Points of Order (Hansard, 13 March 2001)

§ Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The ministerial code of conduct published by the Prime Minister states: It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister". In recent days, an account has been published of events surrounding the publication of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone and, in particular, reporting certain actions of the Foreign Secretary and his press secretary, Mr. John Williams.
It has been alleged that those actions, whose factual accuracy has not, I understand, been challenged, are simply inconsistent with the account given to the House and its Committees on no fewer than three separate occasions. In particular, the apparent telephoning of a reporter by Mr. Williams at 6.45 am on the day of publication seems inconsistent with the Foreign Secretary's assertion: There was no briefing—no leak to the press in advance of publication by the Foreign Office or any Minister in the Foreign Office."—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 416.] Also inconsistent is the allegation that the Foreign Secretary himself also phoned the same reporter some hours before publication.
Next week, the Foreign Secretary has to represent Britain at the Stockholm summit. His ability to do so has been seriously affected by the cloud now hanging over him. It is urgently necessary in the national interest that the matter be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity. Has the Foreign Secretary asked to make a statement to the House which would clear up this disturbing matter for good?

§ Mr. Speaker
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Secretary has not asked me whether he can make a statement.

§ Helen Jones (Warrington, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter raised in paragraph 50 of the fourth report of the Public Administration Committee, which states that the Official Opposition and its auditors were unable to give a categorical assurance that its Short Money funding was used exclusively for parliamentary business. It states also that the Opposition afterwards approached the Fees Office to arrive at a new description of parliamentary business, without consideration by the House. Is it in order for any party to act in that way, without recourse to the House? Will you investigate the matter and ensure that any rule changes are introduced by the House and no one else?

§ Mr. Speaker
I feel that it would have been helpful if I had received notice of that point of order. I will look into the matter and get back to the hon. Lady.

§ Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a matter relating to motion 13 on the Order Paper. On 7 March, European 820 Standing Committee C spent some two hours debating issues of interest to millions of people about the pricing and servicing of new cars in the context of the European Commission review of the exemption enjoyed by motor vehicle manufacturers from the general ban on anti-competitive agreements. I moved an amendment tabled by the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and others of that Committee's members. At column 26 of Hansard, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said: I am happy to accept the amendment because it reflects the Government's intentions He also said: It sharpens the motion and is a good indicator of our thinking".—[Official Report, European Standing Committee C, 7 March 2001; c. 26.]
The amendment was agreed, and the amended motion was carried unanimously and reported to the House by the Chairman of the Standing Committee. Today, without warning, the Government have tabled motion 13, which is the unamended version. What is the purpose of a Standing Committee if amendments that are agreed with Government support are, a few days later, deemed not to have been accepted? Will you, Mr. Speaker, accept a manuscript amendment phrased in the same terms as the amendment that was accepted in Committee so that the motion can be amended if the Government press it?
I remind the House and you, Mr. Speaker, that in 1991, the Procedure Committee said that tabling a motion which did not reflect the Standing Committee's decision made a mockery of the scrutiny process. In 1997 it further said that the outcome of Committee proceedings should not be swept under the carpet if the system is to retain credibility. The Government are riding roughshod over the procedures of the House and the scrutiny process.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. If he tables such an amendment, I shall give it careful consideration. In addition, I am sure that Ministers heard what he said.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My concern is straightforward. You will be aware that we were due to finish the Criminal Justice and Police Bill in Committee last Thursday. You will also know that we debated the Government motion on that until the early hours of this morning and that, at about 2 am, we agreed to go ahead without finishing the Committee stage. The Bill is due back on the Floor of the House tomorrow. In the light of the fact that some hon. Members do not have the normal opportunity for tabling new clauses or amendments, would you be willing to select such proposals for debate if they were tabled today for consideration tomorrow? In such circumstances there is usually at least an intervening weekend, giving hon. Members five days' notice, but last night's unprecedented decision means that notice has been shortened to less than a day and a half.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman asks whether I would select new clauses and amendments for debate. 821 I can only do that when I see what is on the amendment paper. When I see what is tabled, I shall give the matter due consideration.

§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the devastation that is being caused in the west country by the foot and mouth crisis. It is affecting not only agriculture but other industries, especially tourism, which is suffering from massive cancellations of places and hotels. With that in mind, have you received a request from the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to make a statement to the House on today's announcement by the Prime Minister that a taskforce will be set up under the chairmanship of the Minister for the Environment, to consider—as we understand it from press reports—compensation arrangements that flow from the foot and mouth crisis? I should like to think that you have received such a request, which you would, no doubt, treat favourably. Once again, an interesting press statement has been released, but its terms of reference need to be examined in the House. That issue is of vital concern to anyone who comes from an area where foot and mouth is rampant.

