HC Deb 12 November 1991 vol 198 cc915-6
Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have not raised this matter before. I have no wish to question your ruling. I am a member of the Select Committee on Health and, as you know, the House has referred to the Select Committee on Privileges the important issue of the leaked report. In view of doubts that have been raised in the House and elsewhere, may I ask for clarification on whether the Privileges Committee is free to consider the role of the Secretary of State for Health and senior officials in his Department and, most important, the role of the parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor)? Can you make it clear that these matters will be dealt with urgently and, in view of the credibility of all Select Committees, will you ensure that a firm conclusion is reached?

Mr. Speaker

I confirm that the Committee is free to look into all those matters.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not it extraordinary that Opposition Members are sanctimoniously concerned about leaks when their Front-Bench spokesmen live off leaks from Departments?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about a matter on today's Order Paper that is causing some confusion. Early-day motion 117 commends the Bolshevik communist revolution. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] Some Opposition Members say "Hear, hear". As you know, Mr. Speaker, the new model Labour party has been assiduously trying to distance itself from its Bolshevik friends. However, a Labour Whip has signed this motion. Can you clarify Labour party policy by saying whether Labour is in favour of Bolshevism or against it?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman and the House know that early-day motions are expressions of opinion. The motion was in order when it was put down and it is open to any hon. Member to support it—or amend it—if he or she wishes.

Mr. Ian Bruce (Dorset, South)

Further to the previous point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Thursday, a correct point of order was raised with Mr. Deputy Speaker about what one should do with matters arising from the first report of the Select Committee on Health. It was ruled clearly that as this was being automatically sent to the Select Committee on Privileges, it could not be discussed on the Floor of the House. However, just before the point of order was raised, a group of Labour Members came in and raised, on spurious points of order, allegations against the Secretary of State for Health arising from matters that did not appear in the report. They implied that these allegations were in the report. How can we refer this matter? Is it for you, or is it a matter for the Select Committee on Privileges? There was a conspiracy among Labour Members to put on the record points that do not arise from the report.

Mr. Speaker

Did I hear the hon. Gentleman say that this happened on Thursday when I was in the Chair? This is Tuesday and it would have been appropriate for him to have raised this matter then. We can go no further on this point today.