PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Lofthouse
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 November.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I attended the memorial service for Henry Moore and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
Mr. Lofthouse
If Mr. Peter Wright 's memoirs confirm that Sir Roger Hollis was a spy, does the Prime Minister agree that her statement to the House in March 1981 was misleading? Or was it as Sir Robert Armstrong described yesterday and the right hon. Lady was just being economical with the truth?
The Prime Minister
I stand by, and reaffirm, the statement that I made to the House on that subject. With regard to the case, the matter is sub judice.
Mr. Tim Smith
Is my right hon. Friend aware that 105 David Owen s and an encouragingly large number of David Steel s have expressed an interest in the British Gas share issue? Does not that fact, together with the fact that 6 million people in all have expressed interest, show the popularity of the Government's programme to encourage wider share ownership?
The Prime Minister
Yes. It is not only popular, it is the right policy, and we shall pursue it and other measures of privatisation.
Mr. Kinnock
Against the background of the teachers' settlement negotiated last week, the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations has this morning made a strong appeal to the Prime Minister and the Government to “accept and ratify” the proposed [column 433]agreement. May I therefore strongly urge the Prime Minister to announce now that the Government will “accept and ratify” that agreement to ensure a sustainable settlement that will work to the advantage of Britain's schoolchildren and the satisfaction of both parents and teachers?
The Prime Minister
I understand that there is not yet a full signed agreement and that there is to be a further meeting tomorrow. My right hon. Friend Kenneth Bakerthe Secretary of State made quite clear the conditions under which the Government would pay the extra sums to finance the proposed 16.4 per cent. increase.
Mr. Kinnock
The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that matters to be discussed tomorrow are issues of minor detail that do not affect the substance of the overall agreement. Will she tell us whether she will “accept and ratify” that agreement? Is it not obvious that, by her evasion of the majority view of parents and teachers, she is trying to pick a fight for political reasons best known to herself?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear the conditions upon which the Government will pay the extra sum required to finance the 16.4 per cent. increase. Those conditions relate to duties and pay structure. Pay structure is crucial if we are to get top calibre teachers into the profession. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in my reply he might do me the courtesy of listening to it. Pay structure is critical for young people coming into teaching. They must know that there are good prospects of increases in pay and excellent prospects for head teachers. The proposal on offer from the Government would take average teachers' pay 10 per cent. in real terms above Houghton and 27 per cent. in real terms above what it was when Labour lost office in 1979.
Mr. Kinnock
The Prime Minister cannot get away with that. As a former Secretary of State, does she not appreciate that to obtain teachers of high quality she must first attract them to the profession and then keep them there, which is why a decent basic rate and further prospects are included in the agreement?
The Prime Minister
Structure is vital to attract young people of calibre into the profession. The right hon. Gentleman is hardly in a position to complain when our average offer is 27 per cent. in real terms above anything that the Labour Government managed to—[Interruption.]
Q2. Sir John Biggs-Davison
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 November.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Sir John Biggs-Davison
Will my right hon. Friend consider with her Cabinet colleagues today the publication of a White Paper about the totalitarian tendency's perversion of local government? Does she recall the words of the Labour deputy leader of the unlamented GLC about Left-wing councillors' prejudice against the police and the abuse of local government as a political ladder for the extreme Left?
[column 434]The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The details that he catalogues show how the present Labour party would behave in power. That is what it is like and what it would be like.
Mr. Roy Jenkins
Does the Prime Minister now appreciate the increasing ludicrousness of the Government's posture before the Australian courts—which I am sure is not sub judice according to the rules of this House? As the Home Secretary who received the Trend report and believes in the strong probability of Sir Roger Hollis ' innocence, and as an admirer of Sir Robert Armstrong, who served me in two capacities, I deplore the foolish mission on which the Government have sent Sir Robert. May I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any chance of her recovering a sense of proportion on this issue?
The Prime Minister
With regard to the main object of the right hon. Gentleman's question, like all present and former members of the security service, Mr. Wright has a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the Crown. Unauthorised publication of his manuscript would violate that obligation. My right hon. and learned Friend Sir Michael Haversthe Attorney-General has accordingly applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for an injunction to prevent publication of the book. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that proceedings have begun in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the matter is therefore sub judice.
