Points of Order (Hansard, 24 March 1999)

§ Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At 2 o'clock this afternoon, the House of Lords announced its decision in the case of Senator Pinochet. According to Lord Browne-Wilkinson: The result of this decision is to eliminate the majority of the charges levelled against Senator Pinochet by the Government of Spain and relied upon as the basis for extraditing him. The charges have been drastically reduced, and only very limited charges remain. In giving judgment, their lordships said that the whole matter should be reconsidered by the Home Secretary.
As you know, Madam Speaker, it has been the consistent view of the Opposition that this matter should be settled in Chile, and not here. What I would like to ask for goes further than what the Deputy Prime Minister has just said. I would like to ask the Home Secretary to review the case with the utmost urgency, and to make a statement to the House as soon as possible—preferably in the next few days.

§ Madam Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman and the House will have heard what the Deputy Prime Minister has had to say. I am sure that most Members will know that the House of Lords has decided that Senator Pinochet does not have immunity from prosecution in respect of some charges in the warrants against him. Extradition proceedings against the senator are still pending. The courts will have to decide whether the evidence against the senator is sufficient to warrant his trial in Spain.
The remaining charges relate to events that have occurred since 1988 and I cannot, under our sub judice rule, allow a reference to them. Following what I have said, it will be obvious to hon. Members that I have not had an application from the Home Secretary to make a statement on those matters. The Home Secretary is on the Front Bench and will have heard the exchanges.

§ Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the beginning of this month, I asked you what a Government Minister should do with a leaked document. Subsequently, you kindly wrote to me to explain that you were referring the matter to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Are you now in a position to report any progress?

§ Madam Speaker
Yes, I am. When the hon. Gentleman raised the matter with me—quite rightly—I undertook to look into it and to reflect on it. I am sorry that he has not been able to follow what has happened since then. Subsequently, I asked the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to take the issue under consideration. Its views were communicated to me in a letter, which was placed in the Library.
In essence, the Committee's view is that the fundamental responsibility of Members who receive leaked copies of Select Committee reports before publication must be to act in a way that does not impede the Select Committee in the discharge of its responsibilities to the House. In the judgment of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Member should not make use of leaked Select Committee papers and should return them without delay to the Clerk of the Select Committee.
394 The Standards and Privileges Committee may have more to say on the subject once it has completed its inquiry into the leak from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the Leader of the House made it plain that it would be possible for tomorrow's debate to relate to the situation in Kosovo, which the House would otherwise have no opportunity to discuss. On an Adjournment debate, there is not normally a vote, although it is possible to register an opinion on the Adjournment. That has been done; I have done it myself. Ought not the Government, in view of the, gravity of the decision announced yesterday, to replace the Adjournment debate with a debate inviting the House to endorse a motion, so that those who agree with it can support it and those with a contrary view can register that view in the Lobby?

§ The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be of assistance to the House if I make two brief observations. First, the Government are conscious of the fact that the debate announced for tomorrow is likely to be dominated by Kosovo and recognise that the House will not want to lose the time for a general debate on defence. Secondly, there are hardly any precedents for a debate on such a matter, at a time of conflict, other than on the Adjournment. That was true throughout the Falklands war and almost throughout the Gulf war.

§ Mr. Benn
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I cannot allow a debate on a point of order. I think that the Leader of the House has made the Government's position absolutely clear. I understand the wide range of views on the issue, and I shall certainly see that there is an opportunity for that wide rainbow spectrum of views to be heard in tomorrow's debate.

§ Mr. Benn
Further to that point of order. I am not debating your ruling, Madam Speaker, merely clarifying the point that, in view of what the Leader of the House has just said, there is a precedent, when no motion is tabled, for the House to register its opinion on a vote on the Adjournment, and I want to be sure that my recollection of that is correct.

§ Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Item 4 of our business today, "Reform of the Structural and Cohesion Funds", was referred to in Prime Minister's questions by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), who drew our attention to his wish for Cornwall to have objective 1 status. The matter was discussed at length yesterday in European Standing Committee C. May I seek your assurance that the Hansard report of those proceedings will properly reflect the fact that no Liberal Democrat Member attended that Committee to raise the matter?

§ Madam Speaker
That is a good try, but not a matter for me, I fear.