§ Sir Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.The motion stems from the report in The Times newspaper of 18 April concerning the draft report of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the future of British foreign policy in relation to the Falkland Islands.On Thursday last, the draft report was issued to the 11 members of the Committee and to six Clerks and advisers. Each copy bore the name and initials of the person to whom it was issued.
On Monday, an accurate summary of the draft appeared as the lead story on the front page and on another page of The Times. The story was clearly based on a close reading of the draft. No one reading both could doubt their consanguinity. Although phrases such as
members are understood to have concludedandThe Committee … apparently foundare used, the story contains more than one unacknowledged but easily recognisable quotation from the draft and follows closely the sequence of paragraphs in the draft.Furthermore, Philip Webster, The Times reporter whose name is given in the story, was able to reveal what no other member of the press could have known—that the draft was to be considered by the Committee on Wednesday. It had originally been intended to consider it on Monday, our usual day of meeting, and a press announcement to that effect had been made. We heard in last Thursday's business statement, however, that the House would be debating the Brandt report on Monday. As I knew that some members of the Committee wished to speak in that debate, I caused a slip of paper to be inserted with the draft report saying that we would not meet on Monday. No other announcement was made, and Philip Webster could have obtained his information from no other source.
It often happens that well-informed and diligent journalists, expert in their subject, can and do—with the aid, perhaps, of one or two friendly conversations in the Corridors of the House — piece together stories, the accuracy of which surprises hon. Members who thought that they were in possession of exclusive information. No, or hardly any, breach of our rules is involved and we turn a blind eye. In other instances, if the information improperly obtained is not of great moment to the outside world, again we sensibly take little notice.
I submit that this case is different. There has not been an indiscreet conversation in the Lobby or in one of the Bars about a minor matter. A report of a major political controversy, both at home and abroad and inside and outside the House, has been written up from a complete document which the Committee has not even considered, and which some members of the Committee had not, in the circumstances, had time to read before the report appeared.
I do not think that ignorance of our rules can be pleaded. Philip Webster is an experienced Lobby man, and his source can be presumed to know the rules. In any event, on the front page of the draft appeared these words: 435
The circulation of this draft report is strictly limited to members and staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The premature disclosure of contents of a draft report has in the past been regarded as a prima facie breach of privilege.If the private deliberations of our Committees are to be revealed in this way, it will destroy the trust and confidence that have been established between hon. Members who work together on the Committees and make it impossible for the Committees to receive evidence, which may he considered confidential from a witness's point of view or in the area of public affairs, and generally diminish the value of the work of Select Committees.On those grounds, I hope that the House will agree that the matter needs further consideration and that my complaint should be considered by the Privileges Committee.
§ Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)I rise briefly to oppose the motion of the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir. A. Kershaw). I do so not in the light of his speech—it would not have mattered to me what case he advanced, how he presented it, whether it was important or minor politically or otherwise—but because in 1975 I was responsible for raising a complaint against The Economist, which had reported a draft report of the Select Committee on the wealth tax. At the conclusion of the inquiry, when the report of the Privileges Committee was before the House, I repented and said that I regretted having raised the complaint in the first place. I repeated that expression of regret on 13 march 1978 as reported in column 31 of Hansard, when I again opposed the sending of journalists before the Privileges Committee—in that case from The Guardian and the Daily Mail—for revealing the draft report of the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration.
What purpose will be served in taking Mr. Philip Webster before the Privileges Committee? That journalist, if he is worthy of his trade, will not divulge his source. His source, as the hon. Member for Stroud has clearly implied, is a member of the Select Committee or one of the staff. One of the members of the Committee or one of the staff has dishonoured the rules of the House, not the journalist who obtained a copy of the report.
Why has The Times been singled out for this treatment? Similar reports, virtually word for word, appeared in The Scotsman last Saturday and in The Guardian on Monday, the same day as the article appeared in The Times. What did The Times do that the other newspapers did not do? It made the report the front page lead. In other words, the crime of The Times was prominence.
