Lords Sitting of 29 November 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Energy Costs: Relief Measures for Industry
The Earl of Lauderdale: 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 they estimate to be the likely effect of their measures to give relief on energy costs.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, measures worth over £250 million were announced in the 1981 and 1982 Budgets to help industry with energy costs. They included action on gas, electricity and foundry coke prices. Over 100 of the largest electricity consumers have subscribed to the load management scheme introduced in the last Budget. Savings of up to 16 per cent. are possible and as a result many of the larger electricity consumers are paying little if anything more than they paid last year.
This month the British Gas Corporation has announced that the present price freeze on contracted gas supplies to industry will be extended for another nine months. And, following our review of electricity pricing policy, the Government have agreed with the electricity supply industry that the average level of electricity prices next year to all consumers should be the same as this year. These new measures have been warmly welcomed by industry.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that comprehensive and interesting reply. Would he not agree that this signifies two things? Does it not show, first of all, that the new freezes may well save industry something of the order of £100 million a year and, secondly, that the Government are not as obdurate as is sometimes thought but in fact listen to the public?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have never regarded myself as obdurate. However, the benefit of these latest measures which I have described is quite impossible to quantify, nor is it possible to put on them a figure of £100 million, as did my noble friend, as to a great extent they depend on the uptake by the energy concerns. However, energy costs are a significant proportion of many industries' costs and their reduction can only help to make them more competitive-something that we would all wish to see.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that there are some very important industries which, in order to remain viable, need electricity at rather below the average cost? Is he aware
1058
that the petrochemical industry and the aluminium smelting industry come within this category, and that the aluminium smelting industry is particularly important in terms of import substitution? While the assistance which he has now enumerated in terms is welcome, it is nevertheless not necessarily as magnanimous as his noble friend would wish to point out to the House. Can he say what assistance the Government are proposing to give to the industries I have mentioned?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, help over energy prices is always considered by all Governments on its merits and is given to particular industries at particular times when the need arises. So fas as electricity is concerned, as I said in my original Answer, special electricity load management arrangements are designed to help large users who in return can offer the electricity supply industry some control of their electricity demands. Over 100 of the largest electricity consumers are able to benefit from the latest load management arrangements, which can produce price reductions of up to 16 per cent. The noble Lord must surely agree that this is a great help.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, with regard to supplying industries with cheaper electricity, it comes back to the price at which the CEGB can buy coal from the NCB? Does that not come back to the question of the Plan for Coal being fulfilled on its productivity as well as on its investment side?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, large consumers of coal are, generally speaking, under long-term contractual arrangements, so it is not always the prima facie price that the various industries actually pay. However, I take my noble friend's point firmly to mind.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether or not this relief applies to the steel industry? If the Government are serious about the re-establishment of our industrial base, this would create a demand for British steel, and both the public and private sectors of British Steel could be assisted by the sort of thing that the noble Lord has adumbrated this afternoon. Can he say whether it applies to them?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure whether it applies to the steel industry directly, but certainly as a large user of electricity it would apply to them. However, the specific measure applying to the iron industry is of course the foundry coke subsidy, which has gone a long way to make the raw material of steel considerably cheaper.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any sign of agreement between the Coal Board and the Electricity Generating Board on the Coal Board's requirement that they pay something like 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. more on their next long-term contract?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid I have no up-to-date news on that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord make clear that the monies that are available are in fact to assist industry-and the House would of course agree that that is a good thing-but would he be good enough to answer my original supplementary question? Is he aware that there are very important industries in this country-important in terms of import substitution and important to the economy of this country at this stage-which need electricity at a slightly cheaper rate than the average? Two of them are the petrochemical industry and the aluminium smelting industry. Is the noble Lord able to say now whether or not the Government are making special provisions for those two industries?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not aware of any special provision, over and above the measures that I have outlined, relating to those two industries. However, my original answer to the noble Lord's supplementary still stands, that these matters are treated at the time that they are raised and on their merits.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, welcome though the concessions are, the paper industry and other high energy users are still having to pay more for their energy than industrialists in America and indeed in some parts of Europe?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. Ever since there has been a Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Boardman, I have taken this matter very much to heart.
The Earl of Lauderdale: May I ask my noble friend—
Noble Lords: No!
