§ Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister why, pursuant to the answer of 17 February, Official Report, column 9, on Westlands, she considered the answer given on 14 February, Official Report, column 561, inappropriate.
§ The Prime MinisterMy office wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 14 February.
§ Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was aware of the likely contents of the letter from the Solicitor-General to the then Secretary of State for Defence before extracts from the letter were read to him over the telephone on 6 January; and if she will make a statement;
(2) whether the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry discussed with his private secretary or his chief information officer the possibility of disclosing the contents of the Solicitor-General's letter to the then Secretary of State for Defence, before extracts from the letter were read to him over the telephone on 6 January; and if she will make a statement;
(3) when Sir Robert Armstrong first discussed with (a) her, (b) the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (c) the then Secretary of State for Defence and (d) Mr. Bernard Ingham the letter from the Solicitor-General of 7 January to the then Secretary of State for Defence, protesting at the leak of his letter of 6 January;
(4) when and by what means the chief information officer at the Department of Trade and Industry and the press secretary at No. 10 Downing street first became aware that a letter was to be sent by the Solicitor-General to the then Secretary of State for Defence alleging material inaccuracies;
(5) what action Mr. Bernard Ingham understood her to want taken after receipt of the letter from the Solicitor-General to the then Secretary of State for Defence on 6 January; and what basis he had for this understanding.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to the full account which I gave to the House in my statement on 23 January at columns 449–460 and in the debate on 27 January at columns 651–658.