HC Deb 31 October 1994 vol 248 cc1217-73
Madam Speaker

Before we embark on the motion before us, let me say that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I have not been able to select the manuscript amendment submitted to me by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but, if he catches my eye during the debate, he will be able to deploy his arguments as he would have done had the amendment been selected.

Let me make a plea for short speeches. This is only a half-day debate. I also remind the House of the terms of the motion, which are confined to a single issue.

3.42 pm
Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

I beg to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the Committee of Privileges should exercise its powers under Standing Order No. 108 so as to secure that when examining witnesses it sits in public, except when for clear and compelling reasons, especially for reasons of natural justice, it is more expedient that press and public should be excluded and all or part of the evidence heard in private.

I welcome your comments relating to The Guardian, Madam Speaker. While I accept that that investigation has clearly been in the public interest, the use of House of Commons writing paper on false authority is deplorable and must be fully investigated.

This debate is not about the rights and wrongs of individual Members or individual cases; that has been given an extensive airing in the media. Nor do we seek party political gain from our deliberations. Far from it: it is clear from recent events that all of us—all hon. Members—are to some extent on trial. People should remind themselves that the television records such events, and the country at large will be watching to see how we handle the matter under discussion.

This debate is about the public's faith in Parliament. It is about whether the public will be satisfied by private inquiries into very public allegations of how the actions of hon. Members should be held to public account. It would be absolutely absurd to continue to read in the press, hear on the radio, see on the television and hear in this Chamber allegations about Members of Parliament, but not be allowed to see, hear or read about the examination of those allegations in the Privileges Committee.

Today's debate is about whether the public trust Members of Parliament to investigate other Members of Parliament, free from party political considerations. I fear that they do not, in the current climate. We should not fear open investigation and debate, as it is in the interests of all of us that malpractice is rooted out and guidelines are devised which are easily understood by both us and the public.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West)

The right hon. Gentleman said that he would like the inquiry to take place in public. Will he publicly declare how much of the £800 fine that was imposed on three Labour Members by Customs and Excise for bringing in cameras which they did not declare was met by him, and how much was met by his two colleagues?

Mr. Prescott

It is wrong to say that I smuggled in a camera. I paid the duty on the camera as required, and declared it when I went through the channel.

I am trying to make the point that this debate should be about serious matters. You, Madam Speaker, have made it clear that matters of individuals will not be raised in the debate. We are dealing with the issue of the House—[Interruption.] That is what you said, Madam Speaker, and I respect that. There are no allegations whatever about individual Members in my contribution. Indeed, that is your ruling, Madam Speaker, in this debate.

I shall address directly the point about the House dealing with individual complaints made against hon. Members. That is the point I make. In calling for the Privileges Committee to hear evidence in public, we are supporting a move that we believe is in Parliament's long-term interests. We must restore the esteem of Parliament, and this is the first step. It is not, as has been suggested, an invitation to peddle any old allegation in public.

Madam Speaker, you must decide whether there is a prima facie complaint to answer, and the House has leave to debate a motion to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee. You have already decided that there may be a case to answer. That is why you referred the current matters to the Privileges Committee on 12 July.

More recent allegations have led to ministerial resignations, so the Prime Minister is wrong to call them simply matters of "tittle-tattle". This is a serious issue of genuine public concern, which requires public examination, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with that.

This debate is about openness and standards in public life. It is about the nature and quality of our democracy. It is about whether we have procedures that will enable us to regulate ourselves. That is the issue that we are discussing today—and not for the first time. But let us be clear: the days when we could take those procedures for granted are over.

The Privileges Committee is a major Committee of the House, which is convened to investigate serious matters of breaches of privilege. But it is the last major Select Committee to continue to sit in private. The House is aware that the members of the Committee are divided over whether it is proper to sit in private or in public to conduct the inquiry that was established on 12 July. The Committee was divided and voted to remain in private on the casting vote of the Chairman.

I have been told by the Clerk to the Committee that I am not entitled to know that the Committee was even divided, and I am not entitled to raise the matter in the Chamber. However, we are aware that the Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Committee, made a statement about the issue when he left the last meeting of the Committee, so it is proper for the House to discuss the issue. It is already a matter of public knowledge, having been reported in the press.

Society, democracy and Parliament are evolving systems. As society has changed, attitudes have changed. So must Parliament change, and it is changing. When the electorate demand greater accountability for our actions and intentions, we must be more accountable to them. The matter of the abuse of privilege is a parliamentary matter, and it is proper for Parliament to deal with it.

That is why the Opposition have in the past few moments made the decision that Opposition Members will be allowed a free vote at the conclusion of the debate as our contribution to removing the party politics from this issue. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that as a serious contribution to the House making decisions about Members of the House of Commons.

Will the Leader of the House likewise remove the party Whip from Conservative Members, and allow them the freedom to vote according to their conscience? I hope that he will give us his response.

The matters that have led my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to table today's motion are of major public concern, and the public demand the right to hear the investigation of those matters. Concern has been growing for some time. It is concern about the growth of quangos, the influence of lobbyists, the practice of former Ministers joining the boards of companies they have privatised, and the recent allegations about Members of Parliament. Their proliferation has created a culture that has undermined public standards and the public's faith in those standards.

Recent events show the seriousness of the matters. Two Members of this House are being investigated by the Committee of Privileges. Two Ministers have resigned. There is controversy about other Ministers. There is talk of blackmail and misleading information. All that has undoubtedly increased public concern about standards and the accountability of the House. It is not a simple party political matter.

Even The Daily Mail, in its editorial on Friday, said: What is at stake here is the reputation, not just of Government, but of our whole Parliamentary process. John Major must change his mind. And let the Privileges Committee work in public.

If I cannot convince Conservative Members on whether the issue is about party politics or not, I assume that the Daily Mail editorial might persuade them that there is a proper issue to be considered in the question whether the Committee should conduct its work in public.