The Earl of Lauderdale: A final point, my Lords. Would my noble friend say whether the Coal Board, the Gas Corporation and the CEGB are still working on long-range marginal replacement costs as the basis of their decisions on prices?
Lord Skelmersdale: Not without notice, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the concessions which he has repeated this afternoon and which, as he said, were announced in the Budget are in the case of industry still far short of the artificial increases imposed by the Government at 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation? Would he agree that there is still a long way to go before prices are reduced to those which are termed to be within the control of market forces?
Lord Skelmersdale: I assume that loaded questions permit loaded answers, my Lords. The 10 per cent. to which the noble Lord referred was specifically for the gas industry for domestic prices, which has now worked its way through, for which we are all grateful. The reason for it, of course, was that the party opposite sought, rather unsuccessfully, to buy votes by this rather strange mechanism.

Broadcasting of Parliament
2.44 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: 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 initiate early action to instruct the BBC to revert to the broadcasting of "Yesterday in Parliament" separately from the "Today" programme on weekday mornings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the BBC has editorial responsibility for all its programmes, including its programmes covering parliamentary proceedings. The recent change in the format of "Yesterday in Parliament" and its inclusion as an item in the "Today" programme is, therefore, a matter within its discretion. I understand that the BBC has announced that it intends the new arrangements to run as an experiment for six months, after which they will be reviewed. The corporation will, no doubt, take the views of the noble Lords into consideration in its review of the matter.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the "Today" programme on the whole has a reputation quite as much for entertaining as for informing? Would he agree that there have been cases where, on the whole, frivolous aspects of the affairs of Parliament have been conveyed to a rather greater extent than one would hope? As Clause 13(2) of the Charter says:
"The Corporation shall broadcast an impartial account day to day prepared by professional reporters",
would he agree that professional reporters are associated with "Today in Parliament" and were associated with "Yesterday in Parliament", while the preparers of the "Today" programme are not quite in the same category?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think it is not incumbent on Ministers at the Home Office to pronounce their personal views on the content or standards of work of individual people working within the BBC. I would accept that the extract which my noble friend gave from Clause 13(2) of the Licence is correct, and I would add that that undertaking is currently fulfilled by the corporation by broadcasting the programme "Today in Parliament" each night at 11.30.
Lord Byers: My Lords, when broadcasting was first introduced into the House, it is my recollection that there was a great deal of consultation between the broadcasting authorities and Members of this House and another place. Is it not right that there should be the same sort of consultation before the whole format is changed, and could we not have consultations at least at the end of the experiment?
Lord Elton: As to the existing machinery, my Lords, I understand that the Sound Broadcasting Committee of your Lordships' House exists solely to consider questions arising out of the resolution of the House of

1061
28th July 1977. That resolution was concerned only with the provision and use of a sound signal and the resultant archive tapes. I believe that consideration of such matters as "Yesterday in Parliament" are, therefore, strictly beyond the terms of reference of that committee, but it is, of course, a matter for that committee to interpret its own terms of reference.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that now that the "Today in Parliament" programme is so late it has a listening public of only 100,000, whereas the "Yesterday in Parliament" programme in the morning had 1 million listeners? It is therefore particularly sad that that programme should have been cut by 40 per cent. If cuts have to be made, it is understandable that priority is given to major items in the House of Commons, and very little said by Back-Benchers in another place or said in this House is given any space at all. Does my noble friend consider that that is a proper and balanced view of the work of Parliament as a whole?
Lord Elton: As I said earlier, my Lords, this is a policy which the corporation is running experimentally for six months. They will doubtless have regard both to the numbers of the audience and to the views of the audience when they come to review their policy; and the trenchant things which my noble friends and others have said will doubtless form part of the material they consider.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not the case that, in the view of most Members of both Houses who have heard the new programme in the mornings, six months is a quite unnecessarily long experimental period in that it is already clear, after the first two or three weeks, that it is not as good as what went before it?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it really is not for me to answer to the brief of the corporation, but I should think that their assessment of whether or not the noble Lord's view was correct would, in some measure, be guided by the listening figures which result from the change in policy.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, to whom will representations be made, either at the end of six months or sooner, in view of the feeling on this matter? Is there any machinery of communication? In this matter the BBC works, or should be working, harmoniously with Parliament; it benefits Parliament in the broadcast of our actual voices, I suppose, but there is a give and take element, is there not? May I ask the Minister to say what the machinery is, and, if none exists, should not some such machinery of consultation be created?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to the point about the existing machinery, the noble and learned Lord has just been using it. I do not not doubt that everything that he says will be listened to by the editor of the programme and drawn to the attention of the policy formulators in the corporation. As to the question of a more elaborate form of consultation, I should think that I ought to take notice of that and consider it further.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, could it be arranged for some of the officials responsible for the programmes of the BBC to be made Members of your Lordships' House? Then there would be a possibility, even a probability, that our recordings and deliberations would receive some publicity.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is within my own experience of watching the process of ennoblement that it rarely makes people more biddable.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would not my noble friend the Minister agree that this subject is really a matter for joint consultation between your Lordships' House and the other place, and that, in view of the form of observation made just now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, a question of urgency is involved?
