HC Deb 30 November 1994 vol 250 cc1222-4 4.32 pm
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to put to you in the House a point that I put in a letter this morning in respect of the Committee of Privileges.

You will recall, Madam Speaker, that in the debate on 31 October, I said that I intended to publish a report. I did that and I gave it to you. You made a statement on 2 November in which you drew attention to the issue raised by my action. You asked the Committee of Privileges to meet and to report so that the House can have an early opportunity to consider this matter in an orderly manner and to take any action that it may think fit." —[Official Report, 2 November 1994; Vol. 248, c. 1564.] Normally a report of the Committee of Privileges is presented to the House by the Leader of the House, and on this occasion that would have allowed the House to consider not only the report but the alternative draft that I submitted. However, to my surprise—I make no complaint, because I was notified—the Government decided to table a motion tonight to remove me from that Committee and not to present its report. Although the motion is debatable, it cannot be debated because no time has been made available.

I am not making any complaint of sharp practice, but that decision has made it impossible for the House to have an orderly debate on the matter: it has not received the report—although it has been published—and hon. Members are not to have their attention drawn to the report for which you, Madam Speaker, asked. No time will be available tonight to debate a matter of considerable importance.

I should be grateful if you could amplify the statement that you made on 2 November, to make it clear that what you expect is that the House will have the Privileges Committee report put before it and be invited either to accept or reject it, which it is perfectly free to do. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise this point of order because, whatever the merits of the matter, it is a very important question.

Madam Speaker

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his very important point of order.

The House will have noted that the report of the Committee of Privileges is a special report recommending a certain course of action. It is not a substantive report on the actual complaint that has been referred to the Committee. It is in order and, indeed, it is normal practice, for the House to deal with such a special report by way of a motion inviting the House to take the action that the Committee has recommended.

As the right hon. Gentleman has himself already indicated, any Member of the House can seek to force a debate on a motion of the kind that has been tabled today by the expedient of objecting to it after 10 o'clock.

Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a letter that several of my hon. Friends and I received today from an Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), asking whether I would give him advance indication of my voting intentions in Government votes next week. I understand why that information will be of more than passing interest to the Government Whip, but it comes as a bit of a surprise to find that the Opposition Whips believe that I should be accountable to them as well.

I was wondering whether you, Madam Speaker, as a former Whip yourself, would be willing to organise a training workshop for the new Labour Whips so that they understand their responsibilities more clearly, and also perhaps to tell them which Members of the House sit on which side.

Madam Speaker

As a former Whip, I think I never fell into that trap. I was always very keen to see that my correspondence went to the right recipient.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I raise a succinct point of order, of which I have given you notice, relating to the new rules recently agreed by the House for sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee?

The impression was given that the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Law Officers could both make statements to the Committee and answer Adjournment debates. Indeed, that was the initial clear understanding of the Government Chief Whip's Office, the usual channels, the political correspondents and editors of The Herald and The Scotsman and parliamentary colleagues of all parties. I think that the Secretary of State would not mind if I said that he himself was very vague about it, and under the impression that the Lord Advocate could answer Adjournment debates.

However, your advisers—as usual, I do not doubt that they are right; they have a habit of being right—contend that, under the arrangements as drafted, the Lord Advocate cannot answer Adjournment debates. As it appears that it was the Government's original intention to allow such an innovation, could I ask whether you have had any approach to rectify the matter?

This is more than an academic, parliamentary, pedantic point, because it raises the subject of Lockerbie, in relation to which the view expressed by the Prime Minister in answer to questions is that the lead Department is the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate's Department. As Lockerbie was the biggest mass murder perpetrated against western civilians since 1945, and as some of us have the gravest doubts about on-going policy as to whether Libya was responsible at all, surely the matter should be ironed out.

Madam Speaker

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his point of order.

The Standing Orders relating to Scottish business permit the participation of Scottish Office Ministers or Law Officers who are not members of the Committee in the business of the Committee only in the context of ministerial statements. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's direct questions, I have had no approach to change the Standing Orders. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make changes to the existing rules, he will need to find a way to amend the Standing Orders, which, as he knows, have only recently been approved by the House.

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Secretary of State or those in his office were not too clear about the matter. Perhaps the Secretary of State is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue so that the situation has now been made clear.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Tuesday, immediately after the Government lost their majority, I went to the Table Office, for which ultimately you have some responsibility, and asked the Clerks about the membership of Select and Standing Committees and the number of Opposition Members as opposed to Government Members on those Committees. They said that consultations were taking place at a much higher level.

Conflicting stories and advice have come from different quarters about what happened at various times in 1974–79 when Labour was in power. It appears that, certainly at that time, Labour had no more than parity on certain Committees while on others it had a majority of one.

There is another problem to which we should turn our attention, and it relates not only to the number of Members on Committees and the fact that, on some Committees, the Opposition should be in the majority. I refer to the question of what happens in relation to the nine Tory Members who no longer have the Tory Whip. If any of those hon. Members is serving on Select or Standing Committees there is an argument about which side they are serving on. Therefore it is time that we had a statement. I have no doubt that discussions will take place.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover)

The hon. Gentleman should sit on a Committee.

Mr. Skinner

I have, many times. Check the record.

This is an important issue, and I want to know exactly what will happen. The Government have deprived themselves of their majority and should now be in a minority on those Committees. The Select Committees are in chaos because some of the nine Members who have lost the Whip serve on them. Appropriate action should be taken in all those cases and it is high time that we were all given the exact picture—and not just through the usual channels—of what is to take place on these various Committees.

Madam Speaker

I have not had a request from a Minister or from the Leader of the House to make a statement on this matter. I have made my own inquiries and I understand that it is a matter for the Committee of Selection. I am sure that matters will be resolved, perhaps not satisfactorily for everybody concerned, but for the majority of hon. Members.