Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

There are moments when we know that our parliamentary debates will form part of our nation’s history, and for the wrong reasons, today is such a moment. Everything that we do in Westminster—whether it is about addressing the crises facing our communities, from spiralling inflation to skyrocketing mortgage rates, or about strengthening support for the brave Ukrainians—all our actions, all our words, will only matter if we are trusted. That trust exists only if we tell the truth, especially when we are called to account for our decisions.

Confidence that this is a place where politicians are honest and accountable is completely central to the effectiveness and sustainability of any healthy democracy. Conversely, a culture where lies are ignored, tolerated or even excused is one that inevitably damages democracy. That is exactly the dangerous culture we saw nurtured under Boris Johnson. This is why the Privileges Committee report and its recommended sanctions are so important and why it is vital that everyone supports them in their entirety.

I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and all the members of the Privileges Committee for their forensic and painstaking work in sifting and evaluating the evidence. That evidence might not have been available but for the revelations first made by Pippa Crerar, so I pay tribute to Pippa for her work as one of the most talented journalists of our time.

The Committee’s conclusions are based entirely on evidence, and that evidence is incontrovertible. The attempt by a few people today to traduce the members of the Privileges Committee to delegitimise the process is utterly shameful.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am conscious that the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), said that we should not make too many comparisons with the criminal justice system, but the reality is that, in the criminal justice system, in which the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, we ask jurors to look at the evidence and infer the actions and intent of the perpetrator. Does the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) agree that it is quite strange that some colleagues are looking for an even higher level of evidence than that?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

That is an extremely interesting point, for which, as a non-lawyer, I thank the hon. Lady.

If it is true that attempts were made to bully and, yes, blackmail Privileges Committee members so that they came to conclusions that were not based on the evidence but prioritised Boris Johnson’s personal interests, that is shocking. The integrity of Parliament must come above all else. It takes courage to stand up against such political pressures, but showing integrity and leaving party tribalism at the door is absolutely vital if we are to uphold democracy and protect this place from a further erosion of trust.

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about integrity and the protection of this House. Young people have contacted me about this debate, which they are following. Does she agree that for a former Prime Minister to lie to the House and to the Privileges Committee, to seek to undermine the Committee and then to threaten parliamentarians who support the Committee’s findings is behaviour on which we must take a stand, in the interests of our constituents and the next generations? In voting for this motion today, it is important that we take this decisive stand on integrity, which will have an impact on confidence in this House for generations to come.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I agree, and I am pleased that the Privileges Committee will look at the conduct of some Members of both Houses in attempting to intimidate Committee members.

Today’s debate has to be considered as part of a bigger problem facing us. Over the past six years, we have seen consistent attacks on the fragile pillars that act as vital checks on Executive power. We have seen judges and judicial review denigrated; senior civil servants sacked for speaking truth to power; cronies appointed to key public positions; pals rewarded with honours and contracts; attempts to undermine the independence of the BBC; and our Parliament systematically bypassed. Boris Johnson allowed that creeping culture of corruption and unchecked executive power to infect our democracy.

Let us not beat about the bush: Boris Johnson did recklessly and deliberately mislead this House. His behaviour helped to support a culture that threatens our democracy. Today, I hope we are beginning to undo the damage that has been done. We are reaffirming the importance of Ministers and Prime Ministers being properly, honestly and truthfully accountable to Parliament and, through us, to the public.

Mr Johnson was not just called an “honourable” Member of this House; he led a major political party. He was our Prime Minister, yet he misled us time and time and time again, and he did so with impunity. Conservative Members knew this man before he became their leader. They knew he had been sacked as a journalist for lying. They knew he had been sacked from the Opposition Front Bench for lying. They knew he routinely bent the rules and misspent public money at City Hall. They knew he was a liar, yet they still made the terrible mistake of electing him as their leader.

So today, I hope that all Members of this House, and particularly Members on the Government Benches, do not make another terrible mistake by choosing either not to turn up or not to vote. This should not be about Conservatives versus Labour. Every parliamentarian needs to look at the evidence and ask themselves if they can honestly ignore the heaps of information that shows that Boris Johnson lied to us all, and through us, to the people in the country. I strongly urge every single Member of Parliament to walk through the Lobby and register their vote—a vote for the resolution, a vote that demonstrates our support for truth, justice and democracy.

Tributes to Baroness Boothroyd

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) that today should be about celebrating a long life well lived, which is how I remember Betty. She is probably, of her generation, one of the most loved and will be longest remembered for her contribution to politics, particularly here in Westminster. I have strong memories of her keeping us in the most definite order and ensuring that the traditions of the House were well respected. The fact that she was the woman who broke a piece of the glass ceiling by becoming our first female Speaker earns her that well-deserved place in history, but it was not simply that she secured the position; it was how she used it.

