§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for an inquiry into evidence of interference with witnesses in the case of Hamilton and Howarth v. the BBC.You will, Mr. Speaker, recall that in reply to my point of order on Tuesday you said that allegations of interference with witnesses were "pure speculation". I must draw your attention to a letter addressed to "Mr. Selwyn Gummer", the then chairman of the Conservative party, dated 24 November 1984, from the National Young Conservatives. The writer states:Loyalty to both the party and to you has prevented me from making public comment on your objections to the Panorama programme … However if the activities of certain individuals in Conservative Central Office interfere with legal proceedings against the National Young Conservatives, I cannot remain silent.He also says:On the 22 February the Central Office Legal Officer"—I have now discovered that it is a man called Mr. David Mitchell—contacted a member of the Conservative delegation which had visited Berlin and suggested to him that the account he had given was incorrect and conflicted with the evidence given by other delegation members with whom he had spoken. He claimed to have arranged for these other individuals to put their adjusted versionadjusted version—of events to you in writing. When the delegation member in question refused to change his version it was suggested he speak to no one about the incident and that he lie low … The second instance relates to the leaking of information to a certain Sunday newspaper by an individual in Conservative Central Office Press Department. I would have been oblivious to this had not the reporter contacted me for confirmation.He added:In conclusion may I say I find these activities deplorable and would ask you to instigate an investigation immediately.I have been given this letter by a person who is close to the internal workings of Conservative Central Office. I am informed that a tape recording between Mr. David Mitchell and a witness might be available to me. This is an important matter because the activities of Mr. David Mitchell, who is head of the legal office at Conservative party headquarters, placed him in contravention of the law. It is a common law misdemeanour to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice.In the case of Shaw v. Shaw in 1861 and the cases of Bromilow v. Phillips in 1891, and Regina v. Greenberg in 1919, it was decided that it is a contempt to endeavour improperly to influence a person who is a potential witness in a pending case with the intention of affecting that person's evidence; that the fact that the attempt may be unsuccessful is immaterial, the only question being whether the act complained of is calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice.
There are a number of cases relating to the manufacture of false evidence and the inducing of persons to give false evidence. They include the cases of Vreones, Grimes, Andrews and Panayiotou. In the case of Regina v. Kellett, Lord Justice Stephenson said:
Once legal proceedings have set the course of justice in motion, it is important that it should be allowed to flow unobstructed and undiverted, and that perjury should be 1308 exposed and truth ascertained only by examination and cross-examination of witnesses in open court and justice should be administered in the way which is ordinarily pursued"—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must now bring his remarks to a close. He has had three minutes.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThese matters are important. A debate is needed, with the Attorney-General answering demands for an inquiry. Debate is urgently needed as the BBC, for reasons other than the pursuit of justice, and under pressure from Conservative Members of Parliament and the current chairman of the Conservative party, has chosen to ignore the contravention of the law and settled out of court at considerable cost to the licence fee payer. Had the public been aware of this crude attempt by central office to squeeze witnesses—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for an inquiry into evidence of interference with witnesses in the case of Hamilton and Howarth v. the BBC.I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Norman Tebbit)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should say—
§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)Tell us about the moral majority.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. TebbitI should say, Mr. Speaker, that the allegations made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—not to the police but under the cloak of privilege—will be answered immediately by me, outside, without the benefit of cover of privilege.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This cannot be a continuation of the application. It must be a point of order that I can answer.
§ Mr. Skinnerrose—
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot have hon. Members scurrying across the Chamber like this. Mr. Skinner.
§ Mr. SkinnerIn view of what the chairman of the Tory party has just had to say, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that, with regard to the letter from the Young Conservatives, many of us—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That has absolutely nothing to do with me.
§ Mr. SkinnerYou did not stop the chairman leaving the Chamber.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise an issue which has absolutely nothing to do with me. If he raises a point of order with which I can deal, I will endeavour to answer it.
