§ Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember various exchanges since the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), made some wild allegations during Home Office questions that hon. Members had been using their powers wrongly in making representations for their constituents about immigration cases. A responsible member of my local press telephoned me to say that a written answer had been provided by the Minister, which states that there is to be a code of conduct for these matters, and that it is the product of negotiations between the parties. That is known to my local press. I was asked to comment on it, but I know nothing about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) knows nothing about it either. Surely, this is an abuse.
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)Further to my hon. Friend's point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you and the Leader of the House, who is present, will look into the matter.
My hon. Friend has drawn your attention to two important matters. First, if this morning the Home Office released to the press the content of a parliamentary answer made today, it is a breach of what you regard as our most important rule, which is that no parliamentary answer should be released to the press before it has been made known to the House. Clearly that is a matter for you.
If that is the case, it draws attention to a second matter relating to the activities of the Home Office. It follows upon a leak of material which the Home Office is having to investigate, following information released to the Home Office about negotiations and correspondence between hon. Members and the Home Office which was in breach of the Official Secrets Act, and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has been involved. That is a most serious matter. Moreover, if the information given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is accurate, and it is claimed that negotiations on these matters have taken place between the Government and, presumably, me, I wish to make it perfectly clear that no such negotiations have taken place. Indeed, I have made it clear that we cannot negotiate without the authorisation of the parliamentary Labour party.
Those matters follow from the most important matter that my hon. Friend raised, which is whether the Home Office has released a parliamentary answer to the press before that answer has been given to the hon. Member concerned.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I notice that question No. 102 on the Order Paper, for written answer, is in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). The written answer would not normally become available to the hon. Gentleman until 3.30 pm, and he could withdraw his question until that time. It is now 3.47 pm. I have not 790 seen the answer to the question, and I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has. I accept what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has said, and I hope that the press has not disclosed the information. I have no knowledge of that.
§ Mr. MaddenFurther to the point of order. Two important matters are at stake. The first concerns the rights of all hon. Members to make representations on behalf of people who, for one reason or another, are seeking to enter the United Kingdom but have been refused entry. I am sure that you would wish nothing to alter the right of hon. Members in these matters, unless the House has given approval to hon. Members' rights being diminished, altered or varied in any way.
The second matter was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and relates to a Home Office investigation into extremely detailed disclosures that were made about representations on immigrations by hon. Members from all parties. I understand from various replies that I have received from parliamentary questions that that is an internal Home Office inquiry. I have been told that the information gathered so far is not sufficient to be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and that the inquiry is due to be completed shortly.
It is an abuse of the House for the Executive, by administrative means, to seek in any way to diminish the rights of Members of the House on immigration matters. It is also an abuse to do that in advance of the findings of a Home Office internal inquiry designed to see whether the Official Secrets Act has been breached by the management of the immigration service or by officials in the Minister of State's office.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that nothing is done to change, vary or alter the rights of all hon. Members until the House has been given a full opportunity to hear from Ministers, what they are suggesting and so enable the House to express a view on the Executive's proposals.
§ Mr. SkinnerOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Is the hon. Gentleman's point of order on the same subject?
§ Mr. SkinnerOh, yes.
§ Mr. SpeakerAnd is it helpful?
§ Mr. SkinnerYes, by all means.
The important thing to remember is that increasingly the Government have abused the use of procedure. We have had several references to that in the past few weeks. The result is that the Chair has to make rulings of a kind which the Chair should not have to make.
The whole matter should be investigated by the appropriate Committee, albeit after an investigation by yourself, Mr. Speaker. Until such time as somebody wields the authority in this place on behalf of all hon. Members—which means Back-Bench Members as well as Front-Bench Members—this tawdry Government will continue abusing their position in their authoritarian way. Tinpot junior Ministers as well as the Prime Minister will do the same as they have done today. It is time that someone demonstrated to them that, despite the Government's massive majority, they are not going to get away with their attacks upon Back-Benchers, civil 791 liberties and freedom in the country. The Chair could, on occasion, demonstrate the kind of will which would prevail to some degree on the Government.
§ Mr. KaufmanIn response to the points of order put by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), you have made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that a parliamentary answer can be withdrawn or changed or the question can be withdrawn before 3.30 pm. Therefore, it is an abuse of the House for a ministerial answer to be released to the press before 3.30 pm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood has informed me during these exchanges that the journalist telephoned her before 1 pm today. That was two and a half hours before the deadline which you stated, Mr. Speaker, ought to be accepted by Ministers. It is obvious from examining question No. 102 that that is a planted question which the Minister asked the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) to put down.
This is not the first time that that has happened from the office of the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington). I would say, Mr. Speaker, that, apart from the other matters which have been put before you, for that office to have planted a question and then, in its own interests, to have released the answer before it was made known to Parliament, is an abuse of the House.
We ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker. We also ask the Leader of the House, quite apart from any inquiries that Mr. Speaker might make, to make inquiries and come to the House, state the facts and offer the House an apology and a promise that nothing like that will arise again from the office of the Minister of State.
§ Mr. SpeakerNone of these matters really concerns me. I am not responsible for questions that are tabled or the answers that are given. However, if what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) alleges is true, I would deprecate the giving of a written answer to the press before it has been given to the hon. Member concerned. That is clearly in breach of our conventions.
§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)If it will help the House, Mr. Speaker, I have heard what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the allegations.
§ Mr. SpeakerWell, does it relate to the point of order?
§ Mr. WilliamsIt relates to it and it concerns you, Mr. Speaker. While we welcome what the Leader of the House has just said, you will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that on Friday you were put in an invidious position because of the issue of a statement on a point of order. I do not want to resurrect that issue, but half an hour before that statement was made on a point of order, which means that it is not available for questioning in the House, it was circulating—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot go back on what happened last Friday, with the best will in the world. This is Tuesday.
§ Mr. WilliamsBut, Mr. Speaker, you are saying that it is wrong for the Government to issue information to the press before it is issued to the House. We had an instance when you were put in an embarrassing position because a Minister did that. You will recollect that the Minister of State, Treasury had asked you and the House for permission to make a statement on the Friday about the Civil Service. That statement had been released to the press over an hour before it was made in the House. While the assurance that we have had from the Leader of the House is welcome, it does not touch on the basic issue, which is that the Government are putting you and the House in an embarrassing position.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe must not go back over the events of last Friday, but I repeat what I said then: the making of a statement by way of a point of order is to be deprecated and should not be followed in future. As I understand it, the press release was given from the Prime Minister's office and not by the Leader of the House — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as I understand it.