Lords Sitting of 26 May 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

N. Ireland: County Court Trial Waiting Time
Lord Blease: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what effects the very substantial increase in the Jurisdiction of the County Courts (Financial Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 1982 will have upon the waiting time before cases are heard, and what steps are being taken to make additional facilities, accommodation and staff available to cope with this added burden of work.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, there will be no increase in waiting time by reason of the order. On the contrary, it is thought that cases involving between £2,000 and £5,000 will be heard more quickly. Facilities and accommodation for additional hearings are already available to an adequate standard and sufficient provision has been made in terms of staff.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that, I hope, helpful reply. Is he aware—it is certainly the information I have—that there is widespread concern in Northern Ireland, not about the principles of the order, and a deep anxiety (which is manifest among all branches of the legal profession and those in the county court service) about the inadequacy of the court buildings and facilities reasonably to cope with the staggering increase in the number of criminal and civil cases in Northern Ireland?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question related solely to the county courts order, which of course is limited to civil claims. There is of course widespread and legitimate concern about the total volume of business, for reasons which are not to do with that order. A building programme to enlarge and improve the existing courts is under way, and until that is complete it will be necessary for some cases to be moved from one venue within each division to another for hearing. The effects of the change we are discussing, as a result of the county courts order, will be gradual because it will take up to a year to absorb them.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the earlier disposal of cases at the higher level of damages to which the noble and learned Lord referred be at the expense, in terms of time, of the disposal of claims for smaller sums? I could not quite follow how, from a manifest increase in jurisdiction, there would be benefit in terms of waiting time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the thought is that if you transfer from the High Court, of which there is only one, a number of cases to the county courts, of which there are many, you can get rid of cases more quickly. Incidentally, I am bound to remind the noble and learned Lord, who knows it very well, that most of the High Court cases, for accidents at any rate, are tried by jury in Northern Ireland, unlike in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I repeat the question, my Lords. It was whether the priority given to the higher level of damages cases would have the effect of slowing up the disposal of small claims cases.
The Lord Chancellor: I hope not, my Lords, but of course one will have to keep one's eye on it. I am told that the extra work in the county courts can be absorbed by the existing staff. That has proved to be the case with the comparable order for England and Wales, which came into force on 1st October 1981. As I say, one must keep one's eye on these matters but one hopes that the experience in Northern Ireland will be comparable.

N. Ireland: Riot Control Equipment
2.35 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the European Parliament's recent decision against the use of plastic bullets, they will urgently review the equipment used for riot control in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have noted the resolutions passed by the European Parliament about the use of plastic baton rounds. The security forces are subject to strict provisions of the law. They are required to use no more force than is reasonable in the circumstances, and the application of that principle to methods of riot control is under continuous review.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, and I am glad the matter is under continuous review. Nevertheless, is the noble Earl aware that the police in West Germany, Holland and Japan are finding that the modern water gun equipment is a highly effective, non-lethal method of dealing with street rioting of great ferocity? May I therefore ask him to give a commitment that research is being done by the Home Office with a view to the future implementation of such equipment in Northern Ireland?
The Earl of Cowrie: The difficulty, my Lords, is that the circumstances in which riots occur tend very often to be rather different in Northern Ireland from

1151
other parts of the world where you have a situation of civil demonstrations getting out of hand, if I may put it that way. We know that small groups of people, even small groups of children, can cause fatalities deliberately to the security forces. I would not wish, and I know the noble Baroness would not wish, that the security forces, who at the end of the day have to protect themselves, should be forced to use lead rather than plastic bullets which would result in considerably more loss of life. That said, we are continuously looking at improved methods of trying to deal with a hideous problem and we hope that the public in Northern Ireland, parents particularly, will help us with it.
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask my noble friend for an assurance that the Government will by no means restrict the use of plastic bullets if the local commander regards their use as absolutely necessary?
The Earl of Cowrie: My Lords, as my original reply indicated, I am anxious to reassure my noble friend that that is absolutely the position.
Lord Blease: My Lords, would the Minister agree that apart from a few publicists and those propagating terrorism, there is widespread and genuine concern among parents, community leaders, the clergy and the security forces about the use of plastic bullets in riot and street disorder situations in Northern Ireland? Would the Government consider it helpful if the Northern Ireland Office or a Northern Ireland Government department arranged for a series of suitable consultations and meetings with local community leaders with a view to encouraging their active control over children in such riot and street disorder situations, so allowing the street and community leaders to take some responsibility in connection with the situation?
The Earl of Cowrie: I certainly welcome that suggestion, my Lords, and the security forces in Northern Ireland depend very heavily and, I would say, in general successfully, on the co-operation of local people in the Province. The fact is, however, that the security forces have very dangerous tasks to do and they cannot be disallowed from performing those tasks by rioting crowds, often organised cynically by terrorists. At the end of the day, as I say, they have to protect themselves in performing those tasks.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, would my noble friend please extend the deepest sympathy of this House to the soldier in the Royal Anglian Regiment who was foully burnt by teenage petrol-throwing bombers two nights ago '? Is the Minister aware that no baton round was fired? If it had, perhaps the story might have been different. May I ask my noble friend to assure the House that many lives have in the past been saved by the use of baton rounds? While filled with admiration for our forces in the South Atlantic, may I ask him to see to it that the relatives of those forces in Northern Ireland receive the same cherishment of love as will be expressed to the relatives of those lost in the South Atlantic?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said and I shall indeed convey the sentiments of the House to the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland about the tragic incident to which my noble friend has referred. As I understand it, and without prejudice to the investigation of the case, the people involved might not have been even teenagers; they might have been "pre-teenagers", which is a very horrifying indication of what can happen. With regard to the situation in the South Atlantic, I do not think that it and the Northern Ireland situation are comparable. As I understand it, the terms of compensation and pension arrangements for service personnel are the same all over the services, but at the moment the public are showing their special interest in and support for the servicemen in the South Atlantic, which we all share. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence is therefore receiving such donations as the public are voluntarily giving in this respect to a special fund.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Minister, since the police are deeply involved in this matter, and are the principal targets of attack, whether it has ever occurred to the Government that the police force should be asked their opinion as to the type of weapon or means of defence that they might use in order to repulse attacks?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for reminding the House that in Northern Ireland the police are very much in the front line of security efforts, with the Army principally in the position of backing up the police. It is the view of the police that in particularly dangerous circumstances the plastic baton round is the best form of protection for their personnel engaged in difficult tasks. That said, as I stated in my original Answer, the police and the Army are both subject absolutely to the requirements of the law, one of which is that the absolute minimum force should be used in all situations in Northern Ireland, however dangerous.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the decision of the European Parliament on this matter, as it is described in the Question, has no binding effect whatever?
The Earl of Gowrie: Yes, my Lords, I can confirm that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while I appreciate the appalling difficulties which face the security forces in seeking to deal with these most difficult situations that exists in Northern Ireland, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware of the figures which his right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave in answer to a Question in another place on 24th May? Details, which must be distressing to every noble Lord in the House, indicate that since 1975 a number of children under the age of 15 have been killed: a boy of 11; a little girl of 11; and then boys and girls of 10, 13 and 14. I appreciate that children of this age, who are not responsible for their own acts, may nevertheless be involved due to the influence of others, but is it

1153
not worth while to take account of the Question of my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs and at least look at alternative methods of crowd control, which might not have the appalling result that plastic bullets have?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, in my original Answer I stated, in response to the noble Baroness and to the House, that we are continuously reviewing all methods available to us, and the moment new methods appear, whether at home or abroad, we take very great care to research into their applicability in the Province. However, the fact remains that the security forces, often engaged in very dangerous tasks, can be the subject of sudden attack by small groups of people, or even small groups of children, and it is better that at the end of the day they should have at their disposal this weapon, rather than real bullets.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the incidents that were cited by the noble Lord opposite were incidents during the past seven years in which plastic bullets had been used?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is undeniable that plastic baton rounds have caused some deaths in the Province over the last seven years and we would not in any way seek to conceal that fact, which I very much regret. However, as my previous answer showed, all the indications are that on those occasions regrettably the security forces had to protect themselves and their tasks there would be far greater loss of life if the alternatives to baton rounds had been used.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the noble Earl say why there is not much greater use of water cannon? It does not hurt the people on the receiving end, but it does damage their dignity, and that is a good thing to do in these circumstances.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I rather share the noble Lord's appreciation of the virtues of water cannon. It is an admirable instrument when a riot is getting out of hand (if I may put it that way), but where there are very small groups of people, in highly charged situations, where they can manoeuvre, or be manoeuvred by others behind them, water cannon is a much less flexible and effective weapon. It takes a certain amount of time to get it into position, and I am afraid that I have to say that most of the circumstances where water cannon might reasonably be used are not the same as those in which plastic baton rounds are used.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, may I suggest that after the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has put his question, we should move on to the next Question?
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I have one of these riot weapons and that I would be prohibited from bringing it, as a dangerous weapon, into this House? Would he not agree that if I threw it at the Benches opposite and it hit a Member, it might injure him seriously? Is it not the case that 11 people, including many children, have been killed by this weapon, which has the velocity of a gun?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Lord's invective is quite sufficient weapon directed at a number of Members of your Lordships' House in successive Governments. Of course we very much regret the use of any weapon against crowds of people or individuals. The issue is whether this particular weapon, which I abominate, as I abominate all weapons, has not in fact saved more lives, since people must in the end be able to defend themselves and their tasks in what are very tense and difficult situations. I should like to add that I appeal to the people of Northern Ireland, and since the activities of very young people are on our minds at the moment, in particular to parents there, to try to control their children, who often join demonstrations as a matter of excitement, but who end up in very lethal positions indeed, and of course put themselves, as well as the security forces, at very great risk.

Victoria and Albert Museum: Exhibition Loans
2.49 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will revive the loan exhibition scheme formerly run by a department at the Victoria and Albert Museum.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I understand that the Victoria and Albert Museum used to operate a programme of loan exhibitions, but this was run down during the period of the previous Government. Nevertheless, extensive arrangements for loans to the regions are already operated by the national museums and galleries, and my right honourable friend will look for every opportunity to encourage this.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reply, and I am very relieved to hear that the national museums are performing this function. Would he not agree that it is the job of our national museums, in particular the V and A, with its collections, to make exhibitions available to areas outside London, especially the provinces and the areas far distant from London where people do not have the opportunity to come to see the collections here?
The Earl of Avon: I would indeed agree with the noble Baroness, my Lords. She might like to know that I am told that loans of various kinds will be going this year from the Victoria and Albert Museum, either directly or under the auspices of the Arts Council, to many regional centres, including Birmingham, Bradford, Burnley, Cambridge, Bristol and Scotland. Indeed, just starting at the Victoria and Albert and then going to Bristol and Southampton under the auspices of the Arts Council is an exhibition of Cotman water colours.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, while supporting the noble Baroness in her Question, may I ask the Minister whether the Victoria and Albert collection of contem-

1155
porary crafts is not one which really could be used more? Because you do not need very many examples; four or five pieces are enough in a school. I wonder whether the Minister does not agree that in the old days these touring exhibitions were rather too ambitious. Something smaller would do a great deal of good.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I will of course draw my noble friend's remarks to the attention of the director. I understand that, in point of fact, on occasions they lend the odd piece, as it were, rather than a full-scale collection.
The Earl of Gosford: My Lords, while supporting both the previous questioners, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they really wish to see one of our greatest treasure-houses so run down that in fact its wares are not able to be sent to the Provinces adequately? Secondly, are Her Majesty's Government aware that tomorrow the V and A will be publishing a report which Sir Roy Strong feels will make people's hair stand on end?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think the Government agree in any way that anything is being run down in these terms. In fact, we are very proud of the record of our museums at the moment. I of course cannot comment on a report that is being issued tomorrow.
Baroness David: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is very important that these exhibitions should go not only to museums and galleries but to public libraries and to teacher training colleges and art colleges, so that the general public is exposed to them and is able to see them and, in that way, perhaps, some new recruits to the arts may be obtained; whereas if the exhibitions go only to museums and galleries then the same audiences will see them as see them generally? So I would hope that if these exhibitions are started again they can go to libraries and colleges as well as to museums and galleries.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, again, of course, I will bear the remarks of the noble Baroness in mind and bring them to the attention of the director. I think the difficulties will probably be in the scope and the security of such an operation, but I quite take her point.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the interests of the Principality of Wales be borne in mind in this matter; and will arrangements be made reciprocal to those made by the National Museum of Wales, perhaps, which is very active in making its priceless exhibits available to the people?
The Earl of Avon: Of course, my Lords, directly I mentioned Scotland I knew I might be in danger from other sources. I am sure that will be borne in mind.

Business
Lord Sandys: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trenchard
1156
will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Falkland Islands.
I think it might be helpful if, with the leave of the House, I could say a word about the second of our two short debates this afternoon, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Chelwood, which, as the House will see, has attracted a considerable number of speakers. Following the generally accepted principle that the mover should be entitled to approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, my calculations suggest that the other speakers should try to limit their speeches to about7½minutes. If they speak for any longer, they run the risk of depriving later speakers of their opportunity to speak.

Business of the House
Lord Sandys: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 43 (No two stages of a bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the remaining stages of the Industry Bill to be taken to-morrow.—(Lord Sandys.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

"Transport without Handicap": DOT Report
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman rose to call attention to the Department of Transport's report Transport without Handicap; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in drawing the attention of the House to the report I should like to congratulate the team at the Department of Transport for their initiative in organising the conference and for the positive results that have flowed from it. In particular, I should like to thank Sir Peter Baldwin, the Permanent Secretary, and Miss Anne Frye, who headed the team which did and are still doing so much of the work. I must declare an interest as a vice-president of National PHAB (which is the organisation which brings together the physically handicapped and the able-bodied young people in clubs all over the country) and also as one who has a temporary slight disability myself, and who has therefore become more interested in what is offered for people with a handicap.
Over 600 people attended the conference in Kensington Town Hall in March of last year. They came from all parts of the United Kingdom and from many other countries, and a great number of them were disabled in one form or another. They included the blind people with their escorts and the deaf with people experienced in sign language and in lip-reading. The arrangements made were such that all present, whatever their disability, were able to participate on a full and equal basis—and believe me, my Lords, they did!
On the platform were the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, who has asked me to convey his regrets this afternoon that he is abroad and unable to take part in our discussions; the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as chairman of the National Bus Corporation; Sir Peter Parker, as chairman of British Rail; a speaker from Seattle; a director of engineering production at British Leyland; the director of the National Transport Board for the Handicapped in Stockholm; Sir James Swaffield from the Greater London Council; and a disabled motorist. All these main speakers detailed to the vast audience what was being done in their particular area of transport, and talked of the various projects which were being undertaken.
There was a very lively discussion, and a lot of constructive criticism. Many questions were raised and suggestions made; and the action programme report before the House today draws together the main points to emerge from the conference and looks at what has already been done to meet the problems which were identified on that day in March last year. The Department of Transport published this report in November. I am sure that other speakers in the debate will be speaking about specific parts of the report, and I therefore propose to speak in much more general terms, and about what has happened since the Kensington conference.
Until now, frustration and anxiety have been the lot of disabled people in their efforts to travel. Many of them have not travelled hopefully, and they have lacked the assurance that they will be able to complete any journey which they start. Most of our taxi drivers are wonderful; bus and coach drivers are all so helpful; and rail employees, the porters and the attendants, all do their best to make a journey easier and more comfortable. But there is always in the back of the mind the worry that the disabled person may not manage to get off the bus or coach at the end of the journey, or that the parking spaces for the disabled at the station will have been used by perfectly fit motorists who have just been thoughtless; and if the disabled person cannot walk and cannot park, then they cannot complete their journey. So can we not all educate ourselves to remember the problems of the handicapped in getting even to the start of a journey by public transport, and be more caring, more considerate and much more aware of their difficulties?
The toilet facilities at stations and at air and bus terminals can be exasperating for disabled persons. It is no good having special toilets if they are not properly designed; if you have to go up or down stairs to get to them; if they have doors which are not wide enough for wheelchairs; and if they do not have adequate grab rails for support. There are now some "kneeling" buses but many more still have fairly steep steps and design comes into everything: railway seats with adequate leg room, corridors that are wide enough to take a normal wheelchair, and the difficulties at present in using railway sleeper accommodation. Transport without handicap means so much to the disabled. Their horizons could grow so much wider, social isolation could get less and the opportunities for working and earning could be greater than at present.
Consultation with those who know about the problems is essential. As Sir Peter Parker implied at the
1158
conference, every citizen has a right to expect freedom of mobility within a free country and between free countries. This means a real understanding of the problems by everyone associated with public transport, from board level throughout the organisation. Above all, it means the national will to do something positive.
What has been happening to date? The railways, the buses, the airports and the ports have all taken heed of the problems raised about signs and oral announcements in stations, airports and bus depots. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf has provided training in all areas, and the National Bus Corporation, who have a special adviser on improving facilities for the handicapped, have also arranged first-aid courses for their coach drivers to enable them to know how to deal with passengers suffering from epilepsy and other afflictions, and how to lift handicapped persons.
British Rail and the NBC welcome visits from disabled groups to help them familiarise themselves with stations and depots and to make travelling less of a nightmare for them. The NBC employ Mrs. Claudia Flanders as their consultant. She has a long experience of voluntary work with handicapped people and organisations, and she has a permanent advisory group working closely with her. British Rail also have Mr. Buchanan as their special advisor who is himself confined to a wheel chair. He has got together a committee covering a multiplicity of handicaps, and they work with the staff and workforce of British Rail to get easier access, aids and help so that the handicapped can use British Rail in spite of their difficulties. British Rail themselves have reason to be grateful for the community interest aroused by their local projects for aids for the disabled and they have had tremendous voluntary help in many parts of the country from the Young Lions, the Round Table, and the Youth Opportunities Programme. I was talking to Mr. Buchanan last week. He had just returned from a European Conference on transport for the handicapped, and his comment was: "British Rail has produced less paper than any other European country but they have done so many good things for the disabled. Only Sweden has done more". Other countries may have many good ideas on paper, but little is happening on the ground, and practical help is what is needed by handicapped people, however good those unfulfilled ideas may be.
The Department of Transport have taken, and are taking, the initiative in many ways. They are helping manufacturers of taxis both with guidance and financial aid, to modify taxis to accommodate wheelchairs. The prototype for the next generation of taxis will be different, not only in being able to accommodate a person in a wheelchair, but because the vehicle will be accessible to disabled and able-bodied passengers alike on equal terms. These new taxis will not be on the road until 1984, but the Department of Transport has bought two prototypes to test the potential more widely and to make sure that the design is right not only for wheelchairs but for people with other mobility problems. It is based on the Range Rover, has a wider door, a lower floor than existing taxis and will carry ramps to allow easy access for wheelchairs, and I am delighted that one of these taxis will he handed over next week and be on trial in my home town of Peterborough until February of next year. The

1159
Department of Transport are also revising the regulations for the orange badge in order to cut down on abuse, and no doubt we shall hear more about that as time proceeds. They are also fitting inductive couplers to all motorway telephones in England. These will be of benefit to many drivers who have to wear hearing aids, and will help to reduce the fears that they may have about using motorways because of difficulty in calling for help if they have a breakdown. This work on inductive couplers will be completed this year. In June the department arranged a disabled drivers rally at Silverstone where HRH The Prince of Wales joined the competitors and took part in the tests. At the Road Research Laboratory, a centre is being developed where disabled people who want to drive can be assessed and can try out different vehicles and equipment.
My Lords, some members of your Lordship's House may have seen and visited one of the "Getting There" exhibition buses which were on the road for a 3,000 mile journey over three months in the United Kingdom. Local authorities arranged the exhibition sites, and the buses were fully accessible to able-bodied and disabled persons and stimulated tremendous interest. The department have also issued a guide to help disabled and elderly people to make fuller use of public transport services. Called Door to Door, there were some 3 to 4 million copies in the first print order. It is extremely comprehensive and it is free. I hope that noble Lords who know disabled people and organisations will encourage them to write and ask for this and at the same time put pressure on their local social services departments and voluntary organisations to ensure that local guides are also published to use in conjunction with this.
The conference did not confine itself to transport but also considered the problems of disabled pedestrians. No doubt, someone will say more about the pavement clutter which we find in the centre of our pavements after they have been widened and the cars and vans thoughtlessly parked, possibly in the interests of road safety, but certainly against the interest of disabled pedestrians, especially the blind.
There are problems, too, with local authority spending cutback which have resulted in badly-maintained roads and footpaths which create additional hazards for disabled pedestrians and wheelchair and invalid car users. If facilities are not there, disabled people do not travel, and it would be easy to say then that there is no demand; but I am sure, as were the majority of those who attended the conference in Kensington, that, if we are able to provide the facilities, there will be a massive movement of people wanting to get out and about—and, if that does happen, then the economic viability of providing these facilities will be more reasonable. I believe what came out of the conference was a will to improve services and the need for some extra financial help outside the commercial remit given to operators by the Government.
What this conference proved and what the report shows is a greater awareness that transport is not just concerned with tight schedules, services and time tables, but it is, and should be, concerned with people; and those people who have to use public transport are not always, young, alert and agile. The kind of help and
1160
consideration that we are seeking also make problems for the operators. Coaches, trains and planes have schedules to maintain, and the needs of the disabled must make extra demands on both their services and their time. This we all appreciate. But if our public transport really copes with the problems of disability in its many forms, so many more people will be able to have a new window on the world, will not be prisoners within four walls and need not be apprehensive about going on a journey. In his address to the conference last year the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, posed the question: "Why is it that transport, getting from place to place, whether for work or pleasure, can be anything from a nightmare to an obstacle race for anyone who is disabled? "There are between five and six million people in the United Kingdom who are afflicted with a greater or lesser degree of disability or handicap and they all passionately want to have freedom of mobility. If the International Year for Disabled People did nothing else, I believe it produced a national will for our transport operators to be clear and accountable for their plans for transport without handicap. But that also implies a clear Government will and policy to provide some money to allow operators to work within their commercial remits and yet allow for concessions for the handicapped. It is easy to build in aids at new railway stations, bus stations and air terminals at the design stage. It is much more difficult and more expensive to adapt old premises and still achieve a set financial target.
The International Year for Disabled People played a tremendous part in educating the disabled and able bodied to live together. The more that we can ensure that able bodied people appreciate that the disabled and handicapped are like them—they have the same feelings, the same interests, the same desire to be part of the community—then the easier it will be to get the necessary provisions to meet all kinds of disabilities built into all projects at the design stage. The Secretary of State has pledged the continuing support of the aims of the International Year for Disabled People as an integral part of transport policy, and the department are looking forward to further initiatives and improvements in public transport and in providing special devices to meet the needs of disabled and able bodied people alike. I commend this aim to your Lordships and offer my thanks and appreciation for the practical interest shown to date, and ask the House to consider the Action Programme before us. I beg to move for Papers.
3.13 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain all noble Lords are very grateful to the noble Baroness for putting this Motion before the House and for the very thoughtful and constructive way in which she opened the subject. As she said, the Action Programme arose out of the special conference held in March last year. I did not attend the conference but the Action Programme caused me to re-read the proceedings of the conference and, as the noble Baroness said, it was full of practical proposals and it was one of the successful events in the International Year for Disabled People.
In a recent debate in your Lordships' House on transport policy, I referred to the isolation of those

1161
in rural areas who have neither access to private transport nor public transport available. For the aged and disabled this can be the situation that confronts some of them in the conurbations, even where there is adequate public transport. I read with interest the Department of Transport's guide to transport for disabled people, Door to Door, which was published at the end of April. The noble Baroness referred to this.
I want to congratulate the department and those responsible for the production of this report. I was going to say that I would be interested to know the views of the noble Baronesses, Lady Lane-Fox and Lady Masham, as to whether it fulfilled their needs. Although we have been told three-quarters of a million copies have been issued, I was surprised that neither of the two noble Baronesses had seen the document. I hope that this document meets the needs of the disabled and handicapped because I understand that advice was given to the department in the production of this excellent guide by the organisations representing the disabled.
Does this national guide meet the point made by Sir Peter Parker, chairman of British Rail, when at the conference he referred to the separate guides that are already issued by British Rail, London Transport and the airports authorities? These guides are also referred to in the Action Programme. Sir Peter said:
"Should we not be co-operating more closely to see that there is proper coverage of transport in the country and town guides which are being produced to ensure that they cover all aspects of disabled people?"
Are we satisfied that the national guide that has been produced achieves that end?
The Under-Secretary of State has said that a number of local authorities have produced a local guide to supplement this national one. I do not know whether the Minister can tell us the number of authorities which have issued local guides and how the department promotes this type of consideration by local authorities. The same suggestion in the Action Programme stresses the need for operators to think of the journey door-to-door. This point was made by the noble Baroness.
What are the Government doing to promote this other than saying that it is something that ought to be done? Surely, it is not a matter which can be left just for the operators to undertake. As Sir Peter Parker said at the conference:
"It is no use British Rail providing improved facilities on trains and stations, if the aged and disabled are unable to get on or off a bus, tube or taxi to make the journey to or from a railway station".
What happens if a disabled person has facilities at the departure station, but at the end of the journey has to surmount stairs or escalators and there is no lift? We all know the problems at many London Underground stations. We are pleased to learn from a spokesman of the conference that the Tyne and Wear Council decided that facilities for wheelchair users should be provided throughout their new Metro. This was possible because it is a new railway, and a new enterprise. The local authority was alive to the needs of the disabled and there were adequate consultations with the relevant organisations before they proceeded with the Metro contruction.
As the noble Baroness said, it is very heartening to
1162
learn that British Rail and the National Bus Company have engaged special advisers or consultants on facilities for the disabled, and that London Transport, and some other undertakings, have regular consultations with the appropriate organisations. Can the Minister say how far these are successful? How many other transport undertakings have this degree of consultation and advice? Where it is not practicable for an individual operator to undertake this themselves, what help can be given by the department?
It is also encouraging to learn from spokesmen at the conference that British Rail, the National Bus Company and London Transport in particular have special staff training programmes with an emphasis on the disabled customers. How far are these progressing, and is this training adequate? How is this particular work being co-ordinated by the department? The noble Baroness also referred to the important point about toilets at railway stations and elsewhere. While we understand that British Rail are giving consideration to what might be done before they can undertake major schemes, which will be costly, I do not know what our disabled friends will think of this suggestion—or whether the department will think it practicable—but surely it should be possible for quickly constructed temporary Porta-Loos to be built to be used only by the disabled? That could be not only at railway stations but anywhere else where there is not adequate provision at the moment. That ought to be handled through the department and not by one particular transport undertaking.
The Action Programme pointed out that there is scope for voluntary involvement in making facilities accessible. The programme gives, as an example, the Oxfordshire bus helper scheme. This is just one of a number of interesting developments by regional subsidiaries of the National Bus Company which are all set out in a very interesting national report brochure called, Making Travel Easier.
Of course, the voluntary organisations can and do play a very useful part in transport for the disabled and the handicapped. It opens up the question as to how far transport facilities for the handicapped and disabled can or should be provided by social service schemes, or whether it can usually be done best by public transport undertakings who have the expertise and personnel available, and also whether it is desirable that they should be included in the normal travelling facilities and not put in as something special. The suggestion is also included in the Action Programme that there should be a re-examination of the Dial-a-ride service. I knew a little about that scheme at Harlow, though at the moment I have not the time to go into the contribution made by Mr. Mike Gerrard at the conference about the time when he was chairman of the transport committee of Harlow Council when it carried out a very useful scheme at Harlow. The important question arises: Should Dial-a-ride schemes come within the transport supplementary grant in order to make them viable? If so, they would need to be additional to the present schemes, because one should not do anything to upset the contribution to the normal transport facilities.
An allied point is that, although it is not possible to provide that all buses go from door to door, surely more arrangements should be made for bus stops at

