---

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): Does the Minister accept that I do not take issue with his need to come to the House and make a statement in the light of information available to him? However, may I report the despairing phone calls that I have received from farmers in my constituency today and a call from Paris on a mobile phone from the chief executive of what used to be our biggest beef exporter? He is now struggling to export lamb and salmon to the continent and asking whether there is any point in keeping his business going, because he cannot cope with this trickle of announcements. We need to reach a position in which, first, we have a real prospect of eliminating BSE from the herd, and, secondly, we have in place a traceability scheme that is accepted by the European Union and will enable us to get back into the marketplace.

Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman think again about the cut in the compensation scheme for cull cattle? That has had two potentially damaging effects: it might halt the decline in the incidence of BSE just at the moment when the incidence is becoming extremely small, and it is devaluing the capital value of many farmers' herds, leaving them unable to survive. Will he think again?

Dr. Cunningham: I am pleased to be able to say that I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman says. To the constituent who called him on a mobile phone from Paris I would say, yes, there is a point in continuing. I recently attended the food fair at ANUGA in Cologne, where a great many Scottish food producers, from Orkney to the borders, were displaying their products and

3 Dec 1997 : Column 389

demonstrating with considerable skill and success their ability to export food from Scotland. I made a point of visiting several of the stands, some of which displayed lamb and salmon products. There is a great deal of point in continuing, because there are enormous markets to be satisfied.

We are pressing ahead with all possible speed and deliberation to eradicate BSE from the national herd, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is the way to resolve the problems. He is also right about traceability, and from our first days in office, my hon. Friend the Minister of State engaged consultants and took their advice. He has made a decision about where the traceability centre is to be located, and the buildings are being established as we speak. It will soon be operational, and I am delighted that we have made such good progress.

As for the over-30-months scheme, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that decisions about that scheme are made by the Beef Management Committee in Brussels and not by me personally. At the time of these changes, I said to the National Farmers Union that if it could come up with a different way--one that its members thought was fairer--of applying the decisions, I would try to get those proposals implemented instead. I should say here that I welcome the statesmanlike response of Sir David Naish to these problems and the measured way in which he has acted, which stands in stark contrast to the conduct of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). Sadly, however, the farmers could not agree on a different way of proceeding.

3 Dec 1997 : Column 390

Points of Order

5.33 pm

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This matter arises from a hearing of the Accounts Commission for Scotland held in Haddington last Friday, 28 November, to look into an excellent 1985 initiative by East Lothian district council. I have expressed my opinion of that matter in early-day motion 479.

My point of order arises from the fact that I have been advised that the chairman of the commission, Professor Percy, delivered a public rebuke of me for not being present at his hearing. Apparently, he said that

"it was regrettable that the Member of Parliament had seen fit not to be present in view of the serious statement that he had made"

in the early-day motion. Those present, including representatives of the press, got the clear message that the chairman thought that I had got my priorities wrong when I decided to vote in the House on Friday rather than attend his hearing. I have always understood that attendance in the House of Commons is the overriding duty of Members of Parliament, Madam Speaker, so may I seek your advice on the propriety of the chairman of a subordinate body telling a Member of Parliament that attendance at his quango is more important than voting in the House?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me some indication of the point he intended to raise, but there is little that I can usefully say in response. I have not seen a transcript of the comment to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Obviously, all Members of Parliament find that there are conflicting calls on their time most days, but I am aware that many hon. Members decided that the right place for them to be last Friday was in the Chamber. If that meant that some outside bodies felt disobliged by hon. Members' inability to attend their proceedings, that is to be regretted. Although I do not think that any further comment or special protection from me is required by the hon. Gentleman, I hope that outside bodies will realise that parliamentary proceedings must remain the first call on hon. Members' time.

Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is almost becoming tedious to have raise such points of order with you, but this one relates to the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on public expenditure in Scotland which he delivered at 4.30 pm today in the Scottish Grand Committee. The statement was made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office at 4.31 pm, but, by that time, I had already conducted an interview on the subject at Millbank, having been given the full figures by journalists. I checked the fax time of their information--it was 3.55 pm. Despite your constant admonitions, Madam Speaker, the Government are choosing either to ignore or to defy your wishes on behalf of the House. It seems that the Government simply wish that the House of Commons did not exist.

Madam Speaker: I share the irritation of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. I have deprecated such occurrences before and I do so again most strongly. I see that the Scottish Grand Committee met at 4.30 pm today to consider a ministerial statement on the Scottish

3 Dec 1997 : Column 391

local government settlement and what the hon. Gentleman says indicates that that statement was available well in advance to the media. What is happening is that the status of this House is being devalued, which I deprecate most strongly. I hope that senior Ministers present here will note my remarks and ensure that there is no recurrence of such events. It seems that I have to make statements such as this every two weeks.

Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order that Members of Parliament are impeded in carrying out their parliamentary duties by the outrageous behaviour of a public transport company? I had to travel to Gravesend this morning to meet the flagship of the standing NATO fleet and had allowed plenty of time to allow for the usual delays and breakdowns. The train stopped at Crayford, where all the passengers were forced to get off, apparently for no other reason than that the train was running late. Had it not been for the quick thinking and co-operation of some of the passengers, I would not have got to my engagement. If you can assist in any way, Madam Speaker, it would benefit not only many hon. Members, but many commuters.

Madam Speaker: I have a good deal of authority from time to time, but it extends only within the House and not to the railways. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee, Clements house, 14-18 Gresham street, London. That body deals with issues affecting rail users and has the legal right to make recommendations for improvement.

Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect to your authority, which you have just mentioned, I was wondering whether you could help me with a problem I face. I fully accept

3 Dec 1997 : Column 392

that you have no responsibility for or control over the contents of answers to written questions, but that is not the thrust of my point of order. All Ministers, when they sign written answers to Members of Parliament, have in the jacket of those questions a guidance note from the permanent secretary of their Department stating that the answer should be factually correct and as helpful as possible in answering the question.

Yesterday, I had a written answer from the Department of Social Security to two questions that were grouped with a question from another hon. Member. One of my questions specifically asked the Department to publish the minutes of a meeting that the Secretary of State for Social Security had with an official from Wisconsin on compulsion for lone parents seeking work and welfare to work. The general answer to all three questions in no way answered that question. The Table Office tells me that, under the rules of the House, I cannot for three months retable that question to elicit the answer that I sought.

I now know, from a telephone call that I have made to the Department, the answer to my question, but it is not in the written answer that appears in the Official Report because the Government do not want to put in black and white in the public domain their refusal to issue those minutes. I do not question their decision, but they have not answered my question, so it has not been published in the Official Report. That is an abuse of the procedure whereby questions are tabled in order to elicit answers from Ministers and to question the Executive.

---