HC Deb 14 July 1970 vol 803 cc1482-98

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell (Birkenhead)

I am very grateful that I have, perhaps somewhat unexpectedly, caught your eye this evening, Mr. Speaker, to raise a matter of considerable importance to my constituents.

I am also very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology for being present. The Under-Secretary of State, who I understand is to reply, may take the view that the matters which I am about to raise are matters of which he has received insufficient notice, and that therefore he cannot give me any firm assurances upon them this evening. I would not find that argument too easily acceptable, on the ground that I am raising not matters suddenly brought before the House or Ministers but pledges made to my constituents—in particular, the employees of Cammell Laird, one of the main employers in my constituency—by the Conservative candidate in the General Election with, I am told, the knowledge and approval of the Shadow Cabinet. These pledges were made two days before the General Election, and were made clearly with the intention of influencing the result. Although they did not have that effect in my constituency they may have had an effect in the neighbouring, rather more marginal, constituency of Bebington. It is sometimes thought that all those who work at Cammell Laird's live in my constituency, but my estimate is that no more than a third do so. Large numbers of them live in neighbouring constituencies, including the constituency of Bebington.

It was stated that the pledges to which I shall refer were made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet, with its knowledge and approval. I have no knowledge of how its approval was obtained. All I know is that that claim was made and published in the local Press before the election. I can only assume that in the course of preparing the statement to which I shall refer the Conservative candidate in Birkenhead had consultation at the very least with those members of the then shadow Cabinet who appeared to be most relevant to the issues raised in his circular. One was the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), then shadow Minister of Technology, and the other was the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who was the shadow Secretary of State for Defence and is now the Minister of Technology. I have no personal knowledge that either was consulted, but they seem to be the people who may have been consulted on the matter before the circular was issued.

I am saying that it was a circular issued with the knowledge and approval of the shadow Cabinet, or at least asserted to be so. Yet I was surprised to find during Question Time yesterday that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology had no knowledge of it. I put to him a supplementary question in which I asked: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the election campaign, specific pledges were made to Cammell Laird workers and were stated to have been made on behalf of the then Shadow Cabinet? Is the hon. Gentleman aware what those pledges were, and does he intend to implement them? He replied: I am not aware what those pledges were."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1132.] Later during Question Time I had another opportunity to put the point to him, and he kindly said that he would make inquiries to find out what the pledges were. This if anything inspired me with a sense of urgency to put the matter before him. I am prepared to provide both Ministers with copies of the circular if they have so far been unable to obtain one.

I wish to refer not to all the pledges made in this document, but to certain of them. Those which I mention come mainly within the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, although one is within the responsibility of the Ministry of Technology, and that is why I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being present. Item 5 of the Circular says: The Cammell Laird Settlement will stand exactly in accordance with the agreement made between the Government, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, and Cammell Lairds. That, of course, is a reference to the agreement made by my right hon. Friend the then Paymaster-General before the election.

It was yesterday confirmed in the House categorically that that settlement would stand and I therefore have no complaint about that assurance. I have only two questions about the assurances which I was given in that respect. One is whether it is intended that the 50 per cent. share ownership now in the hands of the Public Trustee will be maintained in public ownership in the hands of the Public Trustee, or whether the Government have any intention of selling the half share which they now own. The other question is whether it is intended to bring legislation on the matter before the House this Session.

I go on to other pledges made in the document. The first sentence of item 7 says: The Conservative Party will restore the building programme of hunter killer submarines to their original level; i.e. reverse the cuts made by the Socialists. There is no dubiety about that categorical statement. It is a pledge. I therefore put a question to the Minister of State for Defence: Mr. Dell asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to expand the building programme of Hunter/Killer submarines. The answer was: Any consideration of this subject would form part of wider studies of future defence policy which are now in progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 142.] The House will agree that that is far from the categorical statement made in the circular issued to employees of Cammell Laird.

The second sentence in item 7 of the Circular said: This means that this additional work must come to Cammell Lairds as there is no other shipyard in Britain equipped to do it, with the exception of Vickers, who already have the existing business. I asked the Minister a question about this, too: Mr. Dell asked the Minister of State for Defence when he proposes to allocate an order for the construction of a hunter/killer submarine to Cammell Laird (Shipbuilders and Engineers) Limited. The right hon. Gentleman replied: A contract for a hunter/killer submarine was let to Vickers (Barrow) on 20th May, 1970. There are no further orders in prospect in the near future".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 12.] The fact that there are no further orders in prospect for the near future does not mean that further orders will not be given to Cammell Laird. What I want is an assurance that in fact the categorical statements in the circular issued on behalf of the then shadow Cabinet will be fulfilled and that additional work in the construction of hunter/killer submarines will go to Cammell Laird.

