Standing Committee E (Hansard, 9 January 1990)

§ Dame Janet Fookes (Plymouth, Drake)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Chairman of Standing Committee E, which is considering the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, I have to report to the House the circumstances in which the Committee adjourned this morning. After repeated requests from the Chair to resume his seat—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a very serious matter.

§ Dame Janet Fookes
The Chair made repeated requests to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to resume his seat because he had persisted in pursuing a matter which I had ruled was not a matter for the Chairman of a Standing Committee. When it became crystal clear that the matter was not to be resolved in any other way, I accepted a motion for the adjournment of the Committee. That motion was passed without a Division.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe)
rose—

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have called the Leader of the House.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The House must take seriously the report made by the distinguished and experienced Chairman of Standing Committee E. From what she has told the House, it is quite clear that the conduct which she has reported made impossible the continued work of the Standing Committee. In the absence of a response to rulings made by the Chair, quite regardless of what was being talked about, I beg to move, That the Chairman of Standing Committee E, during its sittings to consider the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, shall have power to direct that any Member who disregards the authority of the Chair or persistently and wilfully obstructs the business of the Committee do withdraw immediately from the Committee Room for the remainder of the sitting; and that the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chair in pursuance of this order.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must propose the Question. [Interruption.]

§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)
While it is obviously essential that the House at all times should uphold the authority of the Chair—I say that on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself without equivocation—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)
Is this the behaviour of the next Labour Government?

§ Dr. Cunningham
Shut up, you fool.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. These are very serious matters.

§ Dr. Cunningham
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Was it really necessary to move the motion, in this way, immediately? Why cannot we have a cooling-off period and hold discussions through the usual channels before we take such an unprecedented step? The motion—although 822 it was difficult to hear because of the noise made by the hooligans behind the Leader of the House—gives unprecedented powers to the Chairman of just one Standing Committee—something that the House has never done before—without even the opportunity to discuss what has happened and how we might resolve the matter through the usual channels.
We should pause before rushing into such a decision. I am sure that, with reasonable time, we can resolve the matter satisfactorily in a far better way and in a way more acceptable to hon. Members. After all, it was a decision of the whole House that originally established Standing Committees. If the motion is accepted, it would give to a member of a Standing Committee—albeit the person in the Chair—powers to overrule the decision of the whole House by excluding a Member from the Committee whom the whole House had decided should be a member. Before the House takes such a step, we should pause and consider more fully all the implications.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Allow me to remind the House that the motion is debatable and it is for the House to decide whether to agree to it.

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)
I am a member of the Standing Committee who wants to debate the important National Health Service and Community Care Bill. This morning the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) delayed the Committee from 10.30 until just after 11 o'clock. The Committee suspended for 10 minutes and, after the suspension, continued for a few more minutes. It became clear that the hon. Member for Workington was insistent upon disrupting the work of the Committee. We have not yet debated even one word of the Bill.
If we are to support the Chairman in running the Committee, it is vital that the House agrees to the motion. It is not unprecedented as it has already happened once this Parliament on Scottish legislation. The quicker that the motion is passed, the quicker the Committee can continue to debate the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, which is of so much concern to all our constituents.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I understand that the motion is debatable, but I am advised that as it is a narrrow motion if I were to veer from it you would intervene, Mr. Speaker, and ask me to resume my place.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the debate that took place on 14 March 1989. On that occasion hon. Members representing the Scottish National party were in similar difficulties. I have read the Hansard report of the speeches made on that day. They show that every hon. Member who managed to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to speak was allowed to speak on the motion that had been tabled, which was narrow, in a way that went wider than the terms of that motion. All the speeches made on that occasion went far wider than the motion moved by the Leader of the House. Therefore, on the basis of precedent, I ask you for a little latitude, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to clarify matters? His example took place against a totally different background. The whole House will understand 823 —I think the hon. Gentleman accepts this—that he cannot rehearse in the Chamber this afternoon a matter that has already been ruled out of order in Committee.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I drew attention to the example only because the motion that the Leader of the House read at the Dispatch Box at that stage in 1989 is almost identical—I have it with me—to the motion tabled by the Leader of the House today. I believe that that is a precedent which allows me to go a little wider than the motion.
This morning, as the House knows, I was involved in a little difficulty in Committee. I want to make it clear to the Chairman of the Committee that it is not my intention to disrupt the proceedings of the Committee in future. Therefore, the motion need not have been tabled if the Leader of the House had come to me to ask me my—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
One of the Government Whips was kind enough to do that and came to me in the Tea Room to ask me that. I presume that he revealed my intentions to the Leader of the House. The motion need never have been tabled. It has been tabled for other reasons—because some Conservative Members do not want the issue that I raised in Committee to be raised in public or to be given an airing before the British public—

