§ Q1. Mr. Butterfillasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.
§ 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. ButterfillDoes my right hon. Friend recall that when, on 29 July last year, the Financial Services Bill and the insider provisions in it were being debated by their noble Lordships, the noble and learned Lord Silkin described the insider trading investigation provisions as both enormous and draconian? So draconian were they that he thought they exceeded the principles of natural justice. Does my right hon. Friend not find it surprising that Opposition parties should take the attitude that they do over revelations of insider trading today which would probably never have come to light if the legislation had not been enacted?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend makes his own point. I remind the House that this Government are fully committed to rooting out financial wrongdoing wherever it occurs, because this Government made insider trading a criminal offence and provided that upon conviction it should carry a prison sentence.
§ Mr. KinnockYou will know, Mr. Speaker, that during the course of this morning you, and we, took what action we could to uphold the Government's view that the showing of a particular film would prejudice national security. It is now apparent that earlier today a magazine published what we understand to be the substance of that film and that the 1 o'clock ITN news covered the matter in illustrated detail. Given the failure of the Government to take effective action to prevent publication of material prejudicial to national security, will the Prime Minister tell us what she now proposes to do to try to mitigate the effects of the Government's incompetence?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand the position to be as follows: yesterday the Attorney-General obtained in the High Court an interim injunction restraining Mr. Duncan Campbell or his servants or agents from disclosing or publishing or causing or permitting to be disclosed or published to any person all or any of the information within his knowledge about a defence project. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled upon this matter. With regard to the specific matters which the right hon. Gentleman raised, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is giving consideration to the New Statesman article. I should point out that, in any case, one action that undermines national security does not justify another. In the meantime, I am sure that the whole House will wish to uphold your authority, Mr. Speaker, Furthermore, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have something to say about this matter later this afternoon.
§ Mr. KinnockI agree fully with the Prime Minister that one breach, or threatened breach, does not justify a further breach. Yesterday the Government properly took out an injunction against Mr. Campbell, but if they thought that 1021 it covered all eventualities, why did they have to go back to court this morning? Is it not the case that the injunction covered neither publication nor the showing of the film? I repeat my question: what will the Prime Minister do now to mitigate that incompetence?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman heard the terms of the injunction. The interim injunction was granted restraining Mr. Duncan Campbell or his servants or agents from disclosing or publishing or causing or permitting to be disclosed or published to any person all or any of the information within his knowledge. Regarding matters in the House, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there are specific circumstances when the courts will say that the matter is for Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker has ruled and I hope that the House will wish to uphold his authority. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to uphold the authority of the Speaker and that he will carry all his party with him. Unfortunately for all of us, some people seem to be more interested in trying to ferret out and reveal information of use to our enemies than in preserving—[Interruption.]—our defence interests and thus the freedom which we all enjoy.
§ Mr. KinnockNaturally, we fully uphold your ruling, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister knows, this morning we did whatever was possible with complete readiness to try to ensure that if the Government sought to take action in court it would not be impeded by proceedings in the House. On that basis I must ask the Prime Minister why the Government took no action when it was clear for days that there was a strong possibility of the usual habit of the viewing of a film in the House? Why was that delayed until this morning? Why did the Government delay until yesterday seeking to take action against Mr. Campbell? Why did they fail to secure the prevention of the publication in a magazine? Those details are now out. What will the Prime Minister do to mitigate the effects on national security?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government took out and obtained an interim injunction yesterday, the terms of which I have made clear. A question arose about matters relating to the House upon which it was necessary to take action this morning, and the Government took that action. The matter was referred to Mr. Speaker, who made a ruling which I understand the right hon. Gentleman will uphold. I hope that he will carry all his party with him. As I haw said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is giving consideration to the New Statesman article.
§ Mr. HeseltineDoes my right hon. Friend recognise that we are concerned, not with the competence of the Government, but with the irresponsibility of an organ of Left-wing opinion? Does she further recognise that this is one more example of the failure of the Left to distinguish between the privilege of freedom of speech and a licence to peddle the nation's security?
§ The Prime MinisterI wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. Unfortunately, there are people who try to use freedom in order to destroy freedom.
§ Mr. WrigglesworthReverting to a previous question, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that the director of corporate finance at Morgan Grenfell, who resigned recently, is a former director general of the 1022 Takeover panel? Is she further aware that the chief executive at Morgan Grenfell who resigned—[Interruption.] is a former member of staff of the Bank of England? If people from these backgrounds—[Interruptions.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I ask the House to allow the hon. Gentleman to finish his question.
§ Mr. WrigglesworthIf people from these backgrounds can be responsible for such serious shortcomings in that institution, does the Prime Minister not agree that there is an overwhelming case for more independent supervision of the City now that the Government have allowed untrammelled competition there, after the big bang? Will the Prime Minister consider introducing more independent supervision than that contained in the Financial Services Bill?
§ The Prime MinisterWith regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about a particular bank, he knows that these matters are under investigation, and if he has any information to lay he should lay it before the appropriate authorities.
With regard to the action that this Government have taken, we have done more than any previous Government to try to root out fraud, wherever it occurs. In that regard we are still putting amendments through the House to current Bills to take further action, and in some places those amendments are being criticised for their severity. We shall take every action that we can to try to root out fraud, wherever it occurs.
§ Mr. FranksBearing in mind the debate earlier this week on the north-south divide and the Opposition's proposals to tackle unemployment in the north, is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent decision by Barrow district council to declare Barrow, of all places, a nuclear weapon-free zone? What words of comfort can my right hon. Friend offer to the 3,000 people and employees in the area who last month added to their existing shareholdings in Vickers?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend has made his point very effectively. I may add the point that the shipyard flourishes. It is in charge of and responsible for building the new Trident submarines which will hold the nuclear deterrent that is vital to our security. Those employees, along with many other people if they are interested in defence and national security, must be interested in returning a Conservative Government for a very long time in the future.