Bearing in mind what has happened in the past in respect of journalists and the Privileges Committee—I admitted my mistake in bringing a case before the House seven or eight years ago—I submit that there is no case to be made for hauling before the Committee of Privileges journalists who have carried out their trade, because we never find the source of their information. In any event, there is no justification for singling out The Times when other newspapers carried the same story.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)Less on account of my interest in the Falklands and more on account of an experience that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—we have 436 shared the painful experience of being arraigned before the Committee of Privileges, in my case in the House before Mr. Speaker King on a matter relating to a problem in the constituency of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton) relating to Porton and chemical and biological weapons—I ask the House to be careful, to pause and to reflect before going headlong into a referral to the Privileges Committee.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said, we are in danger of shooting the wrong fox if we proceed. We could make ourselves as ridiculous as the Tory candidate in Cambridgeshire who, when faced with selection problems over blood sports, tried to ingratiate himself with the selection committee by telling Lady Crossley that he shot a thousand starlings every weekend. If we are not careful, we shall find ourselves in that situation.
The truth is that Mr. Philip Webster obtained the story a bit late. Even I did not bother to read it properly — and I read everything that is said on the Falklands — because it was a bit stale. I shall not read the entire article that appeared on the front page of The Scotsman on Saturday, but part of it states:
There are likely to be at least three weeks of intensive discussion in the committee before the report is finalised, and it may be that Sir Anthony Kershaw, the Conservative chairman, and his colleagues will alter the draft significantly, but there are clear indications that their report — which is being eagerly awaited by MPs of all parties — will be unwelcome in Downing Street.It is understood that the officials' draft, prepared after months of interviews and public and private hearings in London and in the Falklands, comes down strongly in favour of a more positive diplomatic approach from the Government.None of the MPs on the committee—which includes two Scots, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. George Foulkes—would discuss the matter yesterday. The committee are determined to keep their thoughts private until they reach final conclusions.But it is reliably understood"—Members can read the rest of the article that appeared in The Scotsman if they wish. The article gives a full and clear indication of what is in the report.Over 20 years, I have had a genuine regard for the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw). I put it to him that his instinct, if one can judge character, should have been to sort the matter out where it should be sorted out—in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
I should like to refer to my own experience 14 years ago. The late Sir Harry Legge-Bourke, for whom many of us had great personal affection although we had different political views, told me some years later that Ministry of Defence officials had prompted him to prompt others to raise the matter and to move that it should be taken before the Committee of Privileges.
The hon. Member for Stroud is an honourable man. I think that one is entitled to ask him to tell the House whether he or any of his Conservative colleagues was subjected to pressure from sources within his party or elsewhere before deciding to move that the matter be taken before the Committee of Privileges.
The new rules properly require a letter to be written, because clearly we should not rush into these matters, but some time has elapsed. Therefore, I think that we are entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman why it has taken so long to bring the matter before the House following the report on Saturday.
Political operations are conducted in the House. There is often a political operation by Downing street — perhaps as some form of pre-emptive strike to stymie an 437 embarrassing report. Anyone who has closely examined the way in which Mr. Bernard Ingham operated on the release of the Franks report must conclude that Downing street is at least capable of conducting such an operation. Do we detect the hand of Downing street on this issue? Furthermore, is it not grotesque to instigate the whole rigmarole of the Committee of Privileges on this matter when the Franks report—which, heaven knows, was a far more sensitive document — was leaked to The Scotsman 36 hours before it was published? Under the byline by its excellent diplomatic correspondent, Mr. Alexander MacLeod, I read not only much of the meat of the Franks report, but the somewhat idiosyncratic conclusion to which it came. It would take a positive genius to perceive not only the meat of the report but to reach a conclusion that was itself a non-sequitur.
§ Sir Anthony KershawThe hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that I was subjected to pressure and that I was late in coming to the House. I assure him, and I know that he will accept my word, that I was not subjected to any pressure. I decided — the House must decide whether I was right—that the article had been written from the report and that therefore a prima facie breach of the rules had been committed. As Chairman, I thought that I was obliged to bring the matter to the attention of the House.
