Cabinet Minutes (Hansard, 22 January 1986)

§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The country is agog as speculation continues in newspapers and on the radio about the naming of civil servants. Will the Leader of the House make a statement about how the Government intend to handle the matter, which is causing grave concern? It should not be possible for civil servants to be named in such a way, and for no discussion to take place in the House on the crucial matter of the Cabinet Secretary's inquiry in to the leak.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have had no notification from the Government that they intend to make a statement on the matter today.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
Arising out of column 1153 of Hansard of 15 January 1986, could we have some explanation whether Miss Colette Bowe consulted the Solicitor-General or the people in the Royal Courts of Justice before giving information to the Press Association?

§ Mr. Speaker
I know nothing about that matter. I have not had a chance to look up column 1153, but I do not think that the matter is for me.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there no way that the procedures of the House can accommodate the present position? It is being widely reported that a senior civil servant in the Department of Trade and Industry has been given immunity from prosecution. That was reported last night on the radio, and was the first news item today. Yet no statement is to be made to the House by either the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General. With respect, it is an abuse that when such matters take place and are widely reported Ministers give the House no information of any sort about them. Therefore, some arrangement should be made so that we can have a statement later today. We should not have to wait until tomorrow. We should have a statement later today, either from the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General.

§ Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that you have agreed that it is part of the duty of the House to protect people who are in the Government service and who, by virtue of their office, cannot speak for themselves publicly. You will also be aware, not least from the proceedings that we have just heard, that strong rumours are circulating about the identity of a person who may or may not have been responsible for leaking the letter from the Solicitor-General's office. Because of the duty, which we must in all honour discharge, it is important that we have a conclusive statement from that Government. If the rumours are inaccurate, unjust and irreparable damage may be done to that person's career. On the other hand, if those rumours are accurate, there will plainly be implications relating to the orders given to such an individual which will have wide application for the conduct of the order of the House. I hope that you can prevail on the authorities concerned so that we have a full and frank statement to clarify the matter.

§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am advised that all the procedures associated with the inquiry concerning the leak of the Solicitor-General's letter have not been completed. Meanwhile, I suggest that the question of a Government statement should be discussed through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Winnick
For today.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I will hear the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Skinner
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last week we made many requests for statements on the Westland affair. The Tory Front Bench told us that there was nothing to worry about and that everything was in order. As a result of that, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) had to demand that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry come to the House later. We are going through the same routine again this week. Today we have almost a replica of what happened then. Because some hon. Members accused the Government of a cover-up, we managed, belatedly, to get the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the Dispatch Box and, finally, to have a debate. At the weekend there was another cover-up, when Mr. Lygo and the rest of them were bought off.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. What is the point of order for me?

§ Mr. Skinner
You are placed in an invidious position, Mr. Speaker, because the Government are refusing to make a proper statement. As a result, we are asking for a private notice question so that we can draw some truth from the Government. Apparently that is not to be granted, so we are back to square one. We shall demand the truth from this tawdry Government because they have covered it up from the beginning, and the truth will out.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am deeply grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about my position, and I feel it strongly.

§ Mr. Kinnock
On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has heard what the Leader of the House had to say. He and I and the House are at one in respecting the efficiency of the usual channels. However, I hope that the Leader of the House will acknowledge that, of its very nature, this matter will not, and cannot, be resolved through the usual channels, and that there must be an agreement on the procedure for dealing with it. Ultimately, this is a matter that must be settled in the House of Commons by a statement detailing the Government's views and actions.

§ Dr. Owen
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be reasonable for the Leader of the House to say that a statement will be made to the House today? We want to hear that statement today, not tomorrow.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Is it a different point of order?

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
Yes, Mr. Speaker. The day before yesterday, I raised a point of order, on which you ruled yesterday. You ruled in my absence because I was, unfortunately, in a Select Committee.
308 In your ruling, you said that the passage in question in the Cabinet minutes, which I did not bring to the Chamber on that occasion, described what happened at a meeting on 17 October last between the Secretary of State— [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not now going to challenge my ruling.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, was most reasonably based on all the facts and information that were placed before you by those whom you consulted. I put it you, Mr. Speaker, that there is one document which you did not see and which you were not allowed. to see, and that is the document that I have here. It is that section of the Cabinet minutes that precisely concerns the point of order.
I have not been given the opportunity to —[Interruption.] The minute says: Sir John said that he was well aware of the Government's preference for a European minority shareholding in Westland, and attached weight to that preference". The minute continues: The Secretary of State noted what Sir John said. He said a European minority shareholding would invoke the commercial and political interests of the Government". The quote by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the Dispatch Box was from that minute. I have underlined on the minute that passage from which he quoted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Government's preference for a European minority shareholding in Westland. He then said that a European minority shareholding was in both the commercial and political interests of the Government. We therefore have a direct quote. We do not have a paraphrase.
In light of the fact that I have this document in my possession, I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you would once again look at your ruling yesterday, because you did not have this information available to you at that time. If you did so, you would know the implications if a full statement and the minute were made available to the House. The eyes of hon. Members would be opened in a way that the Select Committee has not been able to do.

