Westland plc

§ Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn)

I beg to move, That this House do now Adjourn.

Leave having been given on Thursday 23 January under Standing Order No. 10 to discuss: The circumstances surrounding the publication of classified information relating to the future of Westland plc.

§ Mr. Kinnock

For all of the people in the Westland company, the affairs of that company are obviously vital. For most of us outside the company, the affairs of the company have become increasingly important in recent months. But no one inside or outside the Westland company would have considered four weeks ago that this matter could become one of such current critical significance.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it was a comparatively small thing. Now it is palpably a very big thing. It has grown in size because of the actions and the attitudes of the right hon. Lady and Members of her Administration. Of course, the Prime Minister says that it would never have assumed this proportion but for the fact that one member of the team was not playing like a member of the team. It is plainly true that we and the country would not have known what we know now but for the fact that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) kicked over the bucket of worms by resigning earlier this month. All the dishonesty, duplicity, conniving and manoeuvring would still have been taking place. We would not have known about it quite so quickly and quite so clearly.

Evasions, manoeuvrings and deceits nurtured this comparatively small thing until it became a very big thing. It was turned from an issue into a crisis by the dishonesty of people in this Administration. That dishonesty infected the Government's whole approach to the affairs of Westland plc. There was a basic duplicity of their public dispassion about the affairs of that company and their private partisanship in the bids that were being made for Heseltine—[Laughter.]—for Westland. I think that may be the last occasion on which Conservative Members of Parliament have cause to be amused in this debate. Clearly, they hold a cavalier attitude towards dishonesty, which may explain the attitude of many of them—

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to accuse hon. Members of this House of dishonesty?

§ Mr. Speaker

I think the Leader of the Opposition would wish to withdraw any allegation of dishonesty against Members of this House.

§ Mr. Kinnock

I only withdraw allegations if the cap does not fit—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a debate in which the House is taking a great interest. I ask the House to keep it on a level which is in keeping with our conventions. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition, at the beginning of his speech, would wish to get us off to a good start.

§ Mr. Kinnock

You have that guarantee, Mr. Speaker, and it will continue like that—

§ Hon. Members

Withdraw.

§ Mr. Speaker

Order. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw any allegations of dishonesty.

§ Mr. Kinnock

I said that hon. Members opposite have a cavalier attitude towards dishonesty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of the view that you take of affairs, I will certainly withdraw what I said earlier. I said that the Government's attitude was one of public dispassion and private partisanship. There are also the standing charges that still exist about moved meetings and minutes that were incomplete, and now we have the differing versions still existing of the meeting between Sir Raymond Lygo and the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We know enough of the truth about the connivings of 6 January to understand that the dishonesty has run right through this whole episode. [Interruption.]

All dishonesty has to stop. We have had two dress rehearsals from the Prime Minister full of half-truths and concealments. Today the Prime Minister must come clean. That is not only my view; it is the view expressed throughout the country and expressed by the Home Secretary in the course of his interview yesterday. Today, the Prime Minister must answer the questions that she signally and significantly failed to answer six times last Thursday.

First, when did the Prime Minister find out about the decision to leak, how it was to be done and who was to do it? Secondly, how can the Prime Minister explain her claim that she did not know what action was being taken? Thirdly, did the Prime Minister establish an inquiry in response to the justifiable outrage of two Law Officers who felt that their integrity was being abused and compromised—

§ Mr. Churchill (Davyhulme)

rose—

§ Mr. Kinnock

—or was there an additional reason for that? After seven days delay, did the Prime Minister establish an inquiry whose conclusions would not in the normal course of events be published, simply because she knew that demands for such an investigation would most certainly be made? Was that inquiry established for detection or was it established for deception? Was it set up to obscure the issues and to provide an excuse for silence? Was it set up by a Prime Minister who knew very well who had leaked, why they had leaked, when they leaked and what they did it for?

The Prime Minister must give clear and truthful answers to all of these questions. She must make no mistake. Today the Prime Minister is on trial. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The main testimony against the Prime Minister is provided by herself. It is provided by her own words to this House last Thursday, and testimony is further provided by the whole nature of her style of governing. How could it be that a Prime Minister who prides herself so earnestly on her involvement in detail; who prides herself so much on her knowledge of the minutiae of her Government; who has such a deep engagement historically in the Westland affair did not know of a supremely important decision, taken by those so very close to her, to manipulate events on 6 January?

How can it be—

§ Mr. Churchill

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but before he accuses others 648 of deceit, will he explain whether it was deceit that led him to falsify his age when he first put himself forward for political candidature or did he just forget how old he was?

§ Hon. Members

Oh, no.

