BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION (Hansard, 7 July 1971)

§ The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread speculation since yesterday in the Press, I should like to make it clear that neither my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry nor I in any way would wish, or have taken steps, to deprive Members of Parliament of any information from a nationalised industry which they might reasonably expect to have, subject always to normal commercial confidence.
Moreover, the nomination and appointment of officials of the British Steel Corporation are matters for the Chairman and nothing whatever to do with me.

§ Mr. Michael Foot
First, may I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take an early opportunity of clearing up the discrepancy between the statement he has now made to the House and the statement which his Department handed to me about ten minutes ago which, in many respects, is quite different from the statement which he has just, made to the House?
The right hon. Gentleman can clear up the matter, but he gave a different account. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] The right hon. Gentleman can clear up the matter in his own Department.

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask questions.

§ Mr. Foot
I propose, Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, to put a question in a moment. However, I think that I am perfectly entitled to protest against a procedure which, so far as I know, is quite unprecedented in this House; namely, when a Minister comes and make a statement in different terms from that which has been handed to the Opposition only a few minutes before. I suggest that I might take up this matter with you, Mr. Speaker, to see whether we can avoid such questions in future.
First, we do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We do not accept his statement because there is a plain conflict of testimony between what he said 1343 when he claimed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] We do not—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a serious matter. The Minister was allowed to make his statement and the hon. Gentleman must be allowed to put his question without interruption.

§ Mr. Foot
Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that we do not accept his statement? That is my first question.
Will he understand that the reason we do not accept his claim that no representations have been made by the Government or Ministers to Lord Melchett about this question is that a meeting took place on 27th May, three days after we had the debate on the steel industry in this House, at which matters were raised by the Minister for Industry with Lord Melchett, so much so that Mr. William Camp was called upon by his superior in the British Steel Corporation to present the answer which he would offer to the objections, criticisms and representations which had ben made by the Minister for Industry?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that I have in my hand—I see it now for the first time following the events of yesterday—the document which Mr. William Camp presented to his superior in the British Steel Corporation and that one of the major matters involved in that memorandum concerns the figures which were supplied to me at my request and which I used in that debate? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if a Minister objects to figures used in the House of Commons he should either try to answer them in the House or, indeed, that he might even have approached me on the subject? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is right that his Minister should have resorted to these disreputable backstairs methods for trying to deal with figures which he had not been prepared to answer in the House? Is he, therefore, prepared to agree that, in order to clear up this conflict of testimony in which the good faith of his Minister, and, it may be, of the right hon. Gentleman himself, is involved, there shall be an independent inquiry into all the facts which I have charged?

§ Mr. Davies
I should certainly apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that my statement was not couched in the 1344 precise words of the statement which he had. However, I think that he will agree that the sense of what I said was identical with what was in the statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it now."] I will certainly read it now. With permission, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind hon. Members that a copy of a Minister's statement is supplied to the Opposition by courtesy. If this kind of interchange is to mean that that courtesy is no longer observed, it will be a great pity.

§ Mr. Davies
With permission, I should like to read the original statement.

§ Mr. John Morris
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance on this matter? If, as is traditional, a Minister hands to an official Opposition spokesman an advance copy of the statement which he intends to make, is it not equally courteous, if the Minister intends to depart from it, for him to tell the House at the same time?

§ Mr. Speaker
It depends entirely on the time factor. I ask the House to cool down on this issue. This is an exchange of courtesies between the Front Benches whereby a copy of a statement is given as soon as convenient. I have known many occasions on which there have been minor changes. Providing copies of statements to be made is one of the more agreeable courtesies of the House. I think that this kind of exchange may threaten it.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are not all hon. Members of this House equal, be they front of back benchers? Could not this courtesy, if it be a courtesy, of giving advance printed copies of statements be extended to all hon. Members at large?

§ Mr. Speaker
There may be something in what the hon. Gentleman says.