Lord EltonMy Lords, I shall take careful note of everything that is said in these exchanges and bring them to the notice of my right honourable friend.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, in view of the disquiet there, the Speaker in another place has referred the whole of the question to the broadcasting committee of another place? If the terms of reference of our Broadcasting Committee are too narrow for representations to be accepted, what is the right procedure in order to change the terms of reference, so that we can first consider the matter in this House, and then consult another place, in order to form a joint view about it?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to what goes on in another place, I cannot have a view on that. As to what goes on in this place, I say to my noble friend what I have said to others of your Lordships—that I shall take careful note of the views here expressed and, if it appears appropriate, I shall then write to my noble friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that the whole point is simply that when the programme was established it was the result of consultation and co-operation between both Houses of Parliament and the BBC? The BBC has decided unilaterally to make a dramatic change. Ought it not to be pointed out to the BBC that when it is making a change of this character it should adhere to the principle on which the programme was established?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is asking me whether we cannot impose editorial policy upon the BBC—
Several noble Lords: Oh, oh!
Lord Elton: If I am wrong I shall apologise-but the answer to what I understand to be the noble Lord's question would obviously be, No. If the noble Lord is anxious that his remarks should be taken elsewhere, in another sense, I can only say that not only shall I bring the content of these exchanges to the notice of my right honourable friend, but I shall see that they are asterisked, as it were, in the programme of consultation involving the corporation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is not the problem that in another place there is a procedure that can be followed and a reference can be made by the Speaker, whereas, judging from what the noble Lord has said, there is no clear comparable procedure in this House? Therefore, will the noble Lord, in consultation with the noble Baroness, consider referring this matter to the appropriate committee of this House so that, if necessary. we can evolve our own procedure?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have had a long run around this Question. Of course, I have listened with great care to all the points that have been raised. Before the Question I took advice as to what is the correct procedure in this House, and my noble friend gave the answer in reply to another noble Lord who asked a question. However, in view of what has been said, I should like to take further advice on the matter and see what would be the correct way to proceed.

The Western Isles IDP: Magazine Article
2.54 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: 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 have seen the remarks of the chairman of the Association of Nature Conservationists that the Western Isles Integrated Development Programme was "an ill-conceived poisonous little plan" and "is a recipe for Britain's first ever conservation disaster of world wide significance," and if so, what they intend to do to counter this damaging propaganda.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the remarks to which the noble Lord refers appear in an article by the general secretary of the British Association of Nature Conservationists, in the Autumn 1982 edition of ECOS, that association's journal. The article contains a number of ill-founded allegations reflecting an inability, or an unwillingness, to understand what work is envisaged under the Western Isles IDP. I am sure that those who care about the Western Isles and its environment, and who have taken the trouble to study the programme, will appreciate the damage that comments of this nature can cause, not least in provoking a backlash against the general aims of nature conservation. Responsible nature conservationists will, I am sure, wish to dissociate themselves from this article.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, but it does not really answer the Question. Has the department concerned done anything about the propaganda, or is it, as the noble Lord said, just leaving it to the common sense of people who would ignore the conservation society's remarks? Does the noble Lord know whether the department concerned has done anything about two schemes in the machair areas, which have been held up by the Nature Conservancy? Can he make any reply to the fact that the schemes are being held up? How long will it be before the department concerned is likely to give a reply?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as I understand it, the department's view is that in regard to the article, with its ill-founded comments, we had best let the matter rest. With regard to the two detailed schemes about which the noble Lord asked me, I am afraid that, without notice, I am unable to give an answer, but I shall make inquiries about them, and, if I may, write to him.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why a programme which is being backed by Her Majesty's Government, which is receiving excellent grants from the EEC, and which is approved by everybody, should suddenly be attacked in this way, doing much harm to the work and delaying things very badly indeed? I should like the noble Lord to say what he is really going to do about it, because it is just no good saying, "We aren't going to do anything"; and it is most important that the kind of rubbish that it being written should be stopped.