§ Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. An attempt was made by a Minister and a Conservative Back Bencher to attribute to me ideas which I have never propounded. I have made my views clear to the House and to yourself, Madam Speaker, and they are on record in Hansard. I cannot use the word "liar", but how else can I describe somebody who continues to promote an untruth?
May I suggest to the Minister, through you, Madam Speaker, that he tries to attribute those ideas to me directly outside of the House? I cannot make my views more clear. They are on record in Hansard,s and I think that all hon. Members should read that record and note what I said.
§ Madam SpeakerAs the hon. Member knows, that is not a point of order for me. It is a question of dispute, which has now been dealt with.
§ Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any request from a Minister to make a statement regarding the circumstances of Mr. Asil Nadir's departure from the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom? This is a matter of great importance for the ability of this country to prosecute serious City fraud, and I believe that a statement should be made by the relevant Government Minister. I see that the Foreign Secretary is in the Chamber and I wonder whether he would be able to say something on the Government's behalf.
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is referring to the man in question as if he has already been found guilty. That he must not do. As to the hon. Gentleman's question, I have not been approached by any Minister wishing to make a statement on the issue.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If, as a result of the case of Mr. Asil Nadir, there should be any legislation before the House, will you give a ruling on whether any Conservative Member would be allowed to vote, in view of the very large number of donations which Mr. Nadir has given to the Conservative party, and which provides them with a direct pecuniary interest in his case?
§ Madam SpeakerWhenever there is any legislation before the House and individual Members have a financial interest, the hon. Gentleman knows that they must declare that interest.
§ Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) that I was going to raise with you the fact that last week a constituent of mine received from him a letter begging for funds on behalf of the Danish "no" campaign, which he argued was going bust. My constituent was offered the additional incentive that, if she donated £50, she would be sent, free, a copy of one of his books on Europe, worth £14. My constituent wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston only last November in favour of the Maastricht treaty, not against, and received this letter——
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must not argue the case but come to the point of order for me.
§ Dr. HampsonMy point of order is that this letter was part of a large-scale operation asking for funds on behalf of the Danes and it was sent on House of Commons notepaper in a pre-paid House of Commons envelope. My hon. Friend is one of those who is among the first to decry wasteful use of taxpayers' money on European ventures and my constituent would like your assistance, Madam Speaker, in getting back some of our money.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I note that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) is rising to put a point of order. I shall hear him before responding.
§ Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for having been given notice that the matter would he raised. but unfortunately that notice arrived only a short time ago, and I have yet to see the Leeds letter in question. But I have received a huge amount of correspondence from the public about my views on Maastricht and about how I have voted.
I have sought to reply to all of them, but, because there have been so many, I have had to respond by means of a standard letter—[interruption.] I have in my pocket a copy of that standard letter. Almost all the letters—in fact, I think all of them without exception—sought my advice about what people could do about the Maastricht Bill——
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I now understand the point of order. I must tell the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) that I cannot guarantee that his constituents will get their money refunded. Indeed, contents of letters are not a matter for me. But the use of House of Commons stationery for such an appeal is a matter for the Administration Committee, and I have already referred it to the Serjeant at Arms. I shall hear no further points of order on that matter. I have now dealt with it.
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter relating to the rights of the House consequent on three ministerial answers that I received. While the content of the answers is not a matter for you, their effects on the rights of the House is, which is why I make this submission to you.
I put down three questions to the Secretary of State for Social Services relating to the cost to the Exchequer of certain payments and expenditure of the Benefits Agency. One related to the Benefits Agency funding examinations by private well person clinics for all staff aged over 35. Another was about the cost to the Exchequer of the Benefits Agency requiring staff during the past 18 months to work
at time and a half and double time, plus travelling expenses, for the purpose of making up the backlog of disability living allowance cases.The third was about the cost to the Exchequer of the activity of the Benefits Agency in providing its staff with corporate clothing, whatever that might be.I received a response to the first question from the junior Minister at the Department which. while not a full 189 reply, provided me with the information that I requested, which was the cost to the Exchequer, which was £2.1 million.
In relation to the other two questions, which were in precisely the same form, the Minister of State in one case and the junior Minister in the other refused to give me that information and said instead that it was a matter for the notorious and ineffable Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, who would be writing to me.
Two matters arise, Madam Speaker, one more important than the other. The first is why, in relation to three questions put in identical form, the information is provided in response to one but refused in response to the other two.
The second is that this House votes supply. The Exchequer, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers, is responsible to the House, and only Ministers have the duty and responsibility of explaining to the House how supply is spent through the Exchequer. Yet in this case they have decided to ask an over-paid errand boy, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, to reply on a matter which is the responsibility of the House and on which it is the duty of a Minister to reply to the House.
Therefore, I ask you, Madam Speaker, to advise me on how we can prevent the Government from delegating ministerial responsibility to the House to a person who is not responsible to the House of Commons.
§ Madam SpeakerI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I must make it clear to him—I hope once and for all, as I have dealt with such matters before on his behalf—that I have no responsibility for ministerial answers or for refusals to answer. The right hon. Gentleman raised the general issue in an Adjournment debate, and if he wishes to take the matter further or make further submissions he may care to contact the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, which has taken an interest in the status of agencies. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that it is not a matter for me.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I understand it, all citizens are or should be equal before the law and no one should he in a privileged position because he has donated to the party in office—even if he has donated £440,000.
