§ Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise, after two long statements, for wearying the House, but this is an important matter which affects the privileges of the House.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has on many occasions recently sought to use the privilege of the House to call into question the conduct, or alleged conduct, of Mr. David Mitchell, an employee of Conservative Central Office, whom he has accused of having interfered with witnesses in a libel action, recently disposed of, which I had against the BBC. That is a serious criminal offence.
You will recall that on Tuesday the hon. Member for Workington announced, on a point of order, that he was sending a transcript of a tape recording of a conversation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. My right hon. and learned Friend yesterday wrote to the hon. Gentleman to say that in that tape recording he could find no evidence or material which would justify his asking the police to carry out an inquiry. He also sent that transcript to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who concurred with my right hon. and learned Friend's conclusion. I should like to ask whether it would be appropriate for the hon. Member for Workington, whom we all know to be a man of the highest integrity, to apologise now to Mr. David Mitchell for having made allegations about him for which there is no foundation?
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that the Attorney-General has given the matter his fullest consideration. For a start, the Attorney-General, during his reply, has pointedly refused to respond to any of the statements made by the parties to the transcript on interference with witnesses. At no stage in the reply does he refer to what they say. The fact that the transcript indicates, indeed states, in the words of one of the parties to the transcript, that a cover-up was organised by Conservative Central Office seems unimportant to him. He refuses to be drawn on that.
The fact that the transcript draws attention to the prospect of perjury by witnesses he treats as unimportant and refuses to be drawn on it. In his reply to me he does not refer to the fact that the transcript points to the changing of stories by witnesses and hon. Members, arid to pressure being exerted by Mr. David Mitchell. The fact that potential witnesses were frightened by the prospect of being identified and their names published in national newspapers and were modifying their evidence to avoid embarrassment seems unimportant to him. It is all in the transcript and he refuses to be drawn on it.
It is absurd for anyone to suggest that the evidence as submitted did not warrant an inquiry by the police. The Attorney-General, who refuses to be drawn on the matter of political pressure over the Westland leak, is the same man who today refuses to be drawn on the question of political pressure on witnesses to the BBC trial. No one should believe what is being said by the Attorney-General.
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot see any point of order that arises for me in this. I have not heard the tape. It is not a matter of order; it is very much a matter for debate.
§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that there is a point of order here. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who is in the Chamber, suggested on 27 October that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would have said, had you not cut him short, that as many as 17 out of 20 witnesses may have been persuaded to withdraw.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot get into a debate on this. Will the hon. Gentleman come to a point of order which I can seek to answer?
§ Mr. HowarthIs it in order for hon. Members who have been cleared by the Attorney-General to be mentioned in that way? Is it not incumbent upon the hon. Member for Workington to name those people and place the transcript in the Library, so that we can all see it?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that we have dealt with that matter. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not even in the Chamber.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)I am, just.
§ Mr. SpeakerWell, stay there. I think that we dealt with this matter on Tuesday. I cannot see any point of order for me.
§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), under the cloak of privilege, has been able to make certain challenges to the answers given by the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, may I ask you to rule that the hon. Gentleman should place the tapes to which he is referring in the Library of the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter for me. The tapes are not an official document.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursI would be more than happy if the Attorney-General would use the power and the right that he has, and which I do not have, to place that transcript, under the cover of privilege, in the Library. I ask him to do so.