§ Madam SpeakerI call Mr. Kaufman on a point of order.
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)My point of order arises out of the Prime Minister's evidence to the Scott inquiry this morning, but I raise it with you, Madam Speaker, because it relates to the Prime Minister's dealings with Members of this House and with Government evidence to the Select Committees of the House.
The Prime Minister this morning told the Scott inquiry that he did not know until November 1992 that the guidelines with regard to the embargo on arms to Iraq had been changed four years earlier, in 1988. In a letter to me dated 17 February 1992, the Prime Minister said:
Let us get the facts straight … Guidelines laying down which types of equipment could be licensed for export, and which could not were first introduced in 1980, were revised and made more stringent in 1984, and were announced to the House by Geoffrey Howe in 1985. The guidelines announced by Geoffrey Howe remained in force until the invasion in 1990 when they were replaced by a total embargo … The guidelines were enforced carefully and strictly through interdepartmental machinery established for the purpose.The Prime Minister today has confirmed that, in fact, the guidelines were not those of 1985 but were changed in 1988.I raise the matter with you, Madam Speaker, for two reasons. The first is that, when the Prime Minister was challenged on 16 November 1992 about his failure to inform me in his letter of 17 February 1992 about the change in the guidelines of 1988, he did not say as he said to the Scott inquiry today that he did not give that information because he did not know. Rather, he made it known through 10 Downing street that the information had been given to a Select Committee of the House—the Trade and Industry Select Committee—on 28 January—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman the point of order that he wishes me to deal with. Will he now come to that point?
§ Mr. KaufmanYes, of course, Madam Speaker. There are two parts to this point of order relating to you as Speaker of the House.
The first is that the Prime Minister's office announced that the change in the guidelines, which the Prime Minister now denies he knew, was made known to a Select Committee of this House of Commons on 28 January 1992, and that therefore the Prime Minister now appears to be resiling from information given to a Select Committee of the House of Commons which Ministers are required to give in good faith.
Secondly, the Prime Minister failed to give me, as a Member of the House, the information which was available to the Select Committee, not on the grounds that he did not know that that information was available, but on the grounds that everybody knew that that information was available.
The statement made by the Prime Minister at the Scott inquiry today is not compatible with information given to a House of Commons Select Committee, nor is it compatible with information given to me as a Member of the House of Commons. Therefore, at least one of the three statements made by the Prime Minister cannot be true.
530 I therefore ask that you, Madam Speaker, require the Prime Minister to make a statement clarifying the matter for the House of Commons.
§ Madam SpeakerI have no doubt that, when Lord Justice Scott has made his report, there will be ample opportunities to debate the matter on the Floor of the House. In the meantime, the answers that Ministers give to more detailed points arising during the course of the inquiry are a matter for those Ministers.
I do not give procedural advice from the Chair, but I should make it clear that any charge that Members might have been deliberately misled can only be made in the proper form and not suggested in a point of order.
§ Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that today, in the Jubilee Room in the Palace of Westminster, a meeting was addressed by members of Sinn Fein, an organisation that sponsors terrorism? I would like to express my deep outrage that such a meeting took place. It is—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Lady is raising a point of order with me.
§ Lady Olga MaitlandI will come to it.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Lady must come to it now. I am not interested in her emotions about this matter.
§ Lady Olga MaitlandIs it in order for such a meeting to take place in the Palace of Westminster, when hon. Members have been deeply offended by it and when so many hon. Members have been killed or maimed by the IRA? Would you give guidelines to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that such meetings cannot be held until the IRA ceases its violence?
§ Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw attention to the fact that this is the second time that an attempt has been made to hold a meeting to convey the particular information that was conveyed this morning, even though it was published more than a month ago in Belfast? On the first occasion, the Home Secretary issued an exclusion order against the invited speaker on the ground that that person was involved in terrorism. That view was shared by the President of the United States, who banned that same person on the ground that he was directing terrorism at a high level.
In view of the close connection between the meeting and the preparation, instigation and commission of acts of terrorism, is this not a matter of concern to the House?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman should be raising a point of order that is of concern to me.
§ Madam SpeakerI see that Mr. Corbyn is standing. As the House is aware, it is not my habit to take constant points of order on one issue. As I believe that the hon. Gentleman used his name to book the Committee Room, I must obviously hear his point of order. That will be the last point of order on that issue, because I am ready to respond.
