House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 May 1996 (pt 10)

Mr. Newton: Indeed. Although I have a landlocked constituency, I was born and brought up in the Essex port of Harwich, so I am well aware of what my hon. Friend said. I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the issues raised by last night's "Dispatches" programme on the running of Motability? Can I have an assurance that the whole House--or at the very least, the Public Accounts Committee--will have an opportunity to debate those issues, and especially these four very serious allegations: first, the take-over of a public charity by a private for-profit, consortium of high street banks; secondly, the siphoning off of more than £100 million that belonged to disabled people, to boost the private consortium's profits; thirdly, the extent to which the charity exists behind a cloak of secrecy that the Government have consistently refused to question and bring before the House; and fourthly, the links between direct benefactors and donors to the Conservative party and the running of the Motability Finance Ltd. scheme? That must be addressed under the scrutiny of the House as a whole.

Mr. Newton: I did not see the "Dispatches" programme, but obviously I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments, as a former Minister for disabled people and as one who has supported the Motability arrangements over the years. The hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not feel able to comment on what he has said, but I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the national health service, so that I may welcome the further reduction in long-term waiting lists which were published today? Is he aware that the number of people awaiting surgery for more than 12 months has been reduced from more than 200,000 six years ago to only 4,400? Will he also confirm that there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated since the reforms were introduced, and that GP fundholders have revolutionised general practice?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly look as sympathetically as I can upon my hon. Friend's request, bearing in mind the pressures on the House's time. I welcome the opportunity that he has in any case had to draw attention to those very welcome and encouraging figures.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): When can we have a debate about road safety, so that we may congratulate the Government on their courage in introducing probably the most effective advertisements on road safety ever to be used? They comprise home videos depicting children who have been the victims of fatal road accidents and are accompanied by a very moving, simple message from the works of Auden. As those advertisements are likely to get through to those who have caused road accidents when other advertisements have not, is it not right that we should congratulate the Government and all those responsible on drawing attention to the dreadful road toll of 10 fatal accidents every day of the year?

9 May 1996 : Column 385

Mr. Newton: For once, I am left almost speechless, as I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman's asking a helpful question ever before. I shall simply take his comments in the spirit in which they are offered, and thank him most warmly.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) offered a sensible suggestion as to how we could vote on substantive matters next Thursday. The matters will be discussed in European Standing Committee A on Wednesday, when a motion will be put in front of us, presumably with an Opposition amendment. When the matters are decided, they could be brought before the House--certainly the Government motion must be brought back to the House--and voted upon immediately. We could vote on the motion in the House after10 o'clock on Thursday, and then on the amendment if necessary.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Scrutiny Committee, and I have referred briefly to the constructive and thoughtful letter that I received from its Chairman. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion does not strike me immediately as particularly attractive, but I have no doubt that it was intended in a constructive spirit.

9 May 1996 : Column 386

Points of Order

4.37 pm

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the past few days, hon. Members will have seen reports in the press that a journalist who works in the precincts of Westminster has been banned for 20 working days. Can you give us any useful background information regarding that matter?

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the whole House agrees that the press are an important element in the preservation of democratic freedoms, that their presence in the Palace of Westminster is welcome, and that they have the right to report our proceedings and to comment on political developments as they choose. Members of the Lobby are granted privileged access to Parliament so that they may exercise that right most effectively. But privilege is accompanied by responsibility. That responsibility includes a duty to take the advice of the security authorities of the House in relevant cases.

On 28 April, The People printed an article by its political editor about a current security threat. The article contained information which, unusually, he had been asked specifically by the security authorities not to publish. This is not the first time that the political editor of The People has published material that increases the security risk to Members and to their staff. He was previously given a warning about his activities here.

I have given very careful consideration to this entire matter. My conclusion is that the political editor's Lobby pass should be suspended for a period of 20 sitting days.

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): As I was the hon. Member involved in that story, if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) or anyone else is concerned about it, I shall be happy to provide further information in private.

Madam Speaker: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Arising out of the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time and in answer to the private notice question about Westminster, can you provide guidance on what hon. Members can do when it is clear--at least to me, and I am sure to many other hon. Members--that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, either intentionally or unintentionally, misled the House about the law in relation to the district auditor's findings?

The report is available to hon. Members and makes it clear that the auditor announced his findings today, which were not provisional--they were decisions. He made three decisions that there had been unlawful behaviour, and he came to the conclusion that six people were guilty--his words--of wilful misconduct.

The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State either misled the House, were economical with the truth or were ill-informed, and clearly were advised in an extraordinary manner. There must be a way to get Government officials to state accurately the law when the law is absolutely clear.

9 May 1996 : Column 387

Madam Speaker: There may well be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who wish to pursue that line of argument in the debate that is planned for next week. That debate will no doubt provide an opportunity for all those matters to be examined.