I turn now to item 9 of this circular which reads: The Conservative Party pledges itself also to restore the naval construction programme, generally, to its previous level. This should result in orders for surface vessels in Cammell Lairds. I ask the House to note the difference between the words in the previous point when it said "must come" and the words here "should result". Obviously this is less categoric. Here we come into such things as tendering and competitiveness in which one would expect the Ministry of Defence to be interested. I note this and I hope that this firm will be given equal opportunities for tendering and that it will benefit from orders within the general naval construction programme.

The first sentence of item 10 of this 11-point programme reads: The Conservative Party believes that for reasons of national security the naval shipbuilding capacity, both nuclear and conventional, at Cammell Lairds must be preserved, and the only way to do this is to keep it working. Very well, once more the test is whether orders are placed with Cammell Laird. Certainly there is here an assurance that orders will be placed with Cammell Laird because it is necessary, according to this document, to keep Cammell Laird available for naval shipbuilding. The second sentence of that item reads: The Conservative Party is also determined to retain facilities at Cammell Laird for the refitting of nuclear submarines and will keep open the option to have some of this work carried out at the yard as and when necessary. I therefore put down a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Defence, answered at column 105 of 10th July. It read: Mr. Dell asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to use Cammell Laird, Birkenhead, for the refitting of nuclear submarines."— The reply was: We have no plans for refitting nuclear submarines outside the Royal Dockyards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 105.] The Minister will appreciate that this last, point, like the others, is of crucial importance to the people working at Cammell Laird. Many of them have felt that even if the construction of hunter/killer submarines is taken away they should nevertheless have the right to refit nuclear submarines. The previous Government made it clear that the refitting of nuclear submarines would take place within the Royal Dockyards. This decision was contested during the General Election campaign and in the circular, in the name of the Shadow Cabinet. Here is a categoric statement, but in replying I have the statement that there is no change in policy.

These are the commitments made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet, or said to have been made.

It is up to the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes, to deny that they were made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet, but the electorate of Birkenhead was told that they were made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet and I am sure that they believed it. I believe that constituents in neighbouring areas believed that too. It is clear from the Answers I have been given in this House that, whatever the intentions of this Government after they have given consideration to their policy, no such clear-cut statement should have been made to the electorate of Birkenhead during the election, because Ministers are not able to come to the Box and assert in categoric terms that they will live by those commitments. In reply to Questions I have tabled I have been told either that there are no plans or that such matters are under consideration. If that is the case no such categoric statement should have been made to the electorate of Birkenhead during the General Election and I would submit that it is a scandal that it was done, whether on behalf of the shadow Cabinet or not. These commitments were made. The Government pride themselves on their honesty, and, commitments having been made in their name, it is a matter of some concern to me as the representative of Birkenhead that those commitments—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Mr. Dell

I should have thought that it was a matter of some importance to the Government, to myself as the representative of Birkenhead, to my constituents and to all employees of Cammell Laird that these commitments should be lived up to. They were stated to have been entered into on behalf of the shadow Cabinet. Will they be lived up to?

10.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kirk)

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) said at the beginning of his speech that I might plead that I had had insufficient notice of the precise points which he intended to raise. I would not hide behind that. However, this is the first time that I have been informed that any undertakings were given by anybody on this matter. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology tells me that the first time that he heard about it was when the right hon. Gentleman raised the matter at Question Time yesterday. If the right hon. Gentleman was interested in getting a reply to his allegations rather than just airing them again, he would have been wiser to have waited a little longer than 24 hours before rushing into the charge.

Yesterday my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman: On the latter point"— that was, the point of these allegations— I shall certainly make the inquiries the hon. Gentleman suggests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1146.] Without giving my hon. Friend or any other member of the Government time to make the inquiries, the right hon. Gentleman came to the House tonight, at about three hours' notice, and repeated his allegations. This is the first time that I have heard the names of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology mentioned in connection with this matter.

I have made urgent inquiries since the right hon. Gentleman began to speak. Neither of my right hon. Friends, neither of whom was given any warning by the right hon. Gentleman that he was to be attacked, is contactable this evening. Therefore, I do not know—and I say so frankly—whether the circular to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, which I have not seen, and neither has any other member of the Government as far as I know, had the authority of either of my right hon. Friends as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman or of the shadow Cabinet as a whole.

The right hon. Gentleman has been less than responsible in the way in which he has raised this matter. I should like to go on to deal—

Mr. Dell

I should like to clear up one point. I contacted the private office of the Minister of Technology to inform him that I would be speaking on this subject tonight.

Mr. Kirk

My information is that my right hon. Friend was not informed that an attack was to be made upon him, and neither, as far as I know, was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. If such an attack was to be made, they should both have been informed.

I come to the factual points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, a review of defence matters is now taking place within the Ministry of Defence to carry out the undertaking which the Conservative Party gave in the election to deploy our defence forces rather differently from the way proposed by the Labour Party when it was in government. Obviously, the nuclear submarine programme is affected by this, as are a very large number of other parts of the shipbuilding programme. We have not completed that review, and it is not possible for me to give any undertaking about the rate of building nuclear submarines.

What I can say to the right hon. Gentleman, however, is that even if we were to restore the rate of building hunter/killer submarines to that which obtained before the previous Government cut it in 1968, it would not bring any extra work to Cammell Laird. It was made plain by my predecessor in the debate on the Navy Estimates on 10th March, 1969—and I refer to c. 1113 of HANSARD of that date—that Vickers, of Barrow, were the lead firm for the building of nuclear submarines, and that Cammell Laird was informed as early as February, 1968, that there were no further plans to give it any share of this work. Indeed, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) went so far as to say: It is wrong, therefore, to suggest that Cammell Laird's were not given the maximum warning of the decision. As the work on nuclear submarines is likely to continue until about the end of 1970, the firm as been given nearly three years in which to find other work, and it has been assured that it will be given every opportunity to tender for other naval work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 1113.] That was the position adopted by the previous Administration. It is still the position of the Ministry of Defence today.

Vickers is our main contractor and once the building of the present hunter/killer submarine which is proceeding at Cammell Laird's is completed, which, I understand, is likely to be next spring, we have no plans to place any further orders for nuclear submarines with Cammell Laird. As for surface vessels, of course Cammell Laird is in a position to tender in the same way as any other shipbuilding firm in the country. We have not yet fixed precisely what the naval shipbuilding programme is likely to be. As soon as we have fixed that—we have two particular ships in mind, the type 42 destroyer and the new cruisers—it will be open to Cammell Laird to tender for them in the same way as anybody else.

I am, however, informed by my hon. Friend that plenty of work is available in the civil shipbuilding area and that it should certainly be possible for Cammell Laird, now that it has been put on its feet again and now that my hon. Friend has given the very clear undertaking which he gave in the House yesterday in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), that we do not intend in any way to disturb the settlement made by the previous Government, to have a fair share of the ordinary commercial shipbuilding programme.

A further point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, both in Questions and in his speech tonight, is the refitting of the existing submarines. Here there are considerable problems. For one thing, I am informed that Cammell Laird is not equipped to refit nuclear submarines and that to do so would involve the building of an extra dock. Even if that were done, it was the firm policy of the previous Administration, which is being maintained by the present Administration, that refitting of nuclear submarines shall proceed in the Royal Dockyards and not in commercial firms.

At present, only two refits are in operation—H.M.S. "Resolution", which is being refitted at Rosyth, and H.M.S. "Valiant", a hunter-killer submarine, which is being refitted at Chatham. We have no intention of taking work away from Her Majesty's Dockyards and putting it to commercial firms, particularly work of the sensitivity, in every sense of the word, of the refitting of both the Polaris and the hunter-killer submarines.

The position, therefore, as I have outlined it on the specific points raised by the right hon. Member, leaving aside his allegations against my right hon. Friends, is that we have no plans to place any orders for submarine building with Cammell Laird, that Cammell Laird is entitled to tender in the same way as any other shipbuilding firm for surface ships for the Navy and that it has wide opportunities for commercial shipbuilding in the country as a whole. Its debts have been paid off. I understand that the refitting side now belongs to the shipbuilding repair yard, which is no longer connected with the main yard but has been hived off, and that it is in a strong position to undertake commercial operations.

It would be wrong for me, as the Minister responsible for the Navy, not to end without paying tribute to the work which Cammell Laird has done for the Navy in the past and, we hope, will do for the Navy in the future. That cannot, however, entitle it to preferential treatment. The Government believe that now that Cammell Laird has been put on a firm economic footing again, it is up to it to compete in the market place in the same way as any other shipbuilding firm.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

I hesitate to take part in what might be regarded as a Liverpool debate, but as the representative of many of those who work at Rosyth I have a certain interest in nuclear submarines. I also have a general interest, as is known to the Department, in this general subject.

