Westland plc (Hansard, 3 February 1986)

§ 49. Mr. Straw
asked the Attorney-General when he was first asked to give legal advice on the proposed financial reconstruction arrangements for Westland plc; and if he will make a statement.

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers)
The two letters from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to the then Secretary of State for Defence dated 6 and 7 January 1986, which have been placed in the Library, reveal the fact that advice was given by him on 31 December 1985 and on those two days. In accordance with the convention on Law Officers' advice, I am not prepared to disclose whether I or my hon. and learned Friend was asked to give legal advice on the proposed financial reconstruction arrangements for Westland plc on any other occasion.

§ Mr. Straw
On the leak of the Solicitor-General's letter, the Prime Minister admitted to the House on 27 January that at least by 7 January she was told in general terms, that there had been contacts between my office and the Department of Trade and Industry."—[Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 657.] in advance of the leak.
Did the Prime Minister at any time between 7 January and 23 January share that general knowledge with the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, and if so, on what date?

§ The Attorney-General
The only time that I had any communication with the Prime Minister was on 22 January, when the Secretary of the Cabinet gave us an outline of his report.

§ Mr. Hayes
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is just the sort of question that amplifies the policy of the Labour party of obeying only those laws that it finds advantageous to accept? Labour Members have 13 stated on numerous occasions that advice between Law Officers and members of the Cabinet is in forbidden territory.

§ The Attorney-General
I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been a long-standing convention that neither the fact nor the content of advice should be disclosed.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
Bearing in mind that the Solicitor-General gave his advice on the usual confidential terms, will the Attorney-General tell us, first, whether the prosecution of Mr. Bernard Ingham under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act has been considered, and, secondly, why it has not been proceeded with?

§ The Attorney-General
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her statement, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, I took the view that my guidelines would not be fulfilled by any prosecution.

§ Mr. Cash
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition are following a line of disreputable questioning? Are they not pleading confidentiality when it suites them, while taking the opposite view when that suits them?

§ The Attorney-General
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is to be regretted that the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her speech have not been accepted as they should have been.

§ Mr. John Morris
When the Attorney-General replied to the House in a written answer on 16 January that the internal inquiry into the leak was still some considerable way from being completed"—[Official Report, 16 January 1986; Vol. 89, c. 614.] was he then aware that it was an inquiry into an official leak, and what legal advice was he then tendering? Was his Department consulted in any way on the proposed use of the Solicitor-General's letter? Are there precedents for Law Officers' letters being used as weapons for publicly chastising ministerial colleagues?

§ The Attorney-General
I consulted the Cabinet Secretary and expressed my view that it was essential that an inquiry into the leak should be set up. I did not know any more about the inquiry until I was informed of the results. I was informed first in summary form and then I was provided with the actual document on 22 January, the same day on which it was given to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As for leaking, I have nothing to add to what has already been said. I agree entirely with what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said in his letter of 7 January.

§ 52. Mr. Winnick
asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the offer of immunity to a civil servant arising from the inquiry into the leak of the letter sent by the Solicitor-General to the then Secretary of State for Defence on the Westland affair.

§ The Attorney-General
I refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the House with my agreement on 23 January, and to my three written answers to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on 27 January.

§ Mr. Winnick
Why did the director of information in the Department of Trade and Industry require immunity from prosecution? Is it not clear that she was 14 understandably anxious not to be used as a scapegoat in this affair? Will the private secretaries who have been involved in the matter at No. 10 and the Department of Trade and Industry be given immunity, if they so require it, as a result of the latest developments? Does the Attorney-General accept that it is most unfortunate that the Solicitor-General was used in the first place by the Prime Minister in her war against the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)?

§ The Attorney-General
There is no question of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General being used — [Interruption.] When his attention was drawn on Saturday by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the letter which had been published in full in The Times from the then Secretary of State for Defence, he telephoned the then Secretary of State for Defence and told him of his anxieties about the inaccuracies in the letter and wrote a letter, entirely of his own decision, on the Monday morning.

§ Mr. Winnick
Why was immunity given?

§ The Attorney-General
The answer to that question is the one which I have already given in a number of replies to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.

§ Mr. Spencer
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a constitutional necessity that Law Officers' advice should be confidential?

§ The Attorney-General
That is a long-established convention and one which the House should think carefully about before seeking to change it.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Did the Solicitor-General discuss his letter to the then Secretary of State for Defence with the Prime Minister on 6, 7, 8 or 9 January? Secondly, if the Solicitor-General is asked to give evidence to the Select Committee on Defence, will he be able to do so?

§ The Attorney-General
The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is no. There was no such communication on any of those days. As for the second part of his supplementary question, I would need notice.

§ Sir John Biggs-Davison
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the use by any Government of leaks by public servants is demoralising to the public service? May we be assured that the practice will now cease?

§ The Attorney-General
I cannot give that assurance, save on behalf of my own Department. I am happy to say that there have been no leaks from my Department since I have been in office. I agree with my hon. Friend that leaking of any sort is deplorable. I agree entirely with the phrase used by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General at the end of his letter of 7 January.

§ Mr. John Morris
Is it a fair summary to say that the Solicitor-General was being used by other Ministers, that the Attorney-General was hoodwinked, in that he was not told the proper basis for the inquiry, that the salient facts were known to the Prime Minister from the start, and that in the bogus inquiry he was persuaded to grant immunity when he knew, or should have known, or should have been told, that there was no question of a prosecution and that it was an official leak?

§ The Attorney-General
There is no truth in the allegation that my hon. and learned Friend was being used. 15 When I was asked to grant immunity because the girl—the information officer—was refusing to give evidence unless she had immunity and her evidence was uniquely important in the pursuance of the inquiry, I was also told enough to make it clear to me that under no circumstances would I have prosecuted her in any event.