HC Deb 20 January 1987 vol 108 cc758-9 4.53 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), said: I am told that the matter"— that is, the matter of the communications project which was referred to in the press at the weekend— is still at a preliminary stage and that nothing like the sums that were referred to have been incurred. He then went on to say: I am told that the project is at an experimental stage"—— [AN HON. MEMBER: "What is the point of order?"] Do not worry, it will become clear. That is the reason why no large expenditures, or no expenditures on the scale of those mentioned in the newspapers, have yet been incurred."—[Official Report, 19 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 594.] May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that the right hon. Member for Taunton, with the best will in the world, was out of order in answering that question because his function, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, not the Public Accounts Committee, requires only that he answers questions on the expenditure of the National Audit Office and questions concerning scrutiny of the role and the working of the National Audit Office.

This is important because yesterday a precedent was set for the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission to make statements which, in the normal way, have to be made by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee or in the form of statements in the reports of the Public Accounts Committee. If it is the will of the House to change the present situation whereby the reports of the Public Accounts Committee are debated, into a right for the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission to address the House of Commons and be questioned, let it be by resolution of the House and not by default by giving this new power to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission.

Mr. Speaker

I confirm that the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission and, as such, he should answer for the Public Accounts Commission and not refer to matters which are properly in the purview of the Public Accounts Committee. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of that Committee, should raise the matter with its Chairman.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I owe it to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) to say that I believe that in answering my question he was being as utterly helpful as he could be. I gave him notice of the first part of the question back in December and of the electronic surveillance data issue yesterday. However, to be fair to him, I believe that he was trying to treat the House of Commons properly by giving as full an answer as possible.

Sir Edward du Cann (Taunton)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I have offended in some way against the conventions of the House, I would be the first to apologise. On the other hand, I have never believed it wrong for any hon. Member to seek information in the House, nor for another hon. Member, should he have the honour of the opportunity to provide it, to perform that duty. If, from the Back Benchers, we have been competent in giving information, that is a precedent that Ministers might well follow on many occasions.