In response to public concern and pressure from the Opposition, the Prime Minister has set up the Nolan inquiry into public standards. I welcome it, but it does not go far enough. It does not cover everything that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition requested last week. It does not cover the specific allegations that have been made, and it will leave many questions unanswered.

The Government's handling of the whole affair has been questionable. The Prime Minister has dithered, been made to look foolish, been buffeted by events. Finally, he lost his temper in public. He has publicly supported Ministers—[Interruption.]

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Prescott

But he is the Prime Minister.

Madam Speaker

Order. I appear to have a point of order.

Mr. Brazier

I should be most grateful for your ruling on whether the alleged conduct of the Government or, indeed, the Prime Minister is relevant to the motion before the House.

Madam Speaker

As I said earlier, the motion before the House is a very narrow one, but references of that nature are reasonably in order. I am sure that hon. Members will make similar references throughout the debate.

Mr. Prescott

Thank you for that ruling, Madam Speaker. The way in which the House deals with these matters—whether it is the Prime Minister or the Committees of the House—is an important issue. The Prime Minister has made several statements to the House on that very issue, and it is obviously right to refer to him.

Mind you, if I was a Minister in the Prime Minister's Government I would be a little uneasy— [HON. MEMBERS: "No chance."] No chance may be the case for those Ministers in whom the Prime Minister said he had full confidence, but whom he got rid of within 48 hours. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he has confidence in you, it is the surest sign that you should be clearing your desk.

It is also not sufficient for the Prime Minister to instruct the Cabinet Secretary to prepare a report. Anyone reading about recent events cannot be satisfied that the Prime Minister has not compromised the Cabinet Secretary. It is clear from statements to the House that Sir Robin Butler's report is insufficient and incomplete.

Sir Robin did not have all the information available to him at the appropriate time. In the absence of evidence, he was forced to accept the word of those he interviewed, and he was unable to interview the chief complainant, Mr. Al Fayed. He has already given the House a report, to which the Prime Minister referred. Some people may also feel that Sir Robin's meeting with the Conservative party Whips may well have compromised his role as the head of the civil service.

The real question today is whether Parliament can regulate the actions of its Members. The issue under debate is whether the Select Committee on Privileges should meet in public.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South)

It may surprise the right hon. Gentleman to know that I have taken some heart from his argument, apart from the party political rhetoric. Could he develop his argument about why the House should break with precedent in this matter? Is the free vote that he announced genuine, in the sense that it means that there has been some difference of opinion within the Opposition parties as to whether there should be such a vote?

Mr. Prescott

The issue is very important, and events have developed, even over the weekend, sufficiently for us to say that we would like to contribute to the House making an honest decision about whether the Committee should meet in public. It is clear that things have developed quickly. I will come to the matter of precedent, as it is important. Other matters of accountability clearly involve the Prime Minister, and I dealt with those.

I think that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) will accept that the Cabinet Secretary was asked to undertake investigations and to report back to the Prime Minister. There has been considerable coverage of that matter in the press and a report to the Prime Minister, which was published in this place last week. Events have moved on since that report, which is why I referred to the different pieces of information and dates.

You have ruled, Madam Speaker, that we cannot refer to all those matters, and I shall not do so, but I want to deal with the accountability of the House and of Members to it. The real question is whether Parliament regulates the actions of its Members. The issue under debate is whether the Privileges Committee should meet in public. It is not a question of whether it can do so, as we all know that it can. Standing Order No. 108 makes it clear that a Select Committee

shall have power, if it so orders, to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses. The question is whether it should, and that is the question posed in the motion.

It is up to the Privileges Committee to take that decision, but as it is deadlocked, the House can guide it. There is much talk of precedent, but one precedent can give way to another. The evolution of the procedures of the House has required precedents to be set on several occasions. The admission of the press to report our proceedings in 1803, the admission of television and radio to provide live coverage of events in this Chamber and in Committees, and the opening of other Committees to public scrutiny, were all unprecedented and controversial decisions at the time. All those decisions made the House more accountable to the public, and they were all to the benefit of greater democracy.

It is true that Privileges Committees have never sat in public before, but they can do so, as I have shown. The motion merely asks the Committee to exercise its powers under Standing Order No. 108 and to sit in public now, except when there are clear and compelling reasons why it should not do so.

Last week, the Prime Minister said: It is necessary to have an investigation in depth, without unsubstantiated allegations subsequently being made. That is a matter of natural justice. It is right that there are checks and balances to prevent unwarranted slurs being made, but those exist in the procedures of this House.

Let me repeat what I said earlie: if a complaint is made by a Member of this House, Madam Speaker will decide whether there is a prima facie complaint before she will allow a motion of referral to the Privileges Committee. The motion of referral can be debated in this House, as it was some weeks ago on a recent referral, and the Committee can decide whether it wishes to hear evidence in public or in private.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford)

If we assume for the moment that we accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal that the Committee hears evidence in public and then allows itself to vote to go private on certain issues, will he now give an undertaking that, if the Committee voted to go private, the Opposition members of the Committee will not walk out and make a public spectacle of it?

Mr. Prescott

The House is generally agreed that members of the Privileges Committee will make their own decisions on the matter. The issue here is that we have divided along party political lines. All the Opposition parties have opposed the Government Members on that Committee. The issue—if I am allowed to refer to it—is that a motion which would have allowed the Committee the possibility of sitting in public and taking certain evidence in private was not put before the Committee, and the Committee now finds itself deeply divided along party political lines.

I should have thought that it was in the interests of the House not to have further debates along party political lines, and for the House to have this debate. We are trying on this occasion—[Interruption.] I have made it clear that we are not whipping the Labour members of the Committee, and I presume that the Government are not whipping their Committee members. But since the Government are so bitterly divided, we have said that we should debate the issue, and we have provided an opportunity for the House to do so.

