HC Deb 24 May 1989 vol 153 cc954-8
Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to column 255 in the Official Report of 16 May in which the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is reported as having referred to a television programme on Tyne Tees and stated: The cat was let out of the bag during the debate when the regional organiser of the Transport and General Workers Union, Joe Mills, said: Of course things are better in the north-east now. It hurts me to have to say so but begrudgingly I have to say that Margaret Thatcher has been responsible for this."—[Official Report, 16 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 255.] The latter paragraph is printed in the Official Report in a manner that suggests that it is an extract from the transcript of the television programme. However I have today received a copy of the transcript of the programme, and not only did Mr. Mills riot make any such statement, but in his only reference to the Prime Minister he said: The final point I want to make is this, I don't want to give Mrs. Thatcher any benefit at all, let's make that absolutely clear. Is it not a gross abuse of the privilege of this House for the hon. Gentleman to have done that, and should he not apologise to the House and to Mr. Mills?

Mr. Speaker

That seems an extension of last week's debate. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot be responsible for what is said in the House, provided that it is in order.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was informed just a few moments before 3.30 pm that the hon. Gentleman intended to make that personal attack, which gave me no opportunity to refer to anything. Anyone who watched the programme, as I did—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman did—would have known from the tenor of the programme that there was an admission by Joe Mills that it was the Government and the Prime Minister who had improved matters in the north-east—

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are not on television yet.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Further to the Standing Order No. 20 application of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question, which I believe is before the Select Committee on Procedure, about the way in which the House investigates difficult matters. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that when the Foreign Secretary made his original statement on this, I asked extremely clearly and politely whether he would refer it to the Security Commission. The Foreign Secretary chose not to reply to that question, although it was pressed from the Front Bench.

Subsequently, I tabled a question yesterday at the Table Office, which I believe was in total order: To ask the Prime Minister if she will refer the matters which led to the recent expulsion of Soviet diplomats to the Security Commission. As very often happens now to hon. Members of all parties, but especially to Opposition Members, we get the monosyllabic answer, "No," and no explanation of any kind such as used to be given to the House by Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries.

There may be good reasons why this should not be referred to the Security Commission, but if the proper channels of communication are gone through when the proper questions are politely asked, does not the House of Commons, of which you are the protector, Mr. Speaker, at least deserve some kind of explanation in matters so grave and serious? After all, why do we have Lord Griffiths of Govilon at the Security Commission, Sir Philip Allen and other distinguished people, unless it is to deal with precisely such matters? In a way, it is circumventing not the constitution—we do not have one—but the traditional bastions of British security and intelligence.

Mr. Speaker

I fully understand the point that the hon. Member has made. Again, I cannot possibly be held responsible for answers to questions—provided that they are in order, of course.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter that I raise involves the Official Report of yesterday. In an intervention during a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall), I said: As a member of the Committee who served with the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Gentleman a question? When the hon. Gentleman spoke to the sponsors of the Bill a minute ago, did he say, 'I am totally in your pocket and I had better come across to you?".—[Official Report, 23 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 893.] That was a misquotation. The Editor of Hansard has checked the tape, and that passage should have read, "I am totally in your pocket and I had better come across to speak to you."

The hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) indicated that I should be present at 3.30 this afternoon because he wished to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, my conduct in this matter. As he is not here, he must now accept the Official Report and your order yesterday—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Allow me to interrupt the hon. Member at this point. I confirm that he has had a letter from the Editor of Hansard, putting his correct words on the record. Furthermore, he has written to me on this matter, drawing to my attention the fact that it is a matter of privilege. Therefore, we cannot discuss it in the Chamber now.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)

rose

Dr. Michael Clark (Rochford)

rose

Mr. Speaker

In fairness, I will call the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark).

Dr. Clark

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night I was present in the House when the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made his accusation. I found his accusation so outrageous and so far from the truth that I did not believe that anyone could take it seriously. I did not rise at that time to rebut it. It is true, however, that, after one hour of accusations from Opposition Members that I had behaved improperly in Committee, I left the Chamber after I had spoken. I went out that way—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The point of order is to me, not to hon. Members.

