Points of Order (Hansard, 13 February 1995)

§ Dr. David Clark (South Shields)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance? As you know, on Friday last, the Secretary of State for Defence published a report on the official service residences, which resulted in the departure of Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson. That report was highly sanitised and severely edited. It was a shortened report of a larger one which, I understand, cost £100,000. Obviously, because of the brevity, much was omitted; indeed it might be argued that more was concealed than was revealed.
Of particular import to the House, however, is an admission on page 3 of the report, which states: Parliament was given wrong information on two occasions in 1994. Because of the brevity of the report, no mention is made of the occasions on which the House was misled.
We have checked Hansard since early 1994, and on one occasion, there was an admission that wrong information had been given to the House, but not on the second occasion. As the House was wrongly informed, surely it is this House, and this House alone, that must be given the correct information. Will you, Madam Speaker, suggest to the Secretary of State for Defence that he come to the House and give us advice on the occasions and the details of when the House had been misled?

§ Madam Speaker
I have not been informed—

§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
I think that I can clear this up. I have not been told by the Government that they are seeking today to make a statement about the matter, but the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has been extremely helpful to the House. I notice that, on Friday last, he tabled precisely that question to the Secretary of State for Defence, so the entire House will be made aware of the Secretary of State's answer. I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing that.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will remember that, some years ago, the House debated an important and serious issue, the Single European Act, which was about the transfer of many of the House's powers to international institutions outside this country. One of the subjects that was debated, a very important subject on which we got total assurance from Ministers and the Government, was that immigration policy would be a matter for the sovereignty of the House and this country alone. It now appears that there is some ambiguity about that. If powers have been removed from this House and passed on to foreign institutions as a result of misleading information—and I do not pass any blame on anyone for that—how can this House retrieve that power and that sovereignty for the House and for this country?

§ Madam Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman considers carefully today's motion, which we are about to debate, he will find—and I draw all hon. Members' attention to 666 this—that the matter can be raised during today's debate, and that an answer can be obtained from the Minister who is responding to it.

§ Mr. Marlow
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
I doubt that there can be a further point of order when we are debating Europe next.

§ Mr. Marlow
I was asking how, having passed on this power, the House—not the Government—could set about getting it back?

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
I'll tell him. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should not have been taken in by Lady Thatcher.

§ Madam Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pursue the matter by means of questions and debate and, if necessary, by defeating the Government on the issue tonight. That is how the House makes its influence known and that is how it must be done—through the democratic process. Today may be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to use his influence in this matter.

§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 6 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asked the Minister for Railways and Roads about the reported cuts in Transec, the section of the Department of Transport that scrutinises security at ports, airports, the channel tunnel and airports abroad. The Minister said that no front-line security services were to be cut, despite press reports that weekend. Indeed, he made that point twice. He said: There is absolutely no impact on front-line security".—[Official Report, 6 February 1995; Vol.254, c.7.] On Friday, I received a reply to a written question from the Minister for Transport in London to the effect that "inspectorial" and "investigatory staff' were to be cut. Prima facie, that seems to be in complete contradiction to the utterances of the Minister for Railways and Roads earlier in the week. Surely there should be some clarification or a retraction by one of the Ministers so that the House is in no way misled. Has there been any indication from the Ministers that they wish to clarify the position?

§ Madam Speaker
I have looked at the two instances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I do not see that, even inadvertently, the House has been misled. Hon. Members must interpret for themselves what Ministers say and not raise such matters on points of order. If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is an inconsistency, I advise him to pursue the matter with Ministers by means of questions or an Adjournment debate so that he can be clear about the matter if he is not clear at the moment.

§ Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Education said that she intends to make a statement to the House about the Student Loans Company, in view of today's revelation that a new company is to take over the running, of the Student Loans Company's computers and will save the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds? Last year, the National Audit Office investigated the Student Loans 667 Company, which was a shambles, especially with regard to the number of students having to wait inordinate lengths of time—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I do not know what the point of order is for me. It sounds like a point of politics rather than a point of order, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could raise the matter in an Adjournment debate or ask questions of the Secretary of State for Education during Education questions, which come up in about 10 days. I am sure that an attempt will be made to answer them.