HC Deb 22 April 1988 vol 131 cc1170-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

2.39 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I can only say to the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce)—who is to reply to the debate—in his other capacity as Minister for the Arts that it seems I whistled in the wind when I wrote to the Prime Minister and asked her to answer for the conduct of her private office, as, alas, she has not made it.

It is appropriate that the fag-end debate of this week should be about public behaviour. On Wednesday night the Leader of the House gave figures, to which I have contributed, of the number of suspensions in the 1980s, and ,the Father of the House pleaded that the rot should stop. Agreed. But the rot comes down from the top.

The purpose of the debate is to draw the attention of my parliamentary colleagues of all parties to the accelerating arrogance of power of No. 10 Downing street. I say of all parties, because there are Conservatives, who in their private moments, are no less worried than I am about the decline of Cabinet Government, the increase in prime ministerial power at the expense of the Foreign Office and other great Departments of state, which would have shocked even the late Professor John Mackintosh MP, had he been spared, the systematic attempt by this Prime Minister to downgrade and ridicule the Opposition, and, for the protection of the position of the Prime Minister, the resort to organised mendacity.

Before turning to particulars, may I anticipate what has been said to me from the Government Benches in the past about my attacking civil servants who are not in a position to answer back. Albeit that Mr. Charles Powell, dubbed deputy Prime Minister by former Foreign and Commonwealth Office colleagues, according to the Illustrated London News, and Mr. Bernard Ingham have become, de facto, among relatively the most powerful civil servants that our country has seen this century, their actions are the direct responsibility of their boss; and in relation to Westland, were it true that they did not share their knowledge with the Prime Minister, they should have been moved to other work in the Civil Service forthwith.

As a son of the House of Commons for over a quarter of a century, I sadly reflect that many of us are to blame for having let Parliament down by failing to insist on ministerial accountability. One example, which I know concerns my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is this: does the Prime Minister realise the extent of the offence caused by Mr. Ingham among my hon. Friends when he referred to a well-liked Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), as a semi-detached member of the Government? I do not think that a civil servant should do that. That is not just my opinion. Listen to Sir Frank Cooper, a former deputy Under-Secretary of State at the the Ministry of Defence in his Suntory lecture. Sir Frank said: The aim now is the management of the media with a very much higher degree of central control from No. 10 Downing street and with the connivance of a part of the media. There is now public relations—which I would define as biased information. I suggest that the post of Chief Information Officer at No. 10 Downing street is in fact a political job in a party sense and is not a job which is proper for a Civil Servant to fill unless he, or she, resigns from the Civil Service on appointment. If I allude to Westland, it is partly because, having got away with Westland, the Prime Minister and her close entourage imagine that they can cut all sorts of corners of public propriety and get away with it in a House of Commons which some of them have come to despise. The Prime Minister's strategy has been to let Westland fizzle out.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that leaking against senior Cabinet colleagues has been developed into a technique of Government. I share the suspicions of leading educationists in Scotland that the Prime Minister's views on opting out and amendments to the schools boards legislation were leaked, not by the Scottish Office but on the authority of No. 10 Downing street to promote the views of the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

I am 99 per cent. sure that the unauthorised disclosure of the letter from Mr. Paul Gray to Mr. Tom Jeffrey came not from the DES but from Downing street and that its purpose was to undermine the Prime Minister's own Education Secretary. As I gave the Prime Minister eight days' notice by letter that I would he raising the subject of those two letters, the Minister may care to give the House any progress report he has on the leak inquiries.

The decision to seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords on the Cavendish memoirs and, by implication, snub on points of law Lord Emslie, Lord Ross, Lord Dunpark, Lord McDonald and Lord Caulsfield emanated not from Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, who would hardly fancy taking on his future colleagues, but from Downing street. In parenthesis, I hope that Her Majesty's Government are sensitive to the situation created by their attempt to overturn the considered view of the heavyweights of the Scottish judiciary on the interpretation of Scots law by appealing to an English majority. Even I believe that that is a hazardous course.

I believe that the decision to allow the bombing of Libya from British bases was worked out with the Americans by the Prime Minister and Mr. Charles Powell without the knowledge of the Secretary of State for Defence, whose broadcast on Radio Ayr that morning revealed how little he had been consulted. I believe that the shootings in Gibraltar were carried out by the SAS on the express authority of the Prime Minister, via Mr. Charles Powell, without the Foreign Office or the Foreign Secretary knowing very much about it at the planning stage.

I believe that much of what happens under cover in Northern Ireland, such as the bugging of the hay yard where Michael Tighe was killed, has been outwith the political authority of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and that the authority came from Downing street—perhaps not even from the Home Secretary. The treatment of Stalker reveals a Government nervous of their own police force in Northern Ireland. Such nervousness is a threat to democracy.

