ROAD LICENCE FEES (ALLEGATIONS) (Hansard, 3 February 1969)

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins)
The allegations which have been made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), including charges of grave misconduct against officials and commercial printers employed by the Government, require an answer and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to set the record straight.
I must make it clear that I do not intend to be driven by a spate of rumours into disclosing in advance, one way or the other, my Budget intentions. Were I to do this I would be creating a precendent whereby not only myself but every future Chancellor could be forced to confirm or deny any rumour, however ill-founded, reckless or mischievous, provided that, either through the agency of an hon. Member of this House or otherwise, it had been given sufficiently widespread currency. Chancellors would quickly find themselves in the position of being regarded as confirming any rumours which they did not deny.
However, in this particular case it is possible for me to show that the evidence put forward as purporting to substantiate the allegations about my intentions is manifestly false. The allegations made by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Worcestershire, South, as reported in the Press and on radio and television, have varied widely. According to one report the hon. Gentleman said that he had seen a new licence application form. This then became a new tax table which, in one version, had not yet been printed though 33 the type had been set up. It is, therefore, not easy to know precisely what the hon. Gentleman says he saw, or what his so-called "irrefutable evidence" consists of.
Whatever version of the hon. Gentleman's allegations he now wishes us to accept, however, I am able to tell the House and the country that any story based on the printing of forms ordered by the Government is without foundation. Whether tax changes are to be made in the Budget or not, no printing of new rates is undertaken until within four weeks of Budget day. Even then, no such printing is carried out by private printers.
There can, therefore, have been no such Budget leak. Allegations that forms have been ordered or printed to show new rates of tax are totally without foundation. Nevertheless, grave charges have been made against unnamed individuals. I am examining the implications of these charges so that a decision can be taken as to whether any further inquiry is needed, and, if so, what form it should take.

§ Mr. Dickens
Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny whether or not the Official Secrets Act applies to persons engaged in documentation of information prior to Budgets? If not, should not procedures in this respect be revised?
Secondly, is it not utterly disgraceful that a Member of this House should make statements of the kind attributed to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) before any attempt was made by him to get in touch with my right hon. Friend to disclose the information to him about this alleged leak?

§ Mr. Jenkins
Clearly, the Official Secrets Act applies to those who have knowledge of Budget secrets of any sort. Whether it applies to those who have no such knowledge but pretend that they have, is a slightly different matter to argue.
So far as my view of the conduct of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is concerned, I think that I made it clear in my original reply.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that his statement has added not a jot nor a tittle to our knowledge? Is he further aware that it is traditional, of course, for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to defend the secrecy 34 of his Budget? Is he so unobservant as to fail to note that the rumours he referred to in such scathing terms have been widely expressed as statements in every kind of newspaper for the last three months—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, in every kind of newspaper for the last three months—originating as long ago as last December?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if he chooses to establish an inquiry, it will be a happy circumstance for all of us who have contributed to this controversy, not excluding myself, to appear before it, for I am not in agreement with a large part of his statement this afternoon?

§ Mr. Jenkins
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, who made the most specific charges yesterday and on Saturday, now attempts to ride off on the ground that charges had been made or rumours spread by other people for some time beforehand. I think, in view of the hon. Gentleman's behaviour, that that is a most cowardly thing to do.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not in the least tender to normal Parliamentary exchanges, but is it normal for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to call a private Member a coward, knowing that you will not call that private Member to respond to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he is, therefore, hitting a man who cannot reply?