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for her robust support for this very important integrated development programme for the Western Isles which, as she rightly pointed out, has received the wholehearted support of the Scottish Office. I shall take advice on what steps—if any further steps are needed—the department could take to counter the propaganda. However, so far as I am aware, there has been no delay at all to the scheme as a result of the article referred to in the Question of the noble Lord.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I do not think it probable that there is a delay, but if one is in, say, South Uist, or any of the islands that would benefit from the scheme, one would think twice before going into it when this kind of propaganda is being issued. In a debate on the matter a few weeks ago my noble friend Lord Melchett mentioned the frustration that is being felt, and it is this frustration that delays things. I think that the noble Lord knows something about agriculture and, if I may, I should like to put to him a point regarding the effects of delay. One has to plan far ahead. If one puts forward a scheme to reseed a machair area and then perhaps keeps one's lambs to feed in the spring, only to find that the scheme is delayed, one then has a lot of lambs and no pasture.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, none of the improvements that are provided for in the plan is new. He will be aware, and I am sure your Lordships will be aware, that Government assistance for plans of this kind has been available for many years, though we would admit on not quite such attractive terms.

Penal Establishments: Health and Safety Measures
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: 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 progress has been made in the field of health and safety in

1065
penal establishments, especially relating to polyurethane mattresses and smoke masks.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government give great emphasis to health and safety matters of all kinds in penal establishments. We have issued smoke protection hoods to all closed cellular establishments, for use by prison officers in rescuing prisoners and others from smoke-filled cells. We are continuing our search for a more fire retardant prison mattress, and recent research leads us to be hopeful of success.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether I heard correctly when he referred to "hoods"? If that is so, what make and what type of hoods are being used? Furthermore, in view of the severe pressures of overcrowding in our prisons, may I ask whether all penal establishments have a fire procedure, so that inmates and prison officers know where to go should there be a fire; and how often do fire drills take place?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the mask is the Draeger Parat, produced by Draeger Safety Limited. There are fire drills in all prison establishments. I could not tell the noble Baroness with what frequency they are put into action, because it will vary from case to case. But this is an aspect of the inspections carried out by Her Majesty's Inspectorate, the reports of which are published. The noble Baroness may have noticed that occasionally this is the subject of comment by the inspectorate, so she may be confident that these matters are taken care of.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can assist us further on the remark he made about the mattresses. I think I am right in understanding him to say that research is being carried out into something which is not so inflammable, but is it not true that on the market at the moment there are a great many mattresses which one can buy which are not inflammable? How long a period is this research going to take, and would it not be better, in the meantime, to produce a mattress which is not made of polyurethane and put that to use?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there are at present on the market no mattresses suitable for use in prisons by reason of their non-combustibility. There are a lot of safer mattresses if the people who use them are merely going to drop a lighted cigarette or match on the cover, but prisoners who wish to set fire to their mattresses can tear them apart, and it is the content which also has to be treated. As to the research, I am confident within reasonable limits that tenders will be invited next month for a new specification now in preparation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in furtherance of the point raised by the noble Baroness, is the noble Lord aware that, in industry, health and safety is one of the finest examples of joint co-operation between management and skilled artisans and that much has come out of it; and, with particular regard to emergencies, for which drills are practised because of this co-operation, would
1066
it not be wise, not to say even prudent, that this sort of co-operation should exist in penal establishments and other places of a similar character?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we have a staff of six safety officers at the national headquarters and a safety committee at every prison establishment. I think that that is just as good as what goes on in industry.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while appreciating the points made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord's response to them, would the noble Lord not agree that the greatest danger to health and safety in prisons is the appalling overcrowding, leading to grossly unhygienic conditions and to frustration, in turn leading to violence? Will the Government reconsider their refusal to propose an amnesty to many categories of non-violent prisoner in order to relieve this impossible situation?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I will not weary your Lordships with a long, detailed list of what we are doing about increasing the provision for the prison service and improving conditions there, in a very difficult situation. But, no, my Lords, we do not think it is the function of Government to override the decisions of the Judiciary in order to unload the prisons from time to time. There is provision to do this in an emergency, and that is all it is provided for.
