Points of Order (Hansard, 10 May 1993)

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
You will recollect, Madam Speaker, that in the past few months, and particularly a week ago, you had various points of order arising out of what was, parliamentary-wise, in order in relation to Lord Justice Scott and his report. I apologise for not giving you warning of this point of order, but I went to the Scott inquiry at 1 Buckingham gate this morning to see Mrs. Presiley Baxendale QC and others cross-questioning a witness from the Ministry of Defence, Mr. Christopher Sandars. It was quite clear from what was to a layman a very impressive examination that this is an inquiry that will go on for many months. I do not doubt that Lord Justice Scott will take extreme care about this inquiry, as indeed the House of Commons expects of him.
The point of order for you is this. In the light of what you said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and me, and other Members, on previous occasions, could you reflect on whether the House of Commons should be anaesthetised from asking questions about this whole area that is within the remit of Lord Justice Scott so long as this inquiry goes on, because that would mean that we could not ask meaningful questions for perhaps a year?

§ Madam Speaker
I have explained to the hon. Gentleman earlier, but he probably has not understood me, that there is no sub judice rule whatsoever in terms of the inquiry. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is nodding very wisely, and he understands. I have said this many times in the House. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will take a look at Hansard, he will see that I have spelt this out extremely clearly on more than one occasion.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Last Thursday, Madam Speaker, you told my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche): There can be no Government responsibility for finance given to a political party."—[Official Report, 6 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 282.] May I seek your guidance arising from what you said at the time, although obviously the situation has changed somewhat? Yesterday in the Sunday Express, a former treasurer of the Conservative party, Lord McAlpine, said that Mr. Nadir had come to him and said that he had been very good to the Conservative party; that they were the Government and could help him. He added: I have given millions for the Conservative party"—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Let the hon. Member be heard.

§ Mr. Winnick
My point of order, Madam Speaker, is simply this. Since substantial sums of money were given to the party in office, obviously to buy influence, would it be possible—[Interruption.] We cannot be heckled and shouted down, I hope, Madam Speaker. Would it therefore be possible for hon. Members to make a passing reference to the subject of the finances of the Conservative party? I have already brought to your notice what you said last Thursday. I hope that that can now be amended and that, if we make a passing reference to the substantial sums of money that Mr. Nadir gave to the Conservative—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I have got the hon. Gentleman's point of order. The Conservative party is not the Government.—[Interruption.] Order. If hon. Members will reflect on this, they will perfectly understand. The Government have no responsibility for the activities of the Conservative party. The hon. Member knows this full well, as a member of the Procedure Committee. He often reminds the House that he is a member of that Committee. I must remind him now what the procedures are. There is no responsibility, in terms of the Government, for a political party.

§ Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier, we had questions about the freedom of the press. Would it be in order when discussing that subject to refer to the donations by Mr. Maxwell to the Labour party?

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On several occasions recently, you have deprecated the fact that Ministers have made statements on television before making them to the House. We know that, this morning, there was an important meeting of senior Ministers at Downing street, arising out of the debacle last Thursday in the local government elections. A projection based on the returns in those elections suggests that, in a general election, nine of the 10 parliamentary seats in Derbyshire would return Labour Members. Would it not be right and proper today, as we are discussing the Finance Bill, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and the rest of the ragbag Tory Government to explain their conduct and tell the British people that they will resign, so that we can have a general election?

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a point of order for the Chair. As is often the case, he is taking advantage of the time of the House.