Mr. Batiste
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any settlement with the teachers includes provision to attract into the profession teachers of physics, mathematics and other subjects at present in all too short supply?
The Prime Minister
That is the object of my right hon. Friend's pay structure—to ensure that teachers of subjects in which there are shortages have a pay structure that will attract them into the profession and take them up the ladder right to the top jobs.
Westland plc.
Q3. Mr. Dalyell
asked the Prime Minister when she first became aware that the Solicitor-General had agreed to write to the then Secretary of State for Defence alleging material inaccuracies in his letter to the European Consortium.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written answer that I gave him yesterday.
Mr. Dalyell
In that case, why did the Attorney-General go to the lengths of threatening the Cabinet Secretary with action by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police because the Prime Minister did not agree to the setting up of a leak inquiry and authorising it?
The Prime Minister
I have nothing to add to the many answers that I have given in statements and debates from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Baldry
When the next general election eventually comes, will my right hon. Friend——
Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a definitive question.
Mr. Wilkinson
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the general public are more interested in the future of the European helicopter industry and those who work for it in Britain, especially at Westlands, than in who might have written what to whom and when?
[column 435]The Prime Minister
The future of the European helicopter industry is extremely important, as is the future of Westland, but I have nothing to add in regard to the point which was the subject of the previous question.
Mr. Bell
In relation to the answer that the Prime Minister has given my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), is she aware of the phrase of Aneurin Bevan—that he who fights and runs away lives to run away another day?
The Prime Minister
What the hon. Gentleman does not like is the fact that he has had the answers.
Mr. Butterfill
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, much as we seek to support President Alfonsin and the newly emergent democratic Government——
Mr. Speaker
Order. That does not relate to this question, which is not an open question.
Mr. Leadbitter
Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that the submissions that the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, is making in Australia this week——
Mr. Speaker
Order. That does not relate to this question either. I think that we should move on.
Engagements
Q4. Mr. Hickmet
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 November.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hickmet
Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the British Steel Corporation on its excellent half-year results, which show a £68 million profit? Have we not transformed BSC into one of the most efficient and successful producers in Europe which is able to compete in world markets? Would it not be a disaster if we were to pursue the Labour party's policies and use the nationalised industries to employ more men? Do not the figures justify the chairman's view that BSC should be returned to the commercial sector and steelworkers and former steelworkers given the right to buy shares in it?
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who work in steel on their profit record. When we came to office the taxpayer was having to pay hundreds of millions of pounds a year by way of subsidy; now, the British Steel Corporation is in profit and therefore contributing to the Exchequer. I agree that the Labour party's policy of compulsory overmanning in nationalised industries is utterly ridiculous. I also agree that we must consider whether in future we should privatise the steel industry.
Mr. Foot
Reverting to the right hon. Lady's replies about Sir Roger Hollis, does she recall making a statement to the House on this matter in which the charges against Sir Roger were repudiated? That was accepted by the Government and, I think, the House at the time. If the Government have altered their opinion in any way, is it not the right hon. Lady's duty to come to the House and explain the facts? Is it not shameful that Sir Roger 's reputation and his family should be treated in this way by the Government, who should be carrying out what the Prime Minister said to the House?
[column 436]The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said earlier. I stand by my earlier statement about Sir Roger Hollis.
Q7. Mr. Robert Atkins
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 November.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Atkins
Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the work force at Leyland Vehicles on achieving the largest share of the United Kingdom truck market by making the best products at the right price with the right support and of the right design? Does she agree that if Leyland Trucks is to succeed in a market in which too many trucks are being sold worldwide, it and many other British companies will need a flexible and competitive financial package to help export deals, preferably to match those competitors, if not to better them?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend is aware, those who work in that industry have enjoyed enormous help from the taxpayer. I hope that they will make more products at the right price and will continue to get more sales, which will be very welcome. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a considerable overhang of debt which the ECGD must tackle, and we must also bear that in mind.
Mr. Ron Lewis
Now that the Prime Minister has reengaged a member of the Billy Graham evangelistic team to her staff, can she say whether the teachings of Billy Graham are being adhered to—in other words, “never tell a lie and never bear a grudge against those who disagree with you” ? Assuming that is accepted, can the right hon. Lady say how much longer her hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) must serve before they get their knighthoods?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ingenuity of his question, the full impact of which is not lost on me.
