HC Deb 16 April 1962 vol 658 cc194-206

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Noble.]

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

I wish first to thank the Leader of the House for his courtesy in being present to reply to this debate, particularly as the flood of Scottish eloquence to which we have just listened could have been foreseen and therefore the Leader of the House may have expected that he was in for a late night. I should have preferred to have the Prime Minister answering, but I gather that he is engaged in reconstructing his Government, and I should hate to interfere with such a desirable occupation. We cannot have the monarch here but at least we have the crown prince, and A substitute shines brightly as a King. I only hope that I can stay on that happy note with the Leader of the House in the reply that he makes, and that I will not have to say to him at the end Go, hang thyself in thine own heir-apparent garters! I am sure that he will give a lucid and frank reply to clear up a difficult problem.

I should like to recite briefly what occurred. On 14th March there was a meeting of the Fuel and Power Group, I think it is called, of the Conservative Party in some secret haunt in this Palace of Westminster. According to the reports in most of the newspapers on the following day, statements were made, or replies were given, at that secret meeting of the Conservative Fuel and Power Group on the subject, among other matters, of the future of Richard Thomas and Baldwins.

Some of the papers said that statements were made by the Minister. Others said that replies were made by the Minister to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), but the reports made it quite clear that what the Minister without Portfolio was alleged to have said at this meeting was that they could not denationalise Richard Thomas and Baldwins now because the time for it had passed. Some of the papers said that in effect a decision had been made that the denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins was not going to take place before the next election, and this, I gather from the reports, caused considerable distress to the hon. Member for Kidderminster. All this was reported in the newspapers, and, although there were some variations in the reports, all the newspapers concurred in saying what I have reported.

I was very glad to read this news, because one of the items on which I fought the election when I was elected was to try to stop the denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, and I was naturally gratified to see that for one reason or another the Government had apparently come round to my point of view.

However, certain constitutional principles were raised and I thought that it was only proper that the statements which had been made in private by the Minister without Portfolio should be made in public to the House of Commons and to the people of the country, and particularly to the people who work in Richard Thomas and Baldwins. I therefore took the traditional form of putting a Question to the Prime Minister asking whether the speech delivered by the Minister without Portfolio on 14th March was in conformity with Government policy. The Prime Minister replied that the Minister without Portfolio had not made a speech at all on that occasion. I got into some controversy with the Prime Minister on the point, and I used what was un-Parliamentary language. I should perhaps have confined myself to saying that the reply given by the Prime Minister was, in Dickensian terms, "a blazing strange answer." In fact a statement had been made in some form or another by the Minister without Portfolio to the secret meeting of the Conservative group.

Following this interchange in the House of Commons, I received a letter from the Prime Minister the next morning, and I have his permission to quote it. He said: In answering your supplementary questions this afternoon I should perhaps have made it clear that, although it was public knowledge that Lord Mills had attended a private meeting of Members, he did not make a speech at all. What he did was to deal with questions, replying to each one as it was put to him. So it was clear that Lord Mills attended the meeting and replied to questions. I have not heard it disputed in any quarter in which I have been able to probe the matter that the newspaper reports of what the Minister without Portfolio said on the subject of Richard Thomas and Baldwins were not roughly correct.

This seems to raise questions of very great importance. I am strongly opposed to the growing position and status of private party meetings or private group meetings in this House. I know that they are necessary for some purposes, but there should be a Motion in this House to the effect that the influence of private party meetings has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

Jolly good.

Mr. Foot

But even if we do not carry the argument to that extent, there are other aspects of the constitutional position to be considered. Both prior to the replies given by the Minister without Portfolio to questions at this secret meeting and subsequently, Ministers in the House of Commons stated that they could not make any statement in the House about the future of Richard Thomas and Baldwins and the date of its denationalisation. On 3rd April, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referring to the possibility of Richard Thomas and Baldwins being denationalised, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said: My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on his assumption about the date of sale of this company. Later, in reply to a supplementary question, he said: Neither can I add anything to the admirable statements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made on this subject during the last eighteen months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1962; Vol. 657, c 194–5.] In the House of Commons and in public we are repeatedly told that the Government can make no statement on the date of denationalisation or whether they are going ahead on the question, whereas in private, to a group of Conservative Members, a statement is apparently made which gives much more information.

