§ Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to seek your advice on a matter arising from the meeting of the Select Committee on Employment this morning in Room 15, when two Secretaries of State gave evidence. The general question is: what are the rights of entry of Members of Parliament who are not members of the Select Committee? However, it cannot be left at that point, because of the particular circumstances of the meeting this morning.
There was a large attendance of press, officials, civil servants and so on. It was not clear — other hon. Gentlemen were with me, and officials did their best—what the rights of entry of Members of Parliament were. I was not prepared to enter into a scrummage to get into a Committee where I felt that Members of Parliament had the right to be in attendance. The room was overcrowded, and it was not conducive to the proper conduct of public business. In the light of that, and the general answer, what advice can you give the House, Mr. Speaker, for the days and weeks ahead where, because of an interest in the matter of GCHQ, Members of Parliament are likely to want to enter the Committee Room to listen in the same way that the world can listen?
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerIs it the same point of order?
§ Mr. SkinnerYes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that an attempt appears to have been made to stop a trade union official from putting his case before the Select Committee, and taking into account that the Select Committee only a couple of years ago decided that it wanted to hear the views of an Arthur Scargill, the NUM President, and Arthur Scargill for some reason or other at that time was not ready to appear before the Select Committee—[Laughter.] he did eventually—is it not a fact that on that occasion the Select Committee had the power to ensure that due notice was served on Arthur Scargill, 222, Euston Road, by Miss Jean Frampton? That was done with the widest possible publicity. I cannot understand why the same action cannot be taken in this case to ensure that a trade union leader be brought before the Select Committee.
§ Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) does the House a service by raising this matter. Undoubtedly there was some embarrassment today. It is not the first occasion that this has occurred. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, there is a motion on the Order Paper today for the re-establishment of the Liaison Committee. Would it not be a proper subject for that Committee, if the House in its wisdom decides to re-establish it, to consider the matter in general, and then to report to the House on what might be done?
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Further to the point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think I can pre-empt any further points of order on this matter because there is heavy 895 business before the House. I am able to rule. I thank the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) for having raised the matter.
§ Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)Further to the point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am ruling.
I thank the right hon. Member for having raised the matter, because it is an important one. I should like to make the position clear to the House. Members of the House who are not members of a Committee have the right to attend a meeting of a Committee. By convention, they withdraw during deliberations of the Committee, if requested to do so by the Committee. Having heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms for a report on what happened this morning.
To deal with the point of order of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I must say that it is not for me to rule on what goes on in any Select Committee. The problems that arise in a Select Committee are for that Committee to deal with. If the Committee wishes to bring a problem before the House, it can do so by making a report. At that point the House can, if necessary, take action, and I can be asked for a procedural ruling on it.
§ Mr. WinnickWe are grateful for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. When these departmental Committees were set up in the latter part of 1979, it was stated by the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), that they would have powers to send for persons and papers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has given one illustration. What is alarming is that if a Government say, in effect, that certain witnesses must not appear, it undermines the authority of the Select Committee and of Parliament. That is why I believe that a principle is involved, as the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) suggested. The whole authority of Select Committees is undermined if then-powers are so limited that the Administration can decide who shall and shall not appear before them.
I accept that for some time it has not been possible to force Ministers to appear. Are we really going to accept that Ministers can lay down that certain witnesses shall not appear? That would make a total mockery of the Select Committee system.
§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes it is helpful to recall that circumstances are not arising for the first time. When the Select Committee on Expenditure, through its Trade and Industry Sub-Committee, investigated the Chrysler rescue operation, the then Prime Minister told the Committee that it was for the Government to decide which witnesses would appear and that the Committee had no right to hear the right hon. Mr. Lever, not on the ground that he was a Member of this House, but because it was for the Government to decide who would give evidence on behalf of a Department.
On a later occasion, when a Select Committee was looking into surveying the English channel and investigating means of preventing collisions at sea, it wished to ask civil servants whether funding was provided by the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade or the Department of the Environment. The then Labour Government declined to allow civil servants to answer that question and sent Lord Peart instead. It is as well for the 896 House to be aware of the precedents, because otherwise it might believe that there was some novelty in the events complained of today.