First, it was unfair of the Minister to accuse my right hon. Friend of taking advantage and giving insufficient notice. We all know that it is difficult to get parliamentary time. Therefore, if a debate collapses through the mismanagement of the party organisation of the Leader of the House and those who work for him—I should not care to pursue that subject—then it is right to take advantage to raise these subjects.

I regret that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not had copies of the document given to me earlier today by my right hon. Friend before it was learned that he would get an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Dell

I am prepared to give hon. Gentlemen opposite copies of this document. On the other hand, this document was issued on behalf of the then shadow Cabinet. Why should I supply hon. Gentlemen opposite with a document issued on behalf of what was then their shadow Cabinet? Nevertheless, I will do so.

Mr. Dalyell

I believe in courtesy on these occasions. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will have an opportunity of going through the document to which I propose to refer.

I take the Minister's last point first. He revealed that Cammell Laird was apparently not equipped to do this work on nuclear submarines.

Mr. Kirk

I was referring specifically to refitting, not to building.

Mr. Dalyell

I am on that point. I should have made it clear.

Item 10 reads: The Conservative Party believes that, for reasons of national security, the Naval shipbuilding capacity, both nuclear and conventional, at Cammell Laird, must be preserved, and the only way to do this is to keep it working. The Conservative Party is also determined to retain facilities at Cammell Laird for the refitting of nuclear submarines and will keep open the option to have some of this work carried out at the yard as and when necessary. I hold that if the Conservative Party is to make such statements it should at least take the trouble to discover whether Cammell Laird had the capacity to do refitting. Before issuing such documents to many thousands of electors, which I imagine happened in the constituency of my right hon. Friend and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) and others, it should have taken the trouble to find out whether it was technically possible. My complaint is not only that it brings the Conservative Party into disrepute, but that it also brings politicians in general into disrepute with the technical world to issue ridiculous statements which, by definition, are untrue. I think that there should be an investigation into how this statement was made, what elementary inquiries were made of Cammell Laird before it was printed, and how, indeed, it crept into election literature.

We heard in the debate that, even if the level of nuclear submarine work was restored to what it was before my right hon. and hon. Friends came to power in 1964, there would still be no work. This is very odd in view of Item 9, which reads: The Conservative Party pledges itself also to restore the Naval construction programme generally to its previous level. This should result in orders for surface vessels for Cammell Laird. Where are these surface vessels to come from?

This is combined with Item 7: The Conservative Party will restore the building programme of Hunter-killer submarines to their original level; i.e. reverse the cuts made by the Socialists. This means that this additional work must come to Cammell Laird as there is no other shipyard in Britain equipped to do it, with the exception of Vickers who already have the existing business. My interpretation—and I shall give way to the Minister if I turn out to be wrong—is that this is exactly the opposite to what has been said in a Ministerial reply. Is this so or not? I am bound to conclude, either that the Department is badly advising its political masters—which I very much doubt—or the issue of this document—this is the only alternative—was totally frivolous.

As there is another quarter of an hour to go, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology will have an opportunity to reply. It may be that my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and Liverpool, Toxteth, whose constituents are directly concerned will want to have their say, and it is my view that a Scot, be he interested in this subject or not, should give way to his Lancashire colleagues.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that the issue of this document, to which a good deal of reference has been made in this debate, may have been frivolous. As a Merseyside Member I suggest that exactly the opposite is the case. It was a serious document, put out at a serious time by people in that area who purported to be responsible people. The contents of the document were meant to be taken seriously, and, indeed, were taken seriously, and the Minister in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has done a service to the House, to Merseyside, and to the shipbuilding industry generally in putting in one clear statement exactly what are the intentions of the Government as regards Cammell Laird and the shipbuilding programme, and particularly the naval programme.

What the Minister said tonight is in direct opposition to almost everything that the Conservative Party has been saying on Merseyside, not just over the past six weeks, but the past three months. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), who unfortunately is rather silent tonight because of his duties to the Government, is no stranger to the campaign which has been waged on Merseyside since the beginning of January in connection with Cammell Laird. These things not only were heard locally in Lancashire, Cheshire and Merseyside, but the effects of them have been known, heard and recorded in many other areas. There can be few Members who were in the previous Parliament who can plead ignorance of this and say that they have no knowledge of the background to the campaign, and I think that my hon. Friend, in bringing this issue forward tonight, deserves the fullest praise, both of his constituents, and of Merseyside, rather than criticism, because he of all people, due to his ministerial background, was almost gagged and silent and yet he was subjected to criticism by uninformed people outside the House during the election on the issue of what help had been given or was to come for Cammell Laird.

