Mr. Bernard Ingham (Hansard, 27 January 1987)

§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order that I wish to put to you, Sir, arises out of an exchange at Question Time last Thursday, when the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was questioning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In that exchange the hon. Gentleman referred to a telephone conversation which he alleged had taken place between Bernard Ingham and the office of the chairman of United Newspapers, which owns, among other newspapers, The Star. During the course of that exchange, the hon. Gentleman asked whether it was a proper use of public funds for a civil servant such as Mr. Bernard Ingham to bribe, berate and blackmail that small section of the Fleet street press". On a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have said that hon. Members must be responsible for the remarks that they make in the House.
As I understand what is said in the 20th edition of "Erskine May", previous speakers have gone further than that in particular circumstances. Page 338 of the 20th edition says: Where the facts are of sufficient moment the Speaker has required prima facie proof of their authenticity. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East is not given to inflammatory statements in the House, so the words that he used have more significance than they might normally have. It is inconceivable that one can imagine words more damaging than "bribe, berate and blackmail" about a civil servant and it would be difficult to imagine words that could be more dangerous and destructive when by implication, they have been applied to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I ask you to say, Mr. Speaker, that these words are so gross and offensive that the hon. Gentleman should be asked to either substantiate them or withdraw them.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that Mr. David Stevens who was alluded to by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), explicitly denied that he had had any contact with Mr. Bernard Ingham or 10 Downing street.
200 What possibility does someone such as Mr. David Stevens have to clear his name, or implication in such a matter, when he is not a Member of the House? Is it not grossly unfair that someone of his standing in public life should be dragged into a matter such as this and not have the opportunity to deny it, except through a newspaper?

§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Page 338 of the 20th edition of "Erskine May" says that responsibility is placed on a Member asking a question to establish its factual basis. In the circumstances, The Star, which is referred to as the newspaper in question, has printed a denial under the heading "Abuse of Privilege". It says that the allegations were completely untrue.
In those circumstances, I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was abusing the privilege of the House in making the allegation that he did.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall deal with one point at a time.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) gave notice of his point of order, so I start by saying that every hon. Member must take personal responsibility for what he says here and for naming people outside the House who have no recourse under parliamentary privilege.
The hon. Member has correctly stated the rule governing questions, that if a fact cited by a Member as a basis for his question is "of sufficient moment" he may be asked to produce prima facie proof of its authenticity.
But this matter arose out of a supplementary question, and it would by laying a heavy burden upon Mr. Speaker to expect him to judge, in an oral exchange between Members and a Minister, whether a particular fact was of sufficient moment to require prima facie proof of authenticity. However, since the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to the matter and has asked me for a ruling, having read the exchanges in the Official Report, and having noted what the Prime Minister said on the question I do not regard the matter as one in which I needed to intervene.