§ Q4. Mr. Hickmetasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HickmetWill my right hon. Friend congratulate the British Steel Corporation on its excellent half-year results, which show a £68 million profit? Have we not transformed BSC into one of the most efficient and successful producers in Europe which is able to compete in world markets? Would it not be a disaster if we were to pursue the Labour party's policies and use the nationalised industries to employ more men? Do not the figures justify the chairman's view that BSC should be returned to the commercial sector and steelworkers and former steelworkers given the right to buy shares in it?
§ The Prime MinisterI join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who work in steel on their profit record. When we came to office the taxpayer was having to pay hundreds of millions of pounds a year by way of subsidy; now, the British Steel Corporation is in profit and therefore contributing to the Exchequer. I agree that the Labour party's policy of compulsory overmanning in nationalised industries is utterly ridiculous. I also agree that we must consider whether in future we should privatise the steel industry.
§ Mr. FootReverting to the right hon. Lady's replies about Sir Roger Hollis, does she recall making a statement to the House on this matter in which the charges against Sir Roger were repudiated? That was accepted by the Government and, I think, the House at the time. If the Government have altered their opinion in any way, is it not the right hon. Lady's duty to come to the House and explain the facts? Is it not shameful that Sir Roger's reputation and his family should be treated in this way by the Government, who should be carrying out what the Prime Minister said to the House?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said earlier. I stand by my earlier statement about Sir Roger Hollis.
§ Q7. Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. AtkinsWill my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the work force at Leyland Vehicles on achieving the largest share of the United Kingdom truck market by making the best products at the right price with the right support and of the right design? Does she agree that if Leyland Trucks is to succeed in a market in which too many trucks are being sold worldwide, it and many other British companies will need a flexible and competitive financial package to help export deals, preferably to match those competitors, if not to better them?
§ The Prime MinisterAs my hon. Friend is aware, those who work in that industry have enjoyed enormous help from the taxpayer. I hope that they will make more products at the right price and will continue to get more sales, which will be very welcome. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a considerable overhang of debt which the ECGD must tackle, and we must also bear that in mind.
§ Mr. Ron LewisNow that the Prime Minister has re-engaged a member of the Billy Graham evangelistic team to her staff, can she say whether the teachings of Billy Graham are being adhered to—in other words, "never tell a lie and never bear a grudge against those who disagree with you"? Assuming that is accepted, can the right hon. Lady say how much longer her hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) must serve before they get their knighthoods?
§ The Prime MinisterI congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ingenuity of his question, the full impact of which is not lost on me.
§ Mr. SpeakerStatement. I call the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. WilliamsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes it arise out of questions?
§ Mr. WilliamsYes, Mr. Speaker. You will understand that we appreciate that the Prime Minister would not want to answer questions about the debacle that is being unveiled in the Australian courts. However, not once but twice this afternoon the right hon. Lady made a categorical statement that the proceedings in Australia are sub judice. If that suggestion is allowed to stand, it will, of course, create a block on further questions and discussions. Will you give a clear ruling that this afternoon the Prime Minister has not once but twice misled the House in stating that a case before an Australian court is sub judice in this House?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs I understand it, this case, which is taking place in an Australian court, is not sub judice under our rules. We now come to the statement by the Prime Minister.
§ The Prime MinisterWith permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on my visit to the United States—[Interruption.]—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister is about to make a statement.
§ Mr. KinnockOn a point of order. Mr. Speaker. It is clear that inadvertently—and I am certain that was the case—the Prime Minister referred to the matter being heard in Australia as sub judice as it affects the proceedings of this House. The acknowledgement has been made that that is not the case. However, the Prime Minister's answers to questions influenced the direction of questions. I think that the Prime Minister would now want to avail herself of an early opportunity to say that the matter is not sub judice in this House so that the subject need not be raised in the same form again, thereby allowing questions to be raised.
§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)rose— [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have called the Leader of the House.
§ Mr. BiffenFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In making your judgment on this matter would you kindly take account of the fact that the United Kingdom Government are a party to the case in Australia and indicate how that relates to the sub judice rule?
§ Mr. SpeakerI prepare myself very carefully for Question Time every day and for every eventuality, and I took that matter into account today.
§ Mr. WilliamsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for a very helpful and clear ruling. Will you now indicate whether, in your experience, it is not the case, when an hon. Member has found that he or she has misled the House—even if inadvertently—that Member would normally make an apology to the House?
§ The Prime MinisterFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made it clear in my answer that the Attorney-General has accordingly applied in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for an injunction to prevent the publication of the Wright book. You have ruled that the matter is not sub judice in this House, but I must submit that it would be most unwise— [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is an extremely important matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".]
§ The Prime MinisterIt would be most unwise, indeed, rash of me as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to comment on a case to which the Attorney-General is party in Australia. I would have thought that most people would understand that. If not, perhaps they would understand the comments of a previous Labour Prime Minister who said:
I shall adhere to the normal practice of not commenting on security matters." — [Official Report, 29 June 1978, Vol. 952, c. 631.]
§ Mr. KinnockFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is easily seen that the Prime Minister's response does not satisfy the House. That places you in an invidious position, especially since your judgment was so unequivocal and clear. May I suggest that a period of further reflection is given to the matter because the alternative is obviously the continued distraction of the House on the matter when we have other serious business to transact? It will be necessary to give further attention to this, taking account of the matter of national security 438 raised by the Prime Minister, in order to discover whether that is the valid question under consideration or whether it is a more politically partisan question.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the Leader of the Opposition has made a wise judgment on this matter. The two matters are not connected, but they are relevant.
