Staff (Overseas Visits)

HC Deb 05 March 1984 vol 55 cc600-1

25. Mr. Coleman

asked the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, for how long members of the staff of the House have been required to report intended visits by them to some Communist countries to their departmental heads; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Beith

Specific guidance to this effect was first given in January 1982.

Mr. Coleman

Was that requirement first reported to the House? Why is it necessary for this limitation to be placed upon the staff of the House; and, further, what special reasons are there which require staff in their own time to be treated differently from right hon. and hon. Members?

Mr. Beith

The matter was first brought to the attention of the House in a question by one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, to which I gave an answer just over a week ago. The purpose of the requirement to inform departmental heads is to ensure that staff have access to advice which may be useful to them when travelling to certain countries where experience suggests that difficulties for them may arise from their status as employees of the House. I am confident that it is in the interests of staff that they should be given that advice.

Mr. Rhodes James

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this ruling applies to former Officers of the House? As the only former Officer of the House who is a Member of the House, why should I not have my summer holidays in Albania without asking the permission of the Clerk of the House?

Mr. Beith

Neither present nor former staff are in any way precluded from visiting any of the countries concerned. The procedure is to ensure that they are given advice that may be useful to them.

Mr. Winnick

Is it thought that the KGB may be trying to find out about our parliamentary procedures — adjourtunents, Question Time and the rest — and that therefore it is necessary to have the type of security arrangements to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?

Mr. Beith

The procedures of the House are well known and readily accessible. I am sure that the House would not wish me to go into more detail as to why it is in the interests of the staff that they should have the advice to which I have referred made available to them.

Mr. Cormack

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that it has nothing to do with the fact that the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee represents Cheltenham?

Mr. Beith

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Williams

Why has it taken 14 months for the House to be informed of this change? Could we not perhaps limit the intrusion into the liberty of the servants of the House by confining the requirement to those who, historically, have been shown to be most at risk, thereby automatically excluding those of our cleaners, clerks and others who have not attended the best public schools?

Mr. Beith

It is the duty of the Commission to keep such arrangements under review. I shall make it my business to ensure that such a review takes account of the views expressed by hon. Members today. The right hon. Gentleman may underestimate the significance of working in this building and the status of members of our staff.

Mr. Tom Clarke

Were staff representatives consulted on this matter; and, of so, on what date?

Mr. Beith

As I said earlier, the matter has been known to staff since January 1982. Full opportunities for staff representations have existed throughout that time.