§ The Prime MinisterI have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
§ Mr. RostWill the Prime Minister answer a question which is being asked in Derbyshire—by those dependent upon Rolls-Royce—as well as in the rest of the country wherever people are concerned about defence and engineering export orders? Who gave the Government the mandate to order the cancellation of commercial contracts between private companies and overseas customers? Does streaking into Downing Street with a minority vote empower the Prime Minister to put at risk vast sections of British industry and export orders? When will he stop taking his orders from Mr. Hugh Scanlon and have the guts to stand up for British interests?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman asked me by whose authority this was done. These matters were in issue during the election. I spoke about them. We received that authority. As for the point about Rolls-Royce workers in Derby, or elsewhere, the hon. Gentleman may have noticed what I said the other day about the number of workers involved. I think that the work involved represents about 01 per cent. of the turnover of Rolls-Royce. There is no reason 596 to think that future orders have been imperilled here, except in the case of Chile and South Africa, on which I very clearly answered a question put to me the other day. Turning to Mr. Scanlon —one day we shall get through Questions without hon. Gentlemen revealing their bogy man obsession on this matter—I referred to the fact that we were already dealing with the question of Chilean engines before any statement was made by Mr. Scanlon or anyone else in the trade union movement.
§ Mr. WhiteheadDoes my right hon. Friend accept that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has not asked Rolls-Royce workers in Derby whether they support their colleagues in East Kilbride, who refused to do work which would have meant supplying these weapons to a Government of murderers? Does he also accept that in Derby, as elsewhere, we know a moral issue when we see it, and know those without moral principles when we see them?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is my impression of the workers at Derby, from meetings I have held with my hon. Friend and his colleagues who represent Derby.
§ Mr. Russell KerrYou have not spoken to them.
§ The Prime MinisterAs I tried to make clear last week—I certainly have more respect for the hon. Member than I have for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who put a similar question—we must not, I hope, get the impression from the Opposition that they hate Hugh Scanlon more than they hate the murderous Chilean regime.
§ Mr. PeytonLeaving Mr. Scanlon out of the question—and I do not believe that he is particularly relevant—has the Prime Minister any real grounds for differentiating between the Allende régime in Chile and the present one?
§ Mr. KinnockThere are 15,000 of them.
§ The Prime MinisterI welcome the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman put his question. It is an improvement 597 on last time. I think that the answer to it is in the form of the many thousands of people who have been murdered by the present régime.
§ Mr. PeytonThe Prime Minister has not answered my question. Has he any grounds at all for excusing the Allende r régime of the crimes of which he now accuses the present r régime?
§ The Prime MinisterI thought I had answered that question. In case I was not clear, the answer is that the differentiation is twofold. First, there is the large number of people who have been murdered and terrorised by this Chilean junta. Second, President Allende was elected, but this r régime was not.
§ Mr. FernyhoughDoes my right hon. Friend realise that, whatever may be the consequences, in terms of job losses, of the cancellation of the contracts with Chile and South Africa, they are as nothing compared with the job losses which would have occurred if the previous Government had not made a complete U-turn and decided to nationalise a private industry to preserve jobs?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. I feel that my right hon. Friend's question, which was more to the point than some of the other supplementaries, seems to be as far from Derbyshire and the Derby workers as the question put by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost).
§ Mr. HeathWill the right hon. Gentleman now clarify for the House the issue of principle on which the Government have reached their decision? Will he explain the difference between halting the servicing of existing aircraft engines supplied by Rolls-Royce and the supply of spares, yet continuing to build frigates and submarines for the regime about which he has used such unparliamentary language? Is the issue of principle the fact that other countries can service Rolls-Royce engines and supply spares but only we can build frigates and submarines?
§ The Prime MinisterI shall explain to the right hon. Gentleman the point about the decision on the frigates, which was announced by my right hon. Friend. The work on those has been substantially completed. Three of the frigates have, I think, been handed over to the Chilean authorities. It would raise very many 598 deep questions of international law if we were to send boarding parties to take them over. Many of them are already on exercises. As for the submarines, I thought that the last word on those was pronounced by an AUEW member last week, quoted in "Sayings of the Week" in the Observer, who said:
If it is alleged that submarines can be used against Chilean workers, they must have sanguinary big drains in Chile.That is the answer about the submarines, which are now nearing completion.The work on aero-engines is not being done anyway, because the workers will not do it. We are still a long way from Derbyshire. Where work on aero-engines has been completed, the engines will be returned to their owners—the Chilean Government. There is no suggestion that they should not be. Where the work has not been done, in-service engines will be returned.
§ Mr. HeathMay we take it that the Government's policy is that the Government are perfectly prepared to supply weapons which cannot be used for internal repression against the workers—for example, frigates, submarines and other forms of arms?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman obviously has not studied this situation. To keep in order, if the right hon. Gentleman will talk to the workers in Derby he will get the answer. I was referring to work which has been done —past contracts. We announced at the beginning of April that no more arms contracts will be signed with Chile. That makes utter nonsense of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. There will be no more arms sales to Chile. We have explained the position with regard to the ships and the submarines, work on which is now largely completed.
§ Mr. KinnockOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the recent exchange the Leader of the Opposition accused my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of using unparliamentary language, as will appear in the record tomorrow. I believe that it is in your discretion to decide what is and what is not unparliamentary language. Can it be that the Leader of the Opposition, like the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) 599 and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), is so anxious to get his hands on blood money that he seeks to use that ploy to question my right hon. Friend?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not detect a point of order.