The Committee could have a public hearing of evidence, it could deliberate in private and—in those areas where the Committee so decided—it could take evidence in private. That applies to all of the Committees of the House. We do not dispute the rights of the Committee to hear evidence—

Sir John Gorst (Hendon, North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker

Order.

Mr. Prescott

I shall not give way, because the hon. Gentleman does not have an intelligent intervention to make.

We do not dispute the right of Committees to hear evidence in private when it is in the interests of natural justice to do so. We ask that there be a reasonable balance between public and private hearings—as there is already in the majority of our Committees—that the evidence be heard in public and the deliberations take place in private, that the conclusions be published and debated by this House, and that to sit in public should be the norm and in private the exception.

Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West)

May I follow down the road of hearings being held in private where the interests of natural justice dictate that that should be the case? What would the effect be on the media if the Committee decided that some of its hearings would be held in private and some held in public? Surely the media will immediately focus on that, and ask what the Committee has to hide. Will not the media say that the Committee is covering up by having some hearings in private?

Mr. Prescott

The obvious answer is that it depends on the reasons which are given. The courts and professional bodies often make such judgments, and the press has to live with the fact that it cannot observe matters because the agreement of that professional body—or the Privileges Committee—is that they believe it to be right to have private hearings.

We disagree about the decision that has been made that the Committee will never take any hearings in public—quite contrary to the rest of the Committees. All we are saying is that the Committee members should make the judgment, and that that judgement should start from the proposition that evidence should be heard in public unless there are special reasons not to do so. That is the simple point which we are trying to make.

Sir John Gorst

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott

I must get on, as an awful lot of hon. Members wish to take part.

Sir John Gorst

rose—

Madam Speaker

Order.

Mr. Prescott

I am bound to say that, when the argument of natural justice is invoked, there are some contradictions in Government Members' arguments.

Sir John Gorst

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I plead with you to find out whether it is possible to obtain information during this debate as to whether any Labour member of the Select Committee will address himself without party politics in mind when he is heard in public.

Madam Speaker

That is not a point of order. Were the hon. Gentleman fortunate enough to catch my eye, he might employ such a point during the debate.

Mr. Prescott

I was right the first time—the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) is not capable of making an intelligent intervention: he has amply proven that.

Some contradictions are apparent when the argument about natural justice is invoked. If it is in the interests of natural justice to suppress all the evidence from the hearings of the Privileges Committee until the report is published, why is it not equally in the interests of natural justice to suppress all the evidence given at a Crown court trial until the verdict is reached? On Thursday, the Prime Minister told the House: I am not prepared to see confidence in elected or unelected public servants undermined by the public parading of unsubstantiated slurs and innuendo."—[Official Report, 27 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 1002.] Why is he therefore prepared to allow the public parading of unsubstantiated allegations against defendants in a court of law? It is the central tenet of justice that, for justice to be done, it must be seen to, be done. If it is seen to be done in the courts, why will the Prime Minister not agree that it should be seen to be done in Parliament?

We live in a different climate today, because professional bodies are becoming more open. The professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council meets in public; the solicitors disciplinary tribunal now meets in public, and the barristers disciplinary tribunal is now considering a report that recommends that it should also meet in public. Other Parliaments are moving towards greater openness, and some have even accepted the recommendation that to accept money is a criminal offence. That recommendation was made in 1975 by the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, but the House did not accept it.

The Government themselves are moving towards greater openness in their inquiries. Ten years ago, the Scott inquiry would never have been held in public. Now, the Nolan inquiry has been established, and we will be able to hear its evidence in public. The reputation of our public life is at stake, and only public examination will satisfy the public's concern.

The House has nothing to fear from supporting the Opposition motion, but the public will assume that we have something to hide if we continue to investigate such matters in private. We need to display to our constituents the simple truth that we are here to serve them before we serve ourselves. That is best done by being open and by holding the investigations of the Privileges Committee in public. I commend the motion to the House.

4.6 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)

I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: 'this House re-affirms the long established practice that decisions as to how a Select Committee once established should proceed are for the Committee itself.'.

Before turning specifically to the terms of the motions and the amendment, I think it right to make as clear as I can, both to the House itself and to those who follow and comment on these matters outside, four very important points about the background to today's debate.

The first is that the Committee of Privileges is not a Committee appointed by the Government, or with terms of reference determined by the Government. It is a Committee appointed by this House, on a motion moved by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), following your statement on 12 July, Madam Speaker, and with a remit determined by what you said in that statement.

Secondly, I am its Chairman not on the basis of having been imposed on the Committee by any group of members on the Committee, let alone by the Government, but on the basis of a motion moved, in accordance with precedent, by a member of the Committee and accepted without dissent by the Committee as a whole. It is in that spirit that I have sought to act as Chairman and it is in that spirit that I shall speak in the debate.

The third point is one that takes me into somewhat more difficult territory, but which I nevertheless think it right to make, given that public reference has already been made to the fact that the decision to maintain the precedent of taking evidence in private followed a tied vote in the Committee, so that the matter necessarily had to be settled by my casting vote as Chairman. I need to make two things clear. One is that I had not intervened in the very full discussion that had taken place, except to assist in elucidating points made in the course of it. The other is that the vote I eventually had to cast was cast quite explicitly on the basis of the nearest parallel to what you, Madam Speaker, would be expected to do following a tied vote here in the House: that is to say, to maintain the status quo. In this case, it seemed to me that that meant my vote should be cast to maintain the established precedent, never before breached, that the Committee of Privileges conducts its proceedings in private.

Mr. Bill Michie (Sheffield, Heeley)

On status quo and precedent, why did the Attorney-General, when writing to advise the Committee, say: There are no settled rules governing the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges"—

Madam Speaker

Order. We must be very careful in this debate. The hon. Gentleman is now bringing Committee proceedings to the Floor of the House. We should not use Committee proceedings in this debate because the Committee has not yet reported to the House.

