Points of Order (Hansard, 28 March 1995)

Several hon. Members
On a point of order.

§ Madam Speaker
Let me see how many hon. Members want to raise points of order, then I shall know where to go first. All those who were not called at Question Time, is that right?

§ Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton)
On a serious point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and in view of the recent decision by the BBC to broadcast four hours of debate from the Labour party conference on clause IV, just before the district council elections, have you received any notification from the BBC that, to balance the situation, it intends to broadcast four hours of Conservative speeches; or do you intend to launch an inquiry into this very serious issue?

§ Madam Speaker
That is not a point of order for me.

§ Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley)
Last Thursday, Madam Speaker, you curtailed debate on 1'affaire Cantona, under the sub judice rule. Will you look into the sub judice rule, because, since last Thursday and, indeed, before, throughout the case, there were breaches of that rule by the press and the sound media? In fact, over the weekend, journalists have been suggesting what might happen in the Appeal Court on Friday. Surely what is good for the House should be good for the people out there, who I believe have influenced the case more than they should have done.

§ Madam Speaker
The House has no authority in what the press may report in terms of the sub judice rule. We have our own sub judice rules, which have been imposed on me by the House, and I have to carry out those rules.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
You may well know that the gallant British fishing fleet, out of support for the Canadians, who are seeking to conserve fish stocks on behalf of all of us, has decided to fly on its boats the maple leaf. Would it be in order for the House, in support of the British fishermen, to fly the maple leaf from the Victoria Tower?

§ Madam Speaker
That question should perhaps be referred to the Administration Committee.

§ Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have seen reports of yet another national health service scandal as a woman giving birth to premature twins had to travel 84 miles to find intensive care incubators. What exactly are the Secretary of State for Health's responsibilities, and does she intend to explain to the House the daily crises in the NHS?

§ Madam Speaker
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no indication from the Government that they are prepared to make a statement on these matters. The hon. Lady may, of course, try her luck at catching my eye during Health questions and raise those matters in that way.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed that a number of Conservative Members have been criticising the BBC for the way in which individual 835 journalists have been asking questions of Ministers on radio and television. I suggest that they are raising what is an issue of concern to many of us, which is that the BBC has clearly noted that parliamentary replies are such in these times that Parliament itself is being denied information in parliamentary answers, and that we, as Members of Parliament, have become increasingly reliant on journalists to ask questions and secure answers in the national media which we cannot get in Parliament.
In light of that fact, and following the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), who mentioned an inquiry, may I ask you, while recognising that your powers are limited in respect of answers given by Ministers, to consider the whole issue, given that two of my hon. Friends have now made a complaint—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The point of order is whether I am willing to consider the answers given by Ministers to parliamentary questions. It is for Back Benchers to continue to probe and question Ministers to get the answers that they require. It is not a matter for me, as Speaker, as I have no control or authority over the answers given by Ministers. It is part of the cut and thrust of the House and the challenge for hon. Members to pursue matters with Ministers if they feel that they are not receiving satisfactory replies.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On that same matter—

§ Madam Speaker
No. There can be no further point of order on that matter.

§ Mrs. Helen Liddell (Monklands, East)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter reported in The Guardian today. I was shocked to learn from a reply from the Financial Secretary that £136 million of taxpayers' money has been used to advertise privatisation share sales. At no point in any of the debates on the various privatisations was it apparent that sums of that magnitude were to be expended. I seek your guidance as to how I can pursue this matter, as there is legitimate public interest in it.

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Lady may like to consider asking parliamentary questions, or to pursue the matter through an Adjournment debate, and use the Order Paper in that way.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. How far along is the procedure regarding the early release of documents on which ministerial statements are made? Are 836 you satisfied that the negotiations are gaining ground? Too often, statements are made before the documents to which the statements refer are released from the Vote Office. I do not expect the statement itself to be released, but it would be helpful if the documents were released a couple of hours before the statement was made.

§ Madam Speaker
Arrangements have been in hand for some time to provide that the documents—not, as the hon. Gentleman understands, the statements themselves—are available in the Vote Office an hour or an hour and a half before a statement is made. It is usually up to the Minister involved to lay down the time when he will put the documents in the Vote Office, but they are there in advance. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, he should let me know about it. I shall take it up, and see if I can improve matters.

§ Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any representations from the Secretary of State for the Environment about making a statement on the report in The Guardian today about the threat to marine life in the Irish sea? The dumping of 25,000 tonnes of toxic waste and chemical weapons, including nerve gas, arsenic bombs and toxic seed coverings, has rightly been described as an "environmental time bomb". Does not the House have a right to a statement about the extent of the threat and the environmental impact?

§ Madam Speaker
The Government have not informed me that they wish to make a statement today on that matter. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that all hon. Members know of statements ahead of time by means of the annunciators? We all know by 1 o'clock if statements will be made.

§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to a parliamentary answer that was sneaked out last Wednesday? It said that, for the first time, through Government Departments, the intelligence and security services and the nuclear industry would have direct access to the police national computer. That has enormous implications for civil liberties and for an independent and non-centralised police force. Surely that information should not have been sneaked out in a parliamentary answer in that way.

§ Madam Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman objects to that, he should take it up with the Ministers concerned. That is not a point of order for me. No breach of our procedures or Standing Orders has occurred. The hon. Gentleman may table parliamentary questions, raise the matter in an Adjournment debate, or use an early-day motion to bring the matter to Ministers' attention.