§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you had the good fortune to miss most of Friday's rather boring debate, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and which was enlivened only by the chairman of the Conservative party, who masquerades as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on these occasions, admitting that there had been a mistake in that the authorities allowed a Conservative Central Office official to occupy the Civil Servants' Box. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I have already said that I apologise to the House if there was a mistake. There should not have been an official from central office in the Civil Servants Box and he has withdrawn from that position."—[/Official Report, 19 January 1990; Vol. 165, c.558.]Mr. Deputy Speaker was good enough to say that he would initiate inquiries as to whether the Cabinet Office or any other Department had written to the House authorities requesting permission for the Conservative Central Office official to occupy the Civil Servants' Box. I wonder whether the outcome of those inquiries is now known and whether, Mr. Speaker, you can assure the House that there will not be a repetition of Friday's events.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Allow me to deal with the first point of order, please.
§ Mr. SkinnerIt is on the same point.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not care that it is at the moment.
The matter was reported to me and I have carefully studied Hansard. I have received a letter of apology from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who accepts personal responsibility for the fact that a Conservative party official was on the list for the Civil Servants Box and was admitted to that Box. I was asked about security. I am satisfied that there was no breach of security at any stage. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has now apologised to me, in addition to the apology that he made to the House on Friday, I regard the matter as having been dealt with as far as I am concerned.
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during the debates on the English revenue support grant last week the Opposition were challenged to state their policy. We have had no reply. In the newspapers this morning we have had a sign that the Labour party wants a property tax which might be levied on separate people in the same household. As the Opposition chose not to say on Thursday what is to be their policy, may we have a statement from them so that we may question them on this important subject and find out exactly what they believe?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not studied the whole of Friday's debate, but I am surprised that the matter did not arise then.
§ Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Would you Mr. Speaker, rule further on the matter? It is unsatisfactory 622 and out of order that a clear, gross abuse has been committed deliberately. Surely it is not enough for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster simply to apologise. The House is entitled to an explanation of how the abuse happened. What happened was part of a pattern of the blurring of lines between the Government and party, which is no accident. We want, and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, want from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster something more than an apology which is, in effect, an apology for being caught.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have looked into the matter with great care. I received a full apology from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which he explained exactly what happened. I accept that apology. The way in which we deal with each other in matters of this kind implies that if an apology has been given we should accept it.
§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that your job is to maintain the dignity of the House and its central role in our political affairs. I hope that, like me, you consider that it does not add to our dignity when either the Government or the Opposition deliberately refuse to reveal a policy or fact to the House which is known to them. A major debate last week was held in a vacuum because the Labour party refused to reveal its policy on the new local property tax based on the capital value of houses. Just four days later it revealed its policy. How is that consistent with the dignity of the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe House will accept that I am not responsible for the policies of either the Government or the Opposition.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)Are you, Mr. Speaker, not surprised that someone as experienced as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should seek to introduce a member of Central Office into the Civil Servants' Box? After all these years, one would have thought that he would be aware that that clearly was not in order. In his apology, which is easy enough to give, did he explain why the incident arose in the first instance? What sort of security exists behind your Chair? After all, your back needs to be protected. We must make sure that people from Central Office do not creep into the Box.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am concerned for my back. I have checked and I think that it is safe. I have received a full apology from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I have nothing more to say on the matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We accept each other's apologies in this House. Mistakes can happen, even here.
§ Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South)Further to the points of order raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough; Hid Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). You Mr. Speaker, will recall that during that debate the Minister of State was interrupted and challenged when he said that certain Labour authorities misuse their powers to the detriment of the intended community charge. It has been brought to my notice today by the leader of the Conservative minority in Nottingham county council that the Labour authority seeks to increase spending in that county by over £100 million in order to push the 623 community charge beyond what is reasonable in anybody's book. Is there no way in which the House can protect my constituents from such conduct by Labour authorities?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman must do that himself. It is not a matter for the Chair.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have nothing more to say on the matter. An apology has been received and I have accepted it.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)How is it that Tory Members can get in to speak?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I cannot call the hon. Gentleman every time he attempts to intervene on a point of order. He got in on Friday.
§ Mr. Skinnerrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerIs this a different point of order?
§ Mr. SkinnerNo, it is not.
§ Mr. SpeakerThen I cannot hear it. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have nothing more to say. I have accepted the apology.
§ Mr. Tarn Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not deeply unsatisfactory that named public figures are, by implication, under a cloud of suspicion, seemingly for having done something wrong? Is it not a pity, therefore, that you may not have received a request from the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General or the Minister for the Civil Service at least to clarify the assertion by Mr. John Stalker that the letters "RA" stand for either Armstrong or Robert Andrew? Should not the House of Commons be told exactly what the Government know about Mr. Stalker's assertions on this delicate matter which is of increasing public anxiety, and rightly so?
§ Mr. SpeakerI heard what the Minister for the Civil Service said. This is not a matter for the Chair. What the hon. Gentleman said will have been heard by members of the Government Front Bench.
§ Mr. Skinnerrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Is this about a different matter? I am not taking further points of order on what happened on Friday.
§ Mr. SkinnerThis is a different matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that I can trust the hon. Gentleman. He has already said once that his point of order is on the same matter. I shall hear it only if it is on an entirely different matter. As a man of honour, he should do what he says.
§ Mr. SkinnerYou will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in a previous parliamentary Session you were in the Chair 624 when a statement had to be made about issuing passes for admission to this House. It was followed by a debate. On that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was at the centre of the matter. There was widespread discussion about people who should not be allowed into the House getting into this place. It has been made clear that people who are allowed into the Box must receive authority—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is letting himself down, and me.
§ Mr. Skinnerrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. The hon. Gentleman said that he would raise a different matter and now he is trying to get round it. I am sorry, but I cannot hear him further.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am not hearing any more.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall not hear points of order about the same matter. I shall take the point only if it is on a different matter.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, if Mr. Stalker wants to submit documents under the protection of privilege, he can submit them to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee and if he does not need privilege, he can submit them to the Library where they can be made available to hon. Members? In the circumstances, is it not a little unreasonable of Mr. Stalker to dangle these documents before the British public without being prepared to reveal them in so far as Parliament wants to know what is happening?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a matter for Mr. Stalker. It is not a matter of order in the Chamber.
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek to raise a question about passes—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Is the hon. Gentleman talking about last Friday's passes?
§ Mr. CorbynI am talking about the point made two years ago in the debate about research assistants. It was made clear that no one could be admitted beyond the public areas of this building without a pass and that a pass had to be approved, in effect, through your office, Mr. Speaker. I am worried that those rules are not being upheld. If they are not, it makes nonsense of the debate we had two years ago. It would be seen to be entirely selective against one person if others, merely at the behest of another Member, were brought not just beyond the public areas of this building, but, in effect, almost into the Chamber.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe do not need to dwell on this. I have looked carefully at the matter, and in my original comments I said that I had considered the security aspect of it. I am satisfied that there was no security risk and that an error was made. I hope that it will not happen again.