Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [940/258-66]
Editorial comments: 1515-1530.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 2810
Themes: Privatized & state industries, Energy
[column 258]

NUCLEAR TESTS

Q1. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Prime Minister if he will meet Mr. Carter and Mr. Brezhnev to seek agreement on the proposed five years' moratorium on all nuclear test explosions; and if, as a contribution to the success of the discussions, he will undertake to end unconditionally and henceforth British test explosions at Nevada or elsewhere.

[column 259]

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)

I should be glad to meet Mr. Carter and Mr. Brezhnev if at any time this seemed the best way to advance the tripartite negotiations on a comprehensive test ban.

Any decision to halt nuclear testing while the negotiations are proceeding should be taken by all the participants. A unilateral decision by this country would not improve the prospects of achieving our objective of a permanent treaty banning all nuclear explosions.

Mr. Allaun

What possible advantage can there be to Britain in further tests if the Government do not intend a new generation of nuclear weapons, which they have already renounced? Would not this move help to meet our legal and moral obligations under the non-proliferation treaty?

The Prime Minister

The answer is “No” to both parts of my hon. Friend's question. There are technical reasons for continuing the tests—as the United States and the Soviet Union both obviously feel, because they conduct far more tests than we do. Our moral position is certainly in line with that of other countries and I have often repeated to my hon. Friend—although he never accepts it—that Britain's influence in talks is far greater if we are there, because we are involved in the matter, than it would be if we had unilaterally decided to opt out.

Mr. Pattie

Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is still Government policy to take all effective measures necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the British nuclear deterrent?

The Prime Minister

Yes, that is the reason for carrying out tests.

Mr. George Rodgers

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no point in testing a weapon unless we are prepared to use it in some circumstances? Will he explain in what circumstances we would be prepared to use it?

The Prime Minister

If one wishes to have a deterrent, it is clearly necessary that it should be known to deter.

Mr. Amery

Will the Prime Minister reinforce the statement made by Chancellor Schmidt to the Institute of Strategic Studies that if the West were to give up [column 260]its nuclear weapons it would be in an extremely weak position, in view of the overwhelming conventional forces of the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister

There is no doubt that the Soviet Union is increasing its conventional forces, and strategic studies show that it is doing so to a much greater extent than is the West. In relation to strategic nuclear weapons, there is probably a balance of terror on both sides, and for that reason I believe that we can look forward to a period of detente.

BELGRADE

Q2. Mr. Greville Janner

asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Belgrade.

The Prime Minister

I have been invited to visit Yugoslavia, and hope to be able to take up the invitation in due course.

Mr. Janner

When my right hon. Friend goes to Yugoslavia and, in the meantime, through our representatives at the Belgrade Conference, will he confirm that the Government will continue to stand firm in assuring the Soviet authorities that there can be no permanent detente while the Soviet Union continues to trample on human rights, persecute the Jewish minority and humble great Soviet citizens like Academicians Levitch and Sharanski?

The Prime Minister

The United Kingdom, in company with other members of the Nine, and on a wider basis in Europe, has made clear its position on the cases. It is that detente will have a fuller meaning when it brings progress on human rights to a much higher level than it has done so far.

Mr. Thorpe

Since the Prime Minister's support for the issue of human rights is not in question, if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to attend the Belgrade meeting during its time of sitting, will he at least see that our representatives there draw to the attention of the Soviet Union the fact that for monitoring the Helsinki agreement Professor Yuri Orlov has been in detention for nine months without being brought to trial—which is in breach of the Soviet Union's [column 261]criminal code? A lawyer from this country has been refused a visa to represent the professor, and observer status has been refused to those of us who wish to attend the trial. Does this not show that the Soviet Union is being totally hypocritical in giving effect to Basket III? Can it be pointed out to the Soviet Union that it cannot expect to receive technical and economic co-operation from the West unless it is prepared to honour the agreement to which President Brezhnev gave his name?

The Prime Minister

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the comments that he made at the beginning of his question. As for the position of individuals, the Belgrade meeting is not a forum in which individual cases can be resolved. They—as I have explained to the House on many occasions—are better resolved in different forums. Belgrade is the arena in which principles and their implementation should be discussed, and it is on those lines that the British representatives are conducting matters.

As to the cases of Mr. Orlov and Mr. Sharanski, who are at the moment held in detention, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Soviet Government are fully aware of the deep concern felt in this country by many citizens about the treatment of these two gentlemen.

Mr. James Lamond

In considering the question of human rights at Belgrade, has my right hon. Friend instructed our representative to raise the question of the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus, which is a sovereign State and a member of the Commonwealth that has been invaded by foreign troops from a country that is a co-signatory to the Helsinki Final Act, and a State in which human rights have been trampled underfoot in the most disgraceful way, resulting in the disappearance of 2,000 Greek Cypriots, 200 of whom have been clearly identified as being in the hands of Turkey but of whom no trace can be found?

The Prime Minister

I am not certain whether the agenda of the Belgrade meeting is meant to cover the discussion of that serious matter, but I shall put my hon. Friend's point to the Foreign Secretary. It would be very helpful if the Turkish Government began discussions with the Greek Cypriots in such a way as [column 262]to enable a settlement of this matter to be achieved and the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island of Cyprus to be obtained.

Mr. Goodhew

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Basket III of the Helsinki agreement included the free movement of peoples? Will he make clear to Mr. Brezhnev, privately if he wishes, that until the Berlin Wall is pulled down and the death strip torn up there can be little credibility in the good intentions of the Soviet Government?

The Prime Minister

The Soviet Union is in no doubt of our view on this matter, nor is the Government of the GDR. I took the occasion of the visit of the governing mayor of Berlin last week to make clear publicly where we stand on this matter. We shall give full support to West Berlin in carrying out the quadripartite agreement and ensuring that there is as full a movement as possible between East and West Berlin.

