Points of Order (Hansard, 7 February 1996)

§ Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance because one of the responsibilities of the House is to hold the Executive to account, but I believe that the House will soon be faced by a situation in which the rights of the official Opposition and of all Back Benchers may be diminished because of the way in which the Government are approaching a certain issue.
I am referring to the report of Lord Justice Scott—a report of more than 1,800 pages, which has taken three years to prepare. We have been told that that report will be published on 15 February. We now learn, however, that the Government have amassed a vast machinery to interpret the report in the way that Ministers wish, at public expense, of course.
The Ministers involved have received copies of the report and they have eight days to find ways of shifting the blame. I understand that the civil servants involved will have just six hours' sight of the report, despite the fact that it affects their careers. Moreover, Ministers have failed to respond to a request from Her Majesty's official Opposition for sight of a copy of the report on Privy Council terms. I ask you, Madam Speaker, what you can do to ensure that Members of the House, and in particular the official Opposition, are not deliberately disadvantaged by the procedures being adopted by the Government.

§ Madam Speaker
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Lady has said, which I am sure will have been heard, or at least should have been heard with interest and concern in all quarters of the House.
I understand that the Scott report will be presented to the House by the President of the Board of Trade. It is entirely for the President to decide what arrangements, if any, should be made to allow various interested parties to see embargoed copies of the report before it is published, and before any related statement is made in the House.
All I would say is that, in my experience, the questioning on any statement is much better focused when some steps have been taken to enable Opposition spokesmen and minority party spokesmen to have access some time in advance to the text of complicated reports, provided steps are taken to maintain confidentiality. In addition, I think it is helpful for such reports to be made available in the Vote Office for a short period before any statement is made, so that Members generally have a chance to read at least the summary of recommendations or conclusions. But as I have already indicated, this is a matter for the Minister and I have no power to intervene.

§ Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
No. There can be no further point of order. I have given a very clear ruling of my opinion on that issue, and we must now leave it at that. I will take no further points of order on that matter. I have dealt with it more than adequately and I have expressed my point of view on it.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
No.

§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)
This is a genuinely completely different point of order—on the same subject, but a different point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to the rights of citizens who are civil servants, who, according to all the reports that we have had this morning, find themselves in a fundamentally different position if they are named in the report—

§ Madam Speaker
I can answer that point of order right away. I have no responsibility for anybody outside this House. I understand what the position may be in relation to others, but I have no authority to intervene. I wish to safeguard the interests of the House and I shall do so, and have done so, to the best of my ability.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)
On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that, in matters such as this, it is essential that you as Speaker receive an advance copy of any documents, so that you can ensure that there is orderly procedure in the House? You will be aware that when in the past Ministers have misled the House, personal statements were arranged. Will you confirm that you will have seen a copy and you will be able to arrange for personal statements to be made at the earliest opportunity?

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I cannot confirm anything of the kind. I have not at this stage seen a copy.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
On an unrelated point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to my point of order yesterday, would you tell us whether further inquiries have been carried out into the issuing of a pass to Mr. Barry Joseph?

§ Madam Speaker
Yes. I have carried out further inquiries. I repeat what I said yesterday—that the staff member in question has had a pass, to my knowledge, for some 10 years from the Member concerned. There is nothing untoward in him having a pass from a Member of this House, provided the relevant interests have been declared in the appropriate place. There are no rules, there are no regulations, there are no procedures to prohibit this. It is up to the Member concerned to determine whom he employs as a staff member.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 18 January 1983, a predecessor of yours condemned the Government for the selective leaking of, and briefing of the press on, the Franks report before publication. I think that it would be your view that that would apply equally in relation to the Scott report, because there is an indication that there is selective leaking and briefing, to try to brainwash the media in advance of the publication—

§ Madam Speaker
That is a similar point of order. If the hon. Gentleman will look carefully at my statement, he will see that it is covered there by the word "embargoed".

§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)
On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. I notice that we 333 reached Question 21 today. Is that the first time in your memory that advice you gave the previous day—that there should be short answers and short questions—has actually been taken?

§ Madam Speaker
No. That is not quite the point. I expected to get to Question 21 today—it was marked on my Order Paper—because the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is particularly good and speedy at answering questions. It is a very good Department in that respect and I am delighted with its Ministers because we always move down the Order Paper very rapidly and very briskly when they are at the Dispatch Box. Is there another point of order? No. What a pity.