§ Q4. Mr. M. Footasked the Prime Minister whether the speech delivered on 14th March by the Minister without Portfolio on the future of the steel industry represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ The Prime MinisterMy noble Friend the Minister without Portfolio did not make a speech on 14th March.
§ Mr. FootDid the Prime Minister's officials draw his attention to the reports in many newspapers, from The Times downwards, or upwards, saying that there had been a speech made by the Minister without Portfolio on the future of the steel industry to a secret or semi-secret meeting of Conservative Members of Parliament? Does not the Prime Minister think it most unfortunate and unfair that a news statement of great importance on the future of a great steel works like Richard Thomas and Baldwins should be made at such a meeting instead of publicly in this House?
§ The Prime MinisterIf there is any question of public policy, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Power, but, if the hon. Gentleman can put his mind back to the days when he was a member of a party, he will realise that this was a form of meeting which is not unusual in the House of Commons and is, indeed, part of our Parliamentary life.
§ Mr. FootIf I heard him aright, did not the Prime Minister say in his first reply that the Minister without Portfolio did not make a speech on this date, 206 and has he not just now shown that he lied to the House in that first reply?
§ The Prime MinisterIf it were any other hon. Member except the hon. Gentleman, I would not answer any question after words which I resented, but I do not think it is necessary to take that view with him. As I said in my first reply, the Minister attended a meeting. We all know that many of these meetings take place on both sides of the House, and if the hon. Gentleman would recall it he has no doubt attended such meetings addressed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power. [Interruption.] He did not make a speech of any kind. He attended a meeting, where, no doubt, statements were made. There was no public speech of any sort or kind.
§ Sir Richard PilkingtonOn a point of order. The word "lie" was used by an hon. Member opposite. Should he not be required to withdraw it?
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the point is raised. I am bound to rule on it and ask him to withdraw it. I do 90.
§ Mr. FootI am in great difficulty, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister in his first reply said to the House of Commons that the Minister had not made a speech on this subject. He subsequently confirmed to this House that he had made a speech—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is quite disorderly. My duty requires me to require the hon. Member to withdraw. I have done so. I am afraid that it is a question of withdrawing and not of arguing about it.
§ Mr. FootMy duty also requires me to withdraw. I am sorry to have to do it, but the House must judge for itself what happened.
§ The Prime MinisterI am always ready to answer questions about speeches made in public by my colleagues. I think there is one almost every week, but this, as everybody knows, was not one of those questions addressed to a speech of that kind. This was a meeting of an ordinary kind, an ordinary meeting, which no one denies took place, on the ordinary kind of party committee.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Nabarro.
§ Mr. RankinOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. One moment, in order to correct my own mind, in case I have got something wrong. I called the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to ask a supplementary question when a point of order supervened. I am not certain whether the Prime Minister was answering his question, because I did not hear it.
§ Mr. NabarroI have not yet asked my supplementary question.
§ Mr. SpeakerLet the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) put his point of order.
§ Mr. RankinOn a point of order. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has been requested to withdraw what was termed a lie, why is it that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who told a lie a few weeks ago, was not also required to withdraw? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is no point of order for me at this stage.
§ Mr. Nabarro rose—
§ Mr. RankinFurther to that point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerIt cannot be further to that point of order because it was not one. If the hon. Member has another point of order to raise I will hear him.
§ Mr. RankinSurely, truth is something that we honour in this House, and when it is dishonoured it becomes a matter for you, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot be asked to define truth in response to a point of order.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesIn view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, about the word "lie", would it be in order for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) to say that this was an "unexplainable contradiction?"
§ Mr. SpeakerWhen the hon. Member says it I will rule upon it, but his opportunity is not now.
§ Mr. NabarroReturning to the Question, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the Question contains the words "on the future of the steel industry ", and, having regard to the fact that it has been the declared policy and objective of the Conservative Party in four successive General Elections to complete the denationalisation of the steel industry, would not my right hon. Friend again make it clear that it is our policy to complete the denationalisation, particularly in the context of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, as soon as possible?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that arises on this Question. If my hon. Friend will put down a question either to me or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Minister of Power, I shall be very glad to answer it. All I was trying to say was that the meeting, which everybody knows my noble Friend attended, was not a case of his making a speech in public, which I have to defend or deny, but was an ordinary meeting of private Members, such as is held by every party in every Administration.
§ Mr. LiptonDoes the Prime Minister appreciate that ordinary hon. Members are in a very difficult position, as some of us would like to know what arguments were advanced by the Minister without Portfolio in favour of the continued nationalisation of steel?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the hon. Member puts down a question on the matter at issue, I will do my best to answer it. This was an entirely different Question to Which my Answer was perfectly correct, as everyone in the House knows.
§ Mr. M. FootOn a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment. As the Prime Minister's honour is now at stake, I hope that he will turn up to reply.
§ Mr. SpeakerHon. Members must help me when giving notice of raising a subject on the Adjournment by adhering to the traditional formula.