I did not read the The Scotsman, so I do not know about that. When I saw the article in The Times on Monday I compared it with the draft report, and I wrote to Mr. Speaker on Tuesday. Mr. Speaker gave his ruling yesterday and the House is now debating the issue. I cannot see it would have been possible to proceed more quickly.
§ Mr. DalyellI accept that the hon. Gentleman was not subjected to pressure. I shall assume also that none of his colleagues was in any way subjected to pressure by Downing street or from elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman cannot complain too much, because there is a bit of a mote in the Committee's eye. As many hon. Members were interested in the subject, the Committee took a long time over its deliberations on what many people considered to be an important matter that needed to be dealt with urgently. The old gibe that Committees are like a broody hen sitting on china eggs may apply to the Select Committee, as it has taken a long time to report. If it has not been dilatory, why has it taken so long?
There is much talk about consultations with Government Departments, which may be proper. Britain has a problem—which it does not share with the United States—in that it has a pool of talent from which the Executive is chosen. The relations between Ministers and members of Select Committees are totally unlike anything that goes on in Washington, where the Executive is chosen on a different basis. Therefore, the House is in deep water on the matter of privilege.
If we are to make comparisons, what about the leaking that has gone on from Cabinet Committees? I did not complain when the Chancellor of the Exchequer did all sorts of things which 10 years ago—let alone 20 years ago — would have been regarded as leaks about the Budget. However, since previous cases involving privilege things have changed rather. I think that the 438 Chancellor was quite right and totally justified in preparing the ground. Is there such a difference between being open about Budget secrets and dealing with the report?
I realise that there is a question of personal relationships in the Committee. I do not defend anybody who has leaked a report, but the argument is that it is better to deal with such an issue in the Committee rather than institute the elephantine and often disagreeable procedure of referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
The issue of misinformation must be taken into account. This was dealt with by the Select Committee on Defence. In the paper that is complained of today there is a statement on page 6 that the rear-admiral in charge of Hermes—at the moment in New York—said that there had been a decoy between Hermes and the Atlantic Conveyor—[Interruption.] I wish to give a current and topical example. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
No such assessment is known to have been made. The `Atlantic Conveyor' was one of a number of large vessels supporting the task force and was in no way treated as unique. The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question is `No".—[Official Report, 23 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 618.]That is in direct conflict with the statement by the admiral and is an example of misinformation.It is wrong that there should be one law for the House of Commons and a different law for the operation of No. 10 Downing street. What is right for No. Downing street is surely right for the House. It is the old question of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Against that background, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr in opposing a reference to the Committee of Privileges.
§ Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)I hope that this House has higher standards than Downing street on this issue.
I declare an interest as both the Chairman of a Select Committee from which leaks have occurred and as a member of the National Union of Journalists. I believe that I can take a balanced view. This is supremely a matter for the House of Commons. On previous occasions when the House has divided on whether to send a matter to the Committee of Privileges, it has not necessarily divided on party lines. If we are to divide, I trust that we shall not divide on party lines, because this is an issue of principle for the House of Commons.
I oppose the motion, although I totally deplore the leaks from Select Committees. I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), that the only solution to this problem is a proper relationship within the Select Committee. The proper way to sort out the problem lies with the members of the Select Committee. To send the problem now to the Committee of Privileges is a supreme example of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The words have been printed, it is yesterday's journalism and another edition of The Times is being printed. The Committee of Privileges should not get mixed up with this matter.
I am one of the few hon. Members who have been on trial before the Committee. That happened in 1978. I make no complaint about that. Anyone who reads the final report might say that I was acquitted. Along with several of my 439 colleagues, I was arraigned before the Committee of Privileges. I gave evidence to it and it pronounced at the end of the day.
