PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q1. Mr. Wm. Ross
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 23rd November.
[column 1469]The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and attending a reception given by Her Majesty The Queen.
Mr. Ross
Since, evidently, the Prime Minister will have some time to spare, will he find the time to review an ITN programme broadcast on 29th January of this year which featured a number of IRA members exhibiting an M60 machine gun in Londonderry, and will he seek to establish why no prosecution of these godfathers of murder has resulted from this incident, despite the fact that two of the offenders were positively identified from the ITN film?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me prior information of his concern about this matter. Although I have had the opportunity of looking at it only in a preliminary way, it is quite clear that it is an unsatisfactory position. However, the law relating to the admissibility of photographic evidence is universal throughout the United Kingdom. I understand that there are certain difficulties about the proposal which the hon. Member made, but I have asked the Ministers responsible to pursue it.
Mr. Ashton
Will my right hon. Friend find time today to look at the newspaper reports this morning that the Cabinet have decided to increase the cost of a television licence to £27? Is he aware that this represents almost a week's income for a pensioner couple? How much longer can we go on having a system where the Savoy Hotel, with 400 sets, pays for one licence exactly the same price as we are now expecting pensioners to pay? Should not we begin to take this out of taxation?
The Prime Minister
There are a number of anomalies in respect of television licences, and my hon. Friend has drawn attention to one of them. However, I could not recommend to the House the abandonment of the £300 million or so which is derived at the moment from television licences, and put it on taxation.
As regards the amount of the licence fee, I understand that it is still among the cheapest, if not the cheapest, in [column 1470]Europe, and certainly the service is the best.
Mrs. Thatcher
May I question James Callaghanthe Prime Minister about his sanctions policy in general and particularly with regard to Ford? Is he aware that we consider the sanctions policy, as at present operated, to be unfair, arbitrary and unjust in that the decision is made behind closed doors and there is no appeal against it? How can the Prime Minister possibly justify penalising a company which has already paid very dearly for trying to support his policies? Against whom would such sanctions be directed—the company or those who work for it?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady and the Opposition generally have made their position clear on a number of occasions. They do not like action being taken against firms. We believe that it is the best thing to do and we shall continue to do it when we think that it is necessary. There is no requirement upon the Government to purchase products from any firm or group of firms. Therefore, we shall refrain from doing so, if we believe that it is in the best interests of overcoming inflation to do so.
Mrs. Thatcher
May I ask the Prime Minister a specific question? What was a profitable company such as Ford to do when it could afford to pay the increases? Was it expected to hold out until it became a loss-making company, just like British Leyland?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady's cloven hoof shows through as soon as she refers to British Leyland. She correctly draws attention to the dilemma, as she often draws attention to many dilemmas, without suggesting a suitable answer. I am not saying that Ford does not have a great problem here. But there is an overriding national interest. The overriding national interest for the Government is to keep down inflation. We intend to take all possible steps to do so.
Mrs. Thatcher
rose——
The Prime Minister
Before the right hon. Lady puts her question for the third time, let me say, as regards Ford, that I have nothing to say about Ford at the moment because it is important that [column 1471]the firm should be notified before anything is said in public. That is our usual practice.
Mr. Jay
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United States Government are following exactly the same policy of sanctions against firms which break the pay guidelines? Is it not, therefore, rather hysterical to describe this policy as arbitrary and unjust?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady's view is that it is unjust and unfair and she is entitled to say that. On the other hand, standing here, I have to take the whole of the national interest into account. Frankly, in government, it is a question of the whole of balancing one unfairness against another when reaching decisions.
Q2. Mr. Aitken
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 23rd November.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for London-derry (Mr. Ross)
Mr. Aitken
Does not the Prime Minister realise that not only must he make a full disclosure to Parliament of what sanctions he intends to impose on the Ford Motor Company, but he must say what precisely is the legal and constitutional basis of those sanctions? Is he further aware that the secret blacklisting procedures which put on those sanctions are absolutely unacceptable in a parliamentary democracy?
The Prime Minister
There is no secrecy about this—otherwise I do not know why everyone on the Opposition Benches should be shouting “Ford” at me. The secrecy is certainly not between the Government and the companies concerned. There is nothing hidden from them. If the companies wish to make the fact public they may do so, and if they give the Government permission to do so, the Government will make it public. This is a matter between the Government and the companies in the first place.
Mr. Terry Walker
Will my right hon. Friend find time in a very busy day to consider with his colleagues the sale of Harrier aircraft to China, because this is a pressing problem which needs to be resolved quickly?
[column 1472]The Prime Minister
I am not sure that the problem is as pressing as all that. Our relationship with China, as I have made clear to the Vice-Premier of China, must proceed on a balanced basis. Political, trade, cultural and defence relationships must move together. One will not get ahead of the other. I believe that the Vice-Premier understands that. There are important matters which we shall certainly take our full time to consider before reaching a conclusion.
