Points of Order (Hansard, 23 November 1987)

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed that there were many stories in the Sunday press and their are some in today's press, regarding Mark Thatcher being involved with Electronic Data Systems—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I know about the matter. The hon. Gentleman inappropriately raised it on a question relating to the secondment of civil servants. Mark Thatcher is not a civil servant. Comments in the press are not a matter of order for the House.

§ Mr. Skinner
The point that I am coming to, Mr. Speaker, is that I was inquiring whether anybody from the Treasury Bench—the Prime Minister or anybody else— had shown that he was prepared to make a statement in the House on the firm that has dealings with the CIA and is anxious to get National Health Service contracts in Britain. It is not what you know, but who you know. We should not have that kind of nepotism bandied about in Britain.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is patently not a matter of order for me.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
On a totally different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a genuine point of order, on which you will wish to give a considered ruling. This week, will you exercise some flexibility in applying the sub judice rule to matters that relate to the Wright case and which may be raised in Parliament? Otherwise, Parliament will be subject to the same restraints as the press. The press is gagged. Surely Parliament should not be gagged.
My point of order relates to section 54(7) of Chapter 6, "Questions to Ministers and other Members" in the "Manual of Procedure in the Public Business". That subsection states: A question"— that is, a parliamentary question— seeking information about matters which are in their nature secret may not be asked". Indeed, on pages 340–43 of "Erskine May" many precedents, going back to the last century, are set out.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on 16 July I tabled 13 parliamentary questions which were rejected by the Table Office. On appeal to you, you felt that the decision of the Table Office had to be upheld, on the basis that the questions covered matters that were classified and of national security. Indeed, I have your written ruling, which I shall not read to the House, which states that such matters cannot be dealt with because they are matters of national security.
Were the matters about which I tabled questions really classified? I took the material from a book that had been produced by a Mr. Nigel West. I do not criticise that gentleman in any way. He is the Conservative Member of Parliament for Torbay. He wrote an excellent book. He was perfectly entitled to research the matters that he included in the book in the way that he has done, but on pages 229, 247, 252 and 260 he set out in detail those matters which were the subject of questions which I tabled and which the Table Office turned down, and you approved their rejection.
I asked the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) on what basis he was able to gain clearance for his book. He 24 said and he has confirmed it in writing, that the D Notice Committee approved publication of his book. That Committee includes, according to the third report of the Select Committee on Defence, Session 1979–80, on the D Notice system, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, in the chair, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Home Department, the Second Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, the Deputy Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and representatives of the press. In other words, principal civil servants directly accountable to Ministers approved the clearance of that book.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Civil servants are not accountable to me.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Mr. Speaker, civil servants approved the publication of the book and the material in it. In form, that is ministerial approval of the publication of information that is classified, yet, under other rules which Ministers use to refuse to answer questions, Members are prevented from asking questions on those same matters. There is a contradiction. Civil servants, on behalf of Ministers, can approve the publication of classified information by authors, yet at the same time Members of Parliament are prevented from tabling questions on those matters.
Paragraph 9, on page 342 of "Erskine May", headed, "Questions already answered, or to which an answer has been refused, or on secret matters", states: Questions are not in order which … fall within a class of question which a Minister has refused to answer. I submit that Ministers have not refused to answer those questions. I say that because the members of the D Notice Committee, who are accountable to Secretaries of State and to Ministers, approved publication, and, therefore, Ministers approved publication. I submit, therefore, that you are no longer bound by the rule that states that you must turn down questions in the event that Ministers refuse to answer.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you are free of the obstacle placed before you in relation to those questions, because if such questions are cleared on the basis of information that is published in a book that has received ministerial approval, or the approval of senior civil servants, it means that all the information in all books that have been published following approval by civil servants, whether it be the Treasury Solicitor or members of the D Notice Committee, has been freed and can be the subject of questions in the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Member and the House know that I am bound by our Standing Orders and by the precedents in "Erskine May". The hon. Member put down his questions before the summer recess, and I think he will recollect that I offered him an opportunity to come and see me about them, but he declined to do so.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
There was no need to do it.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is where the matter now rests.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is of some concern that a foreign firm has made an application to the DHSS to carry out some of its work. You may well say that that is not a matter for the Chair. However, there is considerable public 25 concern that the foreign firm in question has recently employed a person who is a close relative of the Prime Minister.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have just dealt with that matter. It is certainly not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member must know that. There is absolutely nothing that I can say about it. It is patently not a matter of order.

§ Mr. Winnick
It is about the Register of Members' Interests, and I thought that that would be a matter of concern for the Chair. Obviously, Labour Members would like a statement, and no doubt you would respond by saying that whether a Minister makes a statement on those allegations is not a matter for you. However, it is important that the Register should include details when a close relative is involved in a matter such as this.
I understand that there is no obligation at present for such information to be included in the Register. It is a matter of some public concern and interest, however, if the Prime Minister's son is involved with a foreign company that is trying to undertake some of the work that is presently carried out by a Government Department. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on whether the Register should include such information, not least from the Prime Minister herself.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There is no need for me to reflect on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). He can himself submit the matter to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. If he does so, the Committee will undoubtedly consider it.

§ Mr. Cryer
May I seek your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker? As I understand it, you have responsibility for the Register, but I realise that the suggestion that Members' relatives should be involved in the Register is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure and not directly for yourself. However, there is the matter of the rules governing Ministers, and there is a link between the House and Ministers, because Ministers are accountable to the House. When a relative, such as the Prime Minister's son, has been involved in representing a firm that is possibly seeking contracts worth £500 million or more, and in receipt of—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a continuation of a point of order on a matter for which, as the entire House knows, I have no responsibility.

