Points of Order (Hansard, 9 March 2000)

§ Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you notice of my point of order, because it affects the rights of all hon. Members. Under the Bank of England Act 1998, the Treasury is required to give certain directions to the Bank of England about its inflation target and other Government policies. Under section 12, the Treasury is required to lay a copy of that before Parliament. I am advised that the Government failed to do that, both last year and the year before. They have broken their own law.
My point of order for you, Madam Speaker, is that the Government are also in contempt of the rules and procedures of the House. The laying of a paper is described in "Erskine May" as the way by which important papers are made available to the House generally. I attempted two days ago to obtain this document and was told that it was not available because the Government had failed to lay it before Parliament, as required by the 1998 Act. When I raised this matter with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, she appeared to be unconcerned and uninterested, and failed to reply to my point.
Even if you, Madam Speaker, cannot force the Government to obey their own laws, what can you do to protect the rights of hon. Members to receive the documents that the law requires should be made available to the House through the procedures laid out in "Erskine May"?

§ Madam Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He probably realises that I received notice of it only a short time before I took the Chair today, so I have not had time to examine it. I shall do so at my earliest opportunity.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there anything in the rules of the House that would allow you directly, or through your influence, to protect the interests of Back Benchers? You will have heard the question that I asked the Cabinet Office yesterday about the time it takes for Ministers to respond to letters. I have a constituent who has now waited 425 days for a letter from the Ministry of Defence about a simple matter. I know that I am not unique among colleagues in waiting months and months for replies.
I raised this issue with the previous Government and tried to improve matters for all colleagues. Is there anything that we can do as Back Benchers to give you, Madam Speaker, the power to require Ministers to answer letters? In extremis, perhaps you would like to invite the Prime Minister to afternoon tea where you could quietly have a word for him about what has happened.

§ Madam Speaker
I am not certain what I can do. I am terribly sympathetic to Members who are waiting for replies. I have been a Member of the House for more than a quarter of a century, so I know how important it is—

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I have not finished yet. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for only a few years.
1201 I understand how important it is to receive punctual replies. I do not know what I can do and I understand the situation only too well. I shall do my utmost to be helpful. Now—Mr. Bercow.

§ Mr. Bercow
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I readily acknowledge that it probably seems that I have been here for a lot longer than three years.
Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), may I seek your guidance specifically about correspondence with, and replies from, the Prime Minister? In January, I had a brief correspondence with him and, four weeks ago, I wrote him a four-line letter requiring a yes or no reply. To that letter, I have received a holding reply saying that the Prime Minister will endeavour to furnish me with an answer as soon as he reasonably can, but such an answer has not yet been forthcoming. Can you, Madam Speaker, offer any guidance about the inner recesses of the Prime Minister's mind?

§ Madam Speaker
I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on that one.

§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We understand that, despite your great influence, the problem of correspondence with Departments may be outside your direct powers. However, will you consider the related problem of the long delays in the answers to some written questions? The number of written questions that are not answered on the named day is increasing in a number of Departments. That is a matter of great concern to all Members and directly relates to the business of the House. Could you consider that problem at the same time?

§ Madam Speaker
Yes, I am happy to take on that additional burden. I shall do what I can to be helpful in all those matters. It is important for the functioning of the House that we get our business done speedily and efficiently.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you share my concern that the more dilatory Ministers are in replying to questions, the more there will be a temptation for Members to table further questions to pursue the original one? The danger is that if we are not careful the whole system will get completely clogged because of ministerial arrogance and indifference to the parliamentary process.
I know that that will concern you on a number of levels, Madam Speaker, such as the relationship between the Government and the House, over which you preside, and the administration of the House through the Table Office, 1202 over which you also happily preside, along with the Clerks. Surely there is a danger that owing to the Government's dilatoriness and arrogance, we will become mired in the parliamentary questions process, and that will adversely affect the effectiveness of the House.

§ Madam Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman is expressing his opinion, which he has every right to do in the House, and I am prepared to listen and to understand. A few moments ago, I gave a sincere undertaking that I would do my best to help the House.

§ Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I seldom raise points of order, but I think that this one is appropriate. Did you notice that the Prime Minister, in a reply yesterday, and the Leader of the House, in a reply today, did not deny the substance of the remarks of the Liberal Democrat leader in the other place, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, when he said that the Prime Minister had offered to create more Liberal Democrat peers in return for favourable voting? Is not that an abuse of the procedures of Parliament?

§ Madam Speaker
Points of order should relate to something on which I can undertake to try to help the House, in terms of our proceedings. I am not responsible for the comments made by Back Benchers or Ministers.

§ Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)
Further to the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), Madam Speaker. Will you advise me on written answers in which the Minister, in this case, the Home Secretary, hides behind national security? I asked a simple question last week about how much has been spent from public funds on protecting Senator Pinochet since October 1998. I was told: The information requested cannot be provided for security reasons.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 568W.]

§ Madam Speaker
That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman must use the Order Paper and opportunities in the House. The cost of keeping Senator Pinochet here is not a matter for me.