§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a delicate point of order of which I gave Mr. Speaker notice this morning. On 29 January, I went to the Table Office and tabled a question that was accepted. It asks:
what the practice is in regard to the provision of holidays and other benefits given to witnesses in murder trials by the police and the prosecuting authorities?That was accepted by the Table Office for a named day, Friday 1 February. Normally, I give Departments 14 days notice for written questions, but this one was rather urgent. There was no reply on Friday, and on Monday there was neither a reply nor anything in Hansard. By some alchemy, however, on coming into the Chamber this afternoon, I received a reply—not from the Home Office but from the Lord Chancellor's Department—from the Solicitor-General. My question was very precise, and the Solicitor-General answered:I have been asked to reply. There is no distinct provision for holidays or other benefits given to witnesses in murder trials by the police or prosecuting authorities. However, where the court necessarily lists a case for trisl"—incidentally, "trial" was mis-spelled "trisl". I do not want to make too much of that, but this answer was clearly hurriedly put together—when a witness is due to be on holiday then some provision can be made to compensate the witness for any loss incurred by way of a financial loss allowance. Alternatively, arrangements can be made to return a witness from holiday to attend court.That did not answer the question that I asked, which was on a substantial matter about which I have a question to put to Mr. Speaker: what on earth is going on at the trial at Camp Zeist, in relation to Lockerbie? I am aware of the sub judice rules, but my question is not sub judice. It concerns something else. Mr. Speaker will know from his constituency Sunday press that there have been stories in Scotland for 10 days now asking why the Strathclyde police provided salmon fishing holidays and other treats for a witness in a forthcoming murder trial. The police have taken the key witness in the biggest murder trial in British history, namely Tony Gauchi, on salmon fishing expeditions. This is far from—
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal)Order. The hon. Gentleman is now widening his original point of order somewhat. Mr. Speaker has informed me that the hon. Gentleman advised him in advance of his question. I am in no position to comment on the substantive part of the answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I can say, however, that Standing Order No. 22(4) states:
Where a Member has indicated that a question is for written answer on a named day the Minister shall cause an answer to be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given".When a Department is unable to give a substantive answer to a named day question on the date on which it is required, the House expects the Member to be given an answer that should give some indication of when the Minister expects to give a full reply.
§ Mr. DalyellFurther to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Very briefly, and without intruding on the sub judice rule, may I ask Mr. Speaker to reflect on 772 the fact that I have had 16 Adjournment debates on Lockerbie, but am now being told that that is all a matter for the Scottish Parliament? This is a very grey area. Are Members of the House of Commons not to be allowed to ask questions on subjects that they have been considering for many years? Where is the dividing line between the Members on the Mound and those in the House of Commons? I do not ask for an answer now, but I honestly think that the Speaker should reflect on this.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerI am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments have been heard, but I repeat that they go much wider than his original point of order.
§ Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I protest and ask for your support, and that of Mr. Speaker, for Members' interests? In the past couple of hours, a report, apparently from a Home Office official, has announced Government policy in relation to what might be called identity cards or entitlement cards. That is clearly a highly controversial and highly important matter. The Home Secretary was in the House yesterday, answering questions for an hour, and he stayed for an Opposition home affairs debate. We understand that he is to be in the House again on Thursday to introduce the asylum and immigration White Paper.
Mr. Speaker and his colleagues have made it absolutely clear that matters of policy should be announced to this place and they certainly should be announced by Ministers. They certainly should not be announced by departmental spokespeople without, it appears, any press release or other information. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, make inquiries? If, as it appears, there has been no proper announcement, will you ensure that the relevant Ministers come here to make one so that Members on both sides of the House can find out what the policy is and ask appropriate questions?
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerI am certainly not aware of the announcement to which the hon. Gentleman refers or, indeed, of how accurate it may or may not be, but he is quite right that Ministers are expected to come to the House to make statements on matters of policy.
§ Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, about a matter of which I gave Mr. Speaker notice this morning. Yesterday, I received a two-line answer to my written question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what will be his policy at ECOFIN on 12 February regarding Germany's budget deficit: the process is as set out in the treaty and the regulations regarding the operation of the stability and growth pact. That is it—a totally inadequate answer, particularly given The Sunday Times article at the weekend in which a senior Treasury official is quoted at length and the Government's approach to the stability pact and the German deficit is spelled out in great detail.
Why are the Government able to answer the question when it is put by a journalist, David Smith, but unable to answer when it is put by a Member of Parliament? Can you use your position to request that the Treasury answer my question properly? If it is too busy to do so, could it not simply copy out The Sunday Times article?
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOn behalf of Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point 773 of order. As Mr. Speaker has frequently made clear to the House, the content of answers is a matter for Ministers. Mr. Speaker has no powers to direct Ministers as to how they answer questions. However, I understand that the Procedure Committee is conducting a wide-ranging inquiry into all aspects of parliamentary questions. The hon. Gentleman may want to pass his concerns to the Chairman, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).