§ 4.3 pm
§ Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw to your attention the front page and page 2 of The Guardian today, where there appears a report that purports to record what has taken place in the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges? The best way of handling this may be for the Select Committees concerned to deal with it in the usual way and undertake a leak inquiry. None the less, the matter is obviously of considerable importance and, although fortunately there have been few leaks from Select Committees recently, any leak casts into doubt the integrity of the Select Committee system, especially perhaps in relation to that particular Select Committee. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I should be grateful if you will consider whether other action might appropriately be taken.
§ Madam SpeakerIf there has been a leak, I deprecate it most strongly. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware—he has made the point himself—it is, first, for the Committee itself to look into the matter when there appears to have been unauthorised publication of its proceedings. Once the facts are established, the Committee may make proposals for further action. I am sure that, as a result of his point of order, the Committee will look into the matter, but I shall take considerable interest in its activities on it.
§ Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the extraordinary events in Committee Room 10 this morning. at the meeting of European Standing Committee B, to discuss documents relating to economic and monetary union? Are you aware, that Committee Room 10, which is one of our largest rooms, was so crowded that not all hon. Members who wanted to participate in the proceedings could find seats? More importantly, are you aware that the Government were defeated on their motion, and that the Committee refused even to take note of the documents before it, because hon. Members felt that those issues warranted a full debate in the Chamber?
Will you confirm, Madam Speaker, that the Government could, were they so unwise, simply table a motion so that the House has to decide the issue on a forthwith basis, and without any further debate? Such action would clearly be against the wishes of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, however, as evidenced by the support for the all-party Select Committee's motion, which is on the Order Paper.
Madam Speaker, you may recall that, when I raised similar issues in the past, the Leader of the House said that he accepted that opportunities should be provided for proper parliamentary debate on those issues. Therefore, I wish to ask you what you might be able to do to protect the rights of hon. Members, when the Government are so obviously trying to stifle debate.
§ Madam SpeakerWait just a moment. There is obviously strong feeling in the House about this matter. I am certainly not going to take all the points of order— 989 because they will become speeches—but I want the flavour of the House on this matter. Therefore, I shall take one or two points of order, so that I am quite aware of what has happened.
§ Madam SpeakerJust a moment; I select the hon. Members here. Mr. Wilshire.
§ Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to ask you specifically about Standing Order No. 102, and I apologise for giving you only brief notice about this point earlier. The purpose of today's meeting, as I understood it, was to enable the Government to say at the European summit in December, that scrutiny had taken place of the three documents on economic and monetary union.
There were many points of order, and I specifically asked a formal question of the Chairman about the issue of scrutiny. I asked, "Does the fact that the Government have moved the motion equal scrutiny, and what will be the position if this Committee decides not even to take note?" The Chairman ruled that simply moving the motion did not amount to scrutiny. At 1 o'clock, the Committee voted not to take note.
By 2 o'clock, the Government were claiming that the morning's farcical proceedings indeed amounted to scrutiny. Therefore, may we have your ruling on whether scrutiny has taken place, and on whether the House has concluded this business—or does it still hang in the air?
§ Madam SpeakerI call Mr. Hood, Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation.
§ Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I appeal to you to protect the integrity of the House—after the events of the past few days, and of today in Standing Committee B—and of my Select Committee? We do not recommend lightly that debates should take place on the Floor of the House. We did so, however, because of the importance of those three very important documents and our belief that the Standing Committee—with no disrespect to it—could not do justice to the necessary debate. We thought that it was necessary that discussion should take place in the House, and that is what we recommended. It was a unanimous decision of the Committee. I wrote to the Leader of the House on 6 November expressing our strong views, and he replied saying that, unfortunately, he could not agree to our wishes. A motion on the Order Paper, which was signed unanimously by members of the Committee, is now supported by more than 150 Members.
Will the Leader of the House give notice in his business statement tomorrow of when a motion will be dealt with, so that the Government cannot just slip it in at short notice late at night? Proper notice should be given, so that the House has a chance to retrieve its integrity.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It would be helpful if you could confirm that the situation is not unprecedented, although it would be undesirable to repeat it too often. Perhaps one of the ways forward would be to reach agreement that, at least in the next Parliament if not from now on, matters 990 will be taken on the Floor of the House when the Select Committee recommends it. Would it not be right to put it on record that the Leader of the House has written to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee saying that he intends that the euro, EMU and stability will be debated on the Floor of the House before the Dublin summit?
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation.
Is it not a fact that the integrity of the House will not be maintained even if the Government move a motion on the Order Paper and we know the date on which they will, because it will be taken forthwith and there will be no debate? May I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Madam Speaker, whether he can make a business statement on when that motion will be tabled? Do you not feel that the House should consider referring the procedure of taking such matters forthwith to the Select Committee on Procedure? Some time ago, before the Standing Orders were changed, such matters were taken after debate.