§ Mr. Speaker
I ruled against the background of the information that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) brought to my attention. I have no authority to send for the Cabinet minutes, and I have no knowledge of them. My ruling stands.

§ Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)
May I refer to the previous point of order, which we have not satisfactorily resolved? Another hon. Member referred, I think improperly, to matters concerning private notice questions. What the Leader of the House said a few minutes ago is what we have all been advised privately—that the inquiries are not yet complete. Surely the Leader of the House should be made to say that, if these inquiries are completed today, they should be reported to the House today. It would be intolerable if we read in tomorrow's papers leaks of a leaks inquiry.

§ Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)
Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. We are aware of the precedent that, if a Minister quotes from a document, the whole document should be placed 309 before the House, If, however, a Minister paraphrases a document, the same considerations do not apply. How can you, and hon. Members, reach conclusions on these matters unless the original quotation is before us? How do you reach your conclusions, while taking account of the precedent that the whole document should be laid before the House?
New considerations now arise. As I understand it—I may be wrong—the quotation is now in the possession of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. It would appear that it is on exactly the same lines as the material—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Word for word.

§ Mr. Morris
I stand corrected—it agrees word for word with the words that the Secretary of State used in the House. It seems that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quoting from a document. That is unanswerable. I find it difficult in those circumstances to understand how a different conclusion could be reached.

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that the House will not seek to draw the Chair into what is, after all, a political argument. I ruled yesterday on the evidence that was brought before me by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—

§ Mr. John Morris
rose—

§ Mr. Skinner
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have no authority to send for Cabinet documents. That is not within my responsibility. I ruled on the matter yesterday and I reaffirm that that ruling stands.

§ Mr. John Morris
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to you, Mr. Speaker—the last thing that I would wish would be to draw you into any conflict involving this matter—I think that the House is entitled to know whether the rule still stands. If a Minister quotes, inadvertently or deliberately, from a Cabinet paper, Cabinet minute or any other paper, does the rule still stand? That is the point that I seek to make.

§ Mr. Speaker
The rule was repeated by the hon. Member for Workington yesterday when he read it out in full. I can also read it out in full, if the Clerk finds it in time. The rule is perfectly plain. If there is a direct quotation, it is necessary to lay the document; if there is a paraphrase, that is not necessary. I ruled yesterday on the evidence before me that there was a paraphrase, and that ruling stands.

§ Mr. Kinnock
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that last Thursday some confusion was caused because of an inadvertent misunderstanding that could have arisen in response to the matter as it was then raised by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The Chair can be placed in an invidious position because a Minister can quote from an official document to render authority to a particular statement, and in between the time that it is used in the House and it finds itself in Hansard, the Minister, for political reasons, can change the status of the quotation simply by removing the quotation marks and saying that it is a paraphrase of what took place. 310 It will be obvious to you, Mr. Speaker, that a problem arises when you are in the position of ruling that a document is not an official document that has been precisely quoted to the House when in fact it is, and that has not been made obvious to you by the decision of a Minister to ensure that you are not acquainted with that fact.
We are not seeking your involvement, Mr. Speaker, in political contention between the two sides of the House. We wish to remove the possibility of your involvement in that contention by ensuring that, where there is an exact match of words between an official document and the words used in the House by a Minister, the normal rule is followed and the document becomes the property of the House.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not think that I can say any more than I have. I have no knowledge of what goes on in Cabinet and I have no knowledge of Cabinet minutes. I always understood that Cabinet minutes were entirely secret. It is not possible for me to know whether Ministers are quoting from Cabinet minutes. I could not possibly know that.

