HC Deb 20 April 1971 vol 815 cc952-5
Mr. McNamara

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter concerning the privacy of hon. Members' correspondence with the office of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. I have given notice to the right hon Gentleman's office that I would be raising this point.

I will briefly indicate the background to the situation, and although the facts put it in context they do not reveal the principle. On 24th March, 1971, I wrote to the Prime Minister enclosing a petition from one of my local co-operative guilds about rising prices. On 1st April, 1971, I received a reply signed by Mr. Douglas Hurd, Political Secretary, answering on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Last Thursday, 15th April, I received a telephone call from the Hull Daily Mail. I assumed they were asking me for my comments on the letter I had received from Mr. Hurd, which I had sent to them via a Lobby correspondent. However, they were asking me about a totally different matter, so I asked them what they were doing about the Prime Minister's letter. They replied that they had already received a copy of the correspondence from the Kingston-upon-Hull Conservative Federation's agent, Mr. R. MacKenzie.

I was somewhat surprised because I would normally have imagined that the Prime Minister, if he was intending to release a letter to the Press, would have done it through his Press Office and probably, but not necessarily, would have informed me of his intention. I was surprised therefore to learn that he had done it through his party machine, particularly as I had written to him as Prime Minister and not as Leader of the Conservative Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I accept that I am reading and speaking quickly. I am endeavouring to save the time of the House.

I asked the Hull Daily Mail if they would allow me to see the correspondence, which they kindly did, and the letter from Mr. MacKenzie to the Hull Daily Mail briefly stating the nature of the correspondence enclosed, the last paragraph of which stated: I am asked by Mr. Douglas Hurd to indicate that there is no objection to the publication of any part of this reply. A number of questions immediately arise from this paragraph, which is the nub of the situation and the principle involved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I said that I was endeavouring to avoid delaying the House.

First, is it normal practice for Mr. Hurd, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to send correspondence addressed to the Prime Minister by hon. Members of the Opposition to local Conservative organisations?

Second, what correspondence is, in fact, sent and what criteria are used in deciding whether or not to inform local Conservative organisations about it?

Third, is correspondence sent which the local federation has been asked not to publish?

Fourth, is correspondence sent which the local federation is told it can publish in part?

Fifth, by what criteria does Mr. Hurd decide whether local correspondence should be forwarded to the Conservative federation, and what guarantee do back benchers have that correspondence will be treated in confidence when the occasion arises?

Sixth, who is Mr. Hurd? Who pays him? Is he a civil servant? Has he signed the Official Secrets Act?

Seven, what happens when a Minister is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and matters relating to the affairs of a local authority are sent when a Minister is acting in such a capacity?

I apologise for delaying the House at this time, but I have done so only because this seems to me to be an extremely important matter.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has raised this as a point of order, but I do not detect any point of order in it. Had he raised it as a matter of Privilege I would, of course, have taken time to consider it; but as a point of order, I must rule that he has raised no point of order for me.

The Prime Minister

Although the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has raised what has been ruled not to be a point of order, perhaps I may be allowed to comment on it, particularly as he was kind enough to give me information that he intended to raise this subject. Perhaps I should say at the outset that had he at the same time, or at any time, sent me a list of the questions which he just posed, I would have sent him a detailed answer to each.

On the main point of his submission, he said that the letter and petition which he had sent to me had appeared in a report in the local Press and that therefore the matter had been made entirely public. My office was asked what answer had been sent and the reply which he has quoted was then forwarded. The hon. Member himself said that he had given it to a Lobby correspondent of a newspaper. In the circumstances, the office which handled this at No. 10 felt justified, in order that there would be no misunderstanding about it, to send the full text.

In view of the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised, I have now said that each of these letters to any hon. Member will he signed and handled by myself, even when it is a standard petition sent in by hon. Gentlemen opposite with covering letters.

Mr. McNamara

On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker

I have ruled that it is not a point of order.

Mr. McNamara

This is another point of order, Mr. Speaker, which relates to the comments just made by the Prime Minister. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the treatment of correspondence in future, I have no further wish to proceed with the matter.

Mr. James Johnson

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker

I said that it was not a point of order.

Mr. Johnson

As a point of substance, may I inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I had a very similar experience. I was beginning to wonder whether the Prime Minister had an obsession with the citizens of Hull. I, too, received a letter signed by Mr. Hurd. I hope that in future—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is very interesting, but I have ruled that it is not a point of order.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order. Is it not an abuse of the privilege which an hon. Member has in this House to try to embroil an impartial Chair in what is obviously a spiteful party wrangle? [Interruption.]