§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges in its Second Report of the last Session of Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 555 (1984–85)); and declares that the Recommendation contained in paragraph 14(iv) of the Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations of the Report do have effect from the beginning of this Session.Last week the House was unfortunately unable to make a decision on the motion to approve the Privileges Committee report. I hope we shall encounter no such difficulty tonight. There is no need to repeat what I said supporting the motion last week, since the House is now well aware of my views. I therefore commend the motion to the House and trust that it will be agreed tonight.
§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)I have had the opportunity of reading the report of the debate that took place last week. Perhaps the House will be relieved to know that I find no reason to add to our subtract from what I said then.
I conclude simply by commending, as I did then, the resolution before the House tonight.
§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)I will not keep the House long. I have no reason to subtract from anything that I said in the previous debate, because I got out only one sentence before the question was put. I will make now the three points that I started to make.
I said that the Privileges Committee is right to believe that pre-publication of reports from Select Committees does considerable harm to their work. I could not agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who believed that all the information that could be gained at any time ought to be published.
Pre-publication of reports affects the proper working of Select Committees in two ways. First, while it is correct for a Committee to want to hear all evidence and opinions in order to influence its judgments, that should not be done through the press in early publication, but in evidence properly given to a Committee. Pre-publication of parts, or incorrect parts, of draft reports often brings an influence to that Committee that is quite wrong.
Secondly, such action influences the way in which a Chairman writes a report, if he believes that his report is likely to be leaked. Whenever I have taken part in writing reports, as a Chairman, I have usually wanted to go to one extreme or the other because there was disagreement within the Committee or decisions were not finalised. If one goes to an extreme, a report is either watered down or strengthened. It is one of the ways in which one can get agreement from everybody. Thus, the idea that the prepublication of the draft report shows what the Committee will decide is usually incorrect.
My third and major point is that the Committee of Privileges' recommendations do not go far enough. We should try to stamp out the pre-publication of Committee reports, remembering that it is generally agreed that the leaking of information is wrong. It should be understood from this debate that pre-publication is a breach of privilege of the House.
261 The Committee has suggested that there is no way by which we can stamp out publication by the press. I disagree. If we held not the reporter or editor of a newspaper responsible for a breach of privilege of the House but the proprietor or publisher, we would need do that only once for the order to go out to every editor and reporter, "Make certain that no breach of privilege occurs in anything you publish in my newspaper." That might be called draconian, but it would ensure that newspapers generally understood that they should not publish until a Committee had decided absolutely on its final report.
I regret that the Committee of Privileges has not gone that far. Despite that, I see no reason not to accept its recommendations. I hope that they will work. If they do not, perhaps the press will realise that we must take stronger steps than are now proposed.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)I do not agree with the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), because, in my view, we should leave the media alone. The issues with which we are concerned relate to hon. Members, and we should address our remarks to them.
I spoke at length in last week's debate, and I again give notice of my intention to divide the House on this issue. I shall do so on the principle that the report does not refer to the introduction of the Liaison Committee, which is the matter to which I referred in the last debate.
The question of that Committee and its intervention in these matters was raised as an issue only following discussions that took place through the usual channels. The effect has been to diffuse the power of Mr. Speaker. Historically, these matters have uniquely always been referred to Mr. Speaker, and it has been for him to decide whether a motion of precedence should be permitted.
On this occasion we are introducing a filter between the Select Committee, which decides that substantial interference is taking place, and the Committee of Privileges, which must also consider whether it can find in the same way and impose whatever sanctions it feels to be necessary. Rather than have that filter, the route should be clean, direct from the complaining Select Committee to the Committee of Privileges.
That would eventually result in frivolous complaints being avoided. I gather that the Liaison Committee was introduced with the idea of avoiding frivolous complaints being made. It was felt that it would be able to deal with applications and ensure that the Committee of Privileges dealt only with substantial matters. As I say, we do not need that filter. The route should be direct and the Committee of Privileges should, if it receives frivolous applications, inform the Select Committees concerned that they are frivolous. That should influence the judgment of those Select Committees about the complaints that they make in future.