TUC AND CBI

Q3. Mr. Molloy

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC and the CBI.

The Prime Minister

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 10th November.

Mr. Molloy

When he met the TUC and the CBI, did my right hon. Friend discuss with them the considerable and remarkable improvement in the British economy? [Interruption.] I know that this improvement is bound to cause irritation to the Conservative Party in its anti-British campaign, which it reveals in this House, in the country and overseas. Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the TUC and the CBI the effects that this improvement could have on wage negotiations and price stabilisation?

The Prime Minister

I constantly point out to trade union conferences and at all my meetings with trade unions that what is happening to inflation and the decrease in the rate of inflation has profound consequences in preserving our competitiveness, preserving jobs and raising the standard of life of our people. [column 263]That, together with the tax reductions that are now working through—I believe that some are being paid this week—and the prospects for real growth next year, which are significantly better than for some years, should lead, as my hon. Friend indicated in the last part of his question, to moderation in wage claims and settlements. That is the best way to preserve the prospects for increased growth next year.

Mrs. Thatcher

Will James Callaghanthe Prime Minister say when he will be in a position to make a statement to the House about the unprecedented losses of the British Steel Corporation, which are now reported to amount to £500 million a year?

The Prime Minister

I answered questions on this subject last week. The Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry have begun discussions on these matters, and when they are brought to a conclusion a report will be made to the House.

Mrs. Thatcher

Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that it is no part of his strategy to use the revenue from North Sea oil to keep going wealth-consuming jobs rather than allow the revenue to be used to generate wealth-creating jobs?

The Prime Minister

As a general proposition, that is wholly unexceptionable, but I take it that the right hon. Lady is not suggesting that because of the world recession we should allow the British steel industry to collapse.

Mr. David Steel

In future meetings with the TUC and CBI—[Interruption.]—will the Prime Minister continue to lay stress on the importance of the 10 per cent. guideline? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to put his question.

Mr. Steel

I am asking a perfectly serious question about the importance of adhering to the 10 per cent. guideline. Did the Prime Minister maintain that in his meeting with the Fire Brigades Union this morning? If so, what sort of response did he get?

The Prime Minister

If the House will forgive me, I do not wish to go into the details of my discussions with the FBU [column 264]this morning. I set out my view very fully and they fully understand the position of the Government. In my view there is no doubt that the firemen have a substantial case for determining a long-term formula which will fix their position. I have indicated this to them and have also tried to indicate to them—without giving any positive assurances, because we were not negotiating—that I would see whether we could underwrite such a long-term agreement if one were reached. But it is not possible for the Government in present circumstances to depart from the 10 per cent. guideline. We are not fighting the firemen; I am fighting for the overall objective of keeping inflation down and jobs up.

Mrs. Castle

Will my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that the Government will underwrite the firemen's long-term pay formula to the same extent that they have undertaken to underwrite the findings of the independent inquiry into the police?

The Prime Minister

There have been no undertakings given on either count. I should prefer not to be pressed on this matter when negotiations are being conducted. They are not best conducted across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Prior

When the Prime Minister next meets Mr. Jack Jones and the TUC, will he tell Mr. Jones and the Transport and General Workers Union what sanctions he thinks the Government should apply to them for giving themselves increases of more than 10 per cent?

The Prime Minister

I am not acquainted with what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. If he will put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Employment, I am sure that he will get an adequate reply.

PRIME MINISTER

(ENGAGEMENTS)

Q4. Mr. MacKay

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Tuesday 29th November.

The Prime Minister

This morning I met at their request the Executive Council of the Fire Brigades Union. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall [column 265]be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall also be attending a reception given by the United Kingdom Pilots Association and this evening I shall be addressing the Institution of Production Engineers at its annual dinner.

Mr. MacKay

During his busy day, will the Prime Minister find time to confirm the fascinating report in The Times today that states that when the Prime Minister met the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party yesterday he remonstrated with it and told its members that they owed their position in this place to the Liberal Party? Is not the reality that the Liberal Party owes its existence to the continuance of the Labour Government?

The Prime Minister

I do not think that I shall find time to read the “fascinating reports” , to use the hon. Gentleman's words. I agree that they are fascinating. Sometimes it is much more fascinating to read the reports than to be present at the meetings.

Mr. Bidwell

Did my right hon. Friend contact the Indian Government yesterday, or will he do so today or tomorrow, about the devastation and loss of human life that has been taking place in India? Has British aid been offered? If so, what form is it taking?

The Prime Minister

Yes. Last Tuesday Prime Minister Desai and I spoke on the telephone about that and other matters. On that day, when the reports were coming through, I at once offered any assistance that the High Commission in Delhi could give him. Since then my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development has offered help, and some has been dispatched. I understood from Prime Minister Desai that the Indian Government hope to be [column 266]able to handle the grave problem themselves, but I am sure that the House would have allowed me, as I did, to express on its behalf, and on behalf of everyone, our sympathy and our regret that such distress has been caused.

Mr. Fairbairn

Does the Prime Minister recall that in the counter-inflation statement that he made on 20th July, when we were to enter into the consensus society under his Government, I asked him what would happen if one party did not consent. I asked him whether his Government would confront or surrender, and he replied “Neither” . Did he by any chance mean “Both” ?

The Prime Minister

No. As usual, I meant what I said. We are not in a position of confrontation at the moment. Certainly the firemen do not think that—[Hon. Members: “Oh.” ] I have met their executive and hon. Members have not. The firemen recognise very well the dilemma in which the country is now plunged, when there is a great deal of sympathy for the firemen's case but, on the other hand, an understanding that in a structured wage system such as we have, that which is given to one goes through the whole system, and that that cannot be permitted.