Chancellor of the Exchequer (Statement) (Hansard, 8 November 1988)

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that, although the Standing Orders of the House do not refer to Press Gallery or Lobby correspondents, their access to these premises and their behaviour are subject to rules administered by the Sergeant at Arms on your behalf. Those rules are laid down with the intention of protecting the interests of right hon. and hon. Members.
The breach of those rules could lead to the withdrawal of a Lobby or Press Gallery pass, or even action for breach of privilege. Clearly, false, malicious, or wholly inaccurate reporting of events or breaches of confidence are the main wrongs that those rules are intended to prevent. The system of accreditation that has been established through the Serjeant at Arms is intended to provide us all with such protection.
The issue of passes, particularly Lobby passes, gives certain privileges in terms of access to the premises. It also opens up the possibility for accredited Lobby correspondents to be invited by Ministers or others to Lobby briefings. Clearly, any misbehaviour by journalists under the aegis of their Lobby passes could cast doubt on their suitability for accreditation by the Serjeant at Arms.
We understand that last Friday a number of Sunday newspaper Lobby correspondents were invited for an off-the-record briefing by the Chancellor. Without exception, those Lobby correspondents said one particular thing—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Is it a matter for me?

§ Mr. Dobson
I think that it is, Mr. Speaker.
174 The Lobby correspondents said that the Chancellor was contemplating the idea of means-testing a number of benefits presently universally available to pensioners. Yesterday, in the House, the Chancellor described their articles as a "farrago of invention" and said that the stories bore no relation to what he had said. Clearly that is a very serious charge—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to have a lot of notes. What is the point of order for me?

§ Mr. Dobson
I also have yesterday's Hansard—these are not all my notes. The fact is that what the Chancellor said in the House yesterday was a serious charge against 10 journalists, which could prejudice their access to the Lobby and to the Press Gallery.
We should normally expect that an off-the-record meeting was literally off the record, but we now understand that, at public expense, it was tape-recorded. In view of the discrepancy between what the Chancellor told the House and what the journalists said that he said, I ask you to look into the matter, to listen to the tape and to clear the matter up one way or the other. It is clear that there are only two choices—either the journalists are unfit to report us from the Gallery, or the Chancellor is unfit to remain in No. 11 Downing street.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am responsible for order in the Chamber. I cannot be held responsible for off-the-record briefings held outside this building. No complaint has been made to me by the Lobby.

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that if an hon. Member calls another hon. Member a liar, that hon. Member must retract? Further, is it not also a fact that you have ruled on several occasions that the Floor of the House should not be used as a cloak of privilege, in such a way as to enable persons who have no right to reply to be insulted, called liars, cheats, thieves or whatever? Surely it must be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, when the Floor of the Chamber is used by a senior member of Her Majesty's Government to call 10 persons liars—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have never ruled that there can be any rationing of freedom of speech in this place. Either one has freedom of speech, or one does not. I have always warned that hon. Members must use their privilege of freedom of speech with due discretion.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will no doubt recall, although you were not in the House, 25 years ago a Minister resigned because he admitted that he had not told the truth. Yesterday the Chancellor said in the House, about the reports of the meeting: Oh yes, they will have their shorthand notes and they will know it, and they will know they went behind afterwards and they thought there was not a good enough story and so they produced that."—[Official Report, 7 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 26.] I should like to draw your attention to the fact that Mr. Robert Harris, the political editor of The Observer, is quoted today in The Times as challenging the Treasury to publicise what had been said at that meeting. Mr. Robert Harris is quoted as saying—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. What in all this is the point of order for me? There is no point of order. I am not responsible for what Mr. Robert Harris says. He is not a Member of the House.

§ Mr. Winnick
Mr. Harris said: It is unfair of the Chancellor to blame distorted reporting … Ten people got exactly the same impression from the briefing. I should like to ask a simple question: if the Chancellor did not tell the truth, and if the journalists are telling the truth—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall not adjudicate on such matters. Every hon. Member must be responsible for what he says in the House.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know, under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 you have some responsibility for members of the Press Gallery. To that extent you have a degree of responsibility—albeit not a very happy one—to intervene in this matter. May I make a few suggestions?

§ Mr. Speaker
As between chairmen, yes.

§ Mr. Skinner
I shall speak as one chairman to another. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might be able to call the teenage scribblers together and provide us with a list of those who were present at the meeting. You would then be able to inform us, in a briefing capacity, of what took place, and the chances are that we should take your word for it. Finally, will you ensure that you do not take the Chancellor's tape recorder with you?

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall now take another point of order.

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Press Gallery is well-renowned for partisanship and frequent misrepresentation of what actually takes place in Parliament, since it is so easily bought in political terms, and since some of us have the sense to have very little to do with it, would it not be better to clear out the whole damned lot?

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall take one more point of order.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed yesterday that a briefing took place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has now revealed that there is a tape recording of it. Would it be in order for us to ask for the tape recording to be put into the Library, as it is a public tape recording, paid for at Treasury expense? May we ask for it to be put in the Library so that all hon. Members can hear what was said at the briefing? If that is not done, the whole episode will become known as Lawsongate.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall deal with one point of order at a time.
I am not responsible for having tape recordings put in the Library. As the House knows, I cannot be responsible for off-the-record briefings.

§ Mr. Dobson
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise the House whether you are prepared to 176 entertain a motion to exclude the 10 Lobby journalists from the Press Gallery? I should not want to support such a motion, but those who are convinced of the Chancellor's accuracy yesterday would, no doubt, happily vote for it. That would at least give those journalists the opportunity to defend their reputations in public, where they are entitled to defend them.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have an important debate ahead of us.

§ Mr. Dickens
I shall not take long, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.
Surely the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) does not seriously suggest that I should table such a motion. If he wishes to do so, he may.

§ Mr. Dickens
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that you should be put to the test of giving rulings on so many bogus points of order raised by Opposition Members? The Opposition are clearly unhappy that we shall not take away the pensioners' Christmas bonus and that we shall not take money off the pensioners. In fact, they are unhappy that we shall help pensioners more. They cannot beat us in that way, so why do they spend so much time on bogus points of order, which are raised for political purposes?

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall take one more point of order.

§ Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a rule of the House that if a Minister refers to a document and quotes from it he has to provide it for the House at a later stage? Is it not the case that the Chancellor referred yesterday to a report in the Treasury Office, and is it not now his duty under that rule to lay the document before the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
That would be absolutely right had the Chancellor been quoting from a state paper, but I do not think that an off-the-record briefing could be regarded as a state paper.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I said that the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) would be the last one that I would take. This is positively the last one.

§ Mr. Ewing
My point of order is in the same helpful vein as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Ten days ago, Mr. Speaker, you were rightly very angry with me because I had a copy of the Chancellor's speech and read it a line ahead of the Chancellor. Since then I have lost half a stone in weight getting up and down trying to catch your eye—without any success until today.
On reflection, do you agree that it would be far better if the Chancellor gave me a copy of every speech that he is to make, because when I read his speech he was accurately reported the following day? If I read everything that the Chancellor intended to say a line ahead of him, even the Daily Express would report it accurately.

§ Mr. Speaker
That was a very good try.