1163
the actual station entrances and as close as possible to shops, and particularly shopping precincts. In addition to the noble Baroness, many of your Lordships will understand that many disabled persons will often prefer to use their own transport. Could the Minister say what co-ordination there is and what success has been achieved over the interesting contribution by the British Leyland representative at the special conference on the proposals being considered? Is there any possibility of an economically-priced car suitable for the disabled which would enable them to travel accompanied by someone and not on their own? For the disabled who prefer their own transport, there must be special parking facilities at stations and other public buildings even if there are no parking facilities for the ordinary traveller.
The Action Programme refers to the height of emergency telephones on motorways and also refers to the new "help" pennant. I have never seen one of these, and the noble Baroness has told us that she has never seen the new guide. In addition, I had not seen any publicity about the "help" pennant until I received a press notice issued by the Department of Transport.
There is one important point here. Your Lordships may recall an incident mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, during a previous debate when she told us that she had broken down on the motorway and it was only the fact that she had a "disabled" sign on the back of her car which caused a motorist eventually to stop and help her. If the pennants are to be used so as to avoid the disabled having to get out of their car and on to the motorway, which the Action Programme has said is dangerous, there must be some way of showing this on the back of the car because it is the headlamps of the car behind which need to pick up the sign and not those of advancing cars in the opposite lane.
If there is to be legislation and if it is thought to be desirable to have legislation to make compulsory provision for the disabled—the noble Baroness referred to the contribution by the lady from Seattle, and I should love to go into that because it does open up the question as to whether legislation is desirable and what would be the reaction of the operators—but if legislation is to be introduced surely it must be accompanied by adequate Government grants so that major developments can be carried out. I would suggest that even if legislation is not thought to be desirable and special provision is not be to made compulsory, if we want the schemes to be undertaken there needs to be adequate Government finance made available.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we from these Benches are most grateful to the noble Baroness for the way she has introduced this debate. Her presentation really reflected the spirit of the conference at which I was present, and which to me indicated just a beginning of the recognition by public and private carriers of the problems of carrying disabled passengers. I think the attitude of public and private carriers to disabled passengers must be dependent, rather in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about just now, on the extra facilities required and at what cost, in
1164
social and commercial terms. In the final analysis the question must be asked: if these requirements are met, will the extra service tap a new source of travelling public which will be commercially viable, or will it require Government funds to satisfy a social need? The answer must lie somewhere between these two requirements, and that is confirmed in the information given in the document before us.
My intervention from these Benches concerns two aspects of these problems. The first is the general attitude towards the disabled traveller and the other is a technical one concerning the specification of battery-powered road vehicles for the disabled. Here I have to declare an interest, as a volume manufacturer and designer. At first glance, the report—which I think is rather a flimsy document—merely gives a check-list of the action taken and to be taken in the areas discussed at that conference. I do not want to be critical, but I think it could have gone much further in widening some of the points covered. Above all, it could have given some indication of the problems of inter-departmental co-operation that are involved between the DHSS and the Department of Transport, which every disabled person or every disabled vehicle manufacturer comes across at one time or another.
I think there is another omission, and one which has been raised by me on other occasions in your Lordships' House. It refers to the attitude of the public and private carriers towards the mentally disabled. I feel that in this document, as indeed in other documents prepared by British Rail and other organisations, although they are very well motivated, the problems have not been really looked at as they would apply to mentally disabled people. I mean by this mentally disabled children, in particular between the ages of 14 and 16, who require an adult to accompany them on a train or bus journey.
I was disappointed and I have been in correspondence with British Rail on their first document to assist the disabled, which covered guide-dogs and various other facilities for the physically disabled but made no mention of assistance to mentally disabled children in this group who might wish to use British Rail to go on holiday. I am very pleased to see that the family railcard scheme produced by British Rail is very nearly what is required, and I should like the Minister perhaps to open up further discussions with British Rail regarding the family railcard scheme. I will not go into the scheme itself now because of shortage of time, but I believe it could be quite easily adapted to cover adult escorts or passengers with mentally handicapped children, even though the children may not be part of the family. That would bring in a whole new category of passenger which at the moment is not using British Rail simply because it is far too expensive. I would add one further point in this connection. It is much easier to carry a large number of mentally handicapped children in a railway train than in a motor car, for obvious safety reasons; and it requires less supervision during the course of the journey.
The other aspect which I should like to touch on briefly concerns the problems of those of us who design and manufacture vehicles for the disabled. There are some interesting and very special technical problems, and it might be worth while reminding your Lordships about these. First, is the fact that there is no such

1165
thing as a standard form of disablement and therefore the vehicle cannot be a standard vehicle. Yet on the other hand, if the vehicle is to be properly priced, it must be one which is capable of volume production. Furthermore, though specifications look very simple, a road vehicle not only has to travel along the road but also has to climb a kerb—often 5½ inches, and sometimes appallingly steep—without spilling the customer on the road. The ones that I make also have to travel along the pavement. It requires considerable technical expertise to produce at a reasonable price a vehicle that covers all these requirements.
There is a further requirement, in that we have been asked whether it is possible for these vehicles to exceed 4 mph on the main road, which they are limited by statute to do. It is this aspect which I should like the noble Earl the Minister to put his mind to. In December, 1970, the report of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled clearly described the position of powered wheelchairs for use on pavements. This seems to be a direct extract from the road traffic statutory instrument for disabled persons, covering the Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1970.
These regulations clearly state that an invalid carriage must not travel at more than 4 mph and must weigh less than 250 1b. A vehicle for the disabled which is capable of more than 4 mph, and which is driven on the highway, appears, therefore, to be a motor vehicle covered by the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use Regulations) 1978. This is a particularly difficult document to comprehend, even for technical people.
The only reference which I feel is important is to invalid carriages—it presumably refers to petrol driven ones—in Section H, where it states only that they must not exceed 2·2 metres in width and must carry brakes and be equipped with mudguards. That is the only help that we manufacturers have in conforming with the 1aw. I do not think that this is really adequate. So that a high-speed invalid carriage, which is capable of going on the road and exceeding 4 mph, will come under the land tractor category. This is another matter which clearly needs looking at.
I have had correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and I believe that there is a requirement for disabled people to travel on the highway at vehicle speeds of up to 10 mph, which is, after all, the speed of a fit marathon runner or a cyclist. In Germany, they approach the problem through the TUV, which is their technical inspectorate. Instead of trying to create regulations to cover the requirements of disabled people and manufacturers, they have a vehicle specification rather like the British Standards Institute, which can be passed as safe and fit for the job for which it is intended.
Therefore, the Department of Transport has two ways in which to go in order to satisfy the requirements of disabled people who want to use a vehicle which is not a road vehicle. First, they can go ahead and create special regulations similar to the ones that I have described, though I have a feeling that this will end in it being impossible to build a vehicle which will satisfy both the regulations and the disabled person. The second way is to create an inspectorate and have a transport testing station, which can issue a licence for vehicles of certain specifications. This would save a lot of work and avoid many problems.
1166
This debate is an opportunity for all parties who are interested in the disabled and transport fields to get together and try to form something practical, which will satisfy the needs of the disabled. But if after this debate there is to be an inter-departmental argument about regulations, the end result will be great dissatisfaction for the disabled traveller in terms of road vehicles and regulations which it is almost impossible for manufacturers—who always try to please their customers—to conform with. Therefore, I hope that in his reply the noble Earl will be able to confirm that interested parties of all kinds may meet and discuss these matters, in order to get a commonsense answer to this problem, rather than a whole list of new regulations which would be impractical and unworkable.
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, those Members of the House with a special interest in this subject are particularly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for initiating this debate. If anyone has had to be hauled up into a bus onto his seat and then found his caliper splint firmly fixed in the hinge of the door, putting the driver off schedule by 20 minutes, he will know too well, as I do, the crying need for the adaptations which are referred to in the report.
May I tell your Lordships of our drill for boarding a train in past years? Two kind porters would gently carefully pick me up and throw me on to the train, rather like a mailbag, to be caught in the doorway by my mother. Together, somehow, we hobbled round into the compartment where another porter came to help us sit down. One day, I regret to say that we left it a bit late and I sat on top of the porter, who had to travel with us to the next station before he could get free. Travelling in the guard's van was, at least, a means of staying with one's wheelchair, but the rigmarole of having to visit the station 48 hours before, in order to book—admittedly, for security reasons—placed an extra burden on an already overworked helper. With these experiences, it was especially pleasing to read Transport without Handicap. The suggested adaptations and provisions must obviously be made within the limits of the present day's restricted finances. Since passenger revenue is all-important, our needs must not upset the balance for the fare-paying public. The aim should be to integrate—not to obliterate.
With buses in particular, it has been a matter of gradually pushing back the barriers. I have been checking up with the National Bus Company's consultant on disability, Claudia Flanders, whose late husband, as many of your Lordships know, was the chair-bound, but illustrious, Michael Flanders. She realises that all types of disabled people must be considered, whether they have physical difficulty in moving about, in seeing, in hearing or in speaking clearly. Of these, it appears that on the buses about 93 per cent. of disabled passengers at present are elderly, and it is believed that better lighting will help them and the partially-sighted and everyone else.
New coaches are equipped with retractable entrance steps operated by the driver, and I believe that Southdown Motor Services run these vehicles. These experiments have had to be made cautiously, in the knowledge that a very large fleet of kneeling buses

1167
were tried out in Boston, Massachusetts, but had to be scrapped as unworkable. It is good to read of the special help given to people with sight difficulties who travel on Metro-National buses in West Yorkshire, where braille is used at the entrance to buses to indicate the seating layout of the vehicle. Then, for five Oxfordshire villages, there are special bus helpers who travel on the buses on two days a week to see that the elderly and disabled get safely on board, with their shopping stowed suitably.
But the provision of extensive mechanical devices and special equipment is more problematical. However, at least four operators run vehicles with special facilities—fully flexible coaches. The model used in the Alder Valley will accommodate nine wheelchairs by taking seats out as necessary, and there is plenty of room for helpers as well. The chairs can be properly anchored and the entry is up an easy ramp. Such vehicles also run, I believe, in Chester, Kent and Chelmsford, and reports are that they prove popular and are very well booked. The Alder Valley, by the way, started on these conversions with a bus which was going to be scrapped, but now it is successfully reconditioned as a private line to help disabled groups in the area.
There are still lots of difficulties for the National Bus Company to tackle, and it has set up a number of forums at which the general public can pass on their worries. It is important that disabled people should try to make use of the services to point out the need. What, for instance, is the use of an elderly lady receiving a special fare concession if she then cannot get into the bus because the step is too high? Attention is focused on the difficulties and the rate of improvement is, I believe, gathering momentum. But at least at this incomplete stage it seems that there is a case for small adapted vans being made available for certainly those with wheelchairs, perhaps under the joint control of the companies and the voluntary organisations.
Other noble Lords have referred to Mr. Buchanan as the special adviser to the British Railways Board on transportation and employment of disabled people. He has certainly got first hand experience of travelling by train in his wheelchair. He tells me it is possible now to travel by rail in a wheelchair from London to Aberdeen in the North, across to Swansea in Wales and South to Penzance. In the Eastern region there is now rolling stock which will take wheelchairs, and this same stock is being built for the Gatwick to Victoria line. British Rail, I believe, is aiming to provide first class unisex loos at all main-line stations, knowing that it is not yet practical, as has already been said, to provide these on the trains.
The depressing aspect is the track, which proves unsuitable to take the rolling stock designed for us. The Dover to London line, for instance, cannot accommodate the helpful Inter-City type stock, and Birmingham to London is the same. Here we must travel still in the guards van. But guards vans are, I understand, being revamped for us—in lighting, heating and chair anchorage. Mr. Buchanan is chairman of the British Rail panel consisting of representatives of different forms of disablement organisations, disabled people and officers of British Rail. In this way the many remaining problems can be faced fairly and
1168
squarely. At least it is apparent that, apart from Swedish rail, we are leading the world in our travelling arrangements for disabled people.
It has been realised that many disabled people are often very hard up. On the Inter-City 125 it has been arranged that one wheelchair can travel in every first class compartment for half the second class fare, and their companions can do likewise. The fact is that normally to transport the ungainliness of disabled people is costly, yet the general wish is that we should be better integrated—and that generally means transport. Those who cannot make it on trains or buses, especially if they can do a useful and rewarding job, have to try for specialised transport vehicles; but even with Motability and the mobility allowance, the cost of replacing or buying such a vehicle and then running it is ruinous. What is more, there are still legions of disabled people who qualify for the mobility allowance but who are disqualified by age. Their case is the worst of the lot. I mention these continuing problems so that my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues shall not forget that while great starts have been made, for many the subject is still fraught with hardship and sorrow.
3.45 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on the tremendous—
Several noble Lords: Statement!
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I understood that I was to speak first.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, my understanding is that the usual channels have agreed that the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, should speak before we take the Statement. Therefore I think it would be right for the noble Lady now to make her speech. If it is the wish of the House, the Statement will be taken immediately afterwards.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, let me begin again. The Government are to be congratulated on the tremendous amount of work that the Department of Transport has done since the conference held in London in March 1981 for the mobility of disabled people. It is a pleasure to learn that so many of the suggestions which were made at the conference have been implemented and that the department is continuing to discuss further suggestions. The department's "Transport without Handicap" Action Programme shows clearly what action it has taken and is hoping to take in the future. I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for her excellent explanation of the report, and not least for initiating this debate.
There are several points that I should like to make. The orange badge scheme, which has been under review by the Department of Transport, has proved very difficult to administer fairly for several successive Governments. We all know that it is easy to abuse the existing scheme. I am very pleased that it is now an offence under the Disabled Persons Act 1981 for a person who is not entitled to use one to do so. A suggestion was made at an all-party parliamentary group meeting for the disabled, of which I am a member,

1169
for a plastic slot into which the badge could be easily slipped in and taken out and which would be stuck in the windscreen only when in use by a disabled person. In their Action Programme the Government have not mentioned this as part of the action to be taken, for which I am sorry.
The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, RADAR, has heard a suggestion that one local council in London is thinking of using clamps on illegally parked cars. I do not expect an answer today, but could the Minister say whether cars with orange badges will be exempted from the clamps, and perhaps a warning attached to the car? RADAR is hoping that if this is done there will be fewer cars parked illegally and that there may be some hope for the orange badge users. RADAR also hopes that two hours only parking discs for parking on yellow lines for disabled drivers may be abolished—hoping but not too hopeful!
Another problem for disabled car drivers are the self-service petrol stations. They account for between 50 and 60 per cent. of petrol sales in the United Kingdom. Would it not be possible for a lever, which would be easily accessible to a motorist from his or her car to call the attention of the attendant to his or her need? It would have to be within reach of the disabled driver.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the availabiltiy of lavatories on stations and in our cities and towns. Because of vandalism or other social misuse, many lavatories for the disabled are locked. There is a national key scheme which is used by some district and borough councils. It would be nice to think that they need not be locked, but where this is necessary, if a national key scheme could be operated, the disabled person who is unable to use the ordinary facilities could buy a key which would enable that person to unlock the door when needed. As things are, in the case of one officer of RADAR recently, on arrival at Charing Cross he had to wait between 25 and 30 minutes for a porter to be found, and while he obtained a key to unlock the lavatory. I understand that British Rail are planning to reduce the number of stations which have lavatories. For a disabled person who is unable to use one on a train this can be a disaster and can lead to distress and discomfort, possibly making some would-be travellers feel that they cannot do so. I do not think I need say more.
Mr. Massey of RADAR has recently visited France to see a train which has special facilities for the disabled. A compartment in one carriage of the train has been converted for disabled passengers. I do not know whether it is yet in operation. The seats have been removed to enable wheelchairs to be accommodated. They also have full lavatory and washing facilities, so they are able to travel some considerable distance knowing that their needs are provided for. I wonder whether this would not be a possible thought for future designs of our own long distance trains where passengers are on them for a considerable time?
I should like to congratulate British Rail on some of the ways in which they have helped and are helping disabled travellers. Between King's Cross and York, on the line to Edinburgh, they have a ramp at each station which enables wheelchairs to be pushed into a first-class carriage from which a seat is removed at
1170
one end and the wheelchair placed there instead. This can be done only on the 125 high speed train in a Mark III carriage which has a sufficiently wide door and removeable seats. Certainly between York and King's Cross, passengers are put on the train and met the other end, where they are wheeled off in the most efficient, kindly and indeed cheerful manner. All these are small points but they are points which can make a great deal of difference to the comfort, wellbeing and morale of disabled travellers. It is these things that this debate is really about.

The Falkland Islands
3.50 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement which has been made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement runs:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short Statement.
"During the past 24 hours there has been a major increase in operational activity in the South Atlantic.
"On the Falkland Islands themselves, three successive raids were made by Harriers from the task force on the Port Stanley airfield. These raids were successful and all our aircraft returned safely. As a result of the actions of the ships and aircraft of the task force, the blockade of the remaining Argentine garrison on the Falklands remains effective.
"During last night and during the course of yesterday the loading of heavy supplies into the San Carlos area has continued. Five major supply ships left San Carlos during the night having offloaded their cargoes. The force ashore is fully established with sufficient supplies to carry out their tasks for an extended period—but the build-up will continue and 5 Brigade is on its way.
"Two war ships, including HMS Coventry ', were based to the north, outside the opening of Falkland Sound, to provide early warning of air attack and to provide an air defence screen for the supply ships unloading in San Carlos Water.
"At approximately 1.30 p.m. London time an aircraft, probably on a reconnaissance mission, was detected by HMS 'Coventry' and was shot down using her Sea Dart missile system. This was followed later in the afternoon by separate attacks by four Argentine Sky Hawks, which were shot down by HMS 'Coventry's ' Sea Dart, and by Sea Cat and Rapier missiles. This brings the total number of Argentine fixed wing aircraft destroyed to over 50.
"At approximately 7.30 pm London time a further raid of Sky Hawks approached HMS 'Coventry'. She was hit by several bombs and suffered severe damage. She later capsized. Initial reports are that 20 members of her crew died in the attack, about 20 were injured and the remainder of her crew of some 280 are now safe on board other ships of the task force.

1171
"After this attack on HMS 'Coventry', at about 8.30 p.m. 'Atlantic Conveyor', a Merchant Navy ship protected by escorts and employed in the resupply task, was attacked by two Super Etendard aircraft, which fired Exocet missiles. She was hit and set on fire. She was loaded with supplies for British forces on the Falkland Islands. She had no Harriers embarked.
"In this attack four of those on board 'Atlantic Conveyor' were killed and a small number were injured. The remainder of those 170 who were on board are now safe on other ships.
"Mr. Speaker, yesterday's losses were tragic, for both the Royal Navy and the Merchant Marine. The House will join with me in expressing our admiration and gratitude for the bravery and dedication of all concerned".
And, my Lords, our thoughts are with the families of our men at this tragic time.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the Statement goes on:
"Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a general comment on the conduct of operations to recover the Falklands so far.
"During the past seven weeks the Royal Navy has assembled, organised, and despatched over 100 ships, involving over 25,000 men and women, 8,000 miles away to the other end of the world. The task force has recaptured South Georgia and successfully accomplished a hazardous amphibious landing of around 5,000 men without a single fatal land casualty. The morale of our forces is high. By any historical standard this will be seen to have been one of the most remarkable and logistic and military achievements of recent times.
"In planning this operation substantial attrition of our ships, aircraft and equipment was both anticipated and expected. In spite of the loss of four naval warships, the task force has more escort vessels today than a week ago. Ten more destroyers and frigates have joined the force in the past two days. Attrition of our Harrier force has been much less than we had assessed and they have achieved complete dominance in air combat and land attack. Otherwise, in spite of massive movements of merchant ships in and out of hostile waters, the Atlantic Conveyor ' is the first supply ship that we have lost.
"When a setback occurs there is always a danger that it brings in train undue pessimism about the future, just as success sometimes creates needless euphoria. Neither are justified at the present time.
"Our forces on the ground are now poised to begin their thrust upon Port Stanley: behind them are another 3,000 men of 5 Brigade—while reinforcements and resupply are virtually denied to the Argentine garrison on the island. Generally the military objective to repossess the Falkland Islands has gone forward exactly as we planned it. We have had losses and there may be more on land and sea, but the people of the Falkland Islands can be
1172
assured that our resolve is undiminished: we intend to free them from occupation and to restore their democratic rights".
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Peart: My Lords, we thank the noble Viscount for repeating that Statement. First, of course, we on these Benches wish to express our great regret at the tragic loss of life. Our deepest sympathies are with the families of those who have been killed or injured. We would especially like to express the admiration of the whole House for the courage and fortitude shown by our gallant merchant seamen. We welcome the announcement yesterday that compensation will be paid in respect of merchant seamen killed or injured in action.
May I ask the noble Viscount to clarify the position on negotiations? Can we be assured that the British landing on the Falklands has not excluded the possibility of a negotiated settlement?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, we too would like to express thanks to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement, and to express our admiration for and gratitude to our forces. Our deepest sympathy goes to the relatives of those who have been lost or injured in this action. I would like to ask the noble Viscount the Minister—because he said that there were no Harriers on:board 'Atlantic Conveyor' —if in fact our air dominance is going to increase and be kept up? I think that this would be very useful and very essential to the operation. We too would like to know what progress could be made or might be made towards an eventual long-term solution to put the whole world at peace and which would justify this brave and, so far, competent action.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments, which are entirely in line with the Government's feelings. I said on Monday to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that all tragic disagreements and wars, and all military activities (as these are), have to end with negotiations and settlements. That is well understood by the Government, but each situation is a new one. But certainly we realise that in the end we need a settlement, and one that looks to the future as well. That does not mean, of course, that we are going to agree to a cease-fire which gives a tactical advantage to the Argentinians at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, with his distinguished air record, has immediately gone to the point of air dominance. This has been considered by the Chiefs of Staff from the beginning and, as the noble Lord knows only too well, there are degrees of air superiority. I believe it is true to say, against the losses of aircraft I have mentioned, that a very large degree of air superiority has been achieved, notwithstanding these losses. But it is still clearly possible for determined pilots, in the three-dimensional air, to get through on occasions. We believe that with the strength of the task force, which is virtually undiminished, and with the reinforcement of Harriers which have arrived, we shall be able to achieve a steadily increasing degree of air superiority. I again would

1173
assure the noble Lord that we look for a long-term solution which makes sure that these sacrifices are not in vain.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we, too, would wish to extend our deepest sympathy to the relatives of the servicemen and the Merchant Marines who have lost their lives or were injured in the loss of these two ships? Despite our sorrow at these losses, we remember that the task force is there in a just cause, opposing and engaging an illegal aggressor who has been told by the United Nations to withdraw from the islands, and in our view no negotiations should be considered which do not include withdrawal.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those sentiments.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, is the noble Viscount the Minister aware that we too from these Benches would like to say how much we recognise with deep admiration the bravery and courage of our task force and have deep sympathy for those bereaved at this time? Is he aware that at the residential conference of the archbishops and the bishops of the Church of England yesterday a call for prayer went out from the bishops of the Church of England for wisdom for Govermment, sympathy for those who are bereaved, and a prayer for a just and lasting peace in the coming days; and that many dioceses will be saying special prayers on Sunday, 6th June, Trinity Sunday, in that context?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I take note of those remarks by the right reverend Prelate. We are grateful for the support of him and his colleagues over these difficult times, and particularly for their support in upholding the principles of international law and self-determination and freedom of people.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many hearts are heavy this afternoon? Is he further aware that although the Government have been unwilling to listen to voices counselling moderation, or a cease-fire or a negotiated settlement, in this Chamber or in another Chamber, these voices are now heard elsewhere? Has the noble Viscount read the Financial Times today? Has he read the leader calling for a negotiated settlement? Has he read Mr. Samuel Brittan once again reiterating these calls for a cease-fire and stopping the killing straight away? Will he read these articles, draw them to the attention of his noble friends, and think again?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I have not read all those articles. I shall probably have read the Financial Times by tonight. I am well aware, however, of the many voices of anxiety, very sincere voices of anxiety, and I am aware of the feeling of I think all Members of this House at these tragic sacrifices. But in addition to the direct objective, from which we will not be diverted, of restoring the freedom of the Falkland Islands, I believe the sacrifices will lead to a world in which aggression is less likely to take place and a greater respect for the freedom of peoples will exist.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, bear to some of us a sickening familiarity with those who in the 1930s also sought to appease fascist dictators?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I think I have already said what I wanted to say on that.
Lord Blyton: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Paget, has been trying to get in for a long time, and then I suggest the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, might put his point.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, could the noble Viscount tell us why the bases from which the Argentine air force is attacking troops on British territory and ships in British territorial waters—because that is indeed what the Falklands are—are not in their turn being attacked?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I think the task force commander is using ail practical means to attack enemy forces which are attacking us.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, has he got a free hand to do so?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, he has indeed got a free hand to do so, in accordance with any recommendations or agreements of the Chiefs of Staff as to what is militarily a useful way forward at the present time.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the noble Viscount the Minister aware that after six weeks of negotiation, through the United Nations and General Haig, to try to seek peace in this context, it has failed, and that we cannot give way and appease the fascist junta in Argentina? Not only that, we must encourage our troops now, and not let it go from this House that we are demoralising them in the fight that lies ahead. I have a grandson there and he asks me to tell Parliament that they are fighting for what is right, and hope that the British Government and the Houses of Parliament will support them.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am encouraged by the noble Lord's remarks. I would like to say that we had a Statement on Monday, when we had had a relatively good day, and Monday ended as a good day. I hope that, because one has in this kind of activity some days better than others, we will not see this House, at least, shift mercurially from views on Monday to views on Wednesday because we have a small setback.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, while being warmed by the wholehearted support just given to my noble friend who put the last question, may I ask the noble Viscount the Minister whether he would not also agree that our championing of freedom is better understood if we do not bay down those with whom we disagree? I was

1175
commenting on the fact that when a noble Member says something with which we disagree there is a tendency on the part of certain noble Members of this House simply to shout him down, and I think that is to be deprecated.
May I now ask the noble Viscount whether he would underline what he said about the Harrier aircraft? He did say that they now had complete dominance. Would he not agree that it is all the more remarkable that that dominance should have been achieved by an aircraft not exactly intended for the role that it is now asked to undertake?
May I also ask the noble Viscount whether he will do something to put into perspective what was said from this side of the House last week about the attractions of the Falkland weather? Would he not say that for a pilot in a vertical landing aircraft to land in present circumstances, in gusts of 60 to 70 mph on a platform which is moving, is nothing short of remarkable, and we should not underrate that performance by saying that the weather was no worse than it was at Bournemouth? May I also ask the noble Viscount whether he would also say something about the weather conditions as far as they affect the thousands of men who are now in bog-like territory, with no proper place to sleep, not properly supplied, in conditions that really are beyond the capacity of many of us to understand? I, like the noble Lord, also went through something in the last war. It is quite remarkable. When we are saying how well we are doing, I think that we should bear in mind some of these adverse circumstances.
If I may ask this finally, will he emphasise again how unwise it is to exercise this excessive euphoria? The euphoria of yesterday was quite frightening. I was very happy to hear what the noble Viscount the Minister had to say, and is he aware that I agree with him absolutely? We do not want the euphoria. We do not want defeatism.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord that I do not think there has been baying in this House. I think we have been a very calming influence throughout the whole period of the crisis, and I believe we will continue to be so. I said that the Harrier had secured complete dominance in air combat. That is to be distinguished from the degree of air superiority over the whole area that we have yet achieved. But we have lost no Harriers in air combat and they have shot down a large percentage of the total Argentine losses that I have mentioned. We have lost two Harriers in offensive operations, to ground fire.
I would rather be in Bournemouth than in the Falklands and I would rather be here than in the Falklands. We all understand and endorse the statements that the noble Lord has made about conditions. I do not think that the Government have expressed euphoria at any stage, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken every opportunity to warn that there can be losses and that there may still be further losses of significance ahead. But we are satisfied that we can complete our objectives.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, would the noble Viscount not agree that, while we are expressing our great sympathy for those who have lost their lives and been injured, and while we are expressing our admiration for the fortitude and skill shown by our forces, the Government should always keep in mind the objective in the long term—that is, to get a secure, and not a permanently insecure, solution for those islands 8,000 miles away? Should not the Government avoide being carried away by any euphoria, and bear in mind always the need for a negotiated settlement that will achieve this end, and bear our sacrifices in mind with that objective in the background?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I think that my right honourable friends have made very clear on all occasion that in the end we want a permanent solution whereby the Falkland Islanders can live in peace in the area in which they are located. There is nothing that will divert the Government from that longterm aim. I am afraid it has become clear that with the people we are currently dealing with in the Argentine we are more likely to achieve that solution from a position of a greater balance of strength than we have been in the past by making major offers of concessions before our task force arrived.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the ruling junta of Argentina are of the same ilk as those who trampled over Europe in the late Thirties and that, therefore there can be no question of appeasement whatever? Is the noble Viscount further aware of the probability that there are millions of Argentinians who, if they had the privilege which we have in this country of electing our Government, would in no way have elected such a Government? Is the noble Viscount further aware that, despite the present state of affairs and while there can be no question of appeasement, we ought to make it clear that British sovereignty is going to be restored to the Falkland Islanders—it is their island and they are our countrymen— but that, after that, in a sensible and civilised manner, we might find ways and means of co-operation with Argentina in both economic and perhaps democratic ways which will be to the benefit of us all?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I note once more the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, with many of which we agree. But I would rather not move from the effort that I have tried to make in my previous answer as regards the balance and the absolute need in the end to reach from a position of strength a settlement which will be secure and longterm for the South Atlantic.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, with regard to the longterm solution, may I say how delighted I was to hear yesterday the Secretary of State for Defence say that the Government are actively considering a suggestion which I made in your Lordships' House three weeks ago, for a small sovereign state in the Falklands—a proposition which at first sight seems scarcely credible but the more one considers it the more credible it becomes. There could be a small sovereign state with adequate, permanent, irrevocable safeguards from a

1177
number of other nations about security, about longterm aid for development, about immigration and such matters. Will the Government really pursue this proposal, because it would remove from us any taint of colonialism and provide a really long-term solution agreed—maybe underwritten—by the United Nations?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's suggestion and my noble friend sitting by my side will make sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs takes note of the noble Lord's views as he has already taken note of a number of constructive suggestions from Members on all sides of this House for the long-term aim.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I be permitted to say that my record against fascism is one which I should be happy to have compared with that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter?
Lord Milford: My Lords, I am sorry to ask this question but from the questions and answers that have taken place I am not clear about this matter. Are the Government not going to face negotiations or peace talks until there has been unconditional surrender from the Argentines?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am not going to add to what has been said by my right honourabe friends in the other place and by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in this matter. So far as I know, no one has used the term "unconditional surrender" before. We intend to reoccupy the Falklands and to restore British administration to the Falklands, but we are ever ready to consider the situation from thereon of how we get to a permanent settlement in the area.