§ Dr. Owen
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has made a serious statement and he now has documentary proof of a Cabinet Sub-Committee. If the hon. Gentleman gives the document to you, Mr. Speaker, and you find that he is accurate in what he said and that the words do coincide, surely you are then entitled to ask the Government whether it is an official document. If it is an official document, surely the normal rules of the House should apply and it should be placed in the Library.

§ Mr. John Morris
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The short point is this. If this is a direct quotation, should not the Government table the document?

§ Mr. Speaker
It would be up to the Government to decide whether to do that. There is no point in my keeping on repeating that I am not party to what goes on in Cabinet. I have no idea whether the Secretary of State was using words in a Cabinet minute and my judgment, on the evidence placed before me, was that his words were a paraphrase.

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House understands the reason for your ruling yesterday. It was made, to use your own phrase, on the "basis of the evidence laid before me". My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is now laying fresh evidence before you. On the basis of the evidence that was laid before you yesterday, your original ruling could stand, but on the basis of the fresh evidence you are in a position to make a fresh ruling.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is perfectly reasonable. If the hon. Member for Workington were to submit that to me, I should have an opportunity to look into it, but I am not prepared to rule on it now.

§ Mr. Skinner
rose—

§ Mr. Benn
rose—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall give you a copy.

§ Mr. Skinner
That is right.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I shall also lay it on the Table. You say, Mr. Speaker, that you took the decision on the evidence that was placed before you. However, prior to that, you also said that you were unable to consult the Cabinet minutes. I am wondering what evidence has been placed before you that allows you to arrive at that decision.

§ Mr. Speaker
The evidence that the hon. Gentleman gave me.

§ Mr. Benn
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, with great respect, suggest that the issue is not a matter between the Government and the Opposition. It is a matter as to whether there are two classes of Members: those who are subject to the rules that are laid down by the Government and every other hon. Member. When you were elected Speaker you laid claim to the ancient privileges of the House, one of which is that the most favourable construction should be put upon all our proceedings. If it is clear that the Government are operating under different rules which exempt them from the rules of the House, that is a matter for the House and for you. It is not a matter of inter-party controversy.

§ Mr. Speaker
The point I was seeking to make was that I am fully aware that this is a matter of high political controversy. What is disturbing is that Mr. Speaker is being drawn into some of these arguments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I am perfectly prepared, and it is absolutely right that I should be, to discharge my duties fully and fearlessly, and I shall so do, but I hope that the House will not draw me into what is, after all, a political argument.

§ Mr. John Morris
This is not a political argument. This is a matter for the House of Commons as a whole. According to "Erskine May", the rule on page 433 says: A Minister of the Crown may not read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table. There are two considerations. First, we wish to have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, upon how this rule may be put into effect. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has handed you a document that purports to be the source of the quotation, and in exactly the same terms. Will you now be good enough to give us guidance on giving effect to the rule? Since the matter may need further time for consideration, perhaps you could do so later today or tomorrow.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have already said that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's key point purports to he that I shall need to look into this matter.

§ Mr. Skinner
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Well, is it helpful?

§ Mr. Skinner
Yes, exceptionally helpful, as far as you are concerned. You are well aware that, from the very beginning, this has been a matter between the Opposition and the Government. You have been caught in the middle. It has been revealed today that what purports to be a Cabinet document has been referred to and laid on the Table. If it is valid, the whole of that Cabinet document must be laid on the Table. There is a problem, which you spotted earlier: how do we manage to find out whether the document of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is correct? I put it to you that it would not be the first time that the House has set up a Committee to examine the validity of a document. When you consider this matter today in order to report back to the House, I suggest that you must consider setting up a Committee to test the validity of my hon. Friend's document so that the whole of the Cabinet document may be laid on the Table, when more of the truth will emerge. I put it to you that that would be the sensible way forward. It would ensure that you are not caught in the middle of a politically charged argument between an Opposition and a Government who are trying to evade the truth and their responsibilities.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps one day he will be in a position to exercise the heavy responsibilities that I have.

§ Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West)
I do believe that you have been somewhat misled, Mr. Speaker. In this exchange, everybody, including yourself, has referred to the document being a Cabinet minute. However. it is clear, even from the remarks of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, that this is not a Cabinet minute. It is a minute by his private secretary about a meeting the Secretary of State held with the industrialist Sir John Cuckney. It is exactly the same as the minute which has already been released by the Government about a meeting the Secretary of State had with Sir Raymond Lygo.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that there is much profit in continuing this, as I do not know, and I shall have to look into it.