She brought her theatrical talent from her time as a Tiller girl to the task of being Speaker of the House. Some of us will remember that those were the early days of televising the House. Her strong, charismatic and theatrical manner and her occasionally very funny approach to the role made her a national treasure and helped Parliament, because it helped to grow interest in what was happening in Parliament, so that people started watching us on television.

It was tough to be a woman in the House when she was first elected as one of 23 women MPs. She was, I think, one of the generation who felt they had to outperform the men to make any progress. I would not describe her as a sister, but I do remember that she was responsible for the most revolutionary thing in those days: she introduced vending machines to sell tights. Those of us who were the revolutionary feminists and always caught our tights on the wood right across the Palace were really grateful for that. She also made sure that there were more women’s lavatories close to the Chamber.

Her success in securing the position was radical, but she was a very firm traditionalist. What we wore, how we dressed and how we behaved in the House were all really important to her. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) said, she looked regal in the Speaker’s robes. I remember that the very first time I spoke in the House, I was sitting around where I am now. I made my maiden speech and sat down, knowing that after we have listened to a couple of Members, we can go out and have a cup of tea with our adoring family who have come to watch us. I did that and then came back into the Chamber and sat in a different place. I did not realise that there was a tradition that we have to sit in the same place from which we have spoken, and I got right well told off by her, which was very deflating but typical of Betty. I do not know whether others remember the time that Simon Hughes was very long in asking a question—

[Mr Speaker]

Always!

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Always. Betty said to him:

“This is so time-consuming. Come on, Mr. Hughes: spit it out.”—[Official Report, 18 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 719.]

He then sat down, completely deflated.

I also remember that she loved having good fun. I am lucky enough to play the piano, and we had a sing-song in her rooms where we sang “Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit-Bag” and “I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles”. That was another side of Betty that we all felt warm about.

My predecessor was Jo Richardson, who was a close friend of Betty Boothroyd. She used to chat to me a lot about Jo when I was trying to get to know my predecessor better. We named a school after her, the Jo Richardson Community School in Barking. Betty graciously came and opened the school and enthralled all the children with her theatricality.

The final thing I want to say is that she was always kind. She was kind to all of us personally. I remember that when I was having a particularly difficult time in the House in relation to fighting the antisemitism in the Labour party, she was one of the most supportive women to me; she gave me the courage to be resilient in that situation. Betty earned her place in our history books. She was a vibrant, passionate and strong woman. She loved her life in Parliament, and we loved her.

Replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The Prime Minister has come to this House many times, and in the previous roles she has held, she has come to this House many times, often to talk about very difficult issues. There is a genuine reason why she is not here, and I hope that she will be able to join the House later this afternoon.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I was not going to rise to ask a question, but I have been concerned at some of the answers that the Leader of the House has given. If we are to stabilise the markets and restore some confidence in the economy, we have to have trust in the strong leadership of our country, and that is the role of the Prime Minister. The Leader of the House has said a number of times that there are good reasons why the Prime Minister is not here this afternoon. In the interests of total transparency and proper accountability, and to restore confidence in markets, will she give us those reasons?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The right hon. Lady will have to be content with my assurances. I cannot disclose the reasons; I have asked if I can—I am being very genuine with the House on this matter. I hope that she will be able to join us a bit later on this afternoon, but both the Prime Minister and her Chancellor, and her Cabinet, are determined to take the tough decisions to ensure that we have stability and confidence going forward. I hope that the Chancellor’s statement will reassure the right hon. Lady.

Committee on Standards

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is the point I made earlier about the unfortunate state of affairs whereby this House does not work as a court of appeal, but, regrettably, becomes partisan, which reinforces the need to have an independent body.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I am certainly getting up, as I know many Opposition Members are, not in a partisan way but because I care about the integrity and reputation of the House and our democracy. I have a lot of personal empathy with the individual who is subject to our debate today and the terrible personal circumstances he faces. But the matter has been considered twice, in two separate stages, in a procedure well known in this House.

The allegation is incredibly serious. It is that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) used his position of trust as a Member of Parliament and abused that for personal gain. I say to the Leader of the House that it would be absolutely terrible for our democracy if we did not take those decisions that have been unanimously agreed and endorse them in this House today. We would bring into danger the real trust in our democracy and the integrity of this House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady says that this has been looked at, and it has, but there has been no form of appeal and many of the aspects of it have been contested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

It gives me no pleasure to be standing here responding to a standards motion, although I now feel that what I am responding to is the Leader of the House moving the amendment, rather than the motion.