"Transport without Handicap": DOT Report
Debate resumed.
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, we now return to the perhaps slightly mundane debate that we are having following my noble friend's report this afternoon. However, we are in the middle of the debate and it is my turn to continue with thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for initiating the debate on what I think is an excellent report produced by the Department of Transport. I should also like to congratulate them very much on the work that they have done. It has not been my pleasure many times before to congratulate them, but certainly it is so this afternoon, despite the fact that unfortunately I was unable to go to the conference that has been referred to previously.
We are discussing people who perhaps are classed as one category, but that category can be broken down into the deaf, the blind, those who walk with difficulty and those who are in wheelchairs. I should personally have also liked to include some of our senior citizens, because they have just as many problems travelling on this country's transport as those of us who are disabled.
1178
As regards the blind, I was very interested to see the way in which Nottingham in particular is helping those who are blind by taking them to the bus shelters and giving them a potted version of how to cope on the buses. However, it seemed to me, from reading the list, that those north of Potters Bar—it is usually north of Potters Bar—are catered for and those south of Potters Bar perhaps are not catered for.
I have tried on many occasions to travel on British Rail. If we need a wheelchair we are asked to make a request for it 48 hours in advance, which we try to do if, by any chance, we can get through on the telephone, which is very often so busy that we cannot organise it. If we are lucky we turn up in a car, and if we are very lucky and find somewhere to park it which will not lead to our car being towed away, we then ask for a wheelchair. However, it is always in use, it is "the one that is in use" which makes it so difficult. Perhaps one might ask British Rail to have one more chair at each station and perhaps even that chair might not quite so obviously have come out of the ark. Once one has got onto a train and if one has any incapacity of any sort, then of course it is impossible to move. The lavatories one cannot get at; the food one cannot get at, because it is quite impossible to move oneself on a moving train.
For my part, I suppose that all journeys could be possible if I was prepared to face a nightmare. But I am not, and so I do not use the trains. Wheelchairs have been referred to this afternoon. I should like to suggest that a moveable ramp should be kept in the guard's van similar to those which, in certain parts of your Lordships' House, have proved very effective for those Members in wheelchairs. So much for British Rail.
I turn to buses. The height of steps has made it impossible certainly for me in the last 30 years to use buses, much as I should like to. Then there is the acceleration of drivers. We all know how good bus drivers are, but perhaps it would be possible for the conductor to make the driver aware that someone who has a problem in keeping his or her balance is trying to board the bus, and for him to wait until that person is sitting down. The conductor could perhaps be asked not to start the bus until any handicapped person is firmly seated.
I turn to taxis. I am delighted that the new taxis will accommodate wheelchairs. I should like to suggest that every taxi driver has a folding ramp with self-locking hinges; it should be easily portable and easily put down. For those who cannot devise such an article, I am sure that our noble friend Lord Snowdon would easily find it possible to engineer such a folding ramp.
Therefore, as I travel round the country a great deal I have to use a car, and, as the noble Baroness said, very expensive it is too. I should also like to support what she said, in that it is quite unsafe for anyone in a wheelchair to get out on a motorway. If a wheelchair driver breaks down, I do not suggest that a pennant—and I have no idea how they work—should be used, but I suggest that a brightly coloured sign which has suction pads on it should be supplied to disabled drivers. Without opening the car door the disabled driver could put the suction padded sign onto his roof, onto the bonnet or, indeed, on to the driver's door. If it was

1179
large enough and brightly coloured enough and if the public were well educated as regards these signs, I think that would help disabled wheelchair drivers very much indeed.
I come to the Orange Badge Scheme and I want to ask my noble friend the Minister when this will be introduced. Those of us who have problems in filling our cars at petrol stations—which certainly affects me—will perhaps have trouble in trying to attract the attention of the petrol station staff to the fact that we cannot operate a pump ourselves and desire some help. At the moment I use the yellow card, which I think is to be withdrawn. If we have only a small disc on the side of our windscreen, we might still have difficulty in attracting the attention of the garage attendant. If one encounters problems, then one is very much delayed.
I have very little more to say, but, as I started with congratulations, I should like to finish by paying a tribute which is very heartfelt. As the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said, it is a tribute to those people whose imagination and engineering skills have made driving possible for those of us who are disabled. I have driven cars all over the Continent during the last 30 years though I have lost the use of one leg. I am now informed that those young people who suffered from the thalidomide problem many years ago and who have very grave disabilities are now aged 17 plus, and therefore able to drive. Some of them, with just little fingers outside their shoulders and no arms at all, are now able to drive. It is a most wonderful piece of engineering and imaginative skill on the part of those whose attention was drawn to the fact that these people want to be as independent as we are. I wanted to take this opportunity to pay my tribute to those people this afternoon.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for giving us the opportunity today to discuss the Department of Transport's report, Transport without Handicap. I was one of the people who attended the conference in March 1981 and I should like to say that the Department of Transport made the conference and reception into a very enjoyable and useful exercise. This debate, the conference and report, because of the shortage of time, only allows a very few points to be skimmed over.
My first point is to query the title, Transport without Handicap. As every severely disabled person knows only too well, if every means of transport was perfect for their disability, even this would not remove many other factors of disability. There is far more to disability than just getting from A to B. But the report has got it right when it says that it is there for people to use as a basis for taking up points with the department, operators, manufacturers, authorities and users. It is fulfilling this country's commitment to the aims of IYDP—integration and participation. Without suitable means of getting about many disabled people would be prisoners. The department is calling a meeting next month for further discussion by interested bodies on this subject, and this is most welcome.
1180
The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, had put his name down to speak in this important debate. He desperately wanted to speak in it. Unfortunately, the noble Lord is at present in the Westminster Hospital undergoing investigations. Last week the noble Lord had to go to an out-patients appointment at the Westminster Hospital. He was not there for long, but had to park his car, which had a disabled sticker on it, near the hospital. When he came out he had a parking ticket. If health districts and local authorities do not provide parking places for disabled patients near to hospitals, they are putting patients under extra stress and making their condition worse.
The year 1982 started for me as the most difficult period I have ever experienced with transportation since I became disabled. First, I was snowed-in at home in Yorkshire. Travelling to your Lordships' House for our consideration of the Mental Health Bill became a nightmare because of the unpredictable train strikes, which meant that I had to spend all week in London. The motorway crashes on the M.1 made driving unwise. I became marooned in London in a blizzard and could get no hire car or taxi to venture to Kings Cross station. In the end, a 17-year-old Spanish waiter from the hotel where I stayed took me in his car. This shows the extra handicap a disabled person has to put up with when weather conditions are bad, when he or she cannot use the tube. We are very restricted at times and need the goodwill and kindness of such people as the young Spanish boy. When I arrived in York I found the city under water. It is not easy to leave one's car in a hurry when paralysed.
Many of us who use the orange badges are very disappointed that the Government have not acted more decisively. I feel there should be more individual identification. Only yesterday one of your Lordships told me that he saw three young men get out of a car with an orange badge and leave it on a yellow line on London Bridge and go into a pub. If I come to London with my car now, I cannot park it near where I stay. I used to be able to do so. It is impossible to compete for parking meters with a nearby casino, the kerbs are too high and the road is too dangerous to cross. I have to leave my car at your Lordships' House and take a taxi. The best solution is not to become frustrated as this might cause hypertension, leading to a stroke and more disablement.
The 125 trains are a great improvement, but even with improved trains and portable ramps, which are excellent, helpful, reliable porters are essential. I have found the majority of porters to be splendid, and I thank those at King's Cross. York and Darlington, who give me such excellent help on and off the trains. Travelling to Edinburgh I found that this service did not seem to be so well organised in Scotland as it is in England, and it illustrated to me the importance of reliable manpower and a reliable system, otherwise getting on and off a train is impossible.
Two seats of the 125 trains in the first-class coach now lift out, and with a rail card one can travel for the same as a second-class ticket. Could this service be extended to overseas visitors should they be disabled and have to travel by train using a wheelchair? I think it would be a very good advertisement, and a little goodwill towards other nations is always well worth spending on.

1181
At many stations there are now suitable lavatories, but all stations should have them, as has already been stressed in this debate. King's Cross has a good example of a well thought out suitable lavatory. One of the advisers to British Rail who is himself a disabled person and using a wheelchair was discussing this need at Waterloo Station when he found that there was no such facility. At that very moment a young disabled man passed by in a hurry looking for a lavatory. The adviser had been told that one would be built in a year's time. "I don't think it should wait that long", he said. So a suitable Porta-loo is now serving this need at Waterloo. This shows how important it is to have some disabled advisers on various committees.
I have seen a great improvement in the facilities at airports for disabled people. It is important that they should be able to stay in their own wheelchairs for as long as possible before boarding, as the chairs are fitted for them and only the users of wheelchairs really understand how important this is. I have found that the staff of private airlines seeem to be more helpful and considerate to the needs of individuals than BA. This seems a pity. One becomes very aware of attitudes, and these make all the difference.
Section 3 of the Report, Disabled Motorists and Pedestrians, should have included electric wheelchairs. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, I think is a most understanding Minister, and I hope we can make some real progress in clearing some uncertainties and make available further mobility for some very disabled people. The more severe the disability the more mechanisation is needed, and the more difficult it is to transfer from wheelchairs.
I have been in contact with the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Some of their members, like high tetraplegics (neck injuries), need electric wheelchairs for indoor and outdoor use. If the disability is such that an electric chair is the only way to achieve independence and mobility, then they should have one. At the moment some people get them and some people do not. The law says that an electric chair can go on the pavement if it does not exceed 4 mph. This seems reasonable. But some people, especially those who live in the country, need a chair to go along the road and across farmland. This should be stronger and faster. I have yet to find an electric chair which is better than the Stanley Model 44, which may have been built at the time of the First World War. It is a splendid vehicle, though it may look old-fashioned. I do not think it is now being manufactured.
I hope that the Minister will look into the whole field of electric wheelchairs. There is an excellent outdoor wheelchair insurance policy, which costs £10, available from Young and Company Limited of Harrow, I am told. Perhaps it would be possible for the recipient of an outdoor wheelchair from the DHSS to pay their own insurance premium, and to make it a condition of having the chair.
I have just received a letter from the Secretary of State for Transport, David Howell, in answer to one of mine about electrical invalid carriages on the highway. I still do not think that firms that sell invalid carriages, or the people who use them, are clear on these points. I quote from a sentence of the letter:
"However, there are some controls over their use. They must have an efficient braking system and if they use the road at night,
1182
other than to cross a carriageway in the quickest manner practicable, they must display a white light at the front and a red light and red reflectors at the rear".
Do not accidents happen in a flash of a second? I think we must clarify this matter, and hopefully find a safe and satisfactory solution for all concerned.
I have been one of the people who has been helping with the dispensing of the money to the disabled organisations from the Royal Wedding Jubilee Trust under the excellent chairmanship of Lady Marre. The overwhelming requests seem to come from disabled groups trying to raise money for transportation of disabled people by adapted mini-buses, but also there were requests from people who would like a wider choice of adapted cars on the motability scheme. There are some people who find transfer from a wheelchair impossible but can still drive if they remain in a wheelchair. I hope motability will be flexible to the needs of disabled people, and extend their choice to vehicles which are now coming on the market.
I had a few days ago a letter about the worry of the increasing number of turnstiles and revolving doors, which are not suitable for disabled people in wheelchairs, people walking on crutches, people who are frail, or pregnant mothers. These are still being built at bus stations and railway stations. The needs of disabled people are many and varied. It is most encouraging that the Department of Transport is proving to be so helpful. I hope they will encourage the new taxi which carries a ramp, which we saw demonstrated at the conference. Progress must be maintained. The question to ask is, "Can disabled people go where you go?"
4.39 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, it is with pleasure that I rise to support Lady Stedman's Motion regarding the Department of Transport report, Transport Without Handicap. This report is most encouraging, and the conference that the department ran was a thoroughly good one. The point behind this conference subject matter can be put in this way: care for the disabled is to help them to independence as far as the disability allows, rather than care that relies on the disabled being completely dependent on the able. This is the heartening fact that arises from the Department of Transport's report. The mind and conscience have been stirred to think positively about seeing how we can help the disabled move about more positively and with greater ease. That is necessary if they are to contribute to life as they would wish, for they have abilities to give to enrich life.
Further study must be given to providing a means for adequate signs for giving information and announcements. Staff should be given training to help the disabled, such as the deaf or hard of hearing. There should be a more widespread use of ramps, and people should avoid the unnecessary placing of obstructions in the way of blind people, even vehicles parked on pavements. At any kind of terminal, consideration should be given to the disabled. Some bus companies now follow the practice of giving blind people a conducted tour of buses so that they may have a sense of their construction and structure. That should become more widespread because the step structure of buses, or any vehicle, needs study. The needs of the disabled

1183
in shopping precincts are a sphere for fuller investigation, as are public buildings such as libraries.
We give all support to the Motability Scheme, as reported in The Times on 28th December 1981 and the Sunday Telegraph on 1st November 1981, the former article being headed:
"The road to help 10,000 disabled drivers".
The latter article was headed:
A new dimension for disabled drivers",
and said:
"Motability will pay maintenance and service costs and the whole of the first-year insurance premium … on Minis, and £80 out of £148 on the others".
I quote from a Ministry of Health press release, reference 81/269:
"Ministers welcome Motability's new scheme. Department of Health and Social Security Ministers today gave an enthusiastic welcome to a new Motability scheme announced this afternoon at the Motorfair at Earl's Court in London to enable disabled people to use their mobility allowance to acquire good used cars on hire purchase".
The uprating of the mobility allownace is good, as announced in the statement prepared pursuant to Section 37A(4) of the Social Security Act 1975, as amended by Section 3(2) of the Social Security Act 1979. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said following a reply from my noble friend Lord Cullen to a Question of hers about the mobility allowance:
"Is my noble friend the Minister aware that this really is a most welcome increase, and that freeing the allowance from tax will benefit very many disabled people who go out to work and have other taxable income? Is he further aware that in this previously deprived area, the rise means that by November, the mobility allowance will have been increased by over 80 per cent. by the present Government, though, sadly, deprivation remains for those debarred the scheme on grounds of age?"—[Official Report, 5/4/82; col. 7.]
The proposed improvements to the Orange Badge Scheme are a necessity, as has been pointed out in debates and in Questions. A Department of Transport press notice headed, "Orange badge scheme—proposed improvements", of July 1981, reference No. 224, stated:
"The Orange Badge Scheme is an extremely valuable aid to mobility for the disabled, which allows certain exemptions from parking regulations for vehicles carrying disabled and blind people who would otherwise have great difficulty in making important visits by car. However, the Government has been concerned by evidence of growing abuse of the scheme and misuse of the badges by able-bodied people. This leads to unnecessary proliferation of the badges and traffic congestion for other motorists. Misuse also tends to bring the whole scheme into disrepute. This puts at risk the sympathetic treatment and the benefits which disabled people should expect from it".
It is a good thing that several countries are taking part in reciprocal arrangements in connection with the scheme. We remember what my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said when asking her Question on the Orange Badge Scheme. Her Question was:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to revise the Orange Badge Scheme for disabled drivers as provided for in the Disabled Persons Act 1981".
In that debate she said:
"But in some areas the issue of such badges was almost on demand and, of course, this devalued them. It is essential that when it is issued, the new badge should have a real value. I, personally, would like to see different colours for disabled drivers
1184
or passengers because I think that the situations and needs of positioning a car are somewhat different according to your degree of disability and whether you are driving yourself".
We also remember the speech of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in that same debate, when he said:
"I would suggest that in any new general scheme, guidelines should include the following points, which I believe are of great importance. First, a higher degree of disablement should be laid down as the minimum for eligibility for a badge. The main consideration should be that the person is not able to walk more than a short distance… The second point is that the name of the disabled person must appear on the badge and the defined period of validity of the badge… Thirdly, the badge must be removable when the disabled person is not using the vehicle ".—[Official Report, 21/1/82; cols. 728–9, 736.]
As others have said, it should be a removable badge. British Railcards for the disabled, and BR's efforts to help the disabled to travel, are good. The Department of Transport's pamphlet Door to Door is also good. We hope that the drive in the subject will continue to advance from the sure base that has been laid. It is therefore with pleasure that I support the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name on the list of speakers, but I promise not to delay the House for long. I wish simply to comment on the old three-wheeler car with which we are all familiar. I hope the Ministry of Transport will see that that vehicle is gradually phased out and is replaced by a four-wheeler. There is no mechanical reason why the car should not be completely similar, except that it has two wheels in front instead of one. There is no doubt that, on a slippery surface, one wheel, particularly when it is the steering wheel, is not very safe.
There is another reason. It is a little demoralising for a disabled person to be driving a car which looks entirely different from others and is recognisable at once as an invalid car. I think that it would do much for the morale of a disabled person—and here I am speaking, of course, without experience—if the car that he was driving looked like other cars, at any rate from the exterior even though inside the controls might be entirely different. I hope that that will be a possibility.
4.50 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in expressing gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for raising this subject this afternoon and for the thorough and helpful way in which she introduced it. I shall of course convey her thanks to Sir Peter Baldwin and others for what the department is doing. I also very much welcome the contributions from other speakers to what has been a well-informed and wide-ranging debate. We have this afternoon heard many ideas and suggestions, all of which will continue to stimulate the department. I shall comment on as many of them as I can in the short time available, but I assure the House that the Government will carefully consider everything that has been said. I should like to extend my good wishes to my noble friend Lord Crawshaw and I hope that we shall soon see him again in the Chamber.
While listening to some of the remarks during the

1185
debate, I wondered whether perhaps I am not slightly "unable" myself, since I, too, find railway "loos" almost impossible to get into. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, I used to live fairly near a casino in London and I, too, could not park anywhere near it. I feel that a number of us suffer from these kind of problems.
Two main themes have emerged this afternoon. The first is that in recent years a great deal of progress has been made in easing the transport problems of disabled people; and, secondly, there is still much to be done if the concept of "transport without handicap" is to become a reality. That was a point made by my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox.
The Action Programme drawn up last year by the Department of Transport gives an idea of just how much there is to do. The programme sets out the most significant points which emerged from the conference. The conference was one of the major contributions by the Department of Transport to the International Year of Disabled People. We felt that last year was the time to stimulate greater awareness of the problems which disabled people face, as well as to focus attention on the need and the scope for improvement.
In addition to the conference, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman mentioned, the department also organised a national rally for disabled drivers, which was held at Silverstone, and with the help of the National Bus Company a touring exhibition on transport for disabled people was mounted in six buses which toured the whole of the United Kingdom last summer. We believe that it was visited by over a quarter of a million people.
If last year was the time to stimulate awareness, then this year is the time to build on that foundation of awareness with solid and practical efforts at improvement and innovation. Much progress has been made. The items set out in the Action Programme are illustrative of the major areas of concern for disabled people in the transport field and of the way in which developments are moving.
Noble Lords will know that many of the suggestions listed are matters which Government themselves cannot directly undertake. The final responsibility for making public transport more accessible to disabled people must rest with the transport operators themselves. But that is not to say that there is no role for the Government. Here, perhaps I can answer to a degree one of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The Transport without Handicap Conference, and the Action Programme, showed just how much can be achieved simply by bringing together those who provide transport and those who use it, or would like to use it.
As we have heard this afternoon, both British Rail and the National Bus Company have consultants specifically to advise them on meeting the needs of disabled travellers, as well as active and high-level advisory groups on disability. A number of noble Lords paid tribute to British Rail this afternoon. I took note of what the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said about the mentally disabled and will again underline the point to British Rail. The British Airports Authority is one of a number of organisations which has established close links with representatives of blind and deaf people, and wheelchair users. Steps like
1186
these have helped to ensure that disabled people are given proper consideration as an important section of the travelling public.
As well as these national groups, closer contacts between operators and disabled people have also led to many useful initiatives. Some of the National Bus Company's subsidiaries, for example, have worked closely with local groups to convert buses and coaches to carry wheelchairs, while others have arranged for groups of blind people to visit their local bus depot to get to know the layout of the different types of vehicle. British Rail, with their disabled person's rail card, have now opened up the possibility of rail travel to many more disabled people. A number of practical steps are being taken to make both air and sea travel easier for disabled people. London Transport has held a series of seminars with disabled people to listen to views about improving the bus and underground system. Nor are these kind of advances confined to the biggest operators. Local Passenger Transport Executives and municipal operators in many parts of the country are taking a greater interest in making their services accessible to the whole community, and not just to those members of it who happen to be able bodied.
I have mentioned briefly the contribution that public transport operators are making to easing the transport problems of disabled people. Perhaps I may now turn to talk about sonic of the schemes in which the Department of Transport is most directly involved.
One of the most important and fundamental points which emerged from the conference is that disabled people have to be able, literally, to get from door to door. It is no use telling a disabled person, for example, that he or she can ride in his or her wheelchair on a train—and on many Inter-City trains that can now be done—if he or she cannot get from home to the railway station, or vice versa. This point is highlighted in London, for instance, where the main problem for a person confined to a wheelchair can be in getting from one main line station to another.
A number of speakers mentioned the new taxi. The Department of Transport has tackled this problem by working with Carbodies Ltd. which produces the famous black taxi. Carbodies has designed a replacement for the existing model and, by working closely with the firm from the outset and providing financial assistance, the department has been able to ensure that the new vehicle, as a standard feature, has the capacity to carry a passenger in a wheelchair. That means that, as the existing taxi fleet is gradually replaced, more and more taxis in London and other major cities will be able to give wheelchair users greater freedom to travel. In order to make sure that the new design is right for disabled people before Carbodies start production, the department has bought the first two prototypes and is putting them into experimental service, where they will be tested by a wide range of people with different disabilities. I understand that the new Carbodies taxi will be provided with a ramp to make it easier for wheelchair passengers to board.
Another way of helping to make it possible for disabled people to get from door to door is to make it easier to find out exactly what transport facilities are available. One of the points made in the Action

1187
Programme is that there is a need for such information to be made available to elderly and disabled people.
The Department of Transport has published its answer, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned. It is a booklet called, Door to Door. I am sorry that the two noble Baronesses had not seen a copy; but they have now been reading my copy, and I shall ensure that a copy is available to each of them. The booklet is a national guide to transport for elderly and disabled people. The guide is intended as a handbook for anyone who finds it difficult to get about or who simply does not know what is available. It covers a wide range of topics from basic information about aids and benefits, to details about help and facilities available to disabled people on all forms of public transport. The department is distributing the guide—1million copies—free of charge. There is a big demand for it. I understand that some of the large stores in the country are handing it out free to shoppers. I hope that it will make travel easier for a great many people. It may even encourage some of those who think of themselves as housebound to venture out. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked a specific point about local guides. I understand that about 20 local guides are in preparation, or are being considered, and we hope that the publicity given to the national guide will prompt more guides.
I now turn to the measures which the Government are taking to try to help those disabled people who prefer the independence of their own cars. As with public transport, the Government's efforts on behalf of disabled motorists—and those who would like to drive—are intended to sustain and build upon the momentum which was generated by the International Year of Disabled People; and here again, much of the department's work stems from what was learnt at the Transport Without Handicap Conference. Incidentally—and I think the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, mentioned this—it is a fact that every one of the suggestions in the Action Programme relating to disabled motorists has been or is being acted upon.
My Lords, great progress has been made in recent years in making it possible for disabled people to drive the same sort of cars as the rest of us. The old invalid three-wheelers which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, mentioned are no longer produced. Instead we have the motability scheme which allows disabled people to put their weekly mobility allowance towards the cost of leasing a suitably adapted car or buying one on hire purchase. My noble friend Lord Milverton mentioned this too.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, made some interesting points and I would like to say that we will of course take them into account. I will read with care what the noble Lord has said. I understand that all the interested parties are still talking on this particular subject, and obviously will continue to do so. There is now a wide range of ingenious adaptations which make it possible for even severely disabled people to drive standard production cars—and to drive them skilfully and safely.
However, one of the problems for disabled motorists which was brought out at the conference is the difficulty in finding out which of the many cars and adaptations on the market would suit them best. The Department
1188
of Transport is tackling this problem by trying to help establish at the Road Research Laboratory at Crowthorne in Berkshire a facility where disabled people who want to drive can go to be assessed and to try out, away from the public road, a range of different vehicles and types of equipment. This is an ambitious project and one in which the disabled motoring organisations are very closely involved with the department. It may take some time to achieve, but a start has been made.
Perhaps I could move on to the disabled person who has bought his own car. One of the greatest problems he faces, as we have heard today, is when his car breaks down. This could be a bad enough experience for any driver, but for a disabled person who is unable to leave his vehicle to call for help, the problem can be far more serious. To try to make life easier for the disabled motorist who has the misfortune to break down, the Department of Transport has helped to design and publicise a small flag, a new "Help" pennant, which a disabled driver can attach to his car window to attract attention. I understand that this "Help" pennant is visible both from the front and the rear. "Help" pennants have been available for some time but none has been fully effective, particularly after dark, and their significance does not seem to have been widely recognised by other drivers.
The department has tackled both these problems, first by working with the Cleveland Spastics Works Centre to produce a more effective design and, second, with the help of the motoring organisations, by publicising the pennant and asking the motoring public to respond and offer help if they see one. The new pennant should be of particular help to disabled drivers on motorways where the problem of calling for help can be most acute. I am well aware from what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilion, said that she would much prefer her yellow badge in the back but I hope the noble Baroness will give this new pennant a chance.
My Lords, with all the heavy traffic noise motorways can also present problems to drivers who are hard of hearing and who need to use the emergency telephones. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, stole most of my speech in her opening remarks, and stole this point as well. Following a suggestion at the Transport Without Handicap Conference, the department, with the help of the British Association of the Hard of Hearing, carried out some experiments with inductive couplers. These are devices which are fitted into telephones to enable people who wear hearing aids to tune in direct to the telephone signal and cut out background noise. As a result of these trials, the department is installing inductive couplers in all 3,000 motorway emergency telephones in England, which should be of real benefit to the many drivers who use hearing aids and fear to use the motorways. These should be in position by the end of the year.
If I may now turn to one other aspect of motoring which can cause a particular problem for disabled people, which has been much mentioned this afternoon—parking. The Action Programme refers to the need to tighten up on the Orange Badge Scheme which, unfortunately, has been abused very considerably in recent years and our package to cope with this problem we believe will be effective. I hope the noble Baroness,