Mr. Newton

Without following the hon. Gentleman fully down that path, I can properly make the point that it is not in dispute that the Committee has the power, as it has accurately been stated, to take evidence in public if it thinks it right to do so. But the Committee did not think it right to do so and my vote was cast on the basis that I have just set out: to maintain the status quo, which, in this case, meant preserving a long-standing precedent.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) described what happened in Committee, you properly drew attention to the normal rule that proceedings are not mentioned until a Committee has reported. Understandably, the Leader of the House has described proceedings, including the fact that I moved the motion that he be in the Chair, according to precedent. [Interruption.] Well, of course I did. As the senior member, I convened the Committee on instructions from the Clerks.

The point that I am making is that this debate is about the Privileges Committee while it is proceeding, so it must be in order for us to refer to what has happened. We would not be having this debate had there not been a vote in the House. I therefore hope that you will relax your judgment on the matter or those of us on the Committee will be unable to explain what went on and why we take a different view.

Madam Speaker

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) was speaking about a deliberative meeting that is not mentioned in the motion. If he reads the motion carefully, he will see that it is about the Committee exercising its powers under a particular Standing Order so as to secure that when examining witnesses it sits in public". The motion is extremely narrow and does not deal with what has taken place in Committee. I understand the point that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) puts to me. It is difficult to debate this matter without making some reference to the Committee's proceedings. But we must be careful about how we proceed and keep in mind the fact that the Committee has not yet reported to us.

Mr. Newton

I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker. If the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) reads my words when they are reported in Hansard, he will find that I was careful not to mention which Member moved the motion to put me in the Chair. I simply said "a member of the Committee" and that I was put in the Chair without dissent.

Mr. Benn

The precedent is that the senior Member moves the Leader of the House into the Chair. The Clerks told me to do that. It was not my desire to put him in the Chair, but it was my duty to convene the Committee and then perform that function. It is no good the Leader of the House saying that, in not mentioning my name, he was not reporting proceedings. He was, and the House must discuss the proceedings in the course of this debate.

Mr. Newton

I cannot sensibly add to what I have already said on that point. May I make it clear, if it was not already clear, that in no sense was I levelling what the right hon. Gentleman has treated almost as an accusation. I merely recorded the fact against the background of the sedentary interventions in this debate suggesting that I was somehow imposed on the Committee by the Government and that I voted as instructed by the Government. That is simply not the case.

The last of my preliminary points is another on which I hope that I will carry all members of the Committee, regardless of their opinions about the way in which evidence should be taken; it is that there is no equation between what has been called a "cover-up" and the hearing of evidence in private session.

Every member of the Committee is determined that its inquiry should be conscientious and thorough. Its report and any recommendations that it may make will be published, and would be expected to be discussed and debated in the House. Most important of all, in that context, the evidence that it heard would be published in full with its report, for all to read. That is subject only to some very limited possible reservations, notably where publication of part of the evidence could clearly be held to be prejudicial in relation to legal proceedings that were taking place.

Sir John Gorst

Will my right hon. Friend say whether any part of his reservations with regard to the Committee's meeting in public has to do with the fear that the opportunity may arise for certain members of the Committee to deploy party political arguments? That would seem to me to be a strong indication in favour of retaining the procedures that have previously prevailed.

Mr. Newton

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall shortly make some of the arguments that I hope the House will bear in mind in considering the motion and the amendment.

Let me now turn to the motion that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) moved, which seeks to bring about a situation in which the Committee's hearings of evidence would be in public—that is to say, with press reporters, radio microphones and television cameras present. The right hon. Gentleman set out his arguments in favour of that proposal. I think that what I can best do is to set out as clearly as I can what I believe to be the anxieties that led those people who wished to maintain the precedent of private hearings to take that view, and which hitherto—I make no apology for repeating the point—have led all the Committee's predecessors to the same conclusion, believing that that was what was required in defence of natural justice.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

The Leader of the House repeatedly talks about precedent. Will he accept that precedents are set and precedents end? The current situation is unprecedented—that is the whole point. Therefore, we are asking the Leader of the House to recognise the significance of what is going on, and the interest outside the House. We need the information to be in the public domain, for the public interest. That is what we should be thinking about—not the interests of Members to keep things quiet.

Mr. Newton

As it happens, I do not accept the proposition that the circumstances of the moment are unprecedented. I shall return to that later.

In essence, the anxieties of those who believe that the Committee should take evidence in private and publish that evidence only at a later stage arise from the nature of the Committee of Privileges, and especially of the parliamentary privilege under which it operates.

Although one of the Committee's functions is to establish the facts in the case, it is not, as is sometimes suggested—and a parallel is sometimes drawn—comparable to a court. It has none of the protections that a court offers to its defendants. Witnesses who give evidence to it do not have the benefit of legal representation.

The Chairman does not have the same powers as a judge to rule questions out of order. Witnesses can therefore be subject to questioning from as many as 17 people. Some of those questions, perhaps making allegations of which the witness has had no previous notice, asked under the protection of parliamentary privilege, could be highly damaging. Later in the proceedings—as has happened in the past—the allegations may well prove to be unfounded, but if the evidence has been taken in public, the damage to a witness would already have been done.

Sir Jim Spicer

May I ask my right hon. Friend to amplify that subject? In those circumstances, surely the Committee could never meet without those people appearing before it employing, if they wish to do so, lawyers to sit alongside them, as happens in all courts in America.

Mr. Newton

My hon. Friend raises an important point about what would be strongly argued for in the circumstances envisaged by Opposition Members. Undoubtedly, there would be pressure for what my hon. Friend has suggested, and it would dramatically change the nature of the inquiry that could take place, and hitherto has taken place.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

As one of the very few people who were unfortunate enough to be called in front of the Privileges Committee back in the 1960s, may I suggest that the Leader of the House should be a little careful on the concept of justice to witnesses? If giving evidence in public can be damaging, let me assure him from personal experience that giving it in private can be very damaging. I think I can now say that the then Chairman Elwyn Jones had great doubts before he died about the Privileges Committee acting in private.

