Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 918: debated on Monday 1 November 1976

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Monday 1st November 1976

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions

Wales

Housing Finance

1.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to issue a circular to housing authorities on the availability of central Government finance in 1977.

The Council for the Principality has recommended local authorities to accept my proposal that each housing authority should for 1977–78 receive a block allocation to meet all capital housing requirements—new building, purchase of land, improvements to council houses and acquisition of existing properties. When the local authorities' views are fully known, I shall consider whether a further circular is necessary.

I welcome the Minister's return to good health. May I ask him, however, to explain why housing is due to take the most savage cut of all when the spending on housing per capita in Wales is below the average for the United Kingdom and when we have such a stock of old housing to renew or replace?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks to me. However, there has been no cut in Welsh new house-building provision for 1977–78. On the contrary, the White Paper provision was increased by some £20 million in July of this year.

I, too, welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box. I also welcome the system of block alloca- tions which is now being introduced. On the other hand, I should like to ask the Minister on what formula these allocations to each of the districts in Wales will be based.

I thank the hon. Gentleman in similar tones to those I expressed to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes our new proposals about the block allocations, which are designed to give greater flexibility to local housing authorities so that they can decide their own needs and how best to meet them. The criteria that we are using are those of population, the number of council houses, the past building record and the percentage of unfit houses. I know that some hon. Members, on all sides of the House, might have thought that we could have included waiting lists. Unfortunately, there is no common basis of compiling waiting lists and a comparison between the various districts would not, therefore, be possible.

Area Health Authorities (Membership)

2.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many area health authorities in Wales when first constituted had no members of the nursing profession in their composition; and what is the present position.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "None". At present, the Clwyd Area Health Authority does not include someone with current nursing experience.

What was the argument which persuaded my hon. Friend in the first instance not to have representatives of the nursing profession on the Clwyd Area Health Authority?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. All nominations for membership of the authority from the various organisations that were invited to nominate were considered very carefully, but at the end of the day, and taking into account all the circumstances, it seemed that the balance of membership which now obtains in Clwyd was the most appropriate. It includes someone with former nursing experience.

Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that there is serious discontent in the ranks of the nursing profession about the absence of any representation on this authority?

The fact that the lady to whom the hon. Gentleman may well be referring was not included was no reflection whatsoever on her contribution. There is no statutory obligation to have a nursing member.

Education Standards

3.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the standards of literacy and numeracy in Welsh secondary schools.

Standards of literacy and numeracy will have to rise if they are to keep pace with the demands of society.

That is hardly an answer to the Question. Will the Minister give an assurance that, before he embarks on the great debate about literacy and numeracy and the sensitive subjects of the curriculum and teaching methods, he will, unlike the Prime Minister, consult the teaching profession?

I should like to emphasise that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants a national debate in which everyone can join. Our priority is always our children and the quality of the education they are to receive. I should be very grateful to receive from the hon. Gentleman, who has more than a passing interest in education, his considered views, and in detail.

I was the only Back-Bench Member who was present to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Oxford. I would say that what the Prime Minister was trying to point out—[Interruption.]

That was merely the preamble, Mr. Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Prime Minister was trying to point out was that certain questions are being asked about standards? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that others besides members of the teaching profession are interested in these matters?

I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his points in such a way that many people in Britain were glad that the debate had been started by him. As regards mathematics, there is some cause for concern. Perhaps it is true that there is a justifiable feeling that standards of numeracy and literacy among school leavers are not up to present-day requirements. I think that that was what my right hon. Friend had in mind when he made his speech.

Following the hon. Gentleman's inquiries, is it correct to say that the standards of numeracy and literacy in Wales are far higher than the general tenor of the Prime Minister's speech would suggest? Since that speech I have made inquiries in my own area, and that seems to be the position. Is it the hon. Gentleman's conclusion that the curriculum is infinitely more important than the method of teaching?

The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister of Great Britain. However, I can say that there has been a levelling up of reading standards between England and Wales. In 1956 children in England were on average somewhat more competent readers of English than their counterparts in Wales, but in 1971 no significant differences were found between the two countries. I have recently commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to conduct a further survey of reading standards in both English and Welsh.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable and growing concern of employers in Wales at the standards they find in numeracy and literacy among school leavers whom they employ? Does he agree that this is a very serious consideration in Wales, where we desperately need to attract new industry and employ more school leavers?

Yes, the CBI is worried, but if the hon. Gentleman had read the Bullock Report of recent years he would have found that for 50 years the employers of Great Britain have been complaining that educational standards are not good enough. I cannot agree that standards have fallen sharply in recent years. There is no valid statistical evidence to justify some of the wilder allegations now being made.

Is my hon. Friend aware of any evidence that standards have fallen at all?

New Industry

4.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of new industrial enterprises that have been established in the Blaenau Gwent, Cardiff and Shotton travel-to-work areas since March 1974, together with the number of jobs currently provided and the number anticipated when full production is reached.

As the answer to the Question involves much detail I have arranged for it to be included in the Official Report. In brief, a total of 23 manufacturing firms are known by my Department to have opened in the three years since March 1974. These presently employ 1,150 people and when fully manned promise 2,300 jobs. In addition, firms which have agreed to set up in these areas but have not yet done so promise a further 1,300 jobs..

Are not those figures ludicrously and absurdly inadequate to provide for the growing number of redundancies and the swelling total of unemployment? Is it not a fact that the only chance of providing the badly needed jobs resulting from the closure, for example, of Courtaulds is for the Government to reverse their policies, reduce taxation and allow private enterprise to get on with providing the jobs?

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own views, but in some areas and industries it is private enterprise that has failed.

I welcome the efforts that have been made by my right hon. and learned friend in attracting, in difficult circumstances, industries to the Blaenau Gwent area. Some of us at least would like to give a warm welcome to the WDA's announcement that it will take over responsibility for developing the Rassau site. Had it not been for the efforts that the Government made to establish that agency, we should not have had this assistance.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The action of the WDA this morning was welcome in that it has announced its intentions. The House will be glad to know that it intends to develop an area in Rassau that will provide 100 acres for industrial purposes. This is a significant development, which I hope will be welcomed.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the role of the task forces in these areas, especially in the Clwyd area? Does he believe that they have substantially contributed to finding a solution to these problems?

The task forces were set up by my predecessor some years ago and carried out surveys of needs at that time. The situation has changed since then. We have to ensure that our proposals match whatever needs arise in future.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he refuses to publish detailed figures on individual projects but publishes them subsequently in the Economic Bulletin? Whether published or not, do not the figures reveal, against a background of 27,000 redundancies this year, that the impetus for creating new jobs in the steel areas has come to a standstill? Does he agree with the blunt verdict on this matter by Mr. Kirkwood of the Welsh Industrial Advisory Board in the report on the Industry Act 1972?

I shall look into the question of publishing or publication, but I fear that the hon. Gentleman drafted his supplementary question before he heard the good news of the action of the Welsh Development Agency this morning. That is a significant development that will allow for more than 1,000 jobs in the first phase and eventually 3,000 to 4,000 jobs.

Following is the information:

SHOTTON

  • B. B. Shotblast Engineering Services (Plant) Ltd.
  • C.& J. Engineering Ltd.
  • Christie Hydraulics Ltd.
  • Engineering Concessionaires Ltd.
  • Foesco Ltd.
  • Glendale Furniture Ltd.
  • Quindar Electronics Ltd.
  • Tillie & Henderson Ltd.

Together, these firms presently employ 320 people, and when fully manned promise a total of 530 jobs.

CARDIFF

  • Alpine Soft Drinks Ltd.
  • Burroughs Machines Ltd.
  • Gardners Transformers Ltd.
  • Matsushita Electric (UK) Ltd.
  • Portland Chemicals Ltd.

Together, these firms presently employ 270 and when fully manned promise a total of 670 jobs.

BLAENAU GWENT

  • Celnik & Power Ltd.
  • Conestra Ltd.
  • Engineering Products Ltd.
  • Eurodean Construction Ltd.
  • F. B. Industrial Rollers Ltd.
  • Grundy Auto Products Ltd.
  • Midland Oil Refineries Ltd.
  • Protective Clothing Ltd.
  • Alfred Teves Ltd.
  • Waterfit Ltd.

Together, these firms presently employ 560 people and when fully manned promise a total of 1,100 jobs.

Council Housing Starts

6.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his target figure for new starts by local authority housing departments in Wales in 1977.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is a totally inadequate answer in view of the housing needs in Wales? Does he have a target for total public and private sector building needs for Wales in the next year?

I gave the hon. Gentleman an answer on 29th October from which he was entitled to draw, and could draw, certain implications regarding new housing in 1976–77 and up to 1978–79. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is extremely difficult to place validity on such figures. For example, they ignored the extra £30 million that my right hon. and learned Friend announced for expenditure on housing in Wales this year and the £20 million announced for next year. Further, the new block allocations, which the hon. Member has welcomed, mean that local authorities will have the discretion to switch resources from new house building to the acquisition and repair of older houses if they think that that meets the needs of their areas.

Welsh Assembly

7.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in securing premises for the Welsh Assembly; and when he anticipates concluding arrangements for purchasing these premises.

I announced, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) on 26th October, that the Government intended to accommodate the Assembly in the Exchange, Cardiff. Completion of the lease is expected by the end of the year.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is general satisfaction in Wales that the new building is likely to be more practical than that previously considered for the Assembly? Will he comment on reports that the detailed agreement cannot be completed until about October of next year? If that were the case, would it permit the Assembly to go into operation in the spirng of 1978 as has previously been anticipated?