§ Mr. Kinnock

I think that that may be the best that Conservative Members will be able to do in the course of this afternoon. That was certainly the last time that I inadvertently added a year to my age.

On the testimony against the Prime Minister, provided by herself, we have to ask how it could be that seven days could pass before she recognised that the issue of the leak was so important that it warranted an inquiry. Who would expect us or the country to believe that 16 days could pass between the corrupt practice of that leak and the Prime Minister's discovery of the details when the plotters were her closest confidants—her most frequent companions?

Who would expect the House or the country to accept that in all that time the Prime Minister never asked her associates to venture even a guess about the identity of those involved in the leak? Who can expect us to believe that in all those endless hours of contact, through all those days of discussion and debate and questions, and statements in the House and in the even closer quarters of No. 10 Downing street, the Prime Minister was really blundering around in blissful ignorance of the actions of 2 January? Who would expect us to believe any of that?

Well, obviously the Prime Minister expects us to believe that. It is clear that the Prime Minister expects the House, her party and her fellow citizens to suspend all normal standards of belief and to accept that it is strange but true. "Truth," she said on television yesterday, "is often stranger than fiction." When we heard that, as when we heard her last Thursday, many of us wondered whether the Prime Minister had lost the ability to tell the difference between truth and fiction.

We want to know truthfully now exactly when the Prime Minister first knew of the decision to send the Solicitor-General's letter. We want to know truthfully now exactly when she first knew of the decision to leak the Solicitor-General's letter. We want to know now exactly when she first knew of the involvement of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and her office in the conspiracy. When did she first know that he had given his authority, as she put it, and when they had given their cover, as she put it, to act in good faith—act in good faith by making a furtive phone call to the Press Association for the specific and carefully contrived purpose of discrediting another member of her Cabinet?

We know that the right hon. Lady has not answered those questions. She has admitted that herself. Any statement, she said yesterday, is almost always a basis for further questions. That may be the understatement of the Prime Minister's lifetime. [Interruption.] But all we have had so far are excuses for the omissions and evasions of last week—no apologies for not answering questions with meticulous accuracy; just attempted excuses. All we have had is the propaganda about "toughing it out"—a phrase, Mr. Speaker, which you will recall first entered the British vocabulary when it came out of Richard Nixon's office.

We are told that last Thursday the Prime Minister was sheltering the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Home Secretary told Mr. Brian Walden yesterday—[Interruption.] They are going to hear it all, Mr. 649 Speaker—that he could feel the courage going through the Prime Minister when she made her statement, as the Home Secretary put it, "protecting Mr. Leon Brittan". That excuse has palpably gone because the late Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has gone, although, interestingly, he went not without resistance. Even when the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) wanted to do the right honourable thing and resign, the Prime Minister tried to talk him out of it and even invited him to apply for the next vacancy for "high office", as she put it.

But what of the Prime Minister's excuses for the omissions from last Thursday's statement and questions? [Interruption.] The Prime Minister said that the majority of the inquiry report—[Interruption.] Even the deliberate efforts, that will be heard by the nation, by Conservative Members to interrupt the House and to prevent someone from getting a fair hearing, will not stop the truth being heard. [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister said that the majority of the inquiry report was new to her. She said that, until the report was available, she did not have the full facts—what she called an "enormous number" of facts. As I listened to her then and to the Home Secretary yesterday, saying how much they wanted to be able to give the full facts, I began to think that it was the Government, not the Opposition, who had got the emergency debate today. [Interruption.]

The protest that there were just too many facts to be absorbed does not carry any weight at all. Of course, it is handy to have the full details for the historians—the dates, the times, the places, the footnotes. But only one fact was absolutely essential for the Prime Minister; one fact really mattered, and that was the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and her office had conceived, organised and executed the leak. That was the fact which mattered and it was the fact which the right hon. Lady was forced to admit last Thursday. It was also the fact—the single salient fact—that the right hon. Lady was denied for over a fortnight.

Who were these people who decided to keep the right hon. Lady in the dark? Who were these merciless people who made the Prime Minister, in her innocent ignorance, go through the charade of the inquiry into the leak? [Interruption.]

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Do something about the giggling schoolgirls opposite.

§ Mr. Speaker

Order. I did not see anything going on.

§ Mr. Kinnock

Whatever anyone sees, the whole country will be able to hear what has been going on. Once again, Conservative Back Benchers have decided that, because they cannot take the truth, they will try to bury it. [Interruption.]

We want to know who were the people who prevented the Prime Minister from being able to gain access to the single fact about the involvement of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and her office in the decision to leak. Who were the cynics who let the Prime Minister be in the dark for 16 days? Who let her come here to tell truths so partial, so incomplete, that they began to look like untruths and who let her come to make a whole speech in this House on 15 January without telling her that they 650 knew who had leaked, how they had leaked and why they had leaked? Who were these callous people who caused the Prime Minister so many problems over the weeks?

