§ Q2. Mr. Moonmanasked the Prime Minister what guidelines he offers to his ministerial colleagues on the type and extent of information which they may provide when appearing before parliamentary Select Committees.
§ The Prime MinisterMinisters follow the conventional practice in this matter.
§ Mr. MoonmanIn view of the recent tensions between Select Committees and members of the Government about certain key witnesses, will the Prime Minister define rather more clearly the relationship and the amount of information that can be given by Ministers to Members of Parliament? Does he think that Select Committees are a waste of time?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that Select Committees are a waste of time. They can do a very useful job, provided that the working assumptions as to the responsibilities of Select Committees and the Government are observed. The general understanding is that Ministers should always observe them and should be as helpful as possible to Select Committees in trying to satisfy their requests for information. It is well known to both sides that there are difficulties from time to time about this in matters of commercial interest. This has arisen because of a recent dispute; I shall not pronounce on that now. Generally speaking, Ministers know that when they go before Select Committees they go to give all the help they can.
§ Mr. BlakerHas the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the book "The Pencourt File"? Is he aware that there are serious allegations in that book against the Secretary of State for Social 239 Services, acting in his official capacity—namely that the Secretary of State used his influence in 1976 to conceal the existence of a file on Mr. Norman Scott when there is clear evidence that such a file existed? Is not this a suitable matter for investigation by a Select Committee? Why has not the Secretary of State made a statement, issued a writ or resigned?
§ The Prime MinisterI read extracts from the book in the Daily Mirror, but I cannot pretend that I have read the whole book, I am glad to say. As for breaches of security or anything of that nature, this has all been thoroughly investigated and I have nothing to say about it.
§ Mr. McNamaraThe House will appreciate that, although it does not always agree with what the Prime Minister has said about commercial confidentiality and State security. Can he explain the reluctance of Ministers to explain the mechanics of government?
§ The Prime MinisterI think I can, but not now. If my hon. Friend is referring to the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its affairs and the systems it sets up, I would defend that. Having gone into it very carefully, I do not think that we need to expose officially—I know it is sometimes done unofficially—all our workings and doings to the public at large.
§ Mr. RidleyIs the Prime Minister aware that in "The Pencourt File" there are allegations that the Secretary of State for Social Services deliberately waived the payment of insurance contributions, either by the employer or by the employee, for Mr. Norman Scott? These are serious matters which the Prime Minister must take seriously. Will he set up an inquiry and report to the House whether these allegations are true, otherwise the scandal will have to be presumed true in view of the lack of a denial?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is operating at about his usual level. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a very high level."] If he really wishes this matter to be taken seriously, I suggest that he puts down a Question instead of trying to tack a supplementary question on to a totally unrelated Question. If he puts down a Question, he will get an answer.
§ Mr. WoodallIs the Prime Minister aware that a publication called "Billy's Weekly Liar" is sold pretty widely on the promenade at Blackpool? Will he advise Opposition Members to read something worth while for a change?
§ The Prime MinisterI hope that my hon. Friend is not referring to the colloquial title of the "Conservative Weekly News".
§ Mr. Michael LathamIs it not clear that the golden rule for Ministers in the face of a hostile report from a Select Committee is "If in doubt ignore it, or abuse the Labour Members on it"?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is not necessarily true; it would depend on the occasion. I should be governed by the words of my predecessors, among whom I note are the right hon. Members for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and say that it is important that the Government should retain the right to keep confidential the advice offered to them when they consider it proper to do so. I suggest that the hon. Member looks at speeches made on 22nd January 1973 and 15th March 1972, one relating to Govan Shipbuilders and one relating to the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
§ Mr. RidleyIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.