It is my intention that the work which is necessary for changing the Exchange building will be completed in good time for when the Assembly comes into operation. I anticipate no difficulty about the lease. It is expected that the contracts for the work will be entered into in the spring of next year, and that will be in good time. I am not aware of any of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman canvasses.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the satisfaction to which the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has referred would be more general if the Assembly were to be sited in a more convenient place in Wales—for example, in Mid-Wales, which would be far more convenient for representatives who will be coming from various parts of the Principality? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it will be within the purview of the Assembly, if and when Parliament decides that it is to be set up, to have the right to decide where the Assembly should be sited?

I should have said that I am glad that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has welcomed the announcement. It will obviously be for the Assembly in due course to decide where it wants to meet. That is the sort of issue on which I expect there to be a great deal of argument from my right hon. Friend and from many other Members who represent other areas. However, Cardiff is the capital of Wales. I regard it as right and proper—I hope that the Assembly will take the same view—that it should meet in the capital city, whatever the convenience of meeting anywhere else.

Without discussing the merits and the nature of the Government's devolution proposals, as there must be uncertainty in view of the precarious future of the Government and of legislation, may I ask whether the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate that the Government should be committed to substantial expenditure in respect of legislation which has not yet been passed?

I have no hesitation in saying that the Government's future is not precarious. The Government will carry out their manifesto and their programme. I should be seriously at fault were I not to make the necessary preparations to ensure that there is a home for the Assembly when it is established.

Will the Secretary of State heed further the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes)? As the Assembly is a new departure, is it not important that the site should be geographically convenient for the whole of Wales? Will the Secretary of State consider the possibility of siting the Assembly at Newtown, where there is a new town development?

I recognise the strength with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting forward his case, perhaps with his tongue in his cheek. I am sure that he will be putting a similar case for the siting of the headquarters of the Development Board for Rural Wales. He might have to elect whether the Assembly or the headquarters should be sited there.

12.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what were the total administrative and physical costs expended before the plans to house an Assembly in the Temple of Peace and Health were abandoned; why the intended capital outlay to house the Assembly has increased by more than £1 million since April; what length of lease, and on what terms, is being obtained at the Exchange; and what is the total anticipated commitment including the capital outlay for the Exchange project.

I understand that about £17,000 was spent by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on studies of the Temple of Peace by consultants, together with a further £7,000 on internal departmental activities. The capital costs at the Exchange are higher because the building is bigger and older; but these costs are largely offset by lower running costs, greater availability of accommodation and other factors. Thus the total costs of the two projects are similar. The current market rental will be paid for the Exchange. The lease is for 20 years but can be terminated after 10 years.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the lead story—the happy story—in The Times this morning indicating that the Government do not intend to proceed with the devolution Bill becoming an Act without a referendum in Wales? As the Marplan poll made it unmistakably clear that the people of Wales do not want devolution in any form, is it not outrageous not only that these sums should have been expended but, what is more, that at a time when the people of Wales are more concerned about housing their own people millions more should be spent upon housing an unwanted salaried Assembly?

I have no knowledge at all of the statement in this morning's edition of The Times.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the opportunity of making his own and the Government's total rebuttal of the allegations made by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in a recent newspaper article that civil servants could not be trusted to run the Welsh Assembly?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have made no such statement. Therefore, no reference can be made to it. I must ask for your protection, if such I need, as it is entirely taken out of context and it is a very serious allegation to make.

I deprecate the hurling of charges, especially at Question time, but the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has made his position quite clear.

West Wales Steel Development Committee

8.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the West Wales Steel Development Committee.

The committee has not sought a meeting, but I have close and regular contact with many of the bodies represented on it.

Does the Secretary of State agree with West Glamorgan County Council that the consents given by the Government in July fall far short of the British Steel Corporation's strategy and the case advanced by the West Wales Steel Development Committee that West Wales faces further massive job losses and any further delay will put in jeopardy the chances of the area competing in steel products in United Kingdom and world markets?

I am deeply aware of the concern in West Glamorgan, and I am in close personal touch with the leaders of the steel industry in that part of the world. I spoke to them only last Friday. The hon. Gentleman referred to delays, but the Government have made a firm offer to the industry amounting to the expenditure of £350 million, which is nearly 30 times more than the proposed cut in increased Government expenditure on the Welsh Office Vote. If there is any question of losing time, I hope that the steel industry will take up the whole of that offer as soon as possible. I regret that it has not done so.

Is it not true that the money in question does not add to steelmaking capacity and that that is the central point that people are pressing on the Government?

The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with the problem and perhaps discuss it with his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). The offer we have made is that the industry can invest in expenditure of £350 million on coke ovens, continuous casting work and a hot strip mill. That offer does not prejudice the reappraisal that the Government have asked the BSC to make of the needs of Shotton and development at Port Talbot. No one is more passionately concerned than I to ensure that we have a viable steel industry in this country, in particular in my constituency. Against that background we have given the go-ahead for the necessary investment at Port Talbot, and I hope that the BSC will take it up.

Welsh National Water Development Authority

9.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet the Welsh National Water Development Authority.

I had arranged to meet early in November the late Chairman of the Authority. Hon. Members will join me in sending deepest sympathy to Lady Brecon. I shall now resume the regular meetings which I had been holding, prior to my illness, with representatives of the Authority.

We share my hon. Friend's regret at the death of Lord Brecon. Our arguments were always about policy and never of a personal nature. Will my hon. Friend intervene in the proposal made by the Authority for direct billing? I am disturbed to find that the Authority is still progressing the proposal, and I ask my hon. Friend to stop it at this stage. Will he also speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about taking the Craig Goch reservoir out of the regional context and considering it in the United Kingdom context, so that we may have the maximum reservoir there and not the minimum reservoir as is now proposed?

We have already told water authorities that in considering whether to extend direct billing they must pay close attention to the overriding need to avoid any net increase in public expenditure. At a meeting last Thursday—at which the Government were represented by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Sport and Recreation—with representatives of the local authority associations and the National Water Council, the question of direct billing was discussed. As a result of that meeting, we are considering what further advice should be given. Most hon. Members will be glad to know that three authorities at least have come together and will, we hope, agree on a solution to the problem of Craig Goch that will result in the supply of water to people in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister accept that the Welsh experience of the long drought this summer is final proof, if proof were needed, of the urgent need for a truly Welsh national water authority, covering the whole of Wales, invested with adequate powers to develop our rich water resources, with power to sell surplus resources to the industries and conurbations in England which need them and to establish a Welsh national grid?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not agree with a word he has uttered on this subject. I believe that the resources of the United Kingdom must be developed as a whole for the betterment of all our people.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the proposed arrangement for collecting water charges can only mean rocketing costs followed by great public indignation? Does he further agree that local authorities are perfectly capable of doing this job—as they have done in the past—at far less cost?

The answer is not quite as simple as my hon. Friend suggests. My information is that it is not only a question of whether local authorities are capable of doing this job. Some local authorities want direct billing and others want to continue the present practice. The question of cost is a matter of doubt. Further information is necessary before advice can be given. The WNWDA is paying £1·16 million to local authorities this year for the collection service. The Authority's estimate is that direct billing would save them £600,000 a year. The solutions are not quite as simple as they might seem to be at first sight.

Local Authority Expenditure

10.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he is having with local authorities concerning public expenditure cuts.

Public expenditure is regularly discussed at meetings of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if there are to be any cuts they should be made in the number of chief executives and not of dustmen? Does he further agree that the huge bureaucracy created by the Conservative reorganisation of local government has been astronomical in cost and has played a major part in hampering the recovery of the British economy?

There is a great deal to be said for the Chiefs and Indians argument which my hon. Friend has put forward today and on other occasions. My view is that local government reorganisation did not help to make local government either more efficient or cheaper.

Is the Minister aware that we on this Bench do not accept that there should be any reduction in public expenditure in Wales, particularly on housing and social services? Will he ensure that local authorities in Wales are aware of the needs of their areas and the need for public expenditure?

The hon. Gentleman likes to refer to cuts, but I remind him that the July measures, which involved cuts in Wales of £12 million, were accompanied by an increase in expenditure on housing in Wales of £20 million. Therefore, the net effect was a gain—not a loss—for Wales in public expenditure terms.

Will the Minister confirm that, contrary to recent newspaper reports, on a population basis Wales gets a fair share of the rate support grant, her population being 5·6 per cent. of the total for England and Wales and the amount of rate support grant received by Wales in 1976–77 being 7·4 per cent. of the total?

I am advised that Wales's share of rate support grant is higher per capita than that in England.

Does the Minister know what percentage of the expenditure of local authorities in Wales goes on salaries, wages and so on as opposed to the other services?

I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to table that question, and I will see that he gets an answer.

Cleddau Bridge

11.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has reconsidered his decision about the costs of the Cleddau Bridge.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the £1¼ million burden of interest which has to be borne by Dyfed, which includes the old counties of Cardigan and Carmarthen, which had no responsibility for building this bridge—in fact, this burden should be borne by the Government—is equal to the total of the cuts in roads and almost equal to the total cuts in education? Is not this totally unjust?

As regards the responsibility of Carmarthen and Ceredigion, we—I am one of them—must carry the burden for the activities of the old county council of Pembroke. This is the result of local government reorganisation perpetrated by the Administration of the Conservatives. I understand that for the past year the net expenditure for the county was just over £1 million, not £1¼ million.