1189
Lady Masham, will give it a good chance. The package of measures is designed to concentrate the provision on those with the greatest need and to eliminate the scope for abuse. This package was announced by the Government last July.
One of the most important measures which came into force last October is the creation of a separate offence carrying a maximum penalty of £200 for the use an orange badge by anyone not entitled to hold it. The Government intend to introduce the other new regulations soon. We are also having talks with the central London authorities who have schemes of their own with the aim of trying to convince them to join the Orange Badge Scheme. I mentioned once before when speaking at this Box that this scheme is now being broadened to 12 other countries and the moves in this direction are going well at the same time.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about wheel clamps. These have only just been promoted in the Transport Bill and have yet to be discussed in this House. I am sure the noble Lady will raise the point again there. My understanding at the moment is that cars with orange badges will not be exempt from the proposals, but the police will be asked to exercise their discretion. But it is early days yet.
Mention was made of the Disabled Persons Act 1981 and the increase in penalties for the able-bodied people. The Department of Transport is encouraging local authorities to provide reserved parking places for disabled people. The decision is clearly for the authorities themselves in the light of local circumstances. A circular will shortly be issued to local authorities which, inter alia, will ask local authorities to introduce transport adhesive containers so that badges can easily be removed from the windscreen when the car is not in use by a disabled person.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about Dial-a-ride. We are monitoring, as I think he knows, a Dial-a-ride scheme in Reading to see if it offers an effective service for disabled and other people, and following that we will promote it if the tests are good. On the subject of self-service filling stations, the Department of Transport is looking at this problem with the help of the disabled drivers, the motoring trade and the oil industry.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the question of electric wheelchairs. This subject obviously needs close consideration. As I understand the position, they do not have to have lights provided that they do not go more than four miles per hour. I was just wondering if any noble Lords had ever tested the speed of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, when going down these corridors to make sure she was within this restriction! My immediate reaction is to wonder how effective front and rear lights would be when a wheelchair is crossing the road at right angles to oncoming traffic, but I will write to the noble Baroness after we have done some research. Both motability and the allowance are flexible and will be of great help to people in the purchase of their cars. One of the most important measures which came into force last October was the fine and that I have already spoken to. While we regard every effort to make transport easier for disabled people as a high priority, we must remember that transport is itself all too often the cause of disabling
1190
accidents. I hope and believe that the Government measures to introduce the compulsory wearing of seat belts later this year will play a significant part in reducing the number of tragic disabling accidents.
My Lords, I have tried to illustrate this afternoon something of the scope and variety of initiatives which have sprung, either directly or indirectly, from the Transport Without Handicap Conference. But more important than any one single development is the fact that an awareness and a recognition of the needs of disabled people is becoming part of the everyday thinking and planning of all those who are concerned with transport. In launching the Action Programme last November my right honourable friend the Secretary of State pledged his department's support for the aims of the International Year of Disabled People, not just for 1981, but as an integral part of transport policy. My Lords, the Government intend to honour that pledge.
Baroness Steadman: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate this afternoon. I am sorry that some of my colleagues have not got the booklet Door to Door. Perhaps the Minister can make arrangements, not only for the two noble Baronesses to have them but perhaps for a supply to be made available in our Printed Paper Office, in the hope that other people might also want to make use of them. I make no apologies for having some of the same thoughts and ideas as the Minister. If they are good ones, it does not hurt to say them twice. We can then, perhaps, get them over, whereas we might not if they are said only once. I hope that this debate has helped to keep alive the spirit of the International Year of Disabled People. I hope, too, that we in this House will not let it be just a one-off thing.
I should like to conclude the debate with a quotation from the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Transport at that conference, when Sir Peter Baldwin said:
"… this Conference is an attempt to step out from what we would normally be doing to consider very carefully who we are doing it for. We are, of course, doing it for fifty million people, including, with absolute equality, those who happen to be disabled, and therefore it matters very much to have this kind of interchange … When we try to take up this matter of service one might say that the fuel is the heart, and that intelligence provides the engine. But all our opportunities provide a vehicle, and the destination that we want is the richest happiness of a community free and able to associate together in all the variety of life".
My Lords, if we have done something today to help achieve that aim, then I am satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Middle East
5.12 p.m.
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood rose to call attention to the situation in the Middle East: and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I warmly welcome this chance to draw attention to the situation in the Middle East, and in particular to the

1191
Arab-Israeli dispute, which has long been a grave threat to world peace. Mr. Haig was surely right last week to describe the long-term implications of that dispute, and the risk that the Islamic revolution in Iran may spread to Arab countries, as very serious indeed. I am glad, my Lords, that this subject is not bedevilled, as so many are, by party politics; but, unfortunately, strongly-held loyalties and sympathies too often lead to "Arabs right or wrong" or "Israel right or wrong" attitudes. I cannot help feeling that this not only makes objective debate difficult but weakens the chances of finding a peaceful settlement—the settlement that we all want.
My main object today is not so much to argue the rights and wrongs on either side, but to appeal to the United States to review her past mistakes and failures and to adopt a fresh and more consistent approach. Despite anything that we can do with our European partners in the Community, Israel's very heavy dependence on America means that Washington holds the key to peace.
I am highy critical of America's blinkered approach. The illegality of the Israeli annexation and occupation of Arab land, including, of course, East Jerusalem, must be condemned without prevarication. The PLO cannot be airily dismissed as not "representative" of the Palestinian people, of whom there are four million, more than half of them being refugees. On her own admission Israel cancelled the municipal elections on the West Bank because the PLO candidates were going to sweep the board. To say that you will never talk to the PLO because they are "terrorists", as indeed some are, leads nowhere. Israel would not exist today if the Jewish Agency or Haganah had been airily dismissed as "terrorists" because of the activities of the Irgun and the Stern Gang, whose former heads, incidentally, are respectively Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Israel today. In short, under heavy pressure from the Zionist lobby and from Israel itself, America gives Mr. Begin the impression that he can get away with practically anything and suffer no penalties.
The unchanging ambitions of the Soviet Union in the Middle East, stemming from the strategic and economic importance of that area, pose a very serious threat indeed, I think, to legitimate Western interests and to Arab independence. Soviet ambitions, though, cannot be frustrated by supporting "Israel right or wrong" or by strategic co-operation with her. This simply forces friendly Arab countries, bitter and disillusioned, to turn reluctantly to Moscow for support. That is how I see it, anyhow. For them, Palestinian rights loom larger than their intense distaste for the Marxist-Leninist system. I think that the West has taken Arab goodwill for granted for too long, and especially that America has.
Previous Administrations in Washington, both Republican and Democratic, have come very close at times to getting their principles and their policies right. There was, for example, the Rogers Plan in 1970, under President Nixon when he was in the White House, which sadly came to nothing. There was the warm welcome right across the party board for the Brooking Report in 1975—an excellent report. There was President Carter's declaration in May 1977 that "the right of the Palestinians to have a homeland" was
1192
among America's "binding policies"—and there I am quoting. In the same year, even more important, there was the joint American-Soviet declaration aimed at reconvening the Geneva Conference, which called for
"mutual recognition of the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence by Israel and her Arab neighbours".
Commenting on it, Mr. Arafat, who found it "acceptable" (that was his actual word), also said that
"the only possible solution was the existence of Israel and a Palestininan state under the joint guarantee of the Soviet Union and America".
That is a quote from the New York Times of 1st May 1978. But, sadly, under intense pressure from the newly-elected Begin Government and at home, America made a U-turn and it all came to nothing.
In 1980 America voted for Security Council Resolution 465, a far more comprehensive resolution than the often quoted Resolution 242, which makes no mention of Palestinian self-determination, simply regarding the Palestinians as refugees. But Resolution 465 was carried unanimously in 1980, though, again, sadly, America immediately changed course.
Camp David achieved Israel's praiseworthy withdrawal from occupied Sinai; it achieved peace between Israel and Egypt; but it deliberately fudged the self-determination issue, the issue of Palestinian self-determination. That was why other Arab countries—for example, I am thinking, in particular, of Jordan —and the PLO refused to attend, though I myself think they made a mistake; they could have attended. Nonetheless, the gallant President Sadat knew what he meant by autonomy when he told the Knesset that the Palestinians should have (and I quote) "their own state". Had Mr. Begin, listening that day, forgotten that in 1943, when he was head of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, speaking of Jewish aspirations he said,
"rule means real rule, not just autonomy"?
I fear he had forgotten. I am afraid I see no future in Camp David without an injection of very new blood; and as for the "Jordanian option", which is so often thrown out as a possible solution, it has always been a mirage and, I think, always will be.
Now we have a new situation which, in my opinion, calls for new initiatives. I see some encouraging signs of fresh thinking in America, and in Israel, too. For example, there is the most interesting report from the Severn Springs Centre, as it is called, signed, among others, by Mr. Philip Klutznik, the President Emeritus of the World Jewish Congress, and by Mr. Harold Saunders, the well-known senior official of the State Department who is a former head of the Middle East Department of the State Department. This report states flatly that,
"the Palestine desire for a state of their own must be fairly faced",
and that there is
"no hope of peace without PLO involvement".
There is, too, the report by Senator Percy, chairman of the very powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, following his recent extensive visit to the Middle East. He found a willingness throughout the Arab countries (and he went to 14 as well as to Israel) to acknowledge Israel's right to exist behind secure and recognised borders, and concluded that

1193
there could be no peace until Israel withdraws from the Arab land occupied in 1967 in exchange for such recognition. I hope and believe—as I am sure most noble Lords do, if not all of us—that these are more than straws in the wind.
Other noble Lords will no doubt refer to the grim situation on the West Bank and in Gaza, but I have no time to go into it in detail. One-third of the land (and the best at that) and most of the water has been seized by Israel. The ferocity of the Israeli response to Palestinian civil disobedience is obviously intended to crush the Palestinian spirit and to pre-empt any kind of real autonomy. So it is, too, in the needless degree of force used by Israel against Lebanon, where the presence of some 6,000 United Nations troops for the past four years has not checked the killing of hundreds and the maiming of thousands of men, women and children, only a small proportion of whom can have had any involvement with the PLO at all. This is shocking.
While we must condemn absolutely Israel's refusal to comply with United Nations' mandatory resolutions, there are some encouraging signs that influential people in Israel are increasingly critical of their own Government's intransigence. We must understand also the genuine anxiety in Israel about their security, given a peace settlement—four wars in 33 years partly account for that. Incidentally—this is rarely mentioned—a recreated Palestinian state will suffer at least as great anxieties, perhaps more, about their security. It is disappointing that a bigger effort has not been made to explain the principles that would underlie the demilitarisation and policing of the sensitive areas after an Israeli withdrawal. I am thinking particularly of places like the Golan Heights which look down over Israel, an area that I know very well.
It is good to know that the European Community is willing to be among the underwriters of a peace settlement based on international guarantees, with the United Nations perhaps playing the leading role. In this context, Israel, I think, should be reminded that unless they succeed somehow in forcing large numbers of Arabs to leave the West Bank and Gaza and if their own population remains static (as it has for the last five years, if not longer) there will be very likely if not certainly, an Arab majority in what Israel calls Eretz Israel in 25 to 30 years. That is based on a recent report from Israeli and American statisticians. How much higher will the price be then than now? I should dearly like an answer to that question. Against this we must set the fact that, according to the World Zionist Organisation, Israel plans to settle another 100,000 Jews in occupied Palestine by 1985 and 1½ million in all—these are their figures—by the year 2010. What are we to make of this?
On the Arab side, one welcomes warmly the Fahd plan with its implicit recognition of Israel's right to exist and live in peace with her neighbours. This was made explicit by the Saudi Foreign Minister at a press conference a few weeks after it was launched. I welcome this, not least because it brings Saudi Arabia on to the centre of the stage. We must hope that Riyadh will get strong Arab support for any new proposals that they put forward on the same lines and, in particular, that they get the support of the Palestinians. It is welcome, too, where the Arabs are
1194
are concerned that Egypt seems likely to restore normal relations before long with most of the other countries of the Arab League.
As for the PLO, I pray that they will have the sense to negotiate before there is nothing left to negotiate about. As the Economist asked recently:
"Could it be that Palestinian moderation is what Israelis fear?"
It might be. The longer the PLO delays, I think, saying that it will respect Israel's sovereignty on condition that Israel recognises Palestinian rights, the less value will that trump card have. I wish that they would understand that. I hope that the PLO will stop attacking civilian targets—which is counterproductive as well as barbaric—and they surely would be wise to amend the Palestine national charter to make it clear that when Article 15 refers to:
"the elimination of Zionism in Palestine",
they are deliberately making a distinction between an Israel bent on expansion beyond the pre-1967 cease-fire lines and an Israel wishing to live in peace with her Arab neighbours broadly within that boundary. This would tie up with Article 24 of the charter where the assurance is given that the Palestinians believe in:
"the rights of all people to self-determination".
May I sum up. I believe that Her Majesty's Government have a major role to play in finding the path to peace. The work of my noble friend Lord Carrington in bringing our Community partners together in the Venice Declaration, is beyond praise. I hope that the European Community will not be afraid to give America a lead. The time is ripe for it. But unless America follows such a lead there can be no hope of peace. Rarely in complex situations such as this do self-interest and moral imperatives point in precisely the same direction. In this case they surely do, as much for America as for the European Community.
There must, I think, be a joint, determined and sustained international initiative with the Soviet Union joining in at the appropriate time. The right climate can be created, but a settlement cannot be imposed. Momentum must be kept up or peace efforts will die. That applies, in particular, if I may say so to my noble friend on the front Bench, to the Venice Declaration which has been there for a long time without any new threshing out. The Arabs are beginning to wonder whether we really mean what we say. I am sure that we do.
Arabs and Jews have much more in common than many people realise or admit. They can live side by side peacefully and happily, and that, I am absolutely certain, is just what most of them long to do. For us to wash our hands of their problems would leave Arab and Jew to stumble from one crisis to another with catastrophe at the end, perhaps even on a nuclear scale. I conclude by quoting a few words from a very distinguished Israeli statesman who said to me recently:
"Nations and people sometimes take wise decisions—after they have exhausted all other possibilities".
Let him be proved right before it is too late.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for

1195
selecting this important subject for debate. The noble Lord knows the Middle East well and he takes a positive line with which everyone in the House may not necessarily agree, although we must have had sympathy with his final remarks. I approach the subject with humility and with caution, first, because the problems, as the noble Lord showed in his speech, are profound and complex and, secondly, because at the end of the day they must be resolved by the people of the Middle East themselves. The rest of the world is interested and also, to a large extent involved, for economic and historical reasons. I think it right for constructive initiatives to be taken to help towards a settlement; but permanent peace can be made only by the nations of the Middle East themselves. They must be the final arbiters of their destiny.
The three initiatives of recent years—the noble Lord has mentioned them—all had merit. Perhaps for the purposes of clarity I may look at them in chronological order. The Geneva peace talks, which were sponsored by the United Nations, implied the possiblity of a settlement agreed by the great powers acting together and using their enormous economic and military influence to bring pressure to bear on the countries concerned. This conference, which was convened and co-chaired by the USA and the USSR in December 1973, foundered in January 1974 and the talks were suspended sine die. This was a tragedy because a settlement underwritten by the USSR and the USA (as the noble Lord implied) would have guaranteed the best chance of a permanent peace. The USSR stands to gain nothing from instability in this area and they must be realistic enough to appreciate this.
Why, therefore, did the Geneva conference fail and why has it not been reconvened? As the House will know, the answer is that the parties could not agree on the role to be performed by the PLO. In this, as in so much else, finding a place in the jigsaw for the PLO is the continuing problem. The second initiative resulted in the Camp David agreement of September 1978. It was by any standards a substantial achievement; and on this I must disagree with the noble Lord. It can be argued that the difficulties remain, that the second part of the agreement, A Framework for Peace in the Middle East, still seems as far away as ever. But that is to overlook that peace was made between Israel and Egypt and the return of Israeli-occupied Sinai to Egypt last month was an historic event by any standards. Israel made a big territorial sacrifice. She also gained some assurance of peace on her southern borders. It is very much in the interest of both countries that they continue to show an understanding of each other's problems. Mr. Begin should not be unduly put out when President Mubarak seeks to patch up Egypt's differences with certain Arab states. An Egypt with influence in the Arab world is a more valuable friend to Israel than an Egypt cast into the outer darkness. We must not therefore brand Camp David as a failure.
The third initiative was conceived nearer home. The Venice Declaration has come in for a good deal of criticism, in part much the same criticism that was levelled at the Geneva Conference. The EEC leaders started with the UN resolutions (242 and 338) but
1196
modified 242 in a significant way, and this is where the trouble starts again. It states,
"A just solution must finally be found to the Palestinian problem, which is not simply one of refugees".
This taken with the reference in the Declaration to the,
"legitimate rights of the Palestinian people",
and
"its right to self-determination",
has been taken to imply an endorsement of the Palestinian's claim to some kind of recognised homeland, though not necessarily in the form of an independent state. What the EEC leaders did in Venice in fact was to grasp the nettle. They said, in effect, that a mutual recognition by Israel and the Palestinians of each others right to exist in security is essential and a necessary precondition to any hope of a lasting settlement.
As we know, the reactions have been very mixed and the Israeli criticism has been the harshest of all. But I think one of the shrewdest comments came from Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan who wrote in his book, Palestinian Self-determination, that,
"for the PLO the withholding of recognition of Israel is an essential part of the negotiating process and that they see it as related reciprocally to an Israeli recognition of Palestinian rights".
That gets close to the heart of the problem, but those who venture to discuss the implications of this two-way movement are likely to find themselves in deep water, as the EEC leaders quickly discovered.
Were they right to take this initiative? That is a question we in Parliament are entitled to ask, because the Government are involved and Ministers, including the Prime Minister, the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and other Ministers have been engaged in talks on the Middle East, and there have been meetings between British officials and representatives of the PLO. My personal view is that the Community were right to take an initiative. The alternative is to allow the Middle East conflict to drift along with all its attendant perils; that is, a more serious war, with possible escalation into an engagement involving the great powers, although both are aware of the extreme sensitivity of the position. What is important is that the USA and the USSR should act in the interest of a long-term settlement and not of some short-term advantage.
Therefore, when 10 nations, all with good intention, some with close knowledge of the Middle East and a long association with its countries and with no objective save to help find some acceptable formulae to break the deadlock—for that is what it is—their efforts should be encouraged. This must be preferable to allowing the drift to continue. That is the road to ultimate disaster. It has already brought disaster to that unhappy country, the Lebanon, and it can well spread gradually into other countries creating total instability and ultimate chaos. No one will benefit from this.
One formula suggested is that a settlement without PLO participation should be sought, that is the continuation of the Camp David process moving towards a modus vivendi between Isreal and Jordan, the so-called "Jordanian option". This has its attractions and should not be dismissed out of hand, but there are also obvious dangers inherent in it. For example, a return

1197
to the pre-1967 borders would not help Jordan. The Palestinian Arabs of the East and West Bank have more in common than either group has with Amman. It is hard to believe that Jordan will desire to be associated with the West Bank Arabs. A reborn Trans-Jordan might not be a Hashemite Trans-Jordan for very long.
I have already referred to the possible resumption of the Geneva Peace Conference. There are powerful arguments for this. It would be in pursuance of UN Resolutions 242 and 338. A settlement would be underwritten by the USA and the USSR, and it is arguable that a permanent peace may not be possible without the support of both. Furthermore, there is much common ground between the Venice Declaration and the Geneva Conference. At some stage, if a settlement is to be found which will last, the great powers must agree; but that point has, unhappily, not yet been reached. But the honest brokerage which started in Venice is a valuable contribution to the effort towards peace which must continue.
For, one of the tragedies of a tragic situation is that no sooner does it seem that some significant breakthrough has been achieved than a setback occurs. No sooner has Israel fulfilled its pledge to withdraw from Sinai, than the talk is not of further negotiations, but of war. We hear talk that Israeli Forces will enter Southern Lebanon to wipe out the PLO. I am glad to learn in recent hours that the alert on Israel's northern border has now been called off. It could have the most serious repercussions, not least for Israel herself.
Egypt, in the person of President Mubarak, would be under extreme pressure from within and without to denounce Israel, and the goodwill between the two countries which has been fostered with such patience would be put to severe test. An invasion of Lebanon together with the increasingly strained relations over the West Bank would in all probability destroy that goodwill. That would be a calamity for all the parties concerned and for the world. Nor would an invasion achieve the objective; it would only serve to unite the Arab world and damage Israel's relations with the United States.
It would not destroy the PLO; it would not bring any nearer a solution to the Palestinian problem on which peace in the region ultimately depends. Surely therefore the arguments for restraint and also for seeking to restart the process of building a peace are overwhelmingly powerful. Violent activity by the PLO produces nothing but hostile reaction and continuing bitterness.
Israel has enjoyed great support throughout the world over the years—a support she fully deserved. But the possibilities we hear about—invasion and annexation of the West Bank—cannot help. Israel cannot depend for her survival on force of arms alone—certainly not over the longer term. I fear that she would become increasingly isolated if she depends solely on force of arms. Israel must complement her military capacity with diplomatic skills. That must be the road to peace.
It is interesting that the Community leaders identified the West Bank as the crucial problem to be solved and concentrated their efforts on this and not on Jerusalem or the Golan Heights. This is also where the Camp
1198
David negotiations have ground to a halt, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and this is the chief point of contention between Israel and Egypt. The Israeli fears of a potential Palestinian state here are obvious, and perhaps the Minister would care to comment upon the prospects of some agreement or progress on this critical point. It is probably the core of the problem which keeps the Arab-Israeli dispute alive, and the EEC were perceptive to identify it as the menacing obstacle it is.
Before I conclude, perhaps I should refer briefly to the unhappy war between Iraq and Iran which still drags on, but I realise that time presses on. One hopes that the Minister will have a word to say about this.
I end with two questions. Will the Palestinian Arabs recognise the right to self-determination of the Jewish nation and will Israel recognise the Palestinian Arab's equivalent right? The future of the Middle East depends on the answers to those two questions, and if the great powers can also in due course, under the aegis of the United Nations, guarantee a settlement, then and then only can a permanent peace be created.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Byers: My Lords, there is not much in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, with which I can agree but I am glad that he put down a Motion which covers the whole of the Middle East and not merely the Arab-Israel relationship. The whole of the Middle East, in my view, is full of explosive situations. No doubt the conflict within the Arab world will be referred to by others, but because we are limited to seven and a half minutes I will not enlarge on them.
The fact is that the Arab countries in the Middle East constitute a massive powder keg, but that their conflicts with one another, I believe, may well be far more dangerous than the Arab-Israeli dispute itself, because, after all, Egypt and Israel are well on the way to peace. But the Arab world today has the largest arsenal of arms and armaments outside the United States and the Soviet Union. The combined armoured strength of the Arab world, excluding Egypt, is about 14,000 tanks. The total number of tanks at the disposal of NATO, I am told, is 17,000. These are massive forces, and the source of much tension in the whole of the Middle East.
However, I shall not labour the point. I want to emphasise, in particular, that the Arab-Israeli relationship is only one problem within this vast area and what I really want to talk about, as the other two speakers have already done—I take an entirely different view—is the relationship of the Venice Declaration to the Camp David accord. I must say quite openly I very much regret that I do not see eye to eye with my own party over this aspect of the Middle East. I am not alone in that. But I think it is important that the views which many of us hold on this aspect of the Middle East should be expressed; and as president of the Liberal Friends of Israel, I feel it right to do so. I respect, of course, the views of those who support the Venice Declaration, but I believe them to be dangerously wrong, and I propose in a few minutes to explain why.

