Points of Order (Hansard, 8 December 1997)

§ Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise the issue of the Prime Minister's refusal to answer important written questions of considerable public interest, about the discussions that he had with representatives of the British film industry before the July Budget. Those questions were asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), answered on 24 November, and myself, answered on 28 November.
It is not disputed that a number of prominent figures in the film industry were significant financial supporters of the Labour party before the election—one thinks particularly of Lord Puttnam. The Budget contained a major packet of assistance by way of tax breaks to the British film industry. In the case of formula one, the principle was clearly established by Sir Patrick Neill that, where a major contributor to the Government party's funds had benefited by way of a particular policy, that financial contribution should, in order to preserve the appearance of propriety, be returned to the donor.
I do not allege that there is necessarily any impropriety in this case, but for the House to be satisfied that that is so, it is clearly essential for the Prime Minister to come clean and answer these questions. May we have your guidance on whether it is appropriate for any Minister—let alone the Prime Minister—to refuse to answer in that way?

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. When you get a chance to look at this Opposition proposal, will you also examine precedents? It is important that, in all these cases, we know exactly what has gone on in previous years. Perhaps in your research you will come across the fact that the Tories received £440,000 from Asil Nadir. Suddenly, although he was under arrest, he escaped. I am not suggesting for a minute that the Prime Minister of the day said, "I think we had better let Asil Nadir get away to Cyprus, because if he ever gets to court, he will reveal all the skeletons in the Tories' cupboard."
You might also examine some other instances, Madam Speaker. For instance, the Tories received £10 million from Bernie Ecclestone, who, in my opinion, was acting on behalf of the tobacco companies; I do not think that it came out of his pocket. Somehow, the Tories—including the then Prime Minister and every member of his Cabinet—refused to support any ban on tobacco advertising. It just might be that there is a whole series of connections. Otherwise, it is just plain, downright hypocrisy.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
No, I have had enough, thank you. I know exactly what I am doing on this question.
As the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who raised the point of order, knows—I am grateful to him for giving me an indication of what he wished to say—as Speaker, I cannot force any Minister to answer any question in any particular way. Perhaps he might wish to make a submission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is studying this matter. It might be 668 helpful to the committee if he did that. Likewise, if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is so keen to be helpful, he might wish to do the same.

§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I attempted to table an oral question to the Secretary of State for Defence, asking him on what date he expected to publish the strategic defence review. I was advised by the Clerk that there was a convention that, as my question gave no particular guide to my supplementary, I could not table it as an oral question. When I repeated my experience to very senior colleagues, I was told that they were unaware of any such convention. I should be grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Perhaps I could be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and more senior Members who are not aware of some of our guidelines, Standing Orders and procedures. I refer him to page 301 of the latest issue of "Erskine May"—it must be the latest edition, which was published at the end of last month. Paragraph 12 makes it clear that oral questions to departmental Ministers should indicate, within reasonably broad limits, a particular subject matter. In other words, questions should not in effect be open questions. That follows the House's approval of reports from the Procedure Committee in 1991 and 1993. The Committee did not wish to see oral questions to departmental Ministers becoming as general as those to the Prime Minister. If the hon. Gentleman looks at "Erskine May", he will see it clearly laid out there.

§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the crisis in the agricultural industry, which has been greatly exacerbated by the Government's announcement about meat on the bone. Given that the only way in which that crisis can be dealt with is by funds being secured from Europe, and in view of the concern that has been expressed to me over the weekend by farmers in my constituency, have you had any indication from the Government that they intend to make a statement to the House—first, about the crisis itself, and secondly, about when the application for European funds might be made?

§ Madam Speaker
I have not been informed by any Minister that the Government are seeking to make a statement on that issue.

§ Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that today you have received no request from the Paymaster General to make a statement on the interaction of his personal finances, including his interest in the £12 million offshore Orion trust, with his duties as a Treasury Minister preparing to remove the comparatively modest tax privileges of many of those with TESSAs and PEPs.
Is it not extraordinary and a gross discourtesy to the House that the hon. Gentleman is reported to have been consulting his expensive lawyers all morning, and that he is to issue a statement later, not through the House, but through the Treasury press office? As his own Back Benchers, including the hon. Member for Newport, 669 West (Mr. Flynn), are calling for his resignation to clear the air, would it not have been much better if he had come to the House and made a clean breast of it?

§ Madam Speaker
I have no indication of what is to be said in the statement, but I have no doubt that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the comments—hardly a point of order—of the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House will have noted that the questions to the Minister without Portfolio started three minutes late, and that you allowed them to continue for three minutes after they were timed to close. Given that the Minister said before the Select Committee on the subject of secrecy concerning the dome: I would not call it secrecy, I would call it an inhibition", and, on the lack of information from the Millennium company, that he did not want excessive accountability at the expense of them getting on with their work", do you agree that five minutes for questions is becoming farcical? Would it not be a better idea if that time were extended, or if it were combined with questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport?

§ Madam Speaker
The allocation of time to Ministers is nothing whatever to do with me. That is arranged through the usual channels. Perhaps if it were left to me, it would be quite different, but it is not my responsibility, and I have no authority in those matters—alas.

§ Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As I am a new Member of Parliament, can you give me some guidance on a matter of operation within the House? The Minister 670 without Portfolio does not come to the House to answer questions on his wider responsibilities relating to formula one, food safety and so on. Furthermore, he has introduced a blocking measure for all written questions, which effectively makes it impossible to ask questions or to obtain any information about his wider responsibilities, yet we see in the papers day after day, and today in The Times, that he is instructing Cabinet Ministers what to do, and even telling the Queen what to do.
Surely, as a matter of course, Members of Parliament have a duty to question Ministers and hold them to account, but it is proving impossible to hold the Minister without Portfolio to account for anything other than for five minutes on a very narrow aspect of his job. As a strong defender of the House, can you do something to help Members in that regard?

§ Madam Speaker
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I just gave. With reference to blocking measures, surely Members of Parliament have a good deal of ingenuity. They need ingenuity to get here in the first place. I should have thought that there was some way round the Order Paper and within the procedures of the House that the hon. Member and others could find.