HC Deb 18 February 1986 vol 92 cc241-5

7 pm

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I rose on a point of order nearly two hours ago, because we had heard that a press conference was taking place in which the Department of Trade and Industry was briefing journalists on further developments in the British Leyland saga. It was and is our view that such information should be given first to the House, not to the press, and we therefore asked for a statement.

Since then, we have learnt that the Secretary of State himself briefed the lobby. We further heard, first, that three more bidders in addition to those named yesterday have come forward for the Land Rover division; secondly, that there is the likelihood of a reference of the General Motors bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and, thirdly, that a bid deadline has been set for mid-March, giving most companies only a few weeks to prepare while General Motors has had nine months of secret negotiations.

We contend that this is proper material for a statement to the House so that the Secretary of State can be properly questioned about the new developments. We feel this all the more strongly since our request to the Minister for a statement was turned down only this morning, and our request for a Standing Order No. 10 debate was refused only yesterday.

The Leader of the House concluded our earlier exchanges today by saying that the matter could be considered through the usual channels. May I, therefore, press him again to prevail upon his bashful colleague, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to face the House tonight?

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Many hon. Members, not least myself, are determined to see a British solution to this problem. However, I urge the shadow Leader of the House not to play this game. It is a mischievous and dangerous game. If the message goes out that we are continually trying to drag this affair before the House at this stage, it would be even more dangerous. There are enough watchdogs in the House for Britain's interests without continually suggesting—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Is this a point of order for me?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark

May I make this final point? The suggestion that every time a Minister holds a press conference or conducts a private briefing upon the problem he must make a statement in the House is mischievous and dangerous, and I urge the House to have nothing to do with the matter.

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Since the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was not in the Chamber when I made my earlier point of order—I do not criticise him for that—he is not aware that his criticism is completely misplaced. The point of order that I raised with Mr. Deputy Speaker related to a briefing taking place on developments in the British Leyland affair, and I asked that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should tell the House about such developments before he told the press.

It subsequently transpired that the Secretary of State found the time during a busy day to come to the Palace of Westminster to brief lobby journalists about the matter, but is now saying that there are no significant developments on which to make a statement. Surely the Secretary of State would not have found time in his busy day to come here and tell lobby journalists what they could have read for themselves in yesterday's Hansard.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said that it was mischievous for Members of this House to try to get a statement on these important matters in the House of Commons. There is nothing mischievous about that. The replies from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday were totally unsatisfactory. It is essential that these crucial matters, which concern the livelihoods of many thousands of workpeople throughout the country, many of whom we represent, should be chased with the figure responsible on that feeble Front Bench, and the figure responsible is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He should come down here and make a statement on these matters and not get the easy ride that he does from press representatives.

Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

May I make a slightly different suggestion from that made by the shadow Leader of the House? The Leader of the House is listening intently to our exchanges, and he should be aware that the mood on both sides of the House is that we do not like Ministers giving detailed briefings on Government attitudes towards developments in the British motor car and truck industries without giving them to the House first. A statement tonight done in a rush would do nothing but create an attitude of uncertainty and panic. I hasten to add that, if there is a statement, I shall be here. However, it would be far better to have a statement tomorrow afternoon or on Thursday, after the Cabinet has taken a view on the Government's industrial policy towards the future of the car and truck industries. A considered statement would be much better than a panic statement, but a statement we must have.

Mr. Rob Hayward (Kingswood)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Are we not trying to pursue a new constitutional point, in that every time a Minister gives a briefing to the lobby, we must have a statement?

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

You have deprecated several times the practice of Ministers notifying the press or appearing on radio or television without notifying the House of the details first. As for the point about mischief-making, you will know, Mr. Speaker, that had not the matter been raised originally by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), we would have had no information from the Government about what has happened. The manner in which the matter was raised originally gave rise to the present anxiety and controversy.