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Will my hon. Friend give way? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is a debatable motion. My hon. Friend has referred to incidents in Committee this morning. In view of the fact that the Committee took certain decisions and that the Chair took one—to suspend the Sitting—and as this matter is now before the House, those members of the Committee who were privy to the incidents and the statements made are fully aware of the facts, which we in the Chamber are not. As we are now debating the motion, it is important that the House should know, from my hon. Friend and others, exactly what took place and what statements were made. We cannot properly decide the issue unless my hon. Friend is able to reveal in full exactly what took place and what was said.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is fair enough. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) can certainly touch upon the matter. However, it would not be in order for him to outline at length a matter that the Chairman of Standing Committee E ruled out of order.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
rose—

§ Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a specific point of order because the House is in some difficulty. By all means let us have accounts—I am sure that we would have a faithful and honourable account from both the Chairman of the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—but would it not be sensible for us to pause to read the Hansard report of the Committee proceedings before debating the motion?

§ Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is impossible for the House thoroughly to understand what happened unless what my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has just suggested is done. We 824 need to have the verbatim report of what happened in the Committee. Without seeing that, to continue with what is happening would be a violation of democracy.

§ Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a member of Standing Committee E, may I say that the issue is not about what was discussed, but about the behaviour of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and the discipline which the Chair must exercise from time to time. I sat through that Committee for two days, and the hon. Member for Workington—whose forensic skills I admire—disrupted it. That is what this matter is about, and nothing else.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We do not want points of order on this decision. I sense from the mood of the House that there is a feeling that we should reflect on the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Order. The purpose of the motion is to give the Chairman of Standing Committee E the authority to suspend a Member from the Committee if her orders are disobeyed. The shadow Leader of the House has already said that we must uphold the tradition in this Chamber of obeying the Chair's rulings. I hope that the House will always do that.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
You, Mr. Speaker, said that you would let me proceed if I did not seek to touch on these matters at great length. It is not my intention to do so. I want to touch on the matter only briefly.
I raised the matter of a company called Michael Forsyth Limited—a lobbying, public relations company which trades on the name of a Minister of the Crown. The secretary to the Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), is a lady called Griselda Hayes, who is not currently in the House. She has been, and is, acting as the Minister's secretary and is the wife of the man who bought half the company from the hon. Member for Stirling. Therefore, there is a direct link with the Minister's secretary in the House of Commons, who sees the mail of hon. Members when they write to him—if the correspondence goes via the Letter Board as opposed to going direct to the Department. I object to this lady's access to mail on the basis that she might see correspondence from hon. Members about issues relating to privatisation when her husband owns half the company, Michael Forsyth Limited, which is involved in public relations, and promoting privatisation.
I know, although the Minister denies this, that he has an informal agreement whereby if he is sacked and loses his job as Minister or—[interruption]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

§ Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to continue to bring to the attention of the House a personal matter that a Minister has already denied?

§ Mr. Speaker
This is the problem with such matters. The House has to make a decision about whether the motion should be passed, and it is difficult to make that decision until it knows the background to the matter.

§ The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I moved the adjournment of the Committee this morning after we had reached the stage when the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would not resume his seat when 825 asked to do so, would not desist from making a speech when ruled out of order and barracked the rulings of the Chair. As a result of that misbehaviour, it seems that the hon. Gentleman is now being allowed to make a speech that was out of order this morning and is out of order now. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. How can I possibly rule on the Secretary of State's point of order if he is not allowed to make it?

