Points of Order (Hansard, 31 January 1990)

§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House clarify the Government's intentions with respect to the exchanges in the Chamber that followed the Division at 7 o'clock last night? On behalf of the Opposition, I and a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends pressed for an urgent oral statement, by the Secretary of State for Defence in the first instance, about the Colin Wallace scandal and the information released yesterday by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that the House and right hon. and hon. Members had been misled both in parliamentary answers and in correspondence. No statement has been made today, and it is important that we know now from the Leader of the House what are the Government's intentions.
I make it clear to the Leader of the House that, although in the first place a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence may be appropriate, this sordid affair has wider implications than simply matters concerning the Ministry of Defence. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the integrity of the House and of hon. Members, and clearly we need an opportunity to debate also those much more serious and wider implications.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that I should call the Leader of the House first.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe)
In the light of the exchanges that took place in the House last night, the matter has been further considered. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) points out, the background extends over a long time. In the light of that consideration, I am able to tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a statement to the House tomorrow afternoon. I shall say nothing beyond that today.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is not for hon. Members to question the Leader of the House by way of a point of order. I call Dr. Cunningham first.

§ Dr. Cunningham
The announcement made by the Leader of the House will be welcomed by all right hon. and hon. Members. I ask him to consider and to discuss through the usual channels how the House may proceed. I reiterate that, although in the first place we expected and welcome the decision that the Secretary of State for Defence should make a statement about the implications for his Department and its responsibilities in the matter, the House should have an opportunity to debate also the wider issues involved.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I must make plain what I should have made plain before. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is currently in Washington, 310 and he will be making his statement tomorrow at the first opportunity. I cannot indicate the scope of his statement, or how the points raised by the hon. Gentleman may be dealt with. The House must wait until my right hon. Friend's statement has been made.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a former Law Officer, the deputy Prime Minister will certainly appreciate the role of the Law Officers. May I ask whether Mr. David Calcutt's inquiry will benefit from the services of outside lawyers, or whether it will be dependent on "internal" civil servants from the Ministry of Defence? Could he clarify—[Interruption.] Anyone who knows about the matter knows that—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have all heard what the Leader of the House has said: a statement is to be made tomorrow. It is difficult for him to give definitive answers about such matters before he has heard the statement.

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Is it on this matter? Is it for me or for the Leader of the House?

§ Mr. Leigh
It is for you, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Very well.

§ Mr. Leigh
As you know, Mr. Speaker, today is an Opposition day and a number of hon. Members wish to speak in important debates. We have received the clearest possible assurance that a full statement will be made tomorrow, at the earliest opportunity. Can we now move on? Opposition Members are trying to extend the discussion on the wrong occasion.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman only repeated what I have just said.

§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for saying that the Secretary of State for Defence is to make a statement tomorrow, but I urge him to recognise that the issue is much wider than it appears. It affects Members of Parliament—including me, as it happens—and the parliamentary Labour party has expressed grave concern about the current developments. Can the Leader of the House say what procedure may be used to enable the matter to be more fully investigated in the House?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot anticipate all the questions that may or may not be put to my right hon. Friend or to others, and I certainly cannot at this stage answer questions such as that asked by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme).

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is not a matter for points of order. It has not been raised with me; it was raised last night in the House, and the Leader of the House said then that he would tell the House today what he proposed to do. It is perfectly legitimate for hon. Members to seek further clarification, but let me repeat what was said by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh): until we have heard the definitive statement it would be extremely difficult, if not wrong, to ask the Leader of the House to give detailed replies.

§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Leader of the House aware that the issue being put to him now does not concern the Ministry of Defence statement, which is an internal disciplinary matter between Mr. Wallace and his former Department? It is a constitutional question, which I touched on last night and about which I wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. For more than 20 years disinformation has been issuing from Government—

§ Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members
"Sit down."

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Benn
The Government have now admitted, for the first time ever, the existence of disinformation that has branded and blackened the reputations of the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), two former Prime Ministers—Wilson and Callaghan—my right hon. Friends the Members for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), and for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Colin Wallace should be brought before a Committee here, just as Colonel Oliver North was brought before Congress, to give evidence free from the threat of prosecution under the new official secrets legislation.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
For the avoidance of doubt, I responded to a point of order raised in the House last night, and returned to the House this afternoon to respond to a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Because I had given no notice of a business statement, I intended to respond to remarks that I understood would be raised as a point of order, and I have intervened on a point of order to tell the House that which follows from the undertaking that I gave last night. There will be a statement tomorrow afternoon.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. By no stretch of the imagination can a matter such as this be the subject of points of order; to me they are not matters for the Chair.

§ Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Is it a point of order for me?

§ Mr. Favell
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Many Conservative Members are fed up to the back teeth with the bogus points of order raised by the Opposition. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has already said that there will be a statement tomorrow. That is the time to raise questions. In the meantime, is it not about time that you, Mr. Speaker, laid down the rules—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. May I say to the whole House that when the Leader of the House makes a statement which in effect announces a change of business hon. Members have a right to question him.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South)
Further to the business statement made by the—[Interruption.] 312 You informed us that it was a business statement, Mr. Speaker. If it is not a business statement, I cannot ask my question.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I repeat that the Leader of the House has made a statement about a change of business tomorrow. As it is a matter of grave concern to both sides of the House, it is legitimate for right hon. and hon. Members to put questions to the Leader of the House about matters that he can answer, but not about the statement, which he does not know about.

§ Mr. Rees
When Ministers do not seem to understand what the Leader of the House has done, it is very difficult for us to act on it. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Defence is to make a statement on this important issue tomorrow and we look forward to it. However, it has implications for the Northern Ireland Office which do not seem to matter to some people. There are also implications for other Departments. When one aspect is dealt with tomorrow, other Secretaries of State should be present because there are other issues to be raised.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have called those hon. Members who are directly concerned with the matter because they were involved. [Interruption.] Order. I think we should now move on.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a totally different point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you prior notice. On 12 June last year the House agreed the Select Committee report on televising the proceedings of the House. By agreeing that, we agreed to a degree of flexibility, provided that any variations were consistent with the reasonable assumptions which were made at the time the experiment was authorised. At the end of the main text there is a summary of conclusions and resolutions. In essence, those resolutions are the licence for broadcasters and the Select Committee. There are 87 such recommendations and conclusions. No. 31 states: Panning shots along the Benches should not be used."' You may have noticed in the news media today—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Question No. 214 on the Order Paper today in the name of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) is on this very matter. There is a Select Committee on the Televising of the House. If the hon. Gentleman has any complaints about the way in which the televising of the House is being operated, he should put them to the Select Committee. I cannot deal with them.

§ Mr. Marlow
You, Mr. Speaker, will have seen that we have had advance notice of the answer to that question. The advance notice says that the cameras shall be allowed to roam. If so, that is a degree of flexibility beyond the reasonable assumptions in the report, one of which states that panning shots should not be allowed.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a matter for me; it is strictly a matter for the Select Committee on the televising of our proceedings. The hon. Gentleman would get a better answer from that Committee than he could possibly have from me, because I have no responsibility for it.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
In response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), may I say that the report of the 313 Select Committee which was approved by the House last year emphasised the rules that were issued for guidance were for the start of the experiment. They might need to be modified in the light of experience during the course of the trial period.
It was made clear that it would fall to the Select Committee to adjudicate …over the interpretation of the guidelines and to consider any reasonable modification which may prove necessary during the course of the experiment. As the House would wish, the Select Committee has had the matter under continuous review. On Monday it reached some conclusions about certain modifications which were the subject of an answer to a written question on today's Order Paper.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North that the request for panning—one of the requests made by the forum—was not a request to which we acceded. If my hon. Friend studies the reply, he will discover the modifications that the Select Committee has approved and which I have reported to the House as soon as possible, consistent with the original report.

§ Mr. Marlow
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not see how it is possible to have a further point of order on that subject. The hon. Gentleman has been answered by the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to bring to the attention of the House a very important matter relating to the proceedings in a Committee upstairs this morning with regard to the Official Secrets Act 1986 and the prescribing of certain organisations.
The Minister of State told me during the debate in Committee that the Comptroller and Auditor General, who as you know, Mr. Speaker, is an Officer of the House, would not have his status changed to that of a Crown servant. The importance of the point is that, if the Comptroller and Auditor General becomes a Crown servant under the order that was debated in Committee this morning, we would be hampering seriously the Public Accounts Committee. I know that that would be a matter of serious concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to look into the status of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to the order this morning and the Official Secrets Act 1986.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Perhaps I can help hon. Members by saying that I will certainly look into the matter.

§ Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was a member of the Standing Committee to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hill, West (Mr. Randall) referred. I am afraid to say that his account of the proceedings was not in accordance with what the Minister said. I am sure that that will be perfectly clear to you, Mr. Speaker, when you examine the matter.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
On a point of order arising from Scottish Question Time. During Scottish questions, which you may 314 recall took place a short time ago, I, my hon. Friends, the Members for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and others tried to raise issues of vital concern to our constituents relating to questions that we tabled two weeks ago. I wanted to raise the matter of the Stranraer to Euston sleeper. I tried to raise the matter on suitable questions earlier, but I was not called, as is your right, Mr. Speaker, and we did not reach my question No. 21.
Scottish Question Time is my only opportunity to raise constituency matters on the Floor of the House. However, a large number of Conservative Members from south of the border with no constituency interests asked questions. I realise that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, but you have a responsibility to allow us an opportunity to ask constituency questions. I am not suggesting a language test, but I hope that you will bear this matter in mind when you call hon. Members during Scottish Question Time.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am aware of the desire in the House to make quicker progress at Question Time. However, that inevitably means fewer supplementaries and, so far as the Chair is concerned, this is constrained with the number of Front-Bench spokesmen. I do not criticise that, but I must bear it in mind in the interests of Back Benchers.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I will take Mr. Winnick. I hope that it is not on the point that we have already dealt with.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your guidance. As you know, the Secretary of State for Defence is to make a statement tomorrow. Many hon. Members would like the opportunity at that time to deal with allegations that have been made about the way in which the Security Service had been and perhaps remains out of control. The Minister who will respond tomorrow is not the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. Allegations and substantial smears have been made, and they must be answered. Will you ensure that we will be able to widen the issue of allegations about the Security Service? If not, the Home Secretary, or the Prime Minister, who is the head of the Security Service, should be on the Front Bench to answer questions.

§ Mr. Speaker
Perhaps I can give guidance to the whole House on this matter. Tomorrow there will be an opportunity not only to question the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time but to question the Leader of the House during business questions. Of course, there will then be the statement itself. There will also be Northern Ireland questions. There will be plenty of opportunities to deal with this matter.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not answering any further points of order on that issue.

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

§ Mr. Speaker
Is it on another matter?

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Yes, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, following the Christmas recess, I returned to the House and raised the matter of the commercial interests and directorships of Conservative Members of Parliament. Since that date, which is almost a month ago, 315 I have sat through every Question Time and almost every statement in the Commons, and I have risen in my place on more than 300 occasions to be called on supplementary questions. It is being said in my constituency that it appears that the Speaker is carrying out sanctions against me by refusing to call me on supplementary questions—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is an unworthy charge to make against the Chair; the whole House will accept that. I do not think that, in general, the hon. Member is deprived in any way. He is regularly in the Chamber, and he has every opportunity to participate in our debates and at Question Time. He needs only to see his computer print-out, which I will gladly send him.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I call Mr. Jonathan Aitken.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
My constituents want to know why I am not being called—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not carry out sanctions against anyone.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
You have not told me yet, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I call Mr. Jonathan Aitken.

§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I raise with the Leader of the House, the fundamental question whether the Secretary of State for Defence is the correct Minister to make the statement tomorrow. I draw to your attention the fact that a briefing that was given by the Prime Minister's press secretary to journalists today indicated that the Prime Minister herself might have been misled by previous statements made to her by civil servants as a result of which a parliamentary answer was given.
First, if that is correct, and if the security services are involved, as seems to be the general assumption, are you aware that in the Security Service Act 1989 there is no ministerial responsibility for the security services on the part of the Secretary of State for Defence? Therefore, why is the Secretary of State for Defence to make the statement? Secondly, if a wrong parliamentary answer was given by the Prime Minister herself, surely it is not necessarily within the ambit of the Ministry of Defence for the statement to be made. It seems to raise far wider constitutional questions. The Leader of the House should at least consider whether a different Minister should answer these questions tomorrow.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a matter for me. The whole House accepts that it is a serious matter which will need careful consideration. Let us leave it until tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not taking any more points of order on that subject.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a matter of which I have given you notice—the great anxiety about the future of Kashmir and the danger of civil war there. You will know better than most hon. Members that tens of thousands of British citizens are of Kashmiri origin and that thousands more have settled here and have lived here 316 for many years. They are extremely anxious about the safety of their relatives and friends and are desperately worried about the future of Kashmir.
I should like your advice, Mr. Speaker, on how you can be given authority to write to the Speakers of the Indian and Pakistani Parliaments expressing the hope of British citizens of Kashmiri origin and your belief that every effort should be made to bring about a peaceful solution and to secure the future of Kashmir. How can the House give you authority to send such a message?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member knows that in such matters I am the servant of the House. It is not for me to initiate actions such as he suggests, although I share his anxiety.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that it is your job as Speaker to examine breaches of privilege in the House and that they are no longer raised on the Floor of the House but are put in writing to you for a judgment on whether such a breach has occurred? There may be breaches of privilege in the statement tomorrow. I ask you to bear that in mind because, if there are, I and, I believe, several other hon. Members will write to you.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member knows that if a breach of privilege is alleged he should write to me. No doubt that will happen. Indeed, I have already received one letter on the matter.

