Francis Pym
On international affairs, there are two major issues that divide us from the Labour Party: defence and the European Community. On defence, Labour's capitulation has already been exposed. They are the one-sided disarmers and their leaders are in disarray as a result. What is more, their supporters are abandoning them because of it. The unavowed withdrawal from NATO, which Labour's manifesto clearly implies, is irresponsible madness; and at this point, I would like to make a comment about Mr Healey 's remarks on the Falklands last night. It contained the most abusive, the most disgraceful, the most unforgivable allegations that I have ever heard in any election. Anyone who lived through the agonizing days of the Falklands war—and I was one of them—knows how much anguish and anxiety the Prime Minister experienced and suffered. Mr Steel called it ‘jingoism’, which is bad enough; Mr Healey 's remarks are beyond the pale.
On the second issue which divides us—Europe—it is politically and economically essential for our country to remain members of the Community. It has made it unthinkable that the historical rivalries of Western Europe could ever again lead to war; it provides the political and economic weight to increase our influence in the world, and to make a present day reality of partnership with the United States; and it buys from us more than half as much again as the United States, Japan and the Commonwealth put together. What a thing to put at risk! Withdrawal would be a disaster for Britain, and a serious blow to our friends in the United States, in Europe, in the Commonwealth, as well as in the Community. At best, I think they would all think we had gone out of our minds, and I am going to speak at greater length on this subject tonight.
Our objectives are peace, stability and prosperity, and to achieve those objectives, you need security, a strong economy and close cooperation with friends and allies. Under the Labour Party, you would get none of those things. Britain has interests throughout the world, and needs an effective foreign policy to protect them and promote them. This Government has provided and will provide just that.
Peter Walker
Prime Minister, looking back on the last four years, we started these four years with a whole range of problems in Europe, and in terms of agriculture, I think we could say that in 1979 we were the most disadvantaged agriculture in Western Europe. We can now say that Britain has the most [end p1] successful agriculture in Western Europe: we have massively increased our exports, we have substantially reduced our imports, and there is no doubt that British agriculture is continuing to have a lead in the whole sphere of agriculture production success in Europe. This, obviously, would be dreadfully undermined if the Labour Party came in and withdrew from Europe, and I might say their programme of going over to the old deficiency payments system would cost at least £3,000,000,000 to the taxpayer in this country. We have also succeeded in pursuing a policy which has been good for the housewife, and the figures of food prices in this last year, which show the lowest increase for twenty years, and show that in fact that food prices have gone up this last year by the same amount that they used to go up every ten days under a Labour Government, is a very significant success, which obviously again would be put in jeopardy by the sort of policies that Labour is propounding. Can I also say, as somebody I suppose who has had more detailed negotiations in Europe than anybody else, the Alliance policy of going over to majority voting in Europe instead of having the power of veto when something was against your national interest, would, in my view, be totally disastrous as far as the British interest is concerned. And all of the things I have succeeded in doing; such as getting a doubling of the butter subsidy, the beef and the lamb regimes, the fishing agreement: none of those things could have been achieved if we have didn't have the strength in our negotiations, and if necessary, using the power of veto; and to abandon that at this point in time, would, in my view, put all of those things in jeopardy, and would also result in the situation that future negotiations on matters such as the Budget rebate, and the future Budget structure—Britain would be put at a very considerable disadvantage. I have no doubt at all, that if we are to continue obtaining substantial benefit from our European membership, then we must retain this power, and certainly, of course, we must remain part of the European Community.
Question
(Belgrano).
Francis Pym
It was sunk on military grounds, it was militarily necessary to do that, and there is no connection with any peace proposals. I responded in detail in the Daily Mirror on 20th May on that subject; all that happened on that day was that there was the beginnings of an outline for a possible future basis for negotiations, which Mr Haig outlined to me, but that is all that it was, as I made clear in that article, so there's no connection between the two things, and it is quite wrong to suppose that there is.
Question
(Direction of Belgrano movement). [end p2]
Prime Minister
The answer is given by Mr Blaker in a—the House of Commons. Shall I read it all out? ‘The General Belgrano was attacked under the terms of our warning on 23rd April, and any approach by Argentine ships or aircraft which threatened our forces, would encounter the appropriate response. There were indications on 2nd May that the carrier 25th May and her escorts would approach the Task Force from the north, while the General Belgrano and her escorts were attempting to complete a pincer movement from the south. Concerned that HMS Conquerer might lose the General Belgrano, as she ran over the shallow water of the Birdwood Bank, the Task Force Commander sought and obtained a change in the rules of engagement to allow an attack outside the 200-mile exclusion zone, but within the general principles set out in our warning of 23rd April. Throughout 2nd May, the cruiser and her escort had made many changes of course. At the moment she was torpedoed, about 8 pm London time, the General Belgrano was on a course of 280 degrees.’ That was given in Hansard, I'm sorry, I haven't got the date of the reply, I've got the reply.
