§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that during the past 24 hours it has been reported fairly widely that the former chairman of the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), has got a job as a non-executive director——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let me stop the hon. Gentleman there. He must know that I have absolutely no responsibility for that.
§ Mr. SkinnerYou have.
§ Mr. SpeakerAbsolutely not.
§ Mr. SkinnerHear me out, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis may be helping the hon. Gentleman's friends who are waiting to sign the ballot book, but he must make the point of order relevant to me.
§ Mr. SkinnerYou are the custodian of the Register of Members' Interests. It is becoming apparent that, by getting such jobs, people can avoid the real responsibility and conflict of interest that may occur. In this case, people not only vote for measures but take part in the preparation of Acts of Parliament which transfer money to the private sector and subsequently line their pockets by putting their hands in the till at British Telecom.
I want you, Mr. Speaker, to have another look at the way in which the Register is compiled. Let us have a separate compartment for those people who make money after they have voted in their capacity as Ministers or in some other capacity. The public believe that this stinks.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman should make his representations to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. It has nothing to do with me.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If one were to pursue that line, I wonder whether it would be appropriate to list those Members—largely, if not totally, from the Labour party—who are here under trade union sponsorship and who participate in debates in which trade union interests are concerned.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have tabled two questions and have discovered a blocking answer dating from 12 November 1984. I wish to raise with you a section from "Erskine May". The questions relate to the amount of moneys paid to several companies for the storage of foodstuffs in Yorkshire, Humberside and the north-west.
In the past, it has been the practice of successive Administrations to refuse to answer. Apparently, hon. Members can ask a question in a new Parliament only to find out whether the Minister is answering questions on that subject. "Erskine May", on page 342, puts it like this
Where, however, a Minister has refused to take the action or give the information asked for in a particular question, he may be asked the same question again after an interval of three months; and where successive administrations have consistently refused to answer certain classes of questions, Ministers may be asked once a session whether they will now answer such questions."Erskine May" continues by giving some examples of the type of question involved. They include:discussions between Ministers or between Ministers and their official advisers or the proceedings of Cabinet or 932 Cabinet committees; security matters including the operation of the security services, operational defence matters including the location of particular units; and details of arms sales to particular countries."Erskine May" points out that, in addition, questions on the secret services and security are not allowed.It seems quite outlandish to suppose that the amounts of money that are paid for the storage of food that is not used can line up with the security services and operational defence matters. It is not likely that we shall throw corn or butter at a presumed enemy. As at least one of the storage companies has paid money to the Conservative party, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether this category of answer should be widened. The doctrine that is laid down in "Erskine May" should not be wide open so that the relatively humdrum question of storing food is treated as a matter of major importance. I would ask you to deliberate on this serious matter and to rule that Ministers are obliged to answer questions so that we can see how much the taxpayer, is paying, often to firms that have financed the Tory party, for storing food in our country.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes it follow directly from the previous point of order?
§ Mr. ForthYes. Should not the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) be advised to seek out an hon. Member who has had the privilege of serving in the European Parliament in Strasbourg? If he were able to find such a person, with two political jobs, who travelled frequently to Strasbourg and who had the opportunity of questioning the European Commission there, might not that hon. Member be able to ask the question that the hon. Member for Bradford, South wishes to ask, with much more ease than he could in this House?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has raised an important matter. I should like to look into it. I shall then communicate with him.
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you, Mr. Speaker. help us before next week's debate on the subject of the research assistant of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have no knowledge of any debate next week. It has not been announced, and I know nothing about it.
§ Mr. BennI am not trying to be difficult, Mr. Speaker, but you said that there would have to be a debate on the matter. My point does not necessarily hinge on the debate, but it is relevant to it.
I understand that for some time, and unknown to the House, an unofficial security committee of Members of all parties has been meeting to consider vetting, which, apparently, has been going on for some time without the House being informed. I should be grateful if, before the debate — or, indeed, in any case — you could make a statement to the House about that committee—who set it up, what authority it has and what recommendations it has made. In my experience, there has never been a committee of the House whose existence, membership and operations have been unknown to the House. I am not suggesting that you can give an answer today, but the matter is highly relevant to the discussion of my hon. Friend's case.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is no secret that an advisory committee on security has existed in the House for many years—indeed, I served on it long before I became even a Deputy Speaker. The committee is of long standing. I have no knowledge of any debate on this matter next week.
