Westland plc (Hansard, 7 February 1986)

§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious and damaging allegation by Mr. Alan Bristow last night that he was offered a knighthood if he would sell his shares in Westland, have you received any intimation of a statement from the Prime Minister today? If not, as the Leader of the House is in his place, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister the wish of the House for an early and authoritative statement? There has been a denial by a No. 10 spokesman, but, as you know, Mr. Speaker, truth is stranger than fiction and misunderstandings occur. The matter should therefore be cleared up today ahead of a weekend of otherwise damaging speculation.

§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been authorised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to say that no authority to offer an honour to Mr. Bristow has been sought or given, and no approach has been made to my right hon. Friend that any such offer be considered. She has asked me to say that she would have dismissed any such approach out of hand as a total abuse of the honours system. No member of the Government nor anyone acting on their behalf has made any offer of an honour to Mr. Bristow or tried to bring pressure to bear on him in any way.

§ Mr. Shore
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do we understand from that statement that the Prime Minister was actually consulted on this occasion? Has she also consulted her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the chairman of Central Office?

§ Mr. Biffen
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statement is as I have said and contains the remarks that I have been authorised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make.

§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a point of order. It is not in order to cross-question on a point of order. If the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) wishes to speak, it must be on a point of order to me.

§ Dr. Owen
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an increasing habit for points of order, which seem to be raised with some understanding between the two Front Benches, to be used as an excuse. These questions of patronage are extremely important. As one who has stood aside from the patronage system and not allowed my party to be involved in it, I feel that I am entitled to make some comments.
The Leader of the House, with the authority of the Prime Minister, has made a very full statement. There are many questions to be raised about patronage. We know that 11 private sector industrialists who received peerages from 1979 to 1985 worked for companies which gave £1,850,000 to Tory party funds and that 44 of the 64 people working in the private sector who received knighthoods contributed—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order for me. The right hon. Gentleman's opening words were entirely legitimate, but not his latter words.

§ Dr. Owen
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for statements of this kind— 561 they are, in effect, statements—to be made by the Leader of the House under the guise of points of order and then not to be subject to questioning? I believe that we have a legitimate—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I was asked originally whether I had received any request for a statement to be made on this matter. I had not.

§ Dr. Owen
I wish to raise—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman well knows that he must raise points of order with me. I have ruled, and it is a well-known practice of the House that we cannot have an exchange on a point of order.

§ Dr. Owen
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker I am referring to the way in which the House is being manipulated. The Leader of the House has read an authorised statement. I appreciate that you were not aware of what was happening and I am not in any way challenging you. I am questioning the practice between the two Front Benches whereby the shadow Leader of the House raises a point of order, as he is perfectly entitled to do and is right to do on a matter of such great importance, and this is followed by a detailed statement from the Leader of the House quoting the Prime Minister and using the authority of the Prime Minister. We are then asked to believe that we are not entitled to ask questions on that statement. This is the second time that it has happened this week.
Other parties in the House have rights, and the people of this country have rights. We are getting fed up with the conspiracy between the two Front Benches. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the rights of minority parties and the wider public.

§ Mr. Speaker
I know nothing about conspiracies between Front Benches. I received notice of a point of order from the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. That was perfectly legitimate. He asked whether I had received a request for a statement. I have received no such request. I fully understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). It is up to him, if he wishes, to raise a point of order, which he has correctly done.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There is nothing further that I can say on this. It is not a matter for me. I will take a different point of order.

§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without in any way associating myself with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), may I say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked on a point of order whether you had received a request for a statement. The Leader of the House replied to that on a point of order but then went on to make a statement which seems to us to have had nothing whatever to do with the point of order.
If the Leader of the House or anyone else rises on a point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, but then proceeds to make a separate statement, is it not in order for you to allow him to be questioned on that statement? Is it not a gross abuse of the House for the Leader of the House to shelter behind a point of order to avoid being questioned on a substantive statement?

§ Mr. Speaker
It would not be in order for me to allow questioning, as that would be equivalent to allowing a private notice question or something of that kind. This was a point of order.

§ Mr. Straw
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is accepted practice that when Ministers, including the Leader of the House, make substantive statements, not about the procedure of the House but on a substantive issue, as this clearly is, Members have the right to question the Minister concerned. The Leader of the House has just made a clear statement on a substantive issue, but we are denied the opportunity of questioning him. How can we have an opportunity to question the Leader of the House on the statement that he has made?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the usual channels, which are well recognised, are the place to ask for a statement on this important matter on Monday.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a private Member's day. There is a statement to follow. There is nothing that I can say on this matter. It is not a matter for me. I am not party to a point of order or the response to it. It has nothing to do with me.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot answer questions on this. What can I say?

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There is nothing that I can say on this. I will take one more point of order from the Front Bench.

§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a different point of order.
The assurances from the Government would normally have been accepted had not the Prime Minister used the threat of withholding honours from civil servants who were in dispute during the Civil Service strike. There is an important point for the Chair. It must be a matter of great concern to the House and to you, as Speaker of the House, when such have been the activities of the Prime Minister and her Ministers— [Interruption.] This is a point of order, and I am coming to the point. Such a web of manipulation, evasion and connivance has been spun that even a hard-headed business man can seriously believe that a genuine offer was made to him.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going into the substance of the matter. I know nothing about offers being made to anyone.

