HC Deb 06 July 1976 vol 914 cc1168-70
Mr. Lipton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the following matter? You will know that the report of the investigation into Lonrho Limited was made available to hon. Members at only 3.30 this afternoon. However, that report was given to the board of Lonrho on the basis of strict confidentiality on 5th March last.

Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) gave extracts from the report to a Press conference. I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether you will investigate the circumstances in which that report was given in the form of extracts by the right hon. Gentleman to a Press conference yesterday when it was made available to hon. Members only this afternoon.

Mr. du Cann

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central, Mr. Lipton) did not have the courtesy to give me notice of this matter beforehand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why should he?"]—in accordance with the usual traditions of the House—I shall be grateful if you will allow me the opportunity to say a short word by way of explanation.

First, may I plainly declare an interest. I am a director of Lonrho Limited. I have been a director of Lonrho for four years. I am proud to be a director of Lonrho.

The report of the inspectors appointed under the Companies Act is not a parliamentary paper. Therefore no questions of parliamentary privilege may rise on the publication of that report or any part of it.

Additionally, it is usual practice for the Department, when a report is made available, to request the board of a company to which the report is forwarded not to publish it until the Department has made up its mind whether it intends to publish it. That is what happened in this case. The report is not restricted in any way. There is no obligation whatsoever upon the company which receives the report not to publish it. If the company does not publish it, it refrains from doing so merely as a matter of courtesy and in response to the request.

In spite of the undertakings solemnly given by the officials of the Department of Trade to the lawyers acting for Lonrho that the publication of the report would not be made without at least a fortnight's notice, the company was given a mere 24 hours' notice.

Mr. Litterick

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) is making a point of order. It is an old custom in this House, with a sense of fair play, that if a charge is made by means of a point of order, if anyone is involved—as the right hon. Gentleman clearly is—he shall finish his statement, as the right hon. Gentleman is about to do.

Mr. du Cann

The company was given just over 24 hours' notice of the intention to publish the report. The company was therefore released from any obligation to keep silence. It must be appropriate for the company to defend itself and to give its view of the matters referred to in the report. That is what I did. I make no apology for doing so. I believe that what I did was perfectly right and proper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] I said that I was proud to be a director of Lonrho, which gives employment to 100,000 people and which earns vast sums in foreign exchange for this country. It will be good for the report to be published and for the company to be encouraged to do successful business on the nation's behalf.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am on my feet. I must reply to the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Lipton) and the right hon. Gentleman.

I was about to reply along the lines which the right hon. Gentleman used at the beginning. This is not a parliamentary paper. We do not wish to enter into a debate on Lonrho this afternoon. This point was raised as a matter of order. As it is not a parliamentary paper, I am not called upon to rule upon it.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some disgraceful allegations were made by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) during the course of a somewhat dubious point of order, which seemed to be a commercial for Lonrho. Goodness knows, Lonrho needs a few commercials these days.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade actually stepped to the Dispatch Box. In view of the disgraceful nature of the allegations which the right hon. Member made against the Department, surely it is in the interests of fair play that the Minister should be allowed to pursue that point of order so as to set the point absolutely clear.

Mr. Speaker

Order. May I say that we shall not debate Lonrho this afternoon. I am sure that neither the Minister nor anybody else wishes to debate Lonrho, especially upon a report which I understand came to Members only a quarter of an hour ago but which has been published in the Press. I do not know whether the Minister seeks to pursue the point. I hope that he does not wish to pursue the argument.

Mr. Clinton Davis

I wonder whether it was in order for the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) to make an unprovoked and unnecessary attack upon people who are not able to defend themselves. I refer to the civil servants to whom the right hon. Gentleman alluded.

Mr. Speaker

Are there any other points of order?

Mr. Lipton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not make myself clear in raising the original point of order. It is obvious that this report was made available to Lonrho on the basis of maintaining strict confidentiality. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the point which I seek to make. The report was made available on the basis of strict confidentiality. That strict confidentiality has been—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already ruled on that matter. This is not a parliamentary paper. I am not called upon to rule upon it.