HC Deb 04 February 1969 vol 777 cc224-31
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

In his reply yesterday to a Private Notice Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the implications of the allegations made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that he had "irrefutable evidence" of a Budget leak were being examined so that a decision could be taken as to whether any further inquiry was needed, and, if so, what form it should take.

In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has neither withdrawn his allegations nor made available the evidence on which they were based, and, indeed is reported as having made further serious allegations, the Government have now decided that an inquiry should be made so that these charges of grave misconduct against unnamed individuals can be thoroughly investigated.

Hon. Members put forward yesterday a number of suggestions about the form which such an inquiry might take. In view of the fact that the allegations have been made by an hon. Member of this House, the Government have decided that the most appropriate way of carrying out this investigation would be to set up a Select Committee of this House.

The Motion to set up the Select Committee will be tabled after discussions through the usual channels later this week.

Mr. Heath

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) indicated to the House yesterday that he would welcome an inquiry. As the Prime Minister made plain, the form of the inquiry, decided on by the Government and announced by the right hon. Gentleman, is the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer three questions? First, is the Select Committee to be speedily set up, with the result that not only the necessary Motion will be laid before the House, but that, if the House so desires, it may be debated before the end of the week? Secondly, would I he right hon. Gentleman tell us what size of Select Committee he has in mind? Thirdly, will the question whether the Committee will sit in public or private be covered by the Motion, or left to the discretion of the Committee?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are ready to have discussions through the usual channels immediately about the establishment of this Select Committee, and to get the necessary Motion on the Notice Paper as quickly as may be, and certainly this week.

The size of the Committee is a matter for consultation. My view, though I am prepared to hear other views, is that it should not be too large and that perhaps it should be smaller than some Select Committees of the House. A membership of, perhaps, 10 or so might be appropriate; but, obviously, if it was widely felt that the number should be eight, 12, or a different figure, then that could be considered.

To answer the right hon. Gentleman's question whether the Committee will meet in private or in public, this must be a matter for the Select Committee itself to decide; that is, if the Motion setting up the Committee gives it freedom so to decide. Sometimes Committees of this sort are not free to decide, while at other times they are.

I suggest that the right thing would be, subject to consultation, that the Motion setting up the Committee should give it the usual authority to send for persons and papers, the usual authority to meet if the House is not sitting, to meet at any place of its choosing and to give it the maximum freedom of decision, whether it would hear evidence in public or in private or perhaps deliberate in private, and whether it should take any other decisions it felt right to take, having regard to its duties to the House which established it.

Mr. C. Pannell

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can answer a question, or whether perhaps you will agree with me about this, Mr. Speaker. This decision having been taken and announced, is not the matter now sub judice and should it not now become a matter which should not have public explanation through the means of communication, whether on the air or in the Press?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot rule that it is sub judice.

Sir G. Nabarro

While giving a general, but, in view of the Prime Minister's statement, qualified welcome to this decision— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate that as I am a principal witness in the controversy I shall require that the proceedings be held in public if I am to be able to submit evidence fairly and properly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] Will he take that into account, coming from a principal witness?

Secondly, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the calendar unfortunately indicates that we are now within a matter of six or seven weeks of Budget day and that it would, therefore, be desirable to have the proceedings of this Committee expedited, held in public and in such a way that all of these budgetary considerations may be considered by the wider general public before the Chancellor's Budget statement?

The Prime Minister

I saw the hon. Gentleman on television last night.

Sir G. Nabarro

Good.

The Prime Minister

I am surprised and a little sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not given a general rather than what he calls a qualified welcome to what I have said.

The proceedings of the Committee, and, in particular, his question whether it will meet in public or in private, must be for the Committee to decide. The Committee will no doubt have in mind its duty to the House and also the views of the hon. Gentleman, who may, as he said, be one of the witnesses. I hope that he will make it clear that he is prepared to give the Committee his fullest assistance in its inquiries, and will not qualify that, as he did yesterday, by statements about his willingness to give evidence.

Mr. Lubbock

Is the Prime Minister aware that to use a Select Committee to investigate matters touching the personal honour of an hon. Member has not been the practice since 1912, that the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry said in its Report of November, 1966, that the machinery was thoroughly discredited as a result of the Marconi scandal inquiry and that in future fresh machinery should be established, as was done under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921? Why has not the right hon. Gentleman chosen to use that machinery on this occasion?

The Prime Minister

I do not think that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is entitled to say that this Committee is being set up to inquire into the personal honour of an hon. Member of this House. It is being set up to inquire into allegations which have been made covering a considerable number of individuals, public servants and others, and it is right that it should have full power to inquire into those allegations. Nor should any of us at this stage try to influence its final report.

I am well aware of what has become something of a convention, that because of the Marconi Committee no one any longer trusts a Select Committee of the House, we are told, to look into these matters with impartiality. But I cannot accept that view, even though it did have the authority, in one sense, of the Royal Commission on Tribunals. Indeed, there have been Committees of this House since the Marconi inquiry, which took place in very special circumstances—for example, the Select Committees which inquired into Budget disclosures in 1947 and into the conduct of an hon. Member of this House during the war.