§ Q2. Mr. Cabornasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CabornIs the Prime Minister aware that on the ITN lunchtime news yesterday there was report about the arrest of Kelvin Chapman in connection with the vicious stabbing of the little girl down at Margate? In that broadcast it was said that the media had been asked to keep the name confidential. Unfortunately—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the sub judice rule, in respect of this case.
§ Mr. CabornI will. Only one newspaper in the country released that name, The Sun. Despite the fact that it had 1023 been specifically asked not to release the name, The Sun newspaper did so. Will the Prime Minister join with me in condemning this Murdoch publication for releasing that name and undermining the police operation? A quotation from the Maidstone police was that
the police are furious with The Sun newspaper".Will the Prime Minister condemn that Murdoch publication for this irresponsible action?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand that the case is sub judice, but I make it clear that when requests of that kind are made I believe that they should be honoured.
§ Mr. RoweIn the light of yet another horrific and fatal accident on the M2 yesterday, will my right hon. Friend take time today to commend the majority of heavy goods vehicle drivers who drive with care and discretion, and condemn those who seem to think that it is either clever or funny to harass smaller vehicles by driving much too close to them?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. I gladly join my hon. Friend in thanking and congratulating those lorry drivers, and others, who have driven carefully, as we all should, on the motorways. I should also like to thank the many people who, during the very severe weather, made great efforts to get to their places of work to carry out their jobs.
§ Q3. Mr. Snapeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. SnapeWas the Prime Minister aware of, and will she comment on, the telephone call made last Sunday by the press office at No. 10 Downing street to Mr. David Stevens, the chairman of United Newspapers, berating him for the publication in the Star of the roll of dishonour of Ministers and Conservative Members who defeated the private Member's Bill last Friday? Does the Prime Minister think that it is a proper use of public funds for a civil servant such as Mr. Bernard Ingham to bribe, berate and blackmail—[Interruption.]—to bribe, berate and blackmail that small section of the Fleet street press which does not already kowtow to the right hon. Lady?
§ The Prime MinisterI know of no such telephone call. [Interruption.]
§ The Prime MinisterAs I understand that hon. Members—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister.
§ The Prime MinisterAs I understand that hon. Members who ask such questions are responsible for the facts which they allege, I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give me the evidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
§ Mr. Robin CookOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes it arise out of questions?
§ Mr. CookYou will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that you served a ruling on me this morning preventing me from proceeding with a private showing to me and colleagues of the BBC banned film. Your ruling turned on the injunction which was granted yesterday against Duncan Campbell. You will be aware that I and my colleagues 1024 have, of course, observed your ruling, but now that the chance to discuss that ruling with you has come round, you will understand that we wish to put to you considerations why we would invite you to reflect on that ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe that I am perfectly in order if I put such considerations to you, Mr. Speaker. May I put to you two considerations which may not have been available to you when you made your ruling this morning?
First, this morning, an application was made by the Attorney-General for an injunction against me and 14 other named Members of Parliament to prevent the showing of this film. That application, which may have been made quite rightly, was also quite rightly thrown out by the courts. As the same judge who granted yesterday's injunction has declined to grant a specific extension of that injunction to encompass those named Members of Parliament, may I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it might be open to you to reconsider your ruling, as the judge who granted the injunction on which you found has chosen not to specify the Members of Parliament covered by that injunction?
The second consideration that I should like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, to invite you to reflect on your decision, is that, since you made your ruling, it has become patently clear that the information in the film that we were about to see is public knowledge and is widely disseminated, and not merely through the medium of the New Statesman. It was also the lead story at lunchtime today on a private sector television channel.
It is clear from the information now in the public domain that the film raises matters of considerable public concern, such as, was the expenditure an appropriate charge on the Defence budget, and were undertakings to Parliament contravened? These are matters that Parliament should have an opportunity to consider and to make up its mind about. More important, it would be eccentric if Members of Parliament were to deny to themselves the opportunity to consider information which is now widely available to our constituents and which may be obtained on any bookstall in any railway station in Great Britain.
In the light of these two developments, Mr. Speaker, may I invite you to consider your ruling and, if necessary to reflect upon it overnight and come back, I hope, with a decision that will enable the House to consider the very important issues of public policy raised by the matter.
§ Mr. HayesFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We heard the Leader of the Opposition say a few moments ago that he abides by your ruling. We have heard as well that he abides by the injunction that was applied for by Her Majesty's Government. Yet now we have heard from one of his closest advisers, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who seeks to challenge your ruling. Perhaps we could have a full statement from the Labour party.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is a matter of very considerable importance to the whole House. Perhaps the House will allow me to say a word about it.
I was told yesterday evening that hon. Members intended to show a film in the House which had been the subject of a High Court injunction preventing its showing. This raised issues which I believe the House will itself wish to determine in relation to the rooms in the Palace under 1025 the control of the House. To provide time for this to be done, I gave instructions that nothing should occur to prejudice the position until the House itself had an opportunity to discuss the matter.
As I say, this is a matter for the House, but the House was not sitting at 11 o'clock this morning when it was intended to show the film. Therefore, urgent administrative action had to be taken, and that is what I authorised. The House should now consider the matter in due course and make its own determination.
1026 The precise application of an injunction is a matter of law. What I was doing was to ensure that, whatever the scope of its application, the injunction should be observed within our precincts until such time as the House makes its own determination on the matter.
§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)It might he helpful if I indicate that the Government recognise that this is a topic of the utmost importance which the House should have the opportunity to debate at an early date. The matter is now being prosecuted through the usual channels.