PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Michael Brown
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December 1986.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
Mr. Michael Brown
Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider setting up an official inquiry to consider what precedents there are, if any, for the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to intervene in a court case involving Her Majesty's Government by privately contacting the counsel acting against Her Majesty's Government?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made his point very effectively. If there are any such precedents for this astonishing action, perhaps the deputy leader of the Opposition will let us know.
Mr. Hattersley
In her consideration of these matters, especially what is known as public interest, will the Prime Minister tell us how she distinguished between a book written by Mr. Peter Wright and a book based on information supplied by Mr. Peter Wright? Why did the Prime Minister choose to prosecute or attempt to suppress publication in one case, yet allow, indeed encourage, publication in the other?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I cannot comment—[Interruption.]—on matters which may arise in the proceedings concerning the Peter Wright case in Australia while those proceedings continue. I also intend to follow the precedent set by previous Prime Ministers and not comment on security matters.
Mr. Hattersley
I am asking the Prime Minister to answer for past errors. Was it not the Government's decision not to take action against Mr. Chapman Pincher in 1981 that has produced their present humiliation? Is that not the result of the authority of the Attorney-General being usurped by the Prime Minister in order to manipulate the law for party political reasons?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to be mischievous. I shall not answer his questions, however hard he tries.
Mr. Hattersley
Nobody is taken in by the Prime Minister's prevarication on these matters. The House and the country know that the Prime Minister has begun to treat the law as if it were her own property. Hence the Prime Minister's willingness to allow Mr. Wright to sell his secrets to Chapman Pincher, but not to allow him to sell his secrets under his own name.
The Prime Minister
I repeat, it would be inappropriate for me—[Interruption.]—to comment on matters which may arise in the proceedings concerning the Peter Wright case in Australia while those preceedings continue. I also [column 762]intend to follow the precedent set by previous Prime Ministers of not commenting on security matters—a precedent to which the right hon. Gentleman adhered when he was in junior office in the Labour Government.
Mr. Heseltine
Before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister goes back to her timetable, will she ask the chiefs of staff whether they could let us have an assessment of the Labour party's latest alternative to a nuclear deterrent, and whether it could be published? I understand that its alternative is to build a ditch from the Baltic to the Adriatic and to fill it with explosive slurry to deter Soviet tanks.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes it abundantly clear that we do not need an assessment from the chiefs of staff. The Labour Party's suggestion is crackers.
Mr. Donald Stewart
Is the Prime Minister aware that, in the light of the present difficulties of the British and American Governments, many people are contrasting the British Government's shady, hole-in-the-corner, sweep-it-under-the-carpet tactics with America, where everything will come out in the wash? When are the people of the United Kingdom to be entrusted with open government?
The Prime Minister
Speaking as a housewife, I think that the right hon. Gentleman became rather confused about his subject. We are fine. How is the right hon. Gentleman?
Q2. Mr. Hargreaves
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hargreaves
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the more people learn about the defence policies of the Opposition parties the more they support the Government's policy of maintaining full membership of NATO and retaining our own nuclear deterrent? Will my right hon. Friend take note that last Thursday, 24 hours after a party political broadcast on behalf of the SDP, in which it outlined its defence policy, it not only lost a seat on Hyndburn council to the Conservative party, but came bottom of the poll? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two events are not unconnected?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents and hope that we will have many other similar successes. I am sure that his constituents were entirely right in rejecting the Liberal-SDP defence policy, which is for a deterrent which does not deter.
Mr. Eastham
Rolls-Royce was nationalised by a previous Conservative Government. If the Prime Minister achieves her own way and the company is privatised, and it fails again, will she renationalise it to save the thousands of jobs that will be lost?
The Prime Minister
Rolls-Royce is doing very well and winning excellent orders, and many people both inside and outside the company are looking forward to the privatisation and the wider share ownership that will then ensue, which is anathema to the hon. Gentleman.
Q3. Mr. John Townend
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
[column 763]Mr. Townend
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the spread of AIDS could be greatly reduced if there were a change in public attitudes, especially if indulging in homosexual activities and drug taking could once again become morally and socially unacceptable?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that attitudes are changing in the light of information about AIDS. I am sure also that the most important thing is to ensure that people have full information about how this terrible disease is spread among men and women. I think that then much of the behaviour that has been going on will be entirely unacceptable for many and varied reasons.
Dr. Owen
While we may disagree on how best to make a contribution to NATO's nuclear deterrence, is that as nothing in comparison with the advocacy of a non-nuclear defence strategy for NATO? Does the Prime Minister agree that the Australian precedent, whereby Australia has agreed with the United States that New Zealand, in pursuing a non-nuclear defence strategy, can no longer remain a member of the ANZUS treaty organisation, is exactly the attitude that our European partners will take to the idea that any one NATO country can opt out of NATO's nuclear defence strategy?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. A nuclear deterrent strategy is a fundamental part of NATO's strategy, and those who do not accept it are very likely to break up the organisation and be unable to remain members.
