§ Q1. Mr. Heddleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.
§ 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 addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. HeddleDo not all those who work for British intelligence owe a life-long duty of confidentiality to the Crown? Is it not the duty of the Government of the day and of Opposition parties to uphold that fundamental principle and not to relegate it for party political purposes?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is right. Hitherto, Governments of all parties have upheld that fundamental principle. Otherwise, the effectiveness of the security service would be undermined. I pay tribute to the overwhelming majority of those in the security service who recognise their obligations and duty of confidentiality.
§ Mr. KinnockMay I warmly endorse both the last question and answer? Will the Prime Minister tell us, whether the decision not to impede publication of Mr. 427 Pincher's book in 1981 was taken personally by the Attorney-General, whether the decision to put Sir Robert Armstrong in court in Australia, was taken personally by the Attorney-General?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I said to the House last Thursday, it would be inappropriate for me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—to comment on matters which may arise in the proceedings concerning the Peter Wright case in Australia while those proceedings continue. On the general question of security matters, I shall follow the precedent set by previous Prime Ministers and, I understand, set out in "Erskine May", of not commenting on security matters.
§ Mr. KinnockThis is a specific question about the decisions and responsibilities inside the Government that has no implication whatsoever for matters of national security. Although it does not raise questions about national security, it raises questions about the competence and integrity of the Government. Will the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? Did the Attorney-General personally take either or both of those decisions? In these matters, has the Attorney-General been a fool or a fall guy?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman's question is totally unworthy. [HON MEMBERS: "Answer."] On the general question of security, I shall follow the precedent set by previous Prime Ministers and, I understand, upheld in "Erskine May", of not commenting on security matters.
§ Mr. KinnockThe Prime Minister must, then, now explain what is the implication for national security of telling us whether it was an individual member of her Government who personally—not nominally and formally, but personally—took a decision that has a direct effect on the integrity of national security in this country.
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are indivisible. [Interruption.] The decisions are decisions of the Government and not of particular Ministers. If he wishes to table a motion of censure, he is fully entitled to do so.
§ Sir Anthony GrantIs my right hon. Friend aware, when she is today considering some of the nonsense on security matters appearing on the Order Paper, that one of the names on the Order Paper is that of Sir Arthur Franks, who is a most distinguished public servant with a gallant war record? Any innuendoes against such persons under the cloak of parliamentary privilege are disgraceful.
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend. How the Order Paper is treated is a matter for the House of Commons.
§ Dr. OwenAs it was the Prime Minister who broke the precedent of all previous Prime Ministers when she answered questions on the Floor of the House on security issues, will she now reconsider the necessity for the House to have a better way of scrutinising the security services than using the Order Paper or the Floor of the House of Commons? The right hon. Lady has been offered the opportunity to move this issue away from partisanship and to put it into a Select Committee made up of right hon. and hon. Members of both parties. In that way, the sort of exchange to which the Prime Minister has objected could be overcome.
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman often proposes in Opposition what he did not have in office. We understand why—he is doing it for party political reasons. I repeat: the practice and custom of all Prime Ministers of all parties is to adhere to the normal rule of not commenting on security matters. That practice is upheld in "Erskine May", and I shall follow it.
§ Mr. AitkenIn view of the increasing difficulties created by the judge's rulings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, will my right hon. Friend consider whether the time has come for the Government to impose a moratorium on all legal activities relevant to historical matters concerned with the late Sir Roger Hollis? Instead, will she consider asking the Security Commission to review any continuing security problems from that era and make recommendations to Parliament, first, on how best to preserve the duty of confidentiality among retired security officers who live overseas and, secondly, on how best to install some form of permanent oversight body which might stop this type of nonsense from ever happening again?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that the practice has been the right one. The Government are concerned with upholding the principle of confidentiality and the obligations of staff, without which there can be no effective security service. We are discussing the need to have a continuing, effective security service. Those who wish to continue to have an effective security service understand the need not to discuss these matters in the House of Commons. Other people have secret services. It is a difficult problem, but I believe that the path taken by previous Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries and, indeed, previous Foreign Secretaries, while they have been in office has been the correct one.
§ Q2. Mr. Gareth Wardellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. WardellDid the Prime Minister discuss in 1980 or 1981 the likely contents of Peter Wright's book, or any allegations being made by him, with Lord Rothschild?
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing further to add—[Interruption.]—to the replies which I have previously given. If the hon. Gentleman looks in "Erskine May", he will see that my reply is upheld there.