Question
[inaudible]
Prime Minister
We gave as much information as we could in that reply. You have got it in that reply. You have also got the Francis PymForeign Secretary's reply to the allegation that the Belgrano was sunk in order to stop Peruvian outline proposals. Those proposals did not, in fact, reach London until after the Belgrano was attacked. You've got the answer in that reply, if you care to look at it very carefully.
Question
[inaudible]
Prime Minister
Look, you will see … Look, I can't improve on that answer, you have … Look, I am sorry, I can't improve on that. Look, would you have a look at it, she had made many changes of course, at the moment she was torpedoed she was on a course of 280 degrees. I cannot improve on that answer, because you may well have a ship making many changes of course while she is still in fact a danger to our ships … The thing I am very, very relieved about is that I am not being asked why the Invincible or the Hermes were torpedoed, or attacked by the Exocet missiles covering the Belgrano at that time. The PQ was the 29th November 1982, but I repeat, the thing that I am very relieved about is that I am not being asked why our Task Force and the aircraft carriers, from which we relied on all our aircraft cover, were left in danger by the Belgrano. We had two enormous problems; one the Belgrano force and the aircraft carrier force, which was at the north at that time. We had to undertake a landing. The danger of that whole Navy to our landing force was acute; after the sinking of the Belgrano, as [end p3] you know, all the naval forces went back within a 12-mile territorial limit, and, as far as we are aware, stayed there, and they ceased—as we now know, but we did not know then—to be a danger to our force, but could at any time have come out. But the full facts you will find, the 29th November 1982 and the full facts on the peace negotiations you will find in an article in the Daily Mirror.
Question
[inaudible]
Prime Minister
Only six hours' sailing time from striking elements of the Task Force. Six hours is a danger. A submarine finds a ship and loses her again. We only found the aircraft carrier twice, and lost her again. The idea that you can just shadow in the sea, find an aircraft [carrier] and shadow it, shadow it the whole time, is just ridiculous, and in six hours' sailing time you might never find her again, and she might get within striking range of your Task Force. I am very sorry we lived through this, and I think it utterly astonishing that your only allegation against me, is that I in fact changed rules of engagement with the consent of the War Cabinet, to enable a ship which was a danger to our Task Force to be sunk.
Question
(Healey on Falklands)
Prime Minister
I think it's gone beyond all bounds of public or political decency and it has given offence to many, many people in this country. Beyond that, I do not think it is worth discussing. Now any other questions? We have foreign policy, we have Europe, we have agriculture. Have we satisfied all your questions on these rather important matters?
Question
[inaudible]
Prime Minister
It has given offence to me, in the sense that it will have hurt many, many people in this country. We have been careful not to bring the Falklands issue in. It was one that went right across public opinion, it was one in which people from all walks of life and with all sorts of political views joined together. The first time it came in was when, I believe it was the leader of Michael Footthe Labour Party, said something about Fortress Falklands, and as you know, if we are to defend both the sovereignty and the rights of the people in the Falkland islands to self-determination, we have to defend them effectively. We are defending them effectively, and we will not negotiate on sovereignty or self-determination. It came in right at the beginning, before our campaign had started. We have not pursued these matters; the very reason [end p4] which I have indicated, and now they have brought it again, I think, wrongly.
Question
(Seamen on the dole and soldiers who find it difficult to get a job).
Prime Minister
We regard the merchant seamen made redundant—yes it is very, very difficult to get all our ships enough trade to keep them occupied, and there are a considerable number of them which have no business at the moment, and of course, you know, two-thirds of our total earnings from shipping come from cross-trading. We therefore have to compete with other merchant fleets in order to get that cross-trading. Iain Sproat said in a written answer on 18th March that British merchant shipping is up to 25%; or more overmanned compared to our European competitors. It does not help, of course our merchant fleet if governments very highly subsidise ships to be sold to other countries such as the Polish ships which were virtually given to Poland under the last government and are now able to compete and undercut the prices charged by our own merchant fleet.
Question
(Report in International Herald Tribune?)
Prime Minister
As far as we are concerned and I believe as far as you are concerned there is no truth whatsoever in that report. I saw it when I was over there we were utterly amazed. There is no truth in that report. Next question.