Lord Hale: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that the Judiciary has been fully occupied for a considerable time in overriding its own decisions and in setting up committees to define words and to investigate? There is in fact a very interesting discussion set down for next week on this matter. Will he also remember that the work he is doing in connection with the prison service also wants tying up with many other forms of public activity, including, for example, hospitals? Will he bear in mind that the use of polyurethane has been exposed as terribly dangerous, and that the necessity for an adequate substitute in many spheres of activity is growing more and more urgent?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I think it was a little wide of that on the Order Paper. As to the second, as I have already said, we have put a great deal of urgent effort into finding alternative materials, and we expect to put specifications out to tender within the next month.

The GATT Ministerial Meeting
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment this afternoon my noble friend Lord Cockfield will, with the leave of the House, be making a Statement on the GATT Ministerial Meeting.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lyell: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cockfield, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision in respect of the registration of small

1067
ships and the appointment of registrars at ports. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Highland Region (Banavie Level Crossing) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.
Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

British Nationality (Falklands Islands) Amendment Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In view of what happened to the amendment that I moved to the British Nationality Bill on 7th October 1981, I hope I shall receive support from noble Lords on all sides of the House, because your Lordships may remember that the voting then was 90–90. It was a tie, but this time I hope it will be unanimous.
I should like to thank Lord Bruce of Donington for kindly withdrawing his Bill, because I think it had one regrettable provision in it (which I think I mentioned to him when I spoke to him, but I am still very grateful to him for not continuing with his Bill) which would have constituted a loophole for people all over the world wanting to enter the islands. For example, if a child was born in the Falklands of Argentine parents, he could apply for British nationality after the age of 10 so long as he had not been absent from the Falklands for more than 90 days at any one time in his 10 years.
In 1592 Captain John Davis discovered the islands uninhabited. He arrived on a ship called "Desire", which led to the island motto "Desire the Right". Since 1766 the islands have been persistently inhabited by Britons, and were peaceful and prosperous under British administration. The islands are largely self-governing. The Legislature is elected. In 1690 there was the first recorded landing, by Captain Strong of the "Welfare", who called the islands after the third Viscount Falkland, who was then a Treasurer of the Navy and later First Lord of the Admiralty. In 1774 the garrison withdrew. However, British sovereignty was not allowed to lapse, because it was maintained by what was then the custom of a lead plaque which was left behind declaring the Falkland Islands to be the sole property of King George III. Then it became a base for British sealing and whaling activities.
1068
Its economy is dependent on farming, which yields about £3 million a year; and stamps account for about 20 per cent. of the islands' economy. The annual income of the islanders was about £1,400 a head in 1980. It has a well-equipped hospital, with 27 beds, three doctors and 10 nurses, and a flying doctor service. As to education, there are well qualified teachers in primary and secondary schools; and the staff/pupil ratio is very high, 1 to 11 pupils. The standard of life, therefore, has not been neglected. I should like to quote, if I may, from Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada:
"We are supporters of the British. We have been supporters of the British from the beginning and we see no wavering in that, more as a matter of principle than anything else. We just do not want boundaries to be changed by force. If it improves understanding of the Government's position, I am prepared to correct the statement and say that we are 100 per cent. behind the British".
That appeared to be the view of a great many Commonwealth countries.
I should like, if I may, to mention Article 24 (as amended by Article 13 of the Adaptation Decision), by which the United Kingdom was added to the member states of the EEC. Specified in that article as one of the countries and territories to be added to the list, in Annex IV to the EEC Treaty, as associate members was the Falkland Islands and Dependencies. I mention this particularly because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, was interested in the question of Monserrat. Monserrat, too, are included in this list so that they (as is Gibraltar) are associated members of the EEC. I think that one must remember the magnificent help given during the world wars. In the First World War £50,000 was provided in interest-free loans, as well as monies to the Red Cross and St. Dunstan's. In this case, the petition has been signed by over 1,000 Falklanders. We cannot, I suggest, let them down.
