PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Blair
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleages and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
Mr. Blair
Now that Clive Ponting has been acquitted, and a jury of ordinary men and women has reasserted the value of parliamentary democracy over ministerial deceit, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that this is the last time that we shall see a person in fear of his liberty for preferring to tell the truth on behalf of the people to telling lies on behalf of the Government?
The Prime Minister
Mr. Ponting was accused and duly acquitted by a court of law. That is a fundamental part of our constitution. It is not a variation from our democracy, but an example of it.
Mr. Onslow
While my right hon. Friend must be right to resist pressure for hasty reform of the Official Secrets Act on the basis of a single verdict, does she not agree that it is essential that Ministers and civil servants should be able to work together within an accepted framework of mutual confidence and trust? Will she give some consideration to setting up a special committee of experienced and responsible Privy Councillors to review the matter and report back to the House as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely vital that there should be trust and confidence between Ministers and civil servants. I note that James Callaghana former Prime Minister said in 1976:
“there must be absolute confidence that papers and discussions that take place are kept within the circle to whom they are given.” —[Official Report, 17 June 1976; Vol. 913, c. 739.]
I, then in opposition, supported him.
I shall consider what my hon. Friend said about the Official Secrets Act, but I remind him that the Franks committee considered the Official Secrets Act, and that on the committee there were three Privy Councillors, the person who was later to be a Labour Home Secretary, and a number of other people. Later there was a White Paper upon that Act and later, in our time, there was a proposed Bill brought before the other place, which did not find favour in Parliament.
Mr. Kinnock
Confidence and trust between civil servants and Ministers is essential, but so is confidence and trust between the Government and the House of [column 162]Commons, and that is what is at stake here. Yesterday, a vetted jury unanimously concluded that Mr. Clive Ponting had not broken the law by exposing the attempts of Ministers to mislead Parliament and the public deliberately. Did the Prime Minister know about the proposed deception of Parliament, and if she did, did she endorse it? If she did not know about it, will she now condemn it in the strongest possible terms? What was her involvement in the decision to prosecute Mr. Ponting?
The Prime Minister
To take the last point first, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, Ministers have absolutely no role in deciding whether to prosecute. That is the duty of the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Ministers had no role whatsoever in the prosecution.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, may I make it quite clear that we have put a full account on record. I must make it clear that Ministers in power have always taken, and I hope will always take, the view that information that would have some security value to those who threaten our people or our territory is not released. Our first regard in considering whether to release intelligence information is the safety of Her Majesty's armed forces.
Mr. Kinnock
The right hon. Lady says now, and she has said to me before, that she was not involved in the decision to prosecute. Frankly, I do not believe the right hon. Lady—
Hon. Members
Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is in order.
Mr. Kinnock
The right hon. Lady's domineering style of government forbids belief that she was not involved in an issue as important as this. Mr. Ponting testified on oath that his superiors had told him that it would be the end of the matter if he resigned from the Civil Service. Since prosecuting counsel in the trial said that it was not suggested that the disclosures damaged national security, will the Prime Minister tell us what issues of national security were at stake in the Ponting affair? What reasons, other than the Government's political convenience, motivated the prosecution of Clive Ponting?
The Prime Minister
I told the right hon. Gentleman, and I must ask him explicitly to accept what I said—[Hon. Members: “No.” ]—that I was not involved in the decision to prosecute a particular person. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is correct. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that point, otherwise he is making a very grave accusation. Before I answer the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I ask him to accept my word.
Mr. Kinnock
We have not had in writing nor have we had on any previous occasion or now an adequate explanation for the prosecution of Clive Ponting, in view of the fact that even prosecuting counsel said that no question of national security was involved in the decision to prosecute Clive Ponting. Until we get an adequate explanation, my words stand.
The Prime Minister
No. Mr. Speaker. I have said explicitly and before the whole House, to which I am answerable that I was not involved in the decision to prosecute Clive Ponting. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that explicitly.
[column 163]Sir Peter Blaker
Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that Mr. Ponting said in court that there was a good military case for attacking the Belgrano and that he had seen nothing to support the contention that the ship was sunk to end a Peruvian peace plan? Does that not mean that the contention that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) wished to prove when he started his line of questioning was wrong?
The Prime Minister
The Belgrano was sunk for the protection of our armed forces, our naval forces, the Hermes and the Invincible. May I make it clear to everyone that, so long as this Government are in power, the protection of our armed forces will be our prime consideration, whatever the Opposition say. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition: will he or will he not accept my assurance? May I tell him that I was on holiday when the decision was taken?