Why, they were the Prime Minister's own Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and, strangest of all, her own office—the Prime Minister's very own office, her closest, most senior staff; her office which, in her own words, did not seek her agreement; her office, which, in her words, considered—and they were right—that I should agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry".—[Official Report, 23 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 450.] That begs the question. If her office did not tell the Prime Minister, why did her office not tell the Prime Minister? There can be only two reasons. It was either because they did not want to tell the Prime Minister or because they did not think that there was a need to tell the Prime Minister. If they did not want her to be involved, that could be for only one reason—the simple, straightforward reason that they were doing wrong, that they knew that they were doing wrong and that they did not want the Prime Minister to be contaminated by the guilt.

Of course, it may be that they thought that the Prime Minister did not need to know about what was going on. They might have said to themselves, "There is no need to tell the Prime Minister. We know what her attitude is to Westland. We know her attitude to the turbulent Secretary of State for Defence. We know what her attitude is to his campaign and we know what her attitude would be to us using dirty tricks to defame and undermine the Secretary of State for Defence."

Were the people in the Prime Minister's office actually right about that? Do they really know the Prime Minister? Either they do know the Prime Minister and they think of her as a woman who would stoop to conquer, no matter how low, or they are totally mistaken and she is not the woman that they think.

From the Prime Minister's statement last Thursday it appears that they do not know the Prime Minister. We have the Prime Minister's own word for it. She told us that her office did know her well enough to guess accurately that she would agree to the attitude taken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and that she did not and would not have consented, if she had been consulted, because she felt that there was a different way, a better way, to make the relevant details known.

Despite their years of close proximity and despite the deep mutual trust that has to exist between the Prime Minister and her office, it appears that they did not know the Prime Minister at all. There they were taking important decisions in her name—[Interruption.]

§ Hon. Members

Order.

§ Mr. Speaker

Order. May I say to the House that backchat does no credit to the House.

§ Hon. Members

It is deliberate.

§ Mr. Kinnock

Either they knew the Prime Minister or they did not know the Prime Minister. She says that they knew her well enough to understand that she agreed with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but that, had she been consulted, she would have told them that there was a different way and a better way that must be found to make the relevant facts known. 651 That is all despite those years of close proximity and all that close contact. Despite all of that, there they were, taking important decisions for the Prime Minister as she busied herself yards away in Downing street.

They did not tell the Prime Minister, so we are told. All the time, they were outrageously miscalculating the Prime Minister's attitude towards the correct method of putting matters into the public domain. Having made that miscalculation, they then apparently compounded the fault by allowing her to set up an inquiry into a leak which they themselves had perpetrated.

They must have been wrong—practically wrong and terribly wrong; too wrong to enable them to endure in their present positions. At least that is what we would think. How can they continue to carry out the immense responsibilities and be the object of the Prime Minister's trust when they could be so terribly wrong, so we are told, about her attitude towards the way in which that information should be released.

If they are so wrong, why have they not gone? They have not gone, and they are not going. They are not going because the Prime Minister says that she has complete confidence in them. Why has she that confidence in them? Is it because the Prime Minister, who has the reputation for. being ruthless with those who fail her, has suddenly gone soft? It cannot be that. It must not be because of charity. Can it be because of complicity by the Prime Minister? Can it possibly be that the Prime Minister is not innocent but that she is implicated and involved?

For the moment, we withhold our judgment while we wait for the Prime Minister to give her account. Last Thursday, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the Prime Minister said that she hoped that we would have the decency to accept her version of events. We have the decency; what we lack is the gullibility to accept the Prime Minister's version of events.

We want the facts. We want them now. We want only the one version that will be believed—the truth, the whole truth and absolutely nothing but the truth. If the Prime Minister cannot tell that truth, she cannot stay. If she will not tell that truth, she must go.

§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)

Before I come to the wider aspects of this debate, let us recall one thing clearly: the background is the future of Westland and its work force. We have to remember that that future still hangs in the balance. The Government's position throughout has been that it is for the company itself to take decisions about the course to follow in the interests of the shareholders and the employees, but the Government are a major customer of the company and the Government's policies and intentions in that capacity are very relevant to the decisions that the company has to take.

It is therefore of the first importance that any pronouncements by the Government that might affect the company's decisions are accurate, consistent and in no way misleading. It is largely because one member of the Cabinet could not accept arrangements designed to secure the accuracy and consistency of Government statements that we are debating the whole matter today.

I propose to deal at once with some questions that have arisen since my statement of 23 January. I shall do so under three headings: first, the circumstances leading up 652 to the letter of 6 January by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General; secondly, the reasons for having an inquiry; and, thirdly, the outcome of the inquiry.

