§ Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today I received a letter from the Prime Minister. I believe that that was because I hold one share in Yorkshire Water. He got both my name and the appropriate address wrong. Do you, Madam Speaker, think it appropriate for the Prime Minister to use his position to obtain the names and addresses of millions of people for a piece of cheap political propaganda? I am assured that Yorkshire Water did not offer the Prime Minister a list of shareholders. Do you not feel that such actions rather cheapen the position both of the Prime Minister and of the House of Commons?
§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)rose—
§ Madam SpeakerNo, no.
§ Madam SpeakerNo, no. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) seldom raises a point of order, and it is quite a sensible one, in connection with data protection. I am sure that the hon. Lady will understand that it is not a matter for me what individual Members, including the Prime Minister, do. That does not relate to the Chair.
§ Madam SpeakerIs it a separate point of order? Is it a sensible point of order? [Laughter.] That is the point. Is it sensible as well as separate?
§ Mr. ShawI must, as always, Madam Speaker, leave you to judge that point. As you know, I always respect your judgment on such matters.
1156 I want to draw attention to the fact that, although a particular matter has been raised in connection with the Prime Minister, it is more important to raise the fact that the Leader of the Opposition frequently writes to many people all over the country. We are concerned about whether he uses House of Commons resources for writing those letters to people—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He now seems to be generalising. It is matter of quid pro quo. Nobody writes to me, and I am very pleased that they do not.
§ Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Select Committee on European Legislation deals with hundreds of documents, and part of its procedures is to determine whether European documents, directives and regulations have legal or political significance. If they have such significance, the Committee may recommend that they be debated either in Committee or on the Floor of the House. Should that not also apply to the pay review body documents, so that we can determine whether they have legal or political significance? If they do, the Prime Minister should surely make a statement so that we can question him on the seven documents.
§ Madam SpeakerI think that that is a point of view rather than a point of order.
Let me correct something that I said earlier. I said that nobody ever writes to me, but I do not want that to be misunderstood. Hundreds and hundreds of people write to me—mostly about points of order and noise in this House, which is not appreciated by the audience outside.