§ Mr. Clarke
There is a difficulty here, which is why we have come from the Standing Committee to the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Workington is a procedural expert to a greater extent than I am. Until this morning I did not know that a Chairman of a Standing Committee had no power to suspend a Member in circumstances in which you, Mr. Speaker, would suspend a Member. My belief is that the hon. Gentleman persisted this morning thinking that he would be suspended and then found that he could not be. That is the issue, and it is the only issue, that we have brought to the Floor of the House.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. These proceedings do not bring any credit to the House.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were right to say that there are aspects of these proceedings which do not bring credit to the House, but these proceedings have been initiated because the Leader of the House brought a debatable motion before the House. Some hon. Members now realise that under that motion matters will be raised that they do not wish to have raised.
You have already said, Mr. Speaker, that some degree of reflection might be preferable, and I wonder why the Leader of the House did not realise that before he moved the motion. As the Committee need not sit again until Thursday, the matter may be deferred to allow for a more careful debate and for hon. Members to have the motion before them. We are all being asked to consider a motion that has not been printed, to which it has not been possible to devise any amendments, and whose implications we cannot consider. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give the Leader of the House the opportunity to withdraw the motion and to deal with the matter in a more sensitive way.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The shadow Leader of the House made the point—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Is this on a point of order?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
Yes. I respond to the point of order that has just been made.
The shadow Leader of the House made the point that the matter was entitled to be considered clearly and in silence. The position quite simply is that, having suspended the proceedings of Standing Committee E this morning in the light of the adjournment motion that was moved and accepted—the Committee has achieved no useful work this morning, having made no headway on the substance of the matter—the Chairman of the Committee reported to the House that that had happened as a result of the repeated failure of the hon. Member for 826 Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to respond to her rulings. Therefore, the matter comes before the House on the simple point of the need, as a matter of order, to uphold the rulings of the Chairman.
The shadow Leader of the House is entirely right to say that this is not a matter that arises frequently. Fortunately, it has not been necessary to raise it frequently. Without the Chairmen of Standing Committees being armed with the authority that you, Mr. Speaker, have, their rulings have been accepted without question. It is because that has not happened in this case, and having attempted to find a solution through the usual channels, that I have moved the motion. It would have been preferable if a comprehensive undertaking could have been given through the usual channels, but in the absence of such an undertaking, and in the face of the fact that the Standing Committee is due to resume its work at 4.30 this afternoon, it seemed to me right beyond question that I should move the motion to uphold the authority of the Chairman of the Committee.

§ Dr. Cunningham
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Secretary of State for Health finds it difficult to accept arbitration. Perhaps he will reflect on the fact that that is exactly what he, together with the Leader of the House, is being offered in this case. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has already made it clear that he has no intention of continuing to disrupt the Committee, and that the Government Chief Whip had that information some considerable time ago, so I wonder why the Leader of the House has rushed the motion before us. As he has done so, and as the motion is debatable, I hope that Conservative Members will, like me, respect the authority of the Chair and will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Workington to continue his speech.

§ Mr. Speaker
Before the hon. Member for Workington does so, I remind the House that, although the motion is debatable, there is other important business to consider. When the authority of the Chair must be upheld, that matter must be dealt with responsibly. The hon. Member for Workington has outlined the reasons why he refused to obey the Chair earlier today, and he must not go further in stating on the Floor of the House what was said upstairs and then ruled out of order.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, in saying that I have already outlined the reasons for my action, but I want to make one final point.
This morning, I made it clear to the lady Chairman of the Committee, and to the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), in the Tea Room, prior to the House sitting this afternoon, that I had no intention of disrupting the proceedings of the Committee in the future. I understand that that reassurance has been conveyed to the Government Chief Whip, and it should have reached also the Leader of the House. Therefore, there was no need for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to move his motion.
I said that Michael Forsyth Limited is trading in the name of a Minister of the Crown. I also have to say that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has made an agreement with the new director—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member is alleging that something irregular has occurred, that must be dealt with as a matter of privilege. Alternatively, if it is a question of 827 interests outside the House, the Select Committee on Members' Interests, of which the hon. Member for Workington is himself a member, should consider it.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I have already checked, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a matter of privilege, and nor is it a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests. The rules governing such matters are instead set down by the Prime Minister. They cover the conduct of Ministers' private affairs, and they are not matters over which the Committee of which I am a member has any jurisdiction. This morning, I simply asked the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland a question, which was whether he would give the Committee an undertaking that he would not—

§ Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall call the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, but I have not had a report of what happened in Standing Committee E.

