Portcullis image and link to site home page The United Kingdom Parliament
Advanced Search
 
Home
Glossary
Index
Contact Us
Parliament Live
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Feb 1990
  Home Page

Column 659

Operation Clockwork Orange

3.32 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the statement of a genuinely distinguished soldier, General Sir Peter Leng, Scots Guards, a senior commander in Aden, subsequently Master-General of the Ordnance and a member of the Army Council, but, most relevantly, Commander of Land Forces in Northern Ireland for the years 1973-75 that, contrary to Government claims, the operation Clockwork Orange had official sanction to run."

I must persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is definite, that it is urgent and that it is important. The matter is definite, and it is fully reported in the first editions of yesterday's Sunday Times, under the by- line Barry Penrose and the heading "General Backs Wallace Claims". The four page 1 and page 2 articles were "pulled out," to use the trade term, for reasons that are revealing but not relevant to the application for the matter to take precedence over the announced business of the House of Commons.

The matter is important, because accuracy by Ministers to the House is important. You did me the courtesy Mr. Speaker, of being in the Chair for the Adjournment debate last Monday night, attended by about 70 Opposition Members and 30 Conservative Members. You will have heard, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces say, as reported at column 118 of Hansard, that operation Clockwork Orange was not approved.

At least the Select Committee on Defence might consider asking Sir Peter Leng to appear before it to clarify


Column 660

exactly what he meant. The Minister and the general cannot both be right. Who is the House of Commons to believe?

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : The general. Mr. Dalyell : That would be my view-- [Interruption]. Well, the general has no axe to grind.

The matter is urgent, because it emerges that Clockwork Orange was masterminded by a senior civil servant, Dennis Payne, and that the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland, at the time, General Sir Frank King, has said that he has no quarrel with General Sir Peter Leng's account.

Nothing is more urgent than matters that go to the heart of the integrity of British Government. Nothing that this House of Commons has to consider is more urgent than the matter of integrity in the highest places.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,

"General Sir Peter Leng's statement on Colin Wallace."

As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, I have to decide whether his application comes within the criteria of the Standing Order, and if so, whether the debate should have priority over the business already set down for today or tomorrow. In this case, I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.


Column 661

Points of Order

3.36 pm

Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker--

Mr. Speaker : On this matter?

Mr. Rees : The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is on the role of Select Committees, arising out of this matter. We have had a rehearsal by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) of the facts as revealed in a newspaper, in an article that was withdrawn at the request of the Ministry of Defence--[ Hon. Members :-- "Oh."] I understand.

On the precise point about the Select Committee, Mr. Speaker, first, the Government denied that Clockwork Orange existed ; then, they said that it was not authorised. Now, General Leng, whom I also respect and with whom I worked, and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland, Frank King, both say that it was authorised, which is another part of the story.

On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Select Committee on Defence is considering the matters of papers and of authorisations. Can General Leng, as a former senior officer in the Army, be called before a Select Committee to give evidence on that point? Can the Government stop him so appearing? If he wishes, can he appear before the Select Committee on this point?

Mr. Speaker : It is not for me to give directions to a Select Committee from the Chair. As I understand it, it would be possible for that to happen.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not astonishing and unsatisfactory that, at the very time when the former President of the United States of America is being required to give evidence in respect of the examination by Congress of Admiral Poindexter on all those matters, it is proving impossible in the British House of Commons for the legislature to exert any effective scrutiny over these matters? It is grossly unsatisfactory that the activities of the Select Committees of this House are being circumscribed by Ministers in this regard. In view of the latest statement by the highest-ranking officers in the armed forces that these matters of disinformation and smear were properly authorised, surely there is now an overwhelming argument for the House to have a proper examination of all the material interests in these matters.

It seems that only with some co-operation from the Leader of the House and the Government are we ever likely to get to the bottom and to the truth of these matters. Therefore, I appeal to the Leader of the House to join me in discussions through the usual channels to find a way in which we in the House and the public can find the truth of the matter.

