§ Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Obviously, you are not responsible for the contents of Ministers' written answers, but, on behalf of hon. Members, I ask whether there is anything that you can do to protect hon. Members who table questions for written answer, only to have them blocked.
As you are aware, last Wednesday I tabled a question to the Department of Social Security, asking for the raw numbers on the lone parent scheme. It now turns out that those numbers are somewhat embarrassing to the Government. On Friday, to forestall my question, the Department of Social Security got the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) to place a planted question asking for the proportions, not the numbers, on the lone parent scheme.
Yesterday, shortly after 3.30 pm, the hon. Member for Gravesham received his answer, saying that the Secretary of State for Social Security had published a press release, which appeared on the tapes. In my answer, I was referred to that given to the hon. Member for Gravesham, but mine was not the same question as his, so I never got an answer on the raw figures. To my mind, the Government are abusing their position by failing to answer questions that are embarrassing.
Is there anything that you can do to try to stop that practice?
§ Madam SpeakerI can make no comment on the hon. Gentleman's first point, which is far too general and is unacceptable to me. I quite understand his frustration. He was good enough to give me the information—which is rather convoluted—that he expressed at the Dispatch Box. He is quite right that the contents of answers are not a matter for me. It is for Ministers to take responsibility for the replies that they give. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and I am sure that he can find further parliamentary means of following up the matter. If hon. Members are dissatisfied with replies that they receive, they might in the first instance consult the Table Office, which is extremely helpful in these matters. I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to do just that.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerNo. There is no further point of order; I have made a ruling. I have seen the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), and all the answers that he has received. 858 If he consults the Table Office, he can table a question that will get the answer that he wants. That is the point that I am making. What is the further point of order?
§ Mr. ForthYou mentioned the Table Office, and that is helpful, but are you aware that in its efforts to be helpful, it has on occasion said to me, and, I am sure, to others, "This matter has been blocked by the Department"? It would appear that a trend is emerging, whereby Government Departments are able to place an arbitrary block on questions tabled by hon. Members, which, apparently, the Table Office has to respect. I should have thought that the Table Office was responsible to you and the House, not Government Departments. Therefore, are you satisfied that the House can be treated in that way by Government Departments?
§ Madam SpeakerI am satisfied because, as Speaker under the previous Government, I am well aware of the number of questions that were blocked then. I must be frank and tell the House that. In this case, a question could be tabled to elicit the information that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford requires.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)This point of order has the attraction of being not at all generalised but very particular.
On the radio this morning, the Foreign Secretary said that it was his understanding—he was doubtless speaking for the Government—that the agreement reached by the United Nations went along with previous agreements, in that it allowed military action to take place under existing United Nations charter resolutions on Iraq.
§ Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)Thank God for that.
§ Mr. DalyellMy hon. Friend says thank God for that; some of us take a different view.
Later on the same programme, the Chinese ambassador, representing some of the permanent members of the Security Council, made it abundantly and unambiguously clear that their interpretation was diametrically opposite—that there could be no military action until the powers had gone back to the Security Council. They cannot both be right. My point of order is simply to ask you, Madam Speaker, whether you have had a request from the Foreign Office or the Law Officers to explain precisely what the legal position is in this crucial matter.
§ Madam SpeakerNo. I have not been informed that a Minister will make a statement to the House. Foreign Affairs questions come before us next week, when the hon. Gentleman may seek to catch my eye on those matters.