§ Madam SpeakerI am taking no further points of order on that subject. I think that I have the flavour of the House on the matter.
§ Madam SpeakerNo. I must clear this matter up first.
What happened in European Standing Committee B this morning has, I understand, been reported to the House by the Chairman, as laid down in Standing Order No. 102(8). Further proceedings may follow in the House in accordance with the next paragraph of the Standing Order. I do not think that it is necessary or proper for me to say anything else at this stage. It is a matter for the Government to resolve. The Leader of the House will be before us tomorrow to answer business questions— [Interruption.] Order. I shall make further inquiries. I am concerned about maintaining the integrity of the House's procedures.
§ Madam SpeakerIs it a different point of order?
§ Mr. WinnickYes. I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether you can give us guidance—or certainly give me guidance—over the procedure for statements if information is received later than noon. I ask that question because it now appears that the Cabinet Secretary has protested in the strongest possible way over the manner in which his name and the names of Treasury civil servants have been used purely and simply for party political propaganda. In such circumstances, could a statement be made today?
The distinction between the Government, as such, and party political propaganda is very important. Since the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, has made the strongest possible protest to Treasury Ministers, I believe 991 that it is necessary for the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary to explain to the House what has happened and why the lies that are being told about the Opposition have been put out and associated with the name of the Cabinet Secretary.
§ Madam SpeakerOf course, it is perfectly in order for any Minister to make a statement late in the day. Ministers on the Treasury Bench have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. I have not been informed that a statement is forthcoming.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On precisely the same matter, Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Cabinet Secretary is extremely angry—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I have answered the point of order that was put to me. There were two questions: is it possible for a statement to be made later today, and will one be made? It is possible, but I have not been informed by a Minister that a statement is forthcoming. Those on the Treasury Bench have heard the feelings of the two hon. Members who have raised points of order on that issue.
§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of this point of order, but I have only just had a fax through about it. You will be aware of the severe weather affecting some parts of these islands. Several villages in my constituency have lost their electricity since yesterday morning, including 200 people in the village of Deiniolen, where several elderly people may be severely affected.
The question has arisen whether Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry have responsibility for such matters. Can you confirm that it would be in order for the President of the Board of Trade or one of his Ministers to come to the House, in view of the fact that it is a privatised electricity company that is now unable to maintain electricity supplies?
§ Madam SpeakerIt is up to a Minister to determine whether he wishes to come and make such a statement. Of course I am aware of the severe weather in many parts of this country, not only in Wales but in Scotland. No doubt that is the subject of the next point of order to come my way.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)Not exactly, Madam Speaker. It is a different point of order. As you know, we are all grateful for the judicious and fair way in which you allocate supplementary questions, but sometimes events can occur that are outwith your immediate discretion. At Scottish questions today, seven of the first 12 questions taken were from hon. Members from English constituencies. That pattern has been repeated over a number of Scottish Question Times.
May I ask you to consider three facts? First, many of those hon. Members left immediately after asking their questions, showing that their interest in Scottish affairs was perhaps not too profound. Secondly, there has been a suggestion that their interest is not entirely spontaneous, 992 but that they are being orchestrated by the Government Whips' office. Thirdly, the way in which many expressions were made about Scotland causes offence north of the border and moved the normally mild-mannered hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to something of an outburst. May I ask you to consider whether the procedures of the House are being abused? Is there any intervention that you can make to prevent Scottish questions from degenerating further?
§ Madam SpeakerI understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but I recall calling two hon. Members from his party during Scottish questions today. It is good to get these things on the record. Out of the total of 46 supplementary questions, 34 were from Scottish Members. I keep a running total as we go through Scottish questions. I should also like to put on record the fact that the Members of the official Opposition tabled 27 questions. It would have been possible for them to table 40, but only 27 were tabled. I like to keep the House informed of the record that I keep up to date.
§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point arises from your ruling on the Government Whips having listened to the representations in the House about the need for a statement on Sir Robin Butler's refutation of the suggestion that he was involved in assisting the Government politically.
Surely the problem is that the House is impotent to call to account the arbitrary behaviour of Government spokespersons. What measures are at our disposal in this place to stop the arrogance of a Government who behave in that way towards Sir Robin Butler and other civil servants? Is there nothing in our armoury that will enable us to make them make a statement this afternoon?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is very wise in the use of our Standing Orders and all our procedures. He needs no guidance from me. There is an Order Paper. He can use Question Time, early-day motions, ten-minute Bills or Adjournment debates. There are so many ways in which he might raise such matters.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I am hearing no further points of order about that. There is important business before the House.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursIt is an important matter.
§ Madam SpeakerAnother matter?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursCould you advise civil servants outside Parliament on a matter of procedure in the Commons—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I have no authority over civil servants; my authority is only in the House. That is the answer.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I have authority only in this House—nothing to do with civil servants.