"TRANSPORT: THE GOVERNMENT RECORD"— COST AND CIRCULATION (Hansard, 17 January 1979)

§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman)
My Lords, the document concerned was a factual statement. It drew on material which had already been prepared by civil servants for other purposes, and there was no extra cost to public funds. The document is available to the noble Lord as it is to all Members of Parliament.

§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Answer she has given is exactly the same as that given by the Prime Minister in his letter? They accept the facts contained in my Question, but then suggest that what flows from it is of no importance. Is not the noble Baroness aware that to involve the civil servants as it did in a Party political electioneering exercise, and to use taxpayers' money by the use of the headed notepaper to spread the political gospel which is anathema to half the nation, is 950 against the conventions? It is against decency and it may well undermine Parliamentary Government. In view of the significance of the situation, would she not recommend to her right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he should have an inquiry into the facts, so that we can have a full answer and not a halfhearted one such as that just given to the House?

§ Baroness STEDMAN
My Lords, the Answer I gave to the noble Lord was not halfhearted. What I said was that the document was a purely factual statement. It was the Government's record, without a Party political slant. It was the factual statement of the Government's record on transport matters. It is the type of information that is kept permanently up to date within the Department notwithstanding a change of Minister or even a change of Government, so that they know what has been going on. If we were to take the line that we were using official notepaper and paying postage on sending these documents out, then we would have to take the line that if the noble Lord wanted some factual information from the Department I would have to say that the cost was such that I could not give it to him.

§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE
My Lords, surely the Question involves a more important point than the noble Baroness has realised. The mere fact that the contents of a document are factual, which I must assume to be the case from what the noble Baroness said, does not necessarily dispose of the issue. If the Question is right, this document had a limited circulation to the Members of Parliament belonging to a political Party and was circulated to the members of that Party. Is it not in fact a new doctrine that documents should be circulated to the members of a political Party in another place by a member of the Government, not in fact in his capacity as Party leader, but in the capacity of Minister? Is it not important that these two relationships should be kept separate from one another, even though the facts are perfectly correct and the document is limited to facts?

§ Baroness STEDMAN
My Lords, in this instance the Secretary of State was acting as a Minister for the Department of Transport. He was responding to a request received from Members of another place 951 asking for a factual statement as to the Government's record in transport. That statement is available to any Member of Parliament and to any Member of this House. My understanding is that copies of the statement are in the Libraries of both Houses. If a Minister is to be told that he cannot give this information, then why do we hear so much about open government? When we are asked for factual information and try to comply and give it, I should have thought it would be welcomed by all sides of the House.

§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE
My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this matter with the noble Baroness. Cannot she see the difference between sending out a circular to members of one's own Party and sending out a circular to all Members of the House or putting it in the Library? Does she not see that there is a difference of principle there?

§ Baroness STEDMAN
My Lords, my Minister was not acting as a political leader in this sense to the Members of Parliament. Indeed, the letter which went out with the document says: Before the summer recess several of our Parliamentary colleagues asked me for a convenient up-to-date summary of the Government's record in transport policy. I have therefore prepared the attached notes. It goes on to say: I hope the notes will be of use to you and to others in the period ahead". They are available and I can make them available to more Members of this House if they would like to ask me for them.

§ Lord WYNNE-JONES
My Lords, will not my noble friend agree that it is a highly commendable desire on the part of members of the Opposition for once to be informed?

§ Lord HEWLETT
My Lords, is the Minister not aware of the fact that the political adviser to the Minister sent out a letter with this circular to Labour Members of Parliament and to leaders of county councils of the Labour group in England in the following terms: Transport is an issue of crucial importance to the Party both locally and nationally. Bill"— that is, Mr. Rodgers— is hoping that his White Paper, the first comprehensive statement of Labour transport policy 952 for ten years, will be of practical use to local Parties and Labour groups"? How much more biased can one get than that, my Lords?

§ Baroness STEDMAN
With respect, my Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken is referring to a previous issue about the White Paper. This was the statement concerning the Government's record in transport. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport did apologise to the House and the other place on a recent issue some months before this when, by accident, a political letter was sent out on departmental headed paper. The Minister accepted responsibility and gave assurances that that would not happen again. The circular with which the Question is primarily concerned is the one about the Government's record in transport, and that is a purely factual statement.

§ Lord WIGG
My Lords, is it not a fact that the Minister was asked by a group of Members of Parliament for information, which he supplied? Therefore the Opposition's case now, in so far as they have one, is that we have got to the position that where a group of Members or a single Member ask for information, before the information can be given, they must, just because they happen to be members of the Labour Party, ask the permission of the Tory Party? Tell them to go to hell!

§ Baroness STEDMAN
My Lords, any Minister of the Government is always willing to give factual information to any Member, regardless of which Party or none they belong to. I only wish that more Members of this House would seek factual information before they come into the House.

§ Lord AVEBURY
My Lords, may I ask whether, if an approach is made to the noble Baroness on behalf of the Liberal or Conservative Parties in another place for a particular document to be circulated to all the Members of that Party, that request will automatically be complied with by the Minister in question?

§ Baroness STEDMAN
My Lords, if it is a factual statement which is generally available, yes. If it is a consultative document which the Minister and his 953 advisers are still considering then I would have to take advice on that, but if it is a purely factual statement that is available in the course of updating the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Department it would be made available, willingly and readily.

§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS
My Lords, how naive can the noble Baroness be? It is significant that this only went to Labour Members of Parliament; it is significant that it went to Labour Members of Parliament who had not specifically asked for it. Is it not a fact that, if this particular Minister, who had done the same thing before, would attempt to do his departmental duties instead of using his Department for propaganda purposes we might not have rail strikes and lorry strikes on the scale that we have got them today?

§ Baroness STEDMAN
My Lords, I have known the noble Lord opposite for some 25 or 30 years and I think that the statements he has just made are completely unworthy of him. The Minister was asked by Labour Members for an up-to-date picture of the Government's record in transport: that he made available to them. He would make it available equally to Members of the Conservative or Liberal Parties or to the Cross-Benchers in this House if they asked for it. Copies are available in the Library and I am willing to let the noble Lord have a copy all to himself if he would like one.

§ The Earl of LAUDERDALE
My Lords, seeking to pour oil on troubled waters, I should like to put this question to the noble Baroness: is it not the case that the facts in this factual statement have long since been exploded by events, like so many other things in which the Party opposite profess to believe?—including, for example, free collective bargaining.

§ Baroness STEDMAN
My Lords, the factual document that was sent out was completely up-to-date up to 4th September, when it was sent out; some things may have changed since then and I have no doubt that if the noble Earl would like to have an absolutely up-to-date factual statement I could get one for him.