As for the Government not doing anything, I must make it clear that the combination of the resources element and the needs element of the rate support grant which the Government make means that three-quarters of the total of that cost has been met by the Government and only one-quarter by the ratepayers. That should be put in its right perspective, too.

Should not the Secretary of State make it clear that the responsibility for the present situation rests not on the old authority but on an unforeseeable disaster which added £7 million or £8 million to the cost of the bridge? I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to meet local authority representatives this week. Will he take this opportunity of transferring the burden even more equitably to the taxpayer than he has just suggested? Is there not a special need to do so at a time when unemployment in the area is at the shocking level of one in five?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the fact that three-quarters of the burden is now being carried by the central Government. We all know the history of the building of this bridge. Pembrokeshire County Council decided to go it alone on the building of the bridge. There was no question of central Government financing while the Conservative Government were in power from 1970 to 1974, except for the statement by the hon. Gentleman on the eve of the 1974 General Election, with all the authority of a Conservative spokesman, that if they were elected to power there would be no toll charges. I greatly look forward to seeing what will happen about that statement.

Morriston Hospital

13.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give priority to rebuilding Morriston Hospital in view of its state of dilapidation causing a danger to the health of patients and staff.

My right hon. and learned Friend recently visited Morriston Hospital with my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). I am well aware of the need for major redevelopment there. We shall take account of this when deciding the future capital programme.

My hon. Friend will be aware that this hospital was built during a wartime emergency and that, despite its deplorable working conditions, it has rendered remarkable service to the community, thanks to the dedication of its staff. Is he aware further that this hospital provides sub-regional service to the whole of South-West Wales and as such deserves the highest priority in future hospital planning?

There is light at the end of the tunnel for this project. The question is to be decided soon as to how much will be invested and precisely when the starting date will be. I, too, wish to say that the work done at Morriston Hospital is magnificent.

I sympathise with the problem at Morriston, but may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that the position at Wrexham is even worse—

Order. That is a completely different question that should be on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask a question about Wrexham, he can hardly do so on a Question relating to Morriston.

With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I intend to couple the argument between Morriston and Wrexham into this question, because the whole question is one of priority. I want to ask my hon. Friend to ensure that Wrexham, which is the one large population centre in Wales which has not had substantial capital spent on it since the establishment of the National Health Service, retains top priority over all other schemes, on two grounds. The first is the merits of the case. The second is that public disquiet, which is already beginning to express itself at the inferior service—

Briefly, Mr. Speaker. My constituency is next to Wrexham. I know precisely the points my hon. Friend is making.

Fluoridation

14.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has received from area health authorities for the fluoridation of water supplies; and if he will give an estimate of the cost of each scheme.

None. Our approval is not required. But I understand that Mid, West and South Glamorgan Area Health Authorities have all decided to introduce new schemes when finances permit. Estimated costs are available only for West and South Glamorgan at about £50,000 and £100,000 respectively.

Is not the Minister aware that the expenditure of such moneys at a time when there is a cut-back in essential services would be viewed with amazement by members of the public and, indeed, by those elected councils in the South Glamorgan area which opposed the introduction of fluoridation, which is an extremely debatable form of compulsory medication?

The Cardiff Community Health Council, the St. Fagan's Community Health Council and all the professional opinion in the area support the area health authority. Fluoridation is by far the cheapest and most effective means of safeguarding dental health. It is our policy to encourage it. Dental health in Wales is not in a good state.

Because one-third of the people over the age of 16 have no teeth and because dental decay sets in before 16, will the Minister give priority to fluoridation? Will he, in particular, encourage other Government services to provide, for instance, voluntary application of fluoride through mouthwashes, fluoride at school and topical application under the National Health Service?

Capital costs such as installations at waterworks should be borne by the central Government and not by individual area health authorities.

Whatever the merits of fluoridation, is it not wrong that it should be carried out by an area health authority which is a nominated body and not by elected bodies, the county councils, as was the case before reorganisation of the National Health Service?

My hon. Friend has adopted a statesmanlike attitude in this matter in his constituency. I expect area health authorities thoroughly to consult local opinion, but their decision is their own in the light of their duty to safeguard health.

I am going by the clock. The hon. Gentleman should study the Order Paper.

Civil Service

Pay Research Unit

26.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will consider changing the constitution of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit so as to include independent advice and assessment.

30.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will review the constitution of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit.

May I preface my reply by emphasising that the Pay Research Unit procedures are in suspense during the current period of the Government's pay policies. However, the procedures for determining Civil Service pay have been kept under regular review since they were recommended by the Priestley Royal Commission and the Government are naturally taking the opportunity provided by the current suspension of pay research to look at various aspects of the system. But these are matters which need to be examined very carefully and any suggestions or proposals will have to be the subject of full consultation with the interested parties.

Is the Minister aware of the grave public concern about earnings and related benefits in the nonproductive public service being out of balance with the earnings and related benefits in the productive area? As the public non-productive sector does not seem to be subject to the Pay Code, and nor do the benefits and pensions, is it not time that independent advice was made available to the unit?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is misleading the House and the country by suggesting that civil servants' pay is not subject to Government pay policy. It is. Civil servants have had no more and no less than comparable groups in the private sector.

The Civil Service Pay Research Unit is fully staffed by civil servants. Since hon. Members are prepared to bring in outside advice to determine their own terms and conditions, might that not be right for the Civil Service?

The Government are exploring ways in which it might be possible to ensure that justice is not only done to Civil Service pay but is manifestly seen to be done. I reject the right hon. Gentleman's implication that in some ways there is a conspiracy among civil servants to determine their own rates of pay. That is completely misleading.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that this is a unique parliamentary occasion, because, of the 14 Questions tabled to the Minister for the Civil Service, nine come from the Parliamentary Liberal Party? Is that not unusual, and can he explain this concerted attack on the Civil Service?

I suppose my hon. Friend is right to say that today we are witnessing a new parliamentary phenomenon. Civil servants, public servants, retired policemen, nurses and all the people who have dedicated their lives to the public service must be wondering what they have done to incur the wrath of these Westminster Order Paper warriors.

I do not in any way wish to attack the Civil Service, but will the Minister accept that there is considerable resentment, particularly among pensioners benefiting from private schemes who look at the inflation-proofing of Civil Service pension schemes and find their own standards of living falling? Will the Government consider inflation-proofing both public and private pension schemes and try to bring an end to inflation as soon as possible?

I accept that there may be some resentment among those who are enjoying the benefits of a private pension scheme when they see the inflation-proofed Civil Service scheme. But the feelings of resentment are not based on fact. If the hon. Gentleman examines the basis of the Civil Service indexing of pension schemes, he will see that there is no injustice.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been much hypocrisy about Civil Service pensions among Liberal Members? Will he tell the House who introduced the 1971 Pensions (Increase) Act and what was the attitude of the Liberal Party to its introduction?

My hon. Friend, with perception, has reminded me that the 1971 Act was initiated by the Conservative Government. Not one Liberal Member took part in the debate on that Bill in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords the Liberal spokesman strongly welcomed the Bill.

Apart from the intra-parliamentary inter-party row, is not the real problem that, if a pension is indexed on £3,000 today, in 15 years at a 13 per cent, rate of inflation it will be £18,000? That is the real problem facing the Government, the House and the public, and something must be done about it. It is a nonsense economy.

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question in mathematics is for him to join the Government in getting inflation down.

Does the Minister appreciate that in addition to the problem of pensions the basic level of salaries is causing wide concern throughout the country, particularly in industries which have lost people to jobs with seemingly less responsibility but with higher salaries in the public service? Is not this a feature that should be examined by the Pay Research Unit?

I should like to see the evidence for the hon. Gentleman's claim. The view that the Civil Service is leading in pay and pensions is not borne out by the facts. Three to four years ago, despite all the advantages now being attributed to Civil Service pay and conditions, we could not attract people from the private sector to the Civil Service. The salaries, pensions and perquisites have not changed in the meanwhile.

Public Appointments

27.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether his Department has any plans for limiting the extent and the cost of paid public appointments made by Ministers.

No, Sir. Responsibility for appointments rests with departmental Ministers, who, as a matter of policy, keep under review the numbers and costs of the appointments they make. In many cases the numbers of appointments are enumerated in the controlling statute or constitution.

Have the Government considered the case for encouraging the establishing of a committee to look into the whole matter, preferably along the lines of the Public Accounts Committee? Does the Minister accept that, if the Government agreed, that would go at least some way towards allaying the justified suspicions of the apparently endless growth of ministerial appointments to non-political bodies outside the Civil Service?

The hon. Gentleman's opinions and observations are fascinating, but they do not come within my field of responsibility.

In the Government's view, what are the qualities of the new Chairman of Cable and Wireless which prompted the Government to make that appointment?

The qualities and the criteria for such appointments are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Pensions

28.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if the Civil Service Pay Research Unit has made any comparisons between pensions paid in the private sector and pensions paid in the public sector.

The Pay Research Unit obtains details of the pension arrangements applying in the outside firms covered by its surveys on a confidential basis. This information is included in its reports and is used to adjust Civil Service pay to allow for differences both in pension benefits and pension contributions.

Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of the British population, retired and working, will have a reduction in their standard of living during the next 12 months? How can he defend a system which lets this elite body off that grave result of our economic chaos?

I do not accept that civil servants and the 1 million public servants who have given a lifetime of service to the community and the State are in any way an elite body.