Mr. Newton

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have enough respect for him not simply to make a debating point, and I hope that he will not think that what I am about to say is a debating point. His argument, however, is rather more on my side than on his. I accept that it will not be comfortable or easy for people if suggestions that they have done something against the rules or order of the House are investigated by such a Committee. He talks about the damage caused when investigations are conducted in private, but it can hardly be other than that that damage would be compounded if the investigation were in full view of television cameras.

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton

I shall give way, but I should advert to the fact that Madam Speaker has asked hon. Members to keep their speeches reasonably brief and that interventions are considerably extending this one.

Mr. Ashby

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if proceedings were conducted in public, the person being investigated should have the right to have counsel cross-examining all witnesses and to call witnesses on his own behalf, as would happen in a court? Does he further agree that anything less than that would amount to a kangaroo court?

Mr. Newton

My hon. Friend makes another important point which I am sure would be raised and many people would wish to pursue were the House to take the decision that the Opposition have invited it to take today.

The effect of the potential prejudice to witnesses giving evidence in public could operate in two ways: on the one hand, it might result, as I have already said, in damage to witnesses; on the other, it could constrain Committee members from asking questions that they think should be answered. In either case, the Committee's objective of achieving a thorough and fair investigation and of reaching balanced and considered conclusions in the light of all the evidence would be gravely damaged.

Moreover, we need to be clear that this cloak of parliamentary privilege would be available not only to hon. Members called before the Committee and to members of it, whom we would all expect to use its protection responsibly, but to any outside witnesses called before the Committee who could, if they wished, use the opportunity to make any allegation, however unfounded, against anyone that they chose to name. In the light of some of the things that we have read in recent times, I do not think that anyone can say that that is a negligible risk.

If Opposition Members think that these arguments have been assembled only in the circumstances of today, perhaps I may remind them—this is why I said that I did not entirely accept that the circumstances are unprecedented, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) suggested—of the words of Lord Callaghan. I make no apology for quoting what was said by Lord Callaghan, then Prime Minister, in the debate establishing the Select Committee on the Conduct of Members in 1976 following the Poulson affair. He said: There are important differences between the proceedings of the courts and those of a Select Committee. In the courts, there are specified charges, known to defendants beforehand. The evidence brought forward has to be relevant to those charges. In this case there are no specified charges, nor is the identity known of all those against whom allegations might be made. There are no rules of the House which say this or that evidence is inadmissible.

There was a great deal of comment along those lines.

Lord Callaghan went on: It is our view"— that is, the then Labour Government's view— that, if the Committee sat in public, evidence, whatever its basis—whether it was groundless or not—would be subject to daily public sifting. A lie can be half-way around the world before truth has got its boots on. We should have instant judgments on allegations before the Committee had been able to weigh them, before the reputations at stake could be properly upheld or cast down, which might do unnecessary harm not only to the individuals concerned but also to the standing of this House."—[Official Report, 1 November 1976; Vol. 918, c. 973–-76]

I am bound to say that I see nothing that has happened in the intervening period to lead me to dismiss what Lord Callaghan said then; and the introduction of television, in my view, multiplies the risk.

Mr. Prescott

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Poulson case involved Members from both sides of the House. There had already been an investigation by the prosecuting authority and a royal commission inquiry into standards of public life, and the Committee itself was specially set up for the circumstances. It was not related to the Privileges Committee.

Mr. Newton

That point does not dent my argument one bit. I am of course aware that, in a sense, the motion recognises these problems by conceding the risk to natural justice. It has the air of attempting to suggest some kind of halfway house, in which the Committee might take part of the evidence from individual cases in private and part in public—or even perhaps move from one mode to the other in the course of a hearing. There is no evidence, either in the motion or in anything else that I have heard or read, to show that such arrangements could be made to work.

In relation to the cases that have been referred to the Committee, I cannot see how it would be fair to hear some witnesses in public and others in private—perhaps the Members of Parliament in private and The Sunday Times in public, or vice versa. That would not be seen to be fair. Nor do I see how, in practice, the Committee could make judgments in the course of a hearing as to whether matter might be introduced that would more appropriately be heard in private. Even if it did, the result would all too readily become a form of complete chaos, with the public shuffling in and out of the Committee in accordance with what was going on.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Is it not, however, of some interest to note that Lord Nolan observed to the press that a large amount of the evidence that he is to hear—much of it allegations—will be heard in public? Does not that show that times have changed and that people believe that such allegations should be aired mainly in public? Obviously, as the motion concedes, some cases should be heard in private, but generally the public should be satisfied that justice has been seen to be done. The secrecy that used to prevail must no longer be allowed.

Mr. Newton

The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has already effectively made the point that Lord Nolan's committee will not be looking into complaints against individuals. It will scrutinise general issues surrounding standards of conduct in public life—so the hon. Gentleman's parallel does not stand up.

I very much doubt whether the difficulties of this halfway house can be overcome. I am sure, however, that unless it is sure that they can be, it would be very unwise of the House to pass the motion.

There are also wider arguments for not proceeding as the motion proposes, and they are reflected in the Government amendment: this House reaffirms the long-established practice that decisions as to how a Select Committee once established should proceed are for the Committee itself. The House is rightly firm in its defence of the integrity and independence of its Select Committees. I have to say bluntly that it seems to me no more acceptable for the official Opposition to seek to determine how such a Committee should go about its work than it would be thought acceptable for Ministers or the Government to do so.

If we are to go down this path, I believe that we put at risk exactly those attributes of our Select Committees which the House itself most values and which is the basis of their public reputation: the fact that Members, once appointed, serve as individuals, not party representatives; not as part of a caucus, and not on the basis of voting in accordance with a party line. I believe that the House should think long and hard before going down the path to which the motion invites us, and I hope that it will instead endorse the amendment.