§ Mr. Davies
If there had been any difference in sense, Mr. Speaker, I would, of course, have said something beforehand. I will now read the original text and you will see that there is no difference in the sense. In view of the amount of public speculation, I should like to inform the House that the Government have made no representations to Lord Melcbett about information supplied by Mr. William Camp of the British Steel Corporation to Members of Parliament. The action taken by the Corporation in relation 1345 to his appointment was entirely within their responsibility and, as they have made clear, the Government have not been involved in any way. I do not think that I went beyond that.
In answer to the specific question put by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I consider that there is simply no occasion to institute any special inquiry. The facts of the case are abundantly clear and bear out precisely what I have said.

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Foot
Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House—

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Heffer
Put a sock in it.

§ Mr. Foot
I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not care by what backstairs methods people are sacked from their jobs. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—whether the Minister for Industry had a meeting with Lord Melchett on 27th May and, if so, what occurred?

§ Mr. Davies
I am sure that my hon. Friend had a meeting on the date in question. Indeed, over that period I think that he was having almost daily meetings with the Chairman of the Steel Corporation, so nothing would surprise me less than that he met him on that occasion. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the course of that meeting my right hon. Friend did not complain of any figures put to the hon. Gentleman by the Chairman.

§ Mr. Speaker
Not again, and again, and again.

§ Sir F. Bennett
Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask for your help, or that of somebody, to see whether we could have an explanation of what difference there was, or is, between the two statements. I am not pursuing the point of order that was raised. I should like to know what all this is about.

§ Mr. Foot
If the right hon. Gentleman—

Hon. Members
Answer.

§ Mr. Foot
If the right hon. Gentleman claims that at the meeting of 27th May between the Minister for Transport Industries and Lord Melchett the question of the figures which I had used in the House was not raised, could he tell mc why, in this memorandum, Mr. William Camp was called upon to explain why I had those figures in my possession?

§ Mr. Davies
That is not a matter for me. [Interruption.] That is a matter for the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
Since, presumably, the matter is not going to be left where it is, will the right hon. Gentleman say, in the light of the meeting which he thinks took place on 27th May, whether the Minister made any complaints about the officer of the Corporation who has been incontinently sacked?—[Laughter.] This is no—[Interruption.]— I have all day, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you have. This is no laughing matter, either as regards natural justice in the conduct of a nationalised industry, or the supply of information to this House. I put my question to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will answer it.

§ Dame Irene Ward
I did not hear it.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
The hon. Lady could not hear it because of the noise made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who do not want this brought out.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is the normal practice for officers of nationalised industries to supply information to hon. Members on both sides of the House? The gentleman in question used to supply it to the Minister for Transport Industries when he was Opposition spokesman on these questions, so will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the basis of any complaint that this should be done?
Third, will he say whether there is a new rule now that nationalised industries may not communicate with the Opposition? Will he ensure that a full statement is made on communications between another nationalised industry, the Bank of England, and the then Leader of the Opposition?

§ Mr. Davies
In the first place, I have the assurance of my hon. Friend that at any such meeting he had no complaint, and was in no position to make a complaint, against the work of an individual in the service of the Corporation. That is a matter entirely for the Chairman.
Second, the right hon. Gentleman apparently did not listen to what I said earlier. I made it abundantly clear that I am entirely in favour of information being made available to Members by nationalised industries, subject always to reasonable commercial confidence. I repeat that in case the right hon. Gentleman did not hear it the first time. Therefore, I doubt whether there is any need for me to answer the right hon. Gentleman's third question.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that we must proceed—

§ Mr. John Mendelson
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and we are not going to be deflected by the baying of the sheep on the benches opposite. However much the post-luncheon crowd may bay—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The House has a great deal of business to do today. May the hon. Member be heard in silence.

§ Mr. Mendelson
In these exchanges, which seriously affect the debate held on the steel industry, no back bencher from a steel constituency, or any other constituency, has been called to put a point of view. Surely it is customary that when a major industry of this kind is involved one or two Members from such 1348 constituencies are allowed to make a contribution? I put it to you, with respect, that as we have spent only a little time on two statements, you should now allow a back bencher or two from steel areas to ask whether, in view of the conflict between the two statements, the Minister will agree to an inquiry.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that this is a debate, and in any case the point made by the hon. Member has already been raised. I have to try to safeguard the time of the House.

§ Mr. Foot
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I give notice that in view of the plain conflict of testimony, which involves the good faith of Ministers in this House, particularly in their dealings with Members, we shall propose to return to this matter in the House.