Devolution Legislation

40.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he can now name a date for the publication of the Bill on devolution.

The Bill will be introduced early in the coming Session.

Will my hon. Friend deny the silly rumours that the Government are likely to give way to IMF pressure to scrap the devolution proposals? Bearing in mind last week's opinion poll published in the Scotsman indicating that the vast majority of Scots want a referendum, which would conclusively show that the vast majority of Scots would prefer devolution to SNP-style separation, will my hon. Friend and the Government continue to consider proposals for holding a referendum?

I read with astonishment the story to which my hon. Friend has referred. It is about the silliest story to appear in any newspaper this year, and that is saying quite a lot. My hon. Friend is right in telling the House that recently, according to opinion polls, there has been a convincing demonstration of support for the Government's policy on devolution and an indication that the vast majority of people in Scotland wish to remain full members of the United Kingdom. This encourages the Government to think that their proposals are not only right but popular.

Is the Minister hopeful that he can fulfil the promise of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) that when the Bill on devolution is published we shall also be able to see the White Paper on devolution for England? How are the Government getting on with their discussions on that matter?

My right hon. Friend the Lord President has made it clear that we shall publish the consultative document on the English regions before the Second Reading debate on the devolution Bill. That is a categorical assurance that will be adhered to. There has been some fair criticism of the Government for not having produced the document before now.

Is it really the Government's intention still to go on with the idea of having one Bill for both Scotland and Wales when the problems in the two countries are totally different, as everyone knows? What is the purpose of going on with the one Bill when obviously two Bills would be far better?

If we had two Bills for the two countries, they would not both be passed within the next parliamentary Session. We believe that the proposals for both concern themselves with transfer of powers outwards from Westminster and Whitehall and that, therefore, it is appropriate that they should be dealt with together. I should like the right hon. Gentleman or another representative of the Opposition to explain how it is possible to be in favour of devolution for Scotland but not for Wales.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while there may be pressure for devolution for Scotland and Wales, although I doubt that there is very much in Wales, there is certaintly no real pressure for devolution in England? May I ask him not to consider it in any way a matter of vital importance that such a White Paper should be published before we discuss these unnecessary Bills—unnecessary for Britain, anyway?

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with his major point. We consider that the Bill for Scotland and Wales is of paramount importance. We shall produce for the English regions a consultative document, on which my hon. Friend's views and the views of all hon. Members will be welcomed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recent speeches, statements and writings by persons who hold the highest offices in the State have made clear and have underlined the almost desperate need to decentralise power? Is he aware that the main weakness of the British system of government is its extreme centralism, and that powers should be decentralised from the bureaucrats, who now hold it, to the people?

The hon. Gentleman covered a very wide field in that question. I shall confine myself to saying that we believe that the decentralisation of power and the increase of democratic accountability, which lie at the heart of our devolution proposals, are a desirable step forward in modern British government.

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the report in The Times today that there is to be a referendum on devolution? Is it correct? If so, will he make it plain that it is not for better, more open government but is simply to satisfy dissidents in his own ranks?

My right hon. Friend the Lord President has made it clear that the Government would entertain no referendum in advance of the Bill which is to be published on devolution. If any other proposals are made, they will be considered in Parliament, and the merits and demerits put forward by their advocates and those who oppose such suggestions will be fully considered by the Government.

Scottish Assembly

43.

asked the Lord President of the Council how many representations he has received to the effect that the Government's proposals to set up an Assembly in Scotland will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman should not be misled by the round dozen of representations he has received. Is he aware that the cause of discontent in Scotland lies not in the absence of an assembly but in growing revulsion against continuingly unsuccessful government?

There are causes for discontent in Scotland as in other parts of the United Kingdom. Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is that my assessment and that of the Government is that the majority of people in Scotland welcome our proposals for the reform of government. I have as much knowledge of the Scottish electorate as the hon. Gentleman has, given whom he represents in Parliament.

The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) referred to the question of a referendum. Is the Minister aware that, if there is a referendum and if the proposal is that only the people of Scotland and Wales should take part, he must bear in mind that for over 270 years millions of Scots and Welsh people have moved to other parts of the Kingdom without considering that they have travelled abroad? There are in my constituency many people of Scottish and Welsh descent who would reasonably expect to be consulted on these matters.

Of course, Scots and Welsh people do not consider that they are travelling abroad in those circumstances. I do not consider myself to be abroad at this moment. We shall have an opportunity when the Bill is debated for all points of view from all parts of the United Kingdom to be discussed in the House. Questions such as those concerning possible referenda can be discussed by hon. Members.

As Scotland is over-represented in the House—I speak as an Englishman—can the Minister assure us that, under any proposals about the extent to which powers are devolved to Edinburgh or Cardiff, representation in this House will be reduced to the same extent?

This is an important matter which the House will no doubt wish to discuss when the devolution proposals are considered. The Kilbrandon Commission examined the matter and made certain proposals. It thought it impractical to have MPs dealing only with certain matters in the House. This is a fairly complicated matter. The Government would like to hear what hon. Members have to say when the Bill is debated.

As the political temperature is likely to be taken this week at Walsall, Workington and Newcastle, to what extent is devolution a matter of extreme public concern at those three places?

I imagine that it is of less concern in those constituencies since they are in England.

Honourable Members And The Law

46.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has any intention of introducing legislation to subject Members of Parliament to the ordinary processes of law in all cases where bribery and corruption are concerned.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 20th October, the Government are considering the report of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, including the recommendation that

"Parliament should consider bringing corruption, bribery and attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament acting in his Parliamentary capacity within the ambit of the criminal law."
This is a question for Parliament, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will report to the House how he thinks we can best make progress in the matter.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one thing that could give a fillip to the people who will be voting this week would be the announcement that in the next Session of Parliament we shall carry out the recommendations made by Lord Salmon in the Royal Commission's report to the extent that Members of Parliament will be treated like ordinary citizens in matters of corruption and bribery?

It would be as well for the House to consider the matter in depth. There is a major question whether, on matters affecting the House, outside bodies should consider what to do about Members of Parliament. Without prejudging the issue, I can say that we cannot expect quick legislation. We should think about the implications of the Salmon Commission's report.

Lord President Of The Council (Visits)

47.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will list those countries which he intends to visit before the end of 1976.

My right hon. Friend hopes to represent the Labour Party at the Congress of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party.

Will the Minister tell the Lord President of the Council, when he is better, that some of us used to consider him a democrat, but that we have long since become disillusioned with him? Will he also tell his right hon. Friend not to go trouble-making in Spain, a country that is trying to find the road to democracy, while simultaneously coming to this House and acting as an apologist for an Indian dictatorship?

That supplementary question is below the standards we normally look for in this House. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has always done a great deal to contribute to the furtherance of democracy.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is right that the Lord President of the Council should attend the Congress of the Socialist Workers' Party in Spain, a country which has not known democracy and which still does not know it? Will not the visit itself be a great contribution towards the democratisation of an ex-Fascist régime? Does my hon. Friend also agree that my right hon. Friend has never at any time defended the present lack of democracy in India?

My right hon. Friend has been consistent in his defence of democracy all over the world, and I am sure that any country or any group of people have a great deal to learn from him. Furthermore, his presence at the Congress of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party is another demonstration of the internationalism of the Labour Party.

Amendments (Mr Speaker's Selection)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful to have the opportunity to ask you whether you will consider, though not necessarily replying today, dispensing to the House an act of grace and discretion by the Chair—not a duty—which would certainly be of great convenience to hon. Members.

I asked your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, eight or 10 years ago whether he would place in the "No" Lobby a list of the provisional selection of amendments to Bills which at a convenient moment in time he had it in mind to call—not a list that would bind him to call all the amendments so selected, or indeed would prohibit him from calling amendments that were not on the list, but a list giving an indication to the House before a debate of the mind of the Chair. I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House agree that such a practice has been of great convenience to the House.

However, that practice was restricted in interpretation and practice to amendments on Bills rather than to amendments on motions. My respectful request to you today, Mr. Speaker, is that you should consider indicating, by papers placed in the "No" Lobby, the amendments which you had it in mind provisionally to call to motions before the House as well as to Bills.

There are many amendments to motions which are of more than party interest—namely, of interest to Parliament as a whole. However, once the House is sitting it is not mechanically very easy for Members who wish to speak in a debate to discuss with Members on the other side of the House amendments to motions with which they may agree or disagree. When there is a plethora of amendments, it is difficult to know which amendments the Chair has it in mind provisionally to call and this places a restriction on hon. Members because, by the laws of mathematics, only a certain number of hon. Members can be called by Mr. Speaker to speak in any debate.

This consideration applies to today's events as to matters on other days, and I hope that you will be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether to place in some convenient place, be it in the "No" Lobby or elsewhere, your provisional selection of amendments.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I undertake to consider what he said and I shall inform the House tomorrow.

Conduct Of Members

Before I call the Prime Minister to move the order of reference to the Select Committee on the conduct of Members, I should like to explain the procedure that I propose to follow.

When motions setting up Select Committees are moved in the House they usually go through "on the nod" and for that reason the Questions on orders of reference, nominations and powers are put en bloc to save time. When such motions are debated, and more particularly when amendments have been selected, it is clear that the practice is to put the several Questions on the order of reference, nomination of the Committee and its powers separately.

I propose, however, that all the separate motions comprising orders of reference, nomination and powers in this instance be debated first, together with such amendments as I have selected, so that we may have a broad debate on the motion and on the amendments, again to save time.

