HC Deb 16 April 1975 vol 890 cc442-6
Mr. Speaker

Last Thursday, during Questions on Business to the Leader of the House, references were made to what was alleged to have happened at a meeting of the Industry Bill Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) raised a point of order to the effect that, in relation to what happens in a Committee of the House, the House should take cognisance only of what is reported to it officially by the Committee.

This is a difficult matter, and I apologise to the House for the length of this ruling.

With regard to Select Committees, the position is clear. In "Erskine May", 18th Edition, it is stated on page 414: The proceedings and report of a select committee may not be referred to in debate before they have been laid upon the Table. Although the word "debate" is used, I should hold the rule as applicable also to Question Time. This rule is less restrictive than it might seem, because when Select Committees meet in public a report of the evidence taken is made to the House after each sitting of the Committee.

With regard to Standing Committees, the formal position is also clear. As stated by "Erskine May" on page 606, there is no appeal from a ruling by the Chairman of a Standing Committee to myself, nor can the House, as such, take formal cognisance of proceedings in a Standing Committee unless they have been brought before it by means of a report.

The position is not so clear with regard to references in the House to what is happening in a Standing Committee. On page 521 of "Erskine May", it is stated: The House is not supposed to be informed of the proceedings of the committee until the bill has been reported and attempts to refer in the House to proceedings on a bill during its consideration in committee are consequently irregular. On 11th March 1947 Speaker Clifton-Brown ruled on the matter. He began by saying: The Rule prohibiting reference to the proceedings of a Committee, whether a Select Committee or a Standing Committee, must be interpreted in the light of the purpose it is intended to serve. That purpose is to prevent Members in the House seeking to interfere with and prejudice the proceedings of the Committee by discussing the matters referred to that Committee. He then, however, proceeded to qualify the prohibition which he had stated to exist. He said: Reference should be of the most sparing kind. It is hard to lay down a general Rule in advance as to what would be permissible. What is not permissible is more easily stated. But I should say, for example, that statistics about the number of days a Committee has sat and the rate of its progress are just on the right side of the line, especially where such statistics are intimately related to the Question before the House, provided they are not accompanied by any comment on the proceedings themselves."— [Official Report, 11th March 1947; Vol. 434, c. 1145–6.] After reflecting upon the matter, I agree with Speaker Clifton-Brown's approach. There should not be a complete prohibition.

As to the questions which were asked last Thursday, the first one was by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). He asked whether the Industry Bill Standing Committee was to sit that afternoon. The second question was by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). He referred to an allegation that the sitting of the Committee had been suspended so that Members could attend a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The third question by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) referred to the attitude of Government supporters on the Committee and about its further constitution.

I believe that these questions fall just on the permissible side of the line and that I was right not to rule them out of order. They did not refer to proceedings on the Bill, in the sense that they were attempting to deal with the content of matters being debated. They were not a rehash of or comment upon the arguments taking place upstairs. Such comments must await the Report stage. Questions as to whether the Committee is to sit or not or as to the circumstances in which it has or has not sat are not out of order. If matters like these are commented upon in the Press or through the media, it might seem rather odd that the Floor of the House should be the only place where no reference to them would be allowable.

I repeat my view that this is not an easy matter. My conclusion is that, before Standing Committees have reported, the Chair should strongly deprecate references in the House to what has been going on in them. We already have quite enough to argue about on the Floor of the House.

But I do not think that I can make the rule absolute. Nevertheless, I hope that common sense will prevail in the House's interpretation of my ruling, and that the time of the House will not be unreasonably taken up by such matters.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On behalf of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I thank you and your advisers for the very full statement which you have just made?

The reason why I raised this matter originally was that I anticipated what eventually turned out to be the case, namely, that the Chair could be put in an invidious position if an hon. Member who was a member of a Committee honestly and conscientiously said what he or she believed was happening in that Committee only to have another hon. Member equally honestly say the complete opposite. In such a case, the Chair would be in the invidious position of not knowing the correct facts.

You referred, quite rightly, to Press reports. With respect, the Press does not always publish the exact truth of a given situation. Therefore, the Chair could be put in a very difficult position if one hon. Member said that something happened, another hon. Member said that it did not happen, and the Chair then had perhaps to take sides without wishing to do so.

As you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it is a very difficult situation. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present. May I suggest that we ask my right hon. Friend with your approval, to ask the Select Committee on Procedure to go into all the aspects of this situation, bearing in mind the difficulty which the Chair could face and did face temporarily last week?

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. It is true that the Chair is placed in a difficult position, and that is why I said that, although feeling that I could not automatically rule any reference out of order, I should deprecate any reference being made, precisely for the reason that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the Procedure Committee and that he will act as he thinks appropriate.