PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Strang
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 May.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
Mr. Strang
Will the Prime Minister take time today to read the record in the Official Report of statements made last year by the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Scotland, urging those miners who were dismissed during the strike to take their case to the industrial tribunals? Is the right hon. Lady aware that today, in the House of Commons, there are 40 miners who took that advice and whom the tribunals recommended should be re-engaged, yet the National Coal Board is refusing to re-engage them? Is that not unjust? As a minimum, will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that she or the Secretary of State for Energy will take an early opportunity to discuss the matter with the new chairman of the National Coal Board?
The Prime Minister
No. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, management of the NCB's activities resides not in the Government but, by Act of Parliament, in the board of the NCB.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's visit to Israel and her interest in trying [column 175]to get some sort of international peace process going, will she confirm that she will not visit the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza? What arrangements is she making to meet the leaders of the Palestinians, bearing in mind that their future is the core issue in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
I expect to be meeting leaders of the Palestinians via an arrangement which has already been made. As at present advised, I do not expect to go into the occupied territories.
Mr. Kinnock
I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to join me and many other hon. Members in condemning the South African attack on Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana—three Commonwealth countries—in an act of state terrorism which was clearly designed to damage the Commonwealth initiative. In view of that outrage, will the right hon. Lady give us an undertaking, first, that Britain will not use its veto in the event of mandatory sanctions being sought at the United Nations Security Council, and, secondly, that she will either initiate or support additional sanctions by the Commonwealth against South Africa?
The Prime Minister
I totally and utterly condemn the raid by South Africa into the three countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred in detail. As he is aware, we have called in the chargé d'affaires from the South African embassy and expressed our views and how strongly we feel about the raids. After the raids and in the knowledge of them, the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group had a meeting with eight South African Ministers and discussed the way ahead. The group left its proposals with those South African Ministers. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the group has now left South Africa because the members of the group thought that that stage of their proceedings was over. It is just possible that they may continue their work. Even in view of what has happened, and in view of the violence on both sides, it is worth making every effort to stop South Africa dissolving into a cauldron of violence.
Mr. Kinnock
I sincerely hope that persistence by the Eminent Persons Group will be rewarded by significant change within South Africa. Does the Prime Minister not accept that ticking off the South African chargé does not constitute effective action? The efforts of the Eminent Persons Group would be immensely strengthened, as would the efforts of the Commonwealth in general, if the Prime Minister demonstrated here and now that she is prepared to initiate and develop effective sanctions against South Africa.
The Prime Minister
I do not believe that sanctions and the isolation of South Africa are any more likely to achieve the desired negotiations after the raid than they were before. The group of Heads of Government of the Commonwealth charged with duties in relation to the Eminent Persons Group will meet again in London at the beginning of August under the chairmanship of Sir Lynden Pindling. No doubt the stage reached by the Eminent Persons Group will be discussed then. I repeat, it is our great desire to prevent the terrible violence that could take place in South Africa and to do everything possible to assist the Eminent Persons Group in carrying out its role.
Mr. Kinnock
With that earnest desire by the Prime Minister in mind, may I ask whether she will accept that the isolation of South Africa is the only plausible means [column 176]remaining to pursue the possibility of a non-violent resolution and a non-violent removal of apartheid? If she accepts that, does she not recognise the significance of the British Government, even in anticipation of the findings of the Eminent Persons Group, taking a firm stand in line with the original propositions of the Nassau agreement in order to demonstrate to South Africa that we will not appease apartheid nor tolerate its warfare against other African states and, consequently we will implement effective sanctions against South Africa?
The Prime Minister
No, because sanctions would not help to achieve the objective that we seek. They did not do that in Rhodesia. It is right to do as we have done, to deny South Africa defence weapons. That is done under a mandatory Security Council resolution. We must keep in mind the objectives of discussion and dialogue and the prevention of violence on both sides.
Mr. John Carlisle
Will my right hon. Friend accept that since the African National Congress declared an escalation of violence at the weekend, in the interests of self-defence the South African Government had no alternative but to prevent further bloodshed by the attack? Will the Prime Minister accept, as the former Australian Prime Minister Mr. Malcolm Fraser who is a member of the Eminent Persons Group accepted on today's lunchtime news, that all is not lost and that now is the time to redouble the efforts of the EPG to find a peaceful solution?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend heard me say earlier, we totally and utterly condemn the raids conducted by South Africa on the three countries. Together with the Commonwealth we still believe that it is right—and I shall quote from the Commonwealth communiqué—to
“Initiate, in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides, a process of dialogue across lines of colour, politics and religion, with a view to establishing a non-racial and representive government” .
