§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)I wish to raise a point of order, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, about the ability of a Back-Bench Member to give the Library a book or unpublished or confidential material that may help other hon. Members.
The point of order arises out of the preparation of the Osborne report to the House of Bishops on homosexuality. I had some correspondence with Dr. Runcie, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which I asked whether he would make the report public. He refused by letter on the ground that it is confidential. I subsequently obtained a copy of the Osborne report, and on Thursday I gave it to the Library and it was accepted by the Library. On Friday, I tabled an early-day motion simply noting that I had given a copy to the Library so that other hon. Members would know that it was there and could read it.
I was astonished to find in my post this morning a letter from David Menhennet, the Librarian—a man for whom I have the greatest admiration—saying that on examining the document he had locked it in a cabinet pending clarification of its status and that it was a rule that private Members could not place unpublished or confidential material in the Library and citing page 196 of the 21st edition of "Erskine May". this letter says:
In my absence on Friday afternoon, the Deputy Librarian received a letter from the Secretary-General of the General Synod of the Church of England; and I have studied this letter carefully. It makes very clear that the Osborne Report is confidential to the House of Bishops and, at this stage at least, it is not for publication.I have now been offered the report back.I am disturbed because, as someone who uses the Library regularly and who has placed books in the Library before, I do not believe that it is in the invariable practice of the Library not to accept confidential information. I would recall your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the publication of the House of Fraser report, which came out over a year ago. The Observer published a two-page summary of that report, which was placed in the Library and made available even though it was clearly confidential and there was a court case concerning it. That summary was placed in the Library and hon. Members were allowed to go to the Library and see it.
The Library seems to be operating an arbitary policy and that cannot be right. Moreover, I seriously believe that for a library to refuse a book is little different from censoring that book or from burning it.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his point of order, so I have been able to look into the matter with some care. The hon. Gentleman has more or less answered his own question. As "Erskine May" makes it clear on page 196, private Members may not deposit papers in the Library, and the unpublished paper handed in by the hon. Gentleman was not considered appropriate for acceptance as a gift.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have not answered the question because perhaps you have not been told the answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) referred to The Observer publication which caused a row 12 months ago. A copy of 27 that document was placed in the Library and statements were made in the House to the effect that if any hon. Member wanted to look at the summary of the House of Fraser report which appeared in The Observer they could see a copy in the Library. Are the bishops and archbishops more important because there is a link between the Church of England and the House of Commons? Can they censure the document?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a considerable difference involved in that respect. As I understand it, this document has not been published. In effect, I suppose that it is stolen property. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Well, it was not considered appropriate for the document to be accepted by the Library.
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If the hon. Member for Bolsover will place in the Library the minutes of last Friday's meeting of the National Union of Mineworkers which lasted five hours, would we be able to read what happened with regard to the Scargill inquiry?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt would depend whether that was stolen property as well.
§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand this place, we are the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, I thought that we represented the people. Is it not fair that hon. Members, who may be asked questions on any issue, including what happens with regard to those layabouts in the Synod, 28 should be able to read any document that helps them to do their job properly? Why are we to be banned from reading documents which other people have? I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If we cannot read such documents, there is censorship, which I thought that the House was against.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis document has not been published. that is the essential difference.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We must make progress. I call Mrs. Clwyd.
§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)I want to raise a point of order about the misuse of questions by the Minister for Overseas Development. She used question No. 65, which was specific and, was about Kenya, to make a statement about Ethiopia, from where she has just returned. We have only 10 minutes in Question Time every three weeks to discuss issues of great importance about overseas aid. Therefore, the Government should make a statement on the crisis in Ethiopia where thousands of people are dying every day from famine and war. We have had no statement from the Government on that important issue and I believe that it is the wish of the House that the Government should make a statement so that we can discover as soon as possible what action they intend to take about that crisis.
§ Mr. SpeakerHad I observed the hon. Lady rising earlier-I am afraid that I did not do so-I would have called her to put her question to the Minister. I do not know whether it was my fault; if it was, I apologise.