§ Mr. Speaker
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I have not received such a request, but I am sure that Ministers will take on board his deep concerns.

§ Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, a Committee of this House reported on the conduct of the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). One of the many disturbing features of the report was a statement that several important allegations could not be properly investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards because the Minister and some of his close associates in his constituency organisation were not prepared to co-operate with the inquiry.
Is there a way that the commissioner can be asked to reopen the inquiry and that the Minister and his friends and associates can be required to comply with the wishes of the House? I thought that the Government wanted to bust sleaze, but now we have a Minister who does not. Many of us think that the hon. Gentleman should resign while the matter is investigated. Can you advise us on how to pursue that?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a matter for the Committee; it is up to it to look at it.

§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Health questions, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), announced that the Secretary of State would make a statement on GP recruitment and retention payments, which are a new Government initiative. However, that was announced on the lunchtime news today, and was also in The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent. Is that not an abuse of the House by a Government who make a habit of abusing the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a matter for the Minister, not the Chair.

§ Mr. Derek Twigg (Halton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. 822 O'Brien) commented on concern about the transportation of cattle slaughtered because of foot and mouth; the carcases were going through Cheshire to a rendering plant in Widnes in my constituency. That has caused great concern in my constituency, and I have asked several questions and made representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I received a phone call late this morning from a local radio station saying that some farmers in Cheshire were threatening to block roads into my constituency, to stop the carcases getting to the plant.
As I said, there is general concern about that. I am worried that, if transportation were stopped, that might cause more of a problem. Would you look favourably on any request for a statement on transportation, Mr. Speaker?

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is coming to the House. If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye, he may be able to put the matter to him.

§ Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to your ruling on the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), would it be appropriate to remove motion 13 from today's Order Paper until the full text has been agreed by European Standing Committee C—on which I too serve—so that it can be considered by the whole House?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have been told informally that there was a mistake and that the motion may not be moved. That may be helpful to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).

§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A moment or two ago, you indicated that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was coming to make a statement. Could you clarify that, please?

§ Mr. Speaker
Not today, but this week. I understand that the Minister has indicated that he will come this week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tomorrow?"] It may be tomorrow; it is certainly not today.

§ Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury)
Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg), Mr. Speaker. The transportation of infected carcases through Cheshire is causing grave concern. I raised that in a point of order yesterday and, quite rightly, the hon. Member for Halton has referred to farmers' anxieties. No one in the House would condone actions that did not conform with the law but, apart from the dangers of vented trucks carrying carcases passing through an area, neither the police nor the trading standards authorities were informed of the transportation before it took place.
I urge you to use your best offices, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister to attend the House as soon as possible so that those matters can receive proper attention and so that assurance can be given to farmers, who are desperately worried.

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand that it must be a worrying time for hon. Members who have farming communities, 823 but I have to say that many of the questions being asked by hon. Members on points of order are really matters for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have said that I understand that that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to the House this week.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the report in that journal of truth and wisdom, The Sunday Telegraph, to the effect that the application for a passport by Mr. Duncan Fletcher, the excellent Zimbabwe-born coach of the England cricket team, has been refused, have you received any indication from a Minister at the Home Office that he or she intends to come to the House to explain that curious conduct, particularly to assure hon. Members that the rejection is not explained by the fact that Mr. Fletcher is neither a donor to the Labour party nor a sponsor of the millennium dome?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have had no such indication.

§ Mr. Fabricant
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a separate point of order from my earlier one. First, may I apologise to you, and give an explanation for losing my normal calmness and amiable demeanour following the answer to my question at Health Question Time? May I explain that I was quoting from the South Staffordshire health authority report, so I could not understand why the Minister said that the contents of the report were nonsense? Furthermore—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he is not raising a proper point of order.

§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for showing your understanding and sympathy for constituencies that are badly affected by outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. It is encouraging that you have informed the House that we can expect a statement some time later this week. However, we ought to have had a statement today, following the Prime Minister's summit, because our constituents are ringing us and asking us about the television and radio reports of that meeting. It would have been a little more respectful if the Government had arranged a statement today on these important matters. Many people in my constituency just want information about the restrictions on movement that are being discussed.

§ Mr. Speaker
Once again, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but I can do nothing about the matter.