§ Mr. Onslow
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely we are debating whether the Chairman of a Committee should be given further powers to deal with a disorderly situation when it arises in his or her Committee. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are not here to challenge the ruling that was made this morning. However, judging from the expression on the face of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), let alone from his words, it is his intention to achieve precisely that objective. It would not be inconsistent with the wishes of the House that the authority of the Chair should take priority over the preferences of the hon. Member for Workington.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) attempted to make a point of order in a Committee this morning. It was obviously inconvenient for the Government, but hon. Members have the right to free speech.
The problem for the Chairs of Committees is that they do not have power to suspend a Member but have to work, or have done since I have been in the House, by persuasion, and it is often extremely difficult.
I remember a Committee which was considering a social security Bill in which a Member kept talking while the Chair was putting the Question and taking the votes. The Chair used all the available powers to keep the proceedings in order. It would be an unfortunate precedent if, in an attempt to gag hon. Members, we changed the balance of power between the Chair and the Committee. They have the power to achieve things by persuasion whereas you, Mr. Speaker, have the power to exclude Members, but that is based on the fact that it is in the best interests of the House, and you are normally supported in that. For the Chair of a Standing Committee to exercise similar powers, without the whole House having the opportunity of access to all the information, would be unfortunate.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a matter that the hon. Member might raise if I call him to take part in the debate.
I think that the whole House will accept that we must uphold the authority of Chairmen of Standing Committees. If we fail to do that, anarchy will prevail, and 828 we cannot have that. Let us now come to a decision on the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I call the hon. Member for Workington, but please be brief.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
We could curtail the debate quickly if I were to be allowed to finish my brief remarks. I simply asked the Minister to tell the Committee that he would not reacquire his interest in Michael Forsyth Limited in the future, or that his wife would not acquire that interest. People in the industry believe, and I have been told reliably, that he has an agreement to reacquire those shares if he loses his job as a Minister or if he loses his seat in Parliament. That is the issue.

§ Mr. Speaker
Those are allegations that the hon. Member cannot sustain. I have heard enough of the background to this case.

§ Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent)
rose—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
May I finish my speech?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Foot
As the House is now aware, this is a debatable motion, although that was not immediately evident, I thought, to the Leader of the House when he moved it. If he had known that when he moved the motion, he might have made at the beginning the speech that he later delivered on a point of order. If he had explained the situation at the beginning of our proceedings, it might have been somewhat different, although I think that it would have been unsatisfactory from the point of view of the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members.
Of course, it is right to emphasise that the authority of the Chair here and in Committees must be upheld, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), other hon. Members and you, Mr. Speakers, have said. However, that authority cannot be upheld by motions moved in this form when the House has not had the chance to consider what they are about. The Leader of the House had a second opportunity—he is shaking his head before he even knows what I am going to say. That may be the safest way in the Cabinet: if they shake their heads later, they will be lopped off.
This is a serious matter. Let me say again to the Leader of the House that if he wishes our proceedings to be conducted properly—and I understand the motives that persuaded him to move the motion—he must withdraw the motion. He will then have a chance to give not only my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, but hon. Members on both sides of the House the opportunity to consider it. If he really wishes to uphold the authority of the Chair, that is the best way for him to go about it. But if he tries to rush through the motion as he did at the beginning—without knowing or considering the consequences—far from upholding the authority of the Chair, he will be creating still more confusion.
For the third time, I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take the obvious course. If he does not, however, the motion will still be debatable, and I believe that all hon. Members will exercise their right to debate it. Even on the lowest ground, that of assisting Government business—and hon. Members cannot sink any lower than that—much the most sensible course is for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his ill-considered motion and to move it again tomorrow after consultation.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Is this a point of order?"] No, it is a contribution to the debate. I propose to make three brief points. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will doubtless agree with the first two, although he will probably not agree with the third.
First, let me respond to what was said by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Worley, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Secretary of State is allowed to make a speech, why was my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) not allowed to do so?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had already made his speech.

§ Mr. Clarke
rose—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? When my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) rose earlier, may I take it that you regarded that as an intervention in my speech?

§ Mr. Speaker
I had said to the hon. Member for Workington that I thought that he had made his case in sufficient detail for a judgment to be made on whether the motion should be passed, and I therefore called his right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).

§ Mr. Clarke
In response to the—

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Such behaviour disfigures our proceedings. I call the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).

