6.7 pm
Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East)
The word will be going out from those who conduct press affairs for the Government that matters have been answered and cleared up today, and that the House of Commons and the British public can put this matter safely behind them in the confident reassurance that, perhaps at long last, the Prime Minister has come clean with the House and with the public. Let us examine what the Prime Minister told us today. It was not a great deal. First of all, she told us that the first she discovered of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's behaviour in the matter was at the end of the inquiry. Secondly, she told us that some hours after the leak she was told in general terms of her office's involvement. Thirdly, she told us how the inquiry came to be instituted.
I cannot see how the addition of these small pieces of information, interesting though they are, changes the situation from last Thursday, when the Prime Minister was floundering in her inability to answer these questions. Now, suddenly, we are told that it has all been cleared up. It has not all been cleared up and the question that will be asked again and again is a very simple one. It is: before the Prime Minister decided to institute the bogus inquiry into the leak—bogus is what we now know it was—did she know about any of the involvement of her Ministers and her officials?
I have to concede that we have received a partial answer to one leg of that question, because she said that she did not know about the involvement of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That is a little curious because he says and the Prime Minister said when she made a statement about this matter the other day, that he telephoned her or caused his officials to communicate with No. 10 on the basis, that, subject to the agreement of No. 10, certain action was to be taken. It is odd that that was there and signalled from the beginning apparently, yet the Prime Minister says that she did not know of his involvement until after this laborious inquiry had been completed.
But let that matter stand. What we do not know is whether the right hon. Lady knew from her officials of their involvement in the leak before the setting up of the inquiry. That question simply has not been answered. It will be asked, and it will be asked, and it will be asked again until it is answered. The question is not an idle one. It is not one of a small matter of the mismanagement of government; an unfortunate leak, a slip, something that arose out of an unfortunate, but genuine, misunderstanding, as we are told. [column 681]
Let me remind the House what the Solicitor-General wrote to the former Secretary of State for Defence in the letter which has become available only today, having been declassified and put in the Library before the debate started. In the penultimate paragraph, the Solicitor-General, writing to the former Secretary of State for Defence the day after the leak occurred, said:
“On a different aspect of this matter. 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.”
So let us get to the situation on 7 January, when the Solicitor-General knows that a flagrant violation has occurred. This is the time when the Prime Minister has been told in general terms of her office's involvement. She certainly must have known that there was a leak. It was on the front page of The Times, The Sun, the Daily Mail and I think that it got into the Standard on that very day. In lurid headlines, the Daily Mail says:
“The great Cabinet shambles. Open war as Ministers attack Heseltine” .
The Times said:
“Heseltine told by law chief: Stick to the facts” .The article goes on in that vein. The Sun, true to form, had a simple headline:
“You liar” .
That was all happening on 7 January.
The Solicitor-General tells us that it is quite clear that a flagrant violation has occurred. I assume that the Prime Minister knew of the rule about Law Officers. But what was her reaction to that? Did she have people in and say, “A flagrant violation has occurred. I am not putting up with it in this Government which I run and I want to find out what went on.” ?
Nothing happened from the Prime Minister until the Attorney-General stirred himself, realising that a flagrant violation had occurred. He did not go to the Prime Minister apparently, which is very strange, but to the head of the Civil Service. Perhaps he thought that he would get a more sympathetic response there than going to the Prime Minister, and be able to get his complaint out before he received his letter of dismissal perhaps. However, he goes to the head of the Civil Service and within minutes the Prime Minister—three days later—on 10 January says, “I readily admit that I gave my authority for an inquiry to commence.” The question must be: Why did it take the Attorney-General and the head of the Civil Service to remind the Prime Minister of her constitutional responsibility? Why did she remain inactive? That is charge number one.
Charge number two is: is it really true that the Prime Minister knew nothing about the activities of her civil servants in No. 10? In that regard, Mr. Speaker, let me remind you of something which happened this very afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) rose in his place and put a question to the Prime Minister. He referred to a question at column 455 of Hansard of 23 January put by the chairman of the 1922 Committee, the hon. Member for Woking, (Mr. Onslow), [column 682]to the Prime Minister. I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote the question and answer, because it is of profound importance.
