Points of Order (Hansard, 11 May 1998)

§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today, the Prime Minister made the most extraordinary intervention in the arms for Africa affair. Last week, the Foreign Secretary told the House that, if the United Nations embargo had been breached, it was "a very serious matter" and dismissed suggestions that military intervention might be consistent with Government policy as wildly out of touch with reality"—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 726–27.] Today, however, the Prime Minister made precisely that suggestion, and apparently argued that the end justifies the means.
For the Prime Minister to intervene in that way, when a Customs and Excise investigation into possible criminal charges is still under way, is both astonishing and unprecedented. In those circumstances, have you, Madam Speaker, had any indication that the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary—or perhaps both, if their attitudes are to be reconciled—intends to make a statement to the House to clarify those vital matters?

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Is this a related point of order?

§ Mr. Skinner
Yes. When you, Madam Speaker, answer this specific point of order—

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
It is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Skinner
It is probably not, but that is a matter for the Speaker, not for me.
Will you, Madam Speaker, take into account the fact that we do not really need lessons from that discredited bunch opposite about arms and all the rest of it? They were experts in trying to cover up the truth about arms to Iraq, and that applies to most of the Cabinet at the time, so let us get things into perspective. Let us also bear in mind the fact that the same secret services could have been in the same pockets—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I am not allowing a debate on this matter. I am fully prepared to answer the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). If I take another point of order, it must be related and I must be able to deal with it. I expect it to be so.

§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex)
Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), Madam Speaker. Hansard shows that, when the Foreign 22 Secretary answered a private notice question in the House last week, I asked him to examine carefully the files from the Ministry of Defence and possibly the Department for Trade and Industry relating to Sierra Leone, and he said: I cannot speak for other Ministers or Ministries, but it is not my view that there are substantial files on the matter elsewhere."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 728.] That is clearly incorrect. Will you ask the Foreign Secretary to take the trouble to come to the House, explain away that inaccuracy and say exactly what happened?

§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
I shall take one more point of order on that matter.

§ Mr. Flynn
It is on another matter.

§ Madam Speaker
In that case, I must deal with the original point of order that was put to me by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
I have not been informed by any member of the Government that he or she seeks to make a statement on the matter referred to today. I barely need to remind the House that the Prime Minister will be at the Dispatch Box and accountable for what he has said on Wednesday. I have no doubt that Opposition Members will question him on that matter.
I should say to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that I have not had a chance to look at column 728 of Hansard, but I shall do so. He is aware that the Foreign Secretary and all Ministers are responsible for the comments that they make, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench heard what he said.
I now call Mr. Flynn on a separate point of order.

§ Mr. Flynn
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You and your predecessors have always ruled that supplementary questions to oral questions must be related to the original question on the Order Paper, and you have silenced hon. Members who have raised matters that were not relevant to the original question. I appeal to you to consider using your power in defence of Back Benchers. I am asking you to intervene not in the daily political point scoring, but in the questions from serious Back Benchers who genuinely seek information on important matters. Should not they be entitled to an answer from the Minister involved that relates to their question? Will you study the final two answers to Question 12 today and consider preventing Ministers from avoiding answering oral questions by giving them an opportunity to answer properly the questions that have been put to them?

§ Madam Speaker
That was a very original and splendid point of order. I always expect supplementary questions to relate to the substantive questions, and I certainly expect Ministers to tackle them and to give a proper answer. [Interruption.] I am told that someone will be disappointed: I hope that it will not be the Speaker.