§ Q1. Mr. McCrindleasked the Prime Minister if he will state his public engagements for 9th March.
§ 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, including one with the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand.
§ Mr. McCrindleHas the Prime Minister had time to investigate reports of phone tapping and censorship of telephone calls between doctors and patients in pursuit of an industrial dispute? If those reports prove to be accurate, will 1602 the Prime Minister be prepared to condemn this practice in the most unequivocal terms?
§ The Prime MinisterI am glad that the hon. Gentleman said "If these reports prove to be accurate". Obviously, anything I say is based on the reports being proved to be accurate. I would wholeheartedly and without any equivocation condemn telephonists working in any hospital who hold up communications between the public outside and the hospital inside.
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkIs my right hon. Friend aware that the Bird's Eye factory in Kirkby has dismissed 1,200 of its workers and refused to pay any redundancy pay? Given that my right hon. Friend has said that sanctions are applied against companies in order to protect jobs and maintain employment, will he give an assurance that not a penny of Government aid or assistance will go to the Bird's Eye factory or to Unilever until it stops bullying workers and settles the dispute through the normal procedures in an honourable fashion?
§ The Prime MinisterIt so happens that before I came into the House I was looking into this matter. I am therefore able to say rather unusually that I am aware of the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was only lucky, because I was not to know what the Question would be about. As I understand it, 112 men went on strike on 28th November last because they would not accept an offer of 10 per cent. plus £5 bonus. That strike has persisted ever since and, at any rate, is the proximate cause of the present problem. I know that ACAS endeavoured as long ago as the beginning of January to intervene to try to get a settlement. It has not been able to intervene in the matter and I would say to my hon. Friend that on the present evidence I would not think it at all right for anyone to withdraw support from the firm.
§ Mrs. ThatcherAs there seems to be confusion about the reason why the Foreign Secretary has returned from the debate on Rhodesia, may I ask the Prime Minister to give the latest news and, in particular, to assure the House that the Foreign Secretary is doing everything in his power to bring an internal agreement to fulfilment?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend went at the invitation of Mr. Vance and met President Carter. He also had the intention, if the Security Council debate had taken a relatively short time, to speak in that debate. But I understand that that debate is now likely to be extended for several days. [HON. MEMBERS: "He would not be called."] He would be called, because we supply the chairman. That is exactly the point. It is the custom for the chairman to speak last. Therefore, he might not have been able to call himself until some time next week. He therefore thought it appropriate, having concluded his business, to return here. If necessary he will go back again.
With regard to the nature of the internal settlement, I do not go along with the right hon. Lady. I think that the position that the Foreign Secretary has taken is absolutely right, and we must defend that position not only against Opposition Members who take a different view but also against African States who wish us to go in an entirely reverse way. We will not veto the arrangement entered into. Nor is it our responsibility to endorse it until we see how it is carried out. In the meantime, it is our responsibility to try to extend the area of agreement in order to bring in those who are low outside. If we do not, this new State, If it is born, will be born in a period and area of conflagration and the war will go on. It is the path of statesmanship to interest people like Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe in the settlement before it is finally agreed.
§ Mrs. ThatcherIs the Prime Minister aware that we accept that it would best for Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe to be involved in the settlement? Is he further aware that many of us feel that the internal settlement is the best hope of peace in Rhodesia that we have had for a long time? If the momentum in supporting it is lost, the situation may deteriorate into one in which it will be votes against guns, and then all hope of a peaceful settlement will be lost. It is very important to see which of the Six Principles has not been accepted. As far as I am aware, the only one at issue is the Fifth Principle. Surely it is not beyond the wit of either the interim Government or this Government to devise a test of internal acceptability of the 1604 internal settlement. Once that is done, the way is open for a number of other things to follow.
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to the right hon. Lady for saying—I do not know whether this is the first time that it has been said officially by the Opposition—that Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe should be involved. That means the involvement of the Patriotic Front and the guerrilla forces in a final settlement. It is important that it should go out from this House to Rhodesia that both sides want the Patriotic Front involved in a settlement. As the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) is saying to me, the Patriotic Front has no right of veto—none at all. We have made this very clear to both Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo. I agree that the steps that Mr. Smith has taken would have been inconceivable two years ago, more is the pity. But he has taken them, and that has taken us a long way further. Having got to that position it is in the interests of both sides and this country to try to stop the war, and to get people outside, who are not now involved, involved in the settlement. Our efforts are bent on creating a wider area of agreement—getting Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe in—and providing machinery to enable us to do that. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that we are working on both these things.
§ Mrs. Thatcher rose—
§ Mr. FauldsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall take points of order after Question Time. It is quite traditional to give an extra little bit of privilege to the Leader of the Opposition.
§ Mrs. Thatcher rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am not taking any points of order until the end of Question Time.
§ Mrs. ThatcherI wish to make one point very briefly. Is the Prime Minister aware that the gun must not act as a veto to the internal settlement? It is the decision on votes that is more important.
§ The Prime MinisterWith respect, I doubt whether a simple slogan will solve the problem. At present the gun is determining a great deal of the events in 1605 Rhodesia, including the response by the regime to the present situation. It must be our task not to talk of guns or votes but to create a situation in which votes can be freely cast. In many areas of Rhodesia, I doubt whether votes could be cast freely even if an election were held. That is a difficulty that we must overcome. It is our task to work for a settlement within the Six Principles, and we are doing so.
§ Later—
§ Mr. FauldsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I observed the Prime Minister's request not to pursue this matter during Prime Minister's Question Time because he is so good during that period. I intend to pursue the matter now, Sir.
You mentioned a little earlier the "little bit of privilege" accorded to Leaders of the Opposition. We all accept that, because it is an old-established custom of the House, but is it not within your discretion to refuse that privilege when it is so grossly abused, as it is by the present Leader of the Opposition with her persistent three bites at every cherry?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have been in this House a good deal longer than the hon. Gentleman and I have known Leaders of the Opposition from both major parties who have felt it necessary, in the interests of their side of the House, to pursue questions. There is nothing new in that.
§ Mr. Norman AtkinsonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has it not become the practice in recent years for Prime Minister's Question Time to be the equivalent of a presidential Press conference? If that is the case, and in view of the fact that Prime Minister's Question Time will be broadcast immediately after Easter, could not the Leader of the Opposition, if she so chooses, come up with four, five, six or even seven supplementary questions and therefore dominate the whole—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and so occupy most of Prime Minister's Question Time that eventually it will become a party political broadcast?
§ Mr. SpeakerMay I make an appeal to the House? I shall be in great difficulty later, when the major debate takes place, because of the large number of Members who wish to take part. Therefore, I hope that we can move on.