HL Deb 28 October 1985 vol 467 cc1383-6

2.49 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will explain the circumstances in which they gave their official view on the report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade (H.L. 238) before the document itself was available to Lords in the Printed Paper Office on 16th October.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)

My Lords, the Select Committee on Overseas Trade made embargoed copies of its report available to the press and others a few days before it was published. Ministers therefore had an opportunity to consider the comments in the report and to decide whether an immediate initial response was needed in order to set the report in perspective. The statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was issued at the same time as the publication of the report.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Secretary of State's endeavour at a pre-emptive strike against a report which has not yet been seen by your Lordships has been widely interpreted as a panic-stricken reaction by the Government to this excellent report? The report shows clearly not only that the committee has dealt with the perspective mentioned by the department but also that the policies carried out by Her Majesty's Government over the past six years have been a complete disaster for this country.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, the noble Lord asks essentially three supplementary questions. I answer them in this order. There was no question whatsoever of a pre-emptive strike. It is entirely up to the noble Lord opposite and others what interpretation they place on the report. Lastly, the Government's policies have enabled us to improve manufacturing output, investment and productivity and to realise record levels of manufactured exports.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, does the Minister really regard his Answer as satisfactory? Has he taken note of the fact that all Select Committees are very important and this is one of the most important? The committee was appointed by your Lordships' House and should be amenable to your Lordships' House, and it is in contempt of your Lordships' House if it does anything irregular. A statement was issued to the press which was not available to Members of this House. Apprehension was created in the minds of people of all political persuasions about the future of the country, the cost of living, and so on. In those circumstances, should the committee not have been condemned for its irregular action?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I think that my Answer is satisfactory in that it is the Answer to the Question on the Order Paper. I recognise, as will all your Lordships, that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, chaired by such an eminent person as my noble friend Lord Aldington, is important. There is no irregularity in what the Government did. The chairman of the committee released the report at the time that he did. He released his own press statement at one minute past midnight. In that statement he called for interviews which could be held all day Tuesday and for a press conference to be held at 11.30. It was therefore not unreasonable that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State should respond at the same time as the report was made public.

Lord Ardwick

My Lords, the object of giving documents to members of the press with an embargo is to give them sufficient time to consider them and to present the information adequately to their readers. This imperils the whole process—

The Earl of Swinton

Question!

Lord Ardwick

—does it not? If it is suspected that the Government will make instant comment on the report, should it not also be revealed to the Opposition, so that we may get the crossfire—the two views—before people have had time to absorb the contents of the document?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, there was no irregularity. If the noble Lord refers to Erskine May on parliamentary practice (20th edition), page 651, he will find that there was no irregularity. The press statement made by my noble friend Lord Aldington was widely available. It is my understanding that members of all parties had access to that wide circulation.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, underlying this Question is there not a serious matter for your Lordships' House? I wonder whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can address his attention to the problem. Are we not being treated as second-class citizens? It is not a question of whether the Opposition has access to something but whether Members of your Lordships' House, whose Select Committee this is, have equal access; and on this occasion they clearly did not.

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I understand that exactly the same procedure was followed on this occasion as in the past. If your Lordships wish to change the procedure that is a matter for consideration, but as long as it remains it is fair to follow it. Comments are made on all such documents from time to time, sometimes quickly and sometimes a little later. The House will have a chance to debate the report early in the next Session, and I hope that it is agreed that that is the best way to proceed.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one difference between the statement issued by the chairman one minute after midnight and that made by the Government was that the former was made after 12 months' consideration whereas the latter was made after only a weekend's perusal? Does he share the satisfaction of committee members that the rather precipitate intervention of the Government has caused record sales for the report, which I understand is now in its third edition?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has just suggested sotto voce, one cannot have it both ways.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, since the noble Lord has given the reasons for his right honourable friend's early intervention in mentioning the report itself, will he use his good offices to draw further attention not merely to the report but to the appendix containing the evidence? Will he cause his right honourable friend to pass comment, preferably at an early date, on the interrogation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which is beautifully enshrined in pages 553 to 574?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, one great trouble is that the noble Lord frequently takes selected passages from a report to suit his argument. I am suggesting to your Lordships' House that the report in its entirety be considered in the light of the current developments which I described in my earlier response to supplementary questions and which reveal a satisfactory and improving position in British manufacturing industry.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, if the Government had taken the noble Lord's advice they would not have issued a statement within a few hours of the report's being published without having had time to examine it comprehensively, as he says.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, my right honourable friend felt that it was necessary to make the statement so that the report could be set in the total perspective. Otherwise, it might have produced a biased and misleading view of the performance and prospects of the economy, which I repeat I outined in an earlier answer and which are satisfactory and improving.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that the report is biased and unsatisfactory?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am merely repeating the fact—as the noble Lord knows full well because he has read the press notice issued by my Secretary of State—that the report needs to be set in perspective. Otherwise, on a first reading someone might have had a biased and misleading view of the performance and prospects of the economy.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, the Minister is surely not saying that the state of manufacturing industry in this country is satisfactory at the moment with the dereliction that there is throughout the West Midlands and the North?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I repeat again that manufacturing output since the trough of recession in the early 1980s has risen by 11 per cent., investment by 39 per cent., and manufacturing productivity by 31 per cent., and the volume of our manufactured exports is at a record level. That is an improving position, which is what I said.

Lord Leatherland

My Lords, can the Minister say whether unemployment has also risen to well over 3 million?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, since the Question is related entirely to this report, I am not prepared to be drawn upon that question this afternoon.