§ Q3. Mr. Colin Shepherdasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. ShepherdDuring her busy day, will the Prime Minister consider the £1 million war chest set up by Flexilink to seek to undermine investor confidence in the Channel tunnel? Does she agree that the £700 million worth of manufacturing equipment which will be needed for that project and which is capable of being supplied by areas of traditionally high employment—traditional heavy industry—is a far greater prize for the nation?
§ The Prime MinisterI believe that the Channel tunnel offers very exciting employment possibilities. It is a billion pound project which, if it goes ahead, will be financed 429 totally by the private sector. It offers the prospect of many jobs and of better access to continental markets for many of our industries.
§ Mr. Carter-JonesMay I ask the Prime Minister a question that may unite the House? May I ask the Prime Minister whether she will look at the legislation with regard to attendance allowances and invalidity care allowances as it affects terminal cases? When it passed the legislation, the House did not intend the six-month rule to deny terminal patients their rights, and the rights of the carers and of the organisations that care for them. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that, during her busy schedule today, she will have words with the appropriate Department to get that matter put right?
§ The Prime MinisterI cannot undertake to do what the hon. Gentleman asks me, to get the matter put right, because I am not quite certain what is the other side of the story. I know, as he knows, that our record on disabled—[Interruption.]—Yes. Our record of spending on benefits for the long-term sick—[Interruption.] Our record on spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled people is up by 55 per cent. in real terms. That is an excellent record of which we are proud, and obviously Opposition Members are trying to shout so that it is not heard where it should be. I shall, of course, put the specific point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
§ Q4. Mr. Hayesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HayesWill my right hon. Friend join me and some Labour Members in condemning the hijacking of some unemployment centres by Left-wing militants who have turned those centres into hotbeds of political campaigning? Will she undertake to investigate those matters and oust those red riff-raff so that the centres can be used for their proper purpose—to help the unemployed and their families?
§ The Prime MinisterI entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is unfortunate that a project funded under the community programme should break clear and sensible rules under which it has accepted funding. I know that Manpower Services Commission officials are currently considering what further steps to take in that matter. I join my hon. Friend in his censure.
§ Q5. Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. DaviesWhy does the Prime Minister refuse to close the loopholes that allow unlimited supplies of firearms and ammunition to circulate in this country without restriction? Does she not realise that increasing penalties, as in the Criminal Justice Bill, which is to be debated today, are only part of the answer, and that her response to rising crime will never be adequate until she pays due regard to the causes of crime?
§ The Prime MinisterBy the time one sorted out the causes of crime, one could sort out the fundamental nature 430 of human nature itself. The view that we have taken is that it is the Government's duty to provide the extra resources. Consequently, we have provided the extra police and the extra equipment on a scale that has never been seen before. With regard to firearms, as the hon. Gentleman says, the Criminal Justice Bill contains provision to increase to life imprisonment the maximum sentence for carrying a firearm in the furtherance of crime.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonDuring the course of her official duties, will my right hon. Friend consider the date for the next general election? In doing so, will she bear in mind that the former alliance Member of Parliament, Neville Sandelson, has said in The Sunday Times that in every constituency that Labour might conceivably win, alliance supporters should now attune themselves to voting Conservative?
§ The Prime MinisterThe advice is excellent and I should like to endorse it.
§ Q6. Mr. Lofthouseasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. LofthouseWill the Prime Minister inform the House what authority the Attorney-General had to give confidential information from his Department to a Fleet street journalist, Mr. Chapman Pincher? Is she aware that if she fails to answer this question, as she has failed to answer the others, this House and the nation will consider that she has something to hide and that she is frightened?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman knows full well that he can ask me any questions. I am constrained by a court case in which the Government are appearing—[Interruption.] He can ask me any questions and is not constrained, but he knows that I am constrained by the court case in Australia in which the Government are appearing. Therefore, I cannot go any further than I have gone. I notice that he reflects severely on the Attorney-General: a reflection which I totally and utterly condemn.
§ Mr. Robert Atkinsrose—
§ Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonrose—
§ Mr. Fauldsrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I will take points of order if they relate directly to questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am on my feet. I will take points of order if they relate directly to Question Time. We have two statements: a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science and a Business statement. I will take points of order in their normal place after that time, unless they refer directly to questions today.
§ Mr. ShoreOn a point of order arising out of questions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) asked the Prime Minister a direct question about the role of the Attorney-General in dealing with the Chapman Pincher memoirs—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I say to the House that before we start continuing Question Time through points of order, the points made must be something on which I can personally rule.
§ Mr. ShoreThe Prime Minister replied to my right hon. Friend's question by saying that according to "Erskine May" the question fell within a security classification and, therefore, she was entitled not to reply to it. There is an entire list of precedents, a file of precedents, on which such claims can be made according to "Erskine May". I would be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would help the House by checking the file and reporting back to us whether the matter comes under the classification of security, under which the Prime Minister is entitled not to answer.
My second point of order arises from another reply from the Prime Minister. She said that her Government were "indivisible" and, therefore, she could not give any separate answer about the role of the Attorney-General. Surely it is a constitutional fact and an accepted principle of the constitution that the Attorney-General has a special position within the Government and gives advice quite separate from the collective decisions of Government? Therefore, he should not be incorporated in the collective views of Government. Surely that is correct.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not need any help. The rules regarding what is admissible, as the Prime Minister mentioned at Question Time, are set out on pages 342–43 of "Erskine May". That is public knowledge and the entire House knows about it. The Prime Minister's answer on the indivisibility of Government is not a matter for me. It is not a matter of order for the Chair.
§ Sir Peter TapsellFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that a Minister is entitled at any time to refuse to answer any question?
§ Mr. Robert AtkinsOn a point of order relating to Question Time today, yesterday and the day before, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] You asked for points of order relating to questions today, Mr. Speaker, but the matter also applies to questions yesterday and the day before. It has been alleged in some newspapers, and I am advised that it is correct, that matters raised in Question Time today, yesterday and the day before relate to matters happening in Australia at present which are sub judice in Australia. Those matters are being raised as a direct result of communications with the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and with officials in the Leader of the Opposition's office. These matters are sub judice in Australia. Will the matter be allowed to continue to such an extent that anything happening in Australia to which the United Kingdom Government are a party will be raised on the Floor of the House, where disreputable remarks are being made about people who cannot defend themselves?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that I dealt clearly with that question yesterday. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look carefully at Hansard and what I have said about the tendency in this place to name people who have no redress, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. I am tied by the rules governing this House. I am not tied by any rules that govern any other Parliament.
§ Mr. DalyellFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With characteristic courtesy the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) said that he might raise the subject of Sir Arthur Franks. My question 432 elicited a rather positive answer from the Attorney-General on the subject. I am exceedingly careful how I use the Order Paper—[Interruption.] I defy any hon. Member to say that I have abused the Order Paper in naming individuals. In view of the important answer given by the Attorney-General, I look to you to confirm that my question was legitimate. The Attorney-General would not have answered that he was considering the case unless there had been something to consider. May I have your confirmation that it was not an abuse of the Order Paper to name an individual, in view of the fact that it is an important matter? It appears that some people can brief authors but that others cannot.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that that arose from Question Time today, but since the hon. Gentleman has managed to ask his point of order, I shall answer it. He tabled a question which was passed by the Table Office as being in order, so he was entirely correct.
§ Sir Anthony KershawFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your assurance that the rules of order apply to everybody equally? You may have noticed that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is able to indulge in a great deal of sedentary noise. Would you try to persuade him to let some others of us get in as well?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The whole House knows that the rules of order apply to everyone equally.
§ Mr. Skinnerrose—
§ Mr. Robert Atkinsrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I will take Mr. Skinner first.
§ Mr. SkinnerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the comments that have been made during the past couple of days, and, more important, by you today about whether motions on the Order Paper are in order, may I remind you that some of us would like to see some stern action taken when Conservative Members attack people at GCHQ by calling them traitors—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That does not arise from Question Time today.
§ Sir Anthony GrantFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that you told us yesterday that the whole question of early-day motions appearing on the Order Paper was to be considered by the Procedure Committee. Without suggesting for a moment that any hon. Member is out of order in the early-day motion that he or she has tabled, would it not bring the House into greater repute if, pending the deliberations of the Procedure Committee, we desisted from naming on the Order Paper individuals who cannot defend themselves?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe have a heavy day before us and I invite the whole House to look carefully at what I said yesterday. I shall repeat it again today. The tendency to name individuals under the cloak of privilege must be treated with the greatest caution. I am tied by the rules on early-day motions as they are at present. Yesterday I mentioned that the Procedure Committee is minded to look at the matter, and I believe that it should certainly do so.