I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to the standards commissioner and her team, not only for their diligent work in carrying out this inquiry, but for all the other work that they do to actively promote high standards across the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who chairs the Standards Committee, and all the other Committee members who contributed to this thorough investigation.

Since 1695, there have been rules on paid advocacy. A motion passed on 2 May 1695 said that

“the offer of money or other advantage to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever…in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour”.

If, today, the amendment passes or the motion falls entirely, it sends the message—to paraphrase my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the deputy leader of the Labour party ,who said this better than me earlier today—that when we do not like the rules, we just break the rules; and when someone breaks the rules, we just change the rules. It turns the clock back to before 1695. Such actions were not acceptable then and they are not acceptable now.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only logical explanation for the action by Government Ministers and Back Benchers today is not necessarily the recommendations of the report that we are considering today, but that there may be many others in line to come forward that will cause even greater embarrassment to those on the Government Benches?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who is a distinguished Member of this House, for raising that point. It is hard to work out why this is happening. In fact, I am going to skip ahead to a later point in my speech. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House stands up in front of us every week. If he wanted a debate on changing the rules and changing the system, he has had that opportunity every single week, but I have yet to hear him mention it until today, when we are considering a live case.

In this case, the Committee concluded:

“This is an egregious case of paid advocacy”.

It said that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson)

“repeatedly…used his privileged position…to secure benefits for two companies for whom he was a paid consultant”,

and that this

“has brought the House into disrepute.”

A lot has been said in the media about the standards process over the last week, but since 1695 this House has only ever strengthened the system. The Library and the appendix to the code of conduct can provide a timeline and details for any Government Members who are interested. The introduction of a House of Commons Standards Commissioner in 1995 and the Standards Committee in 2013 were key features of strengthening the system. It has worked well and has gone a long way to restoring public trust in the House. It is vital that the integrity of the standards system is maintained. In fact, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended just this week that the system needs to be strengthened, not weakened. But no—Government Members seem to want to rip up the entire system. Our Committees, which are cross-party, carry out their inquiries independently of influence from this House and that must continue to be the case.

Under the code of conduct, all of us are expected to adhere to the ethical standards of the seven principles of public life. It seems that some Government Members need a reminder that those principles are: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. That expectation is good for us all. If someone in this place falls short, there has to be a system in place to hold MPs and other public officials to account. That is our standards system. It is a standards system that our Parliament voted on and approved. Just changing the system when somebody does not like a result is not acceptable.

If the Government wish to debate the merits of the standards system, the Leader of the House can get up tomorrow and schedule time to do so. Some Government Members who have signed the amendment are Chairs of House Committees and could have initiated reviews or made proposals, but they did not. I hate to remind the Leader of the House, but today there is a motion before us about a report and its recommendations. It is absolutely in order for Back Benchers to table an amendment, but it is quite astonishing that the Government seem to have endorsed and whipped it.

Shamefully, it seems that Tory MPs have been backed by their Government to hijack this debate, which should have been about endorsing a Committee report. The Government are sending the message that paid advocacy—MPs selling their offices and position as an elected representative—is fine. I am afraid that some, including Government Members from the Dispatch Box today, are claiming that this is a process without an appeal, but the commissioner reviews cases, makes recommendations and refers them to the Standards Committee, which is cross-party, with a majority of members from the Government Benches, as well as lay members with expertise; they decide whether to approve the recommendations, and we debate and vote on them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire had access to legal representation. His character witness statements are in the report and were duly considered. As some of my colleagues have pointed out to me, if everybody who wanted to give oral evidence to a court of law was just accepted, where would that get us? Is that really what we are saying—that there should be a system whereby if I want to give evidence, I get to say what I like?

The Committee process is, in effect, a process of appeal. The Committee upheld the commissioner’s report and recommendations, and so must this House. For the public to maintain their trust in us, it is crucial that our independent standards procedure is not undermined or, worse still, systematically dismantled all together, as I fear is happening now. Is that what the Leader of the House wants his political legacy to be—undermining Parliament and our MPs even further? Does he fully understand the potential consequences of doing this?

Standards are important; they matter. The commissioner and the Committee took careful consideration of a very large amount of evidence. It took a long time to read, and I strongly suspect that some Members did not read it. The Committee recommended the sanction on the motion before us. It would be extraordinary for this House to overturn that independent, cross-party recommendation.