§ Mr. Williams
The important issue, Mr. Speaker, is that the integrity of the House, as well as that of the Government, is involved. What we have seen this morning is the inability of the House to question Ministers on an allegation that it is essential, in the public interest, to have clarified as quickly as possible before too much damage is done both to the Government and, more importantly, to the integrity of the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to tell us what action you can take to protect the integrity of the House. Secondly, I ask you to tell us whether you will ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on Monday.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not for me to ask the Prime Minister to make a statement.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. As this is a private Member's day, I shall take one question from Back Benchers in equity to them. I call Mr. Heffer.

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of procedure. I have always understood that whenever a Minister makes a statement in the House he has to do so on a point of order. That is done because the statement is being made during the normal proceedings of the House — for example, during a Second Reading debate or any other business. I have been a member of this place for 21 years and that has always been my understanding. The Minister having made a statement, Members have the opportunity to question him on it. It is your right, Mr. Speaker, to determine how long will be allocated to questions after the statement has been made, but when a statement is made surely Members have the right to ask the Minister questions on it.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am bound by the rules of the House, and the House knows that I am the custodian of those rules. The matter was raised with me on a point of order and I had no knowledge that the Leader of the House proposed to say anything. He indicated to me—

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman indicated, following the point of order of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), that he wished to respond, and I allowed him to do so. I had no knowledge that that would happen. Mr. Peter Shore.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Another Front Bencher.

§ Mr. Peter Shore
I wish to be helpful, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you have been placed in considerable difficulty. It is true that I rose in my place on a point of order. My purpose was to press for the Prime Minister to make a statement. The Leader of the House then took the opportunity of making a statement. It has been properly said that, if a statement is made, it must be subject to further cross-examination under the rules of the House. That is why I took the liberty of asking a supplementary question. I assumed that the Leader of the House had made a statement. We are either dealing with a statement, or a half statement, or with a point of order.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the statement and our inability to pursue it further, I press again for a statement to be made by the Prime Minister later today and not on Monday.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have no responsibility for statements. If the Leader of the house wishes to make a statement, that is a matter for him, not for me. I dealt with the matter as a point of order.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Biffen
As this is a Back-Bench Members' day, I realise that there is anxiety to protect that part of the business. I recognise also the more general point of interest that has been raised by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Therefore, I suggest that the matter is proceeded with through the usual channels.

§ Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)
rose—

§ Mr. Skinner
On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. David Steel.

§ Mr. Steel
May I make a suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, to which I do not ask you to react immediately? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you read the report in the Official Report of these proceedings and the report of the proceedings that took place on Tuesday, when the Leader of the House made a business statement on a point of order. I ask you to read both reports and then to decide whether there should be a private discussion between yourself and the Leader of the House to stop the practice of statements being made in response to points of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a wise suggestion, but I do not know whether I should be involved. Perhaps it is a matter in which all the parties should be involved.

§ Mr. Skinner
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not need any help from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

§ Mr. Skinner
On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not need any help from the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Skinner
This is a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to raise his point of order if it is directed to a different subject. I ask him to bear in mind that this is private Members' time.

§ Mr. Skinner
I bear that in mind, Mr. Speaker. That is why I am concerned that those on the Front Benches have intervened on about six occasions while I have been in the Chamber attempting to raise a point of order. The occupants of the Front Benches should be concerned about Back Benchers' time as well. The Government should be concerned about Back Benchers' time. It is conceivable that if the business had proceeded in the proper way, the issue before us would have been dealt with by now.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the business statement was made the other day on a point of order, I took up the issue. I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that most of those in the Chamber at the time agreed with me and took it for granted that the practice of making statements in that way would cease. We have witnessed this morning another example of the Government Front Bench, and the Leader of the House particularly, taking the opportunity to get away with making a statement without that statement coming under close examination.
I believe that it is the job of Mr. Speaker at all times to protect the interests of those on the Back Benches as well as those on the Front Benches, whether they are Privy Councillors or not. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be wise if in future you used your discretion to ensure that you take the opportunity to penalise the Government, if they try to get away with this sort of tactic again, by allowing the House to question the Minister who has made the statement. If that is done, the Government will cease this practice.

§ Mr. Speaker
There is a good deal of sense in what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think also that the leader of the Liberal party has made a wise suggestion. We shall move on to the private notice question of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).

§ Dr. Owen
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After consulting Hansard, may I say it seems that the only way 565 that you can be relieved of the predicament in which you have been placed by the Leader of the House, who made what was clearly a statement on a point of order, is for him to repeat that statement with any other additions that he might wish to make after business today. There are precedents for that procedure. I would urge that that course be adopted. Having heard that, perhaps the Leader of the House will now say that he will comply with the Orders of the House because he has breached them and placed you in a difficult and embarrassing position.

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)
He could do it now.

§ Dr. Owen
It would be preferable if he would do it now.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you clarify the difference of understanding about what constitutes a point of order? As I understand it, a point of order relates to procedure and not to the substance of any matter. When the Leader of the House rose, you were not to know whether he was courteously going to tell the House when the next statement about the matter he mentioned would occur. The House is aware that you in no way caused the difficulty, Mr. Speaker. In that case, would it not be for the benefit of all, and the procedures of the House, without taking any further time from private Members' business, for the statement to be repeated at 2.30 pm this afternoon so that the substance of the matter may be subject to the normal questioning after a statement?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not the responsibility of the Chair to call for statements, but I take the point. I understood that the leader of the Liberal party suggested that such matters should be discussed through the usual channels. That is perhaps the best method of dealing with them.