Mr. Barry Porter

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If, as has been claimed, this is a House of Commons issue and not a party issue, it does not seem to me to matter much whether the motion or the amendment is passed. Will it not still be for the Privileges Committee to determine its own procedure, regardless of what the House decides this evening? If that is so, it is a matter for the Committee to decide whether it is to be a party vote. I intend to vote as a House of Commons man.

Madam Speaker

What meaning is attached to the motion is for Members to decide. It is not for me as Speaker to interpret for Members what is before them. They must make their own judgment as to what is in the motion and the amendment.

4.29 pm
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

This is a major parliamentary debate, and it is appropriate that the Clerk of the House, Sir Clifford Boulton, should be in the Clerk's Chair for the last debate of his period of office. I am sure that his background advice will have been helpful.

I declare my interests, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, as a writer, broadcaster and shareholder, but my real interest is as a Member of this House. I have been 10 years on the Privileges Committee, and I moved the Leader of the House into the Chair, which demonstrates a non-partisan inclination. I must be the only Member of Parliament who was expelled from the House by the Privileges Committee on a motion.

When my father died, I was summoned to the Committee and ordered to produce my birth certificate and my father's death certificate. On the advice of the Privileges Committee, the House moved to declare a by-election in my room, which I won. I was subsequently removed by the House. I therefore have some interest in the workings of the Privileges Committee.

I have been in the House for 44 years and have been elected 15 times because, by a coincidence, I have won four by-elections. I shall not go into those. My only interest in this matter is that of the people who sent us here. I do not accept the view that we are here to protect Parliament, as if Parliament were a little club. We are here to protect our electors. That is the basis of privilege, because it protects Parliament only in so far as it can do its business in the interests of our constituents. The word "privilege" is an unhappy one because it gives the impression that it relates to the privilege of hon. Members, whereas it relates to the privilege of an elected body to do its job without improper interference.

The debate is not a trial of Members who may be involved in the matters that we are discussing. I am not by instinct a muck-raker and I do not think that the House should today consider who may have done what. It is not a trial of the Government because they are responsible for their own conduct. Happily, the electors will judge both Members and Government—all of us—at the next election. We are accountable to the electorate and the only consideration in deciding how to vote must be based upon that.

Serious allegations have been made about individuals, hon. Members, lobbyists and the media. My argument is extremely simple: that the only way in which the electors' rights can be considered is for everything—evidence and deliberations—to be held in public. Otherwise, rightly or wrongly, there will be a feeling that the parliamentary club has got together to cover up what is happening so that Parliament's reputation can survive. Parliament must live on the confidence of the people or people will not have confidence in it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

As my right hon. Friend says, the Privileges Committee has certain duties and powers in respect of the electorate. Notwithstanding that, does he agree that it would make much more sense if the Committee did not investigate Members of Parliament—that such investigations should not be undertaken by members of the club, as my right hon. Friend calls it—but by an independent body?

Mr. Benn

By a strange coincidence, I have experience of that too, because after the House had thrown me out and when I reappeared and was kept out, I was referred to an election court. In the 19th century, the House used to deal with contested elections but, in view of the partisan nature of election Committees of the House, the matter was referred to a judge. In fact there were two judges, and they came to an absurd conclusion, which I need not go into, which kept me out of the House.

The principle mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—that the House is not the right place in which to consider these matters— has been recognised. My point, however, is that not just the evidence but the deliberations should be heard in public.

I do not know whether I will be on the Committee after I complete my speech, but some of the matters that we on that Committee will discuss are of the highest importance. What rules should there be? Why should not hon. Members be entitled to hear the views expressed by Committee members about what the rules should be, what the obligations should be, what the sanctions should be and what legislation is required?

I have my own opinion, and I have expressed it already—that the rules should be similar to those that apply to Ministers and that those who do not adhere to them should be dealt with by the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Of course, that is just one view; others may wish to put their views. The whole Committee should be held in public.

Mr. Peter Butler (Milton Keynes, North-East)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn

I shall do so only if it is a serious and important point; otherwise, I want to get on with my speech. I rely on the hon. Gentleman to assist me in that regard.

Mr. Butler

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but that is rather like the problem of deciding, before one has heard the evidence, whether it is in breach of natural justice for it to be heard in public.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept a serious point? It is that, as a new Member, one of my privileges in this House is actually being able to listen to him. Will he explain where any problem arises, as all the evidence, any motions—including defeated motions—and the report will be published and debated in full on the Floor of the House? Taking part in that debate will be members of the Committee as well as hon. Members who did not serve on it. How can that be secret, and in what way is the public interest not served? In what way is information hidden from the public by that procedure?

Mr. Benn

The Clerk or the Attorney-General would be better able to give an authoritative view, but, as I understand the matter, and as the Attorney-General said in the Committee, the Committee is entitled to do as it likes and either hear evidence in public or refuse to do so. The Committee voted, for the reasons given by the Lord President, on his casting vote, against my motion that we should hear the evidence in public.

Of course, the deliberations have never been heard in public in the Privileges Committee. My argument, to which I shall return, is that the deliberations are important because they will set the framework for the recommendations that I hope the House will pursue.

I want to make a statement—

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn

No, I am on a serious point.

As Madam Speaker said earlier, I sought permission today to move a manuscript amendment in the following terms: That the House instructs the Committee of Privileges to hold all its meetings, both when evidence is taken, and when it deliberates, in public. As I said a moment ago, I moved a motion in the Committee that the evidence be heard in public. The Lord President will recall that I argued that all the Committee's deliberations should also be held in public. That is because I am no longer prepared to accept the traditional practice of the Committee of Privileges that its proceedings, including the hearing of evidence, should be held in private. My first responsibility is to those who have elected me to Parliament and who are entitled to know what is being done in their names. In my judgment, that duty must take precedence over any conventions of the House.