I hate to remind the Leader of the House, but just last month Government Members said that they could not possibly support retrospective rule change; and yet, here we are. In the middle of a case, Tory MPs—yes, I am going to state that, because it is only Tory MPs who have signed this amendment—are trying to change the rules. It is a serious case of paid advocacy against the rules that are clearly set out. The public rightly expect us to abide by the rules and to be held to account. We must vote to do so today.

We cannot have a return to the Tory sleaze of the 1990s. Members and the public will remember cash for questions and those Tory scandals of the 1990s. This Tory dilution of our standards procedures sends a terrible message to the public and our constituents that it is one rule for certain MPs and another for everyone else. The enduring damage that that would do to Parliament’s reputation is something that none of us should be prepared to consider.

Participation in Debates

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is enormously gracious in her thanks to the digital and broadcasting team, who not only have managed to introduce this new system since March, but have had to move offices at the same point and kept it going seamlessly. It is one of the smaller teams within the House service, so I think what they have managed to do is absolutely phenomenal.

I hope to introduce the motions as soon as possible. They are being written, I think, by wise Clerks as I am speaking. It is important, I think—I hope this answers my hon. Friend’s question about Westminster Hall—to recognise that, if we do it quickly, it must be limited. If we do it for the Chamber for the extremely clinically vulnerable, that can be done quite quickly; if we were to try to look at Westminster Hall, that would take considerably longer because we would need additional resources. But, as I have said before, things are under review, particularly for those whom the Government are advising not to go into work, and that is the extremely clinically vulnerable. So, yes, it will be done quickly and we will keep Westminster Hall under review.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]]

Since the Leader of the House deliberately chose to exclude some MPs from debates, I have been trying to do my work in different ways. However, for example, it has taken up to five months to extract a response to my letters, not just on covid issues but on matters that are equally vital to my constituents, such as the combustible cladding scandal and the survival of local football clubs.

I welcome warmly today’s announcement, particularly in relation to MPs with cancer and other conditions, but what about the rest of us who are simply heeding the Government’s advice in not coming into the House? I have to say to the Leader of the House that we are not like other key workers, who can be replaced if they cannot attend; MPs have no substitutes. How can he continue to justify deliberately preventing my constituents from being properly and thoroughly represented in Parliament?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I very much doubt that any of the right hon. Lady’s constituents would say that she does not represent them effectively. She has always been a powerful campaigner and an effective voice of the Opposition and of the Labour party over many years, so I do not think anybody would dream of saying that.

May I answer the right hon. Lady’s question in parts? First, as relates to correspondence, that has been a problem that has been raised on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions. I have taken it up with all members of the Cabinet to emphasise the importance of timely responses to Members—not just to their written correspondence but to written questions. I reiterate the promise that I have made to all hon. and right hon. Members that if anyone has a particular problem with a particular Department, my office will take that up for them. I have done that for a number of hon. and right hon. Members from across the House, and it does seem to get answers. I can only apologise on behalf of the Government that there have been delays in responses because, to be fair, of the pressures of the pandemic earlier in the process. I am reassured that things are now getting better, but the right hon. Lady must feel free to raise with me any instances where replies are not being received.

As regards the decision being made today, we are following the advice that the Government have laid down, and that is that the clinically extremely vulnerable should not be going into work but that other people are able to go into work if it is a covid-safe environment. As this is a covid-safe environment, people are able to come in if they are not clinically extremely vulnerable. Shielding as a concept ended in the summer and therefore it is not part of the current Government advice.

Baby Leave for Members of Parliament

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Miller]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Through the Commons Reference Group, we are not only uncovering some important ways in which this place is changing, but identifying ways in which it needs to change. It is a great pleasure to work alongside her on that group.

Being a Member of Parliament is a unique position, a unique honour and a unique responsibility that requires complete commitment, but that cannot mean that only those without caring responsibilities can apply. Indeed, the experience we have as carers can make us much better Members of Parliament, and that is why I wholeheartedly support the motion.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) on securing the debate.

The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) is talking about this place, but I want to raise another issue. I chaired the Fawcett Society’s inquiry on the representation of women in local government, and it was shocking to discover that only 2% of local authorities have maternity leave policies, and that a number of women councillors who had babies were then sacked from their jobs as cabinet members. Does she agree that while what we are debating is hugely important, all of us as politicians from political parties ought to engage with our colleagues in local government to secure the necessary changes there that will ensure the proper representation of women?