Mr. Speaker
Statement. I call the Prime Minister.
Mr. Williams
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker
Does it arise out of questions?
Mr. Williams
Yes, Mr. Speaker. You will understand that we appreciate that the Prime Minister would not want to answer questions about the debacle that is being unveiled in the Australian courts. However, not once but twice this afternoon the right hon. Lady made a categorical statement that the proceedings in Australia are sub judice. If that suggestion is allowed to stand, it will, of course, create a block on further questions and discussions. Will you give a clear ruling that this afternoon the Prime Minister has not once but twice misled the House in stating that a case before an Australian court is sub judice in this House?
Mr. Speaker
As I understand it, this case, which is taking place in an Australian court, is not sub judice under our rules. We now come to the statement by the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on my visit to the United States—[Interruption.&csb——
[column 437]Mr. Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister is about to make a statement.
Mr. Kinnock
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. It is clear that inadvertently—and I am certain that was the case—the Prime Minister referred to the matter being heard in Australia as sub judice as it affects the proceedings of this House. The acknowledgement has been made that that is not the case. However, the Prime Minister's answers to questions influenced the direction of questions. I think that the Prime Minister would now want to avail herself of an early opportunity to say that the matter is not sub judice in this House so that the subject need not be raised in the same form again, thereby allowing questions to be raised.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)
rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. I have called the Leader of the House.
Mr. Biffen
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In making your judgment on this matter would you kindly take account of the fact that the United Kingdom Government are a party to the case in Australia and indicate how that relates to the sub judice rule?
Mr. Speaker
I prepare myself very carefully for Question Time every day and for every eventuality, and I took that matter into account today.
Mr. Williams
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for a very helpful and clear ruling. Will you now indicate whether, in your experience, it is not the case, when an hon. Member has found that he or she has misled the House—even if inadvertently—that Member would normally make an apology to the House?
The Prime Minister
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made it clear in my answer that Sir Michael Haversthe Attorney-General has accordingly applied in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for an injunction to prevent the publication of the Wright book. You have ruled that the matter is not sub judice in this House, but I must submit that it would be most unwise—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. This is an extremely important matter. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.” ]
The Prime Minister
It would be most unwise, indeed, rash of me as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to comment on a case to which the Attorney-General is party in Australia. I would have thought that most people would understand that. If not, perhaps they would understand the comments of a previous Labour Prime Minister who said:
“I shall adhere to the normal practice of not commenting on security matters.” —[Official Report, 29 June 1978, Vol. 952, c. 631.]
Mr. Kinnock
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is easily seen that the Prime Minister's response does not satisfy the House. That places you in an invidious position, especially since your judgment was so unequivocal and clear. May I suggest that a period of further reflection is given to the matter because the alternative is obviously the continued distraction of the House on the matter when we have other serious business to transact? It will be necessary to give further attention to this, taking account of the matter of national security [column 438]raised by the Prime Minister, in order to discover whether that is the valid question under consideration or whether it is a more politically partisan question.
Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that the Leader of the Opposition has made a wise judgment on this matter. The two matters are not connected, but they are relevant.
Mr. Beith
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The position remains that a challenge has been issued to the Chair. The Prime Minister gave her interpretation and her assumption that the matter was sub judice. You gave your ruling and the Leader of the House then challenged that ruling in polite terms.
Mr. Biffen
indicated dissent.
Mr. Beith
The Leader of the House effectively asked you to review your ruling. I see no reason why you should be asked to alter your ruling. Therefore, we cannot move forward until the Government make it clear that they accept your authority.
Sir John Biggs-Davison
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled that the sub judice rule does not apply and we accept that absolutely—[Interruption.] But for the future, Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom are party to a case in a court before one of Her Majesty's Australian judges. How do Her Majesty's Government or any party to such a case obtain justice if the sub judice rule does not apply?
Mr. Speaker
Order. We have a full day ahead of us and I hope that I can clear up the matter. I said to the House that under our rules the matter before a court in another country was not sub judice. Whether it is a matter of national security is a completlely different issue and a perfectly legitimate one to call in aid.
Mr. Andrew Faulds
rose——
Mr. Skinner
rose——
Mr. Gow
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be for the convenience of the House if you could explain how it is that a matter before one of Her Majesty's judges in Australia in a case to which Her Majesty's Government are party is not sub judice under the rules of the House?
