§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
§ Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am taking a point of order from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
§ Mr. FlynnMay I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your office to intervene in a matter of great importance and urgency?
Under the new Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, the Government Actuary is obliged to lay before Parliament a report on the effect on the national insurance fund of the likely results of linking the basic pension to the level of earnings up to 2005. I have seen a letter from the Deputy Government Actuary dated 28 September, in which he wrote:
The report on the financial impact of price and earnings indexation of the basic pension is now at a very advanced stage, and I am hoping to be able to submit it to the Secretary of State next week.He continued:This will enable him to lay it before Parliament when the House returns following the Summer Recess.Questions have been tabled by three hon. Members, all of whom have received similar replies—one as recently as yesterday—in which the Minister has said:The Government Actuary is currently finalising his report. It will be published when it is completed.—[Official Report, 26 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 160W.]When a member of my staff telephoned the Deputy Government Actuary the day before yesterday and asked him to confirm that the report had not been submitted to the Secretary of State, the Deputy Government Actuary refused to do so. Another Member's office has been told—so the office has reported to me—that the matter will not be laid before the House until after next week's statement.The matter is of the greatest importance if the House is to make a sensible judgment on changes in the pension, particularly changes in the basic pension and the link with it. In 1934, a Minister delayed a report to the House in similar circumstances, using the pretext of sending the report back—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to notify me of his point of order, but it cannot be a speech. He is making what is almost an Adjournment debate case. I will reply to the point of order now, because it is delaying the business of the House.
I have read the section to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It lays a duty on the Government Actuary to make a report, and on the Government to lay it before the House. It does not say when that must be done. If the hon. Gentleman has views on the matter, he must take it up with Ministers; it is not a matter for the Chair.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall take a point of order from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). The hon. Member for Newport, West may wish to intervene on another point of order. He was a bit slow off the mark.
§ Dr. CableMay I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for a ruling on a decision made this morning in Westminster Hall? Under the sub judice rule, a Treasury Minister and I were not allowed to refer to an important case involving a large number of our constituents with life insurance policies. It related to orphan assets. What is odd is that that legal case is being widely debated in the national press. Ministers have—rightly—written articles in the Daily Mail debating the merits of the case. However, I, as a Member of Parliament, am not allowed to question a Minister in the House on her speech, or on comments outside. How can we perform our role of holding Ministers to account when sub judice rules so inhibit our freedom of expression?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. [Interruption.] I am going to reply to the point of order.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of the point of order. I shall establish the facts of the case to which he refers and will write to him on the matter. I do not think that there is anything to add to that. I shall look into the matter—he cannot get any better than that.
§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a very small point. I recall that the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege considered this issue, and it is important to clarify the matter. Will you make a ruling and report it to the House, rather than simply corresponding with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), because issues of considerable importance have been raised?
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
§ Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall go back to Mr. Flynn.
§ Mr. FlynnFurther to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the defender of Back Benchers' rights, can you advise me how a Back Bencher should proceed after he has raised a matter in the presence of 200 other hon. Members and the Prime Minister, asked for support and information and raised the matter with other Ministers in written questions? Who should he go to then to seek advice on information that is essential to do our job? Should he go to the Speaker, or should he go elsewhere?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have known the hon. Gentleman for many years and, if I were seeking to raise any matter in the House, I would probably go to him for advice. [Laughter.]
§ Sir Peter EmeryNow follow that.
713 Further to the point of order that was raised by the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), Mr. Speaker. The House has been worried for a considerable time not just about the specific issue that is before you, but about the overall position of the sub judice rule, given that so many matters are already in the press and being discussed on television and elsewhere. The sub judice rule obviously had a major influence when the media did not discuss matters that were before the courts, but I now wonder how great that influence is. Could you and the Clerks consider whether there should be some new thinking about the sub judice rule and whether that could be done by a Committee of the House or yourself? There is a need to consider the matter further.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman has given me food for thought, but we must consider the rights of the individual; we must always worry about that.
§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be most grateful to you for your guidance. Can you advise me whether the prohibition on tabling written questions that seek to extract Ministers' interpretation of treaty articles also applies to oral questions?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe same rules apply. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that reply.
§ Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)Further to the point of order on orphan assets, Mr. Speaker. Could we not distinguish between a matter that involves a specific case that is before the courts and a general discussion of what the public policy should be in relation to orphan assets?
§ Mr. SpeakerMy understanding is that that distinction is recognised under the rule.