Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Having said what I have about the case in question, I also think that when we consider issues of privilege, it is worth reflecting that if it was the caseand I know that it will not be in this instancethat a Member of Parliament had entered into an arrangement with a civil servant to disclose information on a continuing basis for political reasons or if a Member of Parliament was paying a civil servant to send information across regularly, we would regard that as extremely serious. It would also raise questions about Members conduct. It might not occasion the criminal law, but it would lead us to define what we think is the proper conduct of a Member of Parliament. So yes, let us have a Committee: I rather like the Committee proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and I hope that the Government will be well disposed to such a Committee. I do not know whether the term sub judice actually covers the worry we have about police inquiries, but I hope that the right hon. and
learned Gentleman can assure us that it does. Let us have the Committee; let the Committee decide where it is and where it is not proper for it to go; and let us put all that on the table in order to make some sense out of it all.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con): I know that we are fast running out of time and I wish to cover just two main points. I agree with a number of right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. I thought that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) made a very thoughtful speech and I also agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), whose amendment I hope to support in the Lobby tonight. When it comes to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I usually agree with him without having to think about it, but there is one area where I would disagree with him: if he is going to take this evidence in on rice paper, he will need to be more careful about which type of equipment the police will take in with them as they enter the House! I have to warn him there. [Laughter.] Let me focus quickly on two main points. First, it is absurd for the Government to insist on two points in their motion: that we have to give way to the process of what the police are doing, which means the Committee cannot carry out its inquiry; and that there must be Government superiority on the Committee. This is a House of Commons matter; it is not for the Executive. If we watch the guides going past that rather contrived picture in the Lobby with Speaker Lenthall on his knees in front of King Charles, we all pride ourselves on the idea that that was the moment when we broke from the Executive, who lost control of this place. The truth is that, in many senses, tonight has proved that the King actually won, because here we have the Executive deliberately misreading what Mr. Speaker wanted and tabling a motion that, as I warned the other day, is a debasement of Mr. Speakers own idea of what should happen. We do not need any superiority of the Executive on that Committee; what we need is seven or whatever number of the so-called wise men and women to sit on that Committee and deliberate. They do not need any push from the Government about which direction they should move in.
My second main point is about timing. As I said in an intervention, we are having a police inquiry into what went on and what was wrong, but why are the police allowed to carry on when they still might proceed against my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green)? The police can decide what was right and wrong, but this House cannot. Is there one rule for the police and another for us? We have said that we are not above the law, but neither are the police. The absurdity is in the idea that we in the House have no courage, yet the Government have no courage that this place can behave sensibly or that the men and women on this Committee can take a decision about the effects of a prosecution or a lack of one for my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, 10 years ago, the Government set up a Joint Committee of both Houses
to deal with issues of privilege and have ignored it ever since? If the report it produced had been implemented, we would not be in the mess we are today.
Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
In addition, there has been an element of party political knockabout tonight, although some speeches have been very good. I simply put it to Government Members that irrespective of whether they agreed or disagreed with the previous Conservative Government, tonights true debate is not about who was right or wrong; the true debate tonight is whether the Executive or Members of Parliament should decide in this place what this place really needs.
We are discussing the serious issue of whether an MP has any form of protection in going about their natural duties. It may be that many are suspicious of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford was up to. It may be, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, that what he did was too persistent and too political. I do not know. But I do know that we cannot have a Member of Parliament, of whatever political colour or hue, being investigated under a criminal charge by the police as though what that Member was doing was somehow damaging to national security. That is an absurdity. Members of Parliament must be free to go about their job. I ask Labour Back Benchers to think about whether they would behave as they are behaving tonight if they were in opposition. They have a chance tonight to tell the Government that they do not have a say in this matter. When the Executive wish to have their way, Members should always behave as if they were in opposition.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): This has been an important debate, with constructive speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
In a sense, I would like to split the difference between the motion and the amendment. I must say to my dear right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House that the motion is poorly worded. The amendment makes it clear that the Committee can investigate all that happened inside the Ministry, and call to give evidence those who appear to have systemically organised a breach of confidence on a party political basis inside the Home Secretarys private officenot merely a civil servant seeing some document and being so outraged that he must put it in the public domain, but a continuing breach of confidence and act of disloyalty at the heart of our democratic government. My right hon. and learned Friends motion does not allow such an investigation to take place.
We have had too much partisanship in this matter. Last week, all we heard were criticisms of the Prime Minister and Home Secretary. This weekend, we have heard some unacceptable remarks about the Speaker. Some offices in our stateone thinks of the monarchy and senior judgesare in a sense fused with their
occupants, and that may also be the case with the Speaker. If one makes an ad hominem attack on the Speaker, one attacks the Chair itself. The Conservative party must stop that now.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe that people should have said no much earlier. Sir David Normington should have said no, the Metropolitan police should have said no, and the House authorities should have said no. It is not sergeants who are required to fall on their sword but officers, and we should take some responsibility in that matter. We cannot put the matter off until the full police inquiry has taken place.
The argument about the composition of the Committeewhether party political, regional or genderis a red herring. I have confidence in the Speaker, under the terms of his statement, my right hon. and learned Friends motion, and the amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), to choose seven colleagues who will carry out their activities independently, without fear or favour. To encourage that to happen, I have to say with regret, as a serial loyalist to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, that I cannot vote for the Government tonight, and I hope that the amendment carries the day.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): As a non-Privy Counsellor, it is a privilege to be able to participate, however briefly, in the debate. I support the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and other Members from both sides of the Chamber. This matter is of great importance to many in the House, and must be addressed without pomposity and self-regard, because it is about our constituents, not our privileges. It is right
Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Business of the House motion, the Speaker put the Question s necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).
Amendment proposed: (e), leave out from action to end and add
and to investigate all the circumstances, including Ministerial, official and police actions, which led to the search, and to review the applicable rules and procedures of the House and to make recommendations;
That the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records; to report from time to time; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the Committee should be bound in its proceedings by the existing resolution of the House on matters of sub judice; and
That the Committee consist of seven members appointed by the Speaker. (Sir Menzies Campbell.)
Question put, That the amendment be made:
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a point of order for you, because the motion that the House has so narrowly approved was very different from what you suggested last Wednesday. Will you please reflect on that and come back to the House with another statement tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: The House has not agreed to any motion; it was an amendment that was put forward.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |