SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY (STATEMENT) (Hansard, 6 May 1980)

§ Mr. English

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the statement of the Secretary of State for Industry on Thursday last. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that paragraph (4) of that Standing Order says that In determining whether a matter is urgent Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House... by other means. You will also recollect, Mr. Speaker, that, as reported at column 1643 of Hansard for Thursday 1 May, you, with entire propriety, said that you had taken note of the fact that the usual channels were likely to discuss this matter. Unfortunately, as far as we can determine, the usual channels may conceivably have discussed this matter but they did so after the Leader of the House had told the press that he was not going to do anything about it.

The degree of consideration that the right hon. Gentleman gave through the usual channels he himself announced on Friday, when he also said of the matter, that it is not as urgent as all that."—[Official Report, 2 May 1980; Vol. 983, c. 1768.] I think that it is quite clear that the matter must be urgent, since the Secretary of State for Industry was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dept-ford (Mr. Silkin) whether he could give us the authority under which he was making payments to Lazard Freres.

42 The point at issue, surely, is that the Secretary of State for Industry made a statement on Thursday which I wish to have debated by the House. He is making payments to Lazard Freres. I have no doubt that the Crown can, if it wishes, on the advice of a Minister, pay a person for whatever services it wishes. I know of no authority whereby a foreign company can be paid to release that person. There may be such authority, and one would have thought that at column 1634 of Hansard the Secretary of State for Industry would have explained what the authority was, instead of which he merely said: The authority is the agreement of my colleagues".—[Official Report, 1 May 1980; Vol. 983, c. 1634.] With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is not the law of the land. It may be that the law should be changed, in which case the Secretary of State should have announced that a Bill was to be introduced to change the law. The urgency of this matter, contrary to the understanding of the Leader of the House, is that this matter, it would seem, is being agreed before 1 July. Some agreement is being entered into which may or may not be in accordance with the law of the land, if it is not in accordance with the law of the land, this House should have the right to alter that law or to consider whether it wishes to do so. If it is in accordance with the law of the land, why was it that the Secretary of State was not informed by his civil servants of what authority he had? He does not seem to know. Certainly we do not know. In the whole course of the many leaks that have occurred over the weekend, no one has leaked the authority—the Act—that the right hon. Gentleman possesses for the statement that he made on Thursday.

I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that before any further agreements are entered into, this House has a right to discuss the matter. I seek your authority, under Standing Order No. 9, to allow the House to discuss it.