1199
Despite Mrs. Thatcher's assertion on 16th June 1980 that the diplomatic activity of the nine (as it then was) is intended to be complementary to the Camp David process, many of us see it, albeit unintentionally, as an undermining of Camp David, and it worries us very much. It is significant, I think, that the Venice Declaration does not mention Camp David. It is significant also that it caused scepticism and irritation in America.
As your Lordships know, Camp David has two parts: first, the return of the Sinai and its oilfields at very considerable loss to Israel. The traumatic cost is unquantifiable. In material terms, there were eight airfields left in the Sinai and two new ones have had to be built and installed in the Negev. A third is contemplated at great cost. The electronic early warning station on Mount Sinai is now Egyptian, as is the naval base at Ophira—not to mention the 1,000-mile network of good modern roads, power lines and communications. Israel has spent 17 billion dollars on developing the Sinai. Oil production at the rate of 2 million tonnes a year has been given up; and all this was sacrificed for peace, as envisaged under Camp David, Part I, and it has been done on time.
Camp David Part II dealt with Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza. This contemplated:
"a peaceful and orderly transfer of authority",
for the West Bank and Gaza. There would be transitional arrangements not exceeding two years. In order to provide full autonomy to the inhabitants, the Israeli military government and its civil administration would be withdrawn as soon as a self-governing authority had been freely elected by the inhabitants of these areas to replace the existing military government. They would then be well on the way to some form of autonomy.
That, I believe, is a clear concept; but Camp David did not stop there. It contemplated that Israel, Egypt and Jordan would agree the modalities of establishing the elected self-governing authority, and this, I believe, is what we should be supporting now, instead of blurring the process by the creation of the Venice Declaration, no matter how well intended. In setting up the political structure, it provided that the delegations of Egypt and Jordan may include Palestinians, "as mutually agreed". The five-year period begins when the self-governing authority in the West Bank and Gaza is established. It was further agreed that not later than the third year of the transitional agreement negotiations would take place to determine the final status of the area. From this it can be seen that what was described as the Camp David process is a long one, requiring much patience and compromise. It could be seriously diverted and delayed by such initiatives as that from Venice, which imported into the process three factors which are known to be complete anathema to Israel. The first was self-determination, quite clearly leading to the creation of a hostile independent state, if it is run by the PLO, on Israel's border. That is a recipe for aggression of we are not very careful.
Second was the recognition of the PLO as a precondition to negotiations. Thirdly, there was the flimsy guarantee for Israel of a United Nations force or guarantee which, as we have seen, has been totally ineffective in the past. I say this with great regret, but the United Nations is not the organisation that we set
1200
out to create in 1945 and 1946. We have ourselves seen only recently the weakness of the United Nations when it comes to the test. That is not an option which is going to appeal to Israel, particularly with 14,000 potentially hostile tanks in the whole of the Middle East.
I believe that it is not intervention by Europe that is needed—it is the reactiviation of the Camp David process on autonomy by the United States with Egypt, Israel and, hopefully, with Jordan being brought into the negotiations, as was originally envisaged. These are the areas, I believe, where initiatives are required within the Camp David structure.
5.46 p.m.
The Earl of Oxford and Asquith: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships for the first time early in the debate but so late in life, I am very conscious of the convention that a maiden speech should not be controversial. I am equally conscious that the subject of this debate makes it no easy task for, although the situation in the Middle East has many facets, not all of them controversial, the problem of Palestine so pervades and bedevils that situation that it would be unrealistic not to focus attention on it. And Palestine is a problem on which opinions are deeply divided and feelings may run high. We have seen that already this evening even in the few speeches we have heard.
My own opinions about it, I must confess, are strongly held. Indeed, it is this fact which has led me to break my long habit of silence when attending your Lordships' debates. In deference to the convention, I am bound to leave unsaid much that I might have wished to say. I must ask your Lordships' indulgence in case, through inexperience or ill-judgment, I do say anything which I should more properly have left for a future occasion. It is certainly not my intention to be provocative.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, I was privileged as a young man to serve for several years in the mandatory government of Palestine—an administration with an honourable record, which brought great benefit to the land in the face of political difficulties not of its own making. I left Palestine on the last day of the Mandate in 1948—left it to anarchy, which led foreseeably to civil war, which in the broad sense has continued intermittently ever since.
Many of us at the time thought it wrong to have relinquished our responsibilities in the way we did and to relinquish them when the consequences were so foreseeable. Much that has happened since was not foreseeable, and certainly was not our fault. Nevertheless, I would plead that when considering what they might do to promote a just and peaceful settlement, the Government should remember that some, at least, of the problems which now beset the Middle East are the consequences, however indirectly, of what our country did or failed to do when we were the responsible power, and that with this in mind they should address the problem with greater urgency than they might otherwise have done.
So far, it must be admitted that we have played a rather muted part and have been content for many years to leave the initiative to the Americans. If I may venture an assessment which I hope is not too controversial, I would say that America's Middle

1201
Eastern policies have not so far been an unqualified success. Shuttle diplomacy, by Dr. Philip Habib and others, has no doubt staved off some immediate crises, but the more fundamental questions affecting Palestine have remained unresolved, and as long as this is so it is difficult to envisage any stability for the Middle East. Against this background, the so-called European initiative, in which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, played so prominent a part, seemed to offer a bright ray of hope. It has been flickering very weakly of late. But I note, from answers given recently by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that it is by no means to be regarded as extinguished.
I have recently returned from the Middle East, where I took part in a delegation of European parliamentarians visiting the Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. It was an interesting but, in many ways, a depressing visit—depressing not only because of the devastation and disunity which we found within the Lebanon, but because of the pessimism which we found on all sides about the prospects of Middle Eastern peace. We spoke with leading politicians, in all those countries, and although at the time of the Venice declaration some of them may have given it a tepid welcome, we were struck by the hopes for peace which had evidently been reposed in it, and the consequent disappointment that the European role had not been more actively pursued. Europe is thought, rightly or wrongly, to be so bound to American policies that there was now a serious likelihood of a drift towards Russia and greater reliance on Russian help. I know that we have heard all this about Russia before, and some may dismiss it as a case of crying wolf. There is a possibility, I fear, that this wolf may, sooner or later, turn into a bear.
Because of our talks with the political leaders, we naturally sought their views on the chances of a revival of Prince Fahd's plan, or of something on those lines. The plan is certainly not dead and the three-point plan put forward more recently by Syria bears an interesting resemblance to it. In any strict sense of the word, neither of these is, of course, a plan, but rather a framework within which future discussions might he held. Both, however, seem to offer the possibility that within these frameworks Arab recognition of the State of Israel within its pre-1967 frontiers might be negotiated. This, as many would agree, is a great step forward and could remove what has been regarded as one of the major obstacles in the path of peace. I believe that, in consultation with our European allies and with the Americans, we should now seek some way to fasten on to this opportunity and to build on it.
Of course, it is the Arabs themselves who must offer us a reasonable chance of doing so. As your Lordships well know, Arab rivalries may make it difficult for them to get very far without some degree of outside participation. Whether we look at these things in terms of Western interests or in terms of human sufferings, I believe that the present situation is so grave that it would be a mistake to regard Arab disunity as a reason for doing nothing. I believe that European diplomacy could have a vital part to play, and that its contribution should be made before any further explosion in the Middle East may lessen the chances of its efficacy.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it is my duty and pleasure to speak first after the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, and to congratulate him, as I am sure your Lordships will, on the fact that, though the subject matter was indeed contentious, his own delivery and style and the content of his speech were of exemplary moderation. I think that the House will join with me in hoping that we shall hear from him often again on this subject and on others, both wider and narrower.
It is a bitter paradox that the Middle East, which is perhaps the part of the world least familiar with that human institution "the frontier", should now be the part of the world where the frontiers are giving rise to the greatest trouble and bloodshed, and the menace of continued bloodshed. If we remember that, from the Middle Ages until the end of the Turkish Empire, large tracts of it had no frontier at all, and if we remember that the cultures which grew up there were especially adapted to a world of mutual inter-penetration, where it was perfectly normal to find one village with one religion, the next village with another religion, a third village belonging to a different sect within the second religion and a fourth village consisting of persons of a totally different origin and culture and adhering to no perceptible religion at all, and that, meanwhile, caravans were crossing, each speaking different languages and crossing not only in the desert zones but also in the fertile zones, with perfect freedom among those settlements, we realise that it is not very surprising that these peoples have had difficulty in adjusting to such a rigid thing as a frontier in only 60 years, or whatever it is, since they were universally introduced.
They will have to keep continuing to adjust. There is no possibility of going back. One hopes, indeed, that this is particularly clear to the governments of Iran and Iraq, where, once again, the frontier is in violent motion; that Iraq will understand as best it can under its present government, or under a new one if the people there choose to change, the intrinsic explosiveness and thrust of resurgent Islam in its neighbour, and that Iraq may be among those Arab countries which will try to handle and to work out other forms of Islamic revival, if that is the wish of the people, which are less horribly unjust than the Iranian form has turned out to be in internal affairs, and less explosive towards its neighbours. Iran, we hope, will remember, in its turn, that it already has Arabic Khuzestan within its generally recognised frontier, which ought to be enough trouble for it, and will not go seeking any more.
The interest of Western Europe in the Middle East is, of course, as near an eternal interest as you can find in world politics. For quite a long time, the Arabs governed some of the Western European countries. After that, some of the Western European countries governed the Arabs for quite a long time. There is an historic inter-penetration there which, as is natural, given the trade links and the cultural links, gives Western Europe a special human and political interest in that part of the world which is not shared, and cannot be shared, by other powers to the West of the Middle East, except indeed the Maghreb as an extension of the Islamic world. The last bit of governing of the Arabs

1203
that was done by Western Europe was the British mandate in Palestine and the French in Lebanon and Syria—very recent, indeed.
If we look now at the relative interests of Western Europe and the United States in Middle Eastern oil—this is something which we should do and which we do not do enough—we find that Western Europe has twice the degree of dependency on imported oil that the United States has, and we find that the consumption of oil per caput in the United States is twice as high as it is in Western Europe. Therefore, the West European interest in Middle Eastern oil, by a simple sum, shows up as four times the United States interest. This is not to say that the United States does not have valid and worthy political and economic interests in the Middle East. Of course they do. But they are secondary to ours.
It is in this light that I should like to look for a moment at those twin institutions, as they are becoming now—the Camp David process and the Venice Declaration. In my opinion, the Camp David process has been almost a miraculous success—a quite outstanding success. However, it cannot go further than those matters which can be agreed between Israel and Egypt, with American help. That is very far. It cannot hope to settle the whole Arab-Israeli quarrel by itself, if only because not all the Palestinians live in Egypt. That is very far from the case. Not all the originally Palestinian Arabs who do not live in Israel live in Egypt. If that were the case, Camp David would be a sufficient vehicle for further progress. It is that which forces us to look at the Venice Declaration, combined with the natural European interests which I outlined a moment ago.
The way forward can be phrased in so many ways. It is not for us to find the way forward. We are only standing on the sidelines. Our interest is peace. Our wish and our sentiment is peace and cannot be anything else. We are outsiders. We do not suffer from any of the burdens, political and warlike, which are suffered by so many, though not all, of the Middle Eastern states at the moment. The best we can do is to be there and to be as helpful as we can, basing ourselves on our historic experience and on an enlightened view of what is at present our economic interest. In order to do that, I believe we should give equal play—they do not conflict—to the Venice Declaration and to the Camp David process. We should speak and think in a friendly way of both.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I have enjoyed every single speech which has been made today. This is a subject which enthralls me. I wish to make only a few points, because I have not had time to collect all my information and all my thoughts.
First, I want to touch on some of the myths which surround some countries, in particular Israel and the Palestinians. On the Palestinian problem and the European role, I find myself mostly in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, which is not unusual for me, though I have not heard him speak very much recently. Nobody mentioned oil in connection with the Palestinian problem and Europe except the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. It is as though oil did not make any
1204
difference to Europe's attitude to the problems of the Middle East. It made an enormous difference. Europe could not stand aside and let the Palestinians or the Israelis do everything that they wanted to do. Europe was far too worried about its oil position.
I believe that the Camp David agreement of 1978 which President Sadat put forward is a miracle. I had been in the United Nations for about 20 years. Right at the end of that time the Camp David agreement was put forward. Not many countries are ready to take a risk for peace. I said to the Egyptian next to whom I had sat for four years in the United Nations, "Is this not a miracle which has happened?" He said, "No". I was rather cross and said, "Do not talk as though you don't want it to succeed". He replied, "No, it isn't that, but I don't think that Israel will take a risk for peace". But it has happened. Israel has taken a great risk for peace. Indeed, Israel could not have taken a much bigger risk for peace.
Various myths surround these countries. People speak as though Israel had the largest number of arms in the world and as though Israel had millions of trained people in the army. This is definitely not true. It is a question of thousands against millions of Arab trained men.
Turning to the Venice Declaration, this was all very fine, but few people noticed that it was in Europe's interest. The oil made a great deal of difference to their attitude. The prospect of oil not coming to them freely, and continuing to come, influenced their thinking. We cannot kid ourselves that it did not make any difference.
I wish to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, on his maiden speech, which I found very interesting. The Israelis gave away Sinai. That was a real sacrifice. They went further, though this was hardly noticed except by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who pointed out that the Israelis had given full autonomy to the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Until today this has hardly been noticed, let alone welcomed. It has certainly not been welcomed with open arms.
I was very interested in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. I shall have a small apology to make to him at the end of mine. Lord Chelwood thinks that the Americans are the people who will iron out all the problems in the Middle East. I am not so sure about that. I am not so sure that it is going to be left to them. Having thought about the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, may I ask him whether he would sit down and talk with the IRA? The Palestinians have got a homeland. Camp David fudged the self-determination question and people approached the Venice Declaration with extraordinary naivety. The Europeans were not thinking just about Israel or the Middle East. They were thinking a great deal about themselves and the oil which they might lose.
I come now to the apology which I have to make to the House and to the noble Lord the Minister. On 6th April we had a discussion about the Middle East in which I pointed to some of the shocking things—horrific things—which the PLO had done. I said that it was in their covenant. I apologise to the House. I had the information in front of me, but I had forgotten that it was not in the covenant. I did not have the PLO covenant then. I had not seen it. I have it now.

1205
Anybody can get a copy of it now from the Labour Friends of Israel. Very useful it is too, because we now begin to know what we are talking about. As I said, the information was not in the covenant, but it was in about four of Arafat's main speeches. I feel that I have done my duty and I shall sit down.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate. It is somewhat of an historic moment for me because I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, with whom I have an association which goes back to his grandfather, who was in fact my brother-in-law. It is very interesting that we should be able to meet in the House of Lords during a debate of this kind. I did not know that he was going to speak, and I suppose that he did not know that I was going to speak either. I should like to congratulate him very much indeed, although I do not agree with everything that he said because, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said, those of us who are interested in the Middle East are generally interested because we feel strongly on one side or the other.
I agree with all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and so I declare my interests, which are those of the state of Israel. On the other hand, no one has any particular quarrel with any of the Arab states. But they are always quarrelling with each other, and it is very difficult for Israel to exist in the Middle East as one small state surrounded by 14 Arab states, many of which are permanently or almost permanently at war with each other. What I do sometimes object to when I see the propaganda is that Israel, it seems, is so often given as one of the reasons why quarrelling goes on between the Arab states; it is put down to the fact that they are all deeply opposed to the state of Israel. But since Israel has no presence of any kind in any of those states, there is no reason why the blame should be almost permanently put upon Israel.
On the other side, the Israelis, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, have fulfilled their promise, which they made at Camp David. I so agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, when she said what a miracle that was. The Israelis have evacuated Sinai and the enormous development which they undertook there at a cost of millions of dollars. All this has gone to Egypt with the signing of the treaty and the policy agreed at Camp David. I think it is the turn of the Arab states to leave Israel to live in peace, surrounded as she is by hostile Arab states. But this has not happened, and there is continual pressure on Israel to give up more and more.
Here is a state only the size of Wales in which the skill and the hard work of the Jewish people has brought about miracles in land development, in scientific development (think of the great value of the Weizmann Institute) and in giving opportunities for Jewish refugees still under persecution in the USSR and other countries to come and live in freedom and in a democracy. Do not let us forget that in the Middle East, Israel is the one democratic state. There is very little democracy in any of the Arab states.
I am not in favour of a PLO state on the West Bank. Which nation would agree to allow avowed enemies, pledged to destroy that nation, to have land in the
1206
middle of its own territory? When I went to Israel before the Yom Kippur War, and after, two or three times, I saw how in many parts of Israel the Arabs and the Israelis lived happily together, with the Arabs having enormous opportunities which they would not have if it were not for the fact that Israel is in many ways such an advanced country. The PLO are continually stirring up disagreement and trying to subvert municipalities, and this seems to be getting worse rather than better when we all hoped that the results of Camp David would be reflected in other ways. Alas!, those hopes have not been fulfilled.
I believe that Israel has every right to keep law and order, otherwise chaos in towns and villages would bring disaster to the civilian populations in those countries. The problems of Lebanon are made more difficult by the actions of the PLO. In July 1981, Israel agreed to the proposals of the US special envoy to end hostilities on the Israel-Lebanon border—provided that the PLO and the other Arab states would agree and cease their hostilities. This did not happen. Lebanon today is still struggling to keep independent and is surrounded by hostile forces. This is where the trouble lies, and no one would expect Israel to stand by and do nothing to protect her frontiers.
Peace in the Middle East rests as much on the Arab states living at peace with each other, and recognising the state of Israel, as on anything else. Israel is as determined and anxious for peace as any country. If the PLO continue to stir up trouble in any neighbouring country as well as in Israel, then peace will be hard to achieve. The autonomy talks, the second of the proposals from Camp David, have been frustrated by the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza who were invited to join in talks due to begin quite shortly after the Camp David agreement—talks to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza and their relationship with their neighbours. I understand that, so far, these talks have met with no response. Those of us who support Israel in the Middle East still hope that the Camp David spirit may revive, but in the meantime the Israelis must have the right to protect their country and to live in peace.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Segal: My Lords, I too would like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, on his maiden speech, for which we have had to wait quite a long time. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for initiating this debate. This debate is obviously opportune, for the more often and more fully the Middle East is discussed, the more hope there is for both sides to learn to understand one another and to learn ultimately to live peacefully together.
The Lebanese border was a border of peace until the PLO came there after they had been expelled from Jordan in that notorious "black November", and the sooner will it become a border of peace again once the PLO withdraws from it. The Venice Declaration did no good in singling out the PLO for special mention. It did not help the PLO, and only proved counterproductive, for it strengthened the hardliners in Israel on the eve of the Knesset elections and induced them to vote Mr. Begin back into power for possibly another four years. If he were to declare a general election now, he would undoubtedly be voted back with an

1207
even bigger majority. Indeed, the Venice Declaration may have precipitated the blowing up of the Baghdad nuclear reactor and the bombing of Beirut. With the gift of hindsight, we can only say that it yielded no positive result for the PLO. What is the situation today?
The Arab League is somewhat in disarray with Khorramshahr safely in Iranian hands with Syria as its ally, and with the Iraqis sadly driven back with their own allies Jordan, Saudi Arabia and all the Gulf States heavily committed to the losing Arab side. Today the Arab League is split down the middle and Arab unity—if it ever existed—is as far off as ever. Consequently, the PLO is in the doldrums, for its Arab's sponsors have troubles of their own. The cause of the Palestinians, nevertheless, still remains, and if only the PLO, which has reason to be grateful for a continuation of the cease-fire, would drop its terrorists policy, some peaceful accommodation might be reached to enable the Palestinians to achieve the fullest degree of autonomy.
Meanwhile, the great figure working for peace in the Middle East, President Sadat, has been removed from the scene, murdered by his own extremists. It is a sad commentary on assassination as an instrument of policy among the Arab states. I was with him in April of last year, at Lord Carrington's suggestion, two months before the Israeli elections. The British Ambassador to Cairo came with me. Then President Sadat expressed the hope of paying a second visit to the Knesset after the elections of 30th June were over.
I am sure that, had his life been spared, his second visit to the Knesset would already have taken place, and after the complete Israeli withdrawal from Sinai a lasting peace between the two great antagonists would have been cemented. For President Sadat passionately believed in peace as an end in itself. It was that belief that led him to Jerusalem in 1977 on his famous flight to the Knesset, an event unique in this century, if not unique in the whole of history. For he realised that the nearer Cairo comes to Jerusalem the greater would be the hope of peace in the Middle East. Never was that belief more true than it is today.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, I would wish first of all to congratulate, if I may, the noble Earl, who as a young man served, as I did, in the area of which we speak, We had no hand in making high policy in those days; nor have we now. But we did together in times of difficulty and danger risk our lives on behalf of all the inhabitants of the territories which at the time the mandated Government was administering. I am very happy to hear his very remarkable speech here this evening, and I believe that we all feel a sense of congratulation towards him.
Uppermost in our minds at this time, obviously, is the problem of the events that we read about and study day by day and hour by hour. I would just like to say this about those events. I hope that they will not lead us to weaken, certainly not to abandon, the processes of peace, the methods of peace. On the contrary, I believe that what has happened has made it all the more necessary for us to strengthen and support them. Indeed, as we see what is going on at the
1208
moment, surely we must all feel that there must be a better way of dealing with the disputes of the world.
As I turn from the Atlantic to Arabia, I would say one other thing, if I may. I had the pleasure and privilege of working for a number of years with our present representative at the United Nations, Sir Anthony Parsons. I met him when I was in New York recently, and I appreciate and understand his difficulties at this time. Having been in the same position that he now occupies, I would like to say how fortunate I feel our country is that we have representing us at this difficult time a man so fair-minded, so good humoured and so straightforward. I believe that the presence of Sir Anthony Parsons at this time in the United Nations is something for which we can be grateful.
I turn then to the subject of our debate. I feel, as many of us must feel, that it is unsatisfactory, if I may use such an unsatisfactory word, to debate matters of this kind when we have no opportunity of going back over the statements that have been made; we have no time to consider the matters carefully; we must select at random one or two matters on which we feel deeply, and watch the clock as we do so. I would like to say that of all the questions that we are discussing there is one which has scarcely been mentioned this evening which seems to me to be at the heart of the whole matter. It is the future of Jerusalem.
Here we have a situation in which Jerusalem, the whole of Arab Jerusalem, Palestinian Jerusalem, has been totally annexed, with no suggestion that there should be any change. This is a matter which to every Arab, every Moslem, in the world is of major significance. It was to President Sadat, most certainly, who said there could never he peace if there was going to be a permanent hold on Jerusalem by the Israelis. It is the same attitude of President Mubarak at this time. One cannot neglect a matter of this consequence, refuse to discuss it, even when it is the central matter of the greatest concern to both sides. I brought with me some quotations from people whom I greatly respect; from Mayor Teddy Kollek of Jerusalem, who spoke with such feeling and has indeed made such a contribution to the welfare and the beauty of the Old City of Jerusalem; and from Abba Eban, with whom I have worked closely in the past, who expressed the strength of his feelings. On the other hand, there is no Arab, no Moslem, Sadat, Mubarak or anyone else, who has not intense feeling on this matter, that their capital has been taken from them. Until we are ready to give our minds to a matter of that kind and to discuss it, then surely our debate is dealing with matters of much lesser importance.
I do not forget that 14 years ago we passed a unanimous resolution in the Security Council of the United Nations. We started off by stating the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We went on to call for a withdrawal of troops from occupied territories. These are phrases which have something of a ring in them, have they not? But what has happened since then. The resolution has been defied. We have drifted; we have delayed. The decision that the area should be left free from occupying troops has not been respected. Now we find a situation in which the territories concerned are occupied, and occupied not just temporarily, but permanently;

1209
practically 100 settlements have been established and the whole City of Jerusalem annexed, not merely occupied. So here we have a problem of intense difficulty, which is not even mentioned in the debate in this House. It seems to me an extraordinary fact.
I do not underestimate the intensity of feeling on both sides. I believe, however, there is a solution. It would be possible to have an Arab Jerusalem, an Israeli Jerusalem, and no barriers between them, with freedom of movement one way and the other, and freedom of access to the holy sites for everyone in the world. This is what we should be talking about, of the possibility of a settlement that brings people together. You will never get peace as long as one side is dominating the other by military pressure. I came back from Jerusalem the other day. It is 50 years since I went to Jerusalem. I have never felt that there was an attitude so bad, a danger so great, a worldwide danger so great as we see in the Middle East now, arising principally from this central dispute over the future of the Holy City. I saw it from every side. It was described by a correspondent from America who was there at that time as "brutalisation". That word stuck in my mind.
I shall not go further into this matter this evening, but I would urge that we give our minds to the possibility of finding, by international action, an answer to the problem which otherwise may divide and destroy everyone concerned even in the widest international aspect.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, what I have found so remarkable in this debate so far is that nearly all contributions, even those with which one might find oneself at variance as regards argument and reasoning, contained elements that were constructive, helpful and even hopeful. I refer especially to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith. I congratulate him and hope that he will enlighten us more frequently in the future.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that the Arab-Israeli conflict, however important and pivotal it may be, must be seen in the context of other equally important issues and conflicts in the Middle East and must not allow us to derange our priorities or throttle our initiatives. The Iran/Iraq conflict is of paramount importance. The tremors of ascendant Moslem fundamentalism will be felt not only throughout the whole Arab world but wherever Moslems live—from Pakistan and the Islamic parts of Soviet Russia to Indonesia. The humbling of Iraq may please official Syria, but underneath the rift is wide. The recent Massacres at Hama at the hands of President Assad and his brother's civil guards has probably cost the lives of more victims than the three Syrian wars with Israel. And as the Lebanese tragedy persists, there, too, Arabs are killing more Arabs week by week than Arabs or Jews kill each other in overt or in covert fued.
If in this perspective the West Bank and Gaza are the scene of tragic strife, the causes are not quite as simple as they tend to be described in stereotype accounts. They are not just due to the frustrations of progress in the autonomy talks, the intransigence of all parties, provocations and transgressions, but at the very root is the consistent and continuing refusal of the
1210
Arab world to recognise the reality of Israel and make a genuine effort to establish peace. The only exception is Egypt, the only veritable power in the Arab world. And the only framework for a just settlement is, with all its faults, all its ambiguities, open-endedness and sluggishness, the peace process of Camp David.
It should be Britain's and Europe's primary task to endorse Camp David, and to build on it. The first part of the accord has been fully implemented. The second part is late in starting, but it could and it must be brought under way, and it should be our duty to use all our diplomatic resources and powers of persuasion to restore the confidence of the negotiators to bring other Arab States in, and to make them use their influence with Arab Palestine's local representative leaders without their having to fear retribution from extremists.
We must support President Mubarak's Egypt. Egypt's return to the Arab fold without conceding to the detractors of Camp David can only serve the cause of peace. Egypt's return to the Arab fold at the expense of Camp David could be a calamity for peace. We must support America and not hustle her by a false sense of hectic urgency, nor try to alienate her from an old ally and tilt her towards a movement of radicals whose whole inner outlook and worldwide allegiances are anathema to the American people. There is much ignorance abroad about the depth of America's commitment to Israel which is not. as many think, just due to electoral opportunism or the nimble footwork of the legendary Jewish lobby. No, there is a deep perception in America that Americans can trust the Israelis in the hour of need, and that Israel is perhaps the only country between Italy and Japan where democracy holds the sway and courts of law mete out justice if need be in defiance of the Government of the day.
Of course, there is much to be criticised in Israel's current policies, but there is also a strong Israeli opposition criticising and opposing these policies, as benefits a real democracy. But one-sided attacks from outside will only rally a people around a stubborn Government. In fairness, Prime Minister Begin has proved—and that, my Lords, is crucial—that he will respond to friendliness and peaceful intent. When President Sadat appeared before the Knesset of his own free will he was listened to with emotion and respect while reasserting every item on the list of Arab claims. Prime Minister Begin agreed the surrender of all Egyptian lands and delivered them for the price of formal peace.
The refusal of Palestinians to sit down to slow and arduous negotiations, the blunt refusal of the Arab states to encourage them, only widens the gulf, enlarges the vacuum and creates a breeding ground for extremist policies. The Venice Declaration, the European initiative of yesteryear, the push towards legitimising the PLO, have hindered, not helped, the peace process and among other side effects brought British-Israel relations to their most brittle state.
It is only fair here to pay due tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and to say that his last act of statemanship which inevitably became submerged in the dramatic events leading to his resignation, was his fence-mending visit to Jerusalem. By all reliable accounts his visit and his frank and friendly talks with

1211
Mr. Begin were most successful. They cleared the air and, while important differences may still remain, he did a great deal to reforge old friendly ties.
One of the ground rules for all concerned must be to avoid pre-empting the outcome of Camp David by putting in the maximum bid today. Every time we say or hint or support someone else's claim that we are for a Palestinian state on the West Bank, we are pre-empting the Camp David accord where it is explicitly laid down that only after an interim period of five years should the parties decide on the ultimate status of the area. Consequently, when Mr. Begin on the morrow of his agonising experience of evicting his own settlers from Yamit, claims ultimate sovereignty for the West Bank, he is no more or no less liable to criticism than anybody else who calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Jordan is the obvious natural partner to a meaningful negotiation. The King of Jordan reigns on Palestinian Arab soil and rules over Palestinian-Arab citizens, for his country and his people are part of that historic Palestine mandated after the First World War to Britain by the League of Nations. The King of Jordan, whatever might have been said to him at Rabat or since, still pays the wages and pensions of Arab civil servants on the West Bank, of teachers and judges. Without him, I personally believe there never will be peace. With him, I equally believe that the chances of compromise, military and territorial, are more than even. It may be said that it will be difficult, perhaps impossible, to make the King comply, but then I can assure your Lordships that it is much more difficult to impose the PLO as a valid interlocutor on the entire national consensus of Israel than to persuade the King of Jordan to enter the conference chamber and to resume his historic role.
The role of the Saudis is crucial. But, frankly, Prince Fahd's plan is far from adequate to serve as a sound basis. It sets out with apodictic firmness specific claims of their own side, and without even dignifying the other side by name treats its vital concerns with oracular obliqueness. If the Saudis were prepared to go out for real peace and not equivocate, they could indeed play a key role.
Let me conclude on a more optimistic note. Britain and Europe, beyond supporting the peace process of Camp David, have one most important and even noble role to play, one which transcends ephemeral politics and one which truly reflects the spirit of European humanism. It is to give the peoples in the area a direct signal that there is a feeling of care and concern about what could be the outcome of a settlement and the fruits of peace. It is the European spirit of Jean Monnet that is wanted today in the Middle East. For underneath all rhetoric and posturing, nationalistic as well as religious passion, there lies fear, insecurity, plain despair about the future. When Jean Monnet first talked about uniting Europe, creating bonds of interlocking interest for individuals and families as well as nations, he was met with incredulity and derision. But he persevered.
I think that Europe should commit itself to the material and moral participation and, in common with the United States, the underwriting of prosperity as well as security. They should spell out what can
1212
be done for the people on the ground if only they could come to terms. There are some weighty voices in Holland, France and Germany who have spoken in this vein. In more muted tones, individual Egyptians, Saudis, Lebanese and other Arabs and Israelis have spoken similarly. There could be a wide response; there could even be a groundswell. Why cannot we in Britain make this vision—this tempting vision—a genuine policy objective and turn it into a real new European initiative for lasting peace in the Middle East?
6.40 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, this casual, irrelevant and somewhat unrealistic debate, as I shall seek to demonstrate in the course of my few future observations, was relieved by a remarkable maiden speech by the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith. It was a speech which I enjoyed, not that I was in complete agreement with him. On the contrary, I was not. But I shall not enter into any argument with him on this occasion. My enjoyment derived from his presence, which reminded me of his grandfather in 1922, when I became a Member of another place and listened to the dignified, eloquent oration of Mr. Asquith. On frequent occasions following his oration I ventured to ask a few questions, most of which he disliked intensely. Anyhow, the noble Earl has made his maiden speech, and a right good speech it was; it was statesmanlike, although perhaps a bit cautious because of the time available to him; nevertheless, it was well worth hearing. We want him to speak again.
What is the unanimous desire of those who have taken part in this debate?—apart, that is, from the person who initiated the debate, who appears to have absented himself—
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord was hiding himself. He is present. The noble Lord's speeches, when he is engaged in discussing the Middle East, usually consist of giving the state of Israel a good kick in the teeth. What was he doing this afternoon? What was his purpose—to condemn Israel, and to condemn and criticise the United States of America for supporting Israel? He was actually suggesting that this arrangement—this financial, political, but not military arrangement—between the United States of America and Israel had created a situation in the Middle East which played right into the hands of the Soviet Union.
Let us deal with that situation. First, I come to peace. Iran and Iraq?—peace? You call it peace? Syria and Jordan—they hate each others guts. Iraq—which country in the Arabian set-up likes Iraq? Not even the PLO. As for the PLO, it is a collection of refugees who find themselves without much actual support, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states—probably the wealthiest in the whole world —treat the impoverished Palestinians with contempt and leave them in dire poverty. Peace in the Arab world, in the Middle East? Who is responsible? Is it suggested that if Israel was destroyed within the next few months or seriously weakened and was forced to return some of the occupied territories, as they are

