§ 3.7 p.m.
§ LORD GLENDEVONMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now make a statement in view of the assurance by the Minister of State, Board of Trade, on July 15, 1969, in this House (col. 249) that the President was anxious to react publicly as soon as possible to the criticism in the Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on the Duccio affairs, and in view of the First Report by the Commons Select Committee on this case dated December 3, 1969.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN)My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has noted the Select Committee's acceptance of the finding that complaints of dilatoriness and incompetence on the part of the Board were not justified, and does not think it 711 necessary for him to make a further statement.
§ LORD GLENDEVONMy Lords, how can the Minister be satisfied with that Answer? He knows as well as I do, does he not, that the Select Committee criticised, just as the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner, had done——
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD)My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but I should be most grateful, as I am sure the House would be, if the noble Lord would put what he is saying in the form of a question.
§ LORD GLENDEVONMy Lords, I think I did. I said, "The Minister is aware, is he not? "There seems to be something interrogatory about that start. Is he not aware that the Select Committee, as did the Parliamentary Commissioner, criticised the wounding misstatement which the then President made against certain much respected men in the art trade, and it was for that reason that the Select Committee suggested that another statement should be made. May I ask this further question? On the merits of the case, even though those whose integrity was attacked consider them selves satisfied and vindicated, both by the Parliamentary Commissioner and by the Select Committee's Report, does that really absolve the Minister, Mr. Crosland, who was concerned, from acting in a civilised way and apologising——
§ LORD GLENDEVONNo, my Lords, I am going to ask my question—and apologising for a most wounding misstatement?
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, the noble Lord is resentful of the then President of the Board of Trade's attack, as he put it, on certain other persons. But the noble Lord himself criticised both my right honourable friend, Mr. Anthony Crosland, and the Board of Trade, and accused them of bad faith in a speech lasting 18 minutes on the night of July 15 in this House. My right honourable friend was indeed extremely anxious last summer to make a statement. He tried very hard to get Parliamentary time, but 712 because of the pressure of business he failed. Noble Lords may laugh, but that is a fact. In October he left the Board of Trade and went to another Department. If he had remained at the Board of Trade he might well have made a statement, but in the event he did not.
In December, the Select Committee reported and came to the conclusion which I have mentioned; that is, that the Board of Trade were blameless in this matter. In the circumstances, I think it is understandable that my right honourable friend does not consider a further statement necessary. I cannot understand why the noble Lord is pressing this matter. If he is trying to embarrass the Government, I can assure him that he is not succeeding. If he is carrying on some personal vendetta, then I must say that I regard it as most regrettable.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, can the noble Lord explain to the House the difficulties that a Minister has in making a statement?
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, the noble Lord will have to accept my word that my right honourable friend tried very hard during July to find time in the House of Commons to make a statement. The noble Lord knows very well that at the end of the Session, when there is a great deal of legislation to clear up, that is sometimes a very difficult thing to do.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who have sat in this House for 25 years have often known three Statements in a day from Ministers at the end of a Session. What happened this time?
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, it is quite a different matter when a Minister is seeking time to ward off a scurrilous attack, from when he is trying to deal with important Government business.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I think it is time—
§ LORD MOLSONMy Lords, is the Minister not—
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, again I am loth to intervene, but if two noble 713 Lords are on their feet one is required to give way. I think there is also a general acceptance that there should be "fair dos" from either side, and since two noble Lords rose at the same time may I suggest that, in fairness, this side might have a chance to intervene?
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I was going to ask my noble friend whether it is not true that the Report of the Select Committee considering the Ombudsman's Report exonerated the Board of Trade and, moreover, went on to say that, given the non-policing role of the Board of Trade, no defect was revealed.
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, that is entirely correct.
§ LORD MOLSONMy Lords, is the Minister not aware that under the procedure of the House of Commons a Minister is always entitled, with the permission of the House, to make a statement after Question Time? Is he not also aware that even a Back-Bencher is always able to make a personal statement of explanation?
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, I am not very familiar with the procedure of the other place, but my right honourable friend desired to have a short debate on this subject to air the issue, and he was not allowed time.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, may I also ask my noble friend whether a lot of this trouble does not arise from the fact that certain sections of the art trade did not at the time recognise the Duccio for what it was?
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, does it not also seem that the noble Lord opposite has not recognised the difference between a personal statement and a short debate?