§ Mr. FootOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Reverting to the matter that arose during questions to the Secretary of State for Industry about the document that was mentioned in the debate last night but was not available, may I ask whether you have had a request from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to make a statement on this subject? We regard this as a matter of major importance. We believe that because of the absence of the document that the Financial Secretary said could not then be supplied the debate necessarily took place, in a sense, under false pretences. I ask 1176 either that the hon. Gentleman makes a statement to the House today, as we assumed that he might, or that he will do so at a very early stage. We believe that the House has been gravely misled by what happened last night. Perhaps the best way for it to be cleared up would be for the Financial Secretary to make a statement to the House now, especially as this matter affects, to a considerable degree, the amount of money that may be available to the Government in the Budget tomorrow.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noticed that in the final question from the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) he made two allegations. One was that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary had not placed before the House last night papers that the Chair had said he was under no obligation to place before the House. Therefore I hope—[Interruption.] Oh yes. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman made a personal allegation of cowardice against my hon. Friend which I thought was against the rules of the House. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw a thoroughly offensive and totally unfounded personal allegation.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Two points of order arise. First, I am afraid that I did not hear any allegation of cowardice, but if such an allegation was made I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw it. Secondly I was in the Chair last night, when this matter was debated and the Financial Secretary alluded to the document in his speech. A point was raised then about whether that document should be laid on the Table, and I stated that if a State Paper was being read from it should, correctly and properly, be laid on the Table, but that if it was merely alluded to that was not necessary.
§ Mr. SpearingFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In previous debates on EEC documents presented by the Scrutiny Committee, a document debated and decided on by the House has occasionally been overtaken by events and by another document. 1177 As a result, the decision of the House was rendered null and void. Leaving, aside the question of quotation, are we not now in that position? The phantom paper of yesterday has now been made available.
Can you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the decision that the House took yesterday has been overtaken by events? Will you also confirm that any decision that appears in the Journal of the House is inoperative? The document is now available. Yesterday's debate concerned another document.
§ Mr. Harry EwingFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whether the House was deliberately misled last night is central to the points of order that have been raised. It may have been brought to your attention. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the interpretation put on that document by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was that it was a new document and that it contained new proposals. With respect. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is irrelevant whether the Financial Secretary read from the document or whether he gave his impression of it. He implied that the proposals were likely to lead Her Majesty's Government to succeed in concluding an agreement with the EEC that would be in some way advantageous to the United Kingdom.
The EEC has issued a statement today saying that the contents of the document bear no relation whatsoever to the interpretation of the document given last night by Financial Secretary. The EEC has gone so far as to say that it has been inundated with telephone calls from member States. They wanted to know whether a secret document had been sent to the United Kingdom. The document that the Financial Secretary told us about did not come within their knowledge. If that is so—and it is obvious that there is a major disagreement about that document between the EEC and the Government—there can be no doubt that the House has been deliberately misled. The Financial Secretary is therefore under an obligation to make a statement to the House.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Perhaps it would be convenient to clear up this matter. We cannot hold another debate now on what took place last night. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Newham, South, (Mr. Spearing) 1178 knows that we have often debated such matters late at night and I have deprecated the fact that documents were not available. I was unaware that the document was available. I gave my ruling in that light. I now know that the document is in the Vote Office. It is not for the Chair to consider whether it was available last night, or whether it should have been in the Vote Office last night.
§ Mr. FootFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The immediate trouble is that the Financial Secretary has not volunteered to make a statement. If he had done so, our questions would be in order. As we had not received a statement, we sought to raise the subject by means of a private notice question. For proper reasons, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you decided not to grant it. However, in order to clear up this issue, the hon. Gentleman should make a statement. If we do not receive a statement today, we give notice that we shall require one later this week.
§ Mr. Nicholas WintertonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whether my hon. Friend alluded to a document, or referred to it and quoted from it, would it not be in the best interest of all hon. Members if the Government were to state that they will soon make a statement about that document? What is the point of having a debate on the most sensitive issue, namely, our contribution to the European budget, if we cannot debate the most up-to-date position? The documents should have been published and made available to all hon. Members before today.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Lawson)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have seen a classic example of synthetic indignation. It is quite correct that a new document reached me on Friday. That document was laid before the House today. I alluded to it in the debate last night. I did so briefly, as I thought that it would be to the benefit of the House if some allusion were made. The document is now before the House. It is for the Scrutiny Committee to decide, in its normal way, whether it regards it as of sufficient importance to merit debate. The Scrutiny Committee can decide whether it should be recommended for debate. 1179 Matters can then take their normal course.
§ Mr. ShoreFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will regret that the hon. Gentleman has not taken this opportunity freely to volunteer a statement. It is well within our recollection that in so far as the debate was guided by the Financial Secretary it rested upon his optimistic interpretation of a document that he had seen but that the rest of us had not. Therefore, whether inadvertently or deliberately, the House was placed in an intolerable situation. We are therefore right to say that the Government acted deceitfully and wrongly.
Reference was made to a word that I used. Apparently, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did not hear it. I used the word "cowardly". I can hardly say that the hon. Gentleman behaved in a lionhearted manner. However, I certainly withdraw a word that is thought to be offensive and unnecessary, especially if it reflects upon his character. I withdraw the word, without any equivocation. However, the Minister's intervention has shown just how thick-skinned and insensitive he is. I am sure that he does not need the withdrawal that I have freely made.