The job of the Committee of Privileges is to discipline Members of Parliament. That is the first job it ought to do. I do not think that any hon. Member should complain if the House votes, as it did on the ABC affair, for referring the conduct of certain hon. Members to the Committee of Privileges.
The other job of the Committee of Privileges is to implement the very important resolutions that we pass every Parliament before getting on with our business about giving false evidence to a Committee and other such serious offences. If I was told that someone other than a Member of Parliament had deliberately given evidence that he knew to be untrue, I would vote for sending him to the Committee of Privileges. However, to send a journalist to the Committee of Privileges when one knows perfectly well that his job is to obtain information, and that he could have obtained it only by a degree of collusion with a Member of Parliament, would be a fruitless operation.
The Committee of Privileges is a fearsome sight. To be wheeled into that room, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) in the Chair and with very senior Members of Parliament sitting round, was the most frightening experience of my life.
What is the point of sending a journalist to the Committee? When asked his source, he would very properly refuse to give it. I say "very properly", because only yesterday the Government acknowledged by changing the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill that the police would not be able to chase journalists' sources. Therefore, is it sensible to try to put right an acknowledged mischief by sending the matter to 16 or so of our most senior right hon. and hon. Members? If I thought for one moment that those right hon. and hon. Members could do or say something, could produce a report that would make a recurrence less likely, or could do something useful to the journalist, I would vote for the motion.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)My hon. Friend has hit at least one nail on the head. Privy Councillors are among those who serve on the Committee of Privileges. I shall never forget until the day I die the way in which that Committee dealt with Alan Grimshaw. He had given evidence to a Select Committee about certain matters affecting the National Coal Board's purchasing powers. Lord Robens and all the rest rolled in, and Alan Grimshaw got the sack for giving that evidence against the NCB. We have never been able to obtain some of that evidence. I pleaded with the then Labour Government to send the matter to the Committee of Privileges, thinking that Alan Grimshaw would at least have half a chance. The matter went to the Committee of Privileges. The present Prime Minister sat on it, together with one or two other so-called "notables"—my hon. Friend knows the sort of people I refer to—and Alan Grimshaw was sold down the river.
§ Mr. PriceMy hon. Friend is quite right, and he has pursued that case with commendable perseverance. The job of the Committee of Privileges is to discipline hon. Members and those who give false evidence to our Committees. Its task should not go beyond that, because it simply does not have a suitable remedy in its hands.
§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)I shall try to be brief, but two important points must be made in favour of referring this issue to the Committee of Privileges.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said that by referring the matter to the Committee we would be closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. However, unless we refer it to the Committee of Privileges, every horse will be able to escape and a draft report of any Committee will be nothing other than fair game for publication. If we do not stand firm on this point, people will know that the House will do nothing about it if they get hold of a draft report and reveal its contents.
If that were to happen, the work of Select Committees would become untenable. If we cannot circulate papers between hon. Members and use their staff in the belief that those papers will be confidential until they are published, Committee work will be totally undermined. Therefore, the motion seeks not only to rectify this situation, but to ensure that it is clear beyond peradventure that the practice will not continue. It does not matter if leaks occur in other places, wherever they may be. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West has said, we can control only our own procedures and that is what we should do.
The second important point refers again to the arguments made against referring the issue to the Committee. It is said that we shall be arrainging only the journalist. However, I hope that the Committee of Privileges will see every member of the Select Committee and every member of staff to try to discern w ho was responsible for being so lax with the documentation that it could get into the hands of journalists. I shall be charitable in saying "lax". If an answer can be found, it should be published. I accept that it is hon. Members who should be looked at. However, unless this matter is referred to the Committee of Privileges, that will not happen. In the interests of the House, this issue should be referred immediately to the Committee of Privileges.
§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)It is traditional that this motion should be approved. I shall vote for it, but with all the qualms that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not believe that an Officer of the House leaked the information to anyone. Officers of the House do not frequently talk to journalists unless, as sometimes happens, they are asked to do so by Committees. However, I believe, strangely enough, that some hon. Member — not necessarily a member of the Select Committee — may have related Smoking Room gossip or something like that.
