Points of Order (Hansard, 24 November 1993)

§ Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could assist the House on a point of real confusion and difficulty. I refer to printed papers of the House that were sent yesterday to hon. Members on both sides of the House who are members of the Select Committee on Transport, I do not wish to detain the House, but to make the point of order, it is necessary to quote briefly from the paper, as I understand it is in order to do.
The supplementary estimate for 1993–94 states: This supplementary estimate is sought to increase provision for current expenditure on royal travel to cover revised expenditure forecasts with a corresponding decrease in the provision for Government support of British Rail pension funds. In other words, the authors of that official document of the House made the clear link between taking £730,000 away from the British Rail pension fund to supply it to royal travel and grant audit". Another document covering the same subject was placed in the Library. I have no other way of putting it but to say that that doctored version of the same document sought to obfuscate the link between the money taken from the British Rail pension fund and given, extraordinarily, to the royal train. The two points were broken.
One half of the earlier statement became point 1, which is: Increased provision for current expenditure on royal travel to cover revised expenditure forecasts"; and the other half became point 5: Provision for Government support of British Rail pension funds". The fact that £730,000 was being transferred from one heading to another was being deliberately and cynically disguised.
My point of order is this, Madam Speaker. There is a widespread belief, both inside and outside this place, that at least one of the major objectives of the whole unwanted rail privatisation procedure is for the Government to get their hands on the British Rail pension fund surplus in order to use it for other purposes. This document—this deception—will feed those fears.
I have two requests, Madam Speaker. First, I ask you to seek clarification of why the two documents were, respectively, sent to Members of Parliament and placed in the Library; secondly, I ask you to protect the interests of the House, railway pensioners and everyone in the country who wants to see the end of the Railways Bill by asking the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House and answer for the deception that he attempted, which has been ameliorated only by the incompetence of his Department.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I think that I can deal with the point of order, unless hon. Members can put a fresh complexion on it.

§ Mr. Stephen Milligan (Eastleigh)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The charge made last night by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), and repeated today by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), is extremely grave and affects many of my constituents. It seems to be based on a genuine misunderstanding of the document.
460 However, as the British Rail pension fund has today made it clear that not a penny has been filched, as has been alleged—it is perfectly clear that there has been a mistake—-and as the Secretary of State has made it clear that this is nonsense, may we have an early discussion of the matter to give Opposition Members a chance to apologise for the unnecessary concern that they have caused to pensioners?

§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have had a discussion with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan), who is rather better informed now than he was before and whose remarks are rather more considered than they were earlier.
We are in an extraordinary position. The Select Committee on Transport is in session at this very moment; I left it to make this point of order. We have two documents. One, which we received yesterday, told us that there was a correlation between the increase in the money given to the royal train and the decrease in the money given to the pension fund. The other document, which we received from the Library a few weeks ago, does not make that point at all. It seems to me that in this case the House, rather than the Select Committee, has been misled.
The accompanying documents make it crystal clear that three quarters of a million pounds has been taken from the British Rail pension fund allocation and added to the royal travel fund. Many of us would say that, if spare money is floating about, we can think of many causes—in transport and elsewhere—that need it more than the royal train. At a time when the Government are threatening to take money from the unemployed and the sick, it is an outrage that three quarters of a million pounds should be given to the royal train, which will cost £2.5 million in a single year.

§ Madam Speaker
Let me respond to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who first raised the point of order, and to other hon. Members who clearly have an interest in the matter.
As the hon. Gentleman will understand, I have not seen the papers to which he referred, or the supporting documents that he mentioned; they are not in front of me. I know, however, that the authentic version of the supplementary estimates is the one that has been deposited in the Votes and Proceedings office. I will, of course, look into the suggestion that some versions of the estimates may not be consistent with the original. I must satisfy myself on that point, and I will come back to the hon. Gentleman when I have done so.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it not be helpful, and clear the matter up completely, if any one of those 10 Ministers sitting on the Front Bench came to the Dispatch Box now to clarify the position? Then we could have the issue out, and establish that in no circumstances will £730,000, or any other sum, be taken out of the British Rail pension fund to subsidise the royal train—and, what is more, the Queen should have to subsidise the train herself instead of calling on the British people. She has plenty of money.

§ Madam Speaker
I am sure that the House will appreciate that the point of order was originally made to me. I will deal with it in a serious and sensible manner.