I am trying to put the pressure back on to the Select Committees to be wise in their judgments about what matters should be referred in so far as these cause substantial damage or interference with the workings of a Select Committee. This is of great importance, because we are debating the freedom of information and I believe that Select Committees are sitting on documents which should be in the public domain.
There is no reason why those documents should be held by Select Committees until they decide to report to the 262 House, or alternatively until they decide not to report to the House on certain items which they feel, for whatever reason, may have to be sidelined.
I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and I spent some time yesterday in that Committee arguing the point about confidentiality and about documents which I believe should be within the public domain. The only way that Select Committees can take reasonable decisions is if they are required to do that knowing that the Privileges Committee would not look too kindly on frivolous applications and complaints being put before it.
The Liaison Committee provides a danger, in that, at the end of the day it will not operate in the way recommended or wanted by the members of the Privileges Committee. Furthermore, if the Liaison Committee is crucial to the exercise in trying to establish what would constitute a breach of privilege, why is it not embodied in the report's recommendations? Why is the House having to accept the imposition of a Liaison Committee because of the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House?
I believe that what we are doing tonight is wrong, and on that basis I intend to vote against the recommendation.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said that he would vote against the measure; some of us, including my hon. Friend, voted against it last week when the Government could not find enough hon. Members to carry it through.
§ Mr. BiffenThat was not our responsibility.
§ Mr. SkinnerThe Leader of the House says that was not the Government's responsibility. It struck me that the Government were trying to get the motion through. The Whips were running about like—I was going to say like something else—like flies, trying to get the payroll vote back into the House in the same way that they tried tonight to get through the Private Bill on Edinburgh. It was clear what happened. They even got the Prime Minister in tonight.
However, last week, for some reason, which may have had something to do with Cheltenham and the races, Conservative Members were not present to vote. The Cheltenham Gold cup was on last week, but the Government, who have finished up with the biggest majority since the end of war, could not manage to get more than 34 Conservative Members through the Lobby. That was a strange affair. Most of the Tory Members did not seem to care tuppence about the Committee's report and did not turn up for work. The result was that the Government did not get the requisite quorum. They have had to bring the measure back to the House tonight. I do not know what all the Tories were doing at Cheltenham, but I guess that they were leaking, telling their favourite Lobby correspondents what was going on in these Select Committees.
I do not know what all the fuss is about. What do these Committees do? They write reports, and, Ministers rubbish them. There was one on Sellafield last week and, within three days, the Secretary of State for Energy was on the wireless and television issuing a press report saying that he did not care tuppence for the report. I cannot recall 263 one of the reports of these important Select Committees resulting in any dramatic change either in the House or, more importantly for the people we represent, outside the House.
I therefore do not get involved or enmeshed in these weird Select Committees, which are all about trying to get a soppy consensus. I am not into that. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Workington that if I were a member of a Select Committee—I am not—I would believe that the Committees should be held not in private but in public. The fact that they are held in private is probably one of the reasons why they do not work properly. The press and the public should be present, if they so wish, so that they know what is going on.
If that happened, there would not be any leaks.
There are no leaks in the House. Hansard reports what hon. Members say. Why should it be different in a Select Committee? It is because of the gravitation towards the middle and the desire for consensus. I did not become a Member to represent that view. I became a Member to represent the Labour party and the class interests associated with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington and I shall vote against the motion, for slightly different reasons. I think that other hon. Members would agree with me, but they probably believe that the Committee's recommendation is inconsequential and does not really matter. Like the Tory Members last week, those hon. Members will not bother to vote.
§ Mr. BiffenBy leave of the House, I shall reply briefly, out of courtesy, to this short debate which has been valuable in showing an understanding of the Privileges Committee's proposals.
I understand the zest of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for exacting punishment on editors or proprietors, but I have to tell him, not that that view has been rejected by the Privileges Committee, but that that it is for the House to consider infringements when they arise. When infringements arise because of the leaking of information by a Member of Parliament or the staff of a Member of Parliament who cannot be detected, that provides a happy circumstance in which to wreak the only punishment available—on the newspaper that publishes that information. We live with that difficulty and, doubtless, experience will guide us in the passage of time on how to proceed.
