§ Q1. Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 14 February.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This Morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In 476 addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Italy.
§ Mr. KirkwoodAs the flaws in section 2 of the Official Secrets Act have come to a head in the Ponting trial this week, but were originally brought to the attention of the House by Lord Franks in 1972, and as the present Attorney-General and Home Secretary condemned the provisions of that section as long ago as 1978, will the Prime Minister find time in her busy schedule today to convene a meeting with the express and urgent purpose of planning the early repeal of that section so as to create greater freedom of information and reserve only explicitly stated matters which must be subject to confidentiality?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the hon. Gentleman has said, the Franks report was produced in 1972 by three Privy Councillors and a number of other hon. Members. A White Paper was issued six years later in 1978. In 1979, when the Conservative Government which I led came to power, we introduced a Bill to implement the Franks recommendations, but that Bill did not find favour with Parliament and we have not tackled the matter since. Many people want section 2 changed, but there is precious little agreement on how to change it.
§ Q2. Mr. Robert Adleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 14 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. AdleyIn the light of the barrage of allegations following the Ponting trial, does my right hon. Friend agree that the disclosure of intelligence information is inevitably bound to be useful to potential enemies? Will she assure the House that if there is any conflict between disclosure to the House and national security she will give first priority to national security?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I agree wholly with my hon. Friend. There is no right to information which may imperil the safety of the armed forces. Indeed, the Government have a duty to prevent the release of such information, and it is a duty which I shall continue to discharge.
§ Mr. KinnockMay I first say how completely I agree with that last answer on the matter of national security. The Prime Minister will know that I have today written to her, having received her assurances that she was not involved in the joint decision to prosecute made on 17 August 1984 by the Law Officers, and on that point I am prepared to accept her assurances. I have said this to the Prime Minister in my letter of reply, and I have also enclosed several other questions relating to the decision to prosecute Clive Ponting. I now want the right hon. Lady to answer the question which she avoided answering on Tuesday.
A vetted jury unanimously concluded that Mr. Clive Ponting had not broken the law by exposing the attempts of Ministers deliberately to mislead Parliament and the public. 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, and condemn it strongly? Will she now answer the question?
§ The Prime MinisterI have received the right hon. Gentleman's letter. It contained no trace of apology or 477 withdrawal of anything which he said — no trace whatsoever. Indeed, in many respects he repeated the assertion. He quoted from a letter written by—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer the question.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I say to the House that it is unseemly to shout.
§ The Prime MinisterIn his letter, the right hon. Gentleman referred to a letter written by the former Labour Attorney-General. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from it, but what he did not say was what the former Labour Attorney-General said at the beginning of his letter. The letter was written to The Times on 26 September 1984. The former Labour Attorney-General, Mr. Sam Silkin, said:
the Prime Minister emphatically asserted that 'the Law Officers did not seek the view of, or consult with, any other minister, nor was the view of any other minister conveyed to them, before they took their decision to prosecute Mr. Ponting.'Mr. Silkin continued:As a statement of fact I do not question this assertion.Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be making a similar statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
§ Mr. KinnockI am more than content to have the whole of Sam Silkin's letter quoted, but unfortunately the right hon. Lady, with her selective tastes, still does not answer the question which I asked.
As far as my repetition of assertions is concerned, may I say that that is still because the primary points have not been answered in anything that the right hon. Lady has sent to me.
On the matter of apologies, yes, apologies are in order— [Interruption.] — apologies from the right hon. Lady for the utterly disreputable action of her Ministers in seeking to mislead and let down Parliament, as the documents leaked by Clive Ponting conclusively demonstrate.
§ The Prime MinisterI notice that the right hon. Gentleman does not have the grace to agree with the former Labour Attorney-General.
May I now come to his question, and answer it in my own way. There has been no attempt whatsoever to mislead the House. [Interruption.] I have made it absolutely clear that the Government have a duty not to reveal intelligence which could be of assistance to the enemy or which could imperil the safety of our own forces. I notice that our enemies are very careful not to let us know how much and when they knew of our movements and operations. They are not being questioned in that way. We have a duty not to disclose that. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. FoulkesRubbish. Everyone knows it.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is a very serious matter, of very great interest to the House and to everybody. I ask the House to give the Prime Minister a fair hearing.