Two assumptions are held. The first is that a member of the Select Committee spoke directly to one of the journalists involved, or to all three of them. That is most unlikely. A journalist who 'will not reveal his source is sometimes concealing the fact that that source was merely another journalist. If somebody told me that a story appeared in two particular newspapers, the thought would spring into my mind that the two journalists were close friends who frequently pooled their information, and that since the newspapers were not competing against each other it would assist them both. That sort of thing is not unusual or uncommon. Thus, one of the sources may riot have been anyone other than another journalist.
Another possibility is that some journalist heard something. It is assumed automatically that the report was 441 leaked. However, just about every hon. Member is capable of giving a story to a journalist without showing him the text of the report. Many hon. Members can relate the precise words of a report's recommendations without having the report in front of them. The House does not consist entirely of Members of Parliament with slack memories. Indeed, I freely admit that I often have an inkling of the contents of Select Committee reports before they are published. That is due to the normal practice of one hon. Member talking to another. It is not my job to leak someone else's Committee report to the press, but there is no doubt that hon. Members, in the normal course of their business, talk to each other in the Smoking Room or elsewhere and say, "We are considering A" or, "We are considering B in our Committee. What is your view?". That is a perfectly normal and sensible practice. There is no doubt, therefore, that a leak does not necessarily come from a member of a Select Committee.
However, let us suppose for the moment that the leak came from a member of the Select Committee. It has been said that the Select Committee should look after its own house. That is true. I can think of a Chairman who rather skilfully organised the removal of an hon. Member from his Committee by making sure that someone offered the hon. Member something that the hon. Member preferred to being on the Select Committee and which was incompatible with his being on the Select Committee. Therefore, the hon. Member left the Select Committee and, by a mysterious coincidence, all leaks from that Committee ceased. The Chairman knew his Committee and took an appropriate course of action. That is one solution. Another, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) touched on, is to meet more often when considering a report.
There is almost a tradition that Select Committees can meet only once a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know that not all Select Committees do, but there is such a tradition. If a Select Committee wants to get through a report without its being leaked, the simple solution is to get it out straight away. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has sometimes done that. We have gone on until after the House has risen, perhaps to midnight, to finish a report.
§ Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)Why is my hon. Friend filibustering?
§ Mr. EnglishIf my hon. Friend prefers to talk about silly feminists, that is fair enough.
If we refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges, the only approach, as the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, is to tell the Committee to consider the matter properly and start by asking members of the Committee who they spoke to and trace the leak from there. We used to have a spate of privilege cases about leaks and we do not want them to recur. When I first became a Member of Parliament, every ex-journalist raised a story by one of his colleagues as a breach of privilege. I am sure that the Committee of Privileges should examine the matter, but from the right end. It should say that it is worried about the case and that the Select Committee may have leaked its own information. If it cannot prove that, it should not bother to report back to the House.
§ 5.2 pm
§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)The rule of the House is clear. The publication of a Select Committee report before it has been authorised by the Committee is a breach of our privileges and, therefore, prima facie, there is a breach which is acknowledged by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. However, the House must judge whether to send a case to the Committee of Privileges. That is what we are discussing, not whether there has been a breach of privilege.
I strongly argue that we should not send this case to the Committee of Privileges. The issue is clear. A journalist, as with all other journalists, has been looking for something that will give him a story earlier than other journalists and before the report is published.
§ Mr. SkinnerFree market forces.
§ Mr. LyonThat is inevitable. Just as journalists have argued strongly for the confidentiality of their records in relation to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, we argue the same type of case for the confidentiality of our discussions. One day the House must consider seriously what the point of all this is.
§ Mr. SkinnerThat is right—stop the lot.
§ Mr. LyonIn Select Committee, we usually discuss evidence that we have taken in public. Frequently, the questions that we ask point to the nature of the subsequent report. Anyone who has listened to the questions can guess what the report will be. Even if they cannot, and what is leaked is the discussion of the report in Committee, where is the public danger in the report being discussed? I can think of only two possibilities.
