HC Deb 28 February 1967 vol 742 cc271-4

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Q20. Mr. SANDYS: To ask the Prime Minister what evidence he has that the right hon. Member for Wandsworth, Streatham has disclosed a confidential official document to the Press.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

With permission, I will now answer Question Q20.

The right hon. Gentleman's Question is misconceived. I did not say in the House on 21st February that he "has disclosed a confidential official document to the Press". What I did say—and it is all in the OFFICIAL REPORT—Was: I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman was issuing to the Press references to a document which he has got hold of. and I also said: …my impression would be that the document the right hon. Gentleman has been hawking about, being issued—[interruption.] I am referring to his Press statement last week." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1967; c. 1434–5.] That the right hon. Gentleman has made public and made available to the Press confidential information taken from the document and has made available his version of the contents is shown by early day Motion No. 413 of 15th February and his statement to the Press published in a number of papers on 16th February.

I did not, as he will see if he studies HANSARD, say he had handed over the confidential document itself to the Press. What he did was to disclose publicly information contained in a confidential document.

Mr. Sandys

Is the Prime Minister aware that the only information which I made available to the Press was a copy of the Motion which I have tabled in this House—not one single word more than that? Does the Prime Minister not recognise that when the Government conceal the truth from the people it is the duty of Members of Parliament to make the facts known?

The Prime Minister

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to use phrases like that, as I made clear last week, he is entitled to say these things. He does not help to get the truth to the people if he gets hold of this document—however he got hold of it—and if he then, in the public presentation of its contents, completely slants the facts.

Both in his Motion and in his Question last week, and in the Press stories which he inspired, it was stated throughout that the cost of sanctions was —100 million. That was the fact that he gave out. There is a very big difference, and the right hon. Gentleman really does understand it, between the cost of sanctions and the total cost to Britain of action by others, including sanctions on Rhodesia.

Mr. Sandys

Is the Prime Minister really now claiming to censor, vet and amend Motions which are tabled in this House? Are we not free to table Motions in the form in which we think them right? It is open to the right hon. Gentleman to criticise them or to answer Questions, as he likes, but we are still free.

The Prime Minister

I would not presume to attempt to censor the right hon. Gentleman. When he does get it wrong, he always issues a statement to the Press at 6 o'clock at night. On this particular Motion, if he accuses me of concealing information from the House—

Mr. Sandys

I do.

The Prime Minister

I am entitled to say, having read his Motion, that he slanted the information and gave wrong information to the House and that the information he was slanting came from an official document. His first duty to the House is to tell the House who supplied him with it.

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot pursue this any further.

Sir F. Bennett

On a point of order. I should like your guidance. Mr. Speaker. Without wishing to interfere in your discretion, on the last Question taken after Question Time by the Prime Minister, you allowed, according to my recollection, about a dozen supplementary questions. Can you say why this Question should be treated so differently?

Mr. Speaker

I should not have thought that the hon. Gentleman should need any guidance as to why this Question should be treated differently. It is quite a different Question from most Questions.

Mr. Wall

On a point of order. As the dispute is over a document, would it not be in order for the document to be placed on the table of the House?

Mr. Speaker

I dealt with that point of order last week.

Sir J. Langford-Holt

Further to that point of order. As this argument appears to be about a Motion which is on the Order Paper, is there any method open to private Members, or the Prime Minister, to make sure that this Motion is discussed in the House?

Mr. Speaker

That is a question that the hon. Gentleman must raise during business questions on Thursday.

Mr. Paget

Further to that point of order. The Prime Minister is now saying that this document shows that he told the Commonwealth Prime Ministers that the cost to this country of the Rhodesian policy was over £100 million. That quo- tation from the document we ought to see.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. and learned Gentleman refreshes his memory, he will find that I dealt with that point of order the last time that this issue was raised.

Mr. Kershaw

Further to that point of order. In my respectful submission it is clearly within the recollection of the House that the Prime Minister referred to the document circulated to the Commonwealth Governments. Is it not absolutely according to our tradition that if a document is referred to in specific terms it should be laid before the House especially in a matter such as this where the facts are so much in dispute?

Mr. Speaker

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I dealt with that matter last time.