1213
described, there would be peace in the Middle East? Of course not. Peace can only come about in the Middle East when the Arab countries themselves collaborate on some agreed propositions which are beneficial to each one of them. Does anyone here really believe that that is a possibility in the foreseeable future?
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, who is an expert on international problems. But all the resolutions passed by the United Nations, and previously by the League of Nations, have had little or no effect. Past resolutions have never been implemented. That is the situation. I wish that those who have taken part in this debate had studied the history of the Middle East. I should like to suggest a book that they might read—the English translation of the Old Testament. They will discover that the situation in which Israel finds itself today has existed over a period of 4,000 or 5,000 years. It has always been in trouble. Sometimes Israel has led its tribes into battle and gained a victory; more often than not it has been defeated, humiliated and exiled. That is the history of the Israelis, although the terms used in the past was "the Jews", over a period of 4,000 or 5,000 years.
Efforts have been made to destroy Israel. Hitler tried it; he failed. But with what consequences. Russia has tried to destroy it and certainly sought to weaken it. Nevertheless, it survives. Many years ago when I was a Member of a Labour Government with responsibility in the military sphere, I paid a visit to the Middle East and went down to the Dead Sea. There I saw a piece of stone inscribed:
"Here is where the Romans defeated Israel".
The following day I visited a monastery further up the hill and there I found a plaque. What did that say? It said:
"Here is where the Crusaders defeated the infidel Jews".
The Romans went many years ago; so did the Crusaders. But the Jews still survive. They have survived in spite of Israel; they have survived in spite of the Romans; they have survived in spite of the Crusaders, with great respect to them and their aspirations and ideals. They will survive in spite of the speeches and the activities of men like the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood.
What was his purpose, anyhow, today? Was it not irrelevant? After all, we have a plate of trouble 8,000 miles away, and when it is over—and we all hope that it will be over very soon and victoriously for us (if I can use the term "victorious" in this connection)—we shall have to readjust our defence strategy in the naval sphere, in the aircraft sphere, in the construction of our weapons, in our relations with the Latin American countries, and in particular in our most sturdy relation with the United States of America. Then we shall be able to demonstrate that we are not under their control, but are an independent country with independent views. A great deal can be said about that.
When I mention the term "irrelevant", what do I mean? Is it wise to initiate a debate in these circumstances when we are engaged 8,000 miles away in the conditions that prevail there? Moreover, what do they expect the Government spokesman to say in reply to the debate? I will tell you. He will refer to
1214
Resolution 242. He will refer to the fact that it was unanimous, or practically unanimous—there were some abstentions, there was some opposition, but not very much. But it never has been implemented, and nor is it likely to be.
He will refer to the desire of the British Government to aid Israel, and also to ensure that there will be peace in the Middle East. He will even go so far as to suggest that it may be brought about as a result of the combination of the Common Market, the countries of the Ten supported by NATO, and that that could be a contributory factor in promoting peace in the Middle East. We have been told every time for several years that that is the answer. It is not the answer. I am not going to argue this question any further. I am going to make an assertion.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord—
Lord Shinwell: I am coming to the end. I did note, however, that many of those who spoke exceeded their time, but I have no objection to that. I am not going to argue any more. I am going to make an assertion: do not provoke Israel any more. If we have to have an adjustment of our defence strategy we may require the assistance of Israel in the Middle East, in Europe, in the air, in the production of certain missiles and weapons. Do not provoke Isreal. Do not push them too far. Do not even push Mr. Begin too far. Do not assume that Mr. Begin is under the complete control of the United States of America. He has demonstrated over and over again that he wants to be independent; and why should he not be independent? Why should not the state of Israel be independent? Any why should we have debates—
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has exceeded his time.
Lord Shinwell: I am sitting down. Why should we have debates which, as I say, are irrelevant, unrealistic, and have no practical purpose so far as peace in the future is concerned?
6.53 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, like many of your Lordships I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, particularly because I have had the privilege and pleasure of spending the greater part of the last 40 years in the Middle East, both in Army service and as a diplomat, during the course of which I have been able to serve in, and visit officially, every single Arab country, and there are 19 altogether. Let me say at the outset that I would be foolish if I considered myself an expert. On the contrary, the problems presented by this region are so numerous, so diverse, and so baffling in their complexity that after all this time I feel that I am only groping on the outer fringes.
Let me briefly refer to one or two problems which might well concern us in your Lordships' House, but which of course time does not permit me to discuss in any detail. In Libya, for example, we see Colonel Gaddafy, who has shown such a remarkable fondness for buoying up revolutionary regimes all over the

1215
world—in 31 countries, according to one American source. In the Sudan we have a serious economic situation. The economy there seems to be crumbling.
Further East we see the disintegration of that lovely country, Lebanon; a country which I knew way back in the 1940s. There, I feel, we have almost reached a Humpty-Dumpty situation. I feel, to my great regret, that all the world's horses and all the world's men will never be able to put that lovely country back together again. Further East still, we see a powerful communist régime entrenched in Southern Yemen. We see in Northern Yemen, where I recently spent four years, a régime which is under constant attack by subversive elements buoyed up by Eastern powers.
However, the noble Lord has asked us this evening to direct our thoughts towards the Middle East, and I shall do so. I intend to speak briefly about the Palestinians, about our responsibilities towards them, about their sufferings, and about their achievements. If I make what some of your Lordships will descrbe as a pro-Arab speech, let me assure you that I have the greatest respect for the Jewish people, and for the wonderful contribution they have made to civilisation in so many spheres—in the arts, administration, agricultural development, not to mention of course their martial skills.
We have a distinct responsibility for the Middle East. Many of your Lordships will be aware, indeed I would think almost all of you, of the circumstances of the Balfour Declaration of 1917. What some of your Lordships may perhaps have overlooked was that the area promised to the Jewish State, the national home for the Jews, by the Balfour Declaration was in an area which we had previously promised to the Arabs, in accordance with the exchange of correspondence between the Sharif Hussein of Mecca and Sir Henry McMahon in 1915–1916.
This problem was discussed almost exactly 60 years ago in your Lordships' House. In fact it was on 21st June, 1922. If you will permit me I will quote from the noble and learned Lord, my grandfather, who had studied this problem with the greatest care. What he said was this:
"If those documents",
that is the Hussein-McMahon exchange of documents—
"are accurate, and I am bound to say that, upon the face of them, they appear to me to be perfectly sound, they show unmistakably that there has not been, as the noble Viscount, Lord Grey, suggested, something in the nature of casual inconsistency between different announcements at different times, but that a deliberate pledge has been given on the one hand, which has been abandoned on the other. No amount of examination and no amount of comparison will ever enable the two things to be reconciled, …".
We cannot put the clock back. I would not of course wish to recommend it in any way. I have the greatest respect for the state of Israel. But I would put to your Lordships that we have a responsibility which the passage of 60 years cannot efface, and which our present preoccupation with the Arab-Israel problem cannot eradicate.
Let me deal briefly with the sufferings and achievements of the Arabs. Your Lordships are probably aware that there are now something like 688,000 Arab refugees in refugee camps out of a total population of 1,844,000. These refugees have been subjected, I am sorry to say, to the unfortunate activities of some aspects
1216
of the Israel Government. For example, only a short time ago a road was driven through a camp in the Gaza strip which destroyed 2,600 shelters. Over water rights, we have evidence from both British and French correspondents which indicates that 20,000 Jewish settlers are now consuming the same amount of water as 800,000 Palestinians. I would also remind your Lordships that there are now only four Israeli Arabs in the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, which represents 3·5 per cent., as against 14 per cent., which is the total figure of Israeli Arabs in Israel.
As for the achievement of the Arabs, we have only to look around us to see what they have been, thanks to the superb education they received under the mandate. I would remind the House that the proportion of Arab graduates is 11 per 1,000 as distinct from four per 1,000 for the rest of the Arab world and eight and nine per 1,000 for Britain and France respectively. Wherever one goes in the Arab world one finds Palestinians, as administrators, judges and involved in agricultural development; their achievements have been superb. I assure the House that by no means all the Arabs are in favour of the extreme policies of the PLO. They detest them. They are a fine, generous, upright people who have made a great contribution to peace.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I would point out that my noble friend Lord Belstead will have to rise at 7.20 p.m. Only a few minutes remain. I hope the noble Lord will draw his remarks to a conclusion.
Viscount Buckmaster: I had in fact finished, my Lords. I would only add that I have been there and have seen it, and I hope I have not presented an exaggerated picture.
8.2. p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, I shall be as brief as possible. I, too, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, on his maiden speech and his very worthwhile contribution to the debate. I wish at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, not merely for introducing this important subject but for the manner in which he did so. It is a vital subject, but having attended many debates on it—in another place, in universities and elsewhere—one gets a little tired of them because many of the contributions are nothing more than emotional spasms from people either massively pro-Israel, for a variety of reasons, or massively pro-Arab. Yet the contribution we had from Lord Chelwood set the tone for the debate which has been maintained throughout.
I shall refer to certain happenings in the past which have been the causes of what is going on in the Middle East, in which my nation made no mean contribution in twisting, cheating and lying at times when the sort of people I come from had no say whatever in the running of Great Britain. I hasten to add that, while I shall refer to the past, I am not one who believes that the bawling of the past should drown the whispers of the future. Nevertheless, now and then we must glance back to see what progress we have made, and alas it has not been very great.
There has been much concentration on the Camp David accord. I am not sure what sort of accord it

1217
is exactly. I have made examinations and sought guidance and I have been driven inevitably to look at the comparison between the so-called Camp David accord and what happened when the invasion of Europe took place and there was the French Vichy accord. That was designed to pacify France so that our island would be a much bigger push-over for the aggressor in those days. We need to look at that carefully because some of us were appalled and annoyed at what happened then, and we must try to understand what other people who have had their lands taken from them by force and aggression, like the Falkland islanders, think. We must not believe that patriotism belongs only to the British.
It will be necessary to find a civilised solution, unless there are those who are so adamant that they want only total victory, and it does not matter, in their view, if over the next five, 10 or 15 years thousands of Israelis and Arabs are slain, until there is one decisive victor. That would be an appalling way, irrespective of the views one held, to try to find a civilised solution. I believe we can arrive at a civilised solution by acknowledging the fact that Palestinians exist and that their representatives at the moment are the PLO. We must not adopt the sort of Hitlerite attitude that was adopted towards the free French when they came to this island— it was also adopted towards the free Danes and the free Belgians—who were warned that if ever they went back when it was all over and the invader won, they would be eliminated. We should not adopt that sort of attitude. In saying that, I am being neither pro-Arab nor pro-Israel; I am being pro-commonsense, endeavouring to see the other fellow's point of view.
As I say, one cannot say that only we, the British, have a sense of patriotism. Our patriotism is so massive that we have sent a great fleet 8,000 miles to defend a few hundred people on the Falkland Islands, yet deny the PLO when they try to get their land back. One name could be affixed to us in a single word, and I do not want that to happen; I do not want the word "hypocrite" to be associated with the name of Great Britain, and that worries and frightens me.
There are many issues I should have liked to have gone into, but time does not permit. As I said about a previous issue, things like the Balfour Declaration are infamous and disgraceful episodes in our history. The massive working-class section of Britain did not even know what it was about. As is usual, neither did the massive ordinary peasant class, if I may use that phrase, Jewish and Arab, in Israel. Their contribution, as always, is just to die. We must try to find a better way because the next time—and how far are we from it?—it will not be a question of charging cavalry or even pressing a few buttons to sink a few ships. It may be the ultimate holocaust. I mention that word as one who was active in Europe because I was appalled and digusted by the attitude of people who were suffering the most appalling things simply because they were stupid enough to pick Jewish parents. I realise that my anger and bitterness at the loathsome behaviour of Europeans in those days was in respect of Europeans; I do not know of any Arab who was involved in building concentration camps or extermination camps. That is what grieves very many of the Arab people, who cannot understand why they
1218
should have suffered as they have, and we must acknowledge that as well.
We must try to realise that what we have been debating this evening is another cruel episode that did not begin with military action and will not end by military action. Perhaps our country will be able to start to trace the connection between the ending of the battle and the start of a new civilised era of peace for all. Let old homelands be restored and new homelands be acknowledged and respected in the hope that, between them, they will strike a new harmony of peace and understanding. The Minister has much to reply to already, but I ask him for an assurance that our Government will continue to strive for peace with justice and that we shall not be labelled hypocrites, because when someone invades and takes away an island connected with our country, that is aggression, and we do not give two hoots about who invades and annexes somebody else's land.
That is what I fear—that the good name of my nation is at stake. I hope that our Government will see that it is not stained in any way, and will go further than that. I believe that, if we are willing to try hard and keep a fair balance, we can bring to the Middle East, if we can create—I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is saying; I am willing to sit down. I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I thought that he was interrupting. He is still mumbling into his beard. If he has anything to say he should get up and say it, or keep quiet. That is quite fair, is it not?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has a point here. He has overrun his time, and as there are only 10 minutes for the next two speakers, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, should proceed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I was interrupted from a sedentary position by the Front Bench spokesman of the Liberal Party. I was going to say that our job, as I understand it, and which I would urge the noble Lord. Lord Belstead, to accept, is to try to bring understanding, to bring all peoples to talk—at some time they will have to talk—and create harmony in the Middle East between Israel and its neighbours, which is possible, and let them understand that that is the only way in which all of them can flourish in a fresh, new, decent part of the world.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, like probably everybody else in the Chamber, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I welcome the debate and congratulate my noble friend Lord Chelwood on introducing it. Incidentally, I think that it was an uncalled-for misrepresentation on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, to imply any desire on the part of my noble friend Lord Chelwood to see or to seek the destruction of Israel; on the contrary, I think that his desire to see the survival of Israel was plain from his speech, and I am sure that if tomorrow the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, re-reads the speech of my noble friend and respects the integrity of my noble friend, he will come to a different conclusion.
No one is likely to say that the prospects for a peace settlement in Palestine at the present time look

1219
good. Faced towards the West Bank, Israel is pursuing policies which, if taken at their face value—and I see no reason not to take them at their face value—will, if pushed to their conclusion, make any peace settlement by diplomatic means impossible. Since the Sinai handover the Israeli Government have repeatedly stated that no more settlements will be disbanded and that no more territory will be returned. The Government intend to accelerate their settlement policy and increase the Jewish West Bank population from a figure of 20,000 today to 120,000 within three years. Since 1967 they have already, for civil or military reasons, bought, expropriated, or declared closed almost a third of the territory of the West Bank. It is no wonder that the Arabs of the West Bank feel that Israel is already well into a policy of annexing the West Bank and that therefore unrest has exploded.
Any United States initiative seems likely to be limited to the framework of the final stages of the Camp David agreement; namely, talks on temporary autonomy, with a view to a permanent agreement on sovereignty. But the policies practised by Israel towards the West Bank, and its activities on the West Bank, including the dismissal of elected mayors, are not in any meaningful sense compatible with autonomy for the Palestinians. So it seems to me that the United States will need to go further and try to reverse Israel's present policies. Is there any chance that it will do so?
I think that there are some signs of a greater sense in the United States of what is at stake and of where their own interests lie in this matter. This perception has been particularly well expressed in a remarkable speech by Senator Charles Percy, now the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, delivered to the National Press Club in Washington in February. In the course of it he said:
"Israel cannot expect the United States to continue isolating itself from the world community to defend questionable or objectionable actions and policies.
"The single issue which creates the greatest strain in our bilateral relations and which is allowing the Soviets to make advances in this region is the widely held perception that the United States Government is not committed to a just and equitable settlement of the Arab/Israeli dispute, including a settlement of those grievances of the Palestinians that are reasonable and just.
"In virtually every substantive conversation I held in 14 Arab countries I heard the same refrain: 'The United States does not have a balanced Middle East policy. Until that occurs, we cannot be too closely associated with you'."
In other words, the United States is finding that a strategic partnership link with the oil-producing states of the Middle East, however politically Western they may be in their inclination, is impossible until the United States alters its policy with regard to Palestine.
So far as Europe and Britain are concerned, I think that there is not much that they can now do in the way of taking an initiative, except that they should stick by the Venice Declaration. I do not think that there should be any question of abandoning or modifying it just because no progress is being made at the present time. In due course perhaps an opportunity may arrive for building on it, as my noble friend Lord Chelwood hoped, and as the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, in what I may say was a most distinguished speech, also hoped.
In conclusion, I should like to say that if the aims of a just solution for the Palestinians are not achieved
1220
peacefully, then once again there is likely to be war. Today Israel may be militarily stronger than her foes, even all of them together. But what of tomorrow, or the day after? Syria has publicly set herself the objective of achieving a strategic military balance with Israel. The Financial Times reported yesterday that Syria planned to devote 60 per cent. of its 1982 budget to the armed forces; and the whole world has just witnessed two phenomena: first, what a medium-size country can do with modern weaponry; and, secondly, in the case of the victory of Iran over Iraq, what fanaticism can achieve, even against a better organised state. In the long run Israel may find, if she is not more careful and more far-sighted, that she won every battle except the last.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, the inability of noble Lords, or some of them, to keep within their allotted time, which is put forward for the good conduct of the debate, has given me exactly two and a half minutes to reply. That is obviously insufficient, and therefore under mild protest I shall not make any speech at all but will make way for the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
7.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Chelwood for initiating this debate today, and I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, on his maiden speech. With long experience of the Middle East and of administration, the noble Earl made a most skilful speech on a highly controversial subject, and I join with other noble Lords in hoping that he will come to speak in our debates on future occasions.
It is right that in the midst of other pressing concerns we should continue to pay close attention to the situation in the Middle East, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has felt that he did not have time to speak, because his advice on this, as on other difficult problems, is always a great help to your Lordships, and not least to me.
Successive British Governments have taken the view that peace and stability in the Middle East are essential not only for the peoples of the region, but also for our own interests. I thank my noble friend Lord Chelwood for the tribute that he paid to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Carrington in this respect. Our policy remains one of active involvement in the search for peace in the Middle East, and in particular for a negotiated solution to the Palestinian issue.
In June 1980 we and our partners in the European Community set out in the Venice Declaration two fundamental principles, and for the record I should like to repeat them. The first was the right to existence and security of all the states of the region, including Israel. The second was justice for all the peoples, which implies the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
Israel's right to live in peace behind secure, recognised and guaranteed borders is a basic tenet of our policy. We understand the Israeli Government's reluctance to enter negotiations with the Arab side while the latter continues to be ambiguous in their policy pronouncements on this crucial point, and while attacks continue against Israeli territory. That is why the Government

1221
take every opportunity to urge the Arabs to reach agreement among themselves on a positive strategy for peace, including recognition of Israel.
My Lords, in this connection, we and our partners welcomed the eight points put forward by Prince Fahd last summer as a constructive contribution which implied readiness for a negotiated settlement and a willingness for peaceful co-existence with Israel. The noble Lord, Lord Wiedenfeld, was somewhat critical of the five proposals, but I must say that the Government were disappointed when the Fez Summit in 1981 failed to make a positive strategy within the Arab states. The need remains for a clear Arab demonstration of readiness for a peaceful settlement, and we very much hope that efforts to achieve this will continue.
The position of the PLO on the question of the acceptance of Israel is, rightly, studied with particular care, and has formed the very centre of the debate we have had today. I would just like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, for her reference to the PLO covenant which certainly put the record straight on that particular point. The Venice Declaration makes clear our view that the PLO will have to be associated with negotiations for a comprehensive peace. Really, it is an inescapable fact given the evident support for the PLO among Palestinians. But at the same time, the PLO cannot expect to be seen as an acceptable negotiating partner; they cannot expect recognition of their own rights until they show an unequivocal readiness to accept the rights of Israel in the context of a negotiated settlement. Courage and imagination will be needed from the Arab side if we are to make progress towards the implementation of the first Venice principle, and the Israelis must show similar qualities if the other Venice principle is to be fulfilled and the Palestinian people are to be allowed to enjoy their legitimate rights. The denial of their rights is the core of the Arab/Israeli problem and future peace efforts will have to be addressed to it directly. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for putting the right emphasis on this absolutely essential point. The Ten's position is clear. We consider that the Palestinian people must be placed in a position by an appropriate process, defined within the framework of a comprehensive peace settlement to exercise fully its right to self-determination, and the PLO will have to be associated with the negotiations.
My Lords, the autonomy talks between Israel and Egypt aimed at transitional arrangements for the West Bank and Gaza, as we all know, are continuing. The Ten have consistently said they would not wish to cut across these talks, but the gap between the two sides, as I am sure all your Lordships know very well, remains wide. My noble friend Lord Chelwood expressed the view that some further initiative is now required. "The Venice Declaration has been around for some time" was in essence the message given by my noble friend and indeed, by the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith. But we continue to believe, as the Venice Declaration stated, that at some stage it will be necessary to achieve a transition to a wider negotiation in which the Palestinians can be involved.
That is an initiative which still has not been picked up. Venice was never intended as a blue-print for a negotiation. There is no substitute for mutual accept-
1222
ance between Israel and the Arabs that the security of one entails the security of the other. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I would like to say that we and our partners stand ready to help as far as we can in encouraging a process of compromise and confidence-building. We also recognise that the United States have a key role, and we will wish to consult closely with them as all sides look afresh at their policy in the coming months.
May I just emphasise a point which was not emphasised enough in the debate, except by some noble Lords who felt it was right so to do—that Palestinian self-determination would materially improve the stability of the region and the security of all its states, including Israel, because then Palestinian self-interest would demand co-operation, not confrontation, with Israel.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was quite right in saying that, now I would say a brief word about Resolution 242. The Ten have reaffirmed their commitment to Resolution 242 in the Venice Declaration. The Israelis remain committed to it. The underlying bargain is well known, that of peace and security for Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the territories she occupied in 1967. We were very glad to see the successful completion of Israel's withdrawal from Sinai on 25th April under the terms of the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty. It was not easy for Israel, and Her Majesty's Government admire Israel's determination to carry through what I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and others of your Lordships was a vitally important result of Camp David.
But the continuing Israeli policy of new settlements and recent statements by Israeli leaders that no settle-ment will be given up, does put in peril the possibility of implementing Resolution 242. This and other measures taken recently are not consistent with our interpretation of Resolution 242, nor that of the United States Administration. I think it will make it the more difficult to reach a negotiated settlement in which Israel's interests are protected as well as Palestinian rights assured.
My Lords, there is no time to refer to Lebanon or to the appalling problems in Iran and Iraq, so before I finish may I just pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, about Jerusalem. We have frequently made clear that we cannot accept the annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel. We made clear in the Venice Declaration that we will not accept any unilateral initiative designed to change the status of Jerusalem. Any agreement on the status of the city should guarantee freedom of access for everyone to the holy places. In saying that, I agree that the future status of Jerusalem is an extremely difficult point. It is one which can only be settled in the context of an overall settlement.
My Lords, may I try to end on a brighter note. The establishment of relations between Egypt and Israel and the withdrawal from Sinai have been encouraging reminders of what can be achieved if both sides show the political will to make negotiations succeed. As such, it is important as an example for the more difficult negotiations on the Palestinian problem. If it becomes possible for Egypt to be at peace with Israel,

1223
to develop warmer relations with the Arab States, then that, too, is to be greatly welcomed.
The experience of Egypt and her natural role as a leader in the Arab world should have a positive influence on the attitude of other Arab countries. At the same time, her policy on the Palestinian problem is an active and a positive one. Egypt and Israel together have shown what can be done. For our part, we and our European partners remain determined to help broaden the area of peace until a comprehensive settlement can be achieved.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, if I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, one question before he sits clown: What about the PLO covenant? That is entirely set for the destruction of Israel. Here it is. The noble Lord can borrow my copy if he would like to.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I did refer to the PLO covenant, particularly in the context of the words spoken by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. I think the noble Baroness might have been out of the Chamber just at that particular moment.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I am sorry.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that this debate does not finish until 7.43 p.m. If I am right in so saying, it occurs to me that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, could easily give us the benefit of his advice for five minutes if he wishes to do so. Is that not possible?
Lord Byers: Not on!
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I am sorry, because I would have liked to hear what the noble Lord had to say.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would rise to speak at 7.20 this evening. Through the usual channels he gave me notice that he could give me a minute or two, which gives me only three and a half minutes to make a speech on the Middle East, which really is not enough.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: In that case, my Lords, it merely remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I think the number of noble Lords who have contributed to it is a clear indication of the importance we attach to this very difficult subject. I think we have had a useful and constructive debate. It is a pity it has been rather rushed, but speaking briefly does concentrate one's mind wonderfully. I should particularly like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, on a maiden speech of rare quality which we all enjoyed. We look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future. Finally, I should like to thank particularly my noble friend Lord Belstead for the speech which he has made, which was constructive, encouraging and balanced.
I do not intend to comment on any other speeches—I think that is not the right thing to do on this particular occasion—but I should like to say to the noble Lord,
1224
Lord Shinwell, for whom I have a very great liking and a very great respect, that he was being unfair to me. I believe that what my noble friend Lord Reay said will be shown to be correct. When he comes to read my speech and to study it with care he will find that not in any way did I suggest that I do not wish to see Israel survive. I wish to see Israel survive in peace, security and amity with all her neighbours, but not beyond certain agreed frontiers. I have always taken that view and I always will. The noble Lord was for once, I think, being quite unfair. With that one comment, for which I hope I may be forgiven, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Iron and Steel Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, passed, and sent to the Commons.

