§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some hon. Members have been very concerned that the Opposition's policies have been mentioned at Question Time. We are therefore grateful to you for saying today that they should not be dealt with at Question Time. It is after all, merely cruelty to examine those policies, which are so transparently poor that, on that basis, the country will never elect the Opposition to government.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is not a point of order for me.
§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a very basic point of order which affects the welfare of many hon. Members. May I advise you that every lavatory in Portcullis House is out of order? As that problem is in addition to problems with the escalators and with the lifts, could you please investigate the matter? I believe that, after forking out £250 million of taxpayers' money for that place, we deserve better value for money.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. There was a burst water main in Bridge street.
§ Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We shall study your ruling with great care. I was not quite clear which were your own words as Speaker, which we must follow, and which were words quoted directly from "Erskine May". I think that my constituents sent me to this place not only to test and question the Executive, but, in part, to test and question the ability of the alternative Executive, who are sitting on the other side of the, Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is a serious part of my job as a Member of Parliament. I should be grateful if, in due course, you could give some reflection to that duty that I have as an hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the best thing the hon. Gentleman could do, if lie has not already done so, is to read "Erskine May". It would make good reading for him.
§ Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be familiar with the paragraph 1(iii) of the ministerial code, which states:
It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.This time last week, the Prime Minister told the House that there were 500,000 extra students in further and higher education since the Government came to office. However, that figure is contradicted by all the information that is available in the Government's own statistics, and it is certainly wildly inaccurate. Has the Prime Minister come to you, Mr. Speaker, or made any other attempt to correct that inaccurate information? If he has not done so, how can I press hire to ensure that his own ministerial code is brought into force?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo approach from the Prime Minister has been made to me. However, the hon. Gentleman is able to use the Order Paper, and I suggest that he does so.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I enthusiastically welcome your statement, as far as it goes? However, if your wishes are not carried out, could you reflect on whether it is sensible to have open questions to a Prime Minister? Considering the amount of prime ministerial time that is taken up in preparing for questions that may be asked on any subject, is there not an argument for having specific questions to the Prime Minister?
To cater for the needs of the Leader of the Opposition, is there not an argument for reflecting also on whether, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to pursue a subject at length. which he is entitled to do, greater use should be made of the private notice question? A long time ago, when I was first elected to the House, Hugh Gaitskell would use the private notice question if he wished to pursue a particular point with Harold Macmillan, which made possible a sequence of questioning that really did hold the Executive to account. One could ask whether it is possible for those ridiculous open questions to be effective in holding any Executive to account.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. May I first answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? It is open to the hon. Gentleman to make approaches to the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee. Perhaps I could suggest that he does that.
§ Mr. WinnickFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you bear it in mind that if we were restricted to the sort of questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has suggested, it would make Question Time far lest, topical? If an issue arose that an hon. Member on either side wished to raise—particularly at Prime Minister's Question Time—it would be virtually impossible to raise it, as you would rule it out of order. Open questions came about to give Members of this House, both Opposition and Government, much more flexibility. I hope that there will not be a decision to change that; it would be a retrograde step and against the interests of Back Benchers.
§ Mr. SpeakerOnce again, I would say that these are matters for the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee. The hon. Gentleman has a view contrary to that of his hon. Friend. He could make that view known.
§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 18 April 2000, the previous Speaker announced to the House that she had had long discussions with the head of the civil service and the Cabinet Secretary about letters from Ministers taking a long time to get to Members. I wrote to the Department of Health on 29 September for some information that it would have been fairly easy to provide quickly. The Department acknowledged, in the first paragraph of the reply, the name of my constituent, and went on to say:
You and your constituent will be please d to learn that the British Medical Association currently runs a mentoring scheme for overseas doctors. They can be contacted atThe phone number was then given. The letter continued:London".
- British Medical Association
- BMA House
318 - Tavistock Square
I hope this information is of use to you and your constituent.I sent the letter to the Department of Health on 29 September; I got that reply on 12 February. It was not a difficult issue, and I would have thought that the reply could have come a lot more quickly. Do you think that Members of Parliament are getting the right service at the moment?
§ Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If I answer the first point, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not have to raise a point of order. I cannot comment on the particular case that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) raises, but I would expect Ministers to act promptly on correspondence from all Back Benchers on both sides of the House. I am a Member of Parliament myself and I expect prompt and full replies. I hope that that is taken on board.
§ Mr. LuffFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have had similar problems with the Department of Health on many occasions; without doubt, it is the worst Department in Whitehall for responding to letters in good time. A reply to my parliamentary question last year said that the Department's target for replying to hon. Members' letters was 20 working days. I cannot immediately recall a letter to which I have had a reply within 20 working days. I have been pursuing the case of my constituent Kevin O'Donnell for two and a half years, and the average length of time for a reply to a letter is six to nine months. Can I urge you to see whether there is something you can do to encourage the Department of Health, in particular, to reply to letters more punctually?
§ Mr. SpeakerI replied to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire on that point, and I hope that my comment is taken on board.
§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I add to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? It was the practice of the House to have closed questions to the Prime Minister in the age of Mr. Macmillan. He stood up and simply referred the question to the appropriate Minister, and Prime Minister's Question Time more or less collapsed. That is the reason why the open question came in.
Can I refer you to another point that has struck me over many years? It may be useful for you to draw attention to it, Mr. Speaker. The only second person singular in the House is yourself, and far too many right hon. and hon. Members from both sides use the word "you" across the Floor of the House, when they should be referring to "right hon. and hon. Members". It might be appropriate to add that to your earlier statement, so that all right hon. and hon. Members know what they should do.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have noticed that practice. Most hon. Members, with the exception of those who have come in 319 following by-elections, have been Members for four years now. They should know the conventions and rules of the House.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Oh for the golden days—but they never happened. You will find if you scan the Hansard record of Parliament in 1964, Mr. Speaker, that on occasions so few people wanted to participate in Prime Minister's questions that my late hon. Friend Eric Heffer asked two in questions in 15 minutes.
I am trying to convey the fact that it is a different world now, with different attractions. Parliament is on television, and on C-SPAN in America—and one of the reasons for that is the to and fro of Prime Minister's Question Time. It would be a sad day if we were not allowed to put our points across. I am also extremely pleased that you said that we should not talk about Opposition policies at length.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman. I must say that I do miss the times when I used to sit with him below the Gangway and he told me those stories.
§ Mr. DalyellFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned a golden age, but I am unashamedly of the Jurassic age. The wider and more sensitive issue is the extent to which Prime Ministers, whoever they are, think that Question Time allows them to interfere in every 320 Department of Cabinet government. Like other hon. Members, I gave evidence to the Procedure Committee on this matter, which is part of the deeper question about the role of a Prime Minister and a Cabinet in a parliamentary democracy. That question should be addressed.
§ Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This will be the last point of order.
§ Fiona MactaggartFurther to those points of order, Mr. Speaker. Your statement did not mention the behaviour of the hon. Members who are listening to the questions and answers. I have been concerned about the lack of listening in the Chamber, and I know that it distresses my constituents. Could you use your office to encourage hon. Members to listen more carefully to each other, so that we call hold people to account instead of merely listening to people shout at each other?
§ Mr. SpeakerI agree with the hon. Lady and I hope that hon. Members will listen to me. That would help.