Points of Order (Hansard, 11 June 1993)

§ Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to serious developments over the past 24 hours in the debate on the future of invalidity benefit—[Interruption.] I should like to make my point of order before the claque start to shout. These are serious developments for the future of invalidity benefit and the welfare state. We now know that fundamental changes—I think that is understating it—are contemplated to invalidity benefit eligibility with the intention of making sure that 20 per cent. of those who presently qualify will not qualify in future for the level of benefits—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. What is the point of order?

§ Mr. Dewar
I shall, of course, come to it, but it is important to outline the basis upon which I seek your help. We know that eligibility and the level of benefits are to be attacked and that taxation is to be imposed—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I am trying to listen to the hon. Gentleman whose point of order must be to me and must not give long explanations. He obviously wants to know whether our Standing Orders or our procedures are being abused. That is what points of order are about and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will come to the point right away.

§ Mr. Dewar
I will indeed, Madam Speaker. It is my understanding of at least the courtesies and probably the rules of the House that if repeated statements are totally incompatible with subsequent events—and that is true in terms of what the Prime Minister said in Wednesday's debate and what the Secretary of State for Social Security has repeatedly said—the proper course is for those who are responsible, for whatever reason, for misleading the House to come to the House and put the matter right at the first possible opportunity.
It is most important for the House and in terms of the anxieties, which cannot now be seen as groundless, among those who are in receipt of invalidity benefit, for an early statement to be made about the incompatibility, the yawning gap, between assurances that were offered and the reality of what is happening.

§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for an Opposition Member to allege that Ministers made misleading statements to the House when Ministers have spoken about what is in the national interest, namely, that a proper public expenditure review is being carried out and that nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out? Invalidity benefit cost about £800 million in 1979–80 and now costs—

§ Madam Speaker
Order.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats. I can adequately deal with the point of order by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The hon. Gentleman finally asked whether a Minister was coming to the House to make a statement. I have not been 569 told that a Minister is coming to the House this morning to make any statement. That is the end of that point of order and we shall now proceed with the debate.

§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Is it a different point of order?

§ Sir Peter Emery
Yes.

§ Madam Speaker
In that case I must listen.

§ Sir Peter Emery
Can we not assist the Chair by ensuring that points of order are made properly and not abused in a way that seems to make your task more difficult? Surely all Front-Bench speakers should set an example and not attempt to abuse points of order.

§ Madam Speaker
I am always more than delighted when an hon. Member seeks to assist the Chair. That seldom happens to me.

§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)
I hope to do precisely that in my point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it correct that the procedures of the House put you and hon. Members in a somewhat anomalous position on Fridays, in that we are not allowed on that day to ask for an emergency debate on the Monday under Standing Order No. 20? That sometimes leads to ingenious points of order which are to your embarrassment and to ours. Bearing in mind the genuine concern expressed by the Opposition, may I, through you, ask Ministers who are present to relay to their colleagues in the Department of Social Security the Opposition request for, if not a debate, at least a statement on Monday?

§ Madam Speaker
I need hardly draw the attention of the House to the fact that two members of the Procedure Committee are present in the Chamber. I want no more points of order about procedure because I have dealt with that and we are about to return to an important debate.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Is it on a different matter?

§ Mr. Barnes
Yes.

§ Madam Speaker
In that case I shall listen to it.

§ Mr. Barnes
It is about your authority in terms of what appears in or what is missing from Hansard. I asked a question about standard spending assessments being listed for England and they have been listed in detail per head of population, but not in Hansard. They have been placed in the Library, although Hansard often gives long answers involving detailed lists. The matter is important for Derbyshire because most of the authorities there, apart from Derby itself, fall in the middle or in the bottom part 570 of the league table. It would be of great interest to my constituents to know that North-East Derbyshire is 295th out of 296 authorities. All the other authorities in what might be called the doughnut of Derbyshire have been established by the local government boundary commission and are abysmally low in the table. They include the authority in Derbyshiredale—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman's point of order is becoming a debate but I think that I understand his point. It is at the discretion of Ministers whether a lengthy answer—and the hon. Gentleman recognises that the one he mentions is lengthy—is printed in Hansard. or made available in the Library.

§ Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Is it a different point of order?

§ Mr. Mandelson
Yes. What is your authority and what are your powers to represent hon. Members who seek to question Ministers, in my case the Prime Minister? Before the Whitsun recess I put a question to the Prime Minister which was answered on his behalf by the Leader of the House. It was about Government proposals to introduce charges for hospital stays. On behalf of the Prime Minister, who was unavoidably detained with Her Majesty the Queen unveiling a statue, the Leader of the House gave an answer that was at variance with an answer by the Prime Minister on a previous occasion on the same subject.
I subsequently wrote to the Prime Minister asking where the truth lay in this matter and asked who spoke authoritatively for the Government, whether it was the Prime Minister on the former occasion or the Leader of the House subsequently. Despite the amount of time that has elapsed, the Prime Minister has not responded to my letter. I understand that the Prime Minister is preoccupied with the present—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I have the hon. Gentleman's point. If he wishes to pursue the matter he could do so by way of further questions. I am sure that he will understand, as the House does, that I am not responsible for ensuring that letters are answered by the Prime Minister's office. I have a big enough jolt in my own office seeing that my letters are answered and I want no further responsibilities in that respect.
Before I call the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) to resume his speech, I must tell the House that a number of hon. Members are hoping to speak in the debate. I have been generous in allowing quite a long time for the private notice question. It was important and I wanted to allow sufficient time. I hope that I will now have the co-operation of hon. Members in not speaking for too long and in exercising self-restraint so that I can call all those who wish to speak.