I have a lively sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I think that there is not a great difference between us. I hope that that will not mean that he goes home sad this evening. In all matters of privilege—we saw this very effectively yesterday—it is a question not only of living by the book but of living by an application of common sense and a measured judgment through experience.
It was thought, not for a sinister reason, that the Liaison Committee would be particularly helpful in giving guidance to the Privileges Committee in the application of that essential parliamentary requisite—common sense—in trying to handle privileges matters. If we do not arm ourselves with common sense, we make ourselves into laughing stocks. That has happened many times when the House has tried to deal with matters of privilege. I hope 264 that the hon. Member for Workington will be charitable about our modest innovation and will see in it not any sinister motive but the desire of the House to take measured footsteps, pace by pace.
That brings me to the charming intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The idea that I am put in this acutely personally embarrassing position of bringing back to the House for the second time a matter on which I desperately seek the consent of hon. Members because of the ineptitude of the Conservative Whips on Cheltenham Gold Cup day is an interpretation that deserves to be savoured not only in the House but outside it. However, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I think that, in many political matters, especially this one, the cock-up theory should be more favoured than the conspiracy one.
This evening, we are performing a modest role for the House of Commons because—and for no other reason—we failed by the magic figure of one to get the matter confirmed by the House last week. I am reminded of the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was in charge of retail price maintenance and carried the vote by one. He triumphantly said, "The one is enough." On this occasion, I had to conclude in the words of Browning,
Oh, the little more, and how much it is!That was certainly effectively true this evening. I quite understand why the hon. Member for Bolsover has a good-natured contempt for the working of Select Committees.Parliament is a multi-disciplinary school. Many of us thoroughly enjoy fighting politics in the conventional sense across the Floor of the House and no one does it more effectively than the hon. Member for Bolsover. That does not entitle us to disparage those who seek the route of Select Committees and their particular method of influencing parliamentary and public opinion in great matters of national debate. I hope that we can live in a House of Commons where all these disciplines are happily and generously contained. On that basis I hope I can persuade the hon. Member for Bolsover to be with me in the Lobby this evening.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 22.
256| Division No. 109] | [10.09 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Harris, David |
| Alton, David | Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael |
| Amess, David | Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW) |
| Arnold, Tom | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Hind, Kenneth |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Holt, Richard |
| Beith, A. J. | Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N) |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Howells, Geraint |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Jackson, Robert |
| Bottomley, Peter | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Jessel, Toby |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Johnston, Sir Russell |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Bright, Graham | Jones, Robert (Herts W) |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Browne, John | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Kennedy, Charles |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Key, Robert |
| Buck, Sir Antony | King, Roger (B'ham N'field) |
| Burt, Alistair | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Knox, David |
| Carlisle, John (Luton N) | Lang, Ian |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Chope, Christopher | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Churchill, W. S. | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Lightbown, David |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Lilley, Peter |
| Colvin, Michael | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Conway, Derek | Lord, Michael |
| Coombs, Simon | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Cope, John | MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) |
| Corrie, John | Maclean, David John |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | McQuarrie, Albert |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Major, John |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Malone, Gerald |
| Dover, Den | Mather, Carol |
| Durant, Tony | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Evennett, David | Merchant, Piers |
| Fallon, Michael | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
| Favell, Anthony | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Moore, Rt Hon John |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Murphy, Christopher |
| Forth, Eric | Neubert, Michael |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Newton, Tony |
| Fox, Marcus | Normanton, Tom |
| Franks, Cecil | Onslow, Cranley |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | Osborn, Sir John |
| Freeman, Roger | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Galley, Roy | Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Pollock, Alexander |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Portillo, Michael |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Powley, John |
| Gower, Sir Raymond | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Grant, Sir Anthony | Raffan, Keith |
| Greenway, Harry | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Gregory, Conal | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Ground, Patrick | Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Sackville, Hon Thomas | Thurnham, Peter |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Tracey, Richard |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Trippier, David |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Shersby, Michael | Waddington, David |
| Silvester, Fred | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Sims, Roger | Wallace, James |
