Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [957/678-84]
Editorial comments: 1515-30.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 2446
Themes: Industry, Pay
[column 678]

Nigeria (Prime Minister Visit)

Q1. Mr. Ronald Bell

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about his recent visit to Nigeria.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)

Yes. On 19th September I received a message from President Kaunda expressing concern about the developing situation in Southern Africa, and asking for an urgent meeting. I responded immediately with the suggestion that we should meet at Kano in Northern Nigeria, which we did three days later on 22nd and 23rd September.

I found the President deeply disturbed about the absence of progress towards a settlement in Rhodesia and the severe economic and military impact this is having on his country. The closure of the railways to the coast was preventing the export of copper, with a consequential shortage of foreign exchange; there was insufficient rolling stock to bring in the necessary seed and fertiliser vital for this year's plantings, which had to be done within the ensuing few weeks. He had forebodings of military attacks on Zambia from Rhodesia which were, in the event, justified.

I immediately agreed that we should do what we could to assist a fellow member of the Commonwealth which has suffered severely from the effect of sanctions, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in his statement of 2nd November, fully informed the House of the measures of assistance we were glad to render.

We had a full discussion on the general situation in Southern Africa, notably in Rhodesia and Namibia. I also had the opportunity of meeting for the first time Lieutenant-General Obasanjo in Lagos and had valuable discussions with him and his colleagues.

I should like to express my gratitude for the excellent arrangements made for the visit by the Nigerian authorities.

Mr. Bell

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that statement. The shooting down of the civil airliner and the massacre of survivors had just occurred. Did the Prime Minister protest to President Kaunda about the ghastly barbarities [column 679]which are mounted from camps in his country? Did the Prime Minister take the opportunity of protesting to President Kaunda about what Lord Goronwy-Roberts in another place has referred to as the sickening technique of abduction, which has put 100,000 Rhodesian children in terrorist camps in Zambia?

Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity now of answering a question which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) put to the Foreign Secretary on Thursday? My right hon. Friend asked whether the assurance by President Kaunda about the arms supplies meant that they would be used only for the defence of Zambian troops and aircraft or that they would be used for the defence of terrorist camps inside Zambia. That question was met by evasive chatter from the Foreign Secretary.

The Prime Minister

It would have been improper for me to protest to President Kaunda about the attack on the Viscount aircraft. The matter was discussed between us, but I certainly made no protest because it was no responsibility of his, and in the course of the discussion he said that he needed no convincing about the consequences of such attacks, that it was a matter of moral concern to him, quite apart from any aid that we might offer, and that in no sense was it as a bargain for the aid we were offering that he would not support and did not support attacks on civilians in this way. Therefore, I hope that the Conservative Party will digest what I have said on this matter.

As regards the question about the defence of Zambia, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave a complete answer. The arms are intended for the defence of a fellow member of the Commonwealth which has suffered an unjustified attack from Rhodesia and the Rhodesian authorities.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have been five minutes on this Question.

FLUSHING

Q2. Mr. Penhaligon

asked the Prime Minister if he will visit Flushing.

[column 680]

The Prime Minister

I have at present no plans to visit either Flushing in Holland or the village of the same name which is such a distinguished ornament of the hon. Member's constituency.

Mr. Penhaligon

I do not know about the people of Holland, but my constituents, especially the fishermen, will be greatly disappointed. How can the Prime Minister justify the denial of even the six-mile exclusive zone to the traditional long-line fishermen of Cornwall? How can he justify 12 to 15 Soviet bloc fishing factory boats being anchored in Falmouth Bay at present? Does he believe that this is yet another example of mankind exploiting a great natural resource for short-term gain? What is more important, will he stop it?

The Prime Minister

I know that there is an argument, and I well understand the feelings of the local fishermen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and surrounding areas when other fishermen come and scoop up the fish. However, I understand that they happen to be British fishing boats from other constituencies that are scooping up the fish and reselling it to the factory vessels. I do not know whether to regard this as a prime example of private enterprise or as an unprecedented interference with our national resources.

Mr. Bryan Davies

If the Prime Minister will not visit Flushing, will he visit WC—I refer to the London district—where he will discover widespread support, as in the rest of London, for his Government's determination to stand by Zambia in its hour of need, in combat?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member knows that that goes beyond this Question.

PRIME MINISTER

(ENGAGEMENTS)

Q4. Mr. Michael Morris

asked the Prime Minister if he will state his official engagements for 7th November.

The Prime Minister

This morning I met the Foreign Minister of Poland. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Morris

It is a shame that the Prime Minister will not be listening to the [column 681]debate on Rhodesia. Does he recognise that the Government's attempt to lose the Bingham report within that debate is unacceptable to the House? Will he now make a categorical statement that there will be a debate solely on Bingham, and that he in his capacity as Prime Minister will make a statement on what action is to be taken against the politicians involved?

The Prime Minister

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I hope to listen to a great deal of the debate on Rhodesia. I think that when the hon. Gentleman and the House hear the Foreign Secretary's speech, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, they will find a great deal of it is devoted to a review of the Bingham report. From certain documents that I see on the laps of right hon. and hon. Members, I have a feeling that we shall hear a great deal more about the Bingham report.