In view of the considerable public disquiet over what has happened, what steps can hon. Members take to obtain a statement from the Government on the disappearance of Mr. Asil Nadir, who was facing serious charges? Apparently, his passport had been taken away and he was due to report daily to a police station—he has simply disappeared. A lot of money is owing to his creditors—some of it was donated to the Tory party without being put on the company accounts.
In view of the public disquiet, what can be done to obtain a statement from the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary on that individual and how he has fled the country?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman, who has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, knows that I do not give procedural advice across the Floor of the House. He knows the ways of the House and does not have to seek information from the Chair on how to proceed in order to obtain the information that he wants.
§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry that I was not able to give notice of my point of order, but it was prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and is a general point of order.
It relates to your previous references to the misuse of parliamentary notepaper and official stamped envelopes. You may remember when, in December, I raised an issue involving my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I am sorry to raise the matter again, but surely the crucial issue is not that the stationery was used to reply to letters, but that unsolicited letters were sent to people whose names and addresses—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. That is not a point of order. I have seen the letter and satisfied myself as to what it is all about.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)I think that somebody should try to give you some assistance on this, Madam Speaker——
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I am willing to hear it, but I need little assistance from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
§ Mr. SkinnerDuring the past 10 minutes, blood has been flying across from Tory Benches as Tory Members have been fighting like Kilkenny cats. I want to know whether you will give permission to the Services Committee or whoever to make a splash apron to place across the front of the Opposition Benches to keep the blood away.
§ Madam SpeakerNo, but I shall give authority for the hon. Gentleman to have a bullet-proof vest if he wishes.
§ Mr. Eric Clarke (Midlothian)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to Scottish Question Time, when four out of five Tory Back Benchers each asked two questions? I have been patiently waiting as I am 34th on the list and have a question to ask about a health issue. Could you be more fair in your asking of questions to all those involved?
§ Madam SpeakerI very much resent the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I seek an apology from him right now.
§ Mr. ClarkeI did not mean, Madam Speaker, that you were being unfair—I apologise for that. I am just voicing—not very well—the anger and frustration from which we suffer because of people stealing time from us.
§ Madam SpeakerI think that what the hon. Gentleman suffers from is a great bout of frustration, but he knows as well as the House knows that I deal very fairly with all questions, including Scottish questions. If he has any further complaints, I seriously suggest that he put down a substantive motion. I doubt that he will do that; if he looks at the record, I think that he will shy away from doing so.
§ Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)On a point of order, Madam Speaker, arising out of Scottish questions this afternoon. For some time, from early March onwards, Opposition Members have been endeavouring to secure information about the terms of the agreement reached between Her Majesty's Government and the 191 parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party. The Government have steadfastly refused to provide that information; this afternoon we were told that it was confidential. I understand that point, although I do not go along with it, because I believe in open government.
The Secretary of State then said that the Scottish National party had failed to honour the terms of the agreement reached, and that, in the circumstances, no such agreement now existed. I hope that I understand the position correctly. If I do, I feel that the matter ought to be pursued, because the SNP has written to all its councillors in Scotland, and there has been a great deal of press briefing. It is clear that, yet again, the Scottish people have been misled, and I hope to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
§ Madam SpeakerThat is hardly a point of order for me. It is more a matter of the hon. Gentleman seeking to extend Scottish Question Time.
§ Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the fifth Member of the five referred to by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), and despite having bounced up and down like a peerie during Scottish Question Time, am I to suppose that there is something wrong with me, since I have not been called a second time?
§ Madam SpeakerThe House appears to be in very good spirits this afternoon.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. As Ministers are clearly most reluctant to make a statement about Mr. Nadir, would it be in order to table questions to the Home Secretary asking what bail conditions applied, whether his passport was held by the police, and most particularly whether Group 4 was involved in this fiasco?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is again asking for procedural advice. He knows how to proceed.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Leaving aside the neurosis—indeed, the paranoia—of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsysth (Mr. Hogg) who, as a former Whip, well knows that many discussions and negotiations take place in this House, will you, Madam Speaker, accept that the Scottish National party has always been very open about its discussions on the Committee of the Regions and the Maastricht treaty, and on how we view our future in Europe?
Would you therefore agree that, when a Privy Councillor gives his word that negotiatons are worth pursuing and worth fulfilling but that is not subsequently followed through, it must be a matter of resignation for the Privy Councillor concerned?
§ Madam SpeakerI think that that is a matter for the Privy Councillor himself to determine.
§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As to the Asil Nadir case, for those of us who know something about the history of Cyprus—that is to say, not many Members of this House—[Interruption.] You are all bloody ignorant about it.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman should not let his audience detract from his point of order to me.
§ Mr. FauldsI am an old man, and I occasionally get impatient at the stupidity of my colleagues on both sides of the House.
Is it not a fact that, if the British Government had taken appropriate action when Archbishop Makarios aborted the constitution—[Interruption.] try to learn—of the Republic of Cyprus in 1963, and if the British Government had had the guts to take any action in 1974, when there was an attempted coup in southern Cyprus, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be recognised, and there would be no problem about the return of Asil Nadir?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time. He knows that that is not a point of order for me, but a political comment. We must now proceed.