HC Deb 21 June 1976 vol 913 cc1098-102
Mr. Peyton (by Private Notice)

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the confidentiality of Cabinet business.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Michael Foot)

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the general principles in a statement which he made last Thursday, when he announced that an urgent and thorough inquiry was being conducted by the head of the Home Civil Service into circumstances whereby the author of an article in New Society had access to Cabinet minutes and Cabinet papers. That inquiry is not yet complete, and until it is I have nothing to add to the Prime Minister's statement.

Mr. Peyton

I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, do Ministers accept or reject the views expressed by one of their colleagues? Secondly, bearing in mind the seemingly well-justified comment made by Sir Douglas Allen that the track record of such inquiries as the Government have now put in motion is not good, what alternative procedures do they intend to adopt, as a matter of urgency, to restore confidence in Government procedures?

Mr. Foot

Surely it is in the interests of the whole House, in dealing with this matter, to await the report which the Prime Minister announced on Thursday. I am sure that is much the best way of dealing with it. If we are to have discussions about track records, we could discuss the track record of the Conservative Government. There were 37 leakages notified to the Civil Service Department from 1970 to 1974. I believe that it is much better to have this matter dealt with before we make track record comparisons.

Mr. Peyton

With respect, the right hon. Gentleman has answered neither of of my questions. I repeat my first question. Do Ministers accept or reject the comments attributed to one of their colleagues?

Mr. Foot

I have answered the Question which the right hon. Gentleman asked about confidential Cabinet business. If he wishes to put down a Question about a particular speech, I am sure that he will adopt the normal process for doing so.

Mr. Grimond

As the House will remember, the Prime Minister mentioned theft as a possibility. Is that still regarded as a possibility, and if so, have the police been informed?

Mr. Foot

I have already explained what I believe to be the right course for the House to take. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me. The inquiry having been instigated, it would be absurd to make an interim statement to the House upon the subject. I think we have to await the report of the inquiry. At that stage the question put by the right hon. Gentleman and the questions that others may put will be in order.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Civil Service unions view with considerable concern allegations of this sort, which cast doubts on the integrity of all their members? Is he further aware that it is their view that there is a drastic need for an overhaul of the Official Secrets Act, which is so widely drawn that it casts doubts upon serious matters of security? Will he take action to lay down much clearer guidelines on these matters?

Mr. Foot

I am sure that when an inquiry of this nature has been set up, especially in the serious circumstances described by the Prime Minister, it is better for the House and the country to await the report before making further comments or inquiries. As regards the Official Secrets Act and its wide coverage, if it were to be altered it would have to be dealt with by general legislation. I am fully aware that there is a strong case for general legislation to deal with it, but we must deal with the present situation under existing legislation and under the existing inquiry.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

The Leader of the House has asked the House of Commons to await the inquiry. In those circumstances does he not think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office should have awaited the inquiry, too? Have we one rule for the House of Commons and another for the Government?

Mr. Foot

Not at all. In all the circumstances I think the House would be well advised to follow the good advice I offered it.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

I am sure that the House will be prepared to follow my right hon. Friend's good advice in this case, but does he agree that every day upwards of 1,000 people receive documents that are described as secret and that most of them are not secret at all? Does he agree that it would be very much better if the number of people were reduced to about 100 who receive the really secret documents, and that other documents that are not secret were taken off the list so that everyone could look at them, with great advantage to all concerned?

Mr. Foot

It is evident that some documents are more secret than others. I think that factor has to be taken into account as well. In his statement on Thursday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that there was to be an inquiry into this serious matter. I think that the House and the country should await that inquiry before making any further comments.

Sir David Renton

I accept that we cannot be told the result of the inquiry until it has taken place, but does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office and reported, apparently without challenge, over the weekend is an entirely separate matter which has given rise to a great public anxiety about the proceeding of Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman not give the House any reassurance about this matter? Will he not say, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has asked him to say, whether he accepts or rejects what the Parliamentary Secretary said?

Mr. Foot

If it is an entirely separate matter—I agree that it is—I think it should be dealt with by an entirely separate Question. The Question put to me by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was whether the Prime Minister would make a further statement on the confidentiality of Cabinet business", which was clearly referring to the statement of last Thursday.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have a statement to make to the House—

Mr. Peyton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite sure whether this is the right moment to do so, but I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of calling attention to a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the allegation which has been made concerning the confidentiality of Cabinet business by a member of the Government—namely, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department—who is particularly responsible for the co-ordination of Government information". It would be hard to imagine, Mr. Speaker, a more specific matter, or one of greater importance. I do not need to argue these points at any length, nor is it necessary for me to comment on the urgency of the matter. At present the Government are committed to a procedure which has been described by one of the most distinguished civil servants in the land as having a pretty poor track record. I think that most of us are left with no alternative but to endorse that comment. I believe that the Government cannot be allowed to sit back and to say that a form of inquiry that has such a poor track record is sufficient for what is an urgent and deplorable affair.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the allegations which have been made concerning the leak of Government information As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision, although I sometimes wish that I could do so.

I have given careful consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, having listened to him with care, but I have to rule that the right hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and that, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Peyton

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I am in no way questioning your ruling. However, I must point out that, in view of the importance of this matter, the Opposition will wish to raise it again tomorrow in the event that the Government themselves fail to make a considered statement on what we regard as a very deplorable position.

Mr. Speaker

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I take note of his courteous indication to me of the steps that he proposes to take.