First, I shall deal with the circumstances leading up to the Solicitor-General's letter. The House will recall that I had cleared my own letter of Wednesday 1 January to Sir John Cuckney with the Departments concerned and with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, for the reasons I have already given.

On Friday 3 January, there was an exchange of letters between Mr. Horne of Lloyds merchant bank, representing the European consortium, and my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence. In his letter, Mr. Horne asked for amplification of a statement in my letter to Sir John Cuckney. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend went into considerable detail in his reply. His letter had not been discussed with my office before it was sent, even though it dealt with points arisng from my letter to Sir John Cuckney.

On the following day, Saturday 4 January, I saw copies of the exchange of letters. In view of the very careful steps that I had taken to clear my letter to Sir John Cuckney with the Departments concerned and with the Solicitor-General, I made inquiries to find out whether the Defence Secretary's letter had been cleared in the same way with the Department of Trade and Industry and with the Law Officers. It had not. In view of the continuing need for accuracy and consistency in Government statements on this subject, I asked that a message be sent to my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as the sponsoring Minister for Westland, to suggest that he should ask the Solicitor-General to consider—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]

§ Mr. Speaker

Order.

§ The Prime Minister

—the Defence Secretary's letter and give his opinion on whether it was accurate, and consistent with my own letter to Sir John Cuckney.

The Solicitor-General, on the basis of the evidence available to him, formed the provisional opinion that the Defence Secretary's letter contained material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected. This view was reported to me. The matter clearly could not be left there. I therefore, through my office, asked him to consider writing to the Defence Secretary to draw that opinion to his attention. I learned subsequently from the Solicitor-General that he spoke to the then Defence Secretary on the telephone that same evening and told him his provisional opinion about the letter and warned him that he would probably write to him on Monday 6 January, when he had checked the documents, and advise him to correct the inaccuracy.

The Solicitor-General further considered the documents on the morning of Monday 6 January. They confirmed him in his opinion. He therefore wrote to the Defence Secretary, advising him to write again to Mr. Home correcting the inaccuracies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has asked for the further exchanges between himself and the Law Officers to be published. I have arranged for copies of the correspondence to be placed in the Library of the House.

It has been said that the letter to Mr. Horne has not been corrected. So far as the Government are concerned, we made it clear to the company—in the letter to Sir John Cuckney of 13 January from the permanent secretary to the 653 Ministry of Defence, a copy of which has also been placed in the Library of the House—that there was nothing to add to my letter to the company of 1 January.

Perhaps more to the point, my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement made it clear, in his answer to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on 13 January, that the order for six additional Sea Kings would be placed if the plans for the five-nation battlefield helicopter project were approved, whichever reconstruction proposal Westland shareholders approved, and not—as my right hon. Friend had said—only if the European consortium proposals were accepted.

I explained to the House on 23 January how extracts from the Solicitor-General's letter were disclosed to the media on 6 January. I repeat that I deeply regret that this was done without reference to the Solicitor-General. Indeed, with hindsight, it is clear that this was one, and doubtless there were others, of a number of matters that could have been handled better, and that, too, I regret.

As I said to the House in 23 January, the company was informed also. There have been reports in the newspapers to the effect that that statement was wrong, and the company had not been informed. I understand that Sir John Cuckney's office has now confirmed that he did receive a call from the Department of Trade and Industry in the early part of that afternoon. The official in the Department of Trade and Industry concerned has again clearly confirmed that he made such a call, as he told the head of the Civil Service in his evidence to the inquiry.

As the full details of the disclosure only became known as a result of the inquiry which was subsequently instituted, I propose to deal next with the question why it was decided to hold such an inquiry.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Will the Prime Minister give way?

§ The Prime Minister

I shall deal with these matters under the three headings I have given. On Tuesday 7 January—

§ Mr. Skinner

Will the Prime Minister give way?

§ Mr. Speaker

Order. The Prime Minister is not giving way.

§ The Prime Minister

On Tuesday 7 January, the day after the Solicitor-General's letter was disclosed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General sought the view of the head of the Civil Service as to whether it would be appropriate for the Law Officers to seek a formal inquiry.

After discussions between the Attorney-General and the head of the Civil Service, my right hon. and learned Friend made clear his view that there should be an inquiry. The head of the Civil Service minuted me formally on Friday 10 January seeking my authority for the institution of such an inquiry. I readily gave him that authority. In fairness to everyone, it was essential to have a full and objective report on what had happened, and it was clearly desirable that all the officials concerned should be able to give their own full accounts of their part in what had occurred.