Mr. Ridley
Is the Prime Minister aware that it is intolerable that Ford should have to conduct negotiations with the question whether sanctions will be applied to it depending, not on the law of the land or any predictable thing, but upon his fickle whim? Is it not a principle of British justice that a person knows what the consequences of his actions will be before he undertakes them? Will he now tell the House what he intends to do?
The Prime Minister
I notice that the hon. Gentleman says that this is illegal. If it is, it can be challenged in the courts. So far no one has produced any evidence to me that the right of the Government to withhold orders from any firm has any element of illegality about it. I would be glad if someone would tell me what the illegality is.
Mr. Heffer
Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the height of hypocrisy for people to worry about sanctions on employers when in the past they have been keen to impose sanctions upon workers? Further, is it not true that the 5 per cent. policy is not the accepted policy of the Labour movement? Instead of listening to those on the other side of the Chamber on this matter, will my right hon. Friend concern himself with the views of the Labour movement and change the policy before it is too late?
The Prime Minister
I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend puts his supplementary question. As we well know, the Opposition do not care whether the policy succeeds or whether inflation goes up. That is not their concern. While I am always ready to listen to the views of the Labour and the trade union movements on this issue, and take them seriously into account, I cannot depart from the basic fact, which I believe the country [column 1473]well understands, namely, that if there is an increase in overall earnings of much more than 5 per cent. during the coming year inflation will rise again into double figures, and unemployment will go up. I cannot depart from my responsibility to state that because of the dislike of anyone, whether he be friend or foe. That is why the Government will use every opportunity that they can—every weapon and instrument at their disposal—to ensure that inflation does not rise into double figures and that unemployment does not go up. We shall fail in some cases, as we have failed with Ford, but we shall succeed on others. I know that I have the understanding of the whole country for what we are trying to do.
NORTHERN IRELAND
Q3. Mr. Pardoe
asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister
Visits to Northern Ireland are not announced in advance.
Mr. Pardoe
May I ask the Prime Minister to discard any gratuitous personal insults which he may have been asked to utter on this occasion by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and accept that I am not calling for the immediate withdrawal of British troops? Will he instead recall that in his own book he stated his marked reluctance to commit troops in the first place, precisely because he feared that that commitment would become permanent? Does he recognise that the very permanence of our commitment may be persuading some of the politicians in Northern Ireland that they do not need to make the compromises necessary for a political settlement?
The Prime Minister
I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is not calling for the withdrawal of British troops. That is helpful in existing circumstances. Otherwise, comfort is given to those who believe that violence can achieve what reason will not achieve. As regards the veto power—I think that that would be the correct way of summing up the hon. Gentleman's words—I realise that the present posture means that we may not make any progress on constitutional reform in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend [column 1474]the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is doing things in the best possible way, by having a series of discussions with all of the parties. It remains our strong policy that, as soon as it is possible to achieve any measure of acquiescence and agreement, we shall be happy to introduce constitutional reforms into Northern Ireland to enable both communities to take part in an acceptable form of government.
Mr. McNamara
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the recent decisions of the Government, such as that concerning the legislation which I understand we are to discuss next week dealing with extra seats, makes the majority in Northern Ireland even more intransigent when it comes to making any concession whatever to the declared policy of the Government and the party?
Should we not look carefully at that type of legislation and possibly, even at this late stage, withdraw it?
The Prime Minister
This legislation arises from a recommendation by Mr. Speaker's Conference, which I believe was unanimous or almost unanimous. It is always the Government's responsibility and practice to carry out such legislation. I quite realise that my hon. Friend may take the view that the legislation would make the majority more intransigent. However, that would be a short-sighted way of approaching this issue on the part of the majority. The events of the past 10 years have made the majority realise more and more that the minority realise more and more that the minority community must be integrated into the affairs of the Province.
Mr. Powell
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he next visits that Province he will be gratified to find an increase in public confidence throughout the community? Is he further aware that he will note the successful recruitment of all the security forces, which is making it possible for the Army to play more of a proper part in the security of the Province and for the security in practice to be taken over by the police and the UDR?
The Prime Minister
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, because this is and should be the policy. I am glad to hear that it is being successful. The policy is that the RUC should take the prime [column 1475]role in security in Northern Ireland with the Army in a supporting role.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given me details of the number of civilian and Service deaths and injuries in the past 12 months. I am glad to see that, despite the recent explosions, the figures are on a downward path. It looks as if what my right hon. Friend and others have said is true—that the ordinary people in Northern Ireland are sick and tired of the violence. They would like to see some constitutional development but they are prepared to accept the present situation if it means that violence, death and bloodshed can be restrained.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker
Prime Minister—statement.