§ Mr. SkinnerYes, I will.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I will give the hon. Gentleman one last chance.
§ Mr. SkinnerIn view of what the chairman of the Tory party said, both before the application and since, I believe it would be sensible, Mr. Speaker, if you were to arrange for the responsible persons involved with the arm twisting of the broadcasting authorities to come before the appropriate Committee of the House of Commons so that we can ascertain exactly to what extent the two recent chairmen of the Tory party were involved.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Even that is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Select Committee concerned.
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are in a position of some ambivalence created by the strange role of the chairman of the Conservative party. Here we have, at the head of the Conservative central office, a Cabinet Minister whose sole responsibility seems to be to administer that office. That Minister has used his position to come to the Dispatch Box, not to rebut what has been said but to state that he intends to rebut it somewhere else. That is of importance to the House.
The second point of importance to the House is based on what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says has been a calculated attempt by Conservative central office — led by a Conservative Minister — to pervert the course of justice. On today's Order Paper there is a motion, with several amendments, signed by over 100 Conservative Members, demanding the resignation of individuals at the BBC. It is an important matter when the position of the House is used in this way.
The third element which makes this matter especially relevant to the House is the fact that two of our Members have received substantial sums of money, from public funds, which may be as a result—if my hon. Friend the Member for Workington is correct — of a calculated attempt by central office to pervert the course of justice by suppressing information. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative chairman in his Cabinet role should come to this House and make a statement.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "He has."] He has not. He has stated his intention to make a statement outside.
In view of the severity of the allegations which have been made by my hon. Friend, I suggest that the Attorney-General should consider referring the whole matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions and report to the House on his action.
§ Mr. SpeakerNone of that is a matter for me. I am not responsible for any appointments that may be made in the Cabinet or to the Conservative party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker."] Order. I cannot see any conceivable way of answering points of order on this matter.
§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This allegation is based on whether hon. Members may use the protection of the House to make statements. I have never sought to use that protection but I have never sought to deny any Member of the House who has sought to use it the protection of privilege accorded by this House. Over the years I have been here, Mr. Speaker, the occupants of the Chair have always condemned the kind of conduct that has been displayed by the chairman of the Tory party.
§ Mr. SpeakerAny Member who makes a Standing Order No. 10 application raises a matter which, unless it is granted for debate, is not answered. If a Front-Bench Member seeks to speak, I have no knowledge of what he will say and he is within his rights to speak.
§ Mr. EwingFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point I was making did not concern what the right hon. Gentleman said but his conduct in stamping out of the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is not a matter for me.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)On a paint of order, Mr. Speaker. This is for you to judge, because you have just declined an application under Standing Order No. 10 because you did not consider that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) contained sufficient evidence for you to grant that application—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let me stop the hon. Gentleman there. It did not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. The hon. Gentleman need only look up the Standing Order to know what they are.
§ Mr. BanksI understand that point, Mr. Speaker, but Members have only just received copies of this letter. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is two years old."] It was sent by Philip Pedley to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and it makes serious allegations. Points have been raised in the House and surely the place for those points to be answered is in this House and not outside.
§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely one of the criteria which are used by you to determine whether a Standing Order No. 10 application should be accepted is whether the matter is urgent. It is obvious from the date of this letter that it has been in circulation for over two years.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not seen the letter.
§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a simple matter. Am I right in remembering that, a few months ago, Mr. Speaker, you gave a ruling from the Chair regarding Front-Bench Government spokesmen coming to the Dispatch Box to make a statement under the guise of a bogus point of order which precluded Members of the House from questioning that person on the statement? That is especially relevant now, when the chairman of the Conservative party immediately walked out having made his point of order. This is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker, and you ought to deplore a bogus point of order and an exit from this House which was done purely to make sure that Labour Members could not question the chairman of the Tory party on the points that he made.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Whether a Member walks out or not is entirely a matter for him. I think the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) might well recollect that he has made such a decision himself.