I should like to refer to a letter in The Times written by Mr. George Edinger, a man who started his career as a reporter in the Argentine. Written from the Reform Club, the letter said:
"I can assure … one and all that it will not contribute to friendship between us and any American-Latin country one jot to deliver up the Falkland Islands in the way we delivered up the Czechs to Hitler. These people"—
the Argentinians—
"respect armed strength. By armed strength they won their liberty from Spain and they won their land from the luckless Indians … They are not negotiators".
I suggest that it is our duty to give them what they are asking for—and that is British nationality.
Up to now I have spoken of them particularly. Now I should like to mention something which is beneficial to this country. In World War I Port Stanley provided bunkering facilities for the reinforcement of Royal Navy squadrons. In World War II the Falkland Islands were available as a naval base for the South Atlantic operations, including the Battle of the River Plate. I have just come back from Plymouth and I remember that several of the ships, including HMS "Exeter", would never have got back to this country had it not been for the help they were given in the Falklands. During the Second World War there was a British Army garrison over 1,000 strong stationed there.
Apart from their position as the strategic gateway to the Antarctic, the Falklands are strategically placed in

1069
the event of any sabotage in peace or war to the Panama Canal. That or any other such incident would result in the use of the Cape Horn route for shipping moving between the Pacific and the Atlantic. The current defence potentials are now being developed on the islands and they are faced with a continual military threat from Argentina. My Lords, I hope I have given, from the point of view of the Falklands and that of the United Kingdom, an idea of the very great value of these islands for future strategy. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Vickers.)
3.17 p.m.

The GATT Ministerial Meeting
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, with permission, I will make a Statement about the Ministerial Meeting of the GATT at Geneva which concluded its proceedings this morning at 5 a.m. A copy of the declaration and decisions of the meeting will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.
The Ministerial Meeting was the first for nine years and was attended by over 80 signatories which account for over 90 per cent. of world trade. The purpose of the meeting was not to revise or amend the general agreement itself but to re-affirm support for existing obligations and to seek agreement on the examination of certain important issues which might form the basis of future negotiations.
After five and a half days and nights of negotiation, the meeting adopted by consensus a document which constitutes a realistic commitment by the signatories to maintain the existing obligations of the GATT which have underpinned the open trading system since the war and strengthen their observance in the future. The document does not prevent contracting parties adopting safeguard measures under the GATT or measures with a similar effect.
In particular the document provides for:—a study covering agricultural trade issues in their entirety; a study of the problems of international trade in services; a study to cover ways and means of achieving the acceptance by newly-industrialised countries of increased acceptance by them of obligations under the GATT and of an increase of trade with them; an improved procedure for the settlement of disputes; and a study of how best to combat trade in counterfeit goods.
Throughout the meeting, the countries of the European Community consistently emphasised the need for conclusions and decisions to be expressed in realistic terms. For this reason, the European Community entered a reserve on a proposal to link the study of agricultural trade with a wide commitment to renegotiate the fundamental structure of this trade. The European Community, as did a number of other signatories, made certain other interpretative declarations.
Even with these reservations, the outcome of the negotiations—undertaken against the background of a world recession—must be regarded as an encouraging recommitment to the maintenance of the open trading system on which the prosperity of the United
1070
Kingdom as a great exporting nation depends and has helped to focus the attention of the world on the consequences of a breakdown of this system. It was, I think, recognised that the United Kingdom through the European Community made a full and constructive contribution to this outcome without, however, compromising its right to safeguard its essential national interests.
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.19 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will wish to thank the noble Lord for the Statement he has just made, a copy of which reached me precisely nine minutes ago. This short time limit does not really permit those in opposition adequate opportunity to study the content of it, and I hope that on the next occasion when we have a fairly complex Statement adequate time will be given to the Opposition and to others interested so that we can respond to the Statement in a constructive manner. Having said that, I sympathise very sincerely with the personal position of the noble Lord. It is quite clear from what he has said that the negotiations upon which he has been engaged have been very arduous, and I can imagine that he must be very tired after sitting up for long periods of the night—I do not know whether the rooms were smoke-filled. We all sincerely appreciate the endeavours that the noble Lord must have made.