§ Mr. Speaker
I did not hear the exchange, but, whether or not the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is in a position to reply, it is not in order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to call an hon. Member a coward.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Jenkins
If it is not in order, I gladly withdraw the word which I used, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Strauss
On a point of order. May I ask you to reconsider your Ruling, Mr. Speaker? One has frequently heard in the Chamber over the years one hon. Member calling another a coward. It is a strong epithet, but surely it is not out of order in any way.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Speaker is no stranger to the strong epithets which fly across from one side of the House to the other, but it is not in order to reflect on the honour or bravery of an hon. Member, and "coward" is one of the words which for a long time have been ruled by the Chair to be out of order.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
On a point of order. To get the record straight, it will be within the recollection of the House that my right hon. Friend did not use the word "coward". He said that it was a cowardly thing to do, which is quite different.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not see much distinction between "cowardly" and "coward", if the right hon. Gentleman said that it was a cowardly thing to do. It is in order for any hon. Member to reflect on the conduct of another hon. Member; but he can do so by putting a Motion on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Jenkins
I have withdrawn the word and I hope that we shall not pursue this any further. My case about the hon. Gentleman does not depend on adjectives or adverbs.
The hon. Gentleman said that I had added nothing new. What I did was to provide a careful explanation of why the evidence which he sought to be put forward could not be regarded as valid. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have held Treasury office at one time or another, and there is a good number of them, know perfectly well that what I have said is fully accurate.
I note that the hon. Gentleman does not withdraw the charges he has made, but that he will be willing to co-operate and to provide the evidence which he thinks he has available; and I look forward to seeing it.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that almost all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will accept the right of any Chancellor to maintain secrecy before the presentation of his Budget? Is he also aware that the House would wish to resolve this matter as far as possible this afternoon? As he has discounted the evidence of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), and indicated that it is not possible for any private firm or public 36 firm of printers to be involved, can he tell us in what quarters he chooses now to direct an inquiry?

§ Mr. Jenkins
The question of the inquiry rests particularly on the charges which the hon. Gentleman sought to level against a number of individuals, both Treasury officials and the printers and their employees.

§ Mr. Wilkins
There are those of us in the House who are jealous of the craft which we have served and who are proud of the union to which we belong. As we want to clear them of any consequences, and as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is reported in the Press today as having seen the proofs submitted to him by the two men who composed the type, in other words, the compositors, can he now be required to lay those papers on the Table?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a question not for me, but for the hon. Gentleman.

§ Sir A. V. Harvey
Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say what type of inquiry he intends to have? Will it be a tribunal, a private inquiry, or a Select Committee? Surely the House is entitled to know, when an hon. Member's honour is affected by what has been said.

§ Mr. Jenkins
It is important that there should be time for reflection about what type of inquiry would be suitable—there are arguments in several directions.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
If at all.

§ Mr. Jenkins
If at all. However, the hon. Member now seems to be taking a view somewhat different from the view he took earlier. It would be appropriate and sensible to do this and, clearly, it was necessary to see whether the hon. Member proposed completely to withdraw the charges which he had made, or whether, as I understand to be the case, he is willing to provide his so-called evidence.

§ Mr. Wilkins
On a point of order. May I through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South to lay those papers on the Table?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) has already asked.

§ Mr. C. Pannell
If the Chancellor is considering an inquiry, as we are dealing with hon. Members, may I ask him not to rule out the prospect of a Select Committee on a matter like this? Things of this sort are too lightly bandied about. We know the people concerned and a Select Committee would have more authority in the House than would any other form of inquiry.

§ Mr. Jenkins
I will certainly take note of what my right hon. Friend says.

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
More generally, to avoid a recurrence of such matters as are now upsetting the House, will the Chancellor remember that the country still persists in a positively mediaeval attitude of secrecy towards the Budget? Does he not consider that the time has come, as he himself has said again and again, for prior consultation about the Budget without all the secrecy which surrounds it today?

§ Mr. Jenkins
I do not think that the broader issue has anything to do with the deliberate spreading of false rumours about particular changes.

§ Mr. Moonman
My right hon. Friend has dealt with the allegation, which is proven to be a monstrous lie.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman may say that the allegations were untrue or unfounded, but he may not use the word "lie" and must withdraw it.

§ Mr. Moonman
I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw that remark.
Will my right hon. Friend go ahead and institute this inquiry, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) said, there is not only the integrity of the whole printing industry and the name of the particular firm at stake, but there are the individuals who have been named as having delivered the proofs to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and many other aspects which need to be taken up?

§ Mr. Jenkins
We shall certainly consider those as well as other matters before reporting to the House again.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
In his statement the Chancellor used the words "forms" and "tables" and said that they had not 38 been printed and were not likely to be printed until four weeks before the Budget at the earliest. Will he clear up one rumour which is also circulating—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is very important—which is that the licences themselves have been printed with the figure of £35? This rumour is prevalent and I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would deal with it.

§ Mr. Jenkins
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport informs me that the licences never have the sum printed upon them. What I say to the House as a blanket assurance is that no printing of any sort has been ordered by the Government which forms any basis for these rumours.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Can my right hon. Friend explain why it is necessary to have an inquiry, unless the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) produces evidence which would be the basis for an inquiry? My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) asked that the papers be laid on the Table. I suggest that we lay the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South on the Table. [Laughter.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That would be out of order.