§ Mr. Ken Eastham (Manchester, Blackley)
Surely, Mr. Speaker, Opposition Members are entitled to defend their reputations, even if Conservative Members think that this is a jovial occasion. We are talking about matters of great importance. The company involved is already the subject of investigation—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I will not hear any more points of order on this matter because they raise issues that are patently not for me. They are patently not matters for me, and other methods will have to be found for dealing with them.

§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was noticeable that you made no ruling in answering my hon. Friend the Member for 26 Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and many of us have been extremely worried about the way in which this issue has been conducted in the past.
We recognise the importance of your offer to see my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. That offer was not taken up, for various reasons, and you will recall that there were exchanges about that. That does not involve the rest of us, but there is general concern about the anomaly that arises when a Member of this place can write a book, with assistance and approval, yet when questions on the same subject are tabled they are not accepted, presumably because the same people are advising that the questions should not be answered.
There is one solution, and I believe that we have reached the stage when we should adopt it. I ask you to accept, Mr. Speaker, that the issue be sent to the Procedure Committee, on the basis that it reports back to the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) wishes the issue to be dealt with by the Procedure Committee, he should draw it to the Committee's attention. It is a matter for him, not for me.

§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that it is a contemptible use of our procedure—this is done regularly in the House nowadays—for the Prime Minister's name to be dragged through the mud, quite deliberately, by wicked and false points of order that are a disgrace to the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that the same principle must apply to both sides of the House. These are not matters for me, and I have already so ruled.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have ruled already that no matter of order has been raised by hon. Members on either side of the House. I am not prepared—

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have a debate today that will be taken in Opposition time. I can deal only with points of order that raise issues on which I can rule.

§ Mr. Heffer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I listened carefully when you said that there were other methods that the House could use to raise this issue, and I agree with hon. Members that they are better than someone getting up and wielding the Mace, as we have seen on previous occasions. Will you explain what other methods we could use, so that we may know how to deal with the matter without being out of order?

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is not for the Chair to advise on tactics. In a previous incarnation I would have been able to tell the hon. Gentleman what to do.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there nothing that you can do to protect the House against the sustained campaign by Labour Members to prevent us yet again from getting on to Scottish business, which Conservative Members are anxious to reach? We have been deprived of Scottish business on several occasions by Labour Members and we are becoming heartily sick of it.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have already heard the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). There is a great demand to take part in the important debate on the future Government of Scotland.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
No, I cannot take a point of order on that matter.

§ Mr. Banks
You do not know what it is, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have heard the hon. Member for Workington. I shall take Mr. Tony Banks, on the basis that I have not yet heard his point of order.

§ Mr. Banks
It is a point of order because it is understood constitutionally, that the role of the legislature, the House of Commons, is to exercise control over the Executive. This is a matter on which, if on nothing else, we are united. What hon. Members are concerned about — it is declared by Labour Members, but Tory Members mutter about it into their beards—is the way in which the Executive, the Civil Service, has been manipulated in an overt political way. We are concerned because it would appear that Sir Robert Armstrong, in his other capacity, has been used to inform the Prime Minister of the role of her son in that company—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I feared that the hon. Gentleman's point of order, although it was a completely different point, might return to that subject. I am sorry that I was unable to call the hon. Gentleman to put a question to the Minister for the Civil Service. I shall bear in mind his undoubted interest in the matter when we next debate the subject.

§ Mr. Banks
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If it is on the same point, I cannot say any more.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
You have not ruled. May I put my point of order?

§ Mr. Speaker
No. I have heard it.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am on my feet.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
It is a matter of great principle.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member should not shout at me across the Chamber like that. These questions were tabled before the recess, which is a long time ago. At the time I suggested that the hon. Member should come and see me, and a few moments ago he indicated that that had not been necessary. I do not see what point of order arises now that did not arise then.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
The answer is simple. When I was asked to see you, I made it clear that I was not seeking a verbal ruling in private, because it is important that these matters are done publicly, in writing or on the Floor of the House. I think that it is fair to make that request. Today, I ask for a further ruling. Private rulings and verbal considerations are not what we need. We need to know what will happen about the contradiction that I have identified—one rule for authors who get approval from civil servants, and another for hon. Members who cannot table questions on exactly the same matter.
These are matters on which you, Mr. Speaker, are in a position to rule. It might be that if you accept my point that you have a discretion and are no longer bound by the arrangement whereby Ministers decide whether to accept questions—that was the essence of my case—you will feel free to rule publicly, so that everyone can know what is happening and whether you accept the proposition. It is perfectly reasonable to press the matter on the Floor of the House,

§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be for the convenience of the House if you reminded the House that, following Mr. Speaker Thomas's precedent, you announced shortly after you were first elected as Speaker that you would cause to be published in the Official Report any private rulings that could be called into precedent. It is no longer the case, is it, Mr. Speaker, that private rulings are unknown to the House, as was once the case?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not think that that is an exact parallel.
I must tell the hon. Member for Workington that if his point was so very immediate and important, I am amazed that he left it for so long before raising it now as a point of order. He knows that, despite what he may have said about another author and any authorisation that he may have received, I am bound by precedents laid down in "Erskine May". I repeat my earlier offer. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to come and see me about the matter, he may certainly do so. There is nothing more that I can say about it today.