§ 2.37 p.m.
§ LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government on the basis of what qualifications the new part-time members were appointed to the Board of the British Steel Corporation.]
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN.)My Lords, if the noble Lord will read again the first section of the Iron and Steel Act 1967, he will see that it requires the Secretary of State to appoint the Corporation from among persons appearing to him to have had wide experience of, and shown capacity in, the production of iron ore or iron or steel; or industrial, commercial or financial matters; or applied science, or administration or the organisation of workers. Manifestly, the three part-time members recently appointed to the Board have had wide experience in, and shown capacity in, one or more of the fields specified, and my right honourable friend considers each of them in every way well fitted to serve as part time members of the Board.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I 967 ask him three supplementary questions? Does he realise that Sir Matthew Stevenson was responsible, as Permanent Secretary, for the Continental Shelf Act, and also for the negotiations with B.P., that both things cost the country thousands of millions of pounds by not taking care of the country's interests, and that the two other gentlemen have made violently partisan statements against nationalised industry? Finally, may I assume that the present political persecution which has broken out in the Steel Board—
§ LORD BALOGH—is one of the first consequences of these gentlemen joining the Board?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, my right honourable friend is quite satisfied—as I think we all are—that Sir Matthew Stevenson is a man of great integrity, and that the advice he gave to the Government at the time when he was Permanent. Secretary at the Ministry of Power was entirely appropriate. With regard to the second supplementary question, the two other part-time members, as I have said, are men of great capacity and have the appropriate experience; and my right honourable friend is satisfied, in the light of their experience, that they will make a valuable contribution to the Steel Board. With regard to the third question of the noble Lord, the Chairman of the Board has made it quite clear that the appointment in question was solely in the hands of the Corporation. The Secretary of State appoints only members of the Board. Responsibility for the appointment and termination of appointments of all officials is entirely a matter for the Corporation.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, is not the indignation over this matter rather synthetic'? Are memories really so short? Is it not a fact that only very recently the present Conservative Government appointed as head of British Rail, Mr. Richard Marsh, a former Labour Member of another place, and there was no question of political prejudice in that?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I entirely agree with what he has said.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his answer to my supplementary questions, may I ask whether the word "appropriate" is appropriate in a case where one can show that the consequence of actions is disastrous'?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the advice I have in this matter is that the advice extended at that time by Sir Matthew Stevenson was very far from disastrous, and that it enabled the industry in question to get on its feet.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it has become the policy of the Government to give notice to those whom they have appointed as Chairmen of these Boards (I am thinking particularly of the case of the Chairman of the Post Office) of the termination of their appointments after they have been only a short period of time in office?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I do not understand how the noble Lord can relate that observation to the Question on the Order Paper.
§ LORD HYLTONMy Lords, can the Minister say that it is not the general policy of the Government to eliminate from the nationalised industries those who have Labour feelings and wish to protect the nationalised industries from hiving-off, and, further, whether this process has not been accelerated in the last twelve months?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I have already said that the Government had nothing to do with the action which was taken and to which the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, referred in his third supplementary question—nothing whatever.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I wonder whether I may make a slight intervention. I am not in any way quarrelling with the terms of the original Question or with the terms of most of the supplementary questions: they were perfectly in order. All I should like to suggest to your Lordships is that questioning which takes a particularly personal form about public appointments is unusual in your Lordships' House. I would not wish to go further than that.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, if we suspect that people who are of Labour feeling are being sacked because they refuse to hive-off, surely we are entitled to protest?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, if the noble Lord suspects such a thing, he is quite entitled to explore the matter. I hope that I have laid his suspicions at rest.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, am I to assume from the intervention of the noble Earl the Leader of the House that when appointments to the Boards of nationalised industries have been made by Ministers and when a sacking takes place, we are not allowed to ask questions and seek to get answers from Ministers about such actions?
EARL JELLICOENo, my Lords. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Slater, is misinterpreting what I said and perhaps he would like to look at it in Hansard tomorrow. I was confirming that there was nothing said in your Lordships' House, either by way of Answer to the original Question or answer to supplementaries, which was in any way out of order. I think that answers the noble Lord's question. All I was saying was that the personal tone which questioning had taken was unusual in your Lordships' House. I would not go further than that.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I apologise for inadvertently having missed the Question. I am advised that it is open to noble Lords, if they wish to pursue this matter, to do so by a substantive Motion. It may well be that the extent to which questions and answers on a subject of this kind can be pursued, though wholly in order in another place, is not in order here. I think that the noble Earl the Leader of the House has been moderate in his approach, in that he has suggested that this is entirely in order. It could be a matter of profound importance for noble Lords not to deny themselves the right to probe into these matters. It well may be that noble Lords may wish to put down an actual Motion, but that is a matter for fuller consideration.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, it is possible to put a substantive Motion on this 970 point, but it is left to the usual channels whether this subject is picked or not.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, if the noble Lord is putting a question, I should like him to put it by way of a question. I do wish us to keep within the rules of our procedure.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, we seem to have moved slightly into a discussion on procedure. I think that my noble friend should be allowed to make his point; all the more so since I think that there is an answer to it.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I was not objecting to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, making his point. I was merely asking, since we are at Question Time, that he should phrase it by way of a question.