When the Prime Minister replied to my Question in the House he taunted me, and said that if I had been a member of a party I would have understood how these things operated. I would point out to him that the most honourable part of the Prime Minister's career was when he was not a member of a party, in the 1930s. He is quite wrong in this matter. I remember extremely well the procedure followed by the Labour Government. I ask every hon. Member, whatever his views on this matter may be, to look at the question fairly. What would have been the position in the days of the Labour Government if, at a private Labour Party meeting, a declaration had been made by a Minister saying that I.C.I. was to be nationalised on such-and-such a date, or explaining Government policy in regard to the nationalisation of a great industry?

If that had been said at a private party meeting of the Labour Party and the statement had leaked to the Press there would have been hell to pay. There would have been uproar. The Opposition Front Bench—probably in the person of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)—would have said that it was outrageous that a declaration of Government policy affecting a great industry should have been made in that fashion, and that it should have been made to the House of Commons and to the public.

So, on the constitutional point, the question I put directly to the Leader of the House—and I hope that he will give me as direct an answer as he can—is: does he think it right and proper that a declaration of Government policy on a specific matter of this importance should be made in the privacy of one of these Tory Party meetings? If he says that he does not think it is right, either he or the Prime Minister must tell the Minister without Portfolio that he must behave himself in future—and I hope that the other Ministers will be circularised and told that they should also behave in this respect. In that sense, the constitutional position will have been protected to some extent. Perhaps that has already happened, and if the Leader of the House can give me that assurance, I shall be satisfied with that aspect of the matter.

But if he says that he thinks it right and proper for this declaration to have been made, then very serious issues are raised, because that would mean that the Government think that it is all right that they should make statements of policy affecting great industries to meetings of private Tory Members which the rest of the House and the country are denied the right to hear. It would mean that the Government were carrying still further the depreciation of the status of the House of Commons, which in all too many respects has been carried much too far.

In conclusion, I want to refer to the issue of the Minister's statement itself. It is conceivable that the right hon. Gentleman will tell me that he cannot confirm or deny what was said by the Minister at this party meeting and that he does not intend to do so. That would not be appropriate to the situation because everybody believes the reports in all the newspapers, and are justified in doing so. I do not mean that they believe every word reported, but they do in the general sense, especially in reference to Richard Thomas and Baldwins.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly take the view that the future of Richard Thomas and Baldwins is a small affair. He cannot say that the £150 million in this company is a bagatelle or a trinket. He cannot use language like that in connection with an industry of this nature. That is a matter of paramount importance for the biggest and greatest steel firm in the country, now in the process of building the most modern and up-to-date steel works in the country. It is a firm engaged, as are many other steel firms, in dealing with some of the very awkward problems now facing the steel industry, I would say owing to Government policy. Surely the managers of the firm have the right to know the Government's policy towards their future.

If, as this leakage from this Tory secret party meeting reveals, some decision about the future of this firm has been made, at any rate up to the time of the General Election, it is the absolute duty of the Government and all those responsible for the steel industry, if they are to deal honourably with the people in charge of this great industry, to make a statement publicly in the House of Commons. The only excuse they would have for not doing so is that they would land themselves in difficulties with the bon. Member for Kidderminster and a few others on the Tory back benches. The right hon. Gentleman has had some experience in standing up to those back benchers and I hope that he will do so tonight.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) has imparted a sinister character to the deliberations of my party colleagues and myself within the confines of Committee Rooms upstairs. Of course we recognise that members of a political party meet privately from time to time, as members of the Labour Party, I am given to understand, meet privately from time to time. In the very order of things, since the beginning of time, there have been these private party meetings of the major parties in the House, and since the beginning of time there have been leakages of what has been said and done in party committees.