I refer to written question No. 32 of 21 April concerning Michael Tighe, to which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland replied: I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible. I have put down endless questions on that subject and Parliament deserves a more serious reply.

Why do I believe such things about the Prime Minister when it would never have occurred to me to treat Ted Heath, Alec Douglas-Home and Harold Macmillan other than with respect? Once bitten, twice shy. The Ponting trial opened the eyes of many people. Eleven days at the Old Bailey revealed the organised mendacity of the Prime Minister. But what really revealed the unacceptable behaviour of the Prime Minister and her closest advisors was the Westland affair, the facts of which are set out many times in Hansard but particularly on 25 July 1986, at columns 851–62. If they are capable of acting as we now know they did over Westland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I doubt whether "organised mendacity" is the kind of expression that is acceptable to the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reflect on using a different form of words to express his meaning.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

No point of order can arise while I am dealing with this matter.

Mr. Dalyell

The last thing I want is to get into any difficulty with the Chair. I refer the House to column 670 of the Official Report for 19 April, where the Leader of the Opposition used the words "organised mendacity'', and column 935 of the Official Report for 20 April, when I used them in Mr. Speaker's presence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me a little guidance. Was that phrase used in referring to a particular individual?

Mr. Skinner

Yes, the Prime Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am asking the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Dalyell

My colleagues would be angry with me, and rightly, if I got into any trouble with the Chair. Certainly it is no part of my serious case to get into difficulty with the Chair, and so I am very malleable in your hands, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

My understanding is that the phrase was used previously in a general way about the Government, and the hon. Member for Linlithgow will realise that that is rather different from applying it to a named individual. If the hon. Gentleman will rephrase his remarks so that the term is used in the way it was previously, as he quoted, that will be acceptable.

Mr. Dalyell

Shall we call it "shameless lack of candour", Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has crossed my mind that there is a difficulty in the clarification of "organised mendacity" as it applies to (a) an individual and (b) the Government generally. There is always a distinction—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I was most reluctant 1:o intervene on the hon. Member for Linlithgow, because I was taking his time. Now the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is compounding that. I hope that he will respect the time limit. I am sure that the hon. Member for Linlithgow wants to be able to make his speech.

Mr. Dalyell

Perhaps it would help, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I gave way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Skinner

I wanted to say that my hon. Friend is placed in some difficulty, because this Prime Minister is the Government. What is the difference between a statement made against the Prime Minister and one made against the Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow has persuaded me that he is prepared to use a different form of words to enable himself to make progress.

Mr. Dalyell

The Minister and others have suggested that I am dredging up the past, but Westland keeps recurring. No Minister can really suggest that the Sunday Telegraph is the house magazine of the Labour party, and I doubt whether Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne and Mr. Bruce Anderson see themselves as trendy lefties. But what did they write on 3 April in their newspaper? Then there is Leon Brittan, whose behaviour since his post-Westland resignation has been honourable in the highest degree (though there has been a distinct vendetta tone in some of his elder brother Sam's articles). But the Prime Minister is in danger of repaying stoicism with contempt. Recently, while she was on the front bench, Leon rose to speak. 'Poor Leon,' she said. 'Such a sad figure these days. Poor Leon.' The only crime poor Leon has committed is to arouse her guilty conscience. How on earth can the Prime Minister have a guilty conscience if she has done nothing wrong?

Speeches flow from the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) on all kinds of important issues, but never a word of "mea culpa" over Westland, and never a hint of exoneration for the Prime Minister's shocking behaviour to him over Westland. We have to suppose that he hopes that she will one day honour her letter on his resignation, which hoped for his return to high office and the resumption of his ministerial career. That hope could not conceivably have been expressed if the story had been of a Trade and Industry Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has held that post—who for 14 days had deceived his senior civil servants, his Cabinet colleagues and his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's conscience can be left to readers of the Sunday Telegraph and to herself. I am concerned about her public behaviour, and her serious misbehaviour to and in the House of Commons.

The sequence of events as recounted by the Prime Minister is, indeed, incredible, for it requires us to believe that she had never asked herself a single pertinent question about a scandalous action which directly affected her Government. To accept the Prime Minister's full explanation, it is necessary to believe that both she and Bernard Ingham had behaved entirely out of character; that she had never thought to ask a man in her own office, with whom she worked in conditions of great intimacy, how a leak of major political significance had been effected; and that he, who knew more about the art of leaking than any other man in the country, had never told her what had happened. At best, the explanation showed a Prime Minister apparently unable to control her own officials, but approving of the use of smear tactics against a fellow Minister—something that has been done again and again. In columns 993–95 of yesterday's Hansard, early-day motions encapsulate prime ministerial behaviour on Westland. If the Prime Minister behaved properly, why has not so much as a letter of protest seeking an apology—let alone a lawyer's letter—been sent to Messrs. Cole, Critchley, Peter Jenkins, Leigh, Linklater and Tyler? The only explanation is that the Prime Minister knows full well that the authors' implication of her own gross misbehaviour is justified.

