§ Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you noticed that, yet again, the Scottish Office has dodged its responsibility to report directly to the Chamber, and that the Minister with responsibility for Scottish housing has instead notified the publication today of the long-awaited Scottish house condition survey by means of a written answer in yesterday's Official Report?
Will you look into the number of occasions on which Scottish Office Ministers have used that device to avoid criticism, in this case for the shocking extent of dampness in Scottish housing, which is causing widespread illness among our children, and consider how to put a stop to that abuse of our country's democratic proceedings?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Lady raises a point of order with me, but, as she knows, it is for the Minister to determine whether to make a statement orally or by means of a written answer. In either case, the information that is provided is available to the House.
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. I sent you a message this morning about a major matter of constitutional importance, and I should like to know whether it is appropriate and necessary to raise it now because of its urgency, or whether it will be in order for me to come back to it?
§ Madam SpeakerI should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would not raise it until I have had an opportunity to look at his long letter and communicate with him.
§ Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker, by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I have tried to find in the Library a copy of the house condition survey, only to be told that none is available and none is in the Vote Office. I have been told that it was posted out to Members through the normal post, and we shall be receiving it shortly.
How can we get a debate in the House on the fact that £2.5 billion has been identified as necessary for repairs to Scottish homes that are below tolerable conditions? It would appear that the Minister is not willing to give time. Is there any other device that we can use to create a debate on that matter?
§ Madam SpeakerWe have Adjournment debates, a Consolidated Fund debate and various other debates coming up which might allow the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter.
§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that Prime Minister's Question Time is central to the operation of our week—increasingly so, now that millions of people watch it on television? Is it not time to reaffirm the basic principle that the point of Prime Minister's Question Time is that it allows right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to ask questions and the Prime Minister to answer them to the best of his abilities?
At least three times today—I am sure that Hansard will show that the number was higher—the Prime Minister's 196 tactic on being asked a question was to respond by asking another question. Can the right hon. Gentleman be informed that, as long as he is Prime Minister, his responsibility is to attempt to answer questions, particularly when they are so fundamental to this country's constitution in reasserting the doctrine that Parliament and the decisions of Parliament are sovereign?
§ Madam SpeakerIt is not for me to answer rhetorical questions. I have noticed in recent months that questions to the Prime Minister and to other Ministers are becoming very long. They remind me of Adjournment debates rather than questions. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will take that to heart and will put questions rather than make long comments that lead to debate.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that European Standing Committee A will tomorrow consider European Document No. COM(93)167—a report on the illegal use of hormones and other substances in meat production, which is a matter of public concern. That document was produced following an inquiry by the European Commission into widespread illegal use of such substances throughout the Community.
Last week the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster assured the House that Whitehall would be opened up. Yesterday, an Agriculture Minister assured me that all the documents relating to the Commission's inquiry in the United Kingdom would be made available to me before tomorrow's debate in Committee.
Following repeated telephone calls today to the private office of the Minister of Food, I am informed that the Cabinet Office has intervened to block the necessary documents being provided to me—in particular, a letter dated October 1991, which is critical to proper consideration of the matters in question by European Standing Committee A tomorrow.
Is it acceptable conduct for Ministers to assure Parliament and individual Members of Parliament that documents will be made available but then for the Cabinet Office to intervene to block their distribution? Would you care to rule on that, Madam Speaker?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman must take up that matter with Ministers again. Of course documents that are required for Committees should be available, and I shall certainly look into that matter.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Successive Speakers have reaffirmed the long tradition of a separation between Parliament and the courts. We all have differing views on Maastricht, and some of them will be expressed on Thursday. However, is it not the case that the final decision on matters such as whether or not the treaty will be ratified by the United Kingdom must be taken by Parliament, not the courts?
Does not yesterday's High Court decision reflect on the authority and importance—particularly the authority—of this House? What authority do the courts have to decide matters that have always been decided by a majority vote of the House of Commons? We should have your ruling as soon as possible, Madam Speaker, so that we may clearly know that the authority that we have always believed this 197 House possesses, be it on major or minor issues, has not been changed and cannot be changed by the courts—unless the House decides otherwise.
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman raises matters that are far too wide-ranging for me to make a ruling without having received any notice that he intended to raise them—and the hon. Gentleman gave me no such notice. As to Thursday's debate, the present situation is that no motion, and therefore no amendment, has yet been tabled. Later, I shall be aware of all the circumstances that affect the position. I will reserve my rulings until then.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)When my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) askecl you, Madam Speaker, about the Prime Minister refusing to answer questions at Question Time, because my hon. Friend wants the Prime Minister to get back to answering questions precisely, you proceeded to answer my hon. Friend's question, not in the manner that he wanted it to be answered but by answering a question that he had not asked. I have come to the conclusion that you have caught the disease that Major has got.
§ Madam SpeakerI hardly think that that is a point of order for me, but if hon. Members give me the opportunity to express an opinion, I am very willing to do so. I repeat that questions and answers in this House are far too long, and that questions that appear on the Order Paper are not reached because of the long questions and answers that precede them.
§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the way that corrections are made to untrue parliamentary answers. An untrue answer was given to me on 23 June, when I was told that our troops had been informed of the dangers of depleted uranium. That answer was corrected on 13 July in a private letter.
At Question Time today the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that I was informed the next day. Could untrue answers be corrected in Hansard? Could we urge Ministers not to double the offence by further untruths—by saying that an answer to an hon. Member was corrected the following day, when the correction was made three weeks later?
§ Madam SpeakerI noticed that the hon. Gentleman was anxious to put a question during Defence Questions. I think that he is now attempting to extend questions and answers on defence matters. Perhaps he will try at a later stage to table another question, so that the matter can be cleared up quickly.