HL Deb 14 January 1987 vol 483 cc548-9

2.46 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

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 why the Lord Chancellor has not resigned in view of the information now revealed in the records of 1956.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)

My Lords, in my opinion I have nothing in my personal conduct with which to reproach myself in these matters.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept from me that there is no iota of personal animosity in this Question, nor is there any question of the noble and learned Lord's personal conduct? However, is he aware that in 1956, as part of my duties, I had to help Hugh Gaitskell, Jim Griffiths and Nye Bevan to write speeches and broadcasts in which we accused the Government of breaking international law and colluding with the Israelis? We were told we were liars. Has it not now been revealed by the papers published on 1st January that it was the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary who lied and that there was a breach of international law? In that case, is there not at least some case for the application of the principle of collective responsibility?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I must have misunderstood the purpose of the noble Lord's Question. I had not regarded it as a reference to collective responsibility, in which case it would have been a constitutional solecism. I regarded it as a rather clumsy attempt at a personal smear.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, is it not deplorable that a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House, disregarding all its traditions, should abuse Question Time by launching a thinly disguised personal attack upon a distinguished Minister of the Crown?

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I repeat that there is no personal attack whatever attached to this Question. It is a political issue—

Noble Lords

Question!

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, it is a political issue, and I ask the noble and learned Lord to accept that. Will he further tell us whether, at the time of the Cabinet of which he was a member, which according to the record is now seen to have colluded with the Israelis and to have broken international law, he did not feel that this was a matter of collective responsibility? Will he further tell the House whether it is his department that is responsible for the suppression of those records which were not published on 1st January?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, there are two points. First, I was not a member of the Cabinet until January 1957. Secondly, the Question relates to those records which have been published and not to those which have not been published.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is it not the case that the suggestion that a Minister of the Crown should resign suggests to most people that that Minister has been guilty of some form of improper conduct? On that basis, is it not an abuse of the practice and procedure of this House to place such an attack on the Order Paper in the shape of a Starred Question, rather than the traditional way, if it is so desired, of putting down a formal Motion?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I do not think it is for me to answer the question.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, is it not the case that in this particular instance the judgment of the noble Lord in putting down his Question has been rather less sound than usual?

Baroness Seear

My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord has told us he was not at that time a member of the Cabinet, does that not dispose of the whole Question?

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, in relation to the answer of the noble and learned Lord about documents, may I ask whether we may now feel that all relevant documents have been published; or are some being withheld? if so—and I am making no personal indications here—on whose authority are they being withheld?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, as the House will know, the Lord Chancellor's Office in fact decides which papers are to be withheld and which disclosed. I was particularly careful on this occasion to make quite certain that any conflict of interest did not arise. There have been files to which the usual criteria were applied, but in any case in which my own actions were in question I made quite certain that the decision would be taken on the advice of an impartial third authority.