§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you notice of my intention to raise a point of order, which I believe is a matter of some consequence to the House of Commons.
In The Times today, under the headline
Betty Boothroyd set to quit early as Speaker"—something that would be regretted by many of us—Ministers are quoted as opining on the matter. I do not know that it is the job of Ministers to opine in public on the matter of the retirement date of the Speaker of the House of Commons. That is a matter, rather, for the House of Commons.Be that as it may, the article also states:
Loyalist Labour MPs feel that she can be too lenient in giving Commons time to government critics, such as Tony Benn and George Galloway over Iraq.I was telephoned yesterday by an experienced member of the Lobby, asking for my comment on the idea that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and I had been given favourable treatment by you, Madam Speaker, in putting a minority case on Iraq—which, incidentally, may be far from a minority case in the country as a whole. I refuted the idea that we had been treated favourably. I said that we had been treated fairly, and that is all that Members of Parliament can ask of a Speaker.The tenor of the conversation suggested nothing about loyalist Labour Members of Parliaments having said any such thing. It was quite clear that the Government press office had said it. That is rather a different matter. The issue that I put before the House is whether it is acceptable that spin doctors of any Government should spin against the judgment of the Speaker of the House of Commons. A Speaker's judgment can be criticised only by substantive motion of the House, can it not? It is important that only a substantive motion of the House could criticise the judgment of the Speaker in such a matter. Frankly, it has become a question of the House of Commons versus Downing street and the sooner that that is faced up to, the better.
Two Parliaments ago, I had an Adjournment debate on the role of the Prime Minister's press secretary, who at that time was Bernard Ingham. It may be necessary for one of us to raise another Adjournment debate on that subject because this matter transcends party politics.
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I contribute?
§ Madam SpeakerWhy not?
§ Mr. BennI urge you, Madam Speaker, to consider the point that my hon. Friend has raised because, quite apart from any party advantage that may be gained, that practice has grown up over a long period with all Governments, going right back to the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and perhaps that of Harold Wilson. Information is conveyed to the public through the press and, increasingly, 56 Members of Parliament have to listen to the "Today" programme or watch the David Frost interview to find out what a Minister will say in the House later.
Given your historic duty not only to exercise the fairness from which I have benefited, but to protect the House, I urge you, Madam Speaker, to warn Ministers that it is an offence to authorise their press officers to make statements that should be made to the House. Will you also warn them that those press officers who criticise the Chair are in breach of a long-term practice? As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) says, that can be dealt with only by a substantive motion in the House, which I once tabled much to my cost later, when I found it hard to catch the Speaker's eye.
§ Madam SpeakerI think that what is being expressed is not a point of order, but a point of view. I am sure that it will be noted in the appropriate places. There is a rainbow of views to be expressed in this House and, for as long as I am Speaker, those views will be heard.
May I refer to the earlier point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? I wish those who are interested to know that I have no intention to retire. When I come to that decision, this House will be the first to know.
§ Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you advise the House whether the Government will make a statement on the allegations of breaches of company law by the former Paymaster General and on what the Government intend to do about those?
§ Madam SpeakerI have not been informed that a statement will be made on that issue. I am told during the course of the early morning when the Government intend to make a statement. I may hear something tomorrow morning, but so far I know nothing about it.
§ Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any intimations from the Prime Minister of his intention to make a statement about his extraordinary decision to appoint the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), as personal envoy representing him with Ministers from a foreign Government? Clearly, that raises constitutional concerns, particularly about accountability to the House. If you have received no such indication, may we have a debate on the matter at some point?
§ Madam SpeakerI am not in control of the business of the House and I have received no such intimation from the Prime Minister. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister answers questions for half an hour on Wednesdays and Back Benchers have an opportunity to question him then. If not, the Leader of the Opposition has ample opportunity to do so on that issue.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As this is our first sitting after the Christmas recess, I wish to raise the matter of the resignation of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) from the Department of Trade and Industry. He resigned because he thought that he had 57 committed serious financial improprieties in relation to his building society, but a number of other issues arise. Have you been informed that a Minister will make a statement on whether the proper ministerial declarations were made? I know that this matter should be investigated by the Permanent Secretary of the Department concerned, and ultimately by the Cabinet Secretary, but it is of interest to the House and the public to know whether such an investigation will be carried out and, if so, whether the results will be publicised.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerDoes it relate?
§ Mr. SkinnerYes, it does.
On the question of registration, before making any statement, or guiding anyone else to make one, would you, Madam Speaker, take note of the fact that the House decided, very solemnly, to ensure that every Member of Parliament who had outside interests entered those interests and made sure that the money that they obtained thereby—in bands of £5,000 and upwards—was in the register? Anyone looking at the register will find that at least 30 Tories, some of them Front Benchers, have refused to abide by the decision of the House. It is high time they were made to do so.
§ Madam SpeakerIf any hon. Member wants to press this further there are two routes. One concerns the ministerial code of conduct—the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who raised the point of order, might want to raise that with the Prime Minister—and there is the Commissioner for Standards, if others are concerned about items not being registered.