Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [940/1639-46]
Editorial comments: 1515-1530.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 2424
Themes: Privatized & state industries, Public spending & borrowing, Trade, Foreign policy (Central & Eastern Europe)
[column 1639]

PRIME MINISTER

(ENGAGEMENTS)

Q1. Mr. Ridley

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 8th December 1977.

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.

Mr. Ridley

How much time has the Prime Minister been able to spend today on engineering his Watergate-type cover-up of the fact that the Poles, apparently, have not been asked to put any money at all on the table for the purchase of the merchant ships? If the Prime Minister must buy votes, will he use the profits of Labour Party Properties Limited rather than taxpayers' money?

The Prime Minister

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reducing the level [column 1640]of the problem as he has done. I understand that Monday is a Supply Day, and, if the Opposition wish, no doubt this would be a suitable matter for discussion on that day. In the meantime, all I would say is that the criticisms about this order come from two main sources, the Conservative Party and foreign shipyards. As far as I can see, the attitude of the Opposition is that they would prefer these orders to go to foreign shipyards, with our men standing unemployed in our own yards, the steel industry not able to provide the steel and the engines not provided from this country. All this they would prefer. If that is so, let them say so.

Mr. Bagier

Will my right hon. Friend try to seek a meeting today with the Secretary of State for Industry to discuss the reasons why Hitachi, the Japanese company, has withdrawn its intention to invest on Wearside and provide 500 to 600 jobs? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the implications that this will have for possible future Japanese investment in this country?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir, I would not propose to have such a meeting, because I understand that the Minister of State gave an explanation of that matter to the House yesterday. This is a decision by the company itself, following very strong representations from both sides of the British television industry.

As regards general investment, it has been the policy of this country to welcome investment. That is still the case and will continue to be the case. That cannot prevent individual industries from time to time—both sides of them—making representations and therefore, I suppose, creating a climate of opinion in which a foreign company will not wish to invest.

Mrs. Thatcher

Will James Callaghanthe Prime Minister say precisely how much of British taxpayers' money is being spent on the Polish shipping deal?

The Prime Minister

The answer to that can be given if a Question is put down. It does not arise on this Question, which requests a list of my official engagements for today. If the Opposition want to know the answer, I suggest once again that the matter be debated on Monday. Let us then have all the facts.

[column 1641]

Mrs. Thatcher

One of the Prime Minister's official engagements is to answer Questions in this House, particularly Questions by the representatives of the British taxpayer. Some time ago the Prime Minister said that the deal was in the bag. Did he not know then how much it would cost? If he did, why is he so anxious to withhold the sum?

The Prime Minister

The simple answer is that I do not carry this complicated calculation in my head. But I repeat the offer. I hope that the Opposition will debate this on Monday, and they can then have all the figures that it is appropriate to produce. [Interruption.] Yes, appropriate, because this is a matter of commercial negotiation. If the Opposition were in a less irresponsible mood, they would recognise that. There is no reason why we should give a competitive advantage to foreign yards which are desperately anxious to snatch these orders.

I repeat to the right hon. Lady that there need be no concealment about this within the limits of commercial prudence. I shall not ask her to do so, but I suggest that she can debate the matter on Monday. Let the facts be produced in a proper way and not by way of a supplementary question.

Mrs. Thatcher

Is the Prime Minister——

Mr. Flannery

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up time after time when other Members are waiting to ask questions?

Mr. Speaker

It is a very old-established convention in the House that extra latitude is given to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs. Thatcher

Is the Prime Minister saying that, on one of the main issues of the day, neither he nor his office took the trouble to ensure that he was properly briefed to answer Questions in the House? If he does not know the precise figure, will he at least give the proportion of the order which is being met by the taxpayer?

The Prime Minister

I understand from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the Opposition have already given notice that they will want [column 1642]to debate this matter on Monday. All the appropriate figures will then be produced. In view of the attitude of the Opposition on this order and on the question of subsidies for the textile industry, the clothing industry and the steel industry, I must say that if I were a worker in any of those industries I would be growing very worried about the policy of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

As we understand that one of the Prime Minister's engagements today is to read the transcript of last night's party political broadcast, I hope that, at the end of it, he will send a message of congratulation to Transport House upon a long overdue forthright attack upon the National Front, which was marred only by the fact that the BBC insisted that the programme was not entitled to refer to the past convictions of the men in the broadcast, [Hon. Members: “Question.” ] Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which I put through the House, does not, in fact, prohibit the dissemination of such information if it is true and is published without malice?

The Prime Minister

In order to preserve the proprieties of Question Time, I must say that there is, of course, no ministerial responsibility for these matters. I should like to add that, as I told the Labour Party conference, there will be no carefully-weighed electoral considerations to be met by a suitably ambiguous phrase by the political parties in these matters. Our opposition to racialism must be total.

ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)

Q2. Miss Fookes

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with co-ordination between the Home Department, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the development of alternatives to the use of live animals in experiments.

The Prime Minister

Yes.

Miss Fookes

Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us are deeply concerned about the number of experiments carried out for routine purposes? Will he [column 1643]encourage Government Departments to stop dragging their feet on the issue of alternatives?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir. I am aware of the deep concern that is felt. Indeed, I share it, having reviewed—as a result of some of the hon. Lady's activities—what is going on in this field. I hope that the number of experiments can be cut down, and I shall certainly use what influence I have to ensure that Government Departments do so.

Mr. Corbett

May I urge my right hon. Friend among his other duties to give better attention to doing away with the very questionable LD50 test for which animals are used, particularly in view of the new and very proper legislation concerning health and safety at work? Will he encourage his right hon. Friends with responsibility for the various Departments to use their best efforts to find an acceptable alternative to these tests, which are open to growing scientific and medical questioning?

The Prime Minister

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked the advisory committee on the administration of the 1876 Act to study the LD50 test and to make recommendations. A report is expected in the course of the next year. When that report is made, we shall ensure that it is published so that conclusions can be drawn. It will then be for the Home Secretary to consider what action should be taken on this matter.

Mr. Burden

The public have been expressing greater concern year by year at the enormous growth in experiments. Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that he is cognisant of the fact and that he will make every effort to ensure that the number of experiments is reduced rather than increased in the years ahead?

The Prime Minister

I would certainly like to see the introduction of substitutes to restrict the use of living animals in this way. The development of cell cultures in the matter of foot and mouth vaccine, for example, is an important advance. We must certainly bend all the efforts of Departments to seeing how much further we can go in this matter.

Mr. Hooley

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are very good scientific [column 1644]reasons for moving away from many of the animal experiments, since alternative techniques produce results which are scientifically more valid?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir, I am. I hope that I have indicated that it would certainly be our policy and desire to move to alternatives to animal experiment as quickly as possible, and our efforts must be directed in that way.

SECURITY SERVICE

(ALLEGATIONS)

Q3. Mr. Blaker

asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the result of his investigation of the allegations made against the Security Services by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).

The Prime Minister

I issued a statement on 23rd August last.

Mr. Blaker

Will the Prime Minister put that statement in the Official Report? Is he aware that I welcome his confidence in the Security Services but that there has been no denial from the right hon. Member for Huyton—I am sorry he is not in his place, although I drew his attention to this Question—that he made very serious allegations to journalists against the Security Services? Will the Prime Minister refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions so that he may consider whether there is prima facie evidence of a breach of the Official Secrets Act?

The Prime Minister

I shall certainly include the statement in my reply in Hansard. It is quite short. My right hon. Friend associated himself with the statement that I made and, therefore, there is no reason to carry the matter any further. I think that the hon. Gentleman might consider the normal convention of this House that, when a statement on this kind of subject has been made and both sides of the House have expressed satisfaction with it, we ought to leave matters there.

Mr. Wyn Roberts

On 28th July, in the House, the Prime Minister invited those who had information on these matters to submit the evidence to the Home Secretary. Did the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) do so, or did he [column 1645]explain to the Prime Minister his failure to do so?

The Prime Minister

I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

Mr. Ogden

Does not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister think that, rather than answering so many questions from Conservative Members who are trying to find all the bad news in the world, he might be more usefully employed in finding time to comment on the good news that came out of the headquarters of the National Union of Mineworkers this morning?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir. The National Union of Mineworkers' decision was one for itself. I do not believe that the Security Services were particularly concerned in it.

Mr. Blaker

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Following is the statement:

The Prime Minister has conducted detailed inquiries into the recent allegations about the Security Service and is satisfied that they do not constitute grounds for lack of confidence in the competence and impartiality of the Security Service or for instituting a special inquiry.

In particular, the Prime Minister is satisfied that at no time has the Security Service or any other British intelligence or security agency, either of its own accord or at someone else's request, undertaken electronic surveillance in 10 Downing Street or in the Prime Minister's room in the House of Commons.

PERTH

Q4. Mr. Crawford

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Perth.

The Prime Minister

I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Crawford

If the Prime Minister does visit Perth, will he explain to my bemused constituents—indeed, to all the people of Scotland—why Members from the Conservative and Unionist Party, bastions of the Union, last night voted to delete from the Scotland Bill the clause which seeks to give override powers to Westminster over the Scottish Assembly? Does he not agree that the Tories are either knaves or fools in this matter?

[column 1646]

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman should not invite me in this way. The Conservatives having moved a number of amendments to strengthen particularly Clause 40, it seemed a typical example of opportunism and lack of principle that they should then have voted to destroy the whole clause.