§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. To avoid any confusion that may arise later, will you please explain to the House whether, there being no written motion before the House, a manuscript amendment can be submitted? Will you also tell us whether there is any fixed time limit that would force the debate to end before 10 pm?

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Will hon. Members allow me to deal with one matter at a time?
Hon. Members will find the precedent on page 323 of "Erskine May". Such motions may be moved without notice and are debatable. The debate could continue until 10 pm, although I hope that it will not.

§ Mr. Clarke
The first point that I wish to make, in response to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), is that there is no question of criticism of the hon. Member for—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I did not answer the second part of the question of the hon. Member for Perry Barr. The motion is amendable by means of a manuscript amendment.

§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am on my feet. The dignity of the House would be best served if we were to proceed with the debate. I have a suspicion that a manuscript amendment is being prepared.

§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
No. Points of order of this kind do not help in any way at all.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The House is in difficulty over this matter. As I have already said, a manuscript amendment, which I should be prepared to consider carefully, is being drafted. Let us listen now to what the Secretary of State for Health has to say.

§ Mr. Clarke
I think that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would agree that he is not—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was in the middle of his speech.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Buchan
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) must resume his seat.

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall hear the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

§ Mr. Beith
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have to raise this matter, because it is of the greatest importance to the freedom of speech in the House.
I may have misunderstood what you said a few moments ago. My first understanding of what you said was that you had called the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to order because it seemed that he might be straying beyond the terms of the debate. That would have been right and necessary for you to do. However, some of your later comments led me to believe—I am sure that I was wrong in this assumption—that you had ordered the hon. Member to resume his seat and to bring his speech to an end.
I am able to hear things that are said by hon. Members who are sitting near me that you, Mr. Speaker, are unable to hear. I believe that a number of hon. Members thought that you had caused the hon. Member for Workington to cease speaking. I know—and you know far better than I—that it does not lie within Mr. Speaker's power to do that. As I understand it, you asked the hon. Member for Workington to cease to refer to anything that was either outside the terms of the motion or ought to have been raised as a matter of privilege and that you would have 831 given him the opportunity to continue his speech if you had realised that he wished to do so. Am I right in that assumption?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said that he knew that, if it were moved, this motion would be narrow. I had already pointed out to him, both in private and in public, the extent to which he could go in the debate. He went to that point. My understanding then was that he had made his contribution—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then I called another hon. Member to speak. That is that position. I have already called the Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order, Mr. Speaker."] I shall hear the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).

§ Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I try to assist the House? It is quite clear that the debate inevitably turns on what happened this morning in Standing Committee E. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Whether we are debating what was said in Standing Commitee E or whether Standing Committee E was disrupted, the debate inevitably turns on what happened this morning in the Standing Committee. If the motion is persisted with, the House will be invited to take a view on what happened in Standing Committee E. Surely, therefore, it would be wrong for allegations about what happened this morning to be made in the Chamber before hon. Members have in front of them the verbatim record of the Committee's proceedings.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) says that the words are irrelevant to the Committee's behaviour. We cannot judge its behaviour without having the record of that behaviour in front of us. It is perfectly clear that the Secretary of State intends to refer to what he says happened this morning.
May I put it again to the Leader of the House that, whatever he may think about the merits or otherwise of the motion he advanced 45 minutes ago, it would be better for the House to debate it when we have the verbatim record? May I press him on an additional point? We are now in difficulty that Standing Committee E is due to resume the sitting at 4.30 this afternoon, at which point all those hon. Members who are aware of what happened this morning will vanish from the Chamber. In those circumstances, surely it must be self-evident that the debate must be deferred for future and further consideration.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The House is in a difficulty about this. I propose to suspend the House for 15 minutes so that discussions on this matter can take place through the usual channels.

§ Dr. Cunningham
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the brief suspension I have taken the opportunity to discuss the situation not only with the Leader of the House but with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has renewed to me his assurance—the assurance that he first gave to the House some moments ago—that it is not his intention to disrupt the Standing Committee's proceedings any further.
832 In the light of our discussions and that new assurance, I hope that the Leader of the House will now respond postively—[Interruption.] It is a clear undertaking, as I said earlier, and I repeat it now. I therefore invite the Leader of the House to respond positively and to withdraw the motion.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
Two points have emerged clearly from what has been said on both sides of the House, including by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). The first concerns the importance of upholding the authority of the Chair.

