§ Q1. Mr. Blairasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December 1986.
§ The Prime MinisterThis morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
§ Mr. BlairAs the Prime Minister had cast-iron legal grounds for stopping Pincher's book in 1981 and could not possibly have been advised that she did not, why did she deliberately allow its publication? Is it simply that when it suits her she is prepared to sacrifice the interests of national security to the interests of the Tory party?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot comment on matters which are in issue in the proceedings in Australia.
§ Mr. BrintonDoes my right hon. Friend recall the important work done for successive Governments by Lord Rothschild? In the course of her busy day, will she consider what steps can now be taken to protect his reputation against false innuendoes and smears?
§ The Prime MinisterI have seen Lord Rothschild's letter, published this morning. That letter is being considered in government. I cannot add anything further at this stage.
§ Mr. HattersleyThat is an extraordinary answer for the Prime Minister to give on this subject. Can she not follow the precedent that she herself set on 26 March 1981 in the case of Sir Roger Hollis and respond explicitly now to Lord Rothschild's plea by making it clear that he is not, and never has been: a Soviet agent?
§ The Prime MinisterLord Rothschild's letter was published this morning. I have seen it. The letter is being considered in government, as it should be, and I cannot add anything further at this stage. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would understand that.
§ Mr. HattersleyI certainly understand the implications of the Prime Minister's prevarication, and I hope that she does, too. Putting aside the personal anguish that her answer is bound to cause, Lord Rothschild was the head of the central policy review staff working in Downing street for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he was Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister not prepared to say here and now that Lord Rothschild was not a spy?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is the right hon. Gentleman who is causing anguish. Lord Rothschild's letter was published this morning. I have seen it. The letter is being considered in government, and I cannot add anything further at this stage.
§ Mr. HattersleyEven now, answering this question, will the right hon. Lady consider not simply the obligations of generous impulses, which she does not possess, but the damage that her answers are doing to the British Security Service? It is preposterous to continue to give the impression that we are infiltrated by moles. We are not, and the right hon. Lady ought to make that clear here and now in the case of Lord Rothschild.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing furter to add to what I have already said about Lord Rothschild. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said about security matters. When he was asked about them, when he was a Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he said:
It is the long-established practice of this House that the Government do not comment on matters of this kind."—[Official Report, 28 July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 626.]
§ Sir Ian GilmourI understand that the DROPS contract will shortly be awarded. Has my right hon. Friend been made aware that the procurement process in this case has been a continuing scandal, not only on the part of the Ministry of Defence, but on the part of one of the competitors? Will my right hon. Friend insist on the Ministry of Defence setting up an immediate independent inquiry into this very murky affair?
§ The Prime MinisterI have heard what my right hon. Friend says, and I will, of course, consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
§ Q2. Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HamiltonWill the Prime Minister tell us when she first became aware that Sir Robert Armstrong's evidence was incorrect, and when she instructed him to correct it?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the hon. Gentleman is aware, and as the Attorney-General repeated on Monday, the Government are plaintiffs in this case and we are not able to comment upon matters before the court.
§ Mr. Beaumont-DarkWill my right hon. Friend accept that many of us share her view that we must build one nation? Will she square that with what happened yesterday, when Birmingham lost £31 million of its grant? Bearing in mind the deprivations in Birmingham and the prosperity in the south, how does that help to build one nation?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend speaks about the rates details published yesterday. As he is aware, a new consultation paper has been published. I am aware that it will be greeted with approval in some parts of the House and with disapproval in other parts. I am afraid that that is inevitable in view of the way in which the formula works. That is one reason why we shall have to change the whole way in which that formula works. I understand my hon. Friend's feelings.
§ Q3. Mr. Terry Lewisasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. LewisIn the court in Sydney Sir Robert Armstrong said that a Committee of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, decided not to ban the Chapman Pincher book. When did that book come into the possession of the right hon. Lady?
§ The Prime MinisterI remind the hon. Gentleman of the answer given by the Attorney-General on Monday, 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. Although, under the rules of the House, judicial proceedings abroad are not subject to the sub judice rule, I have to be careful to avoid the risk of prejudicing the case or at the worst being in contempt of court in Sydney. It inevitably follows the Government are handicapped in respect of some of the allegations being bandied about."—[Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol 106, c.415.]
§ Q4. Mr. Tim Smithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. SmithWill my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the extra-parliamentary pressure that is being applied to certain Members of Parliament? Is she aware 1078 that Arthur Scargill has demanded the expulsion from the Labour party of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)? Will she refer that matter to the Lord Privy Seal as a possible breach of parliamentary privilege? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Hon. Members should listen to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He asked the Prime Minister whether she would refer the matter to the Lord Privy Seal.
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will have heard what my hon. Friend said and will have taken note of it. I believe that it is a matter purely for the House, not for me.
Mr. John David TaylorAs the Prime Minister missed out last year on her annual pre-Christmas visit to Northern Ireland, and as she has not been to Northern Ireland since her rather strange visit to Hillsborough on 15 November 1985, does she propose to resume her pre-Christmas visits by going to Northern Ireland this year?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman may be wise to ask that question; it would be most unwise for me to answer it.
§ Mr. Phillip OppenheimWill my right hon. Friend consider later today the excellent news that the Labour party has decided to sell shares in one of its loss-making publications and that the National Union of Mineworkers has decided to contract out cleaning at its Sheffield headquarters? Does that not prove that it is never too late to learn?
§ The Prime MinisterI join my hon. Friend in welcoming those latest converts to the efficiency which comes from competition.
§ Mr. SteelDid the Prime Minister know that arms sales to Iran were being arranged through London? If she did know, was that not contrary to the publicly declared policy of the Government; and, if she did not know, was not her friend, President Reagan, not keeping her in the dark?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government have not received evidence of illegal exports of defence equipment from Britain. If the right hon. Gentleman has such evidence, he should make it available. The United States Government did not inform us about their arms consignments to Iran. British policy on arms sales to Iran and Iraq is one of the strictest in Europe and is rigidly enforced, at substantial cost to British industry. That policy has been maintained scrupulously and consistently.
§ Mr. Rhodes JamesIs my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure that she is—that Lord Rothschild is an eminent constituent of mine, that he is a distinguished public servant, and that his letter requires immediate and urgent attention?
§ The Prime MinisterI cannot add to what I have said. I had hoped that the House would understand that. I cannot add to it at this stage.