My authority was conveyed to the head of the Civil Service on Monday 13 January. The following day, I informed the House that an inquiry had been instituted. I had been asked by the Law Officers to institute such an 654 inquiry. I was formally advised by the head of the Civil Service to do so. I had no doubt that it was right to set up the inquiry.

Indeed, on 7 January the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) an Opposition Front Bench spokesman—

§ Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

rose—

§ The Prime Minister

—wrote to me to ask that an inquiry should be set up so that—I quote: the full facts can be established". Even so, some hon. Members opposite have subsequently criticised the decision to hold an inquiry.

§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

The Prime Minister said that she received a letter from me the day following the leak. Why on earth has she not told the House whether she knew the facts of the leak at the time that she received my letter?

§ The Prime Minister

I am dealing with the setting up of the inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and I shall deal then with the outcome of the inquiry and what I did know and what I did not. I have in fact done it in what I believe is the best order.

If I had rejected the advice that I had received, if I had refused to hold a formal inquiry, the parties opposite would have had just cause to criticise me. I have no doubt that they would have done so. To be criticised when I agreed to an Opposition request to hold an inquiry is, to say the least, an unusual experience. The inquiry reported to me on 22 January.

In my statement to the House the following day, I set out the steps by which the Solicitor-General's letter of 6 January was made public, as this emerged both from the accounts of officials as reported by the inquiry and also from my subsequent discussions with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whom I should like in this House to thank for his years of devoted service.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

rose—

§ The Prime Minister

I am not giving way. I am going on because I have a long speech to make, and I must get through it.

§ Mr. Dalyell

Will the Prime Minister give way?

§ The Prime Minister

It was the common purpose of all concerned that, at a time when difficult commercial judgments and decisions had to be made by the company, it was important that all pronouncements by the Government should be accurate, in no way misleading, and consistent with each other. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker

Order.

§ The Prime Minister

It followed from that that, if a statement was made which appeared to be inaccurate or misleading or inconsistent with other Government statements, then it was the duty of the Government to make sure that the record was corrected as soon as possible.

When the Solicitor-General's letter was brought to his attention, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry took very much that view of the matter. He was clear that it was desirable to bring into the public domain as soon as possible the fact that the Solicitor-General had written to the then Defence Secretary, and the opinion he had expressed. The Secretary of State made it clear to his 655 officials that, subject to the agreement of my office, he was giving authority for the disclosure to be made by his Department, if it was not made, as he said he would prefer, from 10 Downing street. That I indicated in my statement last week.

§ Mr. Dalyell

Will the Prime Minister give way?

§ The Prime Minister

This is a very tightly drafted argument and I should prefer to go on. I will give way later. Officials in the Department of Trade and Industry—

§ Mr. Dalyell

rose—

§ Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that the Prime Minister said that she would give way later.

§ The Prime Minister

Officials in the Department of Trade and Industry—

§ Mr. Dalyell

rose—

§ The Prime Minister

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later. I wish to continue this section.

Officials in the Department of Trade and Industry approached officials in my office, who made it clear that it was not intended to disclose the Solicitor-General's letter from 10 Downing street; but, being told that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had authorised the disclosure, they accepted that the Department of Trade and Industry should make it and they accepted the means by which it was proposed that the disclosure should be made.

My officials made it clear to the inquiry that they did not seek my agreement. They told the inquiry that they did not believe that they were being asked to give my authority, and they did not do so.

§ Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham)

rose—

§ Hon. Members

Who?

§ Mr. Speaker

Order.

§ The Prime Minister

If they had believed—

§ Mr. Dalyell

rose—

§ The Prime Minister

If they had believed my authority was being sought, they would certainly have consulted me.

§ Mr. Dalyell

rose—

§ The Prime Minister

No, not at the moment. This is very important. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Officials of the Department of Trade and Industry told the inquiry that they regarded the purpose of their approach to my officials as being to seek agreement to the disclosure as well as to the method. They believed that they had the agreement of my office, and acted in good faith, in the knowledge that they had authority from their Secretary of State and cover from my office.

§ Mr. Dalyell

Will the Prime Minister allow me?

§ Mr. Kinnock

rose—

§ The Prime Minister

No, I must go on at this moment. This is vitally important.

Although, clearly, neither side realised it at the time, there was a genuine difference in understanding between officials as to exactly what was being sought and what was being given. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Dalyell

rose—

§ The Prime Minister

I have given the House the view of what officials on each side told the inquiry. That is one reason why it was vital to set up the inquiry.

§ Mr. Dalyell

rose—

§ The Prime Minister

As I indicated, officials too had the right to put their view of their part of what had occurred. I deeply resent any attacks upon them.

§ Mr. Dalyell

rose—

§ Mr. Speaker

Order.

