HC Deb 02 February 1978 vol 943 cc714-7
Mr. Eldon Griffiths

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I sought to indicate to you earlier that I wished to raise this point of order, and I shall endeavour to be brief. It arises from the point of order raised with you by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) in respect of the declaration of Members' interests. You will recall that he commented on your ruling that it was not necessary to declare interests at Question Time when the interests were well known. My point of order is this. The Home Secretary suggested that my comments in respect of the police service arose because I had a vested interest. I wish flatly to deny that, and I want to make three short points, because this is a matter of order in this House.

Only three right hon. or hon. Members have ever had the honour of speaking on behalf of the Police Federation in this House. They are the Prime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security with responsibility for the disabled, and myself. The Prime Minister frequently—I do not object to this—spoke from the Front Bench on behalf of the Police Federation. I have had the honour to speak from the Front Bench in opposition, but I have never spoken, nor shall I speak, from the Front Bench on this matter.

I hope that you will rule, Mr. Speaker, that it is appropriate, when any hon. Member speaks in respect of an interest which he acknowledges, that he should do it from the Back Benches, not from the Front Bench. The Prime Minister did not follow that practice. I have.

My second point is this. There are many hon. Members, and they are honourable Members, who have a connection with a trade union or a business organisation. The House well understands that. So it should in the case of the Police Federation, which is a statutory body. The police service, too, does not have the right that many other people have to withdraw labour. For this reason, as well as because it is a statutory body, it has become a convention of the House that the police ought to have someone in the House able to express their point of view from time to time.

I hope that the Home Secretary will withdraw any nasty or malicious slur that when I comment on behalf of the Police Federation I am doing it because of a vested interest. I listen to the views of the Police Federation and I make up my own mind. What I say in this House is therefore said because I believe it to be in the public interest. I reject any slur from the Home Secretary or any Minister, particularly from a Government the Prime Minister of which, before assume ing that position, spoke from the Front Bench on behalf of the Police Federation, which suggests that I do anything other than this.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I spoke this afternoon about a particular point. It is typical of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) to bring the Prime Minister into this matter to sully the issue. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) opens his mouth on every occasion but this is a matter between the Police Federation and myself.

In the House this afternoon I was asked about police numbers. I gave the numbers, which showed an increase. The hon. Member chose to dispute them, and in answer to that I said that he had a vested interest in never standing up in the House and congratulating the Government, even in the face of figures. I have never known the hon. Member to get up and do that. It is not to say that I believe he is venal or wrong in having the job that he has, but I will not withdraw a statement I firmly believe in when the hon. Member never in this House looks at the matter of the police objectively.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that that will close the point, unless the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) wishes to pursue it. On this point of order, I think that the Home Secretary would do well to reflect a little further.

Mr. David Howell

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier we discussed the question of police numbers and whether the numbers have been kept up while experienced men have left the force or have been kept up in a way which will strengthen it—a subject of dispute between the two sides.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) raised this matter, he was met with the riposte that he was speaking for a vested interest. That was what the Home Secretary said. While I recognise that we may dispute the question of the strength of the police force, on which we feel strongly, I suggest that it would be proper now to distinguish between the right hon. Gentleman's right to promote his point of view, with which we profoundly disagree, on the police and his lack of right to accuse my hon. Friend of promoting a vested interest when he speaks on this very important matter.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

We now have another version—that I said that it was promotion of a vested interest. I did not say that, nor would I do so, because I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a complete right to do so. I may not like the way he does it, and I may sometimes think that he acts in a way with which I disagree. He has a perfect right to do it, but I have a perfect right to say, in response to a question on numbers, that the hon. Gentleman has a vested interest in disagreeing with me on the matter. That is something completely different, and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) has only made matters worse by getting up.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

The Home Secretary has less than handsomely met the point I raised. I feel that it would be better if I were now to withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has reacted.

Back to