House of Commons debates were held in secret for many years. There was great resistance from some Members of Parliament to the public reporting of proceedings. From 1803 to 1811—a year or two before I came to the House—William Cobbett reported the proceedings of the House in the pages of the "Political Register" and was reported to the House for an alleged breach of privilege in the way in which he reported them. Cobbett, who later became the Member of Parliament for Oldham, was at one stage imprisoned for sedition for a pamphlet that he wrote, as was Thomas Hansard, who printed it. It was not until 1855 that parliamentary reports by Hansard were officially sanctioned.

The secrecy of Committee proceedings raises exactly the same questions as the proceedings of the House, and the time has come when they, too, should be held in public and properly reported. I very much hope that the House will now intervene to change the existing practice of the Committees of the House, including the Privileges Committee, so that the evidence taken and the deliberations of those Committees are held in public.

Whatever the decision of the House or the Committee, I am no longer prepared to accept the present restrictions, and if I return to attend future meetings of the Committee of Privileges, it is my intention to issue my personal report of those proceedings that I attend. My reports will be based on notes made at meetings of the Privileges Committee and they will be as fair and accurate as I can make them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It will be For the House to determine how to deal with that matter, but I believe that I have a duty to make my own position plain in advance. I hope that the House will understand and respect my reasons for doing so.

Sir John Gorst (Hendon, North)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, will it be in order at some stage to table a manuscript amendment seeking to have him removed from the Committee?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

No. That would be beyond the scope of our proceedings today.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the information shared by the right hon. Gentleman, may the House be told what Standing Orders say would happen if he does as he says?

Madam Deputy Speaker

I trust that all right hon. and hon. Members are capable of reading Standing Orders.

4.40 pm
Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup)

The Government's amendment refers to the long-standing practice whereby the Select Committee on Privileges makes its own decisions. That is absolutely right and is why I shall support the Government amendment tonight. Later, however, I will make certain suggestions about the Committee's consideration of the problem, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

There are other long-standing practices of the Privileges Committee. One is that debates in the House on such matters are always treated with the utmost seriousness and on a non-party basis, for two reasons: first, such a debate can affect either side of the House—reference has already been made to some cases that have been heard by the Privileges Committee—and, secondly, such matters are of the utmost seriousness to the right hon. or hon. Members directly involved. We have heard little about them this afternoon, but we know from past exercises that an hon. Member's life can be at stake, as can the future of his family, his relationship with his constituency and other interests of a political nature.

Mention was made of the Poulson case, which involved hon. Members on both sides of the House and a member of the Cabinet, who resigned. He was cleared, but that incident affected the whole of Reggie Maudling's life. I hope that debate on the Opposition motion and on the Government amendment continues with the utmost seriousness.

I fully accept the four points made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in opening, and I am glad that he made them. I am sure that he was perfectly justified in doing so.

On the question whether the hearings should be in public or private, I served on the Privileges Committee in the 1968 and 1969 Sessions. I acknowledge that that was 25 years ago and that many changes have occurred since in not only the House but public life and in the presentation of politics and technology. Twenty-five years ago, the proceedings of the House were not heard on radio, let alone seen on television. Similarly, our Committees did not exist in their present form. Today, they are televised as well as heard on radio, and the press attend them. We must take account of that.

All the signs are that the standing of the House in the eyes of the public has fallen in recent years, and that is a matter that we all want to redress. I do not place quite the emphasis on that as does the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but it is essential that the House re-establishes itself in public high opinion. I should like the Committee to re-examine the problem and to consider again whether its proceedings should not be in public.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is unnecessarily worried. Some newspaper leaders have already commented that, if people offer to give evidence in public, that would lead to some persons showing off—asking to appear and then using the Committee for their own purposes. When I served on the Privileges Committee, the Attorney-General attended—and I believe that he does so today. He is at the top of the legal profession, and is there to challenge any witness on anything that he says, at the very moment that he says it. The dangers foreseen by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House could be dealt with by the Attorney-General.

I agree that we would have to face the fact that persons called before the Committee might request legal assistance, but there is a precedent. When Robert Maxwell's sons were to appear before a Select Committee, they asked to be accompanied by their lawyers, and the Committee agreed. Everybody knew that a case was to be taken before the courts, but that did not present any constitutional problem. The Maxwells' lawyers were there to advise them on the spot and to make suggestions to the Chairman of the Committee on how matters should be handled. We should have to face up to that with the Privileges Committee.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when the Maxwell brothers appeared before the Committee, they did not answer a single question? They merely said, "Our legal advisers have advised us to say nothing."

Sir Edward Heath

The Committee drew its own conclusions, and the Privileges Committee would do the same.

Sir Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I suggest that there is an important difference between the Privileges Committee and run-of-the-mill Select Committees, if I may use that term. In any case, the Maxwell brothers were not accused of possible contempt of Parliament.

Sir Edward Heath

My right hon. Friend says that there is a difference. The question is whether that difference should continue. In the present situation of public doubt about the House and the operation of politics, political parties and political systems, we must face up to that new situation.

Another point that affects right hon. and hon. Members in particular is the inordinate length of time that the House takes to deal with such matters. The House sent the present case to the Privileges Committee before the summer recess. We are now heading for prorogation, followed by the Christmas recess, and no progress has been made. Change is essential. We cannot carry on like that in the modern world.

A Committee dealing with matters of such personal importance to an individual Member of Parliament must be prepared to sit continuously until it has reached a decision. That must be taken into account by the Whips in regard to parliamentary proceedings. In fact, it should please the Whips because they would know that members of the Committee would be here in any case. The time factor is of immense importance for particular Members of Parliament.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

The lives of the persons who are under investigation and who are perhaps accused are of great importance. If my right hon. Friend's suggestion were adopted, does he believe, in absolute fairness, that the persons concerned should have legal representation to cross-question other witnesses, rather than leave it to the Attorney-General or to the Committee to protect their reputation? Would not that alter the structure of the Committee as we know it?