Question
Anglo-Irish relations, Prime Minister …
Prime Minister
You think that's foreign affairs, yes, well you're quite right it is … now (laughter).
Question
(continues but is not clear).
Prime Minister
We have said that it is of advantage to both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland that we co-operate with the Republic of Ireland and that we establish friendly relations. We are both of us members of the European Economic Community. [end p5] Mr Prior has been to Dublin for talks, I am not as a matter of fact resumed talks [sic] with the [word missing] on a bilateral basis but we do have talks at the European Economic Summits.
Question
What more are you going to do?
Prime Minister
What more are we going to do? We are co-operating very well in cross border security and in a number of other economic matters. You have to when you have a neighbour. She is the only neighbour we have with a land border and we shall carry on as we did previously. But it is between—if I may make it clear—it is between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Yes.
Question
Could Mr Pym and Mr Walker say what the consequences of the withdrawal from the Common Market would be on steel, textiles and agriculture?
Mr Walker
Why, I think in terms of agriculture there would be an enormous loss of potential markets because now Britain at last is improving its export performance on a very large scale. It would create colossal uncertainty on every possible aspect of agricultural pricing. It would create £3,000 million demand upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would, I believe, stop a great [end p6] deal of investment which has now taken place in agricultural plant and machinery and therefore result in a considerable loss of jobs. And I might say also it would be a total disaster for the fishing industry that now have an agreement which gives British fishing a marvellous potential for the next twenty-five years without interruption. It would take all of that away and stop conservation in European waters so I think for fishing and for agriculture for security of food supplies it would be a total disaster. Can I also add one fact as a sort of a Midland MP that recent surveys in the Midlands show that 60 per cent of the export trade of factories in the Midlands now goes to the European Community. It also shows that all of the interest in inward investment into the Midlands is connected by countries from overseas who want to establish a manufacturing base within the community and are now looking upon Britain as the best place to put it. And all of that would be lost if we came out of the European Community.
Prime Minister
Now shall we go wider—Mr Rutherford?
Question
Can I stay on the European Community?—yes of course—If you win the election presumably the question of membership will never come up again.
Prime Minister
I would assume that would be correct. Well, unless at a following election. Yes.
Question
Will you then change the approach to the community when membership is not an issue and perhaps give … . (question not clear) [end p7]
Prime Minister
But membership has not been an issue with us for some time. What we have been concentrating on is to try to get rid of the differences between us and the Community. It was a great feather in the cap of Peter Walkerthe Minister of Agriculture and Alick Buchanan-Smith that we managed to sort out the Common Fisheries Policy—a tremendous achievement—after all they hadn't had one until that time and we had very much hoped that it would be followed up by a long-term arrangement on the financial needs of financing the community—on the budget. It's not yet happened but as you know work is being done on that both on the long term and we said we simply must have another interim arrangement this year. I believe that because of the urgency of it, the amount that is being spent on agriculture, because the southern Mediterranean countries are also saying virtually, “Look, if you have surpluses in northern products, we want surpluses in southern products,” and we are coming to a stage when the existing budgetary arrangements will not finance the community if it stays on its present agricultural policies and that means that they now have a reason actually for getting down to that. And I think when that one is settled we can concentrate very much on much much more positive things, although let me make it perfectly clear I do not like some of the detailed draft directives. I think they are pernickety and not what the community is for but the visual [sic] cooperation work on the whole is going very well. But certainly we have opted to clear the obstacles out of the way. When, I think, that last one goes on the budget, then I think that there will be virtually no opposition in Britain to the European Economic Community. Indeed I would have said in this election the overwhelming majority of people are for staying in the community—overwhelming—because [end p8] they realise that total dislocation, uncertainty and gamble and disaster of our coming out, and I think that has been a fantastic achievement of this party in this election.
Question
Following allegations from Labour leaders would you be prepared to hold an enquiry into the sinking of the Belgrano?
The Prime Minister
No, I see no reason at all to have any enquiry into the sinking of the Belgrano. None whatsoever. I am only too relieved they're not asking me for an enquiry into the sinking of one of our major aircraft carriers. Yes.
Question
Proposals for the House of Lords after the election?
The Prime Minister
We have no specific proposals for changing the House of Lords. From time to time what I may call minor changes are made, each of which I think is an improvement. As you know, many many people constantly say you must change certain things about the House of Lords. The difficulty is to get an agreement on what to do. One looks from time to time at certain things that I think would make it easier and better for them to operate effectively, at the moment we have no specific proposals, but a number of things are being looked at. But not major things in anyway. They are things which will help to make it easier for it to do its work effectively as a second Chamber. [end p9]
Question
Do you think a time will come …?