At the conclusion of the debate I shall put the separate Questions on each paragraph, calling each Member whose amendment I have selected to move his amendment if he so wishes at the proper place in the paragraph concerned, provided that it has not already fallen as a result of the House having agreed to an earlier amendment.

I have selected the amendment in line 22, to leave out from 'That' to end of line 24 and insert
'the Committee shall conduct its proceedings in public:'.
I have also selected both amendments in lines 24, which are as follows:

In line 24, at end insert—
'That no witness summoned to appear before the Committee shall claim Crown Privilege as a justification for refusing to answer questions asked by the Committee:'.
In line 24, at end insert—
That the Committee shall at their discretion sit in public if they consider that at any stage of the inquiry the requirements of justice or of the public interest requires them to do so notwithstanding any of the foregoing:'.
The amendment to leave out lines 22 to 24 is unnecessary since under the arrangement I have just announced the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) may vote against the motion when I put the Question on the paragraph comprised in lines 22 to 24.

Finally, I remind the House that the conduct of Members may not be criticised save on a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. This is not such a motion since it goes not further than appointing a Select Committee to make a particular inquiry. While it is open to hon. Members to refer to circumstances attending the inquiry, it will not be in order to make allegations against individual Members. This would prejudge the Committee's findings and recommendations.

Conduct Of Members

3.38 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)

: I beg to move

That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct and activities of Members of this House in connection with the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson; to consider whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House or was inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its
5Members; and to report:
That the Committee do consist of ten Members:
That Miss Harvie Anderson, Mr. Peter Blaker, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Max Madden, Mr.William Ross, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. Michael Stewart, Mr. Jeffrey Thomas, and Mr. Peter Thomas be members of the Committee.
10That Five be the Quorum of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:
15That the Committee shall lay before the House all such oral and documentary evidence as upon consideration by them shall appear to be relevant and such as may fairly be taken into account:
That Mr. Attorney General shall attend the Committee so far as the Committee may require to present evidence relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry; and may give such further assistance to the Committee as may be appropriate:
20That the Committee have power to appoint persons to carry out such work relating to the Committee's order of reference as the Committee may determine:
That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit:
That no person not being a member of the Committee shall be present during any of the proceedings of the Committee unless required by the Committee to be present for the purposes of their inquiry:
25That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament.

The motion stands on the Order Paper in my name and that of my right hon. Friends the Lord President and the Home Secretary.

The House will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance on the nature of debate and the way in which you propose to conduct it.

The motion arises from the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on Tuesday 19th October about the Poulson case. He then said:

"There are not sufficient grounds to merit the commencement of any further prosecutions or continued inquiry into the possibility of obtaining further evidence of criminal offences. I have accordingly agreed that the investigation should now be brought to an end."—[Official Report, 19th October, 1976; Vol. 917, c. 361.]

In 1972 the decision was taken that police investigations and prosecutions should have precedence over other investigations into the Poulson affair. The names of some hon. Members have been made public in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings of Mr. Poulson, but their alleged connections were but one facet of a complex matter. The view was taken in 1972 that to have referred these matters to Parliament could have pre-empted decisions by the then Attorney-General, or later by his successor, with regard to prosecutions. The present Government reaffirmed that decision when they came to power in 1974, and although it was reviewed from time to time, the decision was adhered to.

With the ending of the prospect of further prosecutions, referred to by the Attorney-General on 19th October, the time has come for the House to consider the matter again, and in my statement of 21st October I said that the Government would have early discussions with other parties in the House about the composition, terms of reference and powers of a Select Committee to make a full and thorough investigation into the allegations made against hon. Members acting in their parliamentary capacity in connection with Mr. Poulson's affairs. In the absence of the Lord President, these consultations have been carried out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to whom I am very grateful, and the Government's proposals are contained in the motion now before the House.

There is no dispute about the need for a thorough inquiry by the House. The good name of individual Members has been questioned, and that involves the standing of Parliament itself. Hon. Members individually and collectively will be vindicated only by a thorough investigation in which justice is done to all those concerned. That requires not only full investigation of those who may have failed to live up to the standards which this House expects of its Members but also fair treatment of all those whose names have been used, whether they have been involved in the matter or not.

An inquiry can take various forms. Some might prefer a tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act of 1921. Those of us who recall the Lynskey Tribunal will well remember the volume of criticism which those proceedings attracted. There was no universal approbation at the end of its deliberations. The Government have also taken into account some of the observations of the Royal Commission under Lord Salmon's chairmanship, which reported in 1966. I do not refer to the latest report.

That Commission noted that the exceptional inquisitorial powers conferred on a tribunal under the Act would necessarily expose the ordinary citizen to have aspects of his private life uncovered and to the risk of having baseless allegations made against him. The Government do not consider that the allegations which have been made so far constitute anything in the nature of a nation-wide crisis of confidence and we have therefore come down against a tribunal.

As regards Select Committees, there are precedents for such appointments in comparable circumstances, although fortunately those have been rare. The allegations which we have read about relate to Members making speeches or otherwise acting in their parliamentary capacity. Those actions therefore enjoy the protection of parliamentary privilege and are not matters within the jurisdiction of the courts. They are matters for the House, and the House has ample power to investigate them and to apply its own considerable sanctions if those are warranted.

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 that this or that evidence is inadmissible.

The order of reference for the Select Committee in the motion is drawn up with those differences in mind. It will enable a thorough-going inquiry to be held and all the facts germane to it will be laid bare. The motion provides that the inquiry, free, as I have said, from the restrictions and rules of proceedings in courts of law, shall be conducted in such a manner as to safeguard the rights of hon. Members to be treated fairly. The scope of the inquiry fully covers the range of allegations to which publicity has been given.

With the other parties in the House, the Government have carefully considered the composition of the Committee. I said in the House on 20th October that I shared the view then expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) that the Committee of Privileges was not an appropriate body to consider the matters raised. That is partly a question of composition. The membership proposed for the Select Committee now numbers 10. It has been drawn from four of the parties in the House and it includes six hon. Members who are not members of the Privy Council. All of them are colleagues who are respected by us and who bring to the Committee a wealth of experience and relevant abilities. We can have full confidence in them.

The Attorney-General, who is a member of the Committee of Privileges, will not be a member of the Select Committee, but the order of reference provides that he shall attend the Committee as the Committee may require to present evidence and that he may give further assistance to the Committee as appropriate. I believe that to be the best arrangement. That is what I envisaged in my statement on 21st October.

I also said then, and the order of reference now provides, that the Committee should

"have power to send for persons, papers and records".

It will also

"have power to appoint persons to carry out such work relating to the Committee's order of reference as the Committee may determine".

That is the form of words recently used for the Procedure Committee. It would, for example, allow the Committee to appoint accountants to look at balance sheets, should such assistance be needed. These will, I hope, recommend themselves to the House as straightforward and necessary powers.

The order of reference also provides

"That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit".

I have no doubt that the Committee will exercise that discretion wisely, avoiding the formality of court proceedings. That is the intention of that paragraph in the order of reference. It is necessary to express it as a power in order to avoid the imposition of the formality of full court procedures, but our intention is that, in the sense which I have described, the Committee will regard it as a requirement. I believe that that can be left to the good sense of the Committee.

I now come to the question of publication of oral and documentary evidence. The Government considered this matter carefully, and the order of reference does not merely empower but requires the Committee to lay before the House

"… all such … evidence as upon consideration by them shall appear to be relevant, and such as may fairly be taken into account".

I particularly ask the House to look at that in conjunction with the other requirement on which I know the attention of hon. Members will be concentrated:

"That no person not being a member of the Committee shall be present during any of the proceedings of the Committee unless required by the Committee to be present for the purposes of their inquiry".

In our view, those two provisions give the means to provide an open and fair inquiry.

As hon. Members know, any Committee of the House has power to exclude the public from its proceedings. Hon. Members who are not members of the Committee are generally prepared to withdraw from the Committee's deliberations when required to do so. In practice, in no proceedings before the Committee of Privileges has either a Member of the House or a member of the public attended during any part of the proceedings, save as a witness.

The Procedure Committee of 1971–72 recommended that hon. Members should no longer have the right to be present at the deliberations of Select Committees and that the Committees should also have the power to exclude Members when taking evidence. Those recommendations have not so far been adopted.

We are not dealing here with the general run of Select Committee business. We are dealing with an inquiry of a very unusual nature. It is, I believe, unprecedented in its generality and lack of restriction as to both the names and the allegations which may fall to be considered within the terms of reference. The point of having such an inquiry is that it shall pursue the truth and be clearly seen to have done so. That is what the order of reference provides.

It is our 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 his 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. This is what has happened sometimes in the past in cases before tribunals of inquiry where the evidence was heard in public.

The House has a duty to protect the innocent, as we have a responsibility to punish a misdemeanour. Those in public life, as we are, are especially vulnerable to slander and false allegations, and, if such persons offer themselves as candidates for election, such baseless smears can lead not only to a loss of faith in the individual but also to the undermining of belief in the standing of hon. Members generally.

Although I can see the case both ways, these are the reasons which have persuaded the Government. We considered the matter most carefully. I am sorry that words such as "cover-up" and "whitewash" have been used by some hon. Members. It is nothing of the sort.

There is, I think. a very sound case for this approach, and these are the reasons which have persuaded us, in the light of our discussions with other parties in the House, to reach this conclusion.