§ Dr. Cunningham
I apologise to the Leader of the House. I said—I repeat it willingly—that of course we uphold the authority of the Chair in all circumstances, including the circumstances in which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) found herself earlier. I give that absolute assurance again, as I did at the beginning of my original remarks.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his confirmation of that because it was a point that emerged clearly, even from the characteristically mischievous but well-intentioned intervention of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I appreciate the support of the right hon. Gentleman as a former Leader of the House, and also that of the shadow Leader of the House.
Secondly, the undertaking now given by the shadow Leader of the House on behalf of, and affirming that given by, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was of a character not available through the usual channels, despite our search for it at an earlier stage this afternoon. Had that position been different, the question of moving the motion that I moved would also have been different.
The undertaking now having been given and the House having plainly been assured from both sides that the authority of the Chairman of the Standing Committee must and will be upheld, we have a different situation from that which prevailed when I moved the motion.
The allegations advanced in the Committee upstairs which were the subject of the ruling by the Chairman of the Standing Committee have in substance been reasserted on the Floor of the House this afternoon. That is, for me arid for most hon. Members, a matter of the utmost regret. It is fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) that I should make it clear that he firmly rebutted those allegations during the Committee's proceedings. I hope that they can be left to rest on the basis that they should never have been made. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On the basis of the assurance given by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and his confirmation that the authority of the Chairman of the Committee will be upheld, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

§ Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the matter has been put to bed, you will be aware that this afternoon we have witnessed the shameless use by one hon. Member of the television cameras to smear the reputation of another. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that the House has dealt with that matter. I deeply regret that it has arisen in this way.

§ Mr. Gale
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret to have to press the matter further. This afternoon we have witnessed the use of the cameras on live television to smear a Member of this House. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would not have said what he did outside the House and every hon. Member knows it. As a Back Bencher, I appeal to you Mr. Speaker. It is your clear duty to protect Members of the House. When these proceedings are over, will you consider what measures can be taken to ensure that such circumstances do not arise again?

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that the House will not persist with this matter. Allow me to deal with it. We must deal with each other in this place as men and women of honour. It is not in our traditions that we should smear each other in the House. The hon. Member informed the House of what had occurred in the Committee this morning and at a certain point I asked him to desist. We should now continue with our proceedings.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that the events of this morning, of which some of us knew nothing until the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) reported to the House, have put both the House and yourself in some difficulty.
I wish to put to you a point which is a matter of precedent relating to the powers of the Chair and hon. Members who are on their feet. You made it clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had assumed and affirmed that the scope of the debate on the motion moved rather precipitately by the Leader of the House, was narrow. My hon. Friend developed several points, which you informed him were outside the scope of the debate. At that point you called my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) who made an effective speech. Some of us were under the impression that you called him to make a point of order. At that point my hon. Friend technically had not completed his speech although in your judgment he was moving outside the scope of the debate.
It is within the power of the Chair to ask an hon. Member not to pursue a point if it is beyond the scope of the debate or is not in order, and you did so. As a matter of precedent, is it not the case that the Chair has not the power, other than through the ten minutes rule or on matters relating to order, to ask Members to resume their seats and that only on a matter of content can they be ordered to pursue other matters? I hope that you can confirm that on future occasions, which I hope will not arise, hon. Members will be able to complete their speeches, as you will agree is right.

§ Mr. Speaker
Allow me to explain. I regret that there has been some confusion this afternoon. I have no authority to order an hon. Member to sit down unless he is out of order. I was under the impression that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had completed his speech. That is why I called the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). If the hon. 834 Member had not completed his speech, I apologise to him. In my judgment, he had reached the point at which it would not have been in order for him to go further.

§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us whether the conclusion of these proceedings is now a precedent? If it is a precedent, is not the precedent this—that if one shows contempt for the ruling of a Chairman of a Standing Committee and subsequently, having caused the disruption of that Committee, gives an undertaking that it will not happen again, no further proceedings will follow? Is that the kind of precedent that we are expecting to establish today?

