HC Deb 13 June 1984 vol 61 cc917-20 3.35 pm
Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for the Environment as to whether any lists of local authorities to be designated for rate capping already exist, and whether Portsmouth city council is included in any of those lists. On 6 June my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is the Opposition spokesman on the environment, wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment saying that he understood that, under the measures that the Government were using, Portsmouth was a higher "overspender" than Sheffield and that the lists in the possession of the Secretary of State, which were drawn up by his Department, included Portsmouth city council for designation.

Before there was any formal reply from the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), spoke at a press conference in Portsmouth. That conference was reported in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday 9 June. The article stated that the right hon. Gentleman described Labour's claim that Whitehall had plans to put Portsmouth's Conservative-controlled council on its hit list for rate-capping as 'just another piece of windy scaremongering'. Mr. Patrick Rock, who, I understand, is the Conservative candidate for Portsmouth and a former employee of the Prime Minister, said of the allegation by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland— It is completely untrue. Yesterday, I put a question to the Prime Minister about whether Portsmouth and Sheffield were included in lists for rate capping. I recited the fact that under the Government's own chosen measures, Conservative-controlled Portsmouth has overspent to a much higher degree than Labour-controlled Sheffield". I asked: what sympathy has the Prime Minister for the problems of the Secretary of State for the Environment in trying to manufacture a list for rate capping which ensures that Sheffield is included but that Portsmouth is excluded? The Prime Minister replied: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rate-capping measure has not yet been enacted. It is still before the other House and it would be somewhat premature to devise a list before that Bill has even become an Act."—[Official Report, 12 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 759.] I ask hon. Members to weigh with great care the words used yesterday in the House by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Lady did not say that no final list had been agreed by Cabinet. She said that it was premature to devise a list—in other words, that no list or lists of authorities to be rate capped existed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland received a reply yesterday from the Secretary of State—

Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Straw

My hon. Friend received a reply from the Secretary of State, who said that—

Sir John Biggs-Davison

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall hear the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and then take the point of order.

Mr. Straw

My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland received a reply yesterday from the Secretary of State in which he described my hon. Friend's accusations as "inaccurate hearsay". Yesterday afternoon, the Prime Minister went along the same lines, by saying that no lists existed.

This morning my hon. Friend received a reply from the Secretary of State which said: let me make the position absolutely clear. We are currently considering possible principles for selecting authorities for rate limitation. The application of different principles produces a series of lists — rather like the ones I released during the Committee Stage of the Rates Bill—and Portsmouth features on some of them.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Straw

I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to ensure that the public do not hear that the Prime Minister has misled the House, but I shall not be shut up by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Straw

The reality is—

Sir John Biggs-Davison

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am listening to an application under Standing Order No. 10. It is difficult to hear when there is a great deal of noise. As far as I can hear, the application is in order—just.

Mr. Straw

I understand the discomfiture of Conservative Members when the Prime Minister has been discovered to be misleading the House, by the admission of her Secretary of State. There is no consistency between what the Prime Minister told the House yesterday—that no lists had been devised—and what the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland this morning—that Portsmouth features on some of the lists that have been devised.

For the second time within the week the Prime Minister has misled the House. Whether she has done so deliberately or because of the incompetent way in which she runs the Government, I cannot say. But we need to know from the Prime Minister why she sought to mislead the House; why the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was allowed to say, presumably with the authority of the Secretary of State for the Environment, that the allegation that Portsmouth was on lists of rate-capped authorities was windy electioneering; why the Conservative candidate described that allegation as completely untrue; and why all three of those right hon. Members, including the Prime Minister, have been revealed to be telling untruths by the Secretary of State himself.

We all remember the words of the—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must make out a case why this matter is urgent and not advance the case which he might make if the application were granted.

Mr. Straw

Coming so soon after an occasion when the Prime Minister has been found to be misleading the House, the matter is plainly important, specific and urgent. We have a Prime Minister who is increasingly a stranger to the truth—[Interruption.]—and who has treated the House and the country with contempt and we urgently seek your leave, Mr. Speaker, for a debate on the issue.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for the Environment as to whether any lists of local authorities to be designated for rate-capping already exist, and whether Portsmouth city council is included in any of those lists. I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he raises is appropriate—

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully submit that the manner in which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made his application to you was an abuse of the procedures of the House? Many times in the House we have heard the occupant of the Chair inform an hon. Member seeking to raise a matter of concern by way of Standing Order No. 10, or, in former times, Standing Order No. 9, that he should not make the speech that he would make if his application was granted but that he should state the reasons why such an application under the Standing Order should be granted.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, there is little more that the hon. Member for Blackburn could say that he has not said in making his application. He cannot really be disappointed that his application was not granted, because he has deployed his case to the House, such as it is. I ask, for the future, that the House be protected from an abuse of that kind.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not think that we should persist in this matter. The hon. Gentleman has simply reiterated what I have already said.

Mr. Dickens

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has been misadvised, because the Prime Minister, in answering a question yesterday—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already ruled that I am not accepting the application under Standing Order No. 10. There is nothing more to be said about it.

Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

On this matter?

Mr. Roberts

About the Prime Minister, but not under Standing Order No. 10.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not responsible for what the Prime Minister may or may not have said.

Later—

Mr. Dickens

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon, when I rose on a genuine point of order at the particular time when I wished to raise that point of order, in your wisdom, from the Chair, you advised me to wait until later. I respectfully obeyed your submission and waited until later. You gave your ruling, and then deprived me of my point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman, but I have nothing to add to what I said before.