Regarding the Statement, once again it is an unsatisfactory feature that the document upon which the noble Lord set such great store is not available at the same time as the Statement and that one has therefore had no opportunity of examining it. It is a little unclear from the Statement whether the contents of the document are going to be worth discussing at all, because it comprises some four studies and a statement of improved procedure. This does not really amount to very much and makes it very difficult to justify the remark in the Statement that it must be regarded as an encouraging recommitment to the maintenance of the open trading system. We have heard these generalities before.
I have some questions to ask the noble Lord. I am sorry that I could not give him notice of them because I have only had very short notice myself. Can he tell the House how long it is going to take to complete these studies to which he has referred? We have a study covering agricultural trade issues, a study of the problems of the international trade in services, a study to cover ways and means of achieving the acceptance by newly-industrialised countries of the existing obligations under the GATT, and so on. Then we have a study of how best to combat trade in counterfeit goods.
Has the noble Lord any idea how long it is going to take these studies to materialise? There have been plenty of studies over the years. Select Committees of your Lordships' House have studied these matters over a long time. How much more study is necessary among a group of people who presumably have their own experts in all these fields and have had for many years, or is it the case that the term, "these matters have been remitted for study", is merely another bromide in order to cover up the fact that no progress was made at all?

1071
The noble Lord in this Statement probably does himself less than justice. In the light of his previously uttered remarks in this House, many of us on this side are quite convinced that he is doing his very best within his participation in GATT to safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom. This would appear on the face of it to be very little more than a cover-up for what, in the event, has turned into almost a complete failure.
I say "almost" because there may have been some residual benefits. After all, for the various Ministers to meet occasionally on convivial terms and discuss their problems with one another probably brings some slight progress. It will also have given the noble Lord personally the opportunity of meeting many of his opposite numbers whom he may not have met before. All these matters are of advantage to the United Kingdom. We shall need a far more comprehensive Statement than this one and an indication of far more constructive action and intention before we can ever regard a Statement of this kind with the degree of equanimity which its tone expresses.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Secretary of State for making this Statement this afternoon. It is clear from what he said that a few positive decisions were reached; but we on these Benches have been discouraged during the past week to hear the rumours of deadlock and of the search for a facesaving compromise. One cannot help wondering whether the Secretary of State is perhaps a little too complacent about the result of this conference. I wonder whether he can say with confidence that the protectionist advance will be held up as a result of it.
Will any protectionist obstacles disappear as a result? I should like to ask the noble Lord what happened about the Australian proposal for a cease-fire so far as protectionist measures are concerned? Was that rejected out of hand? Then I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us about the extent of the discussion on safeguards. Must we expect more and more bilateral agreements outside the GATT? Were textiles discussed in this context? Did the EEC, as reported, refuse any modification of the EEC stance on agricultural export subsidies? What does the noble Lord think will be the attitude of the United States on this particular subject in the immediate future?
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he agrees with the expert opinion that was given to the conference, that protectionism is now endangering the prospects of a medium-term economic recovery because developing countries with liquidity problems need an expansion of world trade to service new borrowings.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I am extremely sorry about the very short notice that was given of the Statement, but the reason, quite simply, was that as I indicated at the beginning of the Statement, the discussions did not conclude until 5 a.m. this morning. Our negotiating team did not arrive back in London until 2 p.m. this afternoon. One therefore faces a
1072
considerable dilemma: either one gives the House no information until tomorrow—in which event one is naturally criticised on that score—or one gives what information can be given immediately despite the shortage of notice. We felt that, on the whole, the latter was the better course to take.
The document which has been agreed is an extremely lengthy one. I suggest that it would be best for noble Lords to study it in detail and decide to what extent it answers the various anxieties that they have expressed. If I may pick up one or two of the points that were made, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked how long the studies would take. That is a question that I cannot answer at this stage. There are over 80 signatories to the GATT, and in the end what one is trying to do is to take them all along together to see what improvements can be made in the system. The noble Lord suggested that the conference was in fact almost a complete failure, and he questioned whether sufficient steps had been taken to safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom.