In the four years during which the Select Committee on Home Affairs has discussed these issues, we once heard in private evidence from the head of Operation Countryman. It would have been wrong for any member of the Committee to have released the information that was subsequently sidelined by the chief constable of Surrey because such a release of information might have disadvantaged the public.
There have been other occasions when some of our reports have been leaked and the leakage has been partial in both senses of the word. It may have been leaked by a member of the Committee who was defeated over some aspect of the discussion and who wanted to make his stance clearer to the public than that of the Committee. That is unfortunate with regard to the trust between members of the Committee, but it does not do any harm to the public good and there is no reason why it should not happen. I cannot speak with the criminal convictions of some of my hon. Friends whose release of information has been divulged, as a result of which they have been called before the Committee of Privileges.
I should think that most hon. Members who serve on Select Committees will understand that I have occasionally broken that rule because I have discussed with colleagues or journalists what has been said in Select Committees. I cannot think that the public good has been damaged by that.
What can we say about this case? It is not as if the leak was partial. Someone got hold of the entire report and assessed it all. Moreover, it was printed in The Times, or whatever newspaper it was, in full. No one has been damaged and no part of the Committee feels that it has 443 been disadvantaged. The only disadvantage is that which the Government might feel—that the report is critical of them and they must face that criticism a little earlier than expected. That is not a serious justification for calling people before the Committee of Privileges and treating them as possible criminals. Nor is it a justification for the Committee calling every member of the Select Committee before it and asking, "Did you or did you not leak this report?". That would be absurd and make this place into a farce.
We should be careful about what we do with our power. We have exceptional powers and can do something about those people and about the press. Once, we sent the editor of a newspaper to prison for a little while. We have that power, but it would be absurd to use it unless it was absolutely clear that it was in the public interest to do so. We should serve no public interest by sending this case to the Committee of Privileges, and I hope that we shall not.
§ 5.7 pm
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)I should like to base my comments on what the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) said. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I was here to listen to what he said.
If the House embarks on a grand inquisition, it will not serve the public interest one jot. Moreover, it would not be fair to do so. The hon. Member for Stroud said that he had to pick on The Times because he happened to read it but that the story had appeared in several other newspapers. Because the hon. Gentleman did not read The Scotsman, for example, and does not, the journalist who wrote the report for The Scotsman will avoid the grand inquisition upon which the hon. Gentleman proposes to embark.
We are not discussing an exaggerated, malicious or false report. On the contrary, we are dealing with an apparently accurate report, in a serious journal, written by a serious journalist. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, no one has been injured. Indeed, the public have been enlightened. The only anxiety is the fluttering among members of the Select Committee about who provided the information. That is a slender basis on which to start the apparatus of the grand inquisition of the Committee of Privileges.
If the House is really concerned about the standards of conduct of the press in matters of public interest and it passes this resolution, it will show two different standards. A report has been published that is rather critical of the Government, and that has caused members of the Select Committee to look askance at each other, but no one has been injured. All that has been injured is the pride of some Committee members.
What happened when the Press Council produced a searing report on the conduct of the press in the Sutcliffe case, the chequebook journalism, and the deception by editors and reporters? That harmed the general public and individual members of it who were deeply involved in the tragedies, but the House and the Government did not allocate an iota of time to discuss that report. No Select Committee was established to examine the conduct of the press in a matter of major public importance that was the focus of attention in the entire country.
Here we have a report that has been leaked prematurely and we are discussing a motion to send it to the Select Committee of Privileges. It is not worth it. We must make a judgment on the merits of the case, and on the merits 444 advanced by the hon. Member for Stroud there is no point in putting this to the Committee for an inquisition into a serious article in a serious journal.
