HC Deb 04 December 1986 vol 106 cc1078-80
Q6. Mr. Dalyell

asked the Prime Minister if she will separate the position of Cabinet Secretary from that of Head of the Civil Service; and if she will make a statement.

The Prime Minister

No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell

Six years before Sydney, was Sir Robert Armstrong acting in his capacity as Head of the Civil Service, or in his capacity as Cabinet Secretary, when he participated in the decision to withhold from the Attorney-General knowledge of how Chapman Pincher's book was obtained or purloined?

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Attorney-General's answer on Monday 1 December when he said: So far as the proceedings in Sydney are concerned, I must remind the House that I am the plaintiff and therefore cannot comment on anything which is in issue before the court. He went on: I have to be careful to avoid the risk of prejudicing the case or at the worst being in contempt of court in Sydney."—[Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 415.]

Mr. Latham

Has not Sir Robert Armstrong, acting in either of his official capacities, been trying to assert the essential doctrine that former British security personnel have an overriding duty to keep their mouths shut?

The Prime Minister

I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton

Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us on this side would be glad if she would suspend forthwith her contacts with the Leader of the Opposition on matters of security, because none of us believes a word that she says about that or anything else?

The Prime Minister

As far as this side of the House is concerned, the normal courtesies will continue to be observed.

Q7. Mr. Thurnham

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December.

The Prime Minister

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thurnham

In view of the benefits that polytechnics bring to local industry, will my right hon. Friend, during her busy day, find time to consider the case for an additional polytechnic in the north-west and the additional jobs that would bring?

The Prime Minister

I am aware that the National Advisory Board is meeting today, and I will pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Williams

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This arises out of Question Time this afternoon.

As you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, questions, in terms of admissibility, are very much guided by precedent. We have had a rather confusing exchange this afternoon during which the Prime Minister has repeated that, in her opinion, in the case of Rothschild, she cannot comment because of the precedent relating to security. Conversely, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has quoted the precedent set by the Prime Minister on 26 March 1981, when she made a statement to the House regarding Hollis. Which precedent applies in the case of Rothschild? Who decides which applies, or is it utterly a matter for the Prime Minister to choose as suits her individual whim?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot be responsible for the answers that are given. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Marlow

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter for you arising out of Question Time and the events in Australia.

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—wrote to you at some length about the affaire téléphonique that he has had with various succulent sources in Australia. I believe that this affair culminated—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot know what letters are sent to me anyway, but I must tell him that the Leader of the Opposition certainly did not write to me about that matter. He asked if he could issue his letter to me as a press release. I dealt with this the other day. I replied that it was entirely in order for him to issue that letter as a press release.

Mr. Faulds

Further to the earlier point of order Mr. Speaker. As you will know more than most, the conduct of this House is based on precedent, and you are the guardian of that behaviour. Would it not be advisable for you to make some utterance on whether the Prime Minister is, at will, entitled to slough off these earlier practices?

Mr. Speaker

A moment ago I said that these are not matters for me. Order in this House is essential. We have freedom of speech here, and we should conduct ourselves with discretion in a parliamentary fashion.

Mr. Home-Robertson

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have been hearing a lot from across the Atlantic about the fifth amendment. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to keep refusing to answer questions on the ground that they are likely to incriminate her?

Mr. Speaker

I am not Tip O'Neill.

Mr. Skinner

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that you have just remarked that the business of the House depends on good order, on hon. Members being able to hear what other hon. Members are saying and that that causes you some difficulties, and as recently there have been recurring instances of the Prime Minister refusing to answer questions, will you look into the possibility of allowing Ministers, such as the Prime Minister, to plead the fifth amendment? That would save a lot of time.