HC Deb 13 December 1971 vol 828 cc65-73
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker)

With permission, I wish to make a statement.

It has long been the practice under successive Administrations for Ministers to arrange for Questions to be tabled by hon. Members to enable them to make announcements which would not have justified a statement after Questions but which in their view should first be made to the House.

Likewise, supporters of successive Governments have sought to ensure that Question Time should not be monopolised by opponents of the Government of the day, and they have accordingly consulted Ministers as to what Questions they might ask to ensure a fairer presentation of the work of a particular Department.

By the same token it has been the normal practice for Ministers to instruct their officials to provide the necessary material for arranged Questions.

When my Department was first order for Questions on 10th March and again on 31st March there was what I can only call a concerted campaign by the Opposition to pre-empt the Order Paper—[Interruption.]—with Questions on housing and construction matters. On 10th March Opposition Questions in this field which received an Oral Answer outnumbered those answered orally to Government supporters by 15 to 1. On 31st March there was a similar effort by the Opposition to pre-empt the Order Paper with Questions mainly directed towards housing in London, perhaps with the impending London borough elections in mind. Opposition Questions on housing and construction which received an Oral Answer then outnumbered orally-answered Questions from the Government side of the House by 15 to 5.

In response to this hon. Members on this side of the House expressed to Ministers their wish to see that this campaign was answered—[Interruption.]—and asked for suggestions as to Questions they might table which would help to redress the balance and present the Government's activities in housing more fairly. My right hon. Friend—[Interruption]—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Hon. Members really must allow the Secretary of State to make his statement. [Interruption.] Order. I have seen both sides of this question and I am now interested in hearing the Secretary of State's statement.

Mr. Walker

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction took the necessary steps to meet this request, with the result that on 28th April 21 Questions on housing and construction matters tabled by hon. Members on this side of the House were reached. Of these, 10 were provided on the basis of material coming from my right hon. Friend.

On 19th May, when the Department was again first order, seven Questions on the subject of housing and construction from the Government side of the House were answered orally, of which two were based upon material similarly supplied. By this time it was becoming clear that, perhaps because the local elections were over, the Opposition were discontinuing their campaign to pre-empt an unfair share of the Order Paper. My right hon. Friend followed suit, and since 5th May no similar Questions have been tabled, though arrangements have continued for the collection of material in case of a recurrence.

From what I have said it will be seen that my right hon. Friend joined with members of the parliamentary party to redress the balance; that when there was no longer need for this to be done no further action was taken; and that already before the date of the minute that was reproduced in newspapers yesterday no Questions were being tabled by Members of Parliament which had been prepared from the supply arranged to meet the Opposition campaign of pre-emption—and none has been tabled since. The Government hold that a Minister is entitled to defend the policies and activities of his Department against attack, and, where the circumstances demand it, to call on the resources of his Department for this purpose. That is what my right hon. Friend did.

Mr. Crosland

We have just listened to a ludicrous and wholly unjustified statement. I object strongly to this statement not being made by the Prime Minister. This matter affects not simply the Department of the Environment but the privileges of Parliament and the integrity of the Civil Service, and the Prime Minister should have made the statement.

I have two questions. First, of course it is well known that Ministers have always encouraged Parliamentary Private Secretaries or Whips, as the case may be, to put down Questions from their own side of the House, but is it not the case that we have here a deliberate and organised use of formal Civil Service machinery for the party purpose of preventing Opposition questioning? It is quite irrelevant how many Questions the notice in the newspapers gave rise to; the fact is that the attempt was made. What the House wants to know is what the Prime Minister proposes to do about it.

Does not the Prime Minister know that this organised use of official machinery is not, as the Secretary of State tried to pretend, normal practice? If he does not believe ex-Ministers on this subject, would he believe the testimony over the weekend given by the noble Lady, Baroness Sharp, who said that in a lifetime's experience at the Ministry of Housing she had never known anything like this to happen? The Prime Minister fought the General Election as a man of principle and is constantly lecturing us about integrity and open government. What does he now propose to do about this? The matter cannot be left here. There must be some form of inquiry, whether by Select Committee or other means, to establish once and for all what is in order and what is not.