§ Mr. Marlow
Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. He drew attention to paragraph 98 of the Select Committee report, which is part of the subsidiary text of the report. Within the report various items have been highlighted and transferred to the summary of conclusions and recommendations.
The Leader of the House spoke about the powers of the Select Committee, which are subject to the will of the House. The House agreed fundamentally with the summary of conclusions and recommendations, which takes precedence over paragraph 98. It says: Panning shots along the Benches should not be used. On behalf of the House, will you look carefully at the report and the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend and give the House your advice on the matter tomorrow? I submit that the Select Committee seeks to exceed its powers.

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall certainly look carefully at the report. We all have our views on the impact of television on our proceedings. The hon. Member heard the reply of the Leader of the House. He should take up the matter with the Select Committee or during business questions tomorrow..

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened carefully to what you said about the way in which the televising of the House is being changed. You have to keep an eye on it. You have had more than a little difficulty today. I think that there is a way out of it. You could kill two birds with one stone by allowing the cameras to zoom in close on the Prime Minister so that she can make a statement to clarify how she was misled in the Colin Wallace affair and we can ask her questions.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is ingenious, but that is not ingenious enough. We should move on because we have a heavy day before us.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. To start our proceedings every day with—

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I ask hon. Members to sit down.

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
No.

§ Mr. Heffer
It is about—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I ask the hon. Member to sit down while I am on my feet.

§ Mr. Heffer
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Will the hon. Gentleman please sit down? I am on my feet.
I must advise the House that it disfigures our proceedings to start every day with half an hour of points of order—[Interruption.] Order. These are not matters of order. They are matters of disagreement across the Chamber. They are not matters on which I can give any opinion.

§ Mr. Heffer
Yes, you can, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall take only those matters that are my responsibility. I cannot take any others.

§ Mr. Heffer
My point is about the list, Mr. Speaker. You have a right in relation to that because you are the one person who can speak in our name. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) talked about the "panning" of the House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was not in favour of any of it, but if we are to have the panning of the Floor of the House, we should not allow that panning to go only as far as the Gangway because, if that is the case, none of us below the Gangway will ever be seen.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I can give the hon. Gentleman some very good news. I now perforce watch television at breakfast time and frequently see the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he need worry.

§ Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)
May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Earlier this afternoon you told the House that it would be possible to have the Colin Wallace affair fully ventilated during the statement tomorrow. However, it is already clear from the exchanges in the House that not only the present Government but previous Governments over the past 20 years have been deceived and misled and that when they have come to the House to advise the House, they have misled the House.
How on earth can the House and the country believe that this whole affair can be fully ventilated by restricting our deliberations on it to a statement of one hour made by the Secretary of State for Defence, who is not completely responsible because the matter also concerns Northern Ireland? Surely we should have a full and detailed debate on this matter at the earliest opportunity, and it should be referred to a Select Committee of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have no idea about how this will proceed tomorrow—[Interruption.] Well, until we hear the statement it is impossible to say what may happen in the future.

§ Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East)
I have received a letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces which tells me that the allegations that I raised in the House about the forging of CIA documents and about the use of Army officers to plant hoax bombs are now true. I understand that there is to be a statement tomorrow from the Secretary of State for Defence. That is not good enough. I raised this issue with the Prime Minister and I have received denials from the Prime Minister. I know from my own research that an entire dossier, listing every one of the allegations, was delivered to the Prime Minister on behalf of Colin Wallace in November 1984. The House will want to know why that—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is quite likely that the House will want to know—and I shall probably want to know—but what is the point of order for me?

§ Mr. Livingstone
I am trying to ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we have the Prime Minister here to answer our questions because she is the main beneficiary of this treason and she has been the main architect of the cover-up.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make allegations of that kind.

§ Mr. Livingstone
It is true.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I call Mr. Mullin.

§ Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)
It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that on 6 May 1987 the Prime Minister made a statement to the House in which she denied categorically every one of the allegations that have now been confirmed in yesterday's answer by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. May I reinforce the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to the effect that the Prime Minister should be the person at the Dispatch Box answering questions on this subject? Would it be in order for you, Mr. Speaker, to use your good offices in a way that I am sure you could to ensure that the Prime Minister is here to address us specifically on that subject?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not a matter for me, but I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said has been heard.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Let us move on.