For that purpose it is vital to secure the ending of violence on all sides. That was and will remain our objective. If we had given up on Rhodesia every time there was a terrible raid across the border or violence within that country, we should never have reached the settlement that we ultimately obtained.
Mr. Steel
Has the British ambassador in Pretoria yet met the South African Foreign Minister, and, if so, what was the outcome? Will the right hon. Lady give the House an undertaking that once the Commonwealth Heads of Government have heard the report from the Eminent Persons Group she will not leave Britain isolated in the Commonwealth as being willing to utter words against apartheid but to take no action?
The Prime Minister
I have told the right hon. Gentleman of the action that the Commonwealth countries together took with the formation of the Eminent Persons Group. I have said that the morning after the raids the group met eight Ministers, still determined to carry on with its task, if it possibly could, of achieving discussion and dialogue, because that is the most important thing. I am not aware whether our ambassador in South Africa has seen the President, but we are continuing our efforts to try to secure dialogue and discussion.
Mr. Amery
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the South African raids in themselves are not so very different from those undertaken by Israel or, more recently, by the United States, with my right hon. Friend's co-operation? [column 177]Does she further agree that the cause of anxiety is the timing of those raids, when the eminent persons were in Cape Town? Had we not better wait for clarification of why the South Africans reacted as they did, and how the eminent persons have reacted, before we decide on any course of action?
The Prime Minister
I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that the South African case is different from any other. Different, different, different in its apartheid; different in the degree of violence on all sides. It is our objective to end that violence and to secure dialogue and discussion. The Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group has undoubtedly suffered a setback as a result of what has happened, but I hope that it will continue its work as long as there is a possibility of its coming to a successful conclusion.
Q2. Mr. Bruce
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 May.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Bruce
Will the Prime Minister today acknowledge that the British people want the Government to give top priority to finding alternative energy sources to nuclear power, and will she recognise that to do so would be much more beneficial to Britain's trade than importing unwanted pressurised water reactors from the United States?
The Prime Minister
We must be realistic. Alternative energy sources such as harnessing the wind and the tides could meet only a tiny proportion of the great demand for power to keep the wheels of industry turning. There is a future for nuclear power in Britain and our record shows that we can go on and build nuclear power stations in the future, subject to the necessary planning permission.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
In view of the statements by the Secretary of State for Employment about the need for continuing wage restraint, does my right hon. Friend agree that any recommendations coming from the Top Salaries Review Body should be implemented in such a way that those earning most in the public sector are seen to be giving a lead to the country in terms of that restraint?
The Prime Minister
I hear my hon. Friend's message. The reports of all the review bodies are now with the Government. We are considering them and hope to be in a position to make an early statement.
Q3. Mr. Garrett
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 May.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
[column 178]Mr. Garrett
The Prime Minister may not have time today, but will she, perhaps in the next day or two, look at the redundancy plan that British Shipbuilders has imposed on the shipbuilding industry? Will she recognise that most Members of the House are deeply concerned about the decline in the British maritime fleet, in shipbuilding and in marine engineering? We recognise that there is a world surplus of shipping and that ships are being laid up, but it is the Government's overall responsibility to ensure that during the next three years the fleet is maintained and that shipbuilding and marine engineering are maintained at a level to ensure survival. I recognise that that will mean Government intervention at an early stage.
The Prime Minister
I appreciate the realistic but concerned way in which the hon. Gentleman approaches the problem. As he knows, the size of the industry depends ultimately on the ability of the industry to sell its product in world markets and on the orders that we can achieve. I am afraid that the industry is much too large at the moment for the orders that could possibly be achieved. Even after the closures, we still have five British merchant shipbuilding yards, Harland and Wolff and seven private yards, and he is right to say that the race is on to secure the orders that are available in world markets. There are not many public orders to be brought forward, apart from the naval shipyard orders that are coming forward. There is one protection vessel for fisheries and some ferry boats, but these are small compared with what is needed, so we have managed to arrange a line of soft credit to try to secure such orders as are available.
Q4. Mr. Butterfill
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 May.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Butterfill
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the policy of her Government to replace the Polaris system with the Trident missile submarine system? Does she agree with me that any political party that had a policy of refusing to replace Polaris would be playing Russian roulette with the defence of the nation and would be unfit to put itself forward as ready to participate in any future Government?
The Prime Minister
Yes. A deterrent, to be effective, cannot be allowed to become obsolete. It must be modernised and kept up to date, and that is why we are going for the Trident deterrent. I would also point out that Trident will, of course, keep going 6,000 jobs in British shipyards.