The hon. Gentleman said:
“My right hon. Friend will be aware that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, like the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), are not really interested in listening to the facts of the full account given by my right hon. Friend. What view does my right hon. Friend think that the House might have taken of any Minister in any Government placed in such an invidious situation by the action of a colleague who had failed in his duty to ensure that correct information was made public as soon as possible?”
That is clearly referring to the conveying of the information suggesting that it was necessary for a Minister to make sure that that information was communicated. There can hardly be any doubt about that. Nor was there any doubt apparently in the Prime Minister's mind as to the meaning of the question, because she replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would have been much easier, as the facts were commercially sensitive, if the relevant letters had been cleared as mine was with the Solicitor-General. It was vital to have accurate information in the public domain because we knew that judgments might be founded upon that and that the Government could be liable if wrong judgments were made as a result of misleading information. It was to get that accurate information to the public domain that I gave my consent.” —[Official Report, 23 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 455.] Why did the Prime Minister tell us last Thursday that she gave her consent to the leaking of the letter into the public domain? [Hon. Members: “Answer.” ]
The Prime Minister
I shall gladly reply to the right hon. and learned John SmithGentleman I was quite content that I had given a whole account in the statement, cleared in every single detail, and the account in the statement was absolutely accurate.
Mr. Smith
I know that the Prime Minister's statement was gone over with a toothcomb. The one she read out here is full of all the weasel words such as “it became accepted as a matter of duty” and “cover” instead of “authority” —all those curious words that have been fashioned and honed after many hours of consultation to get them right.
The Prime Minister was OK when she was on the statement, but the question took her slightly outwith the range of the statement. The question could not have been clearer and she said, “I gave my consent.” Today, when she was asked about it by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, we all heard her say: “When I said consent, I meant consent to the inquiry.” I must say that I felt something had gone wrong there, and I immediately checked in Hansard. It is obvious for everyone to see that the Prime Minister did not mean that. So she either gave us the wrong answer then or a wrong answer today. Which one was it? On the record in Hansard the Prime Minister admits that she gave her consent to the leaking of the information. Until she publicly corrects that account and answers the particular allegation that I have made, the question will remain unanswered.
The Prime Minister
I did not give my consent to the leaking of the information. May I make that quite, quite clear?
Mr. Smith
If we are to accept the Prime Minister's statement that she did not give her consent, she was remarkably foolish to say so when she answered the question to the House. It takes me back to my days in the criminal courts. When some people gave unfortunate answers when required to do so about their activities they [column 683]did not always get such an understanding response. “I made a mistake,” said the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister make a mistake? That is one of the unanswered questions, and there are more.
What is worrying to people who care about good government in Britain is that this typical of this Administration. I am sorry to say that there is no surprise throughout Britain at the evasions, denials and all the wrong goings-on of recent weeks and months. There is no surprise that things should happen in this way, because the standards of good government in Britain have been steadily deteriorating under the Prime Minister and her Ministers. That is why it appears to be enough to come to the House of Commons and get cheers from the ruling party for saying that matters should have been handled in a different way. Handled? Why cannot the Prime Minister say “It was wrong. It should not have happened and I am taking steps to make sure that it does not happen again.” ? No, it is all a matter of handling. It is a matter of manipulation and presentation.
I hope that the time will come soon in this House of Commons when Ministers, including the Prime Minister, when asked straight questions will give honest answers; when we will have a Government in whose competence, as well as in whose integrity, we can have confidence.
The problem is this: if we accept the explanation that has been given to us, it is a sorry tale of woeful incompetence. If we cannot accept it, the whole integrity of this Administration is suspect.
This matter, I am sorry to tell the Government, simply will not go away, despite the attempts by Conservative Members, carefully planned throughout this day and carefully planned in advance, to disrupt the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Conservative party's tenacious defence of power is ruthless and absolute. Unfortunately for them, they have been found out and are being found out daily by the public.