Is it the case that, in the event of perjury or baseless allegation, the person so behaving lays himself open to contempt of the House?

I understand that it could be, though I suppose that it depends on the specific case.

My right hon. Friend has made a strong case for having the Committee's proceedings generally in private and for not having the Press there. But there have been cases where a Select Committee has considered that a subject may be quite a tricky one and the Press has not been allowed to attend, but, when witnesses have appeared, hon. Members have been permitted to come along to hear the cross-examination and to follow the proceedings. What reason is there on this occasion for banning hon. Members from attending the Committee when witnesses are before the Committee and cross-examination is taking place, while excluding the Press?

I leave my right hon. Friend to consider the matter himself. But, as in the case of the Committee of Privileges, in practice no hon. Member has attended such a Committee during its proceedings. It seems proper that we should follow that precedent in what is happening here, and I think that that will appeal to most hon. Members in the House when they think about the matter.

My right hon. Friend referred, in his arguments about having this Committee meeting in secret, to the fact that we as Members of Parliament are subject to having our names in the Press on countless other issues and that to some extent we would be likely to suffer more if we were involved. Will he also accept that councillors, too, are in public life and that, therefore, to that extent the argument carries with them just as it does with Members of Parliament, especially if those councillors are well-known public names? Will my right hon. Friend also comment on the fact that yesterday it was announced that 16 workers at the British Steel Corporation are to be charged with corruption? Will not they, their families and their relatives be subject to the same problems as any Member of Parliament who represents these ordinary people who are subjected to the constraints of the court?

I think that the answer to that is "No". I am not a lawyer but, as I understand the rules of evidence—and I said so earlier today—they are very carefully drawn in terms of what may be advanced in court and what may be admitted in court. This is not the case with a Select Committee of this kind. I am willing to give way to any hon. Member who knows the law better than I do. But it is oven to anyone to come to the Select Committee if he wishes to do so and it is sitting in public and to make accusations of the most scurrilous nature—all of us have had such accusations made against us—without any protection at all. We have already had such an example in connection with this case. I see no reason why those who are apparently guiltless of any offence should, either for reasons of malice or in any other way, have their names broadcast in the Press before the Committee has had a chance to consider the answer and then to publish the full facts. Then the House and the country will have the full position before them. That seems to be the right way to handle this matter.

I do not think that we should be debating this matter. I doubt whether there is much more information that I can give to the House. Indeed, I have already reached the end of my speech. I dare say that those who disagree will want to advance different arguments. However, I will give way to the Leader of the Liberal Party, as he has tabled an amendment.

Will the Prime Minister explain why he takes a different view when it comes to publication of the evidence? He has rightly given the Committee discretion so that it may delete that which is malicious, trivial or without substance. Ought not he to give the Committee the same discretion whether to investigate in private first and to meet in public later?

Obviously the Committee could have such a power. We considered this matter, too. On balance, we thought that it was as well to give the Committee a direction from the House that it should sit in private, provided that it published all the relevant evidence at the end, rather than that it should decide one day to sit in private and another day to sit in public. We think that it is better to do it in this way all the way through. I do not think that there is a great issue of principle here about the Committee's deciding whether it wishes to sit in public or not. But, on balance, we think it better that there should be one coherent approach to it throughout the whole of the Committee's deliberations.

It is our desire that the Committee should receive and consider its evidence frankly and without any inhibition. Let it remain private until the Committee has completed its work, and then let all the evidence, oral and documentary, which is relevant to the inquiry be openly published for all to see. By this method, in our view, the House and the country will be able to form a complete, impartial and fair judgment on this unhappy affair, and justice will be done to those who have improperly involved themselves, but, just as important, justice will also be done to those whose names have been or may be baselessly and scurrilously bandied about.

3.56 p.m.

When the Prime Minister announced his provisional decision to set up a Select Committee to consider this matter, he undertook to consult the other parties in the House. He has done so, and I am very grateful to him for it. I should now like to explain in my own words why, in general, although this is a House of Commons matter, the Opposition support a great deal of what he says and his broad conclusions.

It has involved a great deal of study, because a small amount of conclusion often involves a great deal of preceding study. There are many other cases to consider, and many more matters such as the blue-covered Salmon Report of 1966 as well as the red-covered Salmon Report of 1976 to be taken into account.

The purpose of the inquiry is, of course, to ensure that the high standards which are expected of a Member of Parliament are upheld and that thereby we retain public confidence in Parliament as a whole. This means that, from time to time, we have the distasteful task of inquiring into cases about which there is some public disquiet. We have this task in common with other members of other professions, and we have to find the best way of carrying it out.

I agree with the Prime Minister in his choice of a Select Committee as a proper vehicle for this inquiry. He quoted from the blue-covered Salmon Report that we should not set up a tribunal of inquiry except where there was very grave public disquiet and public lack of confidence. I do not believe that that is so in this case.

The right hon. Gentleman has chosen, I believe rightly, very wide terms of reference for this Select Committee. I have been through as many of the other Select Committee Reports as I could manage to read during the weekend, and I can find none comparable in the breadth of its terms of reference with this one. Most of them have referred to single specific instances which have been thoroughly investigated by the Committee concerned. But they have been specific. They have referred to existing Members of the House. I understand that this resolution may go wider and take into account those who were previously Members of this House. This is the only resolution that I have been able to find which is so wide in its terms of reference, and it means that it takes on some of the character of an inquisitorial proceeding in the same way as a tribunal of inquiry is an inquisitorial proceeding. That means that we have to take special care to protect those who are innocent, because by its nature an inquisitorial proceeding is rather alien to our laws of justice in this country.

The blue-covered Salmon Report pointed out that it is a quite different procedure from any in a court, in regard to which there have been previous inquiries, and where specific allegations are put down in writing. The person accused knows exactly what the allegations are, and depositions are taken from witnesses. There are two sides, with either prosecutor and defendant or plaintiff and defendant.

There is nothing of this kind in a tribunal or in a Select Committee proceeding. It is an inquisitorial proceeding in which allegations emerge as the inquiry goes on. This renders it specially liable to hurt the innocent person—and in particular, if there is a long time elapsing between the allegation and the conclusion, the reputation of the innocent person may never recover. I believe that this puts a very special duty on us to ensure that, while all the relevant evidence is published, no one is subjected needlessly to injustice.

This brings me immediately to the point about the publication of evidence, and to the particular motion on the Order Paper, which is in rather strange wording and not easy to understand. I believe that the best way to achieve these two aims—namely, to bring out all the relevant evidence but to protect the person who is innocent—is to see that every single bit of evidence is published at the time the finding is made by the Select Committee. If by any chance there is then some evidence which goes against a person who is innocent, at least there is the immediate antidote of the finding of the Select Committee.

It is not possible always to have 100 per cent. protection for the innocent in carrying out an inquiry of this kind, but we must make the protection as absolute as possible. This has been done in many past cases. I have been through the Allighan case and all through the Boothby case. Those were single cases. The evidence in the Boothby case ran to some 290 pages. Every single bit was published. The evidence in the Allighan case ran to 122 pages. Every single bit was published. There has been no question about the publication of all relevant facts.

There may from time to time have been discussions about what the House did concerning those relevants facts, but on the whole there has been no criticism that the relevant facts have ever been withheld. Every single thing has been published. How can there be a cover-up when every single bit is published? It is all published and it is all available for the House to consider when it comes to debate the matter, and it is the House that decides. It is not a Select Committee.

I now turn to what I believe is a misunderstanding which has arisen from the wording in the Order Paper concerning publication. What I think the words mean, and are intended to mean, is that all oral and documentary evidence shall be published in as much as it is proper evidence. Most of us would not wish to consider improper or irrelevant evidence, because it could only be prejudicial.

May I just finish? I recognise that the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about this. So do I. If we look at the reports, we find that all the evidence has been published. I remember only one case where an hon. Member has moved concerning suppression of evidence. That case was taken to the Committee of Privileges. It was a very long time ago. That is why I think it is important to have all the evidence published. For my part, I should be very happy to stand by the normal rules relating to Select Committees.

I notice that the Prime Minister said that the word "inadmissible" is not understood in a parliamentary sense. I believe, with respect, that that is not quite right. I believe that it is understood. I spent some time over the weekend learning a great deal from "Erskine May".

May I read out the appropriate paragraph relating to the publication of minutes of evidence by Select Committees? I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I appreciate the right hon. Lady's point, but does she understand that the crucial point here is not that we must satisfy hon. Members? The people we have to satisfy are the millions who elect us and put us into this place. Indeed, we also have to satisfy those who have been involved in Select Committees dealing with other matters.

Does the right hon. Lady know, for instance, that Alan Grimshaw, one of the people partly responsible for the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries making an investigation of the National Coal Board's buying of roof supports and so on, is extremely aggrieved at the result of that investigation? The Select Committee did not publish all the evidence which he believed—as distinct from the Committee's view—should have been published. That is the point at issue. Although the House may be happy that all its Members have been safeguarded, the real question is whether a Select Committee in this form, if it decides not to publish all the evidence, can then satisfy all the people outside.

