§ Madam SpeakerI have a statement to make arising from a number of privilege complaints that I have received from Members based on an article which appeared in The Sunday Times newspaper of 10 July. My inquiries went wider than simply accepting the account of matters as given by the newspaper itself.
It is relevant to the issue that I should remind the House of a paragraph in the first report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests of the Session 1991–92, which reads as follows:
There is a danger that some Members may make the mistake of believing that correct registration and declaration adequately discharge their public responsibilities in respect of their private interests. Such a mistake could have serious consequences both for the Member concerned and ultimately for the House. As the Speaker reminded the Committee, 'a Member must be vigilant that his actions do not tend to bring the House into disrepute' and, in particular, 'Members who hold consultancy and similar positions must ensure that they do not use their position as Members improperly'. A financial inducement to take a particular course of action in Parliament may constitute a bribe and thus be an offence against the law of Parliament".It is because I consider that there is an urgent need to clarify the law of Parliament in that area that I am prepared to grant precedence to a motion on that complaint, and I do so without having the need to pass judgment on the particular actions of any of the several Members referred to in the newspaper article.I now turn to the conduct of the newspaper itself. "Erskine May", at page 128, states:
the offering to a Member of either House of a bribe to influence him in his conduct as a Member, or of any fee or reward in connection with the promotion of…any…matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the House…has been treated as a breach of privilege.This, too, is an aspect of the affair which I believe merits further examination, as well as the subsidiary matter of the clandestine recording of Members' conversations within the precincts.If, as a result of a motion based on those issues, the matter is referred by the House to the Committee of Privileges, I should like to make it clear that the Committee will have power to inquire not only into the matter of the particular complaint, but into the facts surrounding and reasonably connected with it, and into the principles of the law and custom of privilege which are concerned. I hope that it will use that power for the assistance of the House in a difficult area.
The procedure now is for a motion to have precedence at the commencement of business at 3.30 tomorrow. As I said, I have received a number of complaints, including one from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). He will now be able to table a motion in the proper form for tomorrow's debate.
§ Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I went before the Select Committee on Privileges in 1974 as the Member of Parliament who originally raised the question of "MPs for hire". I was severely censured for contempt of the House, although I was the whistleblower and not the man who was taking the money.
One of the grievances about this procedure, which I have borne for 20 years, is that there are no Hansard records of the Privileges Committee. The Committee can 830 decide to meet in private—and it did. It can decide to ask the people who come before it whether they wish to write to the Committee, and then various communications channels advise the Member to write to the Committee, because, if hon. Members go before top Attorneys-General, they are likely to face severe questioning.
There is no guarantee that the report is ever brought back to the House to be debated. It certainly was not in my case, even though Reggie Maudling and the other two guys—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. Would the hon. Gentleman please come to his point of order?
§ Mr. AshtonI am coming to my point of order. Is it possible for you, Madam Speaker, to make a ruling now, especially with regard to The Sunday Times, that the Hansard report must be printed in full and that the Committee must sit in public? If not, there will be a great deal of disagreement about the recommendations.
§ Madam SpeakerI think that the hon. Gentleman understands that Committees are in charge of their own proceedings. The hon. Gentleman's point is not a point of order, but it is very much a matter for debate tomorrow. I hope that he will catch my eye in tomorrow's debate. As he knows, the Committee itself must determine how it proceeds.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to paragraph 24 of the first report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests in 1991? It deals with occasions when an hon. Member should withdraw from Committee proceedings. In this context, I refer to the proposed Privileges Committee. The Select Committee on Members' Interests said in its report:
We feel that it is right that when a member of a committee, particularly the Chairman, has a pecuniary interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry or when he or she considers that a personal interest may reflect upon the work of the committee or its subsequent report, the Member should stand aside from the committee proceedings relating to it. This convention is so fundamental to the proper conduct of select committee business that we recommend that it should be reinforced by an appropriate resolution of the House.In column 945—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. Is this a point of order for me?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursAbsolutely, Madam Speaker. It is a vital point.
In column 945 on 13 July 1992, that recommendation was enshrined as a rule of the House. It was ordered:
That this House takes note of the First Reportand in particular paragraph 24, dealing withwithdrawal from Committee proceedings."—[Official Report, 13 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 945.]I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that the business of this Committee is consultancy. It is examining the future of consultancy. If the Privileges Committee is to comprise the great and the eminent in our ranks—that is, Privy Councillors who, in the main, have sat on all previous Privileges Committees in the House while I have been a Member—who are Members of Parliament who have directorships and consultancies in abundance, inbuilt in the Committee will be a conflict of interest which will prevent the Committee from properly deliberating on these matters. I believe—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursMay I finish my point of order, Madam Speaker?
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I want to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, as does the House. However, he is anticipating a Committee that has not yet been established. We have not even had the motion tabled on the Order Paper; we are not into debate. Although these are very valuable points, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make them in the debate tomorrow. Would he come to the point that he is putting to me as a point of order?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursI will come to the point, Madam Speaker.
I wonder whether you can give the House an assurance that the conflict of interest to which I referred, in so far as the Privileges Committee will be dealing with the issue of consultancy, will not be allowed to happen in this case, or its report will be discredited? The public outside expect an objective assessment about what is in the public interest and what is good for Parliament. We need that assurance, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerOf course all the rules of the House will be respected. It is for the House to decide who will be members of that Committee.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I want no further points of order on this matter. I have made a very considered statement on this issue, and I hope that hon. Members will consider that it is a full statement. There is nothing further I can add. The points of order that hon. Members are now raising are matters of debate. They are for the debate tomorrow; they are not points of order for me.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I have just made my point about my considered statement. I cannot add further to it now. I ask those hon. Members who still persist in seeking to raise their points of order to reflect on the important statement that I have just made. They should not pursue those points of order now, but should seek to make them in the debate tomorrow.
§ Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Education Question Time, I raised the matter of an OFSTED report on Finborough school in Suffolk. The Secretary of State claimed to have no knowledge of it, but earlier this year I wrote to him about it. On 17 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools replied to me; he named the school and noted my concerns. Can the Secretary of State be brought back to the House to correct his misleading statement?
§ Madam SpeakerNot while I am in the Chair, but I believe that the hon. Member may well find other parliamentary opportunities to make his point.
§ Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to be called. During Education Question Time, the Secretary of State accused my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) of sending her children to a private school, but grant-maintained schools are state schools. What is more, that child is going to the school that his father attended—the local state school. Is it not scandalous that that sort of—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. It is totally outrageous that Members' children, on whichever side of the House their parents may sit, should be used in politics across the Floor of the House.
§ Sir John Gorst (Hendon, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerIt does not relate to my statement, presumably, because I have made myself quite clear about it.
§ Sir John GorstThe point of order that I wish to put to you, Madam Speaker, is about the question of sub judice with regard to the matter on which you made your statement. The suggestion has been made that a Select Committee which is considering the conduct of the press might examine this issue. Where the matter now stands, are the press precluded from any discussion on the basis that it is sub judice? That is the sole point I want to make.
§ Madam SpeakerThat is a hypothetical question. If the hon. Gentleman would care to examine my statement in detail, he will see that it covers his points.
§ Mr. Bill Michie (Sheffield, Heeley)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I need some clarification of your statement, as a member of the hard-working Select Committee on Members' Interests. Do you think that that Committee has any interest in this case? As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said, given that the Committee has dealt with lobbying before, I hope that it will not be ignored on this occasion.
§ Madam SpeakerI think that that question might be put in tomorrow's debate. It is not a point of order for me today.