TEHERAN
56. Mr. Litterick
asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to visit Teheran in the near future.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
I have at present no plans to visit Iran.
Mr. Litterick
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Arab Emirates have tripled their expenditure on armaments during the last year and that this has taken place in response to what they regard as the rapid military build-up of Saudi Arabia and Iran, both of which are being heavily supplied with armaments by the United Kingdom? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend try to find a way of conveying to the Shah of Iran—and to this House—that there must be some limit to the quantity of arms that we are prepared to supply to both Iran and Saudi Arabia because we wish to avoid the repetition in the Gulf of the shambles that we and other great Powers have created in the Eastern Mediterranean?
The Prime Minister
The expenditure on arms in almost every country is too high at present, and especially in the developing countries. That is one reason why I hope that the United Nations disarmament conference will be able to take steps to reverse that trend. I would point out to my hon. Friend that Iran has on her northern border a most powerful and heavily armed neighbour and that there has been a recent uprising in her Eastern neighbour. She is, therefore, properly concerned with her own security. However, I assure the House that we shall consider on its merits every proposal made for the sale of arms.
Mr. Walters
Should the Prime Minister have the opportunity of visiting Iran, will he point out how much we and the Western world appreciate the important part that that country is playing in maintaining stability in the area? Will he also point out how much we value its important trade relations with Britain?
The Prime Minister
The policies of the Shah of Iran are intended to produce greater stability in the area in which it is such a powerful component. Of course, Iran is the most important trading partner we have in Asia, and we must also take [column 237]that factor into account, too. But I hope that we shall be able to have good discussions with the Shah about a number of matters that are of concern, I know, to him in his process of liberalisation which has gone so far and which, I believe, he wishes to carry further. I should like also to express my appreciation of the help that he has given us in our policies in relation, for example, to the Middle East and Rhodesia.
Mr. Newens
But in view of the flagrant abuses of human rights and the denials of elementary democracy in Iran, how can my right hon. Friend justify the continuation of the supply of huge quantities of arms to that country which are to be used primarily in suppressing the attempts of the people of Iran to obtain similar rights to those which we demand for ourselves in this country?
The Prime Minister
I do not accept my hon. Friend's analysis. The arms that we are supplying are certainly not intended to work for internal suppression. They are intended for the reasons I gave in reply to the first supplementary question.
On human rights there is concern, as is well known, and that concern is felt inside Iran as well as outside. But it is a difficult process for a ruler such as the Shah, who has immense power, gradually to release that power and to encourage more liberalisation while at the same time maintaining a degree of order. I hope that he will be able to do so. Certainly, we would support him in both efforts—namely, to secure greater liberalisation but at the same time to secure continual progress in that country.
QUEEN'S REGULATIONS
57. Mr. Ridley
asked the Prime Minister if there is a copy of Queen's Regulations for the Army in the library of No. 10 Downing Street paid for out of public funds.
The Prime Minister
No.
Mr. Ridley
Is the Prime Minister aware that Queen's Regulations do not forbid the wives of Service personnel protesting about the low level of pay, and was it not rather shabby of him to try [column 238]to stop them doing so? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman stop trying to pay decent wages to public service personnel by post-dated cheques drawn on the next Tory Government?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that Queen's Regulations do not forbid Service wives making protests about the levels of pay or, indeed, other matters. Far from discouraging them or forbidding them to do so, when I went to Plymouth I met a deputation of Service wives from the Royal Navy and had a very full discussion with them about the whole matter. Therefore, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that imputation. As regards post-dated cheques, I can promise the hon. Gentleman that we shall be here to redeem all the cheques that are issued.
Mr. Roy Hughes
Will the Prime Minister consider allowing members of Her Majesty's Forces to join their appropriate trade union, so that they may then have opinions different from the one recently expressed in cold-war terms in China by a senior officer?
The Prime Minister
My experience over the last few weeks convinces me that the Services are extremely well served in the matter of knowledge of their conditions and pay being made public and the pressures that are applied upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that their obligations are met in full.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles
When this subject was last raised with the right hon. Gentleman, he assured the House that the Forces would get a square deal. Why has he not fulfilled that promise?
The Prime Minister
Clearly, that must remain a matter of opinion, but in relation to all civilian employees, both in the Government service and generally, I think it true to say that the Services have been given an equivalent deal, together with a firm promise that where their conditions have fallen behind they will be brought up to date during the next two years. Despite our great success in the battle against inflation, we must not forget that there is still a continuing battle to be fought and won on that front, and every section of the community has to play its part.
[column 239]PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
58. Mr. Kenneth Lewis
asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his public engagements for Tuesday 16th May.
The Prime Minister
This morning I greeted President Khama of Botswana on his arrival for an official visit to this country. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening, subject to parliamentary business, I hope to address the annual dinner of the CBI.
Mr. Lewis
If the Prime Minister has time during the rest of the day, will he reconsider two speeches he made over the weekend? In the first of them he said that his Government had plenty of time. As for the second, will he reconsider what he said in terms of the family—that he would have a special family policy, the Government's family policy? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the impact of every Government policy so far has done nothing but damage families in this country? Unemployment is now higher than ever before, we have a poorer education system than we have ever had before, and we have a flagging National Health Service. Had not his Government better forget bringing in that kind of policy?
The Prime Minister
I am glad to say that both speeches I made at the weekend were extremely well received and that I derived very great encouragement from them. I do not recall—I wish that I could pick the audience here; it would be a lot better than the one I have got—the first reference that the hon. Gentleman made. As regards family policy, however, I do not really see how he can make that charge when we consider the proposed and actual increases in child benefit, when we recall that the present Budget introduces a new reduced rate band which certainly helps every working wife to a greater extent than it helps where there is one income coming in, and when we recall a number of other measures of which the hon. Gentleman is well aware.