I understand that the direction here relates to all "relevant" evidence, that is to say, all evidence that is relevant. I believe that the next words on the Order Paper,

"and such as may fairly be taken into account"
really mean all evidence that is admissible. But in deciding what those words mean, I believe that the proper authority is "Erskine May" other than the Officers of the House. May I read out the rules relating to the publication of minutes of evidence of Select Committees? On page 650 "Erskine May" goes into what is proper and also deals with what is "inadmissible". That is why I think it is a term understood in the House. It says:
"If a question, which, on being objected to, is decided to be improper or inadmissible, has already been inserted in the minutes, the question is expunged."
It is, therefore, expunged in terms of existing practice if it is improper or inadmissible—and people do not want improper or inadmissible details to be in the evidence. "Erskine May" then goes on to say:
"Other matters which have been expunged by the order of the committee have included answers which, properly speaking, were not evidence and ought not to have been received as such; part of, or certain words in, a witness's evidence; questions and answers relating to a case, of which the witness subsequently admitted he had no personal knowledge"—
and so on. In other words, all evidence which is proper and relevant has to be published, I understand, according to the motion before the House. If that is not so, then most of us would be prepared to say that, provided it is published absolutely at the end, when the findings come out, all evidence should be published if any case is to be raised concerning the suppression of evidence. I believe that it is more important to get it all out—but to have none of it coming out until the findings are made—than it is to risk any question about suppression of evidence. But I understand the wording on the Order Paper to mean—and I hope that the advice we shall get is that it means that the Select Committee will take it to mean—all evidence which is relevant and admissible—

—and that if it is not admissible it ought to be stopped. It sometimes is—as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), who is a lawyer, well knows—but it is not always easy to stop it before it has come out and some damage has been done.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I think, with respect, that there is a difference between what "Erskine May" calls inadmissible and the wording used in the motion, which is

"upon consideration … shall appear to be relevant".
What is inadmissible may be, for example, abuse which may not be regarded as orderly in the House and which would be similarly inadmissible in a Select Committee. But it may be that a Select Committee would think that a false allegation against an innocent Member of the House is irrelevant to its general consideration whether some people were guilty of contempt of the House. The Select Committee may think that it would be better in the circumstances not to have such evidence at all. In the one case it would fall within the terms of the motion and would be strictly admissible according to the "Erskine May" test.

I agree with the right hon. Lady's general approach to the problem, and would be anxious to follow her line in dealing with the evidence. I think it is very important, therefore, that we should get it right here and now and not leave it to the Select Committee to decide according to its own test.

I do not believe that false allegations against hon. Members which are irrelevant should be published. It is far better to have them published at the end of the day than have the proceedings in public or published in the Press all along. I believe that this means what I believe it to mean and I hope it will be made clear to the Select Committee what the House means. All the evidence put forward, if inadmissible in the ordinary usage of the term, should be stopped at the point given or expunged from the record. As we have inquisitorial proceedings here, we can do that.

I believe that the right attitude to take is that all the evidence should be published at the time of the findings, so that there is no great gap between the allegations being made and the findings being given. Then there is no question of a cover-up of any kind. If that is done, I believe that we shall have the full facts put before the House and it is the House, not the Select Committee, which decides what is to be done on the findings.

The right hon. Lady has referred to the blue-covered book of Lord Salmon, but only in passing to the red-covered book. In the latter, Lord Salmon, who is fully seized of the facts to come before the Select Committee, and certainly of the evidence which has precipitated this debate today, came to the conclusion, for reasons he has given, including problems about inadmissibility of evidence, that the Select Committee was an unsuitable vehicle. He recommended that every hon. Member should be placed in the same position as a member of the public before the law in a criminal trial. Why has the right hon. Lady not referred to the recommendation specifically made by Lord Salmon that a Select Committee of this kind is highly unsuitable to deal with these matters which we are trying to lay upon them?

With due respect to the hon. Gentleman—and I recognise that he is a distinguished lawyer—only a Select Committee can inquire into matters of contempt of this House. No tribunal or other body can do it. The other matter into which the Select Committee is to inquire is whether the standards of conduct fall below those expected of hon. Members. This cannot be a trial, or a criminal trial, and the Prime Minister referred to this matter early on. My understanding is that either before or after the Select Committee has reported, the matter referred to in Lord Salmon's red-covered Report, whether there should be a change of law, must be put through this House in the proper way with proper consideration. That is quite separate from what we are doing now. We do no service to anyone to confuse these two issues.

I shall address a few words to an amendment which I think will be moved later about whether the Select Committee should have the right to go in and out of public proceedings. I do not think the Select Committee should be given that discretion at this moment. There will be, at the beginning, quite a number of allegations which come before the Select Committee, and some evidence will be heard. If the Select Committee is given the power to go into public proceedings at its own discretion, one thing will be certain—the public will not have all the evidence at the same time. It will have some evidence and it will not have other evidence, and therefore it cannot have the means of judging the whole thing. Immediately there are two sorts of evidence created—one sort which is published at the end with the findings and one sort which is published at the time the allegation is put and the hearing conducted. That would lead to confusion, and would create suspicion, not allay it. It would be quite wrong to give such discretion at this time.

On the ordinary procedure of Select Committees, followed in the Boothby case, if the Committee wants extra powers it can come back to the House and ask for them. In the Boothby case, Lord Boothby was given the right to appear or be represented by counsel and the Select Committee was given the right to hear counsel. The Committee had thought that its powers were not enough, so it came back to the House, put its case and got the powers it needed.

None of use knows, apart from the Attorney-General, what is contained in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's files, and none of us knows the allegations which will come before the Committee. But if, after several weeks, the Committee wishes or thinks it proper that some of the proceedings should be held in public, the correct and appropriate thing to do is for the Committee to make such a resolution, come back to the House and seek further powers. Then the decision whether some of the evidence should be in public and some in private rests with the House. There is nothing in the Committee proedures to preclude that from happening, and it is the right way to go about it.

In her desire to protect every Member of this House, the right hon. Lady spoke of consideration being given for six or seven weeks or more. But has she thought that no one can prevent hon. Members or the Press from waiting in the corridors outside the Committee Room to see who goes in and out? Inevitably there will be some conjecture about who goes in and for what purpose. If the Committee cannot call for factual evidence from one hon. Member to clear his name, there is a danger that anyone called to the Committee will have the stigma, or at least the suspicion, attaching to his or her name. If the Committee could hear this evidence in public his name would be cleared.

That is quite different from any allegation being published. I am not certain about the parliamentary law relating to reporting comings and goings in corridors of the House. There have been privilege cases about reporting what goes on in parts of the House which are not the Chamber, and other cases may be referred to the Committee of Privileges. I believe that the mode of operating which the Minister has put forward is, indeed, the best one.

But is there not a practical difficulty if, as the right hon. Lady has suggested, the Select Committee comes back to the House and asks for discretion to sit in public? It would have to disclose to the House the reasons why it wished to sit in public and that would raise all kinds of problems. If it had the discretion from the start it could exercise that discretion.

It is not right to give a discretion to the Select Committee to hear part of the evidence in public and part in private. That ensures that there are two different sorts of evidence and I think that would create suspicion at the outset.

The procedure which we followed in the Boothby and Allighan cases was that the hearings were in private, but the public knew everything at the end because everything was published. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) cannot say that there is any cover-up when every word of the evidence is published, because there is no cover-up at all.

I have given my views on what it means, what I believe it should mean, could mean and will be intended to mean. It is far better that we should proceed in this way than by the only alternative, which is for allegations to be published one by one with a very long time between the allegations being made and the findings being published. This is the worst of all possible worlds.

There are three categories of evidence and they diminish in significance. First, there is "all the evidence", which my right hon. Friend says she favours publishing—and I agree with her. Secondly, there is "all the admissible evidence" covered by the definition in "Eskine May" which my right hon. Friend read out. Thirdly, there is a still smaller category, which the Prime Minister mentioned, which is "all the relevant evidence"—which means the evidence considered relevant by the subjective tests of the Committee. Which of these groups of evidence does my right hon. Friend favour publishing?

The only evidence is evidence which is related to the case. All the rest is not evidence; it is just scurrilous gossip and rumour. The only evidence, by the nature of the word, is evidence relating to the matter which is before the Select Committee. I hope that there will never be any question of using the Select Committee as a means of propounding gossip or scurrilous rumour, if that is what it is, or as a means of seeing that such gossip is published and uttered beyond the House.

If one has any confidence in a Select Committee surely one can trust it to publish all the evidence that truly is evidence and to make an objective assessment. If we do not have that confidence there is no point in setting up the Select Committee.

I am sorry that I have taken longer than the Prime Minister, but at least I have been supporting him this time. I believe that what he proposes is the right way to go about this matter, and I hope that the Select Committee will be speeded on its way and will get down to what is for it a very difficult task.

4.23 p.m.

Since my hon. Friends disagree with the view taken by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in one particular matter, I should like to set out first what I think the Select Committee should do, or how it should proceed.

A great deal has been said on both sides today by both right hon. Members to indicate that one of their chief concerns, if not their chief concern, is to protect the innocent. Of course, it is a matter of fine balance as to how that is to be achieved and how it is to be set against the other factor which must surely weigh equally heavily with them, and that is that the public should see that justice has been achieved.

Justice achieved in secret is very rarely seen to be justice. Our courts meet in public. Many of the arguments used by the Prime Minister today were a justification for courts sitting in secret and publishing all their evidence and their findings later because then the nasty allegations can be published together with the findings.

No. that is quite wrong. We are dealing with an entirely different matter. A court presumably gives its own findings and its own verdict. I do not know whether the Select Committee will produce findings. It is entitled to do so if it wishes, but the verdict on these issues will be made in this House, in public, after we have read the allegations and the answers. There is nothing here to cover up.