§ Mr. BeithFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The position remains that a challenge has been issued to the Chair. The Prime Minister gave her interpretation and her assumption that the matter was sub judice. You gave your ruling and the Leader of the House then challenged that ruling in polite terms.
§ Mr. Biffenindicated dissent.
§ Mr. BeithThe Leader of the House effectively asked you to review your ruling. I see no reason why you should be asked to alter your ruling. Therefore, we cannot move forward until the Government make it clear that they accept your authority.
§ Sir John Biggs-DavisonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled that the sub judice rule does not apply and we accept that absolutely — [Interruption.] But for the future, Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom are party to a case in a court before one of Her Majesty's Australian judges. How do Her Majesty's Government or any party to such a case obtain justice if the sub judice rule does not apply?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We have a full day ahead of us and I hope that I can clear up the matter. I said to the House that under our rules the matter before a court in another country was not sub judice. Whether it is a matter of national security is a completlely different issue and a perfectly legitimate one to call in aid.
§ Mr. Andrew Fauldsrose—
§ Mr. Skinnerrose—
§ Mr. GowFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be for the convenience of the House if you could explain how it is that a matter before one of Her Majesty's judges in Australia in a case to which Her Majesty's Government are party is not sub judice under the rules of the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall take all the points of order together.
§ Mr. FauldsOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not called the hon. Gentleman yet.
§ Mr. FauldsI was on my feet first.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I decide the order in which I take these questions.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put it to you that the people of Australia are having reported to them our proceedings, and questions on the Order Paper, in detail. It is most important that the position is clarified, because today in Australia there are calls for the resignation of Sir Robert Armstrong in so far as yesterday he had to admit in a court of law in Australia that he deliberately misled the court by submitting in affidavits some days ago inaccurate information. I and my hon. Friends have pressed for a 439 statement on this matter from both the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister, but none has been made. I again ask that a statement be forthcoming. The people of Australia—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Hon. Members cannot ask for statements through me.
§ Mr. HickmetFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I speak for Glanford and Scunthorpe, not for Australia. In considering the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), will you also consider the fact that, notwithstanding that this case is in front of one of Her Majesty's judges in Australia, it might finish up before the Privy Council?
§ Mr. FauldsI am most grateful to you, Sir. Further to that point of order. It is clear that you made a ruling that the matters in Australia were not sub judice as far as this House is concerned. We are not asking the Prime Minister to make a statement on those matters. We are asking her to withdraw the incorrect assertion that she made that these matters were sub judice, and she should be required by you, Sir, to do that.
§ Mr. SkinnerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I see it, the issue is relatively simple. In the past 10 minutes there have been a series of incidents in which you and one Member of Parliament, who happens to be the Prime Minister, have been in dispute. Normally, when a Member of Parliament challenges the authority of the Chair, he has either to withdraw or leave. Why is it that a Back-Bench Member of Parliament can be called upon to withdraw when he challenges the authority of the Chair, but the Prime Minister is allowed to get off the hook? This is a classic example of where you need to show your authority, Mr. Speaker, and if you fail to do so, do not expect any of us to have to how to the Chair.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is very unlike the hon. Gentleman to threaten me. The Prime Minister has not challenged what I have said.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursShe has.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We have a heavy day in front of us. I think that we should have some quiet reflection on this matter.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursName her.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We can return to this matter on another day.
§ The Prime MinisterFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling on sub judice as far as the House is concerned. Therefore, any questions can be 440 asked. I know of no rule which means that I am circumscribed in the way in which I answer questions and as you said, I can invoke security, and have done so.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall take one more question. Mr. Lofthouse.
§ Mr. LofthouseFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of the questioners whom the Prime Minister misled by her answer— [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This seems to he an attempt to carry on Question Time.
§ Mr. LofthouseAs one of the questioners whom the Prime Minister misled— [HON. MEMBERS: "She did not mislead the hon. Gentleman."] —I should gladly accept an apology—or is the Prime Minister above this House and above you, Mr. Speaker?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister has made her position very clear. I shall take one further point of order.
§ Mr. GowFurther to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could revert to, and add to a point of order that I put to you previously? It would be of assistance to the House if you could please explain to us why it is that proceedings in a case which is before one of Her Majesty's judges in Australia, a case to which Her Majesty's Government are a party, are not sub judice for the purposes of this House? May I make a further submission to you, Mr. Speaker?
You have said, quite rightly; that this is a very important matter. We all know the basic reason for the existence of the sub judice rule. It exists so that no influence of an improper or outside kind shall be brought to bear upon the courts. — [HON. MEMBERS: "We know that.] That is the whole purpose of the sub judice rule. Even if it is correct, as you have said, that, in accordance with past precedent, a case of this kind—
§ Mr. WinnickGet to the point!
§ Mr. Gow—does not fall within the sub judice rule, would you be prepared to consider whether, in this particular case, the sub judice rule ought to apply?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I carefully calculated that a question of this kind might arise today. Therefore, I was prepared with the answer that I gave. Australia is an independent country. I shall of course reflect carefully, as I always do in exchanges of this kind, upon whether the rulings that I have given are right. If I find that I was wrong, I shall gladly and certainly return to the House and make a further statement.