This has been done so far as I am aware with no shred of suspicion of lack of integrity, or that it was done on party grounds. My impression, having presided over a Select Committee on very controversial matters, is that this has always been true and that the Committee on Privilege, a Select Committee of this House, does its job without fear or favour. I cannot accept the view that, because certain things happened in the Marconi case, from that time forward the House is precluded from setting up a Select Committee when that course of action is indicated.

Mr. Ellis

On a point of order. I may have misheard, but I think I heard the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) say in his comments on the Prime Minister's statement that he would be prepared to appear before the Select Committee if—and then he qualified it—it were held in public.

As I understand, that is threatening not the Government, but this House as a whole, and I understand that no individual can be above this House as a whole. As such, the hon. Member was challenging not only this House, but you who represent us in this House, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will make quite clear that the hon. Member, when it is a matter of decision of this House as a whole and you as our Speaker, has no right to qualify it in this way.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is right in one thing—that no hon. Member or right hon. Member is above this House—but the matter to which he referred is a one for the Select Committee, if it is set up.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order. All that has happened this afternoon, although we seem to have gone beyond what happened originally, has been an announcement by the Prime Minister of the Government's intention to submit a Motion asking for the appointment of a Select Committee. I think that it is the practice of the House that we do not debate a Motion until it comes before the House, but what we are doing now is proceeding to a debate. I suggest that all that hon. Members wish to say—if they wish to say anything, from either side of the House—on the merits or demerits of the question should wait until the Motion comes before the House.

Mr. Sandys

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I can deal with only one point of order at a time. There is some merit in what the right hon. Gentleman has said. There is not yet a Motion that we should set up a Select Committee, but hon. Members are entitled, when a statement is made by a Minister, to ask elucidatory questions.

Mr. Sandys

On a point of order. I should like to have your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Is it in accordance with our normal Parliamentary practice for this House to set up a Select Committee to inquire into statements made by hon. Members outside the House?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter which can be discussed when the Motion comes before the House. I hope that we can proceed.

Mr. Woodburn

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to give the Select Committee powers to make its own investigations? The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) may have been misled by a conspiracy, as suggested in the newspapers. It would be quite improper for a Committee of this House to make investigations of that kind. Would this Committee have power to employ the necessary research to inquire whether a leak took place—if there was a leak between the Treasury and its printing office?

The Prime Minister

It must be for the Select Committee to decide its own procedure within the terms of the Motion which we shall ask the House to approve. The Committee must construe the matter and carry it out to the best of its ability.

Captain W. Elliot

Could the Prime Minister clear up this point? He will be aware that yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there was no foundation in the allegations made by my hon. Friend. Is this inquiry to establish whether there was a leak of non-information, or whether there was a leak of vital information?

The Prime Minister

The position was as stated by my right hon. Friend yesterday. It was not accepted by the whole House, for example, by the hon. Member responsible for making the allegations outside the House. I heard him say, although not physically in his presence at the time, that he did not accept the statement of my right hon. Friend. Great publicity has been given to these allegations. It is right, in defence of those who have been the subject of these allegations, that there should be a proper independent investigation by a Select Committee. There are alternative means, such as those suggested by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), but we do not take the view that that would be the appropriate way of proceeding in this case.

Mr. Moonman

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the reason for preferring this sort of inquiry over other methods of inquiry is the seriousness of the situation and that many hon. Members on this side of the House welcome this method without question or qualification?

The Prime Minister

That is what my hon. Friend said on television and in the letter which he sent to my right hon. Friend.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Are we not debasing—

Mr. Faulds

On a point of order—

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I am on a point of order. Are we not debasing the coinage of Parliament? A Minister of the Crown has stated categorically that there has been no leakage. Is it necessary to inquire into every comment by a backbencher?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate here the merits of the issue which the Select Committee will look into. I hope that we can move on.

Mr. Faulds

On a point of order. Is it in order for the House to waste valuable time on the tittle-tattle of such a self-publicist as that cardboard cavalier?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds), not for the first time, is doing what I have asked him not to do.

Mr. Winnick

Is the Prime Minister—

Sir G. Nabarro

On a point of order. You observed yesterday, Sir, that Mr. Speaker was not strange to strong epithets in the House. Would you rule now, Sir, in reference to another hon. Member as a "cardboard cavalier"? If you rule that that is in order, would it not be equally in order to talk of a broken-down actor from Stratford-on-Avon?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The ways in which hon. Members express their disapproval of each other's conduct is a matter for the Chair if they exceed the rules of order, but I do not think that I have heard anything out of order.

Mr. Winnick

Is the Prime Minister aware in view of the demolition job which the Chancellor did yesterday it seems a complete waste of time to have an inquiry? Is it not a fact that over 22 years the House has refused to take the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) seriously?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must move on. Mr. Hector Hughes. A point of order.