Public Records
7.32 p.m.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will elaborate on their response (Cmnd. 8531) to the Report on Modern Public Records (Selection and Access) (Wilson Report) (Cmnd. 8204).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. First and foremost I must warmly thank all noble Lords who have been kind enough to put their names down to speak, and especially my noble and learned friend, who has been kind enough to say he will reply. Equally, one is very privileged by the fact that one has such a distinguished maiden speaker who has chosen this debate in which to make his first speech here.
The last time we discussed the subject of public records in a mini-debate was in 1977. I initiated that in order to give your Lordships an opportunity to discuss records policy as it was then, nearly 25 years after the Grigg Commission had reported, which report was followed by the Public Records Act 1958, introducing the 50-year rule, and later the 1967 Act, which brought in the 30-year rule. That debate was well received, and was followed by a good response in the press and from the general public. Later it was established, after various meetings and discussions, that there needed to be a further look, and in 1978 the then noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who we are delighted to see on the Front Bench opposite today, ordered that the Wilson Committee be set up.
This three-member committee produced a most comprehensive and impressive report of no fewer than 256 pages, and made no fewer than 61 main recommendations. This report was laid before Parliament in March 1981—a no mean feat. Finally, in March of this year the Government presented their White Paper on the report. I do wish that I could welcome this document with alacrity and praise, but with due deference to its authors there is no way that I can. To go further, I am afraid I must express my extreme disappointment. It is a great shame that so little of substance has been accepted. Many of the

1225
proposals were an amplification of the original Grigg Committee's report, which has done so much. I was pleased that at least some of the Wilson Committee's recommendations were accepted. However, for the rest of my speech I shall refer to some of the recommendations that have fallen by the wayside. For the sake of convenience I shall follow the line of the White Paper, which, incidentally, does not follow the same path as the report, for various reasons.
However, be that as it may, undeterred I shall plunge into detail, starting with the very important area of selection. Here one begins by saying that the Wilson Committee and the Government agree that there is a need for better selection of records and not necessarily more records to be selected. But I am afraid that this is where the similarity of views ends. For instance, in paragraph 10 the White Paper states:
"The report conveys the general impression that there has been substantial destruction of valuable material, although little specific evidence is adduced to support this view".
I find this paragraph somewhat unfairly dismissive, as the authors of this report naturally did not give specific evidence as they rightly thought this would have been tantamount to witch-hunting and unproductive, and in turn the authors of the White Paper did not specifically ask them to produce the evidence in confidence. Again, the equation of there being over 40 miles of records transferred since 1954 is excellent, but not meaningful by itself. It is in fact misleading in its application to the number of readers at the Public Records Office, which has nearly quadrupled from 25,000 to 99,000 in 1981. This tremendous increase does not follow from the fact that the extra 40 miles are all being read, but is in fact largely due, I suspect, to the explosion of interest (in which I include myself) in genealogy. Incidentally, when considering cuts in Government spending I hope the Government will bear in mind this vast increase in the work of the Public Records Office.
The Wilson Committee took a huge amount of evidence from no fewer than 61 departments; viz., Appendix 2, pages 179 to 221. In contrast, the Government examined only four unnamed departments, from which they concluded that, rather than excessive destruction, in fact too much had been kept. Here I must say that the point seems to have been missed, for as I have already said it is not the amount that is being kept, it is what is being selected for preservation.
The committee chose as a method of improving selection to suggest the setting up of sector panels, which suggestion has been turned down flat. Those sector panels are, as the White Paper rightly says, a central theme of the committee's report. I now quote from paragraph 22 of the White Paper, which is, frankly, a horror; that is,
"The Government believe that the present arrangements have not been shown to be sufficiently effective"—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? I am having great difficulty in hearing him because he is in front of a microphone. Perhaps he would be kind enough to move across to the side of it.
Lord Teviot: I apologise to your Lordships, and I apologise also to the Official Reporter and to the
1226
gentleman of the press. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for drawing my attention to that. I was quoting from paragraph 22 of the White Paper, where it says:
"The Government believe that the present arrangements have not been shown to be sufficiently defective to justify the establishment of seven new sector panels or committees or the provision of staff to service them".
What the Government are saying is that they acknowledge the fact that present arrangements are not satisfactory, on the one hand, but, on the other, they propose to do nothing about it.
The obvious question that arises out of this is: "How bad have things got to be before they do anything about it?" Furthermore, how will they know? The Government turned down sector panels purely on doctrinal grounds, many of which I agree with, and as their setting up would increase the size of the Civil Service, without considering their merits at all. In fact, there is one such body (which is known as the Ministry of Defence's historical panel) which the committee suggest as a model for all sector panels. The members consist of three academic experts and the records administration officer at the Public Record Office, under departmental chairmanship—which is the Under-Secretary. Their purpose is to advise the departmental record officer and his staff on the problems involved in selecting records for preservation. They only happen to meet once a year. Perhaps they could meet twice a year as they used to. Three of its members are in the Civil Service, anyway. How, then, pray, could three academics meeting so rarely be said to be increasing the size of the Civil Service or non-departmental public bodies? We are hardly talking about quangos. Therefore, one would like the Government to explore this area again.
I now move on to access, on which the White Paper is less dismissive and more considerate to the recommendations of the committee. The Government amended the criteria under which records have been closed for more than 30 years. It is also proposed to give more information about records withheld under Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958. I fear that this may not go all the way to overcome the criticism of some historians. Here, I must say how sorry I am that my noble friend Lord Bethell is unable to be with us today. He is in Brussels on parliamentary business, and has given me a pertinent missive. Perhaps this may be the time for me to read that missive. He and I have dealt with public records matters for some years, usually dealing with rather different issues, although we usually agree.
My noble friend in his missive has asked me to say that he too welcomes the liberalising decisions of the White Paper, especially the small but significant changes in the long-closure guidelines where the criterion is changed from one of "embarrassment" to living persons or their descendants to one of "danger". He points out, however, that the White Paper proposes no alteration to the law entitling a Government department to retain any document whatsoever in its own files beyond the 30-year limit without satisfying any system of guidelines.
This surely is the main flaw in the otherwise moderately liberal Public Record Acts. A Government department, in practice, is able to retain any document that it wishes and with the best will in the

1227
world the noble and learned Lord will not have the time or the patience to examine retained documents to check whether a department's proposals are reasonable. He will I am afraid, in future as in the past, merely accept a department's contention that such documents are "sensitive" and rubberstamp their request to be allowed to retain them.
Nor is there any serious provision in the White Paper to modify the notorious "Gardiner edict" of 1967, by which the noble and learned Lord's predecessor gave blanket permission for all intelligence-related documents to be retained in their departments irrespective of whether or not their disclosure was capable of harming the national interest. Such documents are not even submitted to the Lord Chancellor and there is no check whatsoever on whether departments are retaining papers which are genuinely sensitive or whether they are misusing this provision to retain papers which are simply embarrassing to Ministers or officials of the day.
My noble friend Lord Bethell therefore feels that, even after the liberalising moves contained in the White Paper are put into effect, our policy on public records will be more restrictive than it should or need be. At at time when many democratic countries —most recently, Canada—are moving towards more open government and greater access for the citizen to the mechanism of decision making, our own British Government, so enlightened in every other area of reform and with one of the most enlightened Lord Chancellors in recent memory, are showing themselves depressingly unforthcoming. That is all I want to say concerning my noble friend Lord Bethell. I should have preferred this debate on a day which suited him, but, through the usual channels, I was advised that this was the only time for a debate such as this to come on at a reasonable hour. But, in any case, my noble friend's views have been heard.
While on the subject of access—and here I return to my own speech—I must take slight issue with paragraphs 38 to 40 which deal with the role of the advisory council on this matter. The Wilson Committee sought to involve the council more as an independent source to advise on questions related to extended closure and the retention of records by departments. In effect, they wished for a select committee of the council to be set up, consisting of Privy Counsellors and others qualified to question material of the highest sensitivity. The Government considered this suggestion carefully but still opposed it as they felt that it was not right for even highly eminent members to look at these papers.
I must say that I find this very difficult to understand as, on the council, we have the noble Lord, Lord Trend—and he regrets that he is unable to be here because of pressing college business at Oxford—who, as your Lordships will know, was for many years Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office. Can there be a more confidential post than that? In addition, the advisory council boasts of a former Permanent Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department and two learned judges, one being the Master of the Rolls. The White Paper suggests that Lord Trend's successors as Secretary to the Cabinet may be the arbiter; but, surely, they will always be too busy. Recently my
1228
right honourable friend the Solicitor General said that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would welcome further advice on this matter. I should like to express regret that the recommendation of the Wilson Committee was turned down and I should like the Government to reconsider.
Briefly, I should also like to mention the position of the Master of the Rolls as statutory chairman of the advisory council. The council has since expressed their dismay that this may be changed. I, too, am very firmly concerned with this not only through our great personal admiration and my personal affection for the present incumbent, and not necessarily only following tradition. We all feel that to have so distinguished a person as he who holds the office of Master of the Rolls is of great benefit. Moreover, he is seen to be impartial.
There are many other aspects of the committee's report and the White Paper to which I would like to refer in detail but there is little time. For example, machine-readable records are generally welcomed. On the matter of National Health records little has been achieved, and this I am afraid has been unsatisfactory. The Wilson Committee received some excellent submissions and prepared considered recommendations. I shall not go into this in detail as it is a very specialised and intricate subject and should be dealt with only after taking careful soundings with academic and clinical scientists, especially the epidemiologists and the geneticists.
There is one very important matter to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. It is paragraph 62 of the White Paper which mentions the opening hours of the Public Record Office. Immediately I switch back to paragraph 4, where the Government accept their obligation to ensure that the Public Record Office is an invaluable national asset and is to be safeguarded. In fact, this is open only to those who can get there between 9.30 am and 5 pm between Monday and Friday. There are two reasons for dismissing this. One is cost—very important—and the other is staffing. It is easy to hide behind the coattails of the staff council or trade unions; but have these bodies been consulted and if so what are the results?
One happy note which is strictly not in the terms of this Unstarred Question is this. On the feasibility study which my noble and learned friend kindly set up about the building in Chancery Lane, as it goes, one is pleased with the statement made by the Solicitor-General that the Chancery Lane section will be left open and the office will not be re-united at Kew for the moment. This will please many people. I know that my noble and learned friend and also the Master of the Rolls have had a great number of letters and at the moment it is a very pleasant outcome. I think I must say that the splendid Sir James Pennythorne building in Chancery Lane opposite the Law Society needs quite a lot of renovation and one hopes that that will take place.
Finally, I should like to mention that one is very grateful to the honourable Member, Mr. Christopher Price, for raising the matter in the House of Commons because it is a great many years since the House of Commons have found time to raise the subject. A subject of this kind might be described as ephemeral, but

1229
one is delighted and it has certainly paved the way for this debate.
Also, one must thank very much Sir Duncan Wilson's committee for their interest and enthusiasm—in particular Professor Margaret Gowing, who was originally a member of the Grigg Committee, and also has given valuable service on the Wilson Committee. Who knows, she may well be on the next one in 25 years time. She is still quite young. Finally, it is unlikely that the subject of public records will be raised again for some time, which makes me even more concerned that the White Paper has, I am afraid, been so negative. Such a great opportunity has been missed for improving what is acknowledged worldwide as one of the country's greatest heritages.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I apologise for having to ask him to move from his place. But as he was inaudible and it was important that we should hear what he had to say—knowing his expertise and concern in this matter—I hope by now that he has forgiven me.
The noble Lord has plugged away—if I may so put it —on this subject for many years. When I was occupying the place which my noble and learned predecessor and successor now occupies, I had the benefit of the advantage of his criticism. What is excellent is that his Question has attracted to the list of speakers several most distinguished historians, and additionally the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, whose experience and distinguished career as head of the Home Civil Service, has enabled him to speak with great authority on the subject-matter of our discussion this evening. We look forward very much to hearing his maiden speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, opened a debate in this matter, as I well remember, in 1977. At that time there was certainly a good deal of dissatisfaction about the records position which, if I may say so, I shared myself. That anxiety was also expressed by the Advisory Council. Out of the general feeling that the matter ought to be investigated the inquiry was set up in 1978, and I had the privilege of attracting to the committee a most distinguished trio, if I may say so. I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to them for their massive and searching inquiry, and for their challenging report.
I had the satisfaction in 1967 of dealing as Attorney-General in the Commons with the Public Records Act which reduced from 50 years to 30 years the period for which public records—subject to certain exceptions—were closed. So, I have at least this degree of mitigation which I call in aid for any fault in subsequent events.
As the Wilson Report put it, while the 1967 Act satisfied the historians' and the public's attitude to some extent, it also stimulated a demand for more. More and more records were indeed churned out of the governmental machine. As the Public Record Office stated way back in 1962, there are 3 million persons employed in the Civil Service and by other bodies subject to the Public Records Act 1958, and in the aggregate they produce each year records which would occupy 100 miles of shelving. Experience suggests that the Public Record Office should expect to receive
1230
each year, for permanent preservation, about one mile of records. The problem is how to reduce the 100 miles to one mile of material worth keeping. That is indeed a serious problem. One of the anxieties of the Wilson Committee in applying that proportion of 1 to 100 across the board is that perhaps too much is lost. It is clear that we face a problem of disposing of unnecessary material not worth preserving, and being careful to maintain what is needed as part of our national heritage.
The records and record keeping—and access to records—are, I believe, essential not only for scholarly research. The famous dictum of Lord Acton will be known to us all:
"To keep one's archives barred against historians is tantamount to leaving one's history to one's enemies".
They are also important for Government purposes, administrative purposes and even policy evaluation and indeed, as we have recently found, for maintaining our rights in the international field.
I greatly hope that any historical records relating to the history of the Falkland Islands position, for instance, have survived the last century and a half, and are in good order. I was pleased, when it fell to me to deal with the Gibraltar question, to find that the documentation with regard to that was in a very good state indeed. This enabled me to produce a somewhat confident report which I will not trouble your Lordships with now.
The value of records calls for a proper priority in dealing with them which I fear has not always been accorded to them. In the past it has indeed been something of a rather chancy business from time to time. It is disturbing to read in the Wilson Report that to some extent it still is. The report concedes that there have been some good results following the Grigg Report, particularly the clearance of much of the backlog of records and steady flow of material to the public Records Office, where of course it is open to the public. But the conclusion of the report—and we are all anxious to hear the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this—is highly critical, and is in terms that in important respects the system has been implemented neither in the spirit nor in the letter, and the Committee have made 61 recommendations to cope with the situation, many of which the Government in the White Paper have indicated that they accept.
While concluding that the system of first and second reviews by departments, where of course the main responsibility in the whole of this field lies, which is proposed in the Grigg Report is basically sound, the report says that there is weakness in its implementation. It indeed finds that the record of management is patently ineffective in many departments, and states that there has been substantial destruction of valuable material. We shall be interested to learn from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a little more about that because, with respect, the allegation of destruction of documentation has been dealt with almost casually and dismissively in the White Paper.
The White Paper has been subjected to considerable criticism tonight and we shall await with interest the answers of the noble and learned Lord to the specific matters that have been raised. It favours a continuation of the present distribution of responsibility for public records among the Public Record Office, the

1231
Lord Chancellor's Office and the Advisory Council on Public Records, as provided in the 1958 Act. It emphasises, as I think clearly must be the case, that responsibility for the management and review of records should remain firmly placed with the departments. There is no escaping from that; that is the crucial area in this whole field.
The Government reject the report's view that by means of sector panels formal channels of communication should be opened between researchers and those involved in the process of selection of documents. I understand that the ground for rejection of this proposal is largely because of lack of resources. Then, as to whether this is an ideological or a practical ground, I suspect that the noble and learned Lord will say the latter, because it is thought it would run counter to the Government's policy of reducing the size of the public service.
As far as cost is concerned, there is not a great deal of enlightenment in the White Paper about that and it would be interesting, if the figures are readily available, to know whether it is now possible to estimate how much expenditure is involved in this field of public records. Then one will be disposed to ask: would what was proposed in the report to be too high a price to pay for the greater participation of researchers in the process of selection for the permanent keeping of documents.
On access to the public records, the White Paper states that the Government's approach has been based on the presumption that as much material as possible which may be of interest to future historians should be made available to the public. That was, I thought, the policy of the previous Administration, and I hope it may be thought—though obviously it is not—that we did our best to maintain it. The White Paper adds the caveat that:
"this aim of maximum disclosure has to be balanced against the consideration that some Government records, particularly those concerned with security and individual safety, privacy and confidentiality, must remain unavailable for public inspection for longer periods than the normal run of public records".
I venture to suspect that the House will readily understand that Parliament, the Advisory Council and the press must, while recognising the importance of maintaining that caveat, be vigilant to see that the balance is not tilted in such a way that informed discussion on matters of public concern becomes impossible because access to the relevant documentation is shut out.
On access, with respect, I welcome the proposal, which the White Paper accepts, that the closure of documents on the previous ground set out by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner of "distress or embarrassment" to living persons or their descendants as a ground for withholding documentation, should be changed to "distress or danger". Also, the agreement that there should be greater time limits on blanket approval to closure of groups or categories of records.
One major departure—I shall finish on this point—of the White Paper from the report's proposals is in its rejection of the proposal that the Advisory Council's role in advising on questions of extended closure should be extended. It proposes that a sub-committee of the council should be formed, comprising privy councillors and others qualified to see material of the
1232
highest sensitivity, which would be an independent source of advice to the Lord Chancellor on, for example, protests or appeals about withheld records. I myself have an open mind about this. We do, after all, entrust the most intimate secrets to privy councillors and use them to deal with sensitive matters. On the other hand, premature release of sensitive public records could cause potential damage, and perhaps it is not surprising that a Government would be reluctant to pass the responsibility for decisions on disclosure of sensitive security documents to an outside body.
I note that the White Paper accepts that the present arrangements for providing the Lord Chancellor with advice on the discharge of his statutory powers in relation to access to records are not wholly satisfactory, since both he and the Public Record Office are obliged, as is the case, to rely heavily on the advice of the Government department concerned. I confess I found this to be so in my experience and, frankly, one had to take most things on trust from the department whose records were concerned and whose recommendations the Lord Chancellor was asked to approve. Pressure of work on the Lord Chancellor's staff, and indeed on the Lord Chancellor himself, is heavy and an examination and appraisal of the individual documents themselves was generally out of the question.
The White Paper, while rejecting the proposal that a sub-committee of the Advisory Council should advise the Lord Chancellor on extended closure and the retention of records by a department, suggests instead that the Secretary of the Cabinet should be asked to look into the matter and advise the Lord Chancellor. I would have thought that, next to the Lord Chancellor, the Cabinet Secretary must be one of the busiest men in the machinery of government, and I cannot quite see how he would be able, purely in terms of the pressure of time, commitments and other responsibilities, to be of very great assistance in this field, valuable though his help will be, of course. Indeed he may have enough on his hands already in advising on ministerial memoirs!
8.7 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I hope that I am audible: if I am not, perhaps the noble Lord will tell me. I am indeed extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity to discuss this highly unglamorous but highly important subject which is so often, as he pointed out, neglected by the legislature. It is a great privilege to follow the former Lord Chancellor; and although flattery never does anyone any good I do not intend to flatter anyone but to tell the truth—and truth occasionally does one some good. I never dreamt that I would be making my maiden speech in this House with this glittering, though not very long, galaxy of fellow speakers. I can assure your Lordships that I shall be extremely brief.
In beginning, I should like to ask for the indulgence which I am told this House shows to maiden speakers. I am sure I will commit every solecism and infelicity known to your Lordships, because, after all, I have spent my time, on the whole, drafting speeches for others to read rather than making them myself. I should also like to declare an interest, since I had a very small part in advising on the setting up of the Wilson Committee, and I should like to echo the

1233
tributes that have been paid to Sir Duncan, Professor Gowing, Sir Paul Osmond and the secretariat for the immensely thorough work which they put into producing the report.
I think that it is a balanced and sensitive report. I say that because, in my experience, the keeping of public records—selection, access and all the rest of the matters which are covered in the report—is something on which it will never be possible to reach universal agreement. This is, no doubt, a pessimistic view but is one that I feel very profoundly, because there is a constant tug between, putting it crudely, timidity on the part of successive Governments and their advisers, and revolution on the part of some academics, some archivists and some journalists. Both have respectable intellectual backing for their views, but there are also behind all that, on both sides, rather more disreputable vested interests. I think that the argument will go on endlessly and a very good thing, too. Let it be aired as publicly and as often as possible. Speaking from the safety of the Cross-Benches, I think that Governments could, on occasion, he more revolutionary or more robust and ought to take a few more risks and so on. I am very conscious of the fact that I have been one of their advisers over many years, so I fully accept that, if blame there is, it does not fall solely on successive administrations; it falls also on their advisers.
Noble Lords will be glad to know that I have five very brief points to make. First, as I have already said, I welcome the Wilson Report. I wish that I could welcome as wholeheartedly the Government's response, but I welcome it up to a point. I hope that I am not being controversial, because I am told that one must not he controversial. Secondly, I entirely agree that the staff of departmental records sections should be scrutinised frequently—not over-frequently—from the point of view of quality and grading. As I understand from the report, in many departments matters are now at a pretty high standard, but there are some laggards and one knows of one or two departments which, in the past, have, putting it crudely, used this area of their activities as a dumping ground.
Thirdly, I, on the whole, am pleased that the notion of sector panels has been turned down, but with a proviso to which I shall come in a moment. I believe that the closer connection between, say, the academic world and those involved in departmental records work, can be achieved just as effectively, and I suspect more economically, by an increased emphasis on informal ad hoc contacts. But my proviso is that this needs to be kept under very close review, because I can remember in 1970 immense efforts being put into opening up archives well before the expiry of the 30-year period to what I think were called bona fide researchers, and we got Privy Council blessing for it.
The report says—and I think it is the only cruel sentence that I have spotted in it—that,
"Academics have taken very little advantage of this facility. We find this a sad reflection on their activity in this fields".
I think that that is a bit cruel, because there are faults on both sides. I speak as one who is on the other side, as it were, and I think it is a bit of a reflection on the academics. But the sceptics could go on to say that, in some ways, it bears out Mark Twain's splendid pair of sentences:
1234
"Adam was but human.
This explains it all.
He didn't want the apple for the apple's sake.
He wanted it only because it was forbidden".
Fourthly, I am glad that the balance of the membership of the advisory council, of which we have at least one member here, and which has done much valuable work, has been reviewed. Fifthly and finally, I am sure, like the Wilson Committee, that new technology will have a very big role to play in the foreseeable future. More needs to be done. Quite a lot, I believe, and as the report demonstrates, is being done. If it entails a modest extra capital investment, I hope that this will be looked on kindly. I hope, too, that the London end of the PRO's activities, in terms of physical accommodation, will be looked at kindly as part of the process of preserving—and I quote the report—
"one of the single richest archives in the world and a most precious part of the national heritage".
I see that my notes conclude with three words "Go to Kew". That being translated does not mean go there to see the lilacs, because they are finished, anyway. But those of your Lordships who have not been to the PRO in Kew—and I am sure that you all have—should please go, because they have achieved a great deal, they have a good retrieval, storage process, a good delivery process, and a very devoted staff, and I hope that when noble Lords criticise the Government's response to the report, as they no doubt will, they will bear in mind the fact that the staff, both at the Kew end and at the London end, are doing a very remarkable job.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is a great privilege to be the first person to congratulate this maiden speaker on his first appearance in a speaking role and to express the hope that, freed from the restraints on controversy which are acceptable for a maiden speaker, he will frequently enlighten us from his own vast experience in government. He has chosen, perhaps characteristically, a debate in which he was bound to hear some criticism of the profession which he so lately adorned, because we must imagine that the White Paper which is the subject of our debate this evening is the product of anonymous public servants, since I hardly believe that a document of this quality could be the product of the hand of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or even have been revised by so distinguished a scholar.
We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot, too, for enabling us to discuss this document. I should like to begin my own remarks by saying that, whereas in this House it is customary to declare an interest, I am proposing to speak against my own interest, because I firmly believe that the task of the historian is immeasurably lightened by the greatest possible destruction of documents and the least possible access to those which survive. Indeed, there are States in the world which are in the business of creating histories on the profound foundation that they have no written documents.
I shall try to speak, because I think I should, on behalf of historians who are important consumers of the product which the records provide. I am sure that

1235
the noble Lord, Lord Dacre of Glanton, who is more of a practising historian than I, will also wish to speak on this subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, pointed out to your Lordships, the Committee was extraordinarily distinguished. It included a scholarly ex-ambassador of wide experience, a home civil servant with an unusual breadth of experience and an historian who, straddling the worlds of the natural sciences and humanities, commands the confidence of those interested both in history and in the development of science and technology which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, pointed out, is going to have its own impact on this problem.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, pointed out, this distinguished committee interviewed the representatives of some 61 public bodies and a great many private scholars—representatives of learned societies and so forth—and produced a report which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said, is a profoundly important, interesting and valuable document upon which all discussion of this subject is likely to rest for some years to come. In reply—look now on this picture, now on this—we have a document which shows very little serious understanding of the importance of records, not merely for those who seek, for scholarly purposes or purposes of curiosity, to study the past but, as the noble and learned Lord the ex-Lord Chancellor reminded us, records which are of crucial importance to the framing of Governmental policy, now and in the future.
It is very difficult to see that the Government appreciated the real anxieties of the committee, documented and based upon a year and a half's hard work, as to the inadequacies which they found in the current handling of records. The replies seem to be dismissive to an extent which is really surprising. Both the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble and learned Lord the ex-Lord Chancellor referred to 61 recommendations. In fact, since some of the recommendations are multiple, there are 71 recommendations —of which 43 were accepted, 20 were not accepted, seven were noted and one was marked "consider". Had the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, spoken after me, I should have asked him to enlighten your Lordships on the difference between "not accepted", "noted" and "consider". I am sure that these have some esoteric significance in the corridors of power, but they do not immediately convey anything to my mind except, "The Government do not propose to do anything about it".
In particular, the committee, conscious, as the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, with his vast experience has confirmed, of the weaknesses of certain departments in carrying out their statutory duties has suggested that the Public Record Office should be a more active body, should have greater powers of intervention where it thinks that the objectives of the Act are not being fully carried out and should have a strengthened staff in order to perform these functions. However, this section of the report—which is a very important section, because the Public Record Office is the heart of the whole operation—is dismissed without serious argument.
A good deal has been said about the advisory council, about the proposed sector panels. Once again one
1236
seems to get a mere defensive reaction: "Leave the departments alone; let them be the judges". Running through this White Paper is a belief which I find disturbing in this as in other aspects of Government—a belief that the civil servants who happen to be in charge happen also to know best and, alongside this, some impatience with the wider public who see the national records as something which are important to them both as citizens and in their private capacities.
Even when the Government declare that they accept a recommendation of the Wilson Committee they are very half-hearted—or sometimes they seem to be very half-hearted about it. The problem of going and studying these records—this is no reflection upon the staff at Kew to whom the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, referred—has been made greater by the decision (now, alas! long in the past) to move the bulk of the modern records to the outer suburbs. We are the only major country which does not keep its national archives close to the heartbeat of Government and of scholarship.
Once they are there, however, clearly there is a much greater problem for visitors from overseas and an even greater problem for scholars in the provinces. We are always told that we should look out for centres of excellence outside London, yet for a scholar outside London it is surely even more important that if he has to pay today's very considerable travelling charges the hours of opening should be as long as possible and that the week should not be a five-day week. Yet the committee, I thought with great modesty—looking at some other countries' treatment of archives (the United States, for instance) they might have gone further—made some very modest suggestions, quite rightly bearing in mind that extra financial resources were unlikely to be forthcoming.
Although in principle the Government accept the idea in the White Paper of better access, they make it subordinate, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has pointed out, not only—and rightly—to financial considerations but also (and this appears to me to be quite unwarrantable) to the personal convenience of staff members. They say:
"There would need to be negotiations with staff to vary their national conditioned hours of work and at present it is not clear they would readily accept an extension of hours within which they could be required to work".
If I repeat the phrase, "nationally conditioned hours of work" and say "Tell that to the marines", I take it that the House will get my meaning. After all, the civil servants in the Public Record Office, like other civil servants, are servants. They are there to fulfil a public need.
It may be that if they took up these posts on the assumption that their hours of work would be restricted, they would not wish to alter them—or their trade unions would not wish to see them altered. But in that case the Government have the possibility of redeploying them to salubrious resorts like Swansea, Glasgow and Newcastle-upon-Tyne where other branches of Government now operate. There are coming, from universities in particular at this moment, a great number of eager graduates well trained in history and other relevant disciplines who would, I am sure, be perfectly happy to take on posts of responsibility in the Public Record Office, even at the expense of