§ Mr. Alan WilliamsFurther to that point of order, and with a slightly different version of it, Mr. Speaker. I 433 understand that it is in order for the Prime Minister to make a reply to the effect that the matter is one concerning security, and that can be made as a political statement even if, under the terms of "Erskine May", it is not covered. Will you confirm that it is open to the Opposition to check the validity of her answer by formally tabling the same question as a written question at the Table Office? If it is a security question, the Table Office will refuse to accept that question, but if it is not a security question, although it has been blocked as a supplementary question today, will the Table Office accept it as a written question?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is a hypothetical question. If a question is tabled, it will be screened as to whether there is a block upon it, in the usual way.
§ Mr. Hickmetrose—
§ Mr. Nichollsrose—
§ Mr. Marlowrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. As I mentioned yesterday, this tendency to pursue Question Time through points of order is a bad habit. I said yesterday, and the House agreed, that we should stop it, and I hope that we shall.
§ Mr. ForthFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, you said that you were not prepared to take points of order today on what had happened the day before. You also said:
I will take points of order only on matters that do not refer back to what happened yesterday."—[Official Report, 26 November 1986; Vol. 106, c. 271.]I ask for your guidance because it must be evident to all that, for two reasons, this must not be the case. The first is that colleagues are not always here when a matter arises in which they may have a role to play. Secondly, Hansard often gives guidance and clarification on something that may have been missed in the heat of the moment. Are you prepared to guide the House as to whether it is possible to "refer back" to what may be in Hansard dealing with a previous occasion, to seek clarification or guidance? Are you able to give the House this guidance?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is a question of the context in which these things are done. If it is a legitimate matter, that is one thing, but if it appears to be what I can only describe as part of a general excuse to seek to get things raised, it is a different matter. This House would be in chaos if the Chair allowed points of order to arise on matters that had arisen several days in the past. That has always been the rule.
§ Mr. GowFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your ruling on a specific matter. Have not you and your predecessors ruled consistently that an answer given by a Minister is not a matter for you, and that Ministers, not the Chair, are responsible for the content of their answers? Therefore, is it not the case that the point raised by the shadow Leader of the House, who sought to raise a point of order arising out of the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, was no point of order because answers given from the ministerial Dispatch Box are not a matter for you?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is entirely the case, but the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that a great many points of order are spurious, as many have been today.
§ Mr. NichollsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reference has been made in a number of questions to the content of the Order Paper. You will have seen a number of motions in the names of Labour Members dealing with various security matters that seem to have attracted a great many names. When one puts in an early-day motion in these terms, in the names of many hon. Members, perhaps even Front Bench spokesmen, is it necessary for those people to have signed the paper, or is it sufficient for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to have a list of hon. Members who are prepared to help him in his muckraking efforts—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not know about things like that. The hon. Gentleman well knows the rules regarding the tabling of questions.
§ Mr. HefferYou referred, Mr. Speaker, to "the tendency". Could you please explain to the House to which tendency you are referring?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think not the same one as the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Now we will have the statement.
§ Mr. Hickmetrose—
§ Mr. Marlowrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Points of order are taking up a great deal of time. I shall take these two points of order and then we must move on.
§ Mr. HickmetFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You ruled some days ago that the proceedings in South Africa—Australia—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let me help the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Hickmet.
§ Mr. HickmetYou ruled, Mr. Speaker, some days ago that the proceedings in Australia were not sub judice. However, would you rule on this point: in a case to which the British Government are a party overseas, is it in order for Members of this honourable House to cross-examine Front Bench spokesmen on behalf of counsel who act for parties against whom the British Government are appearing? I refer in particular to the cross-examination carried out by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon of the Prime Minister on behalf of counsel acting for Peter Wright in Australia.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, as I understand it. He knows that this matter, as I ruled previously, is not sub judice under our rules. It may be sub judice under the rules of the Australian Parliament, but it is not sub judice under ours.
§ Mr. MarlowFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are confronted now with this very vexed issue of names being named outside this House. You have said that this is something that the Select Committee on Procedure might be minded to look into. May we ask you, Sir, as the guardian of privilege in this House, to put it before the Select Committee? Could you say whether you would be minded to give evidence? If you did so, would that evidence be published?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If I am invited by the Select Committee to give evidence, I shall certainly do so.
§ Mr. Michael BrownWould it be helpful at this stage—
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. We shall now take the statement of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.