Points of Order (Hansard, 23 February 1999)

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise a gentle point of order on behalf of a minority—a quartet of us? I refer to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and me. We have no more wisdom than anyone else in this House, but it so happens that we are the four who have actually been to Iraq and have seen the holocaust. There are 560,000 dead children, and we have seen the pictures on the front of The Tribune newspaper. When one sees—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
Order. I must equally gently remind the hon. Gentleman—who has long experience in the House—that there are other opportunities to pursue a matter of argument. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

§ Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware of the resignation this morning of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), following his leak to the Foreign Secretary of a Select Committee document in January. You will also be aware of a number of written questions to the Foreign Office asking when exactly it was shown drafts or amendments of the Sierra Leone report. The answers given have at best shown grave discrepancies, and the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) last week by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), could have led hon. Members to believe that the Foreign Office had no sight of any document before 8 o'clock on the day of the embargo.
In the light of the resignation, and the admission this morning by the hon. Member for Dundee, West that he had shown a copy of the draft report to the Foreign Secretary one month before publication, is it not your view that the Foreign Secretary is not only complicit but should come to the House to make a statement? Has he applied to make such a statement?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
On the latter point, no; but it is not a matter for the Chair to have a view on. The hon. Gentleman's point of order was presaged by a question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and, in the course of exchanges, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), set out the exact position. I understand that the matter is already being handled by the Committee and, following the due process, the matter may come before the House at some subsequent time.

§ Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there not a clear distinction between the procedure that the Foreign Affairs Committee must adopt, and that has quite rightly been put in train with the Procedure Committee, to deal with the leaking of the report, and the reply to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), which was disingenuous in suggesting that the first sight the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers had of the report 209 was on the morning of its publication, when it is clear from the statement by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that the Foreign Office had sight of the report a month earlier? Have the Foreign Secretary or any of his Ministers given any indication to the Chair that they want to correct that misapprehension?

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Accepting—you have already guided us most helpfully on the point—what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has said about the role of the Foreign Affairs Committee in investigating its side of the matter, which it properly must do, can you advise the House whether there is anything that we can do to find out what the role of the Foreign Office was in the matter?
The role of the Committee and its members will be properly investigated, as the Chairman has said, but how can we pursue the role of the Foreign Office, especially in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) have said about the inadequacy—I put it no more strongly—of recent Foreign Office answers?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Those are not points of order on which the Chair can rule. I have answered the question whether notification of any statement has been received. No such notification has been received. When Ministers make statements is entirely a matter for the Government. There are, of course, many ways open to right hon. and hon. Members to raise points of debate, and I am sure that it is not beyond their ingenuity to find those ways if there are points of argument that they want to pursue.

§ Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be 210 in order for the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), to make a statement to clarify the apparent discrepancies that have been pointed out?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that that again is not a matter on which the Chair can rule. The Leader of the House will have heard the request that was made, and—

§ Mr. Forth
Not here.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It was made at an earlier stage.
The Leader of the House will have the matter drawn to her attention, but it is entirely a matter for the Government to decide when and which Ministers make statements to the House.

§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reputation of the House is largely in the hands of the conduct of its Members, and a more onerous responsibility falls on the senior Members, and especially the Prime Minister. In response to a question from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) earlier today, the Prime Minister made a remark—I am not certain that it will have been picked up by the reporters—about the cracked Wedgwood argument. He then failed to address the points that were put to him. Could you draw his attention to the fact that such conduct does not do the reputation of the House any good?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I did not hear the remark and I cannot make a retrospective ruling as to whether points of propriety are raised. There can be no further point of order on which I can rule. We now come to a ten-minute Bill.