Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [932/1182-88]
Editorial comments: 1515-1530.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 2280
Themes: Defence (general), Pay, Northern Ireland
[column 1182]

PRIME MINISTER

(ENGAGEMENTS)

Q1. Mr. Wrigglesworth

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 24th May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and attended a memorial service for Mr. Ray Gunter. Later today I shall be going to Edinburgh where I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen, and to be her guest at the banquet for the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

When the Prime Minister meets the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Press—as I understand he will—will he draw to the chairman's attention the leader in the Daily Mail last week, which called upon Lord Ryder to resign, and to resign quickly? Will my right hon. Friend also draw to the chairman's attention the fact that—as I understand it—the associate editor of the Daily Mail, Mr. Stewart Stevens has resigned, but that that is not an adequate recompense for the circumstances that have arisen as a result of that newspaper's activities last week? Is the Prime Minister aware that we want the organ grinder and not the monkey?

The Prime Minister

I read the editorial and also the presentation of the news, and both were contemptible. It was a display of political spite, both in the presentation and in the comments that were made in the editorial. Of course, Lord Ryder is suing and therefore there is no point in repeating the comments that were made by the leader writer at that time about Lord Ryder 's behaviour being “sleazy” , about his reputation being “irretrievably stained” or about his having “abused public [column 1183]trust” . All that sort of thing is totally contemptible. I believe that the whole House will agree with me on that.

Perhaps the only thing that I should say now is that I hope that the Daily Mail has learned its lesson. However, perhaps it has not, because I must say I was astonished to hear that Vere Harmsworth had said this morning that he had every confidence in the editor's policy. To be proved wrong and vindictive at the same time is a remarkable combination.

Mr. Michael Latham

If the Prime Minister meets the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Press today, will the right hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the drivelling nonsense that was submitted in evidence by his predecessor?

The Prime Minister

I shall be raising with the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Press the Daily Mail story that has reduced journalism to a lower level than I can remember for many years. It is to that that I shall direct my attention.

Mr. Robinson

Is the Prime Minister aware of the immense and possibly irreparable damage that the disgraceful Daily Mail affair has caused to British exports and jobs? While recognising the need for a review at British Leyland, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the review is speedy, because Leyland must continue to trade in those markets?

The Prime Minister

Of course. I do not believe that the editor of the Daily Mail was concerned with jobs or people at British Leyland or the reputation of that organisation. I believe that he was concerned to try to smear the Labour Government and to bring down a nationalised industry.

Mr. Hastings

Before the day is out will the Prime Minister inquire and, if possible, report to the House on why the Foreign Secretary apparently forbade Sir Peter Ramsbotham to accept an invitation to appear on television on the “Tonight” programme with Ludovic Kennedy? Was that not wholly unreasonable, in view of Sir Peter 's exemplary behaviour and the fact that his replacement seems to spend much of his time on television?

[column 1184]

The Prime Minister

No, I shall not ask the Foreign Secretary about that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend, he may do so.

CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF

Q2. Mr. Mates

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the Chief of the Defence Staff.

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) on 25th January.

Mr. Mates

Will the Prime Minister seek an early meeting with the Chiefs of Staff, when he will hear of their grave concern at the growing scandal of financial penalties that are suffered by all Service men as a result of their service in Ulster? Will he say unequivocally that, notwithstanding the pay policy, he is not prepared to head a Government that demands of our forces repeated financial and personal sacrifices because of their enforced and continued series of duty in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister

It has been recognised that we could pay our forces in Northern Ireland a great deal more and they would still earn it. However, the House as a whole has accepted the pay policy—[Interruption.] In that case, some hon. Members have not accepted it, but it is Government policy and we cannot go beyond it. There would be repercussions. What about the position of the firemen and the police in Ulster? [Hon. Members: “They have had a rise.” ] Everyone has had a rise, including the Armed Forces, within the limits of the pay policy. This is one of the difficulties of following a pay policy. I have every sympathy with those gallant men there and with the firemen and policemen, but we cannot make an exception for one without unravelling the whole pay policy.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

Has my right hon. Friend noted the mature self-confidence of the President of the United States in opposing any sabre-rattling against Communist régimes? Does that not seem to be at odds with the attitude displayed by the Opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition?

[column 1185]

The Prime Minister

President Carter has undoubtedly taken a very forward view of this matter. He is well aware of the arms build-up in the Soviet Union, but he is trying to get a new relationship and new approach to them. I hope that the Conservative Party will be able to follow his lead.