Q4. Mr. Hickmet
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hickmet
May I assure my right hon. Friend that the questions which have come from the Conservative Benches today have not been planted by Mr. Turnbull?—[Interruption.] What damage does my right hon. Friend think that the abandonment of the bi-partisan approach to security matters has done to British security interests, and what effect does she think that will have in the future on our security interests?
The Prime Minister
The abandonment of the bipartisan approach to security matters is totally and utterly fundamental to Britain's security. Neil KinnockThe Leader of the Opposition has abandoned a fundamental defence policy pursued by his predecessors. He has now abandoned a fundamental security policy pursued by all previous Prime Ministers.
Mr. Janner
In view of the anxiety which the Prime Minister must have suffered during the past few weeks over the contradictory application and non-application of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, and in view of her refusal to comment upon that to the House, is she considering amending the Act?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, we tried to amend the Act in 1980 and brought before the House a Bill for that purpose. It was at that time rejected. We have no present proposals to amend it.
Q5. Mr. Marlow
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
[column 764]Mr. Marlow
Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to arrange today for a special flight for the Leader of the Opposition so that he can come back to the House tomorrow to answer the real allegations that he has been conniving with defence lawyers in Australia in a case against the Crown on the subject of security?
The Prime Minister
It is not for me to answer for Neil Kinnockthe Leader of the Opposition and I am jolly glad that I do not have to. It is for him to do that.
Mr. Tony Banks
Will the Prime Minister find time today to explain to the House why the London fire brigade is having to pay out about £100,000 in order to change the insignia on the buttons, the fire engines and the fire stations because the College of Arms will not let it use the GLC coat of arms? Is that part of the savings from the abolition of the GLC that the Prime Minister promised us?
The Prime Minister
The savings from the abolition of the GLC, as some our constituents have occasion to know, are enormous, and they are grateful that the GLC has been abolished.
Mr. Onslow
As the Leader of the Opposition has let himself be set up to ask in the House questions which were to be asked in an Australian court the following day, is my right hon. Friend aware that she will have the full support of Conservative Members if she refuses to have any more truck on matters of national security with someone who has reduced himself to the status of Mr. Turnbull 's mouthpiece?
The Prime Minister
Yes; I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.
Q6. Mr. Kirkwood
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Kirkwood
Will the Prime Minister make arrangements to study the board of inquiry report which will be produced on the military aircraft crash which took place in the Borders in Scotland on Thursday night? Is she aware that such crashes are now occurring on average once every two months? Will she give the House an undertaking that she will make sure that low-flying manoeuvres are restricted to the absolute minimum and that they are carried out with procedures which quarantee the maximum safety for civilian life?
The Prime Minister
I understand that a pilot lost his life in that crash, and I should like to extend sympathy to the relatives of that pilot. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cause of the accident, in which an RAF Jaguar crashed, is still under investigation. Safety regulations for military flying over all designated range areas, and more generally, are matters to which the Government attach great importance. They are kept under close and continual review. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. William Shelton
If my right hon. Friend wished to acquaint herself with the course of the trial in Australia directly and speak on the telephone, would she speak to counsel acting for Her Majesty's Government, or would she speak only to counsel acting for Mr. Wright?
The Prime Minister
I think my hon. Friend can rest assured that I would do neither.
[column 765]Q7. Mr. Norman Atkinson
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 December.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Atkinson
Does the Prime Minister recall that she has often expressed pride in the fact that she was once governor of Imperial college, and that she is a science graduate in chemistry and an associate and friend of Sir George Porter? Has she seen the remarks that Sir George made yesterday, confirming that the continuing brain drain from Britain in science and engineering is the result of the Government's abandonment of science and engineering? What has she now to say about the deplorable state of our laboratories, the deplorable state [column 766]of engineering in the absence of some of our key engineers and the deplorable future that faces this country without those scientists and engineers?
The Prime Minister
I read the comments of Sir George Porter. I must state that total net Government expenditure on research and development is at record levels and that the United Kingdom Government-funded civilian research and development, as a proportion of national output, exceeds the level in Japan and the United States, and that is also true for all United Kingdom expenditure on research and development compared with Germany.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about a possible brain drain, I refer him to the fact that tax on top people, including top scientists, is very much lower in the United States than it is here, and it is going down in the United States. The position to which he referred would be infinitely worse had we not reduced the top level of tax to 60 per cent.