Points of Order (Hansard, 3 March 1993)

§ Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am seeking your ruling on the procedure used by Health Ministers yesterday to announce a record increase in prescription charges without an oral statement on which they could be questioned. The written details purported to be "pursuant to" a written answer to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on 16 February, although the original question did not mention prescription charge rates or prescription charge increases, and it was answered in full.
That practice was condemned by the Select Committee on Procedure in its third report, Session 1990–91, paragraph 129, in which it said: It is hard to see how a matter can be of such urgency that an announcement must be made without prior notice on a particular day, and yet not be of sufficient importance to justify an oral statement to the House. Would you agree, Madam Speaker, that such practice is inherently undesirable and an abuse of the procedures of this House"?

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I am a Member of the Procedure Committee, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has taken the opportunity to emphasise from the Front Bench the points which the Committee made.
You, like your predecessors, have rightly deprecated the custom whereby journalists—indeed, the world at large—are given information by the Government before the House. This is an important announcement, which undoubtedly penalises the sick in our society. It is controversial. What possible justification can there be to give the announcement to the Lobby and the rest of the country and not make an oral statement in the House on which the Secretary of State for Health can be questioned while you are presiding?
If it is too late now, would you make it clear that such statements should be made to the House in future? We should be given the first opportunity; otherwise, the remarks which you and your predecessors made are simply made a mockery of by Ministers—

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I can deal with the point of order.
The written answer given yesterday, which is in columns 95 and 96 of Hansard, is concerned almost entirely with the proposed level of prescription charges for the year 1993–94, and is described as "pursuant to" an answer of 15 February to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), which is at column 162.
I have noted that the Select Committee on Procedure, in its third report of Session 1990–91, stated its belief that the use by Ministers of 'pursuant' answers is inherently undesirable". The report goes on to say: The offence is compounded when…an answer is given which claims to be 'pursuant' to an earlier reply but which in fact has only the most tenuous link with it. As we well know, the House has not yet had the opportunity to debate the Procedure Committee's recommendations on how the practice should be dealt with. But I wish to make it clear that I deprecate the use 302 of the "pursuant" device by Ministers to make written statements such as this without giving proper notice to the House. I hope that that clears up the points of order, and that we can now get on with our business.
Mrs. Ewing, on a separate point of order.

§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)
On a separate point of order arising out of Scottish questions, Madam Speaker. You will know that considerable interest in civil legal aid was expressed during questions. On at least two occasions, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he believed that the cost of civil legal aid in Scotland had doubled in the past five years. That is in direct contradiction of written answers which were provided to me on 12 February.
It is important that such inaccuracies should not be written into our records. Is there something that you can do to ensure that, within the Scottish Office, answers communicated by junior Ministers are relayed to the Secretary of State so that information is accurately recorded in all our records?

§ Madam Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Lady is wily enough and has sufficient imagination to put her point across. It is a matter of policy, not one for me.

§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South)
Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. There can be no further points of order on that matter. I have dealt with it.

§ Mr. Griffiths
On a different point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Is it a separate point of order? Mr. Griffiths: Yes.

§ Madam Speaker
I will hear it, provided that it is a separate point of order.

§ Mr. Griffiths
On the procedures of the House, I fully accept your ruling on the previous point of order—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I have dealt with that. There can be no further point of order on that matter. I have dealt with it adequately. We must now move on.

§ Mr. Griffiths
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Is the hon. Gentleman challenging that ruling? He told me that it was a separate point of order before he got to his feet. I accepted his word as an hon. Gentleman. Is it a separate point of order now?

§ Mr. Griffiths
The Procedure Committee two years ago made a recommendation which the House has not yet had chance to debate. Is it not an indictment of the Government's handling of business that it takes two years for such matters to come before the House? Is that not a way for Ministers to gag the House of Commons on embarrassing statements such as the one on prescription charges?

§ Madam Speaker
I have no doubt that what I said earlier will have been noted. Now perhaps we can—

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. It seems that Members in the last moment or two have ideas in their mind which they 303 can raise as a point of order. Some of them are bogus points of order. I have no intention of letting the House be delayed by bogus points of order. I shall now proceed.

§ Dr. Godman
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Well, I must hear a bit of it to start with.

§ Dr. Godman
I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. May I remind you that, on 26 January, I raised with you in a point of order the advisability of documents which are the basis of ministerial statements being placed in the Vote Office for Members some 30 minutes before the statement is due to be made? You advised me to raise it with the Leader of the House, which I did on 27 January. I have heard no more. Has the Leader of the House been in touch with you on this legitimate point of order?

§ Madam Speaker
It is within my recollection, but it has nothing to do with me.

§ Mr. Philip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be in order for the Opposition to use an Opposition day debate to discuss prescription charges so that Conservative Members can point out that a Labour Government first proposed prescription charges—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. We must get on with the 10-minute rule motion.