Mr. Speaker : I am sure that that was heard on the Government Front Bench. It is not a matter for me.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Mr. Barry Jones.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Column 662

Mr. Speaker : Order. I have called Mr. Barry Jones.

Mr. Barry Jone (Alyn and Deeside) : On a point of order arising out of Welsh questions, Mr. Speaker. It may have been obvious to you, Sir, that, of the first 10 oral questions tabled, five were tabled by Conservative Members with English constituencies. From where I was sitting, the only Conservative Back Bench Members with Welsh constituencies whom I could see were the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr Bennett) for Clwyd, North- West (Sir A. Meyer) and for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).

I seek your assistance and guidance, Sir. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the questions tabled by English Members make it difficult for us to catch your eye in the limited time for Welsh questions. That may be a ploy to prevent us from catching your eye and perhaps to give assistance to Conservative Back Benchers, whose numbers are small. Can you help us on that matter?

Mr. Speaker : I think that I can help the right hon. Member. If a question on the Order Paper is reached, the hon. Member who tabled it will be called, from whatever constituency he comes. I think that we did rather well in Welsh questions today. We reached question 17 and only three hon. Members who had questions on the Order Paper were not called for a supplementary question. The hon. Gentleman's complaint does not hold water today.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South) : On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that many millions of people, particularly those who live in constituencies near the Kent coast, are anxious, for one reason or another, about the future of the Channel tunnel. I understand that Ministers have resisted demands for a statement--they have made that resistance known for private notice questions too--on the grounds that there is no ministerial responsibility for the matter. It is important that no one is allowed to pull the wool over your eyes, Sir, as you are the guardian of Back Benchers and their constituents. I wish to bring to your attention two points which suggest that there is ministerial responsibility for the matter, and that a Government statement should be made.

Mr. Speaker : If the hon. Member feels that strongly, he should table a question on the matter. If he is right, and there is Government responsibility, I am sure that he will receive an answer.

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am on my feet. We have just had Welsh questions. We are about to have an Opposition day debate on a motion tabled by the Scottish Nationalist party.

Several Hon. Members rose

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : On a point of order--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Many hon. Members, some of whom are now on their feet, wish to participate in that debate. We should get on with it, rather than have points of order which I cannot answer.

Mr. Rogers : Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), Mr. Speaker. You answered his


Column 663

question by saying that it might well be so. The original question was whether the Government had a right to prevent General Leng from appearing before the Select Committee. Can we understand from your answer that the Government have that right and have exercised it?

Mr. Speaker : I did not say that. It is a matter for the Select Committee.

Mr. Alan Williams : I want to return to the first point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have always regarded it as one of the most important elements of your responsibility to protect the rights of the House of Commons. I know that you regard it as a matter of seriousness when the House has been misled, even if inadvertently. We now have a rather unprecedented situation, in which we need your guidance to protect those rights.

The Prime Minister, as head of the Civil Service, is saying that she was misled by the Civil Service, and therefore inadvertently misled the House. The Prime Minister, as head of the security services, is saying that she was misled by them, and therefore inadvertently misled the House. Now the head of the armed services is saying that he was misled by them, and that he therefore misled the House. This is more than just one ordinary accident. We need at least a statement. Can you, Mr. Speaker, advise us how we can get one?

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has made the point for himself. In answering a Standing Order No. 20 application, I am responsible only for the difficult decision whether to give it precedence over the business for today or tomorrow.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) : Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), Mr. Speaker. Over the years, it has been a convention for Welsh Members to participate in Welsh questions, during which we may discuss matters devolved to the Welsh Office. If it is to be the practice that English Members are to come to the defence of the Secretary of State for Wales, clearly there is less time for Opposition Members to question the Minister and we shall have to press for more time to be made available for Welsh questions.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Is it on the same matter?


Column 664

Mr. Jack : Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bennett : Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker : Very well. Let us hear Mr. Bennett first.

