket. The letter states that the Government have great concern about animal welfare, but they did not think about that when we debated the Bill to get rid of fox hunting. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food talks about furry animals: he was stuffing a dead furry animal down his son's throat on the telly.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that we had better move on.