As my hon. Friends have said, the journalist will not reveal his source, so the inquisition will turn its attention to members of the Committee, Officers of the House and even the printers of the report. It would be unfair to exclude them. However, according to the motion, the inquisition will not include other journalists who published the scoop earlier in any case. It is complete nonsense for us to spend time on this matter, and I hope that the motion will be defeated.
I hope—the hopes of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) are rather higher than mine —that this case will be treated on its merits. I suspect that the voting will be on a political basis, because some of the anxiety about this report is caused by the fact that it criticised the Government and undermined their long-held position on the Falklands. We shall examine the voting figures with interest.
§ Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) to withdraw the motion without the House voting upon it? I am one of the old lags who have been before the Privileges Committee, and I can confirm what my hon. Friends have said. Very little evidence is taken in Hansard form. Nothing is published at the end of the inquiry. The journalist will not reveal his source of information, and the report will not come back to the House for debate.
Perhaps the House recalls the case in 1963 with Mr. Harold Macmillan, when a journalist who was involved in the Vassall inquiry eventually went to prison, which alienated the whole of Fleet street from the Conservative party just before the 1964 election — [Interruption.] Conservative Members would be well advised to consider the intense interest of all those gentleman in the Press Gallery who are waiting to pounce. I advise the hon. Member for Stroud to withdraw the motion if it is possible to do so.
§ Mr. John Silkin (Deptford)I should like to make clear my position as shadow Leader of the House. There have been some misconceptions in this debate. The issue is not whether we should persecute press men, and the Committee of Privileges does not exist simply to discipline Members of Parliament. The House is the arbiter of discipline— it always was and I hope that it always will be—but for convenience it appointed a Privileges Committee. As a member of that Committee, I can understand those who regard its members as not being entirely suitable, but it is a Committee of the House——
§ Mr. SkinnerParliamentary snobs.
§ Mr. SilkinThat may be so, but the House has the power to appoint its members. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), who is a distinguished member of that Committee, is one of the least snobbish people I know.
The question is whether the House should concern itself with this matter. What do we mean by "privilege"? It is the right of Parliament to conduct its operations without fear or favour, and that is why such a Committee has 445 always been part of our procedure. Of course it must change from time to time because it becomes stupid, pompous or silly. Times change, but the House has the power to change those rules. That is why we have the Procedure Committee and debates and we can reconsider the position each year. I hope that we shall do so from time to time.
Perhaps my hon. Friends are right to say that it is time for the House to reconsider the Committee, but the present position is clear. One minute before the report appeared in the press, both the givers and the takers of information were perfectly aware of our procedure. They knew that it would be a breach of privilege and that it was likely to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
§ Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow)They might also have been aware of what happened on an almost identical previous occasion when a leaked Select Committee draft report was published in The Economist and was referred to the Committee of Privileges. The Committee tried hard to find out who had leaked the report, and predictably failed, and then recommended that the offending journalist should be disbarred from this building for six months. That recommendation was rejected by the House. Perhaps the journalist in this case was conscious of that precedent and believed that he had nothing to fear.
§ Mr. SilkinI agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that I may drive home in complete safety at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone is proof not that there should not be a 30 mph limit, but that I believe that I can get away with it. This has nothing to do with whether we should institute our own procedures.
There is no alternative in this matter, and the Committee of parliamentary snobs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and the Leader of the House, who is leaning forward anxiously as though he wishes to be included, should be credited with some common sense. If we do not have that common sense, if and when we report to the House, I have no doubt that it will exercise the common sense that is necessary in this case.
For those reasons, because of precedent and because whoever did it knew perfectly well that this was likely to happen, I recommend that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)Perhaps the House will think it appropriate that the debate should not be concluded without the last rites from me, although I do not wish to make a long speech, to reply to the debate or to give guidance on how the House should vote. However, we must realise, as has been argued frequently, that the question is whether the Committee of Privileges should have the opportunity to comment upon an undoubtedly serious allegation, or whether, in the judgment of experience, it is believed that that Committee is neither appropriate nor competent to consider such matters. I note with great interest that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) believes that the matter should go to the Committee, but he makes that judgment in the face of 446 several hon. Members who might claim that their experience before the Committee entitles them to a different view.
