PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Sainsbury
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Sir Anthony Parsons. 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. Sainsbury
I suspect that during my right hon. Friend's busy day she might have occasion to consider the implications of the strike action being undertaken by some train drivers. Can she confirm that, given the acceptance by the work force of the necessity of operating the railways in the most efficient way possible for the benefit of the consumer, the Government would wish to continue their financial support for the railways and see the new investment that could give Britain the railway system of which it could be proud?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that we very much want a railway system of which we can be proud.
There is already considerable investment in British Rail—about £3 billion since 1976 and about £350 million last year. However, if investment is to continue on anything like that scale we must be sure that it will secure a proper return. Therefore, we must have excellent productivity practices and not be dependent upon those that were agreed in 1919. There will then be greater hopes for an efficient railway. Where the Government request British Rail to run specific services that would not otherwise be commercial, they expect to meet the cost with a special operating grant.
Mr. Foot
We have always urged, and will continue to urge, that there should be increased investment in British Rail. As the present crisis is undoubtedly causing great hardship and difficulty to all concerned, could not a settlement of the dispute be sought on the basis of the proposals that the British Railways Board put forward on 25 June?
The Prime Minister
Investment itself is not necessarily good. It must be productive investment. Unproductive investment merely takes away from investment that could otherwise be made and produce a better return. The board has made every effort to solve the dispute. It is quite right to insist on the introduction of flexible rostering and to insist that there cannot be any more money without greater efficiency.
Mr. Foot
Will the right hon. Lady answer my question? It is important, because the railways will suffer losses as a result of the strike. Does she favour a settlement on the basis of the proposals made on 25 June? Having put [column 145]forward those proposals, why did the British Railways Board withdraw them last week? Will the right hon. Lady consider the matter and try to secure a proper settlement?
The Prime Minister
ASLEF went on strike. The handling of that strike must be left to the British Railways Board. It cannot be handled in the House or at No. 10 Downing Street. However, we can lay down the very important principle that it is totally wrong to try—as the Labour Party has frequently done—to encourage the unions to believe that there will always be more money without more efficiency and better working methods.
Mr. Foot
We want to overcome this crisis. Will the right hon. Lady say whether she supports the board's proposals, which have now been withdrawn?
The Prime Minister
I leave the negotiations—rightly—to the British Railways Board. The Government have stood behind the British Railways Board in its negotiations.
Mr. Timothy Smith
Did my right hon. Friend hear Mr. Ray Buckton this morning when he explained to Radio 4 listeners that we live in a democratic country? Is it not about time that he introduced a little democracy into his union and consulted his members about this damaging dispute?
The Prime Minister
I understand that a number of ASLEF members have made precisely the same point. A considerable number of them are now working because they attach more importance to serving the travelling public—which is quite right—than to insisting on increased pay without improved working practices.
FALKLAND ISLANDS
Q2. Mr. Allan Roberts
asked the Prime Minister when she intends the inquiry relating to the Falkland Islands to report.
The Prime Minister
The inquiry must be given whatever time it needs to complete its review, but I hope that it will be able to report within six months, and sooner if possible.
Mr. Roberts
Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm that she has categorically ruled out an October general election, because she realises that before any electoral contest the House and the country should be given the full facts about the causes of the Falklands crisis and about the Government's responsibility for it?
The Prime Minister
I should be utterly amazed if there were an October election.
Mr. Hill
Is my right hon. Friend aware that an extremely happy event will take place at 11 am this Sunday when “Canberra” returns home with 3,000 of our fighting men on board? If possible, will she send a message to the ship's captain and perhaps accompany me to the quay at Southampton to welcome the ship back?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that everyone is extremely grateful for the excellent services provided by the whole of the Merchant Marine during the Falkland Islands crisis. We should like especially to congratulate the captain and crew of “Canberra” on having performed such a wonderful service on behalf of our country.
[column 146]Mr. Christopher Price
Might I welcome the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—to the ranks of those who wish to get rid of the 30-year rule of secrecy for Cabinet documents?
Is she aware that compared with her attitude to the Bingham report—which would have exposed some of capitalism's shortcomings—her change of heart is very welcome? Will she extend her strictures on the 30-year rule.
The Prime Minister
I happen to be very much in favour of the 30-year rule against the publication of Cabinet documents. That is quite a different matter from revealing Cabinet documents, and Cabinet Committee documents, to Privy Councillors for an inquiry that wishes to draw its own conclusions. However, that does not mean that the documents can be published.