In fact, the position is that, as I indicated in the Statement, this conference was not intended to renegotiate to the GATT itself. What it was intended to do was to reaffirm the general confidence of the world as a whole in the value of an open, liberal trading system of the kind that we have had over the past 30 years. The signatories did in fact reaffirm their faith in such a régime. That in itself is important, I think, in an area in which, as both noble Lords said, there is increasing evidence of people moving down into protectionist paths. At the same time we have ensured—and I give the noble Lord an assurance on this—that it is still open to us to take safeguarding measures in the case of industries such as textiles and footwear and also motorcars and consumer electronics, where our home industry might be seriously affected by a surge of imports from low-cost producers. Our right to take these measures still remains.
Thirdly, we have, with great difficulty I may say—and it is a considerable tribute to our negotiators—secured agreement on studies which will widen the field of international trade. It is not good enough merely to look at those instances where the freedom of trade is being eroded. One also needs to look at those instances where it may be possible to widen the opportunities of liberalising trade. The two directions which are most important here are the services, in which of course this country has a very big stake, and also persuading the newly industrialised countries gradually to assume, not just for our benefit but for the benefit also of the least developed countries, the obligations of the GATT agreements themselves and to progressively open up their own markets. This is a matter on which I spoke at some length in your Lordships' House on 20th October, so there are quite positive advances there.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, touched upon the question of safeguards. The document which is issued makes significant improvements in terms of what is known as "transparency", so that there is now a new agreement on the way that safeguards should be approached. One would hope that the effect of this would be that safeguards will be invoked only in those cases where there is a strong case for so doing.
The noble Lord asked a number of specific questions about the attitude of other countries and

1073
instanced in particular the Australian proposal for a "ceasefire", as it has been called. This proposal was not adopted specifically. What matters is to try to get a consensus on actually what you are going to do, rather than merely have general statements of this kind. There is also the point that there are many countries which have very high tariffs—Australia is an example—where progress needs to be seen in the direction of reducing those tariffs.
He also inquired about the attitude of the United States and of the EEC in relation to export subsidies. There has been an agreement, and both the EEC and the United States have gone along with this, that there should be a study into the full range of agriculture. Where the difference has come, and where the EEC has put in a reservation, concerns what happens after the study is completed. So far as the EEC is concerned, that is still an open question. The EEC is not prepared to commit itself to negotiations at this stage.
I hope that I have answered the major points which were raised, but I would suggest that the right thing now is for noble Lords to study this document which, as I say, is a long and complex one, as soon as we are able to put it into the Library. But I do feel, and I should like to emphasise this, that this meeting represents a significant measure of progress. It is not as much progress as we would like to have seen, but it is progress and it is progress in the right direction.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people outside, and particularly in the industrial and commercial worlds, have watched with great admiration the struggle which his negotiating team, and notably his very able Minister of State Mr. Peter Rees, have fought over these last few days to preserve the main free trade structure of the GATT, on which the interests in this country so much depend? Is he also aware that many people will look with gratitude on the outcome of the considerable measure of success achieved in that way, despite the rising tide of protectionism which has been generated by the world recession?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his comments. What he says, of course, is entirely true. We are trying to walk along a very difficult path in maintaining an open and liberal trading system on the one hand, while at the same time protecting the interests of our domestic industry where those interests come under unfair and severe pressure. I am most grateful to him for the tribute he has paid to my honourable and learned friend Mr. Peter Rees and the other members of the team, who have not only made a notable contribution to the success of the conference but have also upheld the interests of this country in a very successful manner.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we will of course study the document fully, as the Secretary of State advises. In the meantime, could he amplify a little something he said in his first answer? He said that of all the studies one of the two most important was that concerning international trade in services. The truth of that is surely obvious to a country, an increasing percentage of whose exports per year are invisible or services. Would the Secretary of State be able to tell us anything now about how he intends to make sure that this
1074
country takes a very active part in that study and puts on to the job officials, or whoever, who are fully capable of seeing not only the possible advantages to Britain in the increased regulation of this trade but also the possible pitfalls?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he says. We do in fact recognise the great importance of services and took a leading part in ensuring that agreement was reached upon this study. When I was in the United States I discussed this issue with the American Administration and we make common cause on it. It was largely our efforts and those of the American Administration which produced the present result. We intend following it up with vigour.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I congratulate my noble friend on the success that has been achieved, especially bearing in mind the existence of the prophets of doom so far as the imminent breakdown of GATT is concerned? Would he go a little further in the answer he has just given and perhaps tell us what the composition of the personnel engaging in these studies is to be? Will the studies be carried out by the secretariat of GATