HC Deb 24 July 1997 vol 298 cc1081-3 5.37 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a document, a copy of which I have sent to you in advance? It is a letter written by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), who, I understand from the document, is the co-ordinator of the campaign activity among Labour Members in the build-up to the Uxbridge by-election for the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you give him notice?"] I have given him notice that I intended to raise this point of order.

The document encourages members of the Labour party to telephone a House of Commons number telephone to make arrangements for their visits to the Uxbridge by-election campaign and informs them that the Scottish Labour party has undertaken to telephone a large number of Uxbridge voters between now and the by-election.

Is it in order for House of Commons paper to be used in a circular letter whose sole purpose is campaigning in a parliamentary by-election? Is it in order for House of Commons telephones, which are paid for by the taxpayer, to be used as part of a Labour party by-election campaign? Does not the drafting in of the Scottish Labour party to undertake telephone canvassing show the desperation of the Labour party about its chances of winning the by-election?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

The House is obviously extremely careful about such matters. I would advise the hon. Lady to pass the document to which she has referred to the Serjeant at Arms for his examination.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, European Standing Committee B debated the apparent 32 per cent. increase in the size of the United Kingdom's contributions to the European Union budget for next year, which will take them to £8.3 billion. I say the "apparent" 32 per cent. increase, because that was the figure cited in the original papers submitted to the Committee; but a late paper submitted on the day of the debate suggested that the real figure might be less, although the Economic Secretary failed to give any alternative figure and failed to specify the real position. That late paper was never received by some hon. Members who attended the Committee.

In view of the lack of timely documentation about this matter and the fact that there is still confusion about the real increase in the size of our contributions to the European budget next year, I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the scrutiny requirements under Standing Order No. 119 have not been discharged. The House should not now proceed to vote on the motion before it, which would give authority to the Government to cave in to that massive increase by discharging that scrutiny requirement.

Mr. William Cash (Stone)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thoroughly endorse what the shadow Chief Secretary has said. As a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation and one who participated in the so-called debate yesterday in European Standing Committee B, I have never seen such outrageous behaviour. The Government treated the Committee with contempt.

The documents, which were produced incredibly late, were unsatisfactory and in a mess. They completely contradicted the recommendations by the Select Committee last year that documents should be provided to all Committees in good time. Yesterday's events were an outrage and a disgraceful slur on the activities of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Chair is not responsible for what goes on in Standing Committees. As for the budget increase, the House will have to decide on the motion when it comes before it.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Chair is the protector of Back-Bench and minority rights, so I seek some guidance from you. In 1983, the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties were advised that there were four places on the Select Committees for Members representing Northern Ireland. This time, after names have been submitted, just one Member from Northern Ireland will sit on the departmental Select Committees.

I have written to different people about the matter, and have received no clarification. Given the new arrangement between the Liberal Democrats and the Government, perhaps we might now be the custodians of minority rights in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said, but that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), is it acceptable to this House of Commons that matters that could involve the spending an additional not £2 million or £200 million, but £2 billion, which would be allocated to the European Union, should deal with in a Committee upstairs rather than on the Floor of the House? Is it acceptable that the documents presented on that occasion were inadequate and that one did not appear until the day of the Standing Committee?

Is this not a matter that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should deal with as a custodian of the rights of Back Benchers in the House? I view it as a very serious matter that the taxpayers of this country may have to ante up an additional 32.5 per cent. as our contribution to the European Union—in sterling, equivalent to possibly £2 billion. It is wrong that we had to decide that with inadequate documents, which were provided late to the Committee. Should not this matter be properly and fully debated on the Floor of the House, so that all hon. Members could participate?

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to ask Madam Speaker to issue a note for guidance on the provision of documents indicating when they should properly be available so that Members on both sides of the House have a proper and adequate opportunity to know what they will be discussing?

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to recall an incident last year in the same Committee Room when we were discussing almost precisely the same issue? Mr. Phillip Oppenheim was the then Treasury Minister, and many of the hon. Members who have made points of order today were present then, and made exactly the same case as they have done today. The Government's response was to ignore them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Madam Speaker is always most concerned to ensure that the correct documents are before the House and I have no doubt will note what has been said. I repeat what I said earlier: the Chair—[Interruption.] Order. The Chair has no responsibility for what goes on in Standing Committees. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to vote on the matter when it comes before them.

Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the provision of information to hon. Members by Ministers? Last week, I tabled a written question to the President of the Board of Trade for answer on a named day asking when she intended to publish her Green Paper on the late payment of debt. On Monday, I received a holding response to say that the right hon. Lady would respond to my question as soon as possible.

On Tuesday morning, I read the answer to my question in The Times. Following publication of that answer in the newspaper, a response was sent to me by the right hon. Lady which confirmed the information that had been made available to that newspaper. Is it right that questions that are legitimately raised by hon. Members under the Standing Orders of the House should go unanswered while those answers are given to journalists?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Chair is not responsible for the content of answers to questions of that kind, but hon. Members certainly should be made aware of them before the press. The hon. Lady's point is well made, and will be noted.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment which met for the first time at 4.30 pm yesterday afternoon. At that meeting we discussed a number of matters, the details of which I will not go into now, but they included whether we should divide the Committee into two Sub-Committees and who should chair them.

I was somewhat concerned to find that a copy of the Evening Standard, which I have passed to you, and which was purchased at 2.30 pm, two full hours before the Committee met, quoted one member of the Select Ctte, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), to whom I have given notice, as the Chairman of one of the Sub-Committees. That is a point of concern, because not only did that report presuppose the election of that member as one of those Chairmen: it also presupposed that the Committee would decide to form those two Sub-Committees.

Neither of those decisions had been taken by the Committee, because it had not even met. I regard it as a matter of the gravest concern that that information should have appeared in the press. Could you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, investigate that matter on behalf of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Chair is not responsible for speculation that may appear in the press in advance of such events.