§ Mr. BennWith great respect, Mr. Speaker, what you have just said is new to the House — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, it is. I learnt of this committee quite unofficially, only in the past few days. Its existence has a direct bearing on one of the most controversial issues that the House will have to discuss. If there is an advisory committee, who set it up, on whose authority was it set up, who are its members, what does it do and what recommendations has it made? Will arrangements be made, either by you, Sir, or through the Leader of the House, for that information to be at our disposal when we debate these matters in detail?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that I can help the right hon. Member and the House. This committee has been in existence since at least 1975. Its membership at that time was reported in Hansard, so I think the fact that it exists is not unknown.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not right in thinking that this is the advisory committee of which the former right hon. Member for Wakefield, our colleague Walter Harrison, was a prominent member? I understood from Walter Harrison that the committee was concerned with the security of the building and certainly did not carry a remit to vet research assistants. Many of us would have been astonished if Walter Harrison had been given the job of vetting research assistants. To be fair to Walter Harrison, I am sure that he did nothing of the kind. Are we sure that this is the same committee to which you have referred, Sir?
§ Mr. SpeakerThis committee does not vet anybody. It is an advisory committee to advise the Speaker on security.
§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised this matter indirectly with you the other day. It concerns the order of Question Time.
Often a question on the Order Paper is not raised, and those Members who want to ask supplementary questions on a matter do not become aware until the last possible moment that it will not be raised. Would it not be an idea if hon. Members who are not in a position to ask the question in their name on the Order Paper give notice of their intention to your Secretary on that day so that at the beginning of Question Time you can announce to the House which questions will not be called? This will enable hon. Members who want to ask questions on that matter perhaps to find another question on the Order Paper to which they can attach their supplementaries.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a good suggestion, but it did not arise today. However, the Chair does not always know in advance whether an hon. Member can be present at Question Time. There have been occasions when, for travel or other reasons, an hon. Member is not able to be present. The whole House accepts that it is of great convenience if an hon. Member who knows that he cannot be present in the Chamber notifies the Chair so that his question is not called.
§ Mr. DalyellFurther to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. Who are the chairman and members of the advisory committee on security? Perhaps we ought to know, but we do not.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is an advisory committee which advises the Speaker. I shall reflect on how much I can say about it.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely, with the greatest of respect, this is very much a House of Commons matter. Although you stated that the committee was apparently set up in 1975, we certainly do not know its terms of reference and whether it is vetting research assistants and the rest. Surely we are entitled to know who is the chairman and on what basis that nomination was made and that appointment was duly agreed to. We should be in a position to go to the Table Office now and seek the information about the members of the committee, how often they meet and whether we can make representations to the committee.
When the matter of the research assistant of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was raised, I suggested, on a point of order, that there should be some kind of appeal. If the decision that the research assistant, Mr. Bennett, should not be employed here was made on the basis of a recommendation by the committee to which you have just referred, Sir, will there be any right of appeal against the committee's recommendation?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have already said that this committee does not vet anyone. It is advisory to the Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations, I suggest that he does so through his Deputy Chief Whip.
§ Mr. BennFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, I appreciate that putting these points to you without notice creates difficulty, but I had no idea until you replied—and I do not believe that any hon. Member did—that you had a committee. It is your committee that we are asking about: who are its members, who appoints them, and so on? When you say that an hon. Member must make representations to you through our Deputy Chief Whip, you are, with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, making this not a House of Commons matter but a party matter—which it is not.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look carefully at the points that I and other hon. Members have made, and to make or put out a statement so that when we debate the matter next week we know the position. No one suggests that these people actually vet; what we suspect is that they endorse the vetting by the security services. That is the point at issue. We want to know who they are, what they do, who appointed them and what reports they have made so that they are accountable to the House, as you are yourself, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall reflect on the matter. I think that the whole House would judge it right, proper and wise that there should be due regard for the security of this building and of its members.