Prime Minister
Well, only very minor changes. Changes to make it a more effective second Chamber and make it easier to achieve that role.
Question
Mrs Thatcher, according to the Guardian, orders to bring the Belgrano back to port were made by you early on May 2nd. A statement on May 13th later that day said you gave orders to sink the Belgrano. Is that true?
Prime Minister
The story is set out in Peter Blaker 's answer. I am not concealing anything from you. In any way. What you are asking me is to reveal is the intelligence we had. I am saying to you that that intelligence is properly summed up in what Peter Blaker said.
Question
(Belgrano continued)
Prime Minister
I have a stand on Peter Blaker's statement. I have heard so much misinformation about the Belgrano and I simply do not understand where it is coming from. The facts are set out there. I could only say with all the power at my command you are are on totally the wrong track. There were three of us here who [end p10] were in that war. We all of us say that [sic] every single power that we have at our command the allegations that have been made are totally false.
Question
What is the problem about publishing the details?
Prime Minister
You are asking me to publish many many details which will never and will never be published. No, we have published in the Gazette an account of the military campaign. We have published a White Paper, the lessons we learned on the equipment, and we had the Franks Report leading up. No, I am not going any further and I can only repeat: those of you who are going after this, the facts are in that answer, the facts are in the article the Michael HaversAttorney General wrote, Francis Pymthe Foreign Secretary wrote and also in an adjournment debate shortly before the House rose given by Mr Cranley Onslow and we are not going to any further enquiry.
Question
(Unintelligible).
Prime Minister
I do not know whether they were facts or not and I have nothing—No, I do not know whether they are facts or not. I know the facts. I know every single fact and, I am saying to you, you are on totally the wrong track, and I cannot stress more strongly that I am greatly relieved that the question you are not asking me today is how is it that one of our aircraft carriers was sunk and [end p11] then, my goodness me, there would have been not only an enquiry but grief on a scale we had not contemplated and also we should not have been able to complete that operation. I don't think you have any idea what it was like, day by day, having to be in charge of making rules of engagement provided for that war. The track you are on is totally and utterly wrong and I have nothing further to add. Yes.
Question
(American spaceshuttle).
Prime Minister
I cannot tell you. One more question. Well, two more questions here.
Question
How did it come about that in the definitions of the exclusion zone, which I assume were intended to give the Argentines a clear notion of what they could do and couldn't do without starting hostilities openly … . How did it come about that the definition of the exclusion zone and the public warnings you gave to the Argentines did not warn them in a way—against doing whatever it was that the Belgrano was doing?
Prime Minister
The warning of a much wider zone was given. You have only to look at our supply lines to realise—I'm sorry, a warning was given on 23rd April covering a very much bigger area [end p12] than the exclusion zone. The reasons were because you only had to look at our supply lines, their vulnerability to attack by the Argentine navy, particularly by an aircraft carrier which could carry super etendards, and the whole of the supply line were totally vulnerable to attack. That's why we gave the wider warning and also of course men [sic], much of our task force which was standing off to the east was vulnerable to attack. So that warning was given on the 23rd April. You also seem to forget that they had very effective submarines and we did not know where they were. I don't think any of you have any idea—well, I won't say any of you, some of you might—of what it's actually like you are looking back with hindsight. The last question here.
Question
(Unintelligible … copy of that article)
Prime Minister
which article?
Parkinson
(—not clear).
Prime Minister
This answer—yes, you can have it. But surely, surely you must have Hansards available. It is the 29th November 1982.
Question
If you do get back what will be your … priorities in the first year?
Prime Minister
Well, I think you must wait. Assuming we get back, the Queen's Speech—we obviously will get some guesses because of the bills which fell—the British Telecommunications and William WhitelawWillie has already said [end p13] that we would restore the Police Complaints Bill. And a number of others which fell. We have to restore some of the reliefs that were given in the Finance Bill, you know the mortgage relief and the inflation-proofing of the higher rate of income tax, which in fact hit a lot, in the absence of inflation-proofing there, in middle management, head teachers, police superintendants, and all sorts of those people and then there is quite a long set of Bills—there will be a Trade Union Bill—a long set of Bills—because we had Bills ready of course in case we were going on to the full session, so there is a very very—the Queen's Speech almost drafted.
Question
(Local Government reform).
Prime Minister
Certainly I believe the Scottish one is ready and will come in. We would hope to be in a position to introduce Local Government reform during the first session. But of course it will be a long one. As it is not fully drafted yet I can't specifically give that undertaking but we would hope to. It might have to wait until just after Christmas but I would hope that it will be in that first session. Thank you very much.