In the proposed terms of reference the Prime Minister has asked the Committee to make recommendations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] It is to report to the House and presumably that will include making representations.

It is important for this matter to be developed further. When the British Medical Association considers allegations against doctors, once the original evidence has been sifted, the allegations are heard in public. That is a very serious matter for a doctor, but because the matter is handled in public the public are reassured.

Let me set out what we think is the right procedure for the Committee to adopt. As Lord Salmon said in his red-covered Report, there are serious deficiencies in the procedure, whatever the procedure we use. Lord Salmon said:
"With the most genuine respect to the Committee of Privileges and the Select Committee on Members' Interests, we do not consider that they provide an investigative machinery comparable to that of a police investigation. We have had frequent occasion to comment on the complexity of investigations into serious corruption, and the special expertise that is necessary for this type of inquiry … Since the bribery of a Member of Parliament acting in his parliamentary capacity does not constitute an offence known to the criminal law, it appears to us that the very locus of the police in respect of such matters must he in doubt."
Let me suggest, therefore, what should be the proper procedure for the Committee.

First, it has to investigate the matter. No doubt it will invite evidence in written statements to be made to the Committee. Maybe oral statements will be made to it. At that stage I agree with the Prime Minister. Individual Members of the House and any outside witnesses should be protected, and at that stage I think the proceedings of the Committee should be entirely in private.

Surely the equivalent of this is the police investigation or the original inquiry of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP has much evidence presented to him which is never revealed to the public because he discards it, perhaps because he regards it as unreliable. The same applies with the early investigation of any disciplinary tribunal in any profession.

However, the Committee having gone through that matter, and having sifted all the evidence, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that if there is a substantial case against any Member of the House the Committee should have discretion to have the hearing thereafter in public. The Select Committee would, as it should, apply very strict rules to what is admissible and relevant. It would be concerned to ensure that scurrilous rumours and that kind of thing were not made the foundation of charges. There must be more substance to them than that.

But let us suppose that the Committee finds the substance is there. Surely at that stage it should be entitled to do what is done in a Board of Trade inquiry into a public company and reduce what is found to be a substantive case into writing, to make a précis, which is presented to whoever is involved. Then, if it wishes, I think the Committee could hear that evidence in public. The Member should be entitled to give and should give evidence in public in rebuttal of that.

The hon. and learned Member is worrying me in the light of the discussions that took place last week. Surely in his statement of 19th October the Attorney-General made it abundantly clear that he had reached the conclusion, with which the Solicitor-General and I concur, that for persons within the jurisdiction of the court there are not sufficient grounds to merit the commencement of any further prosecutions or continued inquiry into the possibility of obtaining further evidence of criminal offences.

The hon. and learned Member has talked about building up a case. We are not talking about that. We are talking about whether in this instance there is contempt of the House, or whether there was conduct which was inconsistent with the standard that the House is entitled to expect from its Members. It does an ill service to this House in the eyes of persons outside to suggest that there is a cover-up, because otherwise hon. Members would go before the courts on criminal charges. That has not happened.

I think that the Home Secretary has misunderstood me. Of course there are two issues into which the Committee must inquire. The first is whether the conduct or activities amounted to contempt of the House, and the second is whether the activities of any Members of Parliament were inconsistent with the standards which the House was entitled to expect of them. These are the matters into which the House must inquire.

I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Member for giving way. He is speaking of an inquiry into the conduct and activities of hon. Members which should consider whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House or was inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members. Is he aware that this inquiry is confined to matters in connection with the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson?

As the hon. and learned Member speaks for the Liberal Party, will he tell the House publicly and openly why in his view this motion should exclude the activities of the previous leader of his party who was condemned by an inquiry conducted by an inspector of the Department of Trade and Industry?

Order. Mr. Speaker has already ruled on the question of imputations against individual hon. Members. They are not in order.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has just recommended to the House that there should be a general inquiry. He has not recommended the deletion from the motion of the words:

"in connection with the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson".
I am entitled to ask him why he does not carry his recommendation to its logical conclusion.

I shall leave the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) to answer that, but I must draw attention to the fact that Mr. Speaker ruled earlier that it is in order for hon. Members to refer to the circumstances attending the inquiry, but that it would not be in order to make allegations against individual Members. This would prejudge the Committee's findings and recommendations.

I have not made any allegation against any hon. Member. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has just recommended that the House should conduct an investigation into the conduct and activities of Members of this House to consider whether such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House or was inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members—this is not confined to criminal activities—and I am asking why he thinks it right that such an investigation should be so constricted that it excludes the ex-leader of his party. I think that I am entitled to a reply to that question.

That scurrilous interruption is probably the most powerful argument yet advanced in favour of the Prime Minister's proposal. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) should have heeded what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on this matter.

Order. I must draw the attention of the House to the first paragraph of the motion, which refers specifically to activities

"in connection with the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson".

The exchange we have just heard illustrates exactly the point which was very much in our minds. Trial by newspaper took place—the consequences are not of concern to us—and I am most anxious to see that no innocent hon. Members suffer the same fate.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take it that the Prime Minister was purporting to intervene on a point of order. I have accused no one of anything.

Order. I understood the Prime Minister to be intervening in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.

It is obvious that I should be confident that under the procedure I propose the public would regard the evidence of the hon. Member for Tiverton as worthless.

I wish to outline the important reasons why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that the inquiry into these matters should be held partly in public. The reason we are having this procedure is that hon. Members are not subject to the criminal law in regard to certain aspects of their behaviour. I remind the House of the article in the Bill of Rights which says that the freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. We have here a privilege applied to hon.

Members in the fulfilment of their functions as hon. Members.

I hope that the hon. and learned Member will clear up doubts which he may have created by what he has just said. I understood him to say that there were some sections of the criminal law to which hon. Members were not amenable. If he did say that, to which sections was he referring?

The Prevention of Corruption Act, for example, makes it an offence for officials, councillors and others to do certain things which are not offences as far as hon. Members fulfilling their parliamentary functions are concerned.

Will the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) please educate the media? The whole business of the immunity conferred by the Bill of Rights is a red herring since the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply to Parliament or to the administration of any of our activities in any event. Even if the Bill had never been passed, no hon. Member could have been prosecuted for any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act appertaining to his parliamentary or any other duties.

We are concerned with the protection of hon. Members and the privilege of an hon. Member in carrying out his functions in Parliament. Hon. Members hold this privilege on behalf of the people they represent. That is why we have freedom of speech in the House. It is not a personal privilege in the true sense. We hold it in a fiduciary capacity and it is there to ensure that there is no restriction on an hon. Member's ability to speak out in the House and in any proceedings of Parliament. It is a principle conceived of our constitutional law. It is the principle that an hon. Member should be able to utter without restraint and be safeguarded by means of privilege. What is safeguarded by this privilege is the public interest. The purpose of our privilege is to preserve and enlarge the freedom within the House to speak without restraint. I ask, therefore, why it is proposed to have an entirely private inquiry in this case.

Let us assume that an hon. Member had received sums of money which would, were he not an hon. Member, be regarded as a bribe. As an hon. Member he would not have to face criminal charges, but if he were not an hon. Member there would be a charge and the trial would be held in public in the courts.

Parliament heeded the criticism that the police should not be allowed to deal in private with complaints made against them. The House has introduced a new procedure to deal with this. There is a great danger of the public thinking that double standards are being applied by the House.

I agree that the investigatory phase of the Committee's work should be entirely in private. If there is a prima facie case of a contempt of the House or of conduct which is inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect, surely it would be in the interests of justice for the individual involved, and in the public interest, for the matter to be discussed in public.

Surely, it will come out in the House when the Committee reports. If there is a case to answer, the House will have an opportunity to study the evidence and read the report. No one will be protected. There will be no cover-up of any heinous crime. If anybody has done anything wrong, it will come out. But if a man is to have all the Committee sittings listened to in public, and perhaps reported in the Press, the case may well be prejudged and, when the House finally comes to look at it, we shall be in a difficult position.

I have not suggested that every Committee sitting should be in public. I said that the first function of the Committee should be to sift the evidence and decide whether there is any substance in it, and, of course, that evidence must be admissible and relevant. But it is in the interests of any hon. Member against whom a prima facie case is made and who has an answer to it, that at that stage he should be able to give his answer in public.

Is the hon. and learned Member saying that he would like the Committee to sift all the evidence, presumably having heard it, and then go back to the beginning again to see what constitutes a prima facie case? How does he expect any progress to be made?

The procedure of sifting evidence is gone through in many places in our country at present. The Director of Public Prosecutions does it to find out whether there is a prima facie case.

It is important to consider the practical implications of the course which the Government have decided upon here. The Press, for example, already has a great deal of evidence. The transcripts of the public hearings in the bankruptcy proceedings must already be in the hands of a great number of newspapers.

The Press could refer to any piece of that evidence at any time when the Committee was sitting. If newspapers knew that a person who had given evidence in the bankruptcy proceedings was called before the Select Committee, they could say what he had said in the bankruptcy proceedings without risk of any action. Also, there are the transcripts of evidence given by various witnesses in the different trials which involved Poulson. They could be referred to at any time.

Therefore, by their proposal that the sittings of the Committee should be entirely in private the Government are risking publication by the Press at various times of extracts of evidence already given.

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an assurance that if, as is proposed, he becomes a member of the Select Committee, he will ensure in the debate which follows the report that nothing which ought to be brought to the attention of the House in the way of evidence, written or oral, will fail to be brought to the attention of the House?