§ Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This concerns a matter that I mentioned in questions to the Leader of the House earlier this afternoon. I raise it, Mr. Speaker, because of your oft-stated wish to protect hon. Members against the Executive. It concerns a report by the Policy Studies Institute, commissioned by the police commissioner, which, in answer to a parliamentary question on 4 November, the Home Secretary said he would place in the Library on 18 November. That followed my request that the report be made available before the Second Reading of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. However, the report was not made available in time for Second Reading. Nor was it available this morning. I understand that it is to be made available at a press conference tomorrow afternoon.
The report is fundamental to discussions that took place in Committee this morning. Although the report is not available to hon. Members, and will not be available until tomorrow afternoon or later, it has been made available, albeit embargoed, both to the media and—this is more significant—to a variety of outside organisations. As the Home Secretary is the police authority for London, I do not understand why he sees fit to permit either his officials or the commissioner to make a report available to outside bodies when it is not available to Members of Parliament. At the very least, it is a discourtesy to hon. Members. Furthermore, it makes for muddled, confused and unsatisfactory proceedings in the Standing Committee. I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how to prevent a recurrence of such events.
§ Mr. SpeakerI thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). I agree with him that it is a discourtesy to hon. Members. As a general principle, I believe that the House should be the first to receive reports, before they are given to the press. However, the hon. Member heard the Leader of the House answer his question this afternoon on this matter, and he will have heard him say that it was not a Government report and that the right hon. Gentleman had no control over the way in which it was used. I have no doubt that those who are responsible for its distribution will have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it really your considered opinion that reports should be given to hon. Members before they go to the press? Some of us are in favour of the embargo system whereby the Lobby has reports 48 hours beforehand, thus avoiding a repetition of the disaster with the Franks report—the one example of what you say—which the press got at the same time as Parliament. The press could not read it properly and reached instant conclusions that were completely distorted. Is there not a great deal to be said for the embargo system?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not want to get involved in a great argument about this matter. The embargo system is of long and time-honoured usage. I intended to imply that hon. Members do take great exception—certainly I took great exception when I was a Back Bencher—to reading a report in newspapers before the information is given to the House.