§ 3.32 pm
§ Mr. Martin O'Neill (Clackmannan)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of which I have given you notice, and concerns the possibility of your having had any request for a statement from the Ministry of Defence on a wider inquiry into the Colin Wallace affair. Over the weekend, a number of individuals have indicated their willingness to testify before any such inquiry on a wide range of matters relating to this case—far wider than the scope of the inquiries, both internal and external, that were announced by the Secretary of State. Mr. Michael Taylor and Mr. Peter Broderick in particular have spoken out in defence of their former colleague. They have expressed their willingness to come forward and testify on his behalf. Quite clearly, the publication of a book on this matter by Mr. Anthony Cavendish is imminent.
Public anxiety will now be fed by a series of unconnected reports. Would not it be preferable for the House to be told that a proper and wide-ranging inquiry was to be established so that we might clear away the rumour and innuendo that surround this sad business?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have had no request for a statement on this matter today. We had a long run on it last Thursday.
§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have informed the House that you have not received any information from the Government that they want to make a statement, but the Leader of the House, who is responsible to the House on such matters, is here. Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, I have a quotation from Michael Taylor, a former Army information officer, who said this weekend:
I can support everything Colin Wallace says and can confirm that the Clockwork Orange operation did include the smearing of British politicians&I remember the Clockwork Orange files well as I regularly had to check their location and access control.Further evidence was given by Peter Broderick, former head of Army information, Northern Ireland, who suggested that the smear campaign was aimed at Ministers in both the Heath and Wilson Administrations.Those are two leading officers who were then in Army intelligence and have now come forward with further information. The Leader of the House should respond to those accusations and meet the demand for a full inquiry. This matter will not go away; the House will continue to press it. We should have a statement, even if it is a short one, from the Leader of the House today.
§ Mr. SpeakerNone of these are matters on which I can make a pronouncement. They are not matters of order in the House or for me, but for the Government.
§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time today we had 75 questions to the Department of Social Security; there are sometimes 200, 300 or 400 questions, if they are directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We operate a system under which a Minister can say that he will answer a question together with another. Today, 12 and 16 were taken together, which seems reasonable, but some of the questions are planted anyway and today a Minister said that he would take together questions 6 and 20. Bearing in mind that even 646 allowing for some Members not being here today, we got only to question 17, how are we to arrive at a fair system of Members putting down questions and having them answered in sequence? Ministers are able, as they so often want to do, to cover themselves—I would do the same if I were a Minister, which is hugely unlikely—but why should we allow questions to be taken together and keep out other Members who have been lucky enough to come up in the ballot?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member should make his comments to the Select Committee on Procedure, because it is considering that very matter. The hon. Gentleman is right: those matters should be looked into. The House may have noticed that I have endeavoured to speed up questions so that we can get further down the Order Paper. I regret that this inevitably means that fewer supplemetary questions are called but it is fairer to those with questions on the Order Paper. I hope that hon. Members who feel that they should have been called but have not been will not write to me about it, because I now receive about a dozen letters a day.
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned, as I am sure you are, about the manipulation of Question Time by the linking of questions. Every time a Minister seeks to link answers, he or she does so "with permission". Will you, Mr. Speaker, refuse that permission in future, so that Question Time is not manipulated to suit the Minister, often by the use of planted questions way down the Order Paper beyond the point that we would normally reach?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe form of words "with permission" is a courtesy of long standing. It does not mean that my permission has been granted. The hon. Gentleman should make his points to the Select Committee on Procedure. I do not disagree with them.
§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the important consideration is that excessive linkage too far ahead is not justified if there is another question slot starting at 3.10 pm or 3.20 pm.
§ Mr. SpeakerAgain, the hon. Gentleman should make his point to the Select Committee, not me.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You heard earlier about the question of Colin Wallace. Perhaps you will also have noticed that on Friday the Secretary of State for Defence sent a letter to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on the sequence of events arising out of answers to questions put to him the previous day, when you were present. You will recall that the Prime Minister said that she brought the matter to the House immediately and that the Secretary of State for Defence said that he had brought the matter to the House straight away. Yet in answer to my question, he said that the document was first discovered early last year. The letter that he has now sent to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East contradicts that. It says that a document was found in early 1989 and another was found in July.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I know, and the hon. Gentleman can put those questions to a Minister or to the Prime Minister tomorrow, if he is fortunate enough to catch my 647 eye. I cannot be responsible for letters sent to hon. Members, although, as a courtesy, I have received a copy of the one to which he refers.
§ Mr. SkinnerWhat I want you, Mr. Speaker, and the House to understand is that we were given misleading answers last Thursday by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence. It is not proper to try to cover up the tracks by sending a couple of letters to a couple of Back-Bench Members of Parliament. The Government have a duty to tell the House why and when they misled the House. It is a contempt of the House of Commons.
§ Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago, you said that we had a long run on this subject on Thursday. That is correct. You know as well as the rest of us that since then further information has come to light. We are entitled to press the Government for a statement. If they do not make one, may I make an unusual request? I hope that you will not reply too quickly on the matter of privilege to those who raised it. More may yet emerge. Will you confirm that, if the matter is referred to the Select Committee of Privileges, it would be in order to put a resolution before the House to change the membership of that Committee so that the Members who are involved in the affair can give evidence?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat would be in order, but it is hypothetical. I consider all matters, but particularly matters of privilege, with great care. I have yet to carry out further investigations.
§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whatever our general view about the matter, I hope that every Member accepts that it is clearly unsatisfactory for us to continue in this way. The only opportunity for hon. Members to raise these issues seems to be in points of order to you. You cannot produce the responses. I am pleased that the Leader of the House has listened to the points of order today. I hope that he will ensure that we have another statement, ideally from the Prime Minister, on this subject and that he will provide in Government time a debate on these matters so that we can fully and properly explore all the issues by questions and answers with the Ministers involved, rather than simply pursue the matter in points of order to you, Mr. Speaker, each day after questions.
§ Mr. Jonathan AitkenFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI was going to agree wholly with what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said. Is it something different that I might be able to answer?
§ Mr. AitkenYes. Through you, I should like to place on record the fact that the unease about the good name of the House of Commons is not confined to Opposition Members. As the Government have nothing to fear from making a full statement on the matter and as it is clear that several matters have come to light since last Thursday, or Friday, could we, through you, urge the Government to reconsider the position?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am sure that the hon. Member will have been heard. There is nothing more to be said on that matter. We should move on to the important debate on the Royal Navy.