The other point that I am sure the House will wish to weigh is that we are concerned about the developing authority of Select Committees. If the Chairman of a Select Committee believes that the work of his Committee is impeded by what has happened and wishes the matter to be considered by the Committee of Privileges, the House might believe it appropriate to the developing status of Select Committees that at least sympathetic consideration be given to that view.
§ Mr. AshtonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) to withdraw the motion if he so wished?
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 48.
447| Division No. 127] | [5.20 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Forman, Nigel |
| Ancram, Michael | Forrester, John |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Fox, Marcus |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne) | Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Bagier, Gordon A.T. | Ginsburg, David |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Glyn, Dr Alan |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Goodhew, Sir Victor |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) | Gorst, John |
| Benyon, Thomas (A'don) | Gow, Ian |
| Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Graham, Ted |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Grant, Sir Anthony |
| Best, Keith | Greenway, Harry |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th) |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Grimond, Rt Hon J. |
| Blackburn, John | Hamilton, Hon A. |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
| Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) | Heddle, John |
| Bowden, Andrew | Hicks, Robert |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Brinton, Tim | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Hooson, Tom |
| Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Howells, Geraint |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Hughes, Mark (Durham) |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A. | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Buck, Antony | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n ) | John, Brynmor |
| Cartwright, John | Johnson, James (Hull West) |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) | Kershaw, Sir Anthony |
| Cope, John | Knight, Mrs Jill |
| Corrie, John | Lang, Ian |
| Costain, Sir Albert | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Crouch, David | Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | Le Marchant, Spencer |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W) |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Durant, Tony | MacGregor, John |
| Eggar, Tim | MacKay, John (Argyll) |
| Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Maclennan, Robert |
| Emery, Sir Peter | McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) |
| English, Michael | Major, John |
| Fairgrieve, Sir Russell | Marlow, Antony |
| Field, Frank | Marten, Rt Hon Neil |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus |
| Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles | Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Stainton, Keith |
| Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Moyle, Rt Hon Roland | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Needham, Richard | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Newton, Tony | Thompson, Donald |
| Osborn, John | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Page, Richard (SW Herts) | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Patten, John (Oxford) | Viggers, Peter |
| Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down) | Waddington, David |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Wainwright, E.(Dearne V) |
| Rodgers, Rt Hon William | Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D. |
| Roper, John | Ward, John |
| Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | Watkins, David |
| Rossi, Hugh | Watson, John |
| Rost, Peter | Wells, Bowen |
| Royle, Sir Anthony | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R. | Wheeler, John |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Wickenden, Keith |
| Sandelson, Neville | Wilkinson, John |
| Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby) |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Silvester, Fred | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Sims, Roger | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Skeet, T. H. H. | |
| Smith, Sir Dudley | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Spearing, Nigel | Mr. Christopher Murphy and |
| Speed, Keith | Mr. Cyril D. Townsend. |
| Speller, Tony | |
| NOES | |
| Ashton, Joe | Mason, Rt Hon Roy |
| Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) | Mikardo, Ian |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Morton, George |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | O'Neill, Martin |
| Carmichael, Neil | Parker, John |
| Cook, Robin F. | Race, Reg |
| Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g) | Richardson, Jo |
| Dalyell, Tam | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
| Dobson, Frank | Rooker, J. W. |
| Dubs, Alfred | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Dunnett, Jack | Short, Mrs Renée |
| Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E) | Silverman, Julius |
| Fitt, Gerard | Skinner, Dennis |
| Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Soley, Clive |
| Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) | Stallard, A. W. |
| Haynes, Frank | Stoddart, David |
| Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire) | Tilley, John |
| Home Robertson, John | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W) |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Wilson, William (C'try SE) |
| Kinnock, Neil | |
| Lyon, Alexander (York) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| McElhone, Mrs Helen | Mr. Bob Cryer and |
| McWilliam, John | Mr. Christopher Price. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.