Dr. Clark

I left the Chamber, going that way out, and I saw the sponsors of the Bill. As I said, it was after one hour of being accused of impropriety by Opposition Members. As I went past the sponsors of the Bill, I said, "Since I am being accused of being in your pocket, I had better say hello to you." That is all I said; I said nothing else. Then there was uproar in the House as Labour Members objected to my being there. I stood there with my back to the House, saying nothing further until the House settled down. That is what I said. There was nothing improper.

I have made an appointment to see the Clerk of the House at 6.15 this evening to object in the strongest possible terms to the accusation by the hon. Member for Makerfield.

Mr. Speaker

I repeat that this matter has been referred to me as a matter of privilege.

Several Hon. Members

rose

Mr. Speaker

All hon. Members are aware that, when an issue is raised with the Speaker as a matter of privilege, it may not be raised in the Chamber.

Mr. Leigh

rose

Mr. Speaker

It cannot be on this same matter.

Mr. Leigh

On a general point, Mr. Speaker. You have often reminded us that we are all hon. Members. Is it in order for an hon. Member to accuse a Chairman of a Select Committee of being in the pockets of one of the sponsors?

Several Hon. Members

rose

Mr. Speaker

I have said I cannot take points of order on this matter.

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

You have taken one from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).

Mr. Speaker

I am not responding to it, and I am not taking further points of order on this matter. The House well knows the rules. When an issue is raised with the Chair as a matter of privilege, it may not be raised on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Is it on a different matter?

Mr. Grocott

It is. It follows earlier exchanges about the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). It is clear that a correction will have to be made, in view of the admission of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already dealt with that point of order.

Mr. Grocott

The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has clearly said that it was not a verbatim report that he was quoting in the House; it was his view of what he heard on a television programme. In Hansard it is clearly recorded as being a verbatim report of what occurred on a television programme; it is in inverted commas in the usual way. Clearly it is a serious matter that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh should have had such a grossly contorted view of a television programme and one that was different from that of everyone else who watched it. However, that is more a problem for the hon. Gentleman than for the House.

What is a matter for the House is that the hon. Gentleman purported to quote verbatim from a record —in the form of a video cassette, which could be checked —but now says that it was not a verbatim report but simply his general impression of what went on. That surely must warrant a correction.

Mr. Speaker

I will cause the Editor to look into the matter in the light of what has been said about it this afternoon.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. It refers to yesterday but has nothing to do with the exchanges.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a large number of amendments to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill were presented. I prepared most of them. I was aware of the difficult circumstances which surround the preparation or presentation of amendments to a private Bill that has not had a Report stage, which the Opposition regret. I was aware that such amendments had to be insubstantial in character, and I hope that I presented the amendments in an insubstantial way. I accept that some of them may have verged on the substantial, while others may have been too narrow or too broad, so that none of them was selected by you.

The point that I am raising, Mr. Speaker, is historically rather important, because people are asking me why those amendments were rejected. I have every confidence in your judgment, Mr. Speaker, and I would not challenge it in any way, but people interested in that Bill, in private Bill procedures now, and perhaps for the next 200 or 300 years, might benefit if you were to give the House some guidance on the nature of amendments that are likely to be accepted.

Could the Standing Orders of the House be made more precise so that hon. Members may have a way of obtaining an opportunity to debate a Bill in detail and avoid the situation that faced my hon. Friends and myself? We found it extremely difficult to oppose this dreadful Bill because of the absence of a Report stage and engaged in an unnecessary amount of work in regard to that Bill. Your advice to the House, Mr. Speaker, would be welcomed by the general public.

Mr. Speaker

I have a responsibility to the House, of course, rather than to the general public. The House will know that the question of verbal amendments to private Bills is set out at some length in "Erskine May".

Mr. Hardy

I looked at "Erskine May".

Mr. Speaker

I draw the hon. Member's attention to that. In any event, Madam Deputy Speaker gave an explanation, reported in Hansard in column 864, as to why the amendments had not been selected.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

Was the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) in order when he raised his point of order?

Mr. Speaker

Yes; otherwise I would not have called him.