HC Deb 13 July 1972 vol 840 cc1854-6
The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on matters arising out of the public examination in bankruptcy of Mr. John Poulson.

My right hon. and learned Friends the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate, in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, are considering the evidence given at the public examination and are awaiting the preliminary report of the Official Receiver, which is expected early next week.

I will make a further statement next week.

Mr. Harold Wilson

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what is an interim statement, may I ask whether he is aware that the House as a whole is not in possession of sufficient firm evidence to form any judgment in this case, that we must await, perhaps with some impatience, what he has to say next week, but that the whole House and the country, concerned about some of the issues which appear to have been raised, not merely issues of what is legal or criminal, but other matters of public practice in local authorities and elsewhere, will at the end of the day—it will be a matter for him to decide the timing and method—be satisfied with nothing less than a full and open public inquiry?

The Prime Minister

I realise, perhaps better than anyone, the very serious issues involved in this matter, which are not only issues for the law but issues of public practice, as the right hon. Gentleman has described them. Both of these matters will have to be taken into account when I make my statement.

Mr. Thorpe

Is the Prime Minister aware that we are grateful for his statement and will, naturally, await a further statement next week? Quite apart from this issue, does he agree that there is a parliamentary issue which illusrates the importance of considering the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration)? Is he aware that a growing number of people believe that if Members of Parliament have the opportunity to make publicly and permanently known their outside sources of income, this not only would be a protection to them but would be good for the health of public life?

The Prime Minister

I am aware of that point of view. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told the House last Thursday that if it so wishes he is fully prepared to take into account the views of the House and the recommendations of the Select Committee's report.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. Business Statement, Mr. Carr.

Mr. C. Pannell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rather think, in view of the gravity of the matter which has just been raised, that merely to have the Leaders of certain parties called when other hon. Members have a contribution to make is, with respect, a trifle sharp. I want to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a matter for the Chair. The Leader of the Opposition described it as an interim statement. We have a very important debate coming on today and I really must control the House.

Mr. Pannell

Further to that point of order. [Interruption.]—I do not think that matter has any precedence. What I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if I cannot ask the Prime Minister, is whether, if we have to wait and Parliamentary Questions have to be damped down until we get the Prime Minister's statement, it would be better that anonymous letters were not handed to the Press by the Liberal Party reflecting on public characters in a most disgraceful way.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman may have a point there. I do not know.

Mr. Thorpe

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that it is a point of order and that you will allow me to raise it. Since the matter which the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) very properly raised could, I think, be referable to myself, may I, for the record, make it clear that when I returned last night from abroad and heard the allegation that an anonymous letter had been disclosed to the Press I thought it my duty to make a full investigation. I discovered that a member of my staff had been telephoned by a distinguished, reputable member of the Press to ask whether a certain letter, the contents of which he had already seen, had been received. At that stage my staff had not even opened the correspondence and was unable to say. Approximately an hour later, when the correspondence had been opened, he confirmed that such a letter had been received—no more, no less. Neither I nor my staff have at any stage disclosed an anonymous letter. Indeed, it would not be proper if they had done so.