Mr. David Steel
Has the Prime Minister noted the determination of the jury to distinguish clearly between loyalty to a Government and the security of the state? Will she therefore welcome, indeed rejoice at, this reaffirmation of basic democratic values by a cross-section of the British people and will she demand higher standards from her Ministers?
The Prime Minister
I accept the decision of the court—of course I do; I always have—but I stress that two things are vital. The first is that Ministers are able fully to trust civil servants. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that and does not in any way endorse or condone the breach of trust that occurred.
Secondly, I wholly and utterly insist that there are some things in security and intelligence which, for the safety of our forces or the safety of the state, the Government must keep secret. To put it in specific terms:
“The Government has concluded that information relating to security and intelligence matters is deserving of the highest protection whether or not it is classified. This is pre-eminently an area where the gradual accumulation of small items of information apparently trivial in themselves could eventually create a risk for the safety of an individual or constitute a serious threat to the interests of the nation as a whole.”
That was the view of the last Labour Government when they were in power, set out in a White Paper brought before this House by Merlyn Reesthe then Home Secretary in 1978. It is something that we endorse.
I again ask the right hon. Gentleman: will he accept the assurance I have given that I had nothing to do with the prosecution of Clive Ponting? If not, he is the smaller a man because of his refusal.
Q2. Mr. Ward
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Ward
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the announcement by the National Union of Teachers this lunch-time that it intends to call a series of strikes? Does she not find this a strange way for teachers to carry out their duties and responsibilities to the young people of this country?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. Children are in the care of teachers and it is a tragedy if teachers do anything to jeopardise the future of children [column 164]in order to go on strike. But I must say that I do not believe that many teachers will go on strike. I think that they will prefer to look after their charges.
Mr. Dalyell
Who was it who altered Sir John Fieldhouse 's official commander-in-chief's report without Sir John Fieldhouse's knowledge?
The Prime Minister
I understand from Admiral Fieldhouse that during the drafting of his dispatch at Northwood he queried the date in the sentence on the detection of the Belgrano but agreed that it should be left as 2 May in order to protect sensitive operational and intelligence information. The second of May was therefore the date in the dispatch that Admiral Fieldhouse submitted to the Ministry of Defence. It was not altered by officials there.
Q3. Mr. John Farr
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 February.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Sir John Farr
In view of the rising costs of Trident, will my right hon. Friend consider whether there are new ways of ensuring that a far greater domestic content is included in the contract? Given the increasing cost of purchases from America, an additional input from the British end would be very helpful to British industry.
The Prime Minister
A very considerable part of the Trident order has been placed in Britain as, indeed, all the submarine orders have been. I shall see whether we can achieve anything more, but the whole Trident programme will give us far more deterrence than any other programme on which we could spend that same amount of money.
Dr. Owen
The Prime Minister is a Member of the House and is aware of the convention that when the record of the House is printed it is accurate. When that record has been shown to be inaccurate and statements have been made to the House that have subsequently been shown to be untrue, they have been corrected. Why has the Prime Minister not come to the House today to correct the many mistaken statements that have been made by her and her Ministers, the most recent of which was on 21 February 1984, and is reported in column 695 of Hansard. She said that all the facts had been revealed and went on to say:
“All the facts are there. They support the Government's case.” —[Official Report, 21 February, 1984; Vol. 54 c. 695.]
All the facts were not revealed. They do not support the Government's case. There are misleading statements on the record, and the Prime Minister owes it to the House to put the record straight.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman wrote a very long letter to me in the autumn. I answered his allegations fully in my letter to him of 8 October. He replied to that, and I answered again on 16 November. I have also answered very extensive letters from other right hon. and hon. Members, and I believe—although I speak from memory—that some of them have been reproduced in Hansard.
Several Hon. Members
rose—
Mr. Speaker
I shall take the private notice question and then points of order.
Later—
[column 165]Mr. Speaker
There is a point of order, but it must relate to the subject of Question Time, social services, or Prime Minister's questions.
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must seek your guidance and possibly even your protection. I am well aware, as a new Member, that I am unable to accuse any member of the Government of telling lies. Am I able to accuse any member of the Government of being unable to tell the difference?
Mr. Speaker
That is just the sort of point of order that I had hoped would not be made.
[column 166]Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition invited you to look into the recent habit of the Prime Minister of reading lengthy statements during Question Time. I happen to have done a little research into this and it confirms what my right hon. Friend asserted last Thursday. I wonder whether you have had an opportunity to do so, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker
I have no responsibility for how questions are answered, or for the questions that are put to the Prime Minister or to any other hon. Member. That is entirely a matter for those concerned.