Mr. Bennett : Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), Mr. Speaker. Can we rest assured that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and that any hon. Member may take part in any part of our discussions? If the Labour party is so concerned about the matter, why are its three spokesmen on English health matters all Scottish Members of Parliament?

Mr. Jack : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I resent the imputation that English Members tabling questions on Welsh matters is a barrier to Welsh members entering the discussion. There is always the opportunity of a supplementary question. Hon. Gentlemen have ignored the fact that many of the matters, particularly those relating to north Wales, also relate to the north-west of England. Several Hon. Members rose

Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that I can say any more than I have said. Hon. Members need only look at the Order Paper today to see that virtually all hon. Members who were present in the Chamber--

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East) indicated dissent

Mr. Speaker : --including the hon. Gentleman who is shaking his head --were called to ask questions.

Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor) rose

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am on my feet. This is a United Kingdom Parliament, and today we have a debate in the name of the Scottish Nationalist party. We should get on with it.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. John Mark Taylor.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,

That European Community Documents Nos. 9762/89 and 9865/89 on preferences for Poland and Hungary be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.-- [Mr. John Mark Taylor.]


Column 665

Opposition Day

[8th Allotted Day] [1st Part]

Ambulance Dispute

Mr. Speaker : We now come to the debate on the dispute in the ambulance service in the name of the Scottish Nationalist party. I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

3.48 pm

Mr. Jim Sillars (Glasgow, Govan) : Before I start, I want to make one technical correction. We are not the Scottish Nationalist party but the Scottish National party, and there is more than just a semantic difference.

Mr. Speaker : I apologise.

Mr. Sillars : I was not looking for an apology.

I beg to move,

That this House recognises public concern about the prolongation of the ambulance dispute ; acknowledges strong public support for the ambulance staff ; is aware of the Government's role in prolonging the dispute ; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Health to renew negotiations with representatives of ambulance staff in order to seek an end to the dispute on the basis of a just award and a pay review mechanism that will recognise the place of ambulance staff in our emergency services.

The motion is tabled in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), myself and others in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. I acknowledge and recognise the co-operation of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on behalf of the Labour party in ensuring that a single motion has been tabled by the Opposition today. Whatever political differences we may have in other areas, there are absolutely none in respect of this dispute.

I notice that the name of the organ grinder, the Secretary of State for Health, is missing from the Government amendment. It also appears that he is missing from this debate. I am sure that many members of the public, as well as ambulance staff, will think it an absolute disgrace that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not reckon that this subject is important enough to present himself to the House to state his case.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sillars : I shall not give way, even for a kiltie.

I shall refer to the Secretary of State for Health all afternoon because, with due respect to the other hon. Gentlemen, the organ grinder is far more important than the monkeys.

On page 2 of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's letter of 16 February, which was sent to hon. Members, he refers to the trade unions and says :

"They are still claiming 11.4 per cent. and are still insisting on a pay mechanism for ambulancemen"--

I do not know why he fails to understand that women are also involved--

"which would link them to firemen or other staff".


Column 666

That statement from the Secretary of State was untrue. The position of the trade unions was made perfectly plain in a statement issued on 16 January. Paragraph 2 of that statement reads : "The pay rate aspect of our claim is the other major demand. In April 1989 our claim was 11.14 per cent. on the hourly rate. However, the unions are prepared to negotiate on this and, if necessary, lower our sights."

Paragraph 4 states :

"In November 1989, to facilitate negotiations, the ambulance unions dropped several key parts of the April 1989 claim. The parts of the claim dropped were :

1. An increase in standby allowances

2. An increase in annual leave

3. The introduction of long service holidays

4. A reduction in the working week

5. The introduction of long service pay, after 5, 10 and 15 years' service."

Any of those five objectives is perfectly legitimate for a trade union involved in negotiations--the 11.14 per cent. pay claim is perfectly legitimate. It says a great deal for the flexibility of the trade unions that they were prepared to make that type of offer to the Government. They were prepared to lower their sights on a major part of their claim and to drop a series of important aspects of it. The Secretary of State's letter, which was sent to all hon. Members, is wholly inaccurate. Perhaps that is why he finds it extremely difficult to come here this afternoon to try to justify his unjustifiable position.

