Points of Order (Hansard, 1 April 2003)

§ Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that, from time to time in the past, Secretaries of State and Ministers talked about boom and bust. That appears to have ended now. However, the current craze is for Ministers to say time and time again—the Secretary of State for Transport said it today—that the Conservative party is committed to 20 per cent. cuts in public expenditure. Ministers know that to be untrue and to be a lie. What can we do to protect the truth in the Chamber and to ensure that this lie does not continue to be propagated?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a matter for debate, so I shall not be drawn into it.

§ Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since we last had a statement about the situation in Iraq, the Prime Minister has met the President of the United States, the US Defence Secretary has sought to bring Iran and Syria into the conflict and there has been a rising tide of civilian as well as military casualties in this dreadful conflict. Yesterday, a number of Members raised points of order about the lack of a statement from the Prime Minister yesterday. Another day has passed and there is still no sign of a statement. Is there any way that the House can encourage the Secretary of State for Defence, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister to come to the House to give us an update on the appalling situation in Iraq?

§ Mr. Speaker
Defence questions were held yesterday and many of the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised were covered then. As to the Prime Minister making a statement, Prime Minister's Question Time will be held tomorrow and hon. Members can seek to catch my eye. However, I make no promises as to whom I call.

§ Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of newspaper reports today detailing the United States plans for a post-conflict Iraqi Government that will number 24 ministries each headed by a US official, with four Iraqi advisers again appointed by the United States. This plan flies directly in the face of a reply that the Prime Minister gave in the Chamber to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). The right hon. Gentleman urged the Prime Minister to persuade the President that we want a United Nations-led rather than a United States-led Administration in any post-military conflict Iraq. The Prime Minister replied: I do not believe that there is a need to persuade the President … We made it clear … that any post-conflict Iraqi Administration must be specifically accepted and endorsed by the UN."—[Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 284.] If it is not possible for the Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement about what seems to be a clear lack of communication between the White House and No. 10, is there any way that the Foreign Secretary 796 can be persuaded to come to the House and answer questions on an issue that is serious not only for the people of Iraq but for the peace of the whole world?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Lady said that she was referring to press reports, so I shall make no further comment on that matter. She can make representations to the officers of the parliamentary Labour party and to the Chief Whip for a debate on these matters.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that it is your role to act as the guardian of the rights of Back Benchers and that Ministers' tendency to indulge themselves in evasive, long-winded and circumlocutory replies has been greatly exacerbated in recent times, what consideration have you given to time limiting oral questions and answers in the House to facilitate rather greater progress than we suffered today?

§ Mr. Speaker
All that we have at our disposal is one hour. I will let the hon. Gentleman into a secret. I said to the Secretary of State for Transport that I hoped that the replies would be a lot shorter the next time that we have Transport questions.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be relieved to hear that I learned my lesson from your wrath of a fortnight ago, and that I am asking not about an issue that I raised with your Office this morning but about a later issue. That is the reports that are coming through that a number of Shi'a from Iran, because of what they see as the attacks on their holy places of Karbala and Najaf—which are perhaps even more important than Mecca and Medina—are volunteering their services to the Iraqi forces. Is there any possibility of a statement by the Ministry of Defence on those who are coming in from other countries, not least Chechnya and Pakistan, to offer their services to the Iraqi forces?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a matter for me.

§ Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In replying to a point of order yesterday from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who drew your attention to the fact that, in the absence of the Leader of the House, we were to receive 14 written statements yesterday from Ministers, you kindly and wisely said that you would look into the matter. Are you aware that rather than listening to your words, Ministers have listed a further 15 written statements on the Order Paper today? Is there anything that you can do to prevent that abuse of parliamentary privilege?

§ Mr. Speaker
I noted the number of written statements listed today. They are submitted in accordance with the rules of the House, which hon. Members have made, so I have nothing more to say on the matter.

§ Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead)
On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday, the acting Leader of the House said: I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to report back to the House at the earliest opportunity on his important discussions with President Bush and the Secretary-General of the United Nations."—[Official Report, 27 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 454.] I should have thought it even more important that the Prime Minister reports to the House as he referred during that visit to the execution of British troops, and the House should hear what he has to say about that.
The matter was raised with you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and you said: I did note what was said last Thursday."—[Official Report, 31 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 668.] Will you elaborate on that and say whether you have done anything further than noting it? Have you discussed the matter with No. 10? Have you put it to the Government that they should make an early statement?

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, I did note what the acting Leader of the House said, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to elaborate on that, I say that I have no responsibility for what the acting Leader of the House has to say on a Thursday. I shall say no more on the matter.