[Mrs Miller]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right: we need more women at every level of our democratic process. I must say that I have a phenomenal team of women in my Basingstoke constituency. Nine of the 14 councillors are women, and that is even more astonishing given that a number of them are young women with very young children. Others should look at what is happening in councils such as mine to encourage more young women to come forward, and to prevent doing so being seen as incompatible with having a young family.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I have deliberately kept my counsel over the past few weeks as a member of the panel, because I thought that was the proper and right thing to do. Although I support the motion and pre-appointment hearings, the way we have got to tonight’s debate shows the House and all of its Members in a very poor light. The often ill-informed and critical comments made by some Members who simply do not know how the process was conducted have been mistaken and misguided. The personal attacks on Mr Speaker have been unwarranted and plain wrong. As somebody who believes fundamentally in the importance of modernising Westminster as part of our endeavour to restore confidence in politics, I think Mr Speaker has made an immense contribution in his work to making us more open, more relevant and more interesting.

The task of the appointment committee was not simply to appoint a Clerk of the House; the post was advertised for both Clerk and chief executive of the House of Commons. The post holder fulfils two functions. That is enshrined in the law, as we have heard, and was recently confirmed by Sir Kevin Tebbit. The Clerks themselves have resisted any change, and the Government too have resisted change in the past. I tell the House that the entire appointment process was extremely thorough, totally professional and very open. Criticisms of the process are entirely unfounded.

[Meg Hillier]

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that if Members believe that this place is a world-class institution, we should seek to advertise internationally for people to run it?

[Margaret Hodge]

As a member of a committee that promoted an international candidate, of course I agree with that.

We were very mindful of the importance of the procedural duties associated with the job. There are, however, well over 100 people working in the House who are knowledgeable about and familiar with procedure. We were also mindful that the post holder is responsible for spending more than £200 million of taxpayers’ money and employing 1,750 people. This palace lies at the heart of our democracy, yet the way it is run is wasteful and shambolic. We are asking our constituents to bear substantial expenditure cuts and cuts in services, and while they suffer that we are swimming in inefficiencies. Yet, because some Members concern themselves only with what happens in this Chamber, they are willing to downgrade the vital job of ensuring best value from the expenditure of more than £200 million of their constituents’ hard-earned money.

Things are so shambolic that, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said, it can take our constituents an hour to get through St Stephen’s to see us. We overspent massively on the building of Portcullis House, yet managing capital projects seems less important than who is sitting in a chair in the Chamber. It is as important to our democracy to run this place well as it is to have somebody in the chair who is knowledgeable about, and experienced in, procedure. However, because we were mindful of the importance of both roles, we held two rounds of interviews. It proved impossible to find a single individual capable of fulfilling both roles, but several of the members of the panel thought that Carol Mills was the only appointable candidate.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry but that was not the view we took. We found more than one candidate appointable, but the panel took a judgment about which candidate should be recommended. I am afraid it is not correct to say that other candidates were not appointable.

[Margaret Hodge]

We will have to disagree. I think a different view was expressed at the second round of interviews from that at the first.

However, we were mindful of the fact that advice on procedural matters was vital and that Carol Mills would take time to develop her knowledge and skills. That was precisely the reason we proposed that Mr Natzler’s role should be retitled to provide greater status and that his salary should be increased to reflect that status. The successful candidate excelled at interview, and the fact that she has not walked away despite totally unwarranted personal attacks on her integrity and record confirms in my mind that she has the toughness required to bring the House into the 21st century.

I hope that the motion before the House will be carried, but the way we have got here has been unparliamentary and shameful.

Business of the House

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

IPSA is an independent body set up by the House to adjudicate on our pay and pensions. There might be an opportunity to address the issue of membership when the terms of office of some existing members run out and the question of reappointment, or the appointment of new members, arises. My hon. Friend’s intervention shows the effectiveness of Back-Bench Members in getting results at business questions. I remind him that he had an opportunity, I think earlier this week, to cross-question members of IPSA about their performance. No doubt he took that opportunity when it presented itself.

[Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House might have seen an article in The Daily Telegraph today that contained a leak of written evidence that had been given in confidence to the Public Accounts Committee. All the members of my Committee will be extremely distressed at this, as the evidence was very sensitive and the leak could cause damage to those who provided it and to the companies involved. In the circumstances, will the Leader of the House confirm that he and the officials of the House and the Government will co-operate fully with the leak inquiry that I have instituted on behalf of the Committee?

[Sir George Young]

As a former Chairman of a Select Committee, I know just how damaging leaks can be to those Committees’ cohesiveness and effectiveness. The right hon. Lady will know the process that can be instituted to conduct a leak inquiry. It is initially a matter for her Committee, but if I remember rightly, the matter can then be taken to the Liaison Committee. Of course the Government would co-operate if any leak inquiry then took place.