HC Deb 27 October 1986 vol 103 cc26-8 3.48 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope for the same treatment for my point of order as was afforded to the right lion. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) when he raised a point of order from the Government Dispatch Box on Thursday.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on Thursday, following my Standing Order No. 10 application on the need for an inquiry into evidence of interference with witnesses in the case of Hamilton and Howarth v. the BBC" —[Official Report 23 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 1307.] the right hon. Member for Chingford intervened at the Dispatch Box to inform the House that he would not use parliamentary privilege to reply, but would answer outside the House without the protection of privilege, thus, by implication, inviting me to act similarly.

You will recognise, Mr. Speaker, that I have not been able to take that course because there is a danger of a gagging writ being served upon me, with the effect that Parliament would be silenced and be unable to debate the question of illegal interference with witnesses, under our own sub judice rules.

The decision by the chairman of the Conservative party not to make a statement was a deliberate ploy to avoid placing himself in contempt of the House by misleading the House in a personal statement. The precedents for that are set out in "Erskine May", chapter 10.

In so far as you allowed, by implication, the right hon. Member for Chingford, on a point of order, to challenge me to repeat my assertions outside the House, may be similarly treated? May I be allowed the right to ask the right hon. Member for Chingford to repeat his statement, made outside the House last week, inside the House this week, from the Dispatch Box? Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat in particular that part of his statement where he emphatically and vigorously denied to the press and the media generally that David Mitchell, head of the Conservative Central Office legal department, had spoken to potential witnesses after 6 February, when the legal action was initiated, and when the Members of Parliament concerned had issued the writs?

My evidence is that Mr. Mitchell spoke to potential witnesses, knowing them to be potential witnesses, on 22 February and thereafter. I challenge the chairman of the Conservative party to repeat his assertions at the Dispatch Box in a statement that is subject to the normal rules of the House. If he refuses, the country will know that a conspiracy of silence is being engineered by senior figures to hide the truth from Parliament.

We also need to know which people —

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going far beyond the point of order. I have allowed him indulgence so far. Shall I deal with the matter now?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Just one thing more, Mr. Speaker. We also need to know which people listed in the internal memo submitted to the BBC's board of management—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that, but it is not a matter for me. I think that I can now deal with the matter. Whether the chairman of the Tory party comes to the Dispatch Box to answer these allegations is not a matter for me. I cannot rule on that.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had hoped to point out that as many as 17 out of 20 witnesses may have been persuaded to withdraw—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will have his turn. He can raise his own point of order. We are put in a particularly difficult position in that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster answers questions for only five minutes every six parliamentary weeks. He last answered questions on 30 June, almost four months ago, and is next due to answer questions two weeks into the new Session a month away.

I have checked with the Table Office, and I am assured that even if hon Members try to table questions on the right hon. Gentleman's functions as chairman of the Conservative party, the Table Office, for proper reasons, would have to reject them. Yet on Thursday the same Chancellor of the Duchy, knowing in advance the nature of the Standing Order No. 10 application, came to the House prepared. He knew that a point would be made about his role as chairman of the Conservative party. He could have gone on to the Back Benches in his private role and raised a point of order, like any other hon. Member. Instead, he calculatedly chose to go to the Dispatch Box in his role as a Cabinet Minister to raise a point of order relating to his responsibilities as chairman of the Conservative party. He made a virtue of the fact that any statement would be made outside the House.

Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)

It is a virtue.

Mr. Williams

If it is a virtue, that implies that he had the option of making a statement within the House. He rejected that option. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has helped me considerably.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is true that the Chancellor of the Duchy had that option, but that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Williams

I am coming to the key point. As the Prime Minister, in the Government's reply on Westland, said that Ministers were answerable to this House for those who serve them; as the right hon. Gentleman, as a Cabinet Minister, is head of the Conservative Central Office and those who work there serve him; as the right hon. Gentleman, as Chancellor of the Duchy, is not due to answer parliamentary questions for another month; and as, even then, we will not be able to table questions to him in either oral or written form, can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether the right hon. Gentleman abused his position on Thursday by coming to the Dispatch Box and answering as chairman of the Conservative party, and whether he is abusing his position now by again refusing to come to the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a shadow Minister and he knows that there are many opportunities and ways to raise these matters. They are not matters for me.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. No. I have been very patient with the hon. Gentleman in allowing him to raise a matter that was not a point of order for me. I cannot add to my answer.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order I am not taking the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not taking it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a separate point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not taking it.