§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning, following my return from the United States, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. AdleyIs my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting frustation and anger at the proposed strike on the railways next week among the customers, the board and last, but by no means least, a large number of members of the National Union of Railwaymen, who have had no ballot, have not been consulted and many of whom do not seem to understand why their union proposes to call them out on strike? Would my right hon. Friend please take note of this and—as I hope she recognises that I am a supporter of the railways—can she see what can be done at this stage to prevent the railway industry from embarking on a strike that will be suicidal for the industry?
§ The Prime MinisterI am certain that my hon. Friend is correct when he says that a number of railwaymen do not wish to take part in a strike, realising that a strike could bleed the railways of the financial resources that they need, and could eventually take away the jobs of many railwaymen as well as stopping the creation of an efficient railway service. Sir Peter Parker has sent letters to all the work force setting out the implications of a strike. I hope that each and every member of the work force will consider the letter carefully.
§ Mr. David SteelSince the Prime Minister is still considering the form of the Falkland Islands inquiry, and in the light of the statements by the captain of the "Endurance" and her letter to the lady in Beaconsfield, will she make it clear that, whatever form the inquiry 429 takes, it should be set up under the authority of the House so that all Members and not just party leaders can indicate its scope?
§ The Prime MinisterI have communicated with the right hon. Gentleman and a number of other right hon. Members about the form of the inquiry that I was proposing and which I had hoped would find favour. If it does not, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put forward other proposals. If it is to be thorough it will involve handling a good deal of intelligence material. That is a factor in considering what type of inquiry we should set up.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. FarrFirst, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent speech in New York and also on her remarkable stamina? If my right hon. Friend has a chance to do so later today, will she examine the situation that has arisen over the Spanish application to join the EEC? It is reported that France will veto the application. Spanish membership would have severe implications for agriculturists and horticulturists in Britain. Will she examine the position to see whether, if Spain is to join, there can be the longest run-in period, in the interests of our own producers?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments at the beginning of his question. With regard to the possible entry of Spain into the Community, I realise that British horticulturists may face increased competition for certain products, notably early potatoes and some fruit and vegetables. I fully agree with him that it is up to the British Government to safeguard the interests of the British horticulture industry and to see that we can achieve as long a transitional period as possible, as my hon. Friend requires.
§ Mr. John MorrisHas the Prime Minister had time to consider the letter that I sent her recently expressing my dismay at the fact that our forces on the Falklands had to pay up to £15 to make telephone calls home to say that they were safe and well? Will she consider my suggestion that the British taxpayer should have the privilege of chipping in to save our soldiers having to pay?
§ The Prime MinisterI have received the right hon. and learned Gentleman's letter. Where possible, arrangements are made for injured members of the task force to make one telephone call home, which is paid for out of welfare funds. We have no immediate plans to make free telephone facilities available to members of the task force.
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkWhy not?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the hon. Gentleman will wait for one moment I shall give him the reason. There are no shore-based telephone links between the Falklands and the United Kingdom and it may be some time before they can be repaired. We therefore think that the limited facilities available on ships should go first to those who are injured. If we were to try to arrange an equitable system for the 20,000 members of the task force to make free telephone calls, it would pose considerable administrative problems but, more importantly, difficult operational problems.
§ Mr. LyellDoes my right hon. Friend deplore the deliberate scare tactics of Mr. Arthur Scargill in walking out of his very first meeting with the new National Coal Board chairman after only three and a half minutes and shouting about a hit-list of pit closures? Is it not the case that the miners who worked in the pits that closed last year have found new and better jobs in more modern pits or have been retired on very generous terms? Surely it is wrong for the miners' leader to seek to exploit the situation and to obstruct the coal board's future by exploiting the fears of elderly miners?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree very much with my hon. and learned Friend. I understand that the National Coal Board made it clear to the National Union of Mineworkers that there is no so-called hit-list of pits earmarked for closure. As my hon. Friend said, those who are made redundant in the coal industry receive very generous redundancy payments. Many of the younger miners find jobs in better and more productive pits. I believe that that will be so when the new coalfields come into operation. Mr. Scargill's response in walking out of a meeting, for which the National Union of Mineworkers had asked, only three and a half minutes after it had started is, to put it mildly, hardly constructive.