Secondly, we have here a group of Ministers who so lack faith in their ability to cope with Opposition Questions that they were prepared to use Civil Service machinery to protect themselves. I accept the tribute to the Opposition, and I certainly appreciate that these Ministers thoroughly need protecting, particularly on the Housing Finance Bill and on the fair rents policy. But what does the Prime Minister think of Ministers who so openly confess their incompetence and unfitness for office? If they will not resign themselves, why does he not sack them?

Mr. Walker

I would describe the right hon. Gentleman's views as complete and utter humbug. He well knows that this practice has been used. I would point out that he was in charge of the Opposition when they quite blatantly, on two occasions before the local government elections, tried to pre-empt the Order Paper. As to his tribute to the Opposition, I would point out that on 18th February, for first order the Labour Party tabled 26 Questions on housing and construction and on 11 th March 52 Questions. After the elections the figures dropped to eight and six.

Mr. John Hall

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the rather curious fact that the alleged reproductions of the memorandum which appeared in the Sunday Times and in the Sunday Telegraph are not identical? If he examines the two reproductions, he will find differences both in the letter of reference and in the signature, which indicates that one of these letters is not genuine. Would he care to investigate that?

Mr. Walker

Yes, Sir. It would appear that one of them is a copy of the original and that the other is a forgery.

Mr. Crosland

Does not this further strengthen the case for some committee of inquiry? Did not the right hon. Gentleman totally distort what I said was the normal practice? Is it not the case that Baroness Sharp, apart from any other witness, has made it clear that what has happened in the Department for the Environment is recent months is not normal practice and was a practice never known to her in her lifetime in the Civil Service? Does not that strengthen the case for the Prime Minister to answer these questions and to say that he will set up a committee of inquiry?

Mr. Walker

I am given to understand that Baroness Sharp was not asked by the Sunday Times to comment on the practice as it was outlined in its article. She was asked whether she would not consider it an outrageous practice if a Department, every time that it came to the top of Questions, got its civil servants to supply loads of Questions in order to stop the Opposition getting in. She was not given details of the Department. She was not told that it had happened only on two occasions following an outrageous campaign by the Opposition to pre-empt Questions.

Mr. Longden

What is the difference between a civil servant being required to brief his Minister so as to enable that Minister to explain and defend his policy in the country and in order to enable him to explain and defend his policy in this House?

Mr. Thorpe

Leaving aside the right hon. Gentleman's apparent dissatisfaction with the level of activity of his right hon. and hon. Friends, is he aware that there are situations when Ministers sometimes admit that they were wrong and other occasions when they seek to brazen it out, and that many of us believe that this is the latter case? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no precedent for the regular use of civil servants in order deliberately to forestall the activities of the Opposition? Since, Mr. Speaker, I hope later to be allowed to make a submission to you on the precedents of this House, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we regard this not as a matter for him but as a matter to which the Prime Minister should direct his attention? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, finally, that in the light of his statement, speaking for myself at least, no useful purpose will be served in questioning him further?

Mr. Walker

It certainly was not the case that civil servants were used regularly to forestall opposition Questions. They were used—[Interruption.] They were used—

Hon. Members

Resign.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the House will not allow the Minister to reply, I shall go on to the next business.

Mr. Walker

They were used by my right hon. Friend in order to see that a proper balance was restored after the attempts of the Opposition to pre-empt Questions.

Mr. William Clark

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the serious matters in this episode, irrespective of the context of the photographed letter, is that a departmental letter can be released to the Press? Who released it to the Press? Was it a civil servant? Is this matter being investigated?

Mr. Walker

Yes, sir. Inquiries are taking place.