§ Mr. Dalyell

Will the Prime Minister—

§ Mr. Speaker

No. The hon. Member knows that the Prime Minister said that she would give way later. He must not keep on rising.

§ The Prime Minister

But it is common ground. as I told the House on 23 January—it was accepted—that the Department of Trade and Industry should disclose the fact that the then Defence Secretary's letter of 3 January was thought by the Solicitor-General to contain material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected, and that, in view of the urgency of the matter, the disclosure should be made in the way that it was. I have given the House this account—

§ Mr. Dalyell

rose—

§ The Prime Minister

—of the accounts which were given to the inquiry.

§ Mr. Dalyell

rose—

§ Mr. Kinnock

rose—

§ The Prime Minister

I give way to the hon. Gentleman who has been rising, and to whom I promised to give way.

§ Mr. Dalyell

What are we to derive from the right hon. Lady's answer to the friendly intervention of her hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), the chairman of the 1922 Committee, in relation to putting it in the public domain, when she said: I gave my consent." —[Official Report, 23 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 455.] What interpretation is to be put on that?

§ The Prime Minister

I gave my consent to an inquiry, I co-operated with it and I set out the facts as fully as possible, in that statement. I noticed that I had said that. at that particular time. I did not give my consent to the disclosure. It was not sought and I have indicated that I deeply regret the manner in which it was made.

§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)

rose—

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

rose—

§ Mr. Kinnock

I am grateful to the Prime Minister. Will she tell us what conceivable misunderstanding between the Department of Trade and Industry and her office could permit them to breach the Official Secrets Act and, in the words of the Solicitor-General, "immediately and flagrantly" to violate an important rule without any form of consultation with her as head of the Government. Will she now tell us when she knew?

§ The Prime Minister

I have just set out —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have just in fact set out what my officials believed and what the Department of Trade and industry's officials believed. The right hon. Gentleman 657 will not accept that there was a genuine difference of understanding, which is something that happens almost every day in normal life, and he tries to deny it. Officials, too, have the right to be heard and not automatically be castigated by the other side. In answer to the question which I think hon. Members will be asking, I did not myself know about the disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter until some hours after it had occurred. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have been asking for the facts, and I am giving them. I have taken immense trouble to have them checked. I discussed the matter with my office the following day, when I also learned of the Law Officers' concern. I was told that the Solicitor-General's advice had not been disclosed by my office.

§ Mr. Skinner

Why have an inquiry then?

§ The Prime Minister

I was also told, in general terms, that there had been contacts between my office and the Department of Trade and Industry. 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. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent)

rose—

§ Mr. Speaker

Order.

§ The Prime Minister

Hon. Gentlemen have asked me for the facts.

§ Mr. Speaker

Order. The Prime Minister is not giving way.

§ The Prime Minister

Let me finish this section and them I will give way.

The difference of understanding between officials in my office and those in the Department of Trade and Industry only emerged after the inquiry had started.

§ Mr. Foot

Is the Prime Minister telling us that, from the day after the leak, on 6 or 7 January, right up until after the inquiry had reported, her right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not make any effort whatsoever to tell her how he had authorised the inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Leak."]—authorised the leak? If so, does she think that such a Member is fit to be in any Cabinet, let alone hers?

§ The Prime Minister

I have indicated what the facts are and I have indicated the high regard in which I hold my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker

Order.

§ The Prime Minister

I have given the answers after strenuous efforts to check them with the officials concerned and with the Departments concerned.

The Government's policy throughout has been to help Westland to seek the solution which would enable the company to continue in business as a private sector concern. It is this Government who fought to help it get the Indian order; it is this Government who undertook to write off nearly £40 million of launch aid if the W30 project was terminated; it is this Government who ensured that the board of Westland had a choice of options; and it is this Government who have pledged themselves to 658 resist discrimination against Westland in Europe, whichever option for its future it chooses. This was, and is, the right policy.

But from the Opposition we have heard nothing constructive. Oh yes, in the debate on 15 January, they offered the company their own two options. But what were they—nationalisation, or receivership.

The fact is that the Opposition parties, with the exceptions of the hon. Members for Yeovil and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) are exploiting Westland and its employees, exploiting them for nothing more than their own narrow political advantage. It was the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Labour party who told his party conference, and I quote: you cannot play politics with people's jobs … they have no time for such posturing". [Interruption.] Yet that is precisely what he has been doing and has done again today.

§ Mr. Kinnock

rose—

§ Hon. Members

Give way.

§ The Prime Minister

Let me tell hon. Members the real reason for this debate. It is not because of the Opposition's concern for Westland and its employees; until today they have said precious little about them. It is not because of their passionate belief in the defence of the realm; their policies would leave us defenceless.