Sir Edward Heath

That, again, will have to be decided by the Committee, but the Attorney-General could advise on the matter. If it means changing the structure, so be it, because I believe that it is necessary to deal fairly with Members who are brought before the Committee. I am dealing with the fair treatment of Members as well as with the status of the House.

Sir John Gorst

Will my right hon. Friend address himself to another consideration—that some of the matters to be considered might be the subject of criminal charges at the end of the hearing? If they were, would not that prejudice the cases of the individuals concerned? Is it not better, therefore, that matters be considered in private until it has been decided whether any criminal charges might arise?

Sir Edward Heath

Of course it must be taken into account, but that could not have arisen in most of the cases that have come before the Privileges Committee.

I shall now deal with the last point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield about the Committee's deliberations and evidence being taken in public. In his years in politics, the right hon. Gentleman has made many persuasive and many important points, but again—it has characterised the whole of his political life, and I have known him since Oxford days—he went a bridge too far. Anybody who sits on an organisation that must reach final decisions knows that there will be a point at which one will want to discuss the matter informally and not take up a fixed position—to say, "I want to ask about this to clarify my own mind and decide exactly where I stand."

That cannot be done in a public hearing; people have to take a fixed position. They are then accused of abandoning their previous positions and are asked why they have done so. I cannot see any difficulty in having private discussion. There is nothing that I regret more than people coming up to me after a meeting and saying, "Of course, what I really wanted to ask was so and so, but I didn't like to because I knew that it would then become known outside." That is a great drawback. In fact, it is a great loss not only to any Committee but to the individual.

I ask the right hon. Member for Chesterfield to reconsider and agree that there can be such discussion—there will be in any case, because he cannot stop it—before people take up fixed positions, which they then feel they must justify in public.

Mr. Benn

The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the public are intelligent. They know that, in arriving at a new recommendation about a matter, views will have been put tentatively, and then a final view taken. He underestimates the extent to which people understand the tentative nature of deliberations leading to a recommendation.

Sir Edward Heath

I have taken part in a good many tentative deliberations in my time, and I am absolutely convinced that they are necessary to reach a sound solution.

I support the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I agree with its first four points, which are absolutely right, but I hope that the Committee will reconsider its position to permit public hearings, after which it could continue its discussions in private and publish its report, which would be discussed in this House.

4.53 pm
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill)

The Father of the House has given us wise advice today. I particularly support his remarks about the wisdom of having deliberative meetings in private, as that enables members to move their positions should that be then- wish.

We have listened to some interesting points, but it should be said at the outset that the motion that was moved by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) establishes a clear principle, and it is on that principle alone that the House will be invited to vote this evening. I will be supporting the right hon. Gentleman's motion and I shall recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to do likewise.

It does, perhaps, illustrate the way in which the Committee has been proceeding that the points that were made, first, by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East about there being a third way, and, secondly, by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) about the value of deliberative sessions, were put before it.

Indeed, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I suggested that there was a third option—that we should assert the value of meeting in public but be prepared to derogate from that. There would be times when we would want to meet in camera—for example, where issues of natural justice were involved; where we might be given compelling advice by the Attorney-General; or for whatever reasons we might sometimes wish to meet behind closed doors. But the principle should be that we should start out with the determination to meet in public wherever possible.

That is not an unknown principle to the House or to democratic bodies throughout the nation. I was sorry that that compromise—if I may call it that—was not accepted. That was no fault of the Leader of the House. In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman—and without digressing too much into the meanderings of what happened in the Committee—it should be said that he took on board the voices in that Committee; that everyone put their view; and that there was a genuinely held difference of opinion. Those differences were arrived at for different reasons of principle.

The issue tonight is whether any Conservative Members have changed their minds, because if they have not, I cannot see how there will be any change in the way in which the Committee should proceed. Perhaps the most interesting speeches this evening will be those of Conservative Members, who, having listened to the thrust of the debate, will recognise the importance of trying to re-engage Her Majesty's Opposition in the debate. It will be interesting to see whether they will be prepared to find any room for manoeuvre. If they are able to do so, it will serve the House well, not least for the reasons advanced this evening by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup: the reputation of this House has been damaged publicly and that reputation needs to be reasserted.

Mr. Jenkin

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton

Let me make a little progress first, because time is short and many other hon. Members wish to speak; then I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

A week ago, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and told the House of his intention to set up the Nolan committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that he supported that move—indeed, there was a general welcome for it throughout the House. The Prime Minister set out the terms of reference of Lord Nolan's committee and said that it would be established to look at standards, the level of integrity and the level of ethics in public life and the proprieties of lobbying. He said that, if it wants to, it can go on to look at accountability and appointments to quangos, perhaps the political honours system and the remuneration of Members of Parliament. In all those respects, the Nolan committee is long overdue and welcome.

The Prime Minister also said in his statement that specific allegations concerning Members of the House or the conduct of the House would have to be met and dealt with by Committees of the House. That must mean the Procedure Committee or the Committee on Members' interests. So we have not only been charged with a responsibility by Parliament itself—the House of Commons having passed a motion establishing the Privileges Committee for the duration of this Session: we have been told quite clearly by the Prime Minister that the terms of reference, which have already been established for that Committee, must be continued and maintained as our inquiry proceeds.

Mr. Winnick

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, although this is not a matter for those outside the House, it is certainly a matter for us in the House, and that we must bear in mind the fact that much opinion outside is undoubtedly in favour of the Committee meeting in public, of which I am in favour? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, if justice is to be done, the Committee should meet in public, but that, if the deliberations are also to be in public, it could well be argued that that is a denial of justice, because the Committee should be in a position, as the Father of the House said, to deliberate? It will be extremely difficult to do that in public and could well be a denial of justice for the people involved.

Mr. Alton

I agree. I made that point a little earlier in my speech. The hon. Gentleman makes a proper point. There are areas between which we much distinguish in determining the way in which we proceed.

Mr. Ashby

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton

I will give way once more, but after that the House would expect me to get on with my speech.