| Skeet, Sir Trevor | Waller, Gary |
| Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) | Ward, John |
| Soames, Hon Nicholas | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Steel, Rt Hon David | Watts, John |
| Steen, Anthony | Wheeler, John |
| Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) | Whitfield, John |
| Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Stradling Thomas, Sir John | Wilson, Gordon |
| Sumberg, David | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Taylor, John (Solihull) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman | Woodcock, Michael |
| Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) | |
| Thomas, Rt Hon Peter | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Thompson, Donald (Calder V) | Mr. Michael Hirst and |
| Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) | Mr. Barry Henderson. |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Leighton, Ronald |
| Barron, Kevin | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | McCartney, Hugh |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | McKelvey, William |
| Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) | MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor |
| Buchan, Norman | McTaggart, Robert |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | McWilliam, John |
| Canavan, Dennis | Madden, Max |
| Clay, Robert | Martin, Michael |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S) | Maxton, John |
| Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) | Michie, William |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Craigen, J. M. | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Crowther, Stan | O'Brien, William |
| Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Dewar, Donald | Parry, Robert |
| Dixon, Donald | Patchett, Terry |
| Dormand, Jack | Pike, Peter |
| Douglas, Dick | Prescott, John |
| Dubs, Alfred | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Eadie, Alex | Robertson, George |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Rogers, Allan |
| Fatchett, Derek | Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Flannery, Martin | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E) |
| Foster, Derek | Snape, Peter |
| Foulkes, George | Stott, Roger |
| Fraser, J. (Norwood) | Strang, Gavin |
| Garrett, W. E. | Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Tinn, James |
| Hamilton, James (M'well N) | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Haynes, Frank | Wareing, Robert |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
| Home Robertson, John | Winnick, David |
| Hoyle, Douglas | |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Dr. John Marek and |
| Lambie, David | Mr. Terry Lewis. |
| Lamond, James |
| Division No. 110] | [10.55 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Arnold, Tom | Forth, Eric |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Foulkes, George |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Franks, Cecil |
| Beith, A. J. | Freeman, Roger |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Galley, Roy |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Bottomley, Peter | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Grant, Sir Anthony |
| Bright, Graham | Gregory, Conal |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Ground, Patrick |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael |
| Burt, Alistair | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Carlisle, John (Luton N) | Hind, Kenneth |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) |
| Conway, Derek | Holt, Richard |
| Cope, John | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Jackson, Robert |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Johnston, Sir Russell |
| Dover, Den | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Durant, Tony | Jones, Robert (Herts W) |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Kennedy, Charles |
| Evennett, David | Lambie, David |
| Lang, Ian | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Leighton, Ronald | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Lilley, Peter | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Lord, Michael | Stott, Roger |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
| Major, John | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. |
| Malone, Gerald | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Martin, Michael | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Mather, Carol | Thurnham, Peter |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Merchant, Piers | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Mitchell, David (Hants NW) | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Waller, Gary |
| Neubert, Michael | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Newton, Tony | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| O'Neill, Martin | Watts, John |
| Osborn, Sir John | Wheeler, John |
| Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Whitfield, John |
| Raffan, Keith | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Wilson, Gordon |
| Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Yeo, Tim |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas | |
| Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm | Tellers for the Ayes |
| Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | Mr. Barry Henderson and |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Mr. Gerald Howarth. |
| NOES | |
| Alton, David | McKelvey, William |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | McTaggart, Robert |
| Canavan, Dennis | Michie, William |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Parry, Robert |
| Clay, Robert | Patchett, Terry |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Pike, Peter |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Haynes, Frank | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Howells, Geraint | Wallace, James |
| Kirkwood, Archy | |
| Lamond, James | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Lewis, Terence (Worsley) | Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours and |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Mr. Dennis Skinner. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges in its Second Report of the last Session of Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 555 (1984–85)); and declares that the Recommendation contained in paragraph 14(iv) of the Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations of the Report do have effect from the beginning of this Session.