§ Mr. CorbynOn a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to use this point of order to thank you for 531 allowing us to use that room and to thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for attending the press conference to hear what members of Sinn Fein had to say. I hope that that meeting will hasten the peace process in Northern Ireland.
§ Madam SpeakerPerhaps I should draw to the attention of all hon. Members the fact that guidelines on the booking of Committee Rooms are available from the Serjeant at Arms' Office. Hon. Members are entitled to book Committee Rooms in connection with a parliamentary subject, providing the relevant rules and regulations are followed, as I understand they were in this case.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 12 December, you certified that the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill was a matter relating exclusively to Scotland. On Thursday, however, at column 341, I asked the Leader of the House whether that Bill would follow Scottish procedure, whereby the Bill's Second Reading, Standing Committee stage and Report could be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee. He said that he had some difficulty in pursuing that suggestion, because the usual channels of communication had broken down.
If the Leader of the House has a genuine difficulty, does that not change your relationship with Standing Orders 92 and 93, to ensure that matters which you have decided and which relate exclusively to Scotland can be decided by Scottish Members of Parliament?
In The Sunday Times yesterday, Government sources were quoted as saying how many Members of Parliament who will serve on the Standing Committee, and even gave the names of some Members. That is before a vote on Second Reading, and before the Committee of Selection has even met.
There is outrage in Scotland about the idea that Scottish local government can be gerrymandered by the votes of English Conservative Members of Parliament. Can you assist Scottish Members and offer us some protection?
§ Madam SpeakerI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me some notice of his point of order. Actually, my relationship with Standing Orders 92 and 93 to which he refers is not changed. Standing Order 93 makes it clear that only a Minister of the Crown may move to refer a Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee on Second Reading.
May I help the hon. Gentleman further? If he has in mind further scrutiny once the Bill has been read a Second time, may I suggest that he discusses with the Public Bill Office during the course of today the alternatives that might be available to him, because, as he well knows, it is not the practice of the Chair to give procedural advice across the Floor of the Chamber.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a totally different aspect of the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), Madam Speaker, may I bring to your attention the problem of Members of this House attending the Scott inquiry? Whereas, when civil servants were being interviewed, I was received with total courtesy at Buckingham gate, the shadow Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), had to queue for an hour and a quarter this morning in very cold 532 conditions on the grounds that a place could not be reserved for Members of the House who had given notice of their desire to attend.
Apparently, an agreement has been reached that selected members of the press will be allowed reserved seats. I do not complain about that, but, if members of the press have reserved seats, surely Members of the House with direct responsibilities in relation to the inquiry should also be afforded the courtesy of seats at Buckingham gate.
§ Madam SpeakerI know nothing about agreements for visitors' or press tickets to the Scott inquiry. I am sure that the House will support me in saying that I have sufficient responsibilities in relation to parliamentary duties in the House, without looking for reserved seats for Members, however important they may be, at an outside inquiry.
§ Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you can assist me with the procedures that are called into question by a press release issued today by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who is in his place, which has been advised to me by an estimable local paper, the Largs and Millport Weekly News. The press release opens with the words:
Speaking in the House of Commons debate on the reform of local government in Scotland".That is presumption beyond belief, because you and I know that, although the hon. Member for Ayr has many talents, second sight is not one of them. Is not that a preemption of your rights, Madam Speaker?I have no wish to prolong this point of order, so I shall not read the hon. Gentleman's press speech. I have no wish to have him sent away to write another, because I doubt whether his joined-up writing could handle it. The press release goes on to attack other hon. Members—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman need go no further. I think that I have got his point. Now, what does Mr. Gallie have to say?
§ Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)Thank you, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) did not have the courtesy to advise me that he was going to refer to me on this occasion. Had he had a copy of the press release, he would have seen that it was clearly embargoed until 10 pm tonight, at which time I could have confirmed whether I had been called to speak. It was my understanding that that was common practice, and that the hon. Gentleman had certainly used such a practice himself.
§ Madam SpeakerNo, I can deal with this. I have heard enough.
I deprecate the hon. Gentleman's action, as I would if it were any hon. Member, of any party. If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye tonight, he can be absolutely certain that I shall check what he has to say against delivery. Could we not end points of order on that note?
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)Do you recall, Madam Speaker, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) did exactly the same but without the embargo?
§ Madam SpeakerI have just deprecated the possibility that any hon. Member of any party might do that. It certainly did not happen in my time as a Back Bencher, and I wish that we could get back to those good old days.