HC Deb 13 December 1971 vol 828 cc74-7
Mr. Thorpe

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the action of the Secretary of State for the Environment in instructing Civil Servants to draft Questions with the express object of forestalling, obstructing and limiting the legitimate rights of hon. Members at Question Time. It is not necessary to say much by way of amplification in view of the exchanges which have taken place. We have heard since those exchanges, the allegation that one document which appeared in the Press is apparently a forgery. We have heard it asserted by the Minister that, in his view, this does not depart from normal practice; that it is hallowed by usage. If this is so, it seems right and proper that it should be discussed. The fact that it has not been operated very often does not seem justification by way of diminution.

All these matters—the integrity of the Civil Service and its independence from the party battles, the rights of all hon. Members who are entitled, with equal opportunities, to place Questions—are matters of grave, constitutional importance which this House should debate.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the action of the Secretary of State for the Environment in instructing Civil Servants to draft Questions with the express object of forestalling, obstructing and limiting the legitimate rights of hon. Members at Question Time. It is not for me to express an opinion as to whether this matter should be debated, or to comment on the seriousness of this matter. I simply have to make a procedural decision as to whether I think a Standing Order No. 9 debate—if the right hon. Gentleman gets the leave of the House—is the right way to deal with this matter. I do not think that it is, and therefore I cannot allow this application.

Mr. Thorpe

Accepting your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask that, further to the application by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), you will take into account the precedent set by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Brand, in 1877, who ruled according to the 18th Edition of Erskine May, Chapter 19, Page 429, paragraph 6, that any Member wilfully and persistently obstructing public business without just and reasonable cause is guilty of the contempt of this House and would be liable to such punishment, whether by censure, by suspension from the services of the House, or by commitment as the House may judge. It is not for me to suggest whether obstruction is or is not covered, but on the precedent of the case of Mr. Parnell, who was then hon. Member for Meath, who expressed his satisfaction in preventing and thwarting the intentions of the Government, a consideration of that point is relevant in this case. The House would be very much in your debt if you were able, after due reflection, to give your Ruling on this matter tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker

I shall consider the Matter. I should perhaps have said, in refusing the right hon. Gentleman's application, that it has been raised as a matter of privilege.

Mr. English

Further to that point of order. Since the Secretary of State made it clear that the Civil Service is continuing to prepare Questions and thus the taxpayers' money was being expended, although not necessarily used, would you consider referring the matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must have regularity in this matter. It is now raised as a matter of privilege, and I cannot therefore allow further questions today.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Further to that point of order. Perhaps because of the heat and turmoil to which you have been exposed this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the usual practice has not been followed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) who raised the question of privilege did not obey the usual custom of the House which is to draw to the attention of the House the breach of privilege complained of.

It has been the custom for many generations for hon. Members to produce evidence to the House, to submit to the House a paper, not part of a paper, not one's opinions. With great respect, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall and the Leader of the Liberal Party have not done this. This matter has arisen from documents published in the Press. We say that there must be a prima facie breach of privilege, because we know that official documents have been published. Some are authentic, some are forgeries. Inquiries are going on and I would submit that the reports in the Sunday Times and the Sunday Telegraph should be borne in mind when you consider this question.

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising these points because they are good ones. I am advised that privilege can be raised orally but I am not unaware of the publication of those two newspapers.

Mr. Molloy

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) raised his point of order you said that you would consider many of the things that he had to say and inform the House tomorrow. May I point out that the Minister made special reference to London Members of Parliament and inferred that they were doing something wrong in asking Question about housing conditions in their constituencies? Because such constituents have suffered in a most deplorable manner as a result of the activities of Conservative councils, London Members have quite naturally felt they had every right to table Questions about such matters. May I ask you to consider that aspect? Is it not quite wrong that any London Member should be threatened by a Minister of the Crown for putting down Questions concerning his constituents?

Mr. Speaker

I will certainly include that in my consideration.

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order. The House is awaiting the Ruling you will give tomorrow on the question of the prima facie breach of privilege raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). Could you give us guidance on another related matter? If by any chance you were to rule that a prima facie case did not arise—and many of us, with respect, would consider that the best way of dealing with the matter—would it be in order for hon. Members to propose tomorrow that the matter might be raised under Standing Order No. 9 if it was not to be dealt with primarily as a question of privilege?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is a hypothetical question. I will deal with the situation when it arises.

Mr. C. Pannell

Further to that point of order. You may remember that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) raised this earlier, a bit out of time, but do I understand from your last remarks that you have accepted the remit to tell us tomorrow whether you think this is a matter of privilege?

Mr. Speaker

Yes, I have.

Forward to