I claim no special individuality in a matter of this kind save only possibly in this respect, that generally what I say in a party committee upstairs I subsequently repeat publicly on the Floor of the House. In the course of his researches and doing his homework for this Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale will no doubt have discovered from reports in certain newspapers, notably the Daily Telegraph, that alleged exchanges took place in that private meeting. The Daily Telegraph of 15th March said of me: 'I should be very queasy', he is reported as saying. 'about facing the electorate with a broken pledge in the next election campaign, which must come within about eighteen months.' I am not going to comment here publicly on whether I said that upstairs or did not—an excellent piece of conjecture by the reporting staff of the Daily Telegraph. What I do know is that that was reported on the 15th March and that the OFFICIAL REPORT for 3rd April, contains these words said by me in a supplementary question to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Does he not realise that I should feel very queasy, as no doubt he would be in Hampstead and as the Chancellor would be in the Wirral, facing the electorate with a change of political infidelity. Will my right hon. Friend give a clear and unequivocal assurance that it is the intention of the Conservative Party to complete the denationalisation within the next eighteen months and before the next General Election?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 194.] That is an adequate confirmation of the words attributed to me in a private party committee, but I am in a fortunate position this evening. I am speaking in the benign presence of the Chief Patronage Secretary. I am delighted to have him here to listen to me tonight, because these matters have been adequately confirmed by Treasury spokesmen on earlier occasions. As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale pointed out in his speech, it is not very long ago that the Treasury Ministers confirmed the fact that the work of the Iron and Steel Holding Realisation Agency would substantially be completed within the lifetime of this Parliament.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in his speech tonight has created the impression that all there is to denationalise within the steel industry is Richard Thomas and Baldwins, but that, of course, is nonsense. Only 40 per cent. of the State holdings in steel today comprises Richard Thomas and Baldwins. The remaining 60 per cent. is a mixed bag of prior charges, loans and equities in a wide range of private enterprise steel companies not owned as to a majority financially by the State. To show my earlier interest—I have been questioning Ministers since the last General Election on this issue—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT Question No. 10 by myself to a Treasury Minister on 17th November, 1960, when the present Economic Secretary to the Treasury wound up his reply to my Question with these words: that it is the Government's intention that within the lifetime of the present Parliament the work of the Agency should be substantially completed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 529.] I shall continue campaigning for the remainder of the lifetime of this Parliament to secure adherence by the Conservative Party to the election pledges given in 1959 and the three preceding elections—that is, in 1950, 1951, 1956 and 1959—when we said perfectly clearly that we proposed to denationalise the steel industry, which in my view includes Richard Thomas and Baldwins. My presence here this evening is not to ask the Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, for a further assurance in addition to those already given by Treasury Ministers. I want no further assurances. I am merely here to call attention to the assurances already given and the election pledges already given on four successive occasions, and to remind my right hon. Friend that I will, in my own inimitable phrase, feel queasy indeed to face the electorate with a charge of political infidelity at the next General Election should there be any failure to complete denationalisation of steel before the next General Election.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

In only two minutes I want to ask the Leader of the House whether, as Leader of the House, he will give us an assurance, as the House, that if a change in Government policy on an important issue is made, a statement will be made on the Floor of the House. Secondly, I want to apply that principle to this matter and ask whether there has been any change of policy in the proposal to denationalise Richard Thomas and Baldwins, which is a company with £150 million of capital employing thousands of workers whose future is the subject of a great deal of speculation in South Wales and elsewhere. Thirdly, I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can make clear now whether it is the case that the Government have modified their policy to the extent that Richard Thomas and Baldwins will not be disposed of before the next General Election, in view of the condition of the stock market at present.

As far as we know, the only official statement made to the House is the one, correctly quoted by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), which was made on 22nd March, 1960, by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—that the work of I.S.H.R.A. would be concluded before the next General Election. But the reports which have appeared since then are so well documented that there must be at least some foundation for them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman as Leader of the House to clear up that speculation and make clear for us the future of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, and I ask him, as we on this side of the House hope, to say that the rumours are true that the company will not be disposed of before the next General Election, and to give me and the House a general assurance in principle that important principles of this sort will be disclosed to the House on the Floor of the House.

12.26 a.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod)

This, as far as I am aware, is the first occasion when an attempt has been made to debate the proceedings of a private party meeting on the Floor of the House, and this makes it an occasion so unusual that I thought that I ought to reply.

I think that there is little dispute on the facts. A private meeting was held on 14th March. Unofficial reports appeared in the Press on 15th March. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) asked a Question to the Prime Minister on 20th March and out of that this Adjournment debate has arisen. I think that it is now accepted that what took place at that meeting was a question and answer session in which my right hon. Friend replied to questions one by one.

Let us take the question of what can be asked on this matter. It is laid down quite clearly on page 357 of Erskine May that: The Prime Minister cannot be asked questions about statements made by other Ministers in the country, but a question to the Prime Minister whether a statement made by a Minister of Cabinet rank represents the policy of the Government is in order. This device is always used, and it was used by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to ask for some clarification.

In my view it was clearly right—and I make no reflection on the Table—for the Clerks to accept this Question because there was nothing in the reference to the speech of 14th March to indicate that it was not a reference to a normal speech on a public occasion. But it quickly became apparent that what was being referred to was not a speech in the country but an answer to a question at a private meeting in a Committee Room in the Palace of Westminster.

Quite clearly this takes the whole question outside the doctrine of Erskine May, which I have just read to the House. The Prime Minister answered accordingly, that is to say, he declined to comment on newspaper reports, just as one would decline to comment on a newspaper or any other report of a Cabinet Committee. I am sure that this is right. Any other course, with great respect to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), would lead us to a position which we should all regret.

