§ Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Tourism is one of Scotland's most important industries. This afternoon, the Secretary of State for Scotland is holding a press conference in Edinburgh to announce Government policies for the structure of the tourist industry. I understand that the Secretary of State will also outline Government policies in that respect in a written answer to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, agree that that is totally unacceptable and an insult to the House. The House was entitled to hear from the Secretary of State for Scotland, to question him and to give its views on the important issue of Scottish tourism. This is not the first time that such a thing has happened. On previous occasions, you have condemned that practice as being completely unacceptable. I invite you to do the same again and to ask the Secretary of State to come to the House to explain the Government's proposals for that vital industry.
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is for a Minister to decide whether he announces a change of policy by means of a written answer or at the Dispatch Box. it is not for the Speaker to determine the way in which a Minister makes a statement to the House.
§ Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Tourism is Scotland's biggest industry in terms of employment that it offers, and many communities in the highlands and islands and elsewhere depend for their life on tourism. The Secretary of State's proposals will have a major impact on many parts of Scotland. His action, apart from being grossly disrespectful to the House, says nothing for the attitude of the Scottish Office towards the Scottish people, in announcing a decision in that way. We have previously brought our worries about the Scottish Office's growing disrespect to the Floor of the House. To articulate those worries again, we put it to you today, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary of State has an obligation to respect and to make a statement to the House, so that it may deliberate on the issue, for the good of the people of Scotland.
§ Madam SpeakerI refer the hon. Gentleman to the ruling that I just gave. The Minister concerned has already made a statement, by means of a written answer. It is not for the Speaker to instruct Ministers whether they should make a statement at the Dispatch Box or give a written answer. If any change to that convention is to be made, the Select Committee on Procedure should be requested to review the matter so that the changes that the hon. Gentleman is seeking may well take place.
§ Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise a matter with regard to the personal statement made a few minutes ago. It has always been my understanding that personal statements were vetted by the Speaker before they were made, and——
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I am sorry, and I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. He is
838 long-standing Member of the House and I have great regard for his knowledge of procedure. However, the House has just heard a personal statement, and according to "Erskine May", no reference to a personal statement should be made afterwards. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to consider the matter later and to refer it to me again. As he knows, I try to apply the rules and regulations of the House without exception. It would be better if the matter were left there at this stage.
§ Mr. JoplingIf you wish, Madam Speaker, I shall not refer to today's events; instead, if I may, I shall refer to the practice of personal statements in general. I imagine that I can do so at any time.
I have always understood that personal statements were subject to clearance by the Speaker and that, in return, they were heard uninterrupted. It is clearly a delicate matter for anyone, even the Speaker, to interrupt a personal statement, and it should be done only when absolutely necessary.
I do not want an answer now, but I wonder whether you would consider overnight and possibly give an answer next week on whether the practice for all personal statements ought to be extended to include resignation statements. I understand that resignation statements are not now subject to vetting by the Speaker. Should all such statements in future become subject to the approval of the Speaker of the day?
I can understand how difficult it is for a Speaker to make a decision on the hoof, as it were, about a personal statement involving sub judice matters. Will you consider the matter overnight and perhaps make a statement either tomorrow or next week, as you wish, on whether you think it wise to refer the matter of personal statements to the Procedure Committee?
§ Madam SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman knows well that he has the authority to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee. If he leaves the matter with me, I will consider it, without necessarily giving any commitment about reporting to the House.
§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you study the operation of the sub judice rule in the House? Certain Members, including myself, are unhappy about the way in which the law operates at the moment. I have in mind, for example the case of Mr. Alan Clark, a former Member of Parliament. When hon. Members first sought to question him about his involvement in the Matrix Churchill affair, Mr. Clark claimed that he intended to sue a newspaper, and that therefore the matter was sub judice. He did not subsequently sue the newspaper or take any further action. Hon. Members were denied the opportunity of questioning Mr. Clark on that issue because of the sub judice rule. That is clearly an inadequate operation of the rule, and I ask you, Madam Speaker, to look at the matter for the longer term.
§ Madam SpeakerThe operation of the sub judice rule is undoubtedly a matter for the Procedure Committee. The Committee recommended the rule to the House which, in turn, accepted it. I invite the hon. Gentleman to write to the Procedure Committee about the point that he has made.