Mr. William Hamilton

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in all my years in this House I have never known this to take place? The Minister has deliberately confused the House today with his smooth political trickery, which simply will not do. Is he aware that for the first time in my experience, civil servants have been brought in deliberately to a party political campaign in order to cover up for the inefficiency of his hon. Friends on the back benches? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, finally, that when the Prime Minister talks again about honest and open government, we shall tell him outside what we dare not tell him inside the Chamber, that he is a bloody liar?

Mr. Walker

On this occasion, quite correctly, my Department was used to defend the position of the Department.

Mr. Tebbit

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House require no assistance from any civil servant to do what we think is right, which is what I shall continue to do and what I shall continue to encourage my hon. Friends to do—namely, to table Questions to my right hon. and hon. Friends designed to elicit information that the public should have and designed to impress upon my right hon. and hon. Friends policies that they should follow—and that, unlike the rubbishy shower on the benches opposite, we shall do this regardless of whether we are approaching local government elections?

Mr. Jay

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to have admitted—we had better have this quite clear—the authenticity of at least one of the documents published in the Sunday Press? If that is so, is not that an unanswerable case for an inquiry?

Mr. Walker

As to the security aspects of such documents being released, an inquiry is taking place. As to the document itself, I think that I have stated clearly that, since even before the minute was sent by one official to another, the practice of any Questions being provided from my Department in this way has ceased.

Mr. Jennings

Amidst the welter of charge and counter-charge on this issue, is it not apparent that the real issue at stake is the use and misuse of Question Time? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Question Time is a recognised device whereby hon. Members seek information, whereby hon. Members press or criticise the Government and, above all, whereby hon. Members, if necessary, try to curb the power of the Executive? Where practices of the kind alleged take place—

Mr. C. Pannell

Is this a question?

Mr. Jennings

It is a question. Where practices of the kind alleged take place, are not the rights of the ordinary backbench Member not to be organised by any group on either side of the House at stake? Therefore, in any future action on this episode, or anything like it, must not the integrity and the value of Question Time be safeguarded?

Mr. Walker

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Opposition will take note of his remarks.

Mr. Harold Wilson

First, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the terms of his statement, which appears to carry a very serious slur upon his hon. Friends in that they seem incapable, through either ignorance or unconcern, of putting down their own Questions on housing and need the help of his officials?

Secondly, I have no doubt that in referring to local government elections the right hon. Gentleman will have studied the precedents. Is he aware that when there was a tremendous rash of Scottish Questions from Opposition hon. Members before the Scottish local elections in 1969, which ended as quickly as they had begun after the elections were over, there was no use of officials in the Scottish Office for the purpose of inspiring Questions? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that Scottish Conservative hon. Members knew enough about the subject to put down their own Questions?

Thirdly, in view of the very serious implications, not least those raised by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to discuss with his right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and any others concerned, especially as there have been charges and hints about past practices and changes in practice, the possibility of the reference of this matter to a Select Committee of this House? In my view this matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges or possibly the Select Committee on Procedure; or a special committee set up for the purpose. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, since he maintains there is no change in practice, that this is very sharply contested from this side of the House and that the right guidelines and rules as to what is permissible ought to be laid down for the House by a Select Committee?

Mr. Walker

As to investigations into the practices of this House, in the matters of inspired Questions and placing Questions, it is up to the House to decide whether it wants further inquiries. I am satisfied that in this instance we maintained the normal principles—[Interruption.]—and my right hon. Friend was perfectly correct.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a day for Private Members' Motions and I must try to protect those.

Mr. Strauss

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would submit that the matter raised is a proper one for your consideration as to whether it should be considered by the Committee of Privileges. I do not want to elaborate the case but the essence of privilege is that there should be no interference with or impediment placed on hon. Members of this House in carrying out the parliamentary responsibilities. I submit that we have a situation here in which a Minister, together with his civil servants, has entered into a conspiracy to impede hon. Members of the Opposition from carrying out their responsibilities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter and, in the normal way, report way, report to the House tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already made one mistake because matters of privilege should be raised after an application under Standing Order No. 9. I shall take note of what the right hon. Member has said and rule on it tomorrow.