House of Commons
Monday 26 February 1996
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
Government Policy (Presentation)
1. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the arrangements for the presentation of Government policy. [15237]
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The presentation of Government policy continues to go from strength to strength.
Mr. Winnick: In presenting Government policy on the Scott report, will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he had so many misgivings about signing public interest immunity certificates? Why is the Deputy Prime Minister so keen to defend the Attorney-General, when the Attorney-General did not pass on to the court those misgivings or the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister--then the President of the Board of Trade--was anxious that the documents in question should be released to the court? Would it not be better if the Deputy Prime Minister now explained the position fully?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to do so. The Attorney-General gave me the clearest advice. He said that the papers in front of me would be considered by the judge who would determine whether they should be released.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is not what you told the inquiry.
The Deputy Prime Minister: It is interesting that, whenever one tries to give a serious answer in the House, one is barracked by sedentary Members on the Opposition Benches. This is an extremely important matter and I was giving a serious answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked a serious question. He is entitled to an answer and I shall give it.
I was given advice by the Attorney-General that the papers would be considered by the judge and, if he considered it appropriate, they would be released. The judge considered the papers and he thought that they should be released. The papers were released, the trial
proceeded on that basis and two of the defence counsel said at that time that they thought the Attorney-General had behaved properly.
Mr. Nigel Evans:
I know that my right hon. Friend is keen to ensure that we present Government policy on law and order to demonstrate that clear blue water exists between the Government and the Opposition. My right hon. Friend may be aware that I own a small retail business in Swansea. Shoplifting is a corrosive act that affects not only small businesses, but medium and large retail enterprises. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any political leader who tried to justify shoplifting as acceptable would demonstrate that he was not only soft on crime, but soft on the causes of the crime?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is right. We were amazed that the leader of the parliamentary Labour party should appear to think that that sort of activity was of trivial importance. Shoplifting is a very serious matter for small business people, and, indeed, large companies, who suffer from it. A leader of a parliamentary party should give no succour to that sort of practice.
Mr. Beith:
Can we get the Government's policy clear? Was the Deputy Prime Minister wrong to require a certificate to be set out in a special form and to require that his reservations be passed on to the judge--which they were not--or was he right, and were other Ministers wrong not to do that?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
That is another serious question, and I shall try to answer it. I agreed a certificate with the Attorney-General that related to the papers in front of me in the Department of Trade and Industry. We both agreed that certificate, I signed it and it was the basis of the judgment that both the Attorney-General and I reached in those circumstances. It is not relevant to my colleagues in other Departments because they were signing certificates about papers in their Departments that were available only to them. It is fundamental to understand that when Ministers are invited to sign public interest immunity certificates of any sort, they sign them only in respect of the papers in front of them that relate to their Department.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
Did my right hon. Friend hear two programmes this morning on Radio Four? On the first, the "Today" programme, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave a clear account of Government policy on Scott. The other was "Start the Week", on which a strange person, who appeared to be speaking for the Labour party, gave a muddled version of his intentions. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that both those programmes are given a wide airing and encourage the BBC to put them out more often so that people will realise how boring and confused the Labour party is, and how clear and straightforward the Conservative party is?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
As always, my hon. Friend makes a valid point; but I would go further. The parliamentary Labour party's position is reprehensible to a fault. For three years, it conducted a vilification
Mr. Prescott:
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that his remarks encouraging the late payment of business debts have been condemned by the British Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses? Will he apologise to the thousands who have been made bankrupt by late payment? Is he able to confirm reports this weekend that senior figures in the Tory party have been in discussions with banks to save Tory Members from bankruptcy? Is that not an example of one rule for small businesses and another one for Tory Governments with small majorities?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
I am delighted again to respond to a question seriously. Like many small business men in my position, I have faced the problems that often arise. I was faced with putting a company into liquidation or borrowing money to pay the creditors--I borrowed money to pay the creditors. I regard that as a matter of great personal pride, and I very much hope that it will be seen as such.
It is ridiculous to suggest that in any way I believe that, as an art form, small businesses--or large companies--should deny payment of their bills. That is why I have been part of a process of accepting the Confederation of British Industry's code of practice, and why Departments are making every effort to catch up on their payment problems. That is also why large companies will be expected to comply with the code of practice.
I have always been hesitant about the facile assumption that the introduction of an interest charge will somehow benefit all small companies. It is forgotten that many small companies might themselves be tipped into bankruptcy by that process.
2. Mr. Olner:
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many civil servants, and at what cost to public funds, were employed in the preparation of the Government's response to the Scott inquiry. [15238]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts):
The Scott report covered a wide range of policy issues. Access to the report itself before publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned. However, a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government's response without sight of the report. It is not possible, therefore, to give precise numbers or costings.
Mr. Olner:
The wider world will know that the Tories have once again failed to answer a question on the Scott report. If figures are not being given, my constituents in Nuneaton who suffered job losses as a result of Matrix Churchill being closed will conclude that the Tory Government are again engaging in a cover-up on the report. When will the Government pay some
Mr. Willetts:
I fail to understand how a 1,800-page report and a day's debate can be regarded as a cover-up.
Mr. Derek Foster:
Does the Minister, who was part of the cost of the response to the Scott report, accept the verdict in paragraph D4.63 that
on Ministers' accountability to Parliament? As "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" is the Prime Minister's document, is the Prime Minister not failing in his constitutional responsibility to the sovereign Parliament in not bringing Ministers to account? Is he not undermining parliamentary democracy? If the Ministers concerned do not resign, should not the Prime Minister resign?
Mr. Willetts:
The right hon. Gentleman should know, if he has read the Scott report carefully, that Conservative Members have been cleared of any "duplicitous intent", to quote the words of the report, and have been cleared also of deliberately misleading Parliament. There will be a debate today when the wider issues that the right hon. Gentleman rightly raises will be addressed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
"Government statements made in 1989 and 1990 . . . failed . . . to comply with the standard set by paragraph 27 of the Questions of Procedure for Ministers"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |