PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.
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, including one this afternoon with representatives from Scotland about the future of the steel industry. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
Mr. Carlisle
Does my right hon. Friend agree that when Mr. Basnett says that the unions will threaten insurrection and civil disobedience if the Government do not do what the TUC wants, he does not speak for trade union members as a whole? [Hon. Members: “Reading” .] Does my right hon. Friend agree that most trade unionists support parliamentary democracy and would not agree to direct action as asked for by Mr. Basnett? If the TUC is to play a proper role, should it not seek to reflect more closely the views of its members?
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in deploring the remarks of Mr. Basnett. I agree with my hon. Friend that the vast majority of trade unionists, indeed all, are fully in favour of the democratic process and wish for a greater measure of democracy to be applied to the trade unions. When it comes to expressing——
Mr. Skinner
What about the chairman of the Tory Party?
The Prime Minister
—their parliamentary views they vote as citizens, not as trade unionists.
Mr. Foot
I am sure that the right hon. Lady must know, with regard to the previous question, that there is no better democrat than David Basnett. It might have been simpler had she replied in those terms. I put to the right hon. Lady a question on a most serious matter. She sometimes claims to be a strong supporter of multilateral disarmament. Will she explain to us why, over the past few days in the discussions in the plenary session in New York, there have been 28 occasions on which Great Britain has either abstained or voted against resolutions that were proposing different forms of nuclear disarmament? In particular, why did Britain vote against the proposal for a nuclear weapons production freeze, proposed by Mexico and Sweden and supported by India?
The Prime Minister
That is the first time that I have heard a Leader of the Opposition say indirectly that insurrection is a weapon of democracy. It is not.
With regard to the vote in the United Nations, the United Kingdom, in company with the majority of its NATO allies, of course voted against the freeze resolutions, because a freeze would simply confirm the superiority of nuclear weapons on the part of the Soviet Union against the West. I do not wish to confirm that Soviet superiority. We wish to have a balance and if cruise [column 121]missiles are not to be deployed in this country, the best means to secure that end is to request and ensure that the Soviet Union removes the SS20s.
Mr. Foot
On the subject of Mr. David Basnett, may I tell the right hon. Lady that we will not have decent democrats in this country smeared by her sub-McCarthy methods? On the other matter, how does she expect anyone to believe her claim that she is strongly in favour of multilateral nuclear disarmament when she encourages the Government of her country to vote against every multilateral disarmament proposal?
The Prime Minister
I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will reject the weapons of insurrection and civil disobedience as weapons of democracy. Perhaps he will come clean on that. I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that to vote for a freeze when the potential aggressor has great superiority is to weaken the defences of this country. That we are not prepared to do.
Mr. Foot
Does not the right hon. Lady understand that it is not only we on this side of the House who favour that freeze, and that there are growing numbers of people in the United States who favour the freeze? Will she open her eyes at last and understand what is happening in the world and try to throw the influence of this country on to the side of genuine disarmament?
The Prime Minister
Genuine disarmament will consist, not in voting for a freeze, which gives the Soviet Union superiority——
Mr. Foulkes
Warmonger.
The Prime Minister
—but in voting for a balance, or a zero option, which is not a freeze, and persuading the Soviet Union to remove the SS20s. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so reluctant to take that simple step?
Mr. Ian Lloyd
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the dictator of Mozambique, Mr. Machel, recently issued an invitation to Cuban troops to enter that country. As my right hon. Friend is aware that the Cubans have a limited logistic capacity and will therefore need to use either Soviet aircraft or Soviet ships, and as the South Africans have clearly said that they will impede such a move, will she take early action to show where we would stand in such a situation before it becomes so serious as to threaten the whole of the Western position in the South Atlantic?
The Prime Minister
I think my hon. Friend is saying that the Soviet Union pursues its aims of Communist domination by force, threat of force, subversion or proxy. My hon. Friend gave one example of domination by proxy. We are against the Soviet Union increasing its domination. We believe in democracy, not Communism.
Q2. Mr. David Marshall
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Marshall
Will the Prime Minister confirm the report in The Sunday Times this week to the effect that she had decided to save the Ravenscraig steelworks three months ago? Will she now come clean and tell the Scottish TUC and the delegation representing Scottish opinion the whole truth when she meets them later today? Will she [column 122]give an assurance that her intention to save Ravenscraig means that there will be no partial closure or rundown now or in the future?
The Prime Minister
I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave last week, save to say that I shall be meeting a Scottish delegation later today, and that my right hon. Friend Patrick Jenkinthe Secretary of State for Industry will make a statement—I hope at the beginning of next week—about the future of the five plants.
Mr. Squire
Has my right hon. Friend received notice yet of an intention of the part of several thousands of women to link arms around the thousand or so Russian missiles already installed and pointing at Western Europe? If she has not received notice of that, does she agree that it shows again that CND sympathisers ignore the cause of our problems and concentrate merely on some of the surface effects?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that the way to ensure that cruise missiles are not deployed is to secure the removal of the Russian SS20s, which are already deployed. Our attention should be directed to that fact.
Mr. John Morris
As the Prime Minister is to spend part of the afternoon discussing steel, will she consider drafting a suitable Christmas message to my constituents? Is she aware that in the Port Talbot travel-to-work area 8,500 people have been out of work for more than six months, and that the Government's special measures for the steel areas, announced more than two and a half years ago, have so far produced a mere 550 jobs? What hope is there for my constituents that they will ever work again?
The Prime Minister
The hope for constituents everywhere is that we can become more competitive. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will not accept the only answer that provides a solution. We must become more competitive so that hon. Members' constituents may make goods and services that appeal to the constituents of other hon. Members, and get a bigger share of both the home and export markets. Without that fundamental truth we cannot gain a larger number of jobs in the country.
Dr. Owen
Is not the vindication of NATO's decision to insist on negotiations over intermediate missiles the fact that the Soviet Union has now made an offer, albeit insufficient, on reductions? Surely that only points to the need for persistence and tenacity in the negotiations over the next nine or so difficult months? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that before the outcome of the negotiations, and before any decisions are taken, there will be an opportunity for this House to decide whether, if the outcome is unsuccessful, cruise missiles will be deployed in this country?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, that the way to secure a reduction of nuclear weapons and keep our own security is to get a balanced reduction, and that the way to do that is to persist with multilateral attempts at disarmament, as we are doing. On the possible deployment of cruise missiles if the Soviet Union does not remove all its SS20s, Francis Pymmy right hon. Friend, now the Foreign Secretary, then the Secretary of State for Defence, made a statement to the House on 13 December 1979. That was followed by a [column 123]debate on nuclear weapons on 24 January 1980. That debate ended with a vote in support of the Government of 304. There were only 52 opposed to the Government.
Dr. Owen
Is the Prime Minister refusing——
Mr. Speaker
Order.
Dr. Owen
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has no more right to behave like that than has anyone else.
Mr. Skinner
Not sitting next to me.
Mr. Adley
In the light of the question that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has just posed, does my right hon. Friend think that she would be entitled to ask him, if there were such a debate and the House passed such a proposition, to give a guarantee on behalf of his party that if he ever had any influence on our affairs at any time in the future he would use it to uphold the decision that the House had taken?
The Prime Minister
I may have the right to ask him, but I believe that I should forgo that right. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have heard what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Harry Ewing
On the Prime Minister's other main theme today, the damage to democracy, does she understand that the fact that many people are now not voting in successive by-elections is a direct result of the feeling of hopelessness among people, for which she is directly responsible? When the right hon. Lady meets the deputation from Scotland today, will she personally apologise to them for refusing to meet them, having completely ignored them on their last visit to London to discuss the subject of steel making in Scotland?
The Prime Minister
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question I say “No, Sir” . I am meeting a delegation today, comprising many people from Scotland. It would hardly be appropriate for me to apologise for meeting them.
Q3. Mr. Nelson
asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Nelson
Has my right hon. Friend seen reports today of the 12-month sentence, eight months of which have been suspended, which was passed at the Leeds crown court on a man who pleaded guilty to two charges of raping a girl who was only six years old? Does my right hon. Friend understand that most people will regard such a lenient sentence as wholly incomprehensible?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. Indeed, I am one such person. I have been in touch with Lord Hailshamthe Lord Chancellor, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson), and he has called for all the papers on this case to ascertain the facts. As an interim measure the Lord Chancellor has given instructions to all circuit administrators that in no circumstances is a charge of rape to be listed for hearing except before one of the judges authorised to try murders or before a judge expressly approved by the presiding judge of the circuit.
The Lord Chancellor fully supports the guidance given by Lord Lanethe Lord Chief Justice to the effect that, except in [column 124]wholly exceptional circumstances, rape always calls for an immediate custodial sentence and that the sentence must reflect the seriousness of the crime.
Mr. Christopher Price
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I always stop questions at 3.30 pm, except when I have said that I shall allow extra time for a given reason.
Mr. Price
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On several occasions in this House, I have been told by you that it is out of order to criticise a judge who has made a certain decision.
Mr. Canavan
So have I.
Mr. Price
Is that ruling simply to be applied in one case and not in another? If it is the ruling, it should be applied to everyone, including the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have from time to time ruled that a judge can be criticised only if there is a motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Canavan
Throw her out then.
Mr. Speaker
I took the view that I did today because no judge was named. I do not know who it was. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may be satisfied that he has outlined what is normally the correct position. [Interruption.] There is no point in pursuing the matter now. The question has been asked and answered.
Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Over several weeks the Prime Minister appears to have deliberately misled the House in quoting the number of nuclear warheads on both sides. In fact, the figures are——
Mr. Speaker
Order. Points of order are not for that sort of thing.
Mr. Foot
Further to that point of order raised by——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I just ruled that that was not a point of order. Perhaps I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the criticism of the judge?
Mr. Foot
In view of your reply, Mr. Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, (Mr. Price) would it not be helpful to the House, both in this and in future instances—the name of the judge and knowledge of the case is in the possession of the House—for you to make a statement on this matter tomorrow so that we can see whether there has been a breach of our rules in this instance? That would guide the House in dealing with such questions in future.
Mr. Speaker
Order. There is no need to wait until tomorrow. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) drew my attention to a breach of our rules, which I said had taken place—[Interruption.] Order. The responsibility is mine. I allowed the question and therefore—[Interruption.] Order. I do not intend to speak against competition. I allowed the question. I believe I made a mistake, but I did allow it. Therefore, I can only say to the House that in future the rule will stand and be observed. I hope that that satisfies the House.
The Prime Minister
It may regularise the matter if, as the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) appear to wish, I withdraw [column 125]the use of the word “incomprehensible” in connection with that prison sentence. That I do. With all due respect, I stand by the arrangements that the Lord Chancellor has made.
Mr. John Morris
rose——
Mr. R. C. Mitchell
rose——
Mr. Norman Atkinson
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. Before I take any further points of order, let me say to the House that there are three important statements to be made as well as two applications under Standing Order No. 9 before we get down to the main business of the day. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members' points of order are genuine. Mr. John Morris.
Mr. Mitchell
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker
Order. Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that when I call a right hon. and learned Member on a point of order, his point of order must wait?
Mr. Morris
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), was it not obvious to the House——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I have made a statement to the House, which I hope that the House has accepted. We shall not reopen that question, whatever happens. I shall not take further points of order on that question.
Mr. Morris
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to refer to another subject I shall listen, but I am not taking further points of order on a matter upon which I have made a forthright statement to the House.
[column 126]Mr. Mitchell
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We were assured earlier that the White Paper on the Falkland Islands would be available in the Vote Office at 3.30 pm. It is now nearly 3.40 pm and it is still not available in the Vote Office. Will you investigate that?
Mr. Speaker
Order. I should tell the House that we have a private notice question before we come to that statement.
Mr. Arthur Lewis
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order has been raised previously. From today's Order Paper you will see that 78 questions were tabled to the Prime Minister by Back Benchers on both sides of the House. However, certain right hon. Members, who rarely come to the House—when they do they can always rely on being called—were called, and they asked more than one supplementary question. By doing so they deprived 75 hon. Members of the chance of asking the Prime Minister their questions. There is nothing to stop those right hon. Members from tabling their won questions to the Prime Minister. In future should not those right hon. Members be treated in the same way as every other Back Bencher? They should table their own questions and then they can be called to ask supplementary questions.
Mr. Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice. It seems to me that——
Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker
Order. It seems to me that hon. Members are being inspired one after another to raise points of order. We must move on to the private notice question.