§ The Prime MinisterWhere information has lost its operational significance, we have given a full account of the facts, which have been published in the Official Report and have not been challenged. Other information still has great operational and intelligence significance, especially in a situation where the Argentine has still not ceased permanent hostilities against this country.
§ Mr. KinnockWherever the national security or the safety of our troops and sailors is concerned, or wherever they may be imperilled, this House should be at one. Where questions of the integrity of Ministers is concerned, 478 this House should be at one. The knowledge of movements of the battleship Belgrano is now encyclopaedic and detailed, and has been for many, many months. There are now no longer any details that could conceivably be related to any possibility of imperilling our troops.
Those documents and matters being considered by Ministers have been released. Is the right hon. Lady saying that the documents that were disclosed by Mr. Ponting were forgeries, or is she saying that he committed perjury, or is she saying that the jury was wrong?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is going right off beam. What I said, and have made perfectly clear—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is right off beam. He clearly knows nothing about intelligence matters. Where information has lost its operational significance, we have given a full account of the facts. Indeed, I think that if there is a charge to be made against me, it is that I have given too many facts that might best not have been given.
I want to say this to the right hon. Gentleman about intelligence—if an enemy or anyone who has been in hostilities with us has intelligence information and knows not only what it is but the time we got it, he will be well on the way to knowing where we got it and he will take the appropriate action. Those methods are still in existence. To give away intelligence now, when the Argentine still has not ceased hostilities, would imperil our armed forces. It is no earthly good the right hon. Gentleman saying that we are all at one—his actions reveal that we are not at one.
§ Mr. Beaumont-DarkDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of people in this country feel that the action taken over the Belgrano — whether it was steaming away at 50 knots or sailing round in circles—was the right action to take? Does she further agree that the Leader of the Opposition is naive in thinking that we should disclose how we got the knowledge, when and where, when it still has great military significance for our armed forces?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend has it absolutely right. The interesting thing is that out of the whole Falklands affair, brilliantly conducted and carried out, the Opposition can find only a couple of little quibbles. That shows what sort of people they are.
§ Dr. OwenThe Prime Minister must be aware that the charge of misleading the House is not a quibble—it is a very serious charge. Therefore, is it not incumbent upon her to come to the House on Monday to defend the position that she adopted following November 1982, when she became aware of the fact that some of the statements that had been made in this House were incorrect? That is a simple thing. The Prime Minister is, quite rightly, intent on getting a proper apology out of the Leader of the Labour party because there is a convention in this House that we trust each other's word. That convention is also based on the understanding that the record in Hansard is corrected at the earliest opportunity. That the Prime Minister did not do. She, as the head of the Government, should explain why it is that civil servants and Ministers appear to have misled this House and a Select Committee. She should do that in debate on Monday.
§ The Prime MinisterThe debate on Monday will be taken by the Ministry of Defence and by my right hon. 479 Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I have already told the right hon. Gentleman, had he listened — I understand that he might not have heard, because it was a bit noisy — that where information has lost its operational significance we have given a full account of the facts. That full account of the facts was published in several columns of Hansard on, I believe, 29 October. Not one single fact or figure there has been challenged.
§ Mr. NellistOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Does it relate to Question Time?
§ Mr. NellistYes, Sir. You will no doubt be aware, Mr. Speaker, and the House will be interested to know, that a couple of hours ago Mr. Clive Ponting was sacked by the Ministry of Defence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] My point of order is that although Mr. Ponting was cleared by a jury—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I have anything to do with that. There is a debate on the matter on Monday, and I should have thought that that would provide an admirable opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the issue.
§ Mr. NellistFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman can only raise a point of order that I can answer, and I cannot answer the question that he is asking me.
§ Mr. NellistMy point of order is simply this, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the Ministry of Defence for permission to make a statement that will clear up the question of how a man can be found not guilty in a court of law and then sacked for the same offence?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not.
§ Mr. FlanneryOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In Question Time there are now so many leaders around us all over the place—[Interruption ]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I got as far as "leaders".
§ Mr. FlanneryThere are now so many leaders that it is increasingly difficult for a Back-Bencher to be called. Interesting as the exchanges are, will you, Mr. Speaker, take note of that and question yourself about it?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman has raised a very fair point. Indeed, I mentioned it this week, last week and, I believe, the week before that. It would be a great pity if Question Time involved only exchanges between the Front Benches. However, I do my best where I can to ensure that Back Benchers have an equal share of the time.