There are two reasons why it would be wrong for me or any other Minister to answer a question on points raised in debate at confidential party meetings. First, Her Majesty's Government are answerable to the House for their policy and they are not answerable to the House, and it would undermine the whole system of government in the country if they were answerable, for the processes by which policy is formed. They do not disclose in talk and they are not prepared to discuss in public the advice they receive or the minutes that may pass between Departments, or the proceedings of Cabinet meetings or Cabinet committees which have been the subject of speculation in the Press. These are entirely confidential. Similarly, I do not believe for a moment—I ask hon. Members to reflect on this—that it can be right that discussions at private party meetings, if they are concerned sometimes with questions of policy, are ones which can properly be discussed on the Floor of the House.

The second reason is much more important to us all. The Palace of Westminster is a comparatively small place. We are a fairly small community. We are deeply divided on matters of policy, but we are mutually dependent in respect of many of our customs and conventions. Although we frequently disagree in public, there is a good deal of the ordinary commerce of friendly living between members of the parties in the House. I ask the House, particularly the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, to reflect on this. If the doctrine is once admitted and if we once step outside what I have read from Erskine May, where does the doctrine end? If a question can be put to the Prime Minister asking about a statement or an answer to a question made by a Minister in a private room upstairs, what is to stop one being put down about a conversation in the Lobby or the Tea Room or the Smoking Room? If Ministers are to be held to be answerable to the House in this way in the Palace of Westminster, what is there in this new doctrine which is being enunciated to say that they should not be held answerable for any remark they may have made, or which it is alleged that they have made, at a private lunch or dinner party or when they thought they were having a private discussion outside?

Mr. M. Foot

There is a very simple distinction. It is well understood in the House that anything said in the corridors of the House or the Smoking Room is not to be revealed to the Press. The Press is, rightly in my opinion, trying to find out what happened at these meetings. It does so with the Labour Party meetings and with the Tory Party meetings. It is not stopped. It tries to find out, and the more news the Government give out at such meetings the more they will encourage the Press to try to find out what happens. There is a clear distinction between the confidence of Members of Parliament in the Smoking Room and elsewhere and what goes on at these meetings which go on all over the place. The Press tries to find out what takes place at these meetings.

Mr. Macleod

There is no such distinction. The only distinction we have and the only one we can lean upon until the House in its wisdom decides to alter it is the doctrine of Erskine May which I have put before the House, that the Prime Minister can be questioned, by means of the device to which I have referred, on a speech by a Minister in the country. I am certain that, if we departed from that, we should find the situation very difficult indeed. The hon. Member has said that the Press is trying to find out what happens at private meetings. Of course it is. It does so with extreme efficiency. Equally, it likes to find out what happens, if it can, at many private meetings in which Ministers take part. For example, reports of what is supposed to have happened at the Cabinet appear almost weekly in the Press, but it has never been suggested that the Prime Minister can be questioned on these. It has never been suggested that he should deny the various reports or rumours that appear.

The position, I believe, is that for these reasons it would be wrong, and I believe that the Opposition would think it wrong, to answer questions or points raised in debate regarding statements made by Ministers at private party meetings. I am sorry if in any way this answer disappoints the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, but I believe that, when he broods over this and turns up, as I am sure he will, the quotation from Erskine May which I have read to him, he will feel that in the interests of the House as a whole this is the right line for me to take and that it was the right line for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take.

These meetings are supposed to be confidential. It is idle to pretend that accounts of what takes place, usually accurate, sometimes not accurate, frequently appear in the Press. But I am convinced that it would be wrong for us to extend that comment to include discussion on the Floor of the House. That is why the Prime Minister declined to go into detail in answer to the hon. Member and that is why, for exactly the same reason, I decline to answer the questions that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East has put to me. I believe that in so doing I am acting in the interests of Members of the House. I am sure that the suggestion that has been made that we should act in a different way is entirely against our long-established procedure and the practice of the House.

If that is so, I counsel the House to stay within the confines of the doctrine of Erskine May, which I have put before the House, which governed the response of the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on 20th March and which has also governed the reply I have made to this debate.

For all these reasons, I am quite convinced that this is the line that, in the interests of the House, we should take.

Mr. Callaghan

Before the Leader of the House resumes his seat, may I ask whether we are to have a statement of policy on whether the sale of Richard Thomas and Baldwins is to be postponed? Because that is the issue that mainly concerns us.

Mr. Nabarro

Put down a Question.

Mr. Macleod

A Question can be put down, but I answered the question—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-jour minutes to one o'clock.