Mrs. Thatcher

May I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates)? Is there not a committee sitting to consider how the present difficult position of forces serving in Northern Ireland can be alleviated? Is he saying that the Committee will not consider how to end the bitterness that is felt because our forces are severely worse off, financially, as a result of being posted to Northern Ireland? Was not the position of BAOR forces adjusted because of the exchange control problems? Finally—[Hon. Members: “Too long” .] It is a difficult question, on which there is a lot of bitter feeling among those doing a most hazardous job for Britain. Will James Callaghanthe Prime Minister accept, as a general guideline, that no Service man should be worse off as a result of being posted to duties in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister

The Secretary of State for Defence has just told me what I was aware of before, namely, that there is a review body—[Interruption.] I wanted to check my memory. If the editor of the Daily Mail had checked his facts, he would not have made mistakes. There is a review body considering this difficult question and the Government will approach it with every sympathy and a desire to help. I went to Germany recently to see our forces there and I know that there are great difficulties caused by transfers to and from Germany and Ulster. As soon as the review body has reported—and I hope that it will be very soon—we shall do all that we can to remedy any anomalies that have occurred. In relation to what the right hon. Lady said much earlier about the police, they, like everyone else, must operate in the background of the pay policy.

Mr. Noble

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Chief of the Defence Staff, will he explain to him that increases in defence costs in line with the recent communique from NATO would be in [column 1186]contradiction to our promise to the electorate at the last election, and would severely damage our economy and our people, whose living standards are falling?

The Prime Minister

In order to squeeze out inflation, the living standards of our people have been depressed for the last 12 months. That has now reached an end, and I trust that from now on they will begin to rise. Of course, defence costs have had to play their part in this. I am pleased to say that this has not affected the front line, though it has affected some of the support operations.

Mr. Churchill

The Prime Minister blandly asserts that our Armed Forces have received increases as great as is permitted under the Government's pay policy, but how does he explain that under phases 1 and 2 average earnings have increased by 19.9 per cent. while those of the forces have increased by only 14.4 per cent.? Does he regard that as as square deal?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman has a great capacity to use particular figures on particular occasions. The increase given to the Armed Forces was a result of the review body's report, and it has borne rather hard on them because of the offsets in respect of increased charges for accommodation, and so on. In logical terms and when talking to the soldier in the field, it is difficult to defend, but the House must look at the overall background. As I have said twice already, we shall do all that we can to try to assist the situation.

NATO

(COUNCIL MEETING)

Q3. Mr. Luce

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement following the recent NATO Council meeting in which he took part.

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) on 12th May.

Mr. Luce

As it is the Government's first duty to ensure the security of the [column 1187]nation, will the Prime Minister tell us how the Government propose to respond to the serious warnings given by President Carter and other NATO leaders about the Warsaw Pact strength and the consequent need to increase spending on NATO defence by 3 per cent.? Will he assure us that the Government will at least reverse the defence cuts in the pipeline and commit us to the 3 per cent. increase?

The Prime Minister

I cannot promise anything of the sort. The whole burden of defence is one that is borne by this country, and we are not reducing it below the level necessary to maintain an effective Western deterrent force. Our forces are not regarded in isolation. We contribute a considerable proportion of our GNP—higher than a number of other countries who are members of NATO—to the common defence. As to the future, I repeat that the proposed increases apply from 1979 and not from now. They will have to take into account the economic factors affecting individual countries. We shall be able to review the situation in 1978–79 and see what we can do.

Mr. Frank Allaun

Does that reply mean, as I hope, that the Government will not implement last week's decision by NATO to increase arms spending by 3 per cent. in real terms in each succeeding year? Would that not worsen our economic position, heighten international tension, worsen the prospects for the talks on mutual arms reduction, and conflict with the announcement that, at long last, we were to have a reduction in our arms spending?

The Prime Minister

I thought that my last answer was perfectly clear. When we get to 1978–79 we shall review total expenditure and see what the impact is. One way in which we could avoid the increases—apart from our economic situation—would be if the Soviet Union entered meaningful discussions with us on common reductions.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan

In view of what President Carter said about the need for the European members of NATO to play their full part, will the Prime Minister take the lead, with his colleagues in the European Community, in emphasising to the President of the United States the extreme importance of raw materials in South Africa to any major contribution [column 1188]to an armed force made by Western Europe as a whole?

The Prime Minister

I am sure that the President is aware of these facts and will take them fully into account. Not only the House but South Africa and the whole world should take account of the fact that President Carter does not mean to be deflected from his policy in respect of South Africa. This is one of the most hopeful signs that I have seen for the future of relations between the black and white races.