§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am seeking your ruling, which I believe will be a precedent, on the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Gordon Downey, as the recipient of information in his role as an Officer of Parliament and your responsibility in protecting his rights as an Officer of the House.
Under the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General was made an Officer of the House and has the same status in our proceedings as the Clerk of the House, Sir Kenneth Bradshaw. However, he has a special role, because he straddles Parliament and the Executive, having been given, under section 8 of the 1983 Act, a statutory right of access to Government Departments for the purposes of certification and audit and for value-for-money examinations. Apart from the Parliamentary Commissioner—the ombudsman—he is the only Officer of Parliament with a statutory right of access.
The Comptroller and Auditor General's statutory right of access allows his access even to the most secret areas of Government expenditure, such as every area of the major defence projects statement, including defence projects of the highest possible classification of national security. The only area to which he is denied access is expenditure covered by the secret Vote of about £80 million annually.
On 23 January Duncan Campbell wrote an article in the New Statesman headlined "Parliamentary bypass operation." His case was that Parliament was not informed of major expenditure on the Zircon project and that rules on notification to Public Accounts Committee Chairmen of major defence projects—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go into too much detail. I should like a point of order on which I can rule. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is raising an important matter, but what is the point of order for me?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursI am being as brief as I can in laying out exactly the points on which the point of order is based.
The article suggested that the rules on the notification to PAC Chairmen of major defence projects of a national security nature where potential costs exceed £250 million had been broken.
The allegation was immediately denied by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, who said:
I am told that the matter is still at a preliminary stage and that nothing like the sums that were referred to have been incurred."—[Official Report, 19 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 594.]The allegation was also denied by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who said in a debate on the security services that no programme expenditure had been committed and that only expenditure on project definition had been committed. The allegation has also been repeatedly denied by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. What is the point of order for me in these matters? The hon. Gentleman is raising matters of debate.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursI am deliberating not doing that. I have to set out exactly what is happening. I am not expressing any view or opinion, but am simply saying what is on the record as I build my case.
The Comptroller and Auditor General said in a National Audit Office statement on 22 January that the NAO had been monitoring the Ministry of Defence project throughout its preliminary stages and that, as yet, there was no commitment to a major project by defence standards.
You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that if those statements were incorrect, the Comptroller and Auditor General had been misled, in which case the Ministry of Defence would be in default of its statutory obligations to Parliament, as it would be replying to an Officer of the House, the Comptroller and Auditor General having asked questions. That would be a grave and unprecedented development. It would be different from what happened with Chevaline, because at that time, before the National Audit Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General was not an Officer of Parliament.
The question is whether the Comptroller and Auditor General was misled as an Officer of Parliament and whether Parliament itself was, therefore, misled. Mr. Campbell says that Zircon's costs were about £500 million, and he says that he will give me an affidavit supporting that statement. Mr. Roger Stanyard, who edits the "Interspace" newsletter, says that he was told in the autumn of 1984 that the project cost was £500 million.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. These are matters which the hon. Gentleman could raise in a debate. He must put a point of order that I can answer. Will he come to it now, please?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursI am almost precisely there. Mr. Stanyard said that the cost was £500 million and that he had been told that the costs were hidden within the 22 Ministry of Defence's defence procurement budget. Messrs. Freeman, Leppard and Davis of The Sunday Times also—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the hon. Gentleman is abusing his point of order. I ask him now to come immediately to his point of order. I remind him that this is a private Members' day, and he is taking up the time of other Back Benchers.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursYou might say, Mr. Speaker, that Ministers' answers to hon. Members are not a matter for you. I put it to you that when Ministers provide documentary evidence to the Comptroller and Auditor General to enable him to carry out audit certification and value for money examinations, Ministers' replies to him are a matter for you, because he is an Officer of the House of Commons— [Interruption .] I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the reply that Ministers give to the Comptroller and Auditor General are matters for you because he is an Officer of the House.
There is a divergence of opinion. The Ministry of Defence says that the project has not incurred a large amount of money, but three people outside the House say they have been told by Ministry of Defence officials that the project incurred several hundred million pounds. The Comptroller and Auditor General supports the Government's position at this stage. I believe that it is incumbent upon you, Mr. Speaker, to satisfy yourself—defending the interests of Parliament— that the Comptroller and Auditor General is being correctly informed about the amount of money that the Government have spent on the project. My point of order is to ask you whether you will do precisely that.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman a one word answer—yes, I will. Well, that is three words.