§ Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I very rarely raise a point of order, but I do so today on an issue of considerable importance. May I respectfully ask whether you have received a request from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), to whom I have given proper written notice of my intention to refer to him this afternoon, to make a statement about issues that he has raised in public on matters that are the proper concern of the Lord Justice Scott inquiry? It has been very much in the style of his recent unsubstantiated allegations on a whole range of topics and of statements that he had made that subsequently have been proved to be false. I refer to what the hon. Gentleman said in this place:
I believe that self-governing trusts … are patently designed to pave the way for the privatisation of the Health Service."—[Official Report, 13 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 339.]As the House knows, that is totally untrue. Is there any reason to suppose that the hon. Gentleman's statement in connection with matters to be inquired into by Lord Justice Scott will not also prove to be other than false?
§ Madam SpeakerI think that I can deal with that point of order. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has not been in touch with me about these matters. As the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) knows, it is not a point of order, or a matter that the Chair of this House can deal with.
§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)rose—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I hope that this is a fresh point of order and not the same point of order.
§ Madam SpeakerVery well.
§ Mr. FlynnYou will be aware, Madam Speaker, of the long-stated concern of many Back Benchers about the need for parliamentary scrutiny of the secret intelligence service and MI5. There is news today that a committee is to be set up, but the suggestion is that it will not be directly answerable to Parliament. Given today's further allegation that MI5 has been spying on a member of the royal family, is not it crucial that a statement is made in the House and that the body that is established is directly answerable to the House?
§ Madam SpeakerNo Minister or Department has informed me that they wish to make a statement.
§ Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm the deadline by which the subject for today's Opposition day debate had to be with your office? My understanding is that it was by close of business on Friday. If so, it seems a little puzzling that I have listened over the weekend to various Liberal Democrat spokesmen saying how they would rather debate Matrix Churchill and the Scott inquiry than the subject that has been chosen. Will you confirm that this is not censorship on your part, Madam Speaker, but incompetence on theirs?
§ Madam SpeakerThere has been no censorship on my part; and I have been far too busy over the weekend to listen to the radio or to watch television.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the guardian of hon. Members's rights, will you, Madam Speaker, deprecate the failure of Departments to answer questions tabled by Members? Last Thursday, I tabled 10 written questions to the Foreign Office and the Home Office about the impact of visas on Bosnian nationals. To date, I have not received even a holding reply. Would it be in order for the Minister speaking in tonight's debate on Bosnia to make it clear whether the 180 nationals who have been invited to this country by the Leeds-based organisation Alert will be granted visas so that they can enter this country for medical treatment and for the other urgent reasons why they need to come here?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is up to the Minister at the Dispatch Box to make whatever speech he wishes to make. If he wishes to declare such matters, that is entirely up to him. It would not be for me to withhold any information or statement that a Minister wanted to make. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's point on parliamentary questions will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and he will receive an answer shortly.
§ Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance on how hon. Members can obtain an early opportunity to debate public interest immunity, especially in the light of the public statement made by defence counsel in the Matrix Churchill case that Ministers acted honourably—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. These are matters for the Leader of the House at business questions on Thursday.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been announced that the Scott inquiry will go ahead, but its terms of reference have not been published—I checked with the Library before coming into the Chamber. Will there be some opportunity for the terms of reference to be debated in the House before the inquiry is set up? It will be extremely unfortunate if its terms of reference are rather narrow. The House will not have the opportunity of discussing the terms of reference, and if evidence is submitted Lord Justice Scott and his colleagues can argue that they cannot deal with it because it is outside the inquiry's terms of reference. Will we be in a position to debate the terms of reference and, if so, when?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I refer him to the fact that it is for the Leader of the House to determine whether there will be a debate or a statement on the subject. It is not a matter for the Chair.
§ Sir Malcolm Thornton (Crosby)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be able to help me and other hon. Members. I understand what you said to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) about the competency of the Chair in these matters. However, we are subjected almost daily to a barrage of allegations about hon. Members by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). In the past, such allegations have been totally destroyed when he has had to appear on television, for example, to justify them. Can you 21 help us on the matter? Is there any way in which you can ensure that the allegations are made in the House to enable hon. Members to question the hon. Member for Livingston? If he has something to say, he should say it here where other hon. Members can comment on it.
§ Madam SpeakerOur rules and procedures are not being abused in any way. The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is no, I have no authority in those matters.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In respect of questions about Saddamgate, we appreciate that there will be difficulties about what the Table Office will accept. One of the points I have been trying to get in the form of a question is how many Cabinet Ministers are involved in trying to pervert the course of justice. The Table Office is not very happy about taking—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I shall deal with it. I am not interested in any speeches that he may want to make.
§ Mr. SkinnerAt the end of the day, all questions are a matter for you, Madam Speaker. If the Table Office says no, we can ask whether you are prepared to accept the question. If you are not prepared to accept my question —the way in which you jumped up suggested that you are not very happy about it—may we ask how many Cabinet Ministers are in the Saddamgate loop? That is the vital question today.
§ Madam SpeakerIt very much depends on how the hon. Gentleman phrases questions. To quote a famous phrase, he should try harder.
§ Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want you to think that I am not interested in the debates on homelessness and on Bosnia. However, further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), I clearly heard through the media at the weekened the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, say that he was forced to have a debate on those subjects and not on Iraqgate as he wanted. May we have your assurance that no pressure has been put: on you to prevent a debate on Iracigate? That will expose the scandalous lies that have been—[Interruption.] I withdraw that term.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. This is getting repetitive. Nobody puts pressure on me, either in the Chair or anywhere else.
§ Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to the answer you gave the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), may I ask you to clarify one issue? If an hon. Member deals in a distortion of documents, and peddles those distortions to the press, when the documents are clearly going to be the subject of a proper inquiry, will you rule it in order for Conservative Members to table early-day motions relating to that fact and to those distortions?
§ Madam SpeakerHon. Members must frame their early-day motions. I shall then look at them carefully.
§ Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the question of documents, it is well within the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has made something of a speciality of dealing in leaked documents of one sort or another. Will you advise the House on the proper relationship between an hon. Member and members of the civil service, especially in light of the hon. Gentleman's experience? On one well catalogued occasion, he used a document that had come from a civil servant via his adviser. Is that behaviour to be deprecated or to be applauded by the Chair?
§ Madam SpeakerThe page number of "Erskine May" escapes me at the moment. I am sure that the lion. Gentleman knows that the Speaker does not give such guidance and information across the Floor of the Chamber.
§ Mr. Jimmy Boyce (Rotherham)Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the terms of reference of the Scott inquiry, I raised the same point of order last week and you, Madam Speaker, told me that I had overestimated your powers. I believe that this issue goes to the heart of democracy in this country. If you do not have the power, Madam Speaker, can you advise me, as a new hon. Member, how we can get to the bottom of the matter, given that people are hiding behind the Attorney-General's skirts and he is going to drop the terms of reference—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The terms of reference of an inquiry are not a matter for the Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerIf the hon. Gentleman and the House feel that they should be, then by all means alter our rules and procedure and give me that authority which I do not have at the moment—but not today.