§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the House is addressing itself to a matter of more recent date than that referred to by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I believe that a motion was approved on 25 June 1979 in the following terms:
Select Committees appointed under this Order shall have power—(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the Houseand so on. That covers the essential question.We are faced with a serious development which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House might say is implicit in the arrangements for, and difficulties of, Select Committees. A Select Committee has asked to see particular people to carry out its proper task of investigating the whole question of GCHQ, Cheltenham, in relation to the interests of the Select Committee on Employment and the Government who have instructed named people not to attend.
The matter was brought to the attention of the Liason Committee in the 1982–83 Session and it reported on this very question. Words of reassurance given by the then Leader of the House in 1981 were quoted:
I am entirely prepared to give a formal undertaking that where there is evidence of widespread general concern in the House regarding an alleged ministerial refusal to disclose information to a select committee, I shall seek to provide time to enable the House to express its view."—[Official Report, 16 January 1981, Vol. 996 c. 1312.]The reference to
alleged ministerial refusal to disclose informationwas certainly meant to include the presence of a Minister and of civil servants acting on his instructions.I should like the present Leader of the House to assure us that the undertaking given in such formal terms will be honoured by the present Government if the Chairman or members of the Select Committee or Members of the House believe that there is widespread general concern about the need to debate the matter further. I believe that there is such a growing widespread concern.
§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be of assistance if I made my comments now. In what I hope is helpful brevity, my answer to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) must be "yes." From the inception of the departmental Select Committees it has been understood that certain matters such as security could be acutely sensitive. That was touched upon in the Liaison Committee report for the 1982–83 Session and in the letter that I subsequently addressed to the chairman of the Liaison Committee. I shall, of course, view with sympathy the real point of substance raised by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall call further hon. Members, but we have a heavy day ahead of us.
§ Mr. BaldryMr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall decide who is called.
§ Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)In connection with the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I put the record straight in at least one important respect? Although the Select Committee desired in principle to invite particular people to visit it, it had not resolved to do so. Preliminary inquiries had been made and a rejection received.
The rejection was on the surely spurious ground that the man concerned worked in a position involving security. The questions which the Committee wished to put to him related solely to his activities as a trade unionist. Indeed, in specific terms, the Committee wished to know why he did not want to join a staff association and so surrender arbitrarily his trade union membership. That can have no connection wih what the Leader of the House just said about security matters. For the Leader of the House to use that as a justification for what the Government have done is only a red herring.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one is more conscious than I of the need to maintain security, but the subject that arose this morning was whether the trade unions locally or nationally had ever had a no-strike agreement put to them. Surely no security is involved in bringing both the men concerned before the Select Committee and asking, "Were you approached and did you say no or otherwise?" There is no question of security in that.
§ Mr. BaldryMay I first apologise, Mr. Speaker, for any inadvertent discourtesy to the Chair? It was not intended.
The House is labouring under a considerable misunderstanding. At no time has the Select Committee collectively addressed itself to whether the witnesses should be called. The Chairman of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) took it upon themselves to institute certain inquiries without having the courtesy to consult any of their colleagues. In those circumstances it might be better if the Select Committee on Employment were allowed to continue its deliberations instead of the matter being debated on the Floor of the House.
§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) is wrong. He might not have been consulted through some inadvertence, but most members of the Committee were consulted. As the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said, the Committee has not asked for these people to attend, but it was made plain by the Government that if it did ask, they would not be premitted to attend. Most of us find that highly objectionable.
May I ask for your guidance on another matter, Mr. Speaker? If it is held, contrary to our submissions, that a security matter is involved—we do not believe that it is — the Committee could sit in camera. The persons concerned could refuse to answer a particlar question if it involved security. There can, therefore, be no reason for the Government's disgraceful refusal to agree, even in advance of being asked.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall take one more point of order on this issue.
§ Mr. NealeMay I, Mr. Speaker, without unnecessarily delaying matters, further the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)? I, as a member of the Committee, was not informed at any stage about this matter. I should like to correct one point. I believe that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the Chairman of the Select Committee, is blameless. I and four of my colleagues on the Committee were not consulted about the invitation. Had I been consulted, I would not have joined in the invitation.
§ Mr. SpeakerThese are very important matters. I think I can help the House. The House will accept that it is most important that it preserves the right of a Select Committee to control its own proceedings. The Select Committee may or may not be satisfied with what has happened today. We must wait until the Select Committee reports. I dealt with that problem when I was ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The House has heard what the Leader of the House said about it.