If a Minister deliberately treats the House with contempt, are we not entitled to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that a statement is made as soon as possible? As my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) said, this matter concerns many of our constituents, not only those directly employed by British Leyland. Many firms in the black country and the west midlands rely for their continuation on supplying component parts to that firm. In those circumstances, we must be entitled to a statement, and that statement should be made tonight.

Mr. Speaker

I am not responsible for any of these matters. The House knows that I cannot force the Government to make a statement. However, I notice from the Order Paper that there will be an Adjournment debate tonight on this very subject. It is likely that during that debate the Minister will say something which hon. Members who are making these points of order may wish to hear.

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Is it not curious that the House should ask for such a statement when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has assured the House several times that, if he had anything further to report, he would do so? He made a statement to the House yesterday. Today, he met the lobby, as I understand it, further to explore what he said to the House yesterday. If there is nothing more to explain to the House, there is no point in his coming to the House.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot answer points of order on such matters. I repeat that we shall have an Adjournment debate on this very matter. I think that we should wait to hear what happens then.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I will take points of order from the three hon. Members who have been rising.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Not only was this matter raised by the Opposition on the original private notice question, in a half-day debate and during a Standing Order No. 10 application yesterday, but it is one which many people believe questions the Government's good faith in respect of their election mandate.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when you considered the application under Standing Order No. 10, you had to take account of whether there should be a debate in Government time. You turned down the application, for your own reasons, which might have been influenced by the statement and the subsequent questions that you heard yesterday. If there have been further developments—there clearly have been—[HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"] It appears most likely; there would not be such interest in this point of order otherwise—are the Government not failing to pay proper respect to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, by not making the next statement to the House on a subject on which an application under Standing Order No. 10 might arise?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I really do not think that I can help the House in this matter. I fully understand its importance, but, as I have already said and as the House well knows, I am not responsible for statements. I and the House know, however, that there is an Adjournment debate on the subject.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps I might also contribute by endorsing what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said about this being a topic of great and general public interest which properly has to be considered by the House. Above all, it must be considered by the House in terms which are reasonable and well structured.

I want to counter the issue that gives rise to the claim that there should be a statement at this time of the evening or later. A lobby briefing was given in which there was some initiative in Government policy which resulted in journalists knowing what has not yet been revealed to the House. I have to tell the House that this was a matter of consideration through the usual channels. I am sorry that there could not be agreement.

I want to assert, however, that there is nothing extraordinary about a Minister seeing lobby journalists. Moreover, those lobby journalists know no more than hon. Members. There was no question of policy commitments being carried forward. [Interruption.] It is a matter of accepting the good faith of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I believe that he is entitled to claim that. Controversy can arise in a keen and lively fashion in this matter, but I do not accept the undermining of good faith in my right hon. Friend.

You have also said, Mr. Speaker, that the matter will arise on the Adjournment tonight, but even more important is the fact that this is the type of topic which is naturally at the centre of political interest. If Opposition Members ceased making applications under Standing Order No. 10, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak would pick up the baton. However, a case for a statement to be made this evening has not been made out.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Leader of the House has given a very fair explanation.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall take points of order only if they are directly concerned with my responsibilities.

Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, North-East)

The Chairman of Ways and Means set down private business for 7 o'clock. You have previously told the House, Mr. Speaker, that it is improper for a statement to be made on a point of order. So far, 13 minutes of the time of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has been taken up. Will he get injury time?

Mr. Speaker

Private business does not get injury time.

Mr. Peter Shore

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I think that the House has not been satisfied with what the Leader of the House has said. An Adjournment debate replied to by a junior Minister is no substitute for a statement. If we cannot have a statement tonight, can we have one tomorrow?

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Biffen

I have already said that this matter is under constant examination, but I will say this to the right hon. Gentleman. After all that has been said about this topic, if this issue, with what it means for working people in the midlands and elsewhere, is to be conducted on the basis of dressing up the press lobby on the pretext for a debate this evening, we know what the motives of the Opposition are.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can help me.