What I feel is clear is that the policy of the Government—like that of others—has not been totally co-ordinated. As [column 240]there is now a larger number of women going out to work than ever before, a number of changes are needed if we are to preserve and enhance the family's dimension and the family circle, which I believe to be a very precious asset in our national life.
Mr. Mellish
My right hon. Friend should not be worried, because most of us thought that the speeches were jolly good. [An. Hon. Member: “What is your majority, Bob?” ] Unlike some hon. Gentlemen, I do not worry about majorities. When the Prime Minister meets the CBI tonight, will he be good enough to revert to what is properly called his “Buy British” campaign and in this instance strongly urge British manufacturers to ensure that they buy British raw materials rather than buy from abroad? This is one of the worst features of our import problem.
The Prime Minister
The accent on our import propensity is very considerable. I believe that the CBI is a very useful instrument for trying to bring suppliers and customers much more closely together. It is at the manufacturing stage that I believe “Buy British” can have most effect. It is “Buy British, make British and sell British” .
Mrs. Thatcher
If James Callaghanthe Prime Minister has always had a natural wish to help the family, why have his Government pursued a policy of heavy income tax on families, as on everyone else in society? Why have successive Labour Administrations taken so much away from families in income tax that they have left them with too little to keep themselves and then compelled them to apply for means-tested benefits in order to get some of their own money back?
Mr. William Hamilton
Milk snatcher.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady's comment seems to be more an expression of opinion than a question asking for information, but I must tell her that, in addition to the benefits that I have already mentioned in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), we have, as she will remember, kept the price of school meals steady during the course of the current year. I am particularly glad that we were able to increase the provision of free school milk. [Hon. [column 241]Members: “Hear, hear.” ] I am sure that the right hon. Lady will join me in thanking the Chancellor for doing that.
Generally, it seems to me that the burden that the family has had to carry has been part of the national burden borne over the last few years in order to get our situation right. I am glad to say that living standards are now going ahead faster than they have done for some years.
Mrs. Thatcher
Will the Prime Minister address himself to the supplementary question which I asked? Is it not better to leave the family with enough of its own money to keep its own children rather than first to take it away in income tax and then to compel the family to suffer the indignity of applying for means-tested benefit such as school meals?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady obviously does not want to listen to the answers that I give, because it is quite clear from what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in fact income tax is being reduced in this Budget for the family. This was in every sense a family Budget when one takes into account school meals, school milk, the reduction in income tax and the increase in children's benefits. It is the right hon. Lady and her friends who have distorted the Budget by giving relief to those who are best off in the country—to those, indeed, who are getting the highest incomes. How that can be construed as helping the average family is more than I can understand.
Mr. Terry Walker
Will my right hon. Friend have opportunity today to consider newspaper reports about the future production programme of British Aerospace and whether the future partners of British Aerospace will be European or American? Will he confirm those reports, which suggested that a Cabinet decision is forthcoming on this matter? This is most urgent and important to many workers in my constituency whose jobs depend upon it and also in view of the pressure of British Airways in trying to buy American aircraft at this time.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend introduces one of the complications in [column 242]what is undoubtedly a natural instinct to buy British, because the conflicting interests of British Airways, British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce do not all run in the same direction. I can promise my hon. Friend that the Government are giving the most careful consideration to these matters. We shall try to produce an answer in due course that will best meet the national needs and, I hope, safeguard a great many jobs.
Mr. Prior
Will the Prime Minister take time today to inquire why no decision has been reached about the removal of the hulk of the “Eleni V” from just off my constituency? Is he aware that the delay has caused grave misgivings among my constituents and that there has been a lack of decisive action? Will he further state that the Government will now hold a full inquiry into all the events of this ghastly accident in order that we can learn from the experience of what has happened so that we try not to make the same mistakes again?
The Prime Minister
Without accepting that mistakes have been made in this matter, I understand fully the concern of the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents, as I believe we all do, especially taking recent events into account. I made inquiries before coming into the House and I understand that the immediate objectives of attaching tow lines securely to the wreck have largely been achieved. There is adequate buoyancy, and representatives of two leading salvage firms are now meeting in order to reach an early decision on the best course of action. If there are any lessons to be learned, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that will be so, but after every one of these disasters the local arrangements are reviewed very completely indeed in order to ensure the least possible damage to the coast.
Mr. Prior
Is it not extraordinary that this ship——
Hon. Members
Oh, not again.
Mr. Speaker
Order. I have always tried to help hon. Members from both sides. If they have constituency interests, Members know that I try to help.
Mr. Prior
What seems extraordinary is that the hulk has been lying off the [column 243]coast for 10 days, it has been known that it would have to be raised, it has now been raised and still no decision has been taken as to what to do with it. It really is a terrible situation for my constituency, and I believe that the Government ought by now to have decided what to do.
The Prime Minister
I do not complain about the right hon. Gentleman using this opportunity to raise what clearly is a very serious matter for him, but I think he will excuse me from knowing all the details of these matters. I shall certainly make inquiries of the appropriate Ministries about the situation, but I understand that eight spraying vessels, together with a naval minesweeper, were on the scene within 24 hours, that the numbers have progressively been increased and that the local authorities were prepared when the first oil reached the beaches, but I also understand that they are still having great difficulty in deciding about the future of the vessel. That, however, does not necessarily lie wholly in the hands of the Government. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, and especially the people who live on that part of the coast, that the Government will make sure that there is no delay in reaching decisions on this matter.