§ Mr. Kinnock

Let me remind the right hon. Lady of the "real reason" as she put it, for the debate. It is to find out the truth. The House is not satisfied, and the country will not be satisfied, that she has given us the full details. I ask the right hon. Lady again—when, truly, did she know? Can she expect us to believe that her office did not tell her when it knew? Can she expect us to believe that she was neither told by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry nor did she ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry exactly what was going on?

§ The Prime Minister

What the right hon. Gentleman cannot stand is that I have given him the facts and he does not like them.

§ Hon. Members

No.

§ Hon. Members

Yes.

§ The Prime Minister

The Opposition have deliberately blown up this issue out of all proportion. This debate is part of a massive diversionary tactic by the Opposition. They would like first to divert public attention from the growing extremism of their own party—as we have all seen so unmistakably in Liverpool, Lambeth and Tottenham—and secondly, to divert us from vigorously pursuing our policies and plans for our country's future.

We are not going to be diverted from the tasks we were elected to carry out. We shall gather with renewed strength—[Interruption.]—to extend freedom and ownership, to give power back to the people and to keep our country strong and secure.

§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)

I believe that the Prime Minister, in retrospect, will wish that she had not made the latter part of her speech, because, whatever the House wants to hear today, it does not want a party political—[Interruption.] What the House 659 wanted from the Prime Minister—and, wherever the jeers come from, what both sides of the House wanted—was the truth from the Prime Minister.

Some new facts have been disclosed, which are of considerable importance. The Prime Minister told the House that she drew the attention of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the letter that had been written by the then Secretary of State for Defence and suggested that he should ask the Solicitor-General to see whether there were any inaccuracies. She told us that she did that on 4 January. She has further told us that she knew on 4 January, before the Solicitor-General rang up the then Secretary of State for Defence, that there were, on a provisional look at the documents, material inaccuracies, but that the hon. and learned Gentleman would write to the then Secretary of State for Defence on 6 January. So the Prime Minister, on Saturday, Sunday and Monday before 1.30, when the letter from the Solicitor-General arrived at her office, knew that it was highly probable that there would be material inaccuracies, in the view of the Solicitor-General, in the letter of the then Secretary of State for Defence.

The question that the Prime Minister has not answered is what conversations took place with her private office between her and Mr. Ingham and her principal private secretary, Mr. Powell, about what should be done if those material inaccuracies, provisionally thought by the Solicitor-General to have occurred, were confirmed in the letter that she was warned would be distributed on the Monday. I must say to the Prime Minister that it is not unreasonable to believe that she would have discussed that with those two individuals or at least one individual. It is a reasonable assumption that it was in the knowledge of how she reacted to the whole series of events that they felt confident to give the cover that she herself claimed in her statement—[Interruption.] I do not know. I am merely pointing out a major gap in the Prime Minister's account.

I ask the Prime Minister now to clear that up and to tell the House. Did the right hon. Lady discuss the issue with Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell on the Saturday evening, the Sunday or the Monday morning? Did you, Prime Minister? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] That is the question that we are entitled to ask. I do not believe that it will be understandable to those who have worked in the Government machine that those two senior officials could have given the cover when asked by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

The decision to leak a document written by a Law Officer is a very serious decision. There is a strict understanding within the Government that the advice of the Law Officers is never referred to. It is only ever disclosed in very exceptional circumstances by the Law Officers themselves. The last occasion was when the Attorney-General released his opinion in 1982 on the Greater London council. A further issue arose when Attorney-General and Solicitors-General in successive Governments issued their views on the Simonstown agreement. It is a strict convention, which would have been known by Mr. Powell, and ought to have been known by Mr. Ingham, that under no circumstances did anyone, certainly not those senior officials, reveal the Law Officers' advice. This is not some minor leak. This is not a question of inter-party strife. It is not an argument between the Prime Minister and her then Secretary of State 660 for Defence. It goes to the core of the Government and their integrity in relation to the position of the Law Officers.

I must say to the Prime Minister that I find it very hard to believe that Mr. Powell, who was a diplomat and who is now on secondment to No. 10 Downing street, a person of outstanding integrity, would have agreed to the Department of Trade and Industry disclosing that information unless he had a pretty clear view of how the Prime Minister wanted the matter to be dealt with. The Prime Minister owes it to the country to say what discussions she had with Mr. Ingham and/or Mr. Powell.

I gather from the Prime Minister's silence that she will not tell us. If she winds up the debate, as I hope she will, I hope that she will answer that question. If she does not do so, the question will remain. If she does not do so, if she allows it to be assumed that those officials made that decision on 6 January without reference to her, there is no question what has to happen now. It is not just that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) resigned because he obviously felt that he had lost the confidence of his colleagues. As a lawyer, he must have understood the significance of the decision that he took to authorise his Department to allow the Solicitor-General's letter to be partially leaked.