We know that since January there has been a request for money. That was supported in many strange ways. The request for £11 million, almost without strings, was supported by Merseyside Members on the Conservative benches who in previous months had opposed every way of making these funds available.

Then there was the strange manoeuvring of Conservative candidates and party officials over on the other side of the water which spread dismay and confusion—the yard was going to waste; it was not going to operate; it had to have nuclear submarines to keep it going; it had to have naval ships to keep it going, and so on. There was a clear pledge from the Conservative Party, from the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) all the way down to junior Members in that part of the world, that they would support Cammell Laird by giving it naval refits, submarine work and work for aircraft carriers.

There is no shadow of doubt what the campaign was all about, and whether the documents that were put out were authentic. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were fully aware of them. I do not believe that Conservative Members in that area were unaware of what was being said in their name time and time again. It was a most shabby campaign effective as it turned out, but the result will go through Cammell Laird to other shipbuilding yards.

It may be necessary from time to time to support a private enterprise yard with Government money, but let it be noted that this is taxpayers' money which must be properly taken care of. Cammell Laird is a private yard building, in the main, merchant ships. This is its rôle, and it can do it extremely well if it is properly managed. If we are to go into the future, we have to get out of the way how this mish-mash arrived, and how this deliberate deception was used for political purposes.

It is a very sad episode in the saga of a great yard. I hope that we can clear it out of the way—not tonight, because a great deal more must be said. This matter affects regional development, Government investment in industry, and other things. Because of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the reply of the Minister, some light has been thrown on the matter and some honest answers have been given to questions that we from Merseyside have been asking for a long time.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw (Liverpool, Toxteth)

I shall limit my remarks to a brief intervention. I feel sorry for the hon. Members at the Dispatch Box. To be confronted with a document like this, of which they have no knowledge, is very disconcerting. They have my deep sympathy. But what rather appals me is that after 24 hours it has not been possible for any of the Departments to find out whether this is true or false.

I respect the honesty of the hon. Member who replied tonight. He clearly knows what the programme is, and it is something completely different from what is contained in the document. Merseyside has had a difficult time for many years. Despite the Labour Government's efforts to do things for Merseyside there has been a great deal of unemployment, not least in the shipbuilding industry, culminating in the unfortunate events which almost brought the closure of the yard. For 20,000 people whose employment is in this yard this was a despicable trick for anybody to play. I level no charge at the Tory Party head office. I would not like to think that any head office had anything to do with a document like this. But somebody is responsible, and I hope that the hon. Members opposite will find out who it is.

My hon. Friend has said that documents like this bring politicians into disrepute. It does not need any words from me to emphasise that. One of the main criticisms expressed during the past election campaign was that it seemed that a Dutch auction was going on as to who could offer the most. It is a terrible thing when politics are brought to this level. I do not say that hon. Members opposite have had anything to do with these pledges, but for 20,000 people whose jobs depend on naval construction, and who have been through very difficult times, to be promised, after the election, things that are well outside the scope of any Government to carry out is more than despicable. I cannot find words to express my feelings.

I know from personal experience that this document had a tremendous effect on Merseyside. One of my greatest regrets is that a friend in the neighbouring constituency of Bebington is not here today, and I am certain that that is because of this document. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member who has answered the questions raised. If Conservative head office did not know about this document it is difficult for hon. Members opposite to answer my hon. Friend's point, but I hope that for the sake not only of their party but of politicians in general some statement will be made about the document put out on Merseyside, which undoubtedly had a tremendous influence on the General Election.

10.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)

I rise briefly not only because several remarks have been addressed to me but also because it is right for me to comment on the last three speeches made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). The first time I heard of this so-called pledge was when the right hon. Gentleman raised it at Question Time yesterday. The full resources of the Library of the House, the Ministry of which I have the honour to be Parliamentary Secretary and the research department of the Conservative Party were put into action to trace the pledge to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. No Press cuttings could be found. I had wrongly assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to Press cuttings. The right hon. Gentleman did not inform us of the nature of this document.

The first time that it came into the hands of the Government was at 10.10 p.m. tonight, when it was passed across the Table by the hon. Member for Toxteth. So I hope that the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I make no comment when it is obviously impossible to make comment on a document of this sort without having studied it and found out its origins. It is only fair to say to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have raised this matter that it will be investigated and that, in due course, an answer will be given about how it arose and what will be done about it. I do not believe that any of the hon. Gentlemen will expect me to comment at this stage and at such short notice, but I have undertaken that the whole matter will be looked into.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.