I refer in passing to the bizarre episode just before Christmas 1987 when an entire expensive edition of The House Magazine was withdrawn and pulped. For what conceivable reason? A professor of journalism, a regular contributor to The Times—Hugh Stephenson—had written in a review of Peter Jenkins' book "The Thatcher Revolution", references to page 196 calling attention to a contact between Sir Brian Hayes, GCB, and Sir Robert Armstrong, GCB, about a Law Officer's letter. Why should that comment, uniquely among all the articles by politicians, some of them pretty contentious in fact, be the cause of pulping a whole stock? The only possible explanation is that the contact between Hayes and Armstrong undermined the truthfulness of the Prime Minister's position on Westland.

I refer to David Frost's interview on Sunday morning before the general election when he asked the Prime Minister four times why she had said: I may not be Prime Minister at 6 pm tonight. That was 27 January. Eventually, she vouchsafed: It was just one of the things one says. Hardly—if one has been in Downing street for eight years and is seeking a third term. Nor is it an excuse to suggest that Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham can know the Prime Minister's mental processes so well that they know instinctively what she would want done. Were that the explanation, the private office would be the most deeply corrupt form of medieval court, unacceptable in Britain in the 1980s, and Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell should have been shunted out of Downing street, let alone unprecedentedly promoted in post.

I refer to the Defence Select Committee's fourth report for 1985–86, paragraph 187 of which says: It must therefore be the case that Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell were in a position to tell the Prime Minister on 7 January what turned out to be the principal findings of Sir Robert Armstrong's inquiry more than a fortnight later". Paragraph 188 expresses the Select Committee's incredulity: Yet on 7 January Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell did not share their knowledge-not with Mr. Nigel Wicks, the Prime Minister's Principal Private Secretary, not with Sir Robert Armstrong and not with the Prime Minister. Supposing this were true, it would have been a dereliction of duty of such an order that Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell should have been moved forthwith from the private office.

Mr. Powell is an extremely efficient and politically aware civil servant. Such a loyal, competent man would never have left his Prime Minister in a vulnerable, exposed position by withholding such essential political information from her. The Downing street private office, I am told by both Labour Prime Ministers, is superbly good at telling Prime Ministers what they need to know.

On 2 February at column 852, I asked who brings the greater dishonour on Parliament—a Back Bench Member who resorts to unparliamentary language or a Head of Government who misuses a Law Officer's letter and then displays a shameless lack of candour about what she has done. The Prime Minister sidestepped the question, but it received some publicity. Yet again, I am told by those in a position to know, who I shall not betray, as retribution would follow, that Mr. Powell told the Prime Minister everything about the Law Officer's letter from early January onwards.

So what becomes of the Prime Minister's crucial, indispensible statement in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) which ran: I did not know about the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's own role in the matter of the disclosure until the inquiry had reported."—[Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 657] I was going to say that that is a lump of organised mendacity, but I had better say shameless lack of candour.

If the Prime Minister had not resorted to that shameless lack of candour, she could hardly have remained Prime Minister and would have been sending for the removal vans for No. 10 Downing street. Perhaps I am an old-fashioned person who arrived here, one of a dwindling band of 35 Members, in time to witness the Profumo affair. One of my formative impressions is that truthfulness to the House of Commons is paramount and that shameless lack of candour is unacceptable. Those who resort to shameless lack of candour should not be allowed to get away with it. No behaviour could be graver than the sustained shameless lack of candour by the Head of Government.

Some people say that Labour Members behave badly. Others, albeit noiselessly, say that I behave badly, but anything that we have done is as nothing to the actions of a Head of Government who remains Head of Government by dint of shameless lack of candour to the House of Commons. The political sanctity of truth to the House of Commons on matters of public behaviour is even more important than physical injury to the Mace.

If, with the acquiescence and knowledge of key members of their private office, Heads of Government are allowed to get away with shameless lack of candour to the House of Commons, the rot in public behaviour will not stop.

3.1 pm

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce)

I am grateful for the courteous remarks made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at the beginning of his speech. He has a perfect right to raise such issues in an Adjournment debate. That is in the very nature of our democratic system.

