§ Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, the Government published the Competition Commission's report on car pricing. The Secretary of State also announced the Government's response to the report in a 10-page press release, and has tabled statutory instruments to implement that response. All that, and no ministerial statement. Is this not yet another example of the Government's treating the House with contempt, and of the Secretary of State's refusing to answer questions about issues of enormous importance to the car industry and the country as a whole?
§ Madam SpeakerI understand that this is a complicated issue, and that technology broke down. I ask Dr. Howells to explain to the House the handling of the issue.
§ The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Today's release of the Competition Commission's report on the supply of new motor cars was undertaken in line with previous Governments' statements involving market-sensitive material. It was decided to lay the report in Parliament at 11 am today, and simultaneously to inform the stock exchange and release it to the media.
In the event, there was a technical problem at the stock exchange, which meant that publication time had to be delayed. Because the embargo time for the media lapsed, details of the report began to be published before the notice was released on the stock exchange. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry therefore decided to release the report to the media at the same time as it was laid in Parliament, at 12.50 this afternoon. He provided a detailed answer, as the Government's response to the report, at 3.30 pm.
We make no apologies for taking action to ensure that consumers get a better deal when it comes to buying cars in this country. Ordinary families are paying over £1 billion more than they should be paying, and we intend to do something about it.
34 On behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry, I apologise unreservedly for any discourtesy that may have been shown to the House this morning.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a gentle point of order, with, I confess, a whiff of grievance.
During Home Office questions today, it took 21 minutes to deal with one question. Once upon a time, the House got through 30 or 35 questions in a session. Part of the reason was that, if a controversial issue was involved, the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Minister tabled a question by private notice. If there are to be long and important exchanges on fraught issues, should not the Procedure Committee reflect on the possibility of using the private notice question device, rather than making it impossible for us to get beyond Question 12?
As I said, I have a grievance: I tabled Question 15, on the difficult issue of Hilda Murrell. Others, however, were also disappointed.
§ Madam SpeakerIt had not gone unnoticed by me that the hon. Gentleman's question was Question 15. That certainly should have been reached. As for Question 4, the hon. Gentleman is quite right: on finding that a question of that nature has been tabled, the Secretary of State often prefers to answer it at the end of Question Time, thus making the answer into a form of statement.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) decided, rightly in my view, to use her entire allocation of three questions on Question 4. That was quite proper, and quite in order. The issue was the dispersal of asylum seekers, a highly interesting and contentious issue, in the country and in the House. It was quite right that there was a good exchange across the Floor of the House.
§ Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is clear from a report published last week that the Government are cutting aid to the people of Ethiopia and Mozambique while increasing support for the Government of Zimbabwe, who are engaged in ethnic cleansing. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for International Development to come to the House and explain these baffling decisions, which, on the face of it, are extraordinary and unjustifiable? I think that the people of this country need an explanation.
§ Madam SpeakerThere has been no request by the Secretary of State for International Development to make a statement on that issue. I believe that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is answering questions tomorrow and that three questions will be reached on Zimbabwe, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House provides ample time for Adjournment debates of half an hour and an hour and a half, when such an interesting issue can be debated. The Minister would be there and would be required to give some answers and explanation.