Several Hon. Members
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall take all the points of order together.
Mr. Faulds
On a point of order——
Mr. Speaker
I have not called the hon. Gentleman yet.
Mr. Faulds
I was on my feet first.
Mr. Speaker
Order. I decide the order in which I take these questions.
Mr. Campbell-Savours
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put it to you that the people of Australia are having reported to them our proceedings, and questions on the Order Paper, in detail. It is most important that the position is clarified, because today in Australia there are calls for the resignation of Sir Robert Armstrong in so far as yesterday he had to admit in a court of law in Australia that he deliberately misled the court by submitting in affidavits some days ago inaccurate information. I and my hon. Friends have pressed for a [column 439]statement on this matter from both the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister, but none has been made. I again ask that a statement be forthcoming. The people of Australia——
Mr. Speaker
Order. Hon. Members cannot ask for statements through me.
Mr. Hickmet
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I speak for Glanford and Scunthorpe, not for Australia. In considering the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), will you also consider the fact that, notwithstanding that this case is in front of one of Her Majesty's judges in Australia, it might finish up before the Privy Council?
Mr. Faulds
I am most grateful to you, Sir. Further to that point of order. It is clear that you made a ruling that the matters in Australia were not sub judice as far as this House is concerned. We are not asking the Prime Minister to make a statement on those matters. We are asking her to withdraw the incorrect assertion that she made that these matters were sub judice, and she should be required by you, Sir, to do that.
Mr. Skinner
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I see it, the issue is relatively simple. In the past 10 minutes there have been a series of incidents in which you and one Member of Parliament, who happens to be the Prime Minister, have been in dispute. Normally, when a Member of Parliament challenges the authority of the Chair, he has either to withdraw or leave. Why is it that a Back-Bench Member of Parliament can be called upon to withdraw when he challenges the authority of the Chair, but the Prime Minister is allowed to get off the hook? This is a classic example of where you need to show your authority, Mr. Speaker, and if you fail to do so, do not expect any of us to have to bow to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker
Order. It is very unlike the hon. Gentleman to threaten me. The Prime Minister has not challenged what I have said.
Mr. Campbell-Savours
She has.
Mr. Speaker
Order. We have a heavy day in front of us. I think that we should have some quiet reflection on this matter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours
Name her.
Mr. Speaker
Order. We can return to this matter on another day.
The Prime Minister
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling on sub judice as far as the House is concerned. Therefore, any questions can be [column 440]asked. I know of no rule which means that I am circumscribed in the way in which I answer questions and as you said, I can invoke security, and have done so.
Several Hon. Members
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall take one more question. Mr. Lofthouse.
Mr. Lofthouse
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of the questioners whom the Prime Minister misled by her answer—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. This seems to be an attempt to carry on Question Time.
Mr. Lofthouse
As one of the questioners whom the Prime Minister misled—[Hon. Members: “She did not mislead the hon. Gentleman.” ]—I should gladly accept an apology—or is the Prime Minister above this House and above you, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister has made her position very clear. I shall take one further point of order.
Mr. Gow
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could revert to, and add to, a point of order that I put to you previously? It would be of assistance to the House if you could please explain to us why it is that proceedings in a case which is before one of Her Majesty's judges in Australia, a case to which Her Majesty's Government are a party, are not sub judice for the purposes of this House? May I make a further submission to you, Mr. Speaker?
You have said, quite rightly; that this is a very important matter. We all know the basic reason for the existence of the sub judice rule. It exists so that no influence of an improper or outside kind shall be brought to bear upon the courts.—[Hon. Members: “We know that.” ] That is the whole purpose of the sub judice rule. Even if it is correct, as you have said, that, in accordance with past precedent, a case of this kind——
Mr. Winnick
Get to the point!
Mr. Gow
—does not fall within the sub judice rule, would you be prepared to consider whether, in this particular case, the sub judice rule ought to apply?
Mr. Speaker
Order. I carefully calculated that a question of this kind might arise today. Therefore, I was prepared with the answer that I gave. Australia is an independent country. I shall of course reflect carefully, as I always do in exchanges of this kind, upon whether the rulings that I have given are right. If I find that I was wrong, I shall gladly and certainly return to the House and make a further statement.