§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I raised in the House the matter of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am listening to a point of order.
§ Mr. ForthI raised the matter of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, who has just scuttled out of the Chamber. He was in the Tea Room earlier—a sure sign that he must be in trouble—and he has just sat through Prime Minister's questions in the Chamber. However, the House has not been able to hold him to account for what in the press today has been a humiliation not just for him, but potentially for the House.
Mr. Speaker, how long are you or we going to allow the matter to go unresolved while everybody in the country knows that something has gone badly wrong in the relationship between Ministers and the House of Commons? "Erskine May" is clear, as is the ministerial code. Can you advise me on what we can do to bring to account a Secretary of State whom everybody in the land believes is being dishonest with the House of Commons?
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the right hon. Gentleman feels that there has been a contempt, he must write to me. If he wants further advice, I remind him that on some occasions when I need advice, I go to him; he knows his way round the rules of the House and well knows how to bring a Minister to account. I urge him to look at his own experience.
§ Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to bring another Minister to account on an issue that is rather less serious, but nevertheless serious enough. Yesterday, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who is in the Chamber—I told her that I was going to raise this point of order—a question about community or cottage hospitals in Lichfield. Replying to my supplementary question, she may have inadvertently misled the House on two points. First, she said that there would be
52 in—patient beds, rehabilitation facilities, out—patient, diagnostics and X-ray equipment, a pharmacy, a minor injuries unit, a renal satellite dialysis unit and, I hope, a maternity unit—all under Labour.However, we have those already. In fact, the plans for the new hospital simply provide for them, but not other existing services, so there will be a reduction. Far more seriously, however, the Under-Secretary went on to say:I am pleased that on his website he said that the Budget was good for the NHS."—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 4.]The Under-Secretary left it like that, but are her remarks honourable, Mr. Speaker, when they mislead the House? In fact, my website says:The Chancellor of the Exchequer is gambling that the Government will finally be able to reverse the downward trend in the NHS services … It's a good budget for the NHS—if only it works. But even by 2007, the Government will still be paying less than Germany or other countries pay for their health services which operate more efficiently.154 The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Lady quoted selectively and misled the House. Perhaps everyone should look at www.michael.fabricant.mp.co.uk to learn the truth of the matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat was not a point of order.
§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 26 February at column 574 of Hansard, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions:
Will the Secretary of State say whether Mr. Martin Sixsmith was a civil servant in his Department on 22 February?He answered:As I said earlier, Martin Sixsmith offered his resignation, which was accepted, on 15 February."—[Official Report, 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 574.]How can the Secretary of State stand by the statement that he made to the House of Commons?
§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let me answer. I am not responsible for the Minister's replies; therefore I cannot be drawn into the argument through points of order.
§ Mr. MacKayFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, like all of us, are responsible for not bringing the House into disrepute. Outside in the country, the fact that a Secretary of State has misled the House in a major statement and has not been called to account at the Dispatch Box has brought the House into disrepute today. Many of us would like to know what is going to happen.
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot add to my previous statement on the matter.
§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not there an honourable custom in the House that if a right hon. or hon. Member inadvertently misleads the House, they seek to make a personal statement? If the Secretary of State should ask you for permission to make a personal statement, would you grant it?
§ Mr. SpeakerI would look at the matter.
§ Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 21 March, in a written question, I asked the Home Secretary about the abolition of the special vouchers scheme. When last week—six weeks later—I had not received a reply, I tabled a further written question asking when I might receive a reply. Yesterday I received a response from the Minister which stated: "I will reply as soon as possible." It is now seven weeks since I tabled my original question. Can you give some guidance to me and to Ministers about acceptable time frames for responding to hon. Members' inquiries?
§ Mr. SpeakerI will look into the hon. Gentleman's complaint.