Mr. James CallaghanI take up the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). Does the right hon. Lady recall an earlier occasion last February when her hon. Friend asked her a question which directed her attention to the proposed possible invasion of the Falkland Islands by the Argentines and invited her to consider various reports? Did she take any action on that at that stage? If not, does she not consider that she made a gross error of judgment in failing to take preventive action in time? Whatever form an inquiry may take, ultimate responsibility for what took place rests upon her.
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is in a position to know of the many threats that have been made by the Argentines over the years. The latest ones had to be judged against the background of those that had been made previously. I am happy to report to the right hon. Gentleman that the Argentines who landed on Southern Thule during his time have now been removed.
§ Q3. Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 June.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. StewartIs the right hon. Lady aware that there is widespread and, in my view, well-founded belief that the nurses have been dealt with abominably and shabbily by successive Governments? As the Secretary of State for Social Services says that the nurses have a special case, will the right hon. Lady use her influence to ensure that they are put in the same league for pay rises as senior civil servants and judges?
§ The Prime MinisterA final offer has been made to the nurses. I understand that they are considering it. It is, of course, a greater offer than the one made to the other people who work in the Health Service, and we undertook that that should be so. We are also trying with them to find a new method of establishing their pay, and we hope to have that in place by 1983.
§ Mr. FootWill the right hon. Lady reconsider the answer that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)? Does she not understand her responsibilities in this matter? Is she suggesting that she can shuffle off those responsibilities on to others, because the Labour Government dealt with them in a very different way from her own way? Does she mean to say, against the background of the letter that she wrote to Mrs. Nichols and the message that she received from Captain Baker, that all the signs were not there? Can she tell us why she neglected those signs?
§ The Prime MinisterJudging from what the right hon. Gentleman said throughout the Falklands affair and judging from what some of his hon. Friends have said, the fact is that a Labour Government would never have fired a shot—
§ Mr. WinnickRubbish.
§ The Prime MinisterMy letter to Mrs. Nichols was written in the early part of February. We were at that time doing exactly what I believe that right hon. Gentleman would have wished us to do. We were in negotiations with the Argentines. Two or three weeks after the letter was written we met the Argentines in New York. That meeting was described in a communiqúe as cordial and friendly. It took place two or three weeks after the letter was sent.
§ Mr. GrahamThe right hon. Lady was conned.
§ The Prime MinisterFinally, the Argentines landed on British sovereign territory during the lifetime of the Labour Government. In spite of what the official Opposition say now, the Labour Government did nothing about it.
§ Mr. FootThe right hon. Lady has a jaundiced view of the history. We will have all that out in the inquiry. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady will answer a direct question about her own responsibilities. Captain Barker said that all the signs were there. Does she agree with him?
§ The Prime MinisterThat was in relation to "Endurance"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] As the right 432 hon. Gentleman knows, I am willing and anxious to have every single bit of evidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".]—before an inquiry. I do not wish to hide everything. I wish everything to be out, including every single thing under this Government and previous Governments.
§ Mr. ShersbyDoes my right hon. Friend recall that the Marines were stationed on the Falkland Islands following a landing by a group of Argentines who described themselves as the Condor Group? Does she further recall that those Argentines landed on the race course in a hijacked Aerolineas Argentinas DC3? Does she agree with me that the level of defence that was provided by the Marines following that incident was quite consistent with the threat that was posed by those people?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend has put the facts, and I agree with him.
§ Q4. Mr. Joseph Deanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 June.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. DeanWill the Prime Minister arrange today for copies to be made available of any correspondence that has been received complaining about the inefficiency or conduct of the four distinguished chairmen of health authorities whom the Secretary of State for Social Services has decided not to reappoint? If no such correspondence has been received, why did the right hon. Gentleman make that despicable and partisan decision?
§ The Prime MinisterAt the end of the contracts of service of those appointed to the National Health Service, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided not to renew some of them, but to renew others. He is perfectly entitled to do that. Previous Governments have done the same thing. Among those who hold office there are some Conservatives, some Labour Party supporters and some who have no politics at all.