§ Mr. Onslow
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not evident that the confusion that has been caused in the House this afternoon has its origins in one simple fact, which is that Chairmen of Standing Committees do not have power to suspend members of those Committees for unruly behaviour? They do not have such powers because no member of a Standing Committee has previously behaved so badly as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) behaved on this occasion—of that there can be no doubt. Would not the best way out of this difficulty be for the whole matter to be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure so that a judgment can be made? Then the hon. Member for Workington, who is a member of that Committee, can argue his point, although I doubt whether his argument will carry much conviction.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that we can pursue this matter to any benefit today. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, that the Chairmen of Standing Committees—

§ Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am on my feet.
As the right hon. Member for Woking said, Chairmen of Standing Committees, whose authority must always be upheld, do not have the powers that the Speaker has. It may well be that the Select Committee on Procedure should consider the matter.

§ Dr. Reid
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this point of order reluctantly because, like my hon. Friends, I am aware that very important Scottish business is to follow immediately afterwards. I am also aware that many people in Scotland will regard today's events—both the byzantine rules and the substance of what was said—as very important. The motion was withdrawn after discussions, through the usual channels, of three issues. The first two, I accept. The third was a statement from the Leader of the House to the effect that the allegations have been rebutted by the Minister concerned and assurances given. I want to know—this is a point of order for you, Sir—and I am sure that the people of Scotland will want to know, whether that means that assurances have been given by the Minister that the company trading—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Dr. Reid
—will not be bought by—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have already said, and the hon. Gentleman, although he was not with us before this 835 Parliament, knows, that we do not make allegations against each other in this Chamber. If we seek to do so, it must be by a motion on the Order Paper.

§ Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the principle established by this afternoon's proceedings is that the authority of Chairmen of Standing Committees must always be upheld, how can we have been discussing what happened before a ruling was made by the Chairman of a Standing Committee? If we have such a discussion, it means that the House is being invited to stand as a court of appeal upon that ruling. With respect, Mr. Speaker, it should be made perfectly clear that if a Chairman of a Standing Committee has made a ruling, that ruling cannot be questioned by the House. We must then determine whether an hon. Member has acted properly in accordance with that ruling. That is not what we have been doing this afternoon.

§ Mr. Speaker
In order that the House can make a judgment on whether a motion should be carried or not, the arguments must be heard, and that is exactly what happened this afternoon. I must say to the House, however, that I think that these proceedings bring no credit on us and that it would be very wise indeed for the Select Committee on Procedure to look carefully at the powers that are given—or not given, in this case—to the Chairmen of Standing Committees. Their authority must be upheld and the hon. Member for Drake was quite right to come to the House to report to the House what happened in Committee.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us, and a great many hon. Members wish to speak.

§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been a number of requests that you should report today's events to the Select Committee on Procedure. The Chairman of that Committee, who takes a deep interest in these affairs, is not here today. May I suggest, therefore, that to avoid any repetition of such a series of events, you ask the Procedure Committee to investigate the whole structure of rules relating to Members' interests and to tighten them up? That would render discussions such as those held this morning unnecessary because Ministers would not be involved.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a matter not for the Procedure Committee but for the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
Further to the point or order, Mr. Speaker. I think that we should clarify, for the record, which of two things the House was doing. If the motion tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House had purported to censure the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and to punish him in some way—by exclusion or anything else—it would have been perfectly right for the House to debate the circumstances of the Chairman's request to him, with which he did not comply. I did not see my right hon. and learned Friend's motion in writing, but as I understand the matter, the motion did not seek to censure anybody. Instead it would have conferred powers on the Chairman of the Standing Committee. It cannot, therefore, have been in order to go into what happened in that Committee only for the House to decide whether to 836 uphold the authority of the Chairman of the Committee. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think that it is a matter for regret that the House did not proceed with that motion, which represented the only possible way of upholding the authority of the Chairman of that Committee.

§ Mr. Speaker
We can best bring this matter to a conclusion by repeating that the House was being asked to confer power upon the Chairman of a Standing Committee to exclude a Member if he misbehaved. The hon. Member for Drake did not have that power this morning. The motion before the House was a debatable motion and the House was not asked to give a rubber stamp to what the Leader of the House proposed. The House had every right to debate whether the Chairman of a Standing Committee should have that power. The matter has now been resolved. I hope that we shall never get into such a difficulty again, and that we may leave the matter there.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have nothing more to say on this matter.