Points of Order (Hansard, 15 February 1994)

§ Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your ruling on the fact that the Secretary of State for Health has declined to make a statement to the House on the 50p increase in prescription charges. The Leader of the House effectively made a statement in Prime Minister's Question Time on the same issue and misled the House into believing that the Government were applying the money to patient care rather than to make up for their political incompetence. Is not it a disgrace that the Government should duck the opportunity to make a clear statement on the increase, which is the 16th increase since they promised in 1979 that they would not increase prescription charges?

§ Madam Speaker
Ministers always determine whether they answer by means of a written reply or come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement. That is something over which I, as Speaker, have no control.

§ Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am seriously concerned that a Minister has misled the House and I seek your general guidance. Last night on the "World in Action" programme, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the Minister for Health, categorically denied that there was a two-tier system, saying that he had no evidence that such a system was developing in the NHS. The Minister has made the same statement to the House. The programme went on to produce evidence that a two-tier system exists. It showed, for example, that radiotherapy patients were treated, not on the basis of need, but on the ability to pay through GP fundholding. Has the Minister said whether he intends to make a statement to the House to acknowledge that the two-tier system exists and to admit that he has misled the House?

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Lady would not expect me to comment on something that was on television last night and which I did not even see. It is up to the Minister to decide whether he wishes to come to the House to make a statement. It is not a point of order for me.

§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that it has never been the practice to have oral statements in the House on prescription charges, either under the Conservative Government or the previous Labour Government, who were always deeply embarrassed by increasing prescription charges?

§ Madam Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Official Report tomorrow he will see that the Leader of House has dealt with that matter.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are, of course, aware of the severe weather affecting most of the country. In view of the agonising difficulties faced by so many elderly people on low incomes, is there any way that the House can this week ask the Minister to make a statement on whether cold weather payments can be made and all the red tape regulations removed? Those payments are not made unless there are seven days of freezing weather. The welfare of the old should have priority.

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman asks me for procedural advice across the Floor of the House which he knows that I do not give.

§ Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale)
Further to the original point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the press to hear about the proposed rise in prescription charges before the House? Would it not have been better if the Secretary of State had come and made a statement so that we could have questioned her on the subject?

§ Madam Speaker
I dealt with that matter earlier. I believe that the answer to the question was available at precisely 3.30 pm today.

§ Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have received a fax of a letter sent to the leader of Liverpool city council, Councillor Harry Rimmer, by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield 806 (Sir N. Fowler) in which he invites him to join the organisation, Team 1000. He has been invited to attend functions and briefings at Westminster at which Cabinet Members, Ministers and Members of Parliament will be present. Is it in order for Ministers of the Crown to abuse their office by inviting people here for party fund-raising purposes?

§ Madam Speaker
The fax was sent by a Back-Bench Member of the House, not a Minister. I receive all sorts of mail shots inviting me to all manner of functions, all of which find their way into the waste paper basket.

§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At Question Time today, the Leader of House said that the Prime Minister had made a further statement on the "back to basics" policy. We are told that that theme has permeated the whole of Government policy since the Prime Minister's speech to the party conference last October. Therefore, is it not time that the Prime Minister was asked not to give statements to correspondents and at press conferences, but to make a statement to the House about that policy? He should, at the very least, place a copy of his speech and his thinking on the "back to basics" policy in the Library.

§ Madam Speaker
The Prime Minister is normally here a couple of times a week to answer questions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch my eye soon so that he can put his question to the Prime Minister.

§ Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that a major announcement in connection with rail privatisation is being made at this moment by way of a written answer and a press conference. The statement will reveal a huge increase in access charges for railway operators and, ultimately, huge increases in costs for taxpayers and passengers. The announcement has been delayed by almost a year; the firm of Coopers and Lybrand has been paid £1.6 million to come up with the access-charging fiasco. Surely, the House is as entitled as the press to a full statement of Government intentions so that—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I ruled on that matter in answer to an earlier point of order. It is for Ministers to determine whether they make announcements by means of written answers or through oral statements. It is something over which I have no control. I have already made a ruling on that.

§ Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there some form of sanction that the Chair can take against hon. Members who persistently raise bogus points of order?

§ Madam Speaker
It is a very good question, but I fear not. It is up to individual hon. Members to exercise restraint and to use the procedures of the House properly and correctly, not abuse them.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand what you say about Ministers determining whether they make announcements by means of an oral statement or a written answer, but surely the Speaker has the power, if he or she so determines, to summon a Minister, especially if there is pressure in Parliament to require a Minister to make a statement here. That must be right; otherwise how could 807 Speaker Lenthall have told the King that the Speaker could be instructed only by Parliament? Surely Ministers are inferior, not superior, to Parliament and to the Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
As the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, the Speaker of the House has no authority whatever to demand that Ministers come here to make statements. It is for Ministers themselves to decide whether they do that, and the Speaker has no authority in so determining.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We understand that the Tory Whips are busily arranging marriages for certain Conservative Members. If such marriages were arranged, would it be in order for them to be performed in St. Stephen's Crypt?

§ Madam Speaker
That is barely a point of order for me—and on that note we pass on to the presentation of Bills.