ENGAGEMENTS
Q3. Mr. Leighton
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 6 July.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Leighton
Does the Prime Minister recall the answer that she gave on 9 February to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when he warned her of the serious error of paying off HMS “Endurance” and of the consequences of such action? I believe that it was to be sold for about £3 million. Events in the South Atlantic have, I understand, cost rather more than £3 million. What has been the cost of the killing and maiming? As the Foreign Secretary honourably resigned, is it not time for her to accept, in grace and humility, her share of responsibility and culpability?
The Prime Minister
HMS “Endurance” was between the Falkland Islands and South Georgia at the time of the invasion. It was there throughout the invasion of the Falkland Islands. The ship has only two 20 mm guns and two Wasp helicopters.
Mr. Marland
During the course of the day will my right hon. Friend find time to consider the proposed increase in charges that has been announced by British Telecom? It seems to illustrate the insensitivity of the nationalised industries, which pile more and more charges on private industry and individuals.
The Prime Minister
I entirely agree with the point underlying my hon. Friend's question. We need much greater efficiency from British Telecom and from every other industry. We need to reduce overmanning and restrictive practices. However, much money is being invested in new equipment for British Telecom. Over the year British Telecom's profits are about £450 million, which is only about one-quarter of the amount that we are investing in British Telecom. We trust that that new investment will be used efficiently.
Mr. Roy Jenkins
rose——
Hon. Members
Hear, hear.
Mr. Jenkins
On the Falkland Islands inquiry—[Interruption.]—will——
Mr. Speaker
Order. It is very unfair if a right hon. or hon. Member is not allowed to put his question. If the House stands for anything, it stands for freedom of speech.
[column 147]Mr. Jenkins
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the inquiry's terms of reference will not now involve any leisurely ramble over the history of the past two decades, but will concentrate on immediate events, although possibly with a right to look back for the purposes of comparison and clarification?
The Prime Minister
By kind permission of Mr. Speaker, the answer to a written question from the Leader of the Opposition was published at 2.45 pm today, setting out the terms of reference of the proposed inquiry in the following terms:
“To review the way in which the responsibilities of Government in relation to the Falkland Islands and their dependencies were discharged in the period leading up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982, taking account of all such factors in previous years as are relevant; and to report.”
I am also glad to announce—as is stated in that reply—that Lord Franks has agreed to be chairman of the committee.
Falkland Islands
Q4 Sir David Price
asked the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her reply on 18 June, Official Report, column 353, she is now in a position to announce the result of her consideration of a suitable form of commemoration for the recovery of the Falkland Islands and their dependencies for the British Crown.
The Prime Minister
As I said in the House on 1 July, a service of thanksgiving and remembrance for those who fell in the campaign will be held in St. Paul's cathedral on Monday 26 July at 11 am. Her Majesty the Queen, together with other members of the Royal Family, will attend. The next-of-kin of those who died will be invited, together with representatives of the Services, Merchant Navy and other direct participants in the conflict. Representatives of those involved in the support of the Falklands operation from Britain will also be invited. Seats will be available for the public and they will be allocated by ballot.
Sir David Price
While thanking my right hon. Friend for making those proper and traditional arrangements to commemorate our victory in the Falkland Islands, may I [column 148]ask whether she will also ensure that our victorious Service men have an opportunity to parade through our capital city?
The Prime Minister
We have not yet made arrangements for such a parade. It is likely that there will be one in the autumn. In addition to the Government, the lord mayor of the City of London is considering the matter, so that we may provide some entertainment.
Mr. Christopher Price
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not dispute your decision to release the terms of reference of the Falkland Islands inquiry exceptionally at 2.45 pm. Many hon. Members who have questions down for written answer for a specific day would wish the terms of the answers to those questions to be available so that they might put supplementary questions to Ministers in the House. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that it is not right that the Government, at their caprice and whim, should be allowed to switch the traditional time for answering questions tabled for written answer simply for their political convenience?
Mr. Speaker
I understand that this was the wish of both the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister and that it meets the wishes of the House. [Hon. Members: “No” .] The House has had information that it would not otherwise have received because it could not have been revealed until later. Secondly, I am following precedent; it has been done before. I did not create the precedent and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, from time to time, in the interests of the House, we find the appropriate precedent to follow.
Mr. Faulds
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Prime Minister's Question Time started two or three minutes late, why should the Prime Minister be defended by not allowing it to run for 15 minutes rather than terminating it after 12 minutes?
Mr. Speaker
When the hon. Gentleman is appointed Speaker, he can put that point of view, but in the meantime the House has asked me to accept that responsibility.
Mr. Ashton
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As there is some dispute about the flexible rostering of the business of the House, may we have a secret ballot on it?