Points of Order (Hansard, 29 January 2001)

§ Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave you notice that, on 18 January, during the Opposition day debate on teacher supply and standards in education, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment moved a motion in the Prime Minister's name stating: there are more people training to be teachers now than at any time in the last eight years."—[Official Report, 18 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 537.] Yet in a written reply from the Minister for School Standards to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 24 January, figures supplied by the Department for Education and Employment showed that in four of the past eight years, more people were training to be teachers than currently. The statement made in the Prime Minister's motion was thus wrong, Mr. Speaker, so I seek your guidance as to how we may ensure that the true position is put before the House, that that statement is corrected and that Members of the House are not misled by misinformation from Ministers.

§ Mr. Speaker
I believe that the hon. Lady is referring to an amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. During the debate, it was open to the hon. Lady, or any other hon. Member, to put the record straight as to the accuracy of the amendment.

§ Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that, last Friday, the Home Secretary responded to several questions, including one that I asked on the date and time of a telephone conversation between the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). The Home Secretary confirmed that he was not prepared to pre-empt the outcome of a review".—[Official Report, 25 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 709W.] That review is being conducted by Sir Anthony Hammond. Will you confirm that, on the rules for reference in debate to matters awaiting judicial decision, "Erskine May" states that such a restriction does not apply to ad hoc inquiries established by Ministers even when presided over by a judge, nor does it apply to matters referred to a departmental inquiry."? Will you therefore confirm that there is no constraint whatever on Ministers on how they might reply to debates or parliamentary questions on the Hinduja passport application? In addition, is it in order for the Home Secretary to refuse to answer questions relating to the matter in the House on Friday, but on Sunday to answer questions relating to such conversations asked by Mr. Jonathan Dimbleby?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of that point of order. I have already made it clear that the inquiry set up by the Prime Minister does not render the matter sub judice. I have also made it clear that the substance of ministerial replies is not my responsibility. The hon. Gentleman will have to find other ways in which to raise his concerns.

§ Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving 32 you notice, but my point of order relates to the previous matter. In 1996, the House passed a motion describing the accountability of Ministers to the House. It now appears on page 63 of "Erskine May", which states: ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute, and the government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information". I have a copy of the code of practice on access to information, and it does indeed lay down certain conditions for confidentiality, but none relating to an inquiry set up by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of our rights in this respect. Only you can make the Government comply with a motion, passed by the House in 1996, that does not give them the right to use their own inquiry as an excuse to block the scrutiny powers of hon. Members. I therefore appeal to you to enforce the letter of that motion, which we passed only a few years ago.

§ Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Let me—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On that very matter—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Let me answer that very matter.
I have ruled that the matter is not sub judice. It is up to hon. Members to keep persevering and asking questions of Ministers.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I am not allowed to say that those points of order were bogus, because that is your function, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot challenge what you wish to say. However, they were bogus. Perhaps hon. Members should recall what happened during 17 years of Tory Government, when Ministers repeatedly told us from the Dispatch Box that they could not answer parliamentary questions. Indeed, I was repeatedly blocked in the Table Office on the basis that ministerial inquiries were under way, following instructions from those in the private office, who spoke to the Clerks in the Table Office. Those points of order are totally spurious and totally bogus, and we will not be fooled.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am always reluctant to say that an hon. Member has raised—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, but he is continuing to talk. I am always reluctant to say that hon. Members have raised bogus points of order, but what we heard from the hon. Gentleman was, indeed, a bogus point of order.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
My point of order is, as always, entirely genuine, Mr. Speaker. Given the growing concern about the unlawful activities of many animal rights protesters in this country, have you received any indication that a Home Office Minister wishes shortly to make a statement about the new and additional means by which the Government intend that people who are suspected of harassment, intimidation or violence can be identified and prosecuted without delay?

§ Mr. Speaker
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should wait for the debate.

§ Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you advance 33 notice of my point, but it relates to the points of order on the Hammond inquiry. It is becoming daily more clear that the reason for the resignation of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was the insistence of a civil servant—the Prime Minister's chief press spokesman—that he must resign. if the Hammond inquiry finds that that is so, what recourse will Members have to hold an unelected civil servant to account when issues of such gravity as the resignation of a Cabinet Minister are precipitated by that civil servant?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman puts a hypothetical question to me, and I am not in the business of answering hypothetical questions.