I do not blame anyone for this, but I am not sure that the arrangements have turned out as I had hoped. I had hoped that we would have two days on Bingham in the course of the debate on the Queen's Speech, and that was why we extended the debate by a day. It is a day longer than usual. But I understand that there is a difference of view. The Opposition wish—it is within their power and I do not complain—to spend two days on the current situation in Rhodesia, but that will not prevent Government spokesmen from devoting their time to an analysis of Bingham.

Mr. Christopher Price

If my right hon. Friend can find some time today to telephone his colleagues in the EEC Council of Ministers, will he assure them that Britain has no intention of associating herself in any way with the European monetary system?

The Prime Minister

I shall not be conducting such telephone calls, so I fear that the consequences of my hon. Friend's question do not arise.

Mrs. Thatcher

As one of James Callaghanthe Prime Minister's duties today is to answer questions from the Dispatch Box, will he say whether he intends to persist in blacklisting firms which breach his pay policy? Or does he intend, perhaps, to adopt the [column 682]TUC's policy of putting new price controls on industry?

The Prime Minister

The policy laid down in the White Paper still stands.

Mrs. Thatcher

I take it, then, that the Prime Minister still intends to apply blacklisting sanctions to Ford.

The Prime Minister

If the right hon. Lady had read the White Paper, she would know the answer.

Mrs. Thatcher

I have read the White Paper, and it does not mention Ford. Does the Prime Minister intend to apply blacklisting sanctions to the proposed pay settlement at Ford's?

The Prime Minister

That matter will be considered in due course.

Q5. Mr. Ashton

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list her engagements for 7th November.

The Prime Minister

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris).

Mr. Ashton

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to continue his discussions with the TUC on pay policy, and will he make a statement to the TUC, and also state publicly, that he will crack down very hard on, and blacklist if necessary, Tory councils which put up rents by more than 5 per cent. and on the proposal to put an increase of 12p per gallon on petrol, and crack down also on £30 television licences and on house prices, which have gone up by 25 per cent. this year, none of which is caused by wage increases and all of which must be kept down if the unions are to accept the policy?

The Prime Minister

There is no reason why rents should go up by an extortionate amount this year, and advice is being given to local authorities along these lines. I hope that the increases will be kept to single figures, as, indeed, I hope that the increase in earnings will be kept to single figures. I am bound to say that there cannot be an exact interaction between any single price increase and the increase in earnings, although the nationalised industries have done well. If we can achieve an increase in earnings based on 5 per cent. settlements, on our present [column 683]information and understanding and on the best forecast that can be made, we can have inflation down to somewhere between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. by the end of next year.

Mr. Tebbit

If the Prime Minister cannot tell us whether he intends to blacklist Ford for its settlement—although it is already clear that it will be above the Government's guidelines—perhaps he can tell us whether he intends to blacklist the TUC, which has entered into an agreement to pay its employees 60 per cent. more in three equal instalments of 20 per cent. over the next three years.

The Prime Minister

The decision on Ford will be taken in due course, but I cannot be harried at the Dispatch Box—[Hon. Members: “Why not?” ]—even by the frenzied shouts of the supporters of the right hon. Lady, into announcing a decision before it is ready. The House need have no fear; it will know when a decision is taken.

With regard to the TUC, I understand that the Secretary of State for Employment is inquiring into the matter.

Mr. Ioan Evans

Did my right hon. Friend see the television programme “Panorama” last night, which reported on illegal arms exports to South Africa? If not, will he during the course of the day obtain a transcript of the programme and take appropriate action?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir, I did not see the broadcast, but it was brought to my notice that there had been an alleged illegal export of arms to South Africa via Antigua. If that is so, I think that the BBC has done a service, although I understand that inquiries have been made before and that the American and Canadian Governments had been investigating this matter because the company concerned straddles the border. The British Government will decide what their responsibilities are in the matter and will follow it up if necessary.

Mr. Pardoe

Has the Prime Minister had time to acquaint himself with the contents of the report in last Saturday's issue of The Guardian on the Ford mass meeting? Is he aware that the reporter quoted the majority for staying out as just a majority, that the chief trade union negotiator reported it as four to one, that [column 684]the chief shop steward reported it as six to one and that many men on the shop floor stated that there was a 60–40 majority for staying in and not coming out at all? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that report has nothing whatever to do with industrial democracy and is a straight description of industrial thuggery? What does he intend doing about it?

The Prime Minister

The various descriptions that have come from this meeting seem, on the whole, to lead to the conclusion that there was a majority for staying out. But I agree with the hon. Member that this is not a satisfactory way of conducting affairs, although we should not assume that it is unsatisfactory merely because the result went the way that I did not want it to go, whereas in the case of Vauxhall it went the way I did want it to go.

Mr. Litterick

There was no protest then.

The Prime Minister

There was no protest then, as my hon. Friend reminds me. I say this to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I think it is a very unfortunate position. We have to be very careful how we talk to the trade unions about legislation on these matters. The last Government made such a mess of their legislation that this is a most sensitive area for discussions with the trade union movement at the moment. But if the trade union movement comes forward and says that it would like to alter the system and that it would like some legislation to do this, certainly I should respond.