We have two reasons for tabling the motion. First, the ambulance staff have been in dispute for six months, and it is extremely important that the people that they elected, along with other concerned members of the public, appreciate that and do not forget those staff. In the past five weeks, momentous events have taken place in the Soviet Union, East Germany, other parts of eastern Europe and in South Africa with the freeing of Nelson Mandela. Various things have happened that have tended to push the ambulance dispute off the front pages and out of the media.

I have been involved in industrial disputes, and I appreciate that people can believe that they have been forgotten. As a result of this debate, an important signal will be sent to the ambulance staff and to the public to say that the dispute is at the top of the parliamentary agenda and of the public agenda. From my experience as a trade union official, I stress to ambulance staff that the combination of public support for them and their commitment to the public is unbeatable. If they maintain their commitment to the public, they will achieve their objectives as redefined by the trade unions.

The second reason for the motion is to produce a further critical examination of the issues, particularly against the changed political circumstances of the electoral prospects of the Tory party. That should make many Opposition Members consider their future carefully. I have looked at all that has been said in the debates, and there seem to be six main pillars supporting the Government's case. I shall examine them in turn. First, the Government say that it is wrong for management to engage in arbitration, and therefore that solution is rejected. Secondly, they say that no more money is available because each penny spent comes off patient care funds. The third pillar is combined with the fourth : the Government reject a pay review mechanism, similar in its objectives to that applied to the fire service, to avoid further disputes. The Government justify that through


Column 667

their assertion that no true comparison can be drawn between the ambulance service and the police and fire service.

The fifth pillar of the Government's case is that it is immoral to take industrial action in an essential service. The sixth pillar is that the organ grinder--the Secretary of State--claims that he has no personal responsibility for direct intervention.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Does not the hon. Gentleman contrast the statements that the Secretary of State actually makes with the number of times that he goes on radio and television to argue the case, while trying to be Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate and wash his hands of the affair?

Mr. Sillars : Judas Iscariot at least got something. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall refer to the television stardom role that has been adopted by the Secretary of State.

The first pillar in the Government's case is arbitration. The Secretary of State's position is set out in Hansard, on 24 October last year. He said : "Management cannot hand over the control of pay of large groups of people to third parties when it also has a responsibility to spend its money on the provision of patient service."--[ Official Report, 24 October 1989 ; Vol. 158, c. 666.] I hope that everyone grasped the phrase.

"cannot hand over the control of large groups".

The ambulance men and women number about 22,000 out of 1 million people in the National Health Service--just over 2 per cent. of the total staff involved. They could not be defined, even by an idiot, as a very large group.

There are large groups, including the 100,000 doctors and the 490, 000 nurses. Those are, by any definiton, very large groups. Their pay is not worked out by arbitration, but it is something near it, because there are pay review mechanisms that remove any possibility of industrial dispute.

I say to the Secretary of State, who is not here, that the job of management is to consider all the elements that make up an organisation's activity. They must consider its revenue, materials, equipment, fixed capital formation in hospitals, human capital and, last but by no means least, staff motivation, commitment and morale. Those are the elements that go to make a challenge to management. There is now a distinct failure of management. For six months, they have failed to resolve a dispute that could easily be resolved by recourse to arbitration. To listen to the Secretary of State, one would think that arbitration was a completely new invention that had never been tried before and might lead to chaos and disaster.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman may care to reflect on the Secretary of State's previous role as an Under- Secretary of State for Transport. Every time the railway unions sought an increase, he constantly said, "Go to the Railway Staff National Tribunal"-- the arbitration organisation.


Next Section

  Home Page