§ Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if a copy of the Solicitor-General's letter of 6 January to the then Secretary of State for Defence was shown to her chief press secretary before officials from the Department of Trade and Industry contacted her office about bringing the letter into the public domain.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to the full account which I gave to the House in my statement on 23 January,Official Report, columns 449–51, and in the debate on 27 January, Official Report, columns 651–58.
§ Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister (1) if Her Majesty's Government received any representations from Westland plc after 3 January about the continuing validity of her letter of 1 January to Sir John Cuckney about Government policy on the future of Westland; and if she will make a statement;
(2) what factors determined the timing of the letter sent to Westland plc on 13 January by the permanent undersecretary of state at the Ministry of Defence concerning Government policy on the future of the company.
§ The Prime MinisterAs is clear from the text of Sir Clive Whitmore's letter of 13 January to Sir John Cuckney, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House on 27 January, that letter was written in response to a letter from Sir John Cuckney of 10 January putting questions about Government policy.
§ Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister (1) on what basis the Cabinet Secretary had reason to believe that Miss Colette Bowe would ask him about the position regarding the possible granting of immunity from prosecution;
(2) if she will define the nature of the inquiries by the Cabinet Secretary of other Departments on 10–11 January about the leak of the Solicitor-General's letter;
(3) for what reason the Cabinet Secretary believed that the particular person to whom he went first in his preliminary inquiries had passed information about the Solicitor-General's letter of 6 January to the Press Association;
(4) when precisely the Cabinet Secretary sent the report of his leak inquiry to the Attorney-General;
(5) how the Solicitor-General's letter to the then Secretary of State for Defence was brought to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry's press secretary; and how soon this was done after it was received by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's private office;
(6) what evidence was sought or obtained by the Cabinet Secretary as to whether she had made any inquiries about who had leaked the Solicitor-General's letter to the then Secretary of State for Defence, prior to the inquiry being authorised;
(7) what specific evidence was available to the Cabinet Secretary which led him to believe that officials did not understand what they were being asked to do in relation to giving information on the Solicitor-General's letter of 6 January to the Press Association.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to the full account which I gave to the House in my statement on 23 9W January—[Official Report, columns 449–451]—and in the debate on 27 January—[Official Report, columns 651–658].
§ Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister what factors Her Majesty's Government take into account in deciding the timing of the release of information of commercial sensitivity, having regard to relevant market factors; and how these factors were applied in relation to the disclosure of parts of the Solicitor-General's letter to the then Secretary of State for Defence relating to Westland.
§ The Prime MinisterNo general answer can be given to the first part of the question: any steps to be taken by the Government must depend on the specific circumstances involved.
As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have nothing to add to my statement on 23 January and my speech on 27 January.
§ Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 11 February, what action was taken in connection with the report by the then Secretary of State for Defence alleging that the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had urged the managing director of the leading company in the European Westland Consortium to withdraw in the national interest, during the period between the receipt by the private office of that report on 8 January and the discussion of Westland plc by the Cabinet on 9 January.
§ The Prime Minister[pursuant to her reply, 14 February 1986, c. 561]: I regret that the hon. Member was given an inappropriate answer to this question on Friday. The answer should have been as follows: I have nothing to add to my answer of 11 February—[Official Report, c. 414].