I admire the hon. Gentleman's persistence and genuine concern, but he shows a remarkable consistency in his obsession with certain issues and a lack of proportion. His suggestions of, to quote his words, a campaign of organised mendacity or, to quote his fallback words, a shameless lack of candour on the part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is totally unworthy of him. He must accept that the vast majority of citizens are, quite rightly, more interested in the changes brought about by the Government and their achievements than in the latest chapter in the hon. Gentleman's campaign to try to discredit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is widely accepted as a leader of great integrity. Her achievements over the past nine years are remarkable and historians will come to judge her as one of our greatest Prime Ministers. The hon. Gentleman may have reacted in that way because he would like his own party to he in Government.

The importance of those who support a Minister in his private office cannot be overemphasised. Anyone who has held ministerial office would, I am sure, agree that we are well served by those able and hard-working people. The demands made upon those in the private office of No. 10 must, inevitably, be that much greater and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has on many occasions praised the excellence and dedication of her staff. I am very glad to take this chance to add my support to that view.

All unauthorised disclosures of official information are to be deplored. Whenever they occur, they are investigated by whatever means seem appropriate, but it is not the usual practice to comment in detail on such matters. It is sufficient for me to say that the latest leaks to which the hon. Gentleman referred are being thoroughly investigated and there is nothing further that I can add to that. I will, however, repeat that the Government take any breach of confidence extremely seriously.

For a Minister to be able to function effectively, he must be confident that he can trust those around him. Of those closest to Ministers, the majority are, of course, civil servants. We are fortunate to have a Civil Service renowned for its professional nature. It is a politically neutral body. Civil servants act on behalf of their Ministers, not on their own behalf, and all civil servants have a duty to maintain confidences. This is essential arid must remain so. I am glad to say that I see no change In this tradition. The same high standards of loyalty must, and do, apply to all who have contact with Ministers, be they special advisers, press officers or administrative civil servants—and whether they hold high rank or low. All my experience has shown that we have a Civil Service with the highest standards of professionalism, loyalty and integrity.

I believe that that would continue to be the case, whatever the Government, whatever the political flavour in office at the time. I am certain that if the Opposition were ever to form a Government again they would be equally disturbed if there were disclosures without proper authority of details of Ministers' confidential discussions. The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the processes which lead to the formulation of Government policy, and that this often involves differences of opinion, sincerely held and hotly debated. Equally, under our constitution, it becomes the responsibility of the Government as a whole.

One of the implications of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that the Government are not open and do not give adequate information, but the Government have persistently pursued a policy of encouraging Departments to make available to Parliament and the public as much information as possible, consistent with the requirements of good government. The departmental Select Committees were, let me remind the hon. Member, introduced in 1979 by this Government and have played an important role in the parliamentary and public scrutiny of Government. Through them, this Government have been more closely and thoroughly examined than any other, and rightly so. Let me add that it is in the Government's own interest to be as informative as possible in order to explain more fully the reasons for our policies.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Luce

I should be trying to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, but I shall give way if necessary.

Mr. Dobson

Why was it that the Select Committee on Defence was not allowed to question civil servants who had taken part in the Westland cover-up, and that Sir Robert Armstrong was chosen to speak on their behalf?

Mr. Luce

My point is clear: this Government, not the Labour Government or any other Government, established for the first time in our history the departmental Select Committees which are more thoroughly challenging the Executive than have any other bodies in the past. That is a great improvement.

If I understood him correctly, the hon. Member for Linlithgow suggested that there has been politicisation of the Civil Service. That was at least partly implied in his remarks. He is absolutely wrong. When the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee looked into that suggestion in its seventh report of the 1985–86 Session, it stated that it had received no convincing evidence that the British Civil Service is being or has been politicised". That statement, from an all-party Committee, was noted with both satisfaction and agreement by the Government in the response to the report. What is more, the Government stated clearly that the Civil Service should not be allowed to become politicised.

There are, of course, those the hon. Gentleman who claim that Ministers, and the Prime Minister, are playing a much greater role now in the appointment of senior civil servants. They allege—without a shred of evidence—that only those with "correct" political attitudes are being promoted to senior positions. I refute that utterly. The criterion for promotion in the Civil Service remains as it has always been, one of merit—the best person for the job. What may well have changed—indeed, it would be surprising if this were not so—is the combination of skills and qualities looked for in the most senior civil servants. In particular, increased emphasis is now given to effectiveness in the management of resources and people, as well as the essentials of proven efficiency and the ability to provide first-class policy advice to Ministers.

I can say without hesitation that we have a Civil Service of the highest standards of professionalism, integrity and loyalty and a service that remains, as it always should, under any elected Government of the day, politically impartial.

Mr. Dalyell

I am a supporter of the Civil Service. I have not made general blanket statements about the politicising of the Civil Service. I am concerned about the operations of the private office. I read out the considered view of Sir Frank Cooper—

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nine minutes past Three o'clock.