But it must be the case that both Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell will certainly be now subjected to the normal disciplinary procedures that cover civil servants and members of the diplomatic service. It is inconceivable that they can continue to advise the Prime Minister. That demand must be made. Mr. Ingham is paid as a civil servant. Mr. Powell is a diplomat. They are governed by rules and regulations that cover all officials of all Governments. At the core of this issue is an issue that has been causing concern for some time—the integrity of the Civil Service. There is one person who is responsible for that now. That person is the Cabinet Secretary.

I refer to the Solicitor-General's letter. The Prime Minister said that it was essential that the full facts were given. The Solicitor-General's letter, written on 7 January and now in the Library, reveals that the letter of the Secretary of State for Defence did not contain the material. inaccuracies that he had originally thought. He says: The additional evidential material on which you rely, and in particular the conversations with your European colleagues to which you have referred, is identified to me in your letter in terms too general for me to be able personally to assess whether the accuracy test is fulfilled. I quite understand why this may be unavoidable, particularly in the case of the conversations with your European colleagues, but it means that the judgment as to whether that test is satisfied must remain your own responsibility. Therefore, at the end of the day, the Solicitor-General's interference has not made any material difference to the Defence Secretary's case.

However, I should like to quote the most damning part of the Solicitor-General's letter: I want to express my dismay that a letter containing confidential legal advice from a Law Officer to one of his colleagues should have been leaked, and apparently leaked moreover in a highly selective way. Quite apart from the breach of confidentiality that is involved, the rule is very clearly established that even the fact that the Law Officers have tendered advice in a particular case may not be disclosed without their consent, let alone the content of such advice. It is plain that in this instance this important rule was immediately and flagrantly violated. What does that say for the competence of the Prime Minister, and the competence of the Government?

661 The fact of the matter is that the issue now rests on the Prime Minister's competence and the competence of her private office, and the degree of trust and honour in her private office. It is not often realised that the Prime Minister's principal private secretary has his desk as close to the Prime Minister sitting in No. 10 in the Cabinet Room as you are to me, Mr. Speaker. It is extraordinary that throughout this period, from the moment when the Prime Minister admits that she talked to her officials on 7 January, she did not ask them point blank what the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks was. The Prime Minister tells us that she did not know about the view taken by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks over this disclosure until she read the Cabinet Secretary's report.

That says a lot for the Prime Minister's diligence and attention to detail. It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister did not ask what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude was. It is almost as inconceivable that he did not tell her what his attitude was.

It is extraordinary that we are asked to believe that there was a difference of opinion between the Department of Trade and Industry officials and Mr. Bernard Ingham as to whether or not this should be considered to be an authorisation from No. 10. Mr. Bernard Ingham has ruled the Government's press information with a rod of iron for nearly seven years. His role is more dominant in the Government's information service than that of any Prime Minister's press secretary this century. It is extraordinary that the lady concerned in the Department of Trade and Industry, when going to Mr. Ingham, should now be told that he was not giving her No. 10's authority. Frankly, no one who has seen the way that Mr. Ingham has operated or the way the lobby system has been manipulated and twisted over the past few years can possibly believe that this mild, insignificant, modest, quiet and unassuming Yorkshireman did not give his authority to that lady in the Department of Trade and Industry.

The Prime Minister has achieved what I think in retrospect she may most regret. She does not regret the passing of the Secretary of State for Defence, although I believe that she genuinely regrets the passing of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks. By not admitting that she, by her general demeanour and general standing, gave a steer and guidance to Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell, she has left those two men with no alternative other than to resign. It is a sad commentary upon the Prime Minister's integrity that the only way that the integrity of the Civil Service can be maintained is for those men to take the honourable course and resign.

The Prime Minister must have hoped that this debate would end this whole affair. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that it will not. The Prime Minister has revealed both today and in former days that she is not worthy to hold the high office that she does.

§ Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley)

I had not originally intended to take part in this further debate, and I shall not keep the House for more than a few moments. There are only one or two aspects on which perhaps I may be allowed to comment.

662 I should like to place it on record that I believe that from start to finish in this entire matter the behaviour of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was exemplary.

I listened with great care, as did all my right hon. and hon. Friends, to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had to say. The House will realise that for me, as well as for many right hon. and hon. Members, my right hon. Friend's speech filled in a great deal of the background that we could not have known about before. I heard the Prime Minister clearly say that she deeply regretted the fact that the letter from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General had been leaked. She went on to say that a number of other matters could have been better handled, and she regretted that, too. I think that that