1237
not playing golf every Saturday. This does seem to me to be one example of this unwillingness to be a flexible and unwillingness to see that if one chooses to put the Public Record Office in the outer suburbs, then certain consequences ought to follow, if the records are to be taken advantage of as they should be.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, first I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this question today. Secondly, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, on his maiden speech. I was most relieved because the noble Lord brings to this House a very special experience. His special experience is totally different from mine. His special experience is Whitehall and mine is Fleet Street. Nevertheless, I found myself relieved when I heard his speech and realised how much I agreed with him. I agreed even more with the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has just made.
There are two contrary pressures on the Government today. One is for wholesale revelation of information. The other is to conceal everything which an individual would wish not to be revealed about himself. The Wilson Report on Public Records touches both these problems. I am one of those who believe that secrecy—excessive and unnecessary secrecy—is one of the curses of British life. It certainly is for journalists. Journalists spend many hours trying to get information which a democracy should gladly give to its citizens but which is concealed by an over-zealous bureaucracy. The result of such frustration is that today some of my colleagues think that everything should be revealed—from debates inside the jury room to those in the Cabinet itself. I do not belong to that extreme faction, but I do look forward to the day when the Official Secrets Act is at last reformed and when we have a Freedom of Information Act.
In the meantime, some of the Government proposals for dealing with the Wilson Report are mildly helpful to those who try to find out what went on and not just what goes on. But the Government's White Paper is half-hearted, over-cautious, and too much concerned with saving appearances. All that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said about the poverty of this White Paper compared with the richness of the report, I agree with wholeheartedly. Of course, we must recognise that the Public Record Office does not exist primarily to provide material for social researchers or to furnish journalists with evidence of recent political ineptitude. Its main job is to provide for the historian and to keep for ever what posterity may need. I think that a nation is always enriched by knowing its true history. It is both a stimulus to emulate the good things it has done in the past and a warning against repeating ill-judged decisions and inglorious episodes.
The danger a sophisticated public fears today is not simply destroying records of error and miscalculation as a political cover-up. The danger that historians fear is of careless and ignorant destruction of historically important material. Sometimes both these fears and suspicions are groundless because actions which turn out to be disastrous were never committed in full to paper. When the inquiry is conducted into the events preceding the Falklands invasion, there may be gaps in the story occasioned by mere accident or sheer
1238
prudence. The White Paper, I am glad to say, comments that party political sensitivity is not a good reason for keeping a file closed.
We are fortunate in this country to have a Public Record Office which is a meticulous custodian. It is right that it should come within the ambit of the Lord Chancellor, who is a step away from the arena of party conflict. But operative responsibility for preserving the records lies with departmental record officers. We are dependent upon the skill, the integrity, and the proper methodology of their staffs. They can make mistakes. I believe that the selection and training of staff is most important—both of experienced people, as the report suggests, and of young historians.
The danger with every record department in whatever kind of organisation is that it is a useful dumping ground for members of the staff who have found the pace of ordinary life a little too fast for them, and these people may not be nature's archivists. Yet the departments are influenced in what they keep, and how they should keep it, by the PRO. The keeper actually has the statutory responsibility to supervise departmental arrangements and to transfer to the Public Record Office those things which he judges ought to be permanently preserved. The recommendations of the Wilson Committee imply that the PRO, the keeper, should now be more assertive and provide more written guidance to departmental officers, and help to educate staff by seminars and conferences. The PRO should, I suppose, discourage both departmental reticence and the retention of feeble items which are going to clutter up the files of the department if not the Public Record Office itself. A demand is made for a fresh initiative by the PRO so that the Lord Chancellor can be assured that records which can be opened without danger to national security or personal privacy are actually made available to public inspection.
The Government agree that there is scope for greater use of the power to open records before the expiry of 30 years. But they look with a cold eye upon the PRO becoming more assertive, partly because they question the wisdom of such a course and partly because a stronger role would require more resources, which would mean spending a little more money to employ a few more people. The Government want to employ fewer civil servants and to spend less money. It is more concerned with saving a few pounds than it is with achieving excellence. Even as it is, the committee find that there is a slight continuing shortfall in resources —mainly in manpower. Wherever there is a proposal in the Wilson Report that will cost a little money the Government say, "Not accepted".
There are, of course, some good things in the White Paper. The Government support the recommendation that application for the extended closure of records should be looked at more carefully and that much more information should be publicly available about those records not opened after 30 years. I am glad too that the Government accept that coherent and consistent information should be available to readers at the PRO, about the arrangements for inspection, and also about the various ways in which the normal access at 30 years can be varied.
I even have some sympathy with the Government's

1239
rejection of formal channels between researchers and selectors of records. Experts are not an infallible guide. Often they would like everything that pertains to their subject to be retained and may be indifferent to the needs of researchers in other subjects. I would have thought, as the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, suggested that informal consultations would be useful, and so would joint seminars. There is a case too against giving privileged access to accredited researchers and leaving such privilege to the discretion of the department.
What is difficult to accept, however, is the decision that a small sub-committee of Privy Councillors on the advisory committee should not he an independent source of advice to the Lord Chancellor when he receives appeals against withheld records. They could not judge, it is argued, because judgments require an intimate knowledge of current policies which they would not have. I do not find that very convincing, and I do hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor answers us he will expand on the White Paper and say why this most important suggestion has been turned down. The idea that the Secretary of the Cabinet should be there as an independent adviser is substituted. I have never thought that the people who occupy the position of Secretary of the Cabinet are frustrated publicists, publicists manqué, not since Tom Jones' day anyway.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: My Lords, I would like to speak, briefly, not only for myself, as an historian, but also on behalf of other historians who have been in touch with me and who are concerned by what seem to them the inadequacies of this White Paper. I need not emphasise the dependence of historians, all kinds of historians, on the public records. And not only historians. Those records are not merely of academic or conservationist interest, as the White Paper somewhat condescendingly seems to suggest. They are, as historians recognise, vital to ensure continuity of policy-making in the present. We have heard of the amount of paper which annually goes into the Public Record Office, but it is also fetched out of it. Every year, I understand, Government departments recall 23,000 files over 25 years old from the Public Record Office, apart from referring to old files which they have never sent there.
The White Paper is, of course, a reply to the report of the Wilson Committee. That report is in effect an examination of the practical working of the Public Record Act 1958, which in turn is the legislative consecration of the Grigg Report of 1954, the first review there has ever been of the problems created by the great variety, bulk and complexity of 20th century records. As such its arguments and its recommendations obviously deserve to be taken very seriously.
The Grigg Report dealt with two main problems: the problem of the selection of records to be preserved and the problem of access to records when they have been preserved. And it concluded by proposing a system which, in the words of the Wilson Committee, was good in itself, not impracticable, and capable of adaptation to changing needs and changing technology. This system recommended by the Grigg Report was
1240
accepted by the Government of the time and embodied in the Act of 1958. And yet 28 years later the Wilson Committee has shown with great weight of detailed evidence that in many crucial respects the system had been implemented neither in the spirit nor in the letter.
How have the Government responded to this report? They have indeed accepted some of the detailed recommendations. However, even here, when one reads the text of the White Paper, the number of firm, unequivocal acceptances turns out to be far fewer than the list in the annex suggests. Some acceptances are important; for example, the commitment to tackle the problem of machine reading of records. But on the two main issues of selection and access the crucial recommendations of the Wilson Report are rejected, and are rejected, I must say, in a somewhat offhand, even sometimes offensively dismissive manner, as if the officials who drafted the paper resented interference with their comfortable procedures.
Of these two issues, selection is even more important than access, for if records are destroyed, if they are not selected and are pulped, access becomes impossible anyway. So I shall confine my remarks to access. The section of the White Paper which deals with this matter is, to say the least, dispiriting. The three very busy members of the Wilson Committee spent months observing the selection system at work. They talked to paper keepers and clerks as well as to Permanent Secretaries. They issued a questionnaire to which 61 departments replied. All this research convinced them that the carefully integrated system proposed by the Grigg Committee had from its early days been eroded by administrative instruction and administrative lethargy, and that, with some honourable exceptions among departments, current arrangements are woefully haphazard.
The Wilson Report devotes 107 paragraphs to questions of selection for preservation, as well as providing an extensive summary of responses to their questionnaire. Yet what do we find in the White Paper?—eight complacently dismissive paragraphs which evade the main points. We are told that the Wilson Report conveys the general impression that there has been a substantial destruction of valuable material but that it produces no specific evidence to support that view; that it is not possible to say whether valuable material is being lost, but that on the basis of an undescribed and very limited test check of one part of the reviewing process, too much rather than too little is being preserved.
I understand that the Wilson Committee did not give the evidence of destruction which they had, for entirely responsible reasons which were communicated to the Permanent Secretary. Did the Government ask for such evidence when the White Paper was being prepared? More importantly, the committee concentrated their criticism on the haphazardness of the system, which could produce simultaneously both over-destruction and over-retention.
The White Paper makes no reference to the reports' careful discussion of what are called particular instance papers; that is, case papers of very great range and often very large bulk. Although computers have made possible the use of the data in such papers on a scale undreamed of 28 years ago, the Grigg Report was

1241
remarkably far sighted in its proposals for a special selection system for these papers.
The Wilson Report chronicles the sorry failure to implement these proposals, including the failure to use, as Grigg had recommended, the knowledge of experts. With this in mind the Wilson Report recommended the establishment of sector panels, taking as their example the Ministry of Defence historical panel which already exists, in order to mobilise advice from both Government sources and outside researches. These panels were judged crucial if departmental archives were to be handled in an informed manner instead of being left to the whims of perhaps inexpert managers. They could be highly cost-effective and would certainly not be formal quango bodies. Nevertheless, the White Paper dismisses them out of hand and proposes to rely instead on ad hoc links with the academic world.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, whose distinguished maiden speech I listened to with interest, is more sceptical about these sector panels. Well, I can only say that all the academics whom I have consulted think that the ad hoc links with the academic world have singularly failed in the past. Beneath, the past failures of the system lies the failure of the Government structure of responsibility for records. This structure is divided between three inter-dependent authorities: there is the Lord Chancellor, and his department and his advisory council; there is the Public Record Office; and there are the departments which generate records. Here, too, I shall confine myself to one point, the role of the Public Record Office, which is the pivot on which success depends.
It will never be easy to persuade busy departments to give proper priority and supervision to records work and for that reason the Public Records Act, accepting the reasoning of the Grigg Report, gave to the Public Record Office exceptionally strong statutory duties and power for "co-ordinating and supervising" departments' activities. However, it is clear from the Wilson Report that these powers have not been exercised. Therefore, that report recommended that the Public Record Office, on the basis of its existing statutory responsibility, should be more assertive. The White Paper, however, rejects this recommendation. In place of "co-ordination" and "supervision" it prefers the more anodyne terms "general guidance" and "detailed advice". If this view prevails, then the Wilson Report is likely to suffer the fate of the Grigg Report. The unpredictable treatment of departmental archives, the patronising tone of much of the White Paper, and its reluctance to face the massive evidence of the Wilson Report, suggests that this, indeed, is what will happen. It can only be prevented if the Government will reconsider their general attitude and their negative responses, especially on the role of the Public Record Office and on sector panels. Shortage of resources need be no bar, for if the will is there much improvement is possible within existing resources. The report shows that the cost of our public records system, considering its functions, is remarkably low.
As the Wilson Committee said, their report is not revolutionary; it does not ask for new legislation or radical reorganisation; nor does it involve difficult questions of policy. It is, however, of great importance to those who rely upon the documents of the past who are not only historians.
9.52 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Dorris: My Lords, I apologise to the House for my failure to put my name down on the list of speakers, and I undertake to be very brief. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for the opportunity to discuss a subject of high academic importance, and I am grateful, too, that the subject provided the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, with the occasion for his weighty and illuminating maiden speech.
I wish to make five comments on the White Paper. First, it seems to notice only the value of public records for their interest for professional and amateur researchers, and as part—to use Lord Bancroft's phrase—of the national heritage. But modern public records of interest to the social sciences are generated by the operations of Government and, before their transfer to the PRO, the Government are their chief user. It seems to me that explicit recognition of Government themselves as the chief user of recent records would help to clarify the proper basis of the assignment of resources to record-keeping within departments, and between departments and the Public Record Office.
Secondly, most rejections of the recommendations of the Wilson Report by the White Paper are on grounds of inability to find extra money. For the present, we must accept this as given, but the report estimated that in 1979–80 £11·7 million was spent on public record activities, and of this amount only £4·4 million went to the Public Record Office and ·7·3 million was accounted for by record-keeping within departments for the purposes of current administration. This is an essential part of the organisational work of any administrative body, and it underlines the fact that Government are the main user of records before they go to the PRO, and I think that this role of records is inadequately recognised in the White Paper.
Thirdly, the PRO has too few resources for its statutory work of co-ordinating and supervising the selection and preservation of public records. I do not think that the White Paper recognises that, by definition, the volume of its work must expand year by year, and therefore it is unrealistic to think that the real cost of the PRO can be held constant—unrealistic, that is, unless we are prepared to accept that its service to the community must be allowed to deteriorate year by year.
Fourthly, the White Paper accepts most of the report's recommendations designed to improve, extend or clarify access to public records by non-governmental users, and it contains a number of most welcome promises to investigate such matters as access to statute-barred records—for instance, the records of the Censuses of Production, some of which are well over 50 years old and, indeed, those of the first Census of Production would have been 70 years old now had it not been destroyed.
The White Paper's attitude to the question of extended closure, beyond the normal 30-year rule, on grounds of security or sensitivity, is not particularly helpful. The White Paper holds that decisions on extended closure should rest with the Lord Chancellor alone, seeking advice if necessary from the Secretary to the Cabinet. But the reason advanced, that the Government of the day can alone be in a position to evaluate the sensitivity of public records because they alone have an intimate knowledge of current policies

1243
and developments, seems rather puzzling in circumstances in which any particular instance of extended closure must relate to events that occurred more than 30 years previously, and sometimes to events of 50 or 100 years ago. It would seem reasonable that cases of extended closure ought to be subject to review by persons less burdened with responsibility for pressing current problems than busy Ministers and burdened civil servants. The suggestion in the report that those members of the Advisory Council on Public Records who are also privy councillors should act in such matters by means of providing advice to the Lord Chancellor seems sensible, and I hope may be reconsidered.
Finally, the particular instance papers (PIPs) mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dacre of Glanton, are of particular importance for social scientists and the comments in the White Paper on the National Health Service records I find disturbing, and suggestive of the possibility of mass destruction of data potentially valuable for historical demographers, medical historians and sociologists concerned with the history of social policy. The White Paper explains that the Government took advice from within the service and from doctors in reaching this conclusion. But the administrative detritus of one generation may be the treasure trove of the next, and it takes expert skill in disciplines to envisage what kind of records may yield valuable results in the future. It is for this reason that I should hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, that the possibility of the sector panels, as suggested in the valuable report of the Wilson Committee, might be reconsidered.
9.1 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, at this late hour I do not know how long I can usefully impose upon the patience of the House. The Question asks me to elaborate on the Government response to the Wilson Report. Clearly, before I do so I must congratulate our maiden speaker, who, with characteristic humility after a most distinguished career in the public service, has chosen to make his parliamentary debut on a Wednesday on an Unstarred Question. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, is a most important and valuable addition to the expertise and debating power of this House, and the quality of his speech today leads me to express the hope that I shall have many opportunities of listening to him again, and I hope that he will be able to choose many occasions when a fuller House will have the pleasure of listening to him.
I should also like to thank the other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, of whom each has been able to make an individual and different contribution based on personal experience—not least, the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Labour Front Bench, who has discharged these responsibilities before me and, therefore, knows them from the inside—and has enabled the debate to be as well informed and, if I may say so, a very well tempered affair.
I shall, of course, try to respond positively to the invitation of my noble friend Lord Teviot to elaborate on the Government's response. But in the nature of things this Question poses me a dilemma. I naturally and normally like to answer debates by replying to the speakers. This, of course, is a good thing because it
1244
gives them the assurance that I have actually been listening to what they say, which I should like to begin by assuring all speakers that I have been doing. But in this case I had no notion in advance of what they proposed to put to me, so the nature of the request compels me, in the present instance, to do more or less what is asked; that is, to elaborate rather than to reply. In this case:
"I'm a creature that moves
On predestinate grooves
Not a bus, not a bus, but a train".
Lord Teviot: My Lords, if I may come back on the word "elaborate", with due respect to my noble and learned friend, when it came to wording this Question, together with the White Paper, the report and everything else—and I, of course, want him to reply "elaborate" was totally the wrong word that I was advised to mention.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it was not my noble friend's draftmanship of which I was complaining. I not only share the difficulty of the noble and learned Lord on the Labour Front Bench of hearing what my noble friend said, but he said it at such terrific speed that it was quite impossible to take a note of it and he raised so many different subjects that I still remain:
"a creature that moves
On predestinate grooves".
However, if it is some comfort to him, I can assure him that his speech will be read in Hansard very carefully, and if it appears that there are particular subjects upon which I should elaborate still further, I shall take the opportunity of replying to him in greater detail. But I am afraid that I must take the general tenor of the debate, rather than allowing myself to be led down the several and very highly detailed paths into which I think he was rather tempted to seduce me.
There is one criticism of the Government's response that I really cannot accept. It has been made publicly. It may be that it is implicit in the Question and I think it was a misunderstanding which underlay most, if not all, of the criticisms which were levelled at it, in a speech, and that is its brevity. My noble friend Lord Beloff is, of course, perfectly correct in detecting the fact that I myself was not the author of it, which he said at the beginning. But that enables me to defend it with a greater sense of confidence.
Brevity is a virtue, and not a vice, and the Government response to what I believe is a definitive report on the subject is a compliment to the authors of the report and not a dismissive criticism. The report is so good that it speaks for itself. We are grateful to its authors and particularly to its chairman, like myself a veteran of the Test Ban Treaty negotiations of 1963, and for whom I have had the greatest admiration ever since. The Government responded only when they desired to qualify or differ from what the report said at very excellent length. In the main, we accept it.
With great respect to my noble friends Lord Dacre and Lord Beloff, I do not think acceptance can be quantified simply by totting up the recommendations at the end—and they seem to have come to very different totals, and totals different from that which I have been given in my brief—as to how many there were altogether, how many were accepted and how many were not.

1245
We accept the report. We accept its philosophy. It is our duty to translate it into practice, and, except where we differ—and we have said where we differ—we will do so. The report will, of course, not be put on the shelf, but it will remain on the shelves long after this immediate response has passed into oblivion by the gradual changes of policy which will be seen over the years. It is in fact by far the most important analysis of the problems affecting the maintenance of public records which has ever been undertaken in this country: more important, although less of a watershed, than the Grigg Report itself.
I must begin by asking one or two philosophical questions about the subject. What is the Public Record Office? What is it for? Why, of all apparently unsuitable people, is the Lord Chancellor responsible for it? He is not an archivist. He is a lawyer and he has other things to do. Why was the Wilson Committee so keen to keep the Lord Chancellor there? And why do Her Majesty's Government accept this recommendation? There are arguments for and against everything in the world. But unless one addresses one's mind to these fundamental questions one cannot effectively understand either the report or criticise the arguments in the Government's response to it. If I may say so, it has been a weakness of the critics that they have not really addressed their minds to this question.
The Public Record Office is, of course, a national archive. It is intended for all time. It goes back to the Norman Conquest. It contains the material for the compilation of Domesday Book. It has a copy, the 1225 copy, of Magna Carta. It contains Shakespeare's will and the first newspaper published in English on the continent of America. It is therefore a national treasure of immense importance. It contains reading rooms and research rooms, but it is not itself a reading room, it is a place where documents can be consulted. It is, of course, not the entire archive of the nation. Some are contained in parish registers, other parts are well known to be contained in the universities and museums. Some are in county records, and many in private collections.
We are going in due course to transfer to it the old Register Office records. But this would require legislation as matters stand; amendments to the Births and Deaths Registration and Marriage Acts. I am constantly transferring suitable items to local archives in various parts of the country as they are more appropriately housed there. It is, therefore, an archive intended for all time, and it is not a matter for day-to-day reference in itself for current events. In the ordinary course documents find their way there after 30 years.
Let me say at once that there must be, in the nature of things having regard to the figures given by the noble and learned Lord on the Labour Front Bench, cases where valuable material has been destroyed, and cases where unnecessary material has been kept. That must be so. I thought, if I may say so, that the speakers who referred with contempt to the figure of 40 miles added to the Public Record Office of shelf space since the Lord Chancellor assumed responsibility as a result of the 1958 Act, were doing the subject less than justice. The heart of the problem is the enormous bulk of material. The noble and learned Lord rightly
1246
said, of that 40 miles, that that represents about one document in a 100 the other 99 having disappeared in the course of destruction. That one document is like the epicene poem by Aldous Huxley where poor Noah has survived the deluge alone. It is quite obvious that, with that degree of selectivity to the selection, two conclusions inevitably follow. One is that the selection will not always be right, and the second is that the process of selection is beyond the power of the Lord Chancellor speaking personally, or indeed of the Public Record Office itself. It must be done departmentally or it will not be done at all.
It is of course true that mistakes will be made. I can only say that my own impression is that it has always been the case in this country—it may be one of the great virtues of the Public Record Office—that we have tended to keep too much rather than too little. I was astonished when I first visited Chancery Lane in my first term of office to learn that every writ issued in the King's courts from Edward I onwards had been kept until very recently, when over 100,000 would have to be kept every year in the Queen's Bench Division alone.
I was also astonished to be told that the great mass of medieaval material had never been researched by anybody. That is not a criticism of historians of the present or of the past. It is a fact of life, and I thought my noble friend Lord Beloff spoke a lot of good sense when he pointed out that the quantity of material is not necessarily what the historian needs or wants. The process of selection is difficult and there is an element of chance in what survives.
To contrast the figures I have given, I was myself an ancient historian at university, apart from having studied philosophy. My two periods were from the eighth century BC to about 400 BC; from the death of Caesar, which was in 43 BC, to the death of Trajan. The whole of the material that any historian of those two periods has could have been put into less than one year's product of what has survived into the Public Record Office, and we know that that figure is itself 1 per cent. of what once existed. That is the size of it, yet during the two periods T have mentioned some of the best books on history were written. Thucydides was written in that period, as was Tacitus, but I will not go on enumerating with the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, here, because I feel sure he would be able to expatriate considerably on that.
Since the Wilson Report we have caused a number of spot checks to be made. Four departments have been concerned so far, but more spot checks will be made as time goes on to keep the departments so far as possible on their toes. The four departments which have been spot checked so far have not yielded any evidence that matter is being selectively destroyed which should be kept, or that any serious destruction of valuable matter or matter which could now be seen to be valuable has taken place. I do not know what one noble Lord meant when he said that the committee itself had, for responsible reasons, suppressed evidence which it had. I do not think that has been the case since any Lord Chancellor has been responsible for the Public Record Office, but if there is evidence since 1958, I would certainly have it considered and looked into.
Having said that, I must turn slightly to the role of the Lord Chancellor in the matter. Obviously he

1247
cannot supervise it as an ordinary departmental Minister would supervise the work of his department; he is not the Minister of public records and, if he were, he would have to give up being Lord Chancellor altogether. As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, pointed out, he is really there because, in a sense, he is slightly removed from the hurly-burly. He is Speaker of your Lordships' House, so he is not subjected to perpetual harassment in another place; he is head of the judiciary; and he tries more or less, although he is a loyal member of his party and of the Cabinet (as I hope I am) rather to stand a little aloof from the day-to-day dust of conflict, except when he is positively driven into it by his political colleagues. So he is really there to defend the Public Record Office, which I hope he does, to supervise its work, and to try to see that the system works as well as may be. I have tried to do that conscientiously. I accept broadly the views about the availability of material, but I cannot myself look at every document. I have sought in various ways to improve the safeguards against undue secrecy, and I may or may not have been successful.
As for PIPs—particular instance papers—to which reference has been made, the reason why there is not more about that in the report is, again, that we agree with the Wilson recommendation on the need to review the handling of them and, resources permitting, we shall implement it. It was not discussed in the White Paper because there was nothing that we could usefully add to the long and interesting passages about it in the report.
Equally, I think that the critics have somewhat underplayed the role of the Public Record Office itself. I accept the emphasis that the Wilson Committee laid on the importance of an effective partnership between the Public Record Office and individual departments. It is our judgment that in broad terms the balance is correctly struck, but we have accepted the importance of improved written guidance to departments which is recommended—we think that it is required—and that the training needs of departmental records staff should be clearly identified and adequately met; though exactly how that can be done is not something which one could easily ensure, except by being a departmental Minister oneself.
The Government have also accepted that the part of getting the balance right depends on departments giving records work sufficient weight. The Principal Establishment Officers of all departments have, since the report, been reminded by the Secretary of the Cabinet of the need to give records work proper guidance from a senior level in the office. I think that perhaps some of the speakers have underestimated the role of the Public Record Office itself in relation to access. The Wilson Report drew attention to the Public Record Office's responsibilities in scrutinising, for instance, the closures under Section 5(1) and its responsibility in regard to retentions under Section 3(4), which are of equal importance, and to which reference has been made.
It is I believe inevitable that intelligence-related documents, on security grounds, should be retained in departments for a prolonged period of time. How long must depend upon the nature of the documents themselves. I cannot accept—and I am sorry to have to say this to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris—
1248
the theory that a few Privy Councillors in the advisory council should be the judge of this. I would rather be the judge of it myself, if I had to be, because as member of the Cabinet I must bear responsibility for that kind of disclosure.
I must say that I was more than disappointed at the scorn which was poured in the debate in another place on the role of the Secretary of the Cabinet as my adviser. I have been a Privy Councillor now for 25 years, I think (if 1956 makes it 25 years) or 26 years, and on any case when I have wanted advice about what is, or what ought to be, intelligence-related or sensitive, I have sought the advice of the Secretary of the Cabinet and he—the holder of that office from time to time—has on occasion actually sought my advice both before I was Lord Chancellor, and since then. There is I think nobody else who can do the job, and I can only say that as the best of judgment in the matter. I found him always accommodating, and the theory that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of the Cabinet will not find time for one another when something of importance turns up is, I believe, a mistaken one. We are both busy men, but we both have staff at our disposal, and we both exercise a certain amount of independent judgment when a matter demands individual attention.
I know that reference was made to the proposal for sector panels. I do not think perhaps that the committee c that the committee correctly estimated the resource demands of that. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, pointed out, the resource demands on the Public Record Office are a relatively small part of the cost of record-keeping activities in the Government as a whole. I am told (at least, if my memory is correct) that the current figures, which I think date from a little later than those that the noble Lord gave, are that about £18 million is spent every year on record keeping, of which £7 million comes from the Public Record Office.
I think that perhaps the Wilson Committee underestimated the resource demands on servicing these sector panels and the demands on departments, who would be the primary persons who would have to supply the information. I do not think that the figures concerned are negligible, but I can say that I have not myself the manpower or finance available within my budget either to fund or to service the panels without damaging the existing services to the public; that is to say, the making available of records for inspection and their proper preservation. For myself—although this is a personal judgment—having regard to the magnitude and volume of the task, I also doubt whether the system is workable in principle at all.
I would echo what was said by one speaker, that if the academic world has serious anxieties about the retention of records or their availability, the best course for them is to contact the Public Record Office at the appropriate level and, if the point can be crystalised and is of sufficient importance, to contact the Lord Chancellor himself, when he can pursue inquiries from within the Government machine. I can assure him that, so far as I am concerned, at my somewhat advanced age the theory of what may be disclosed about my present activities in 25 or 30 years' time is a matter I can view with relative equanimity, and I hope I shall be there to view it with equal equanimity when it happens.

1249
I would say again, at the late hour that we have reached, that I take the responsibilities imposed on me extremely seriously; that we have not simply shelved this report; that the White Paper is brief in turn only because it has concentrated on points on which we would desire to qualify the recommendations; that we accept its general analysis and approach to the matter, and that we will do our best during the years to carry it into practice. I must again express not only my congratulations to Lord Bancroft—and may I say that I agreed with almost everything he said—but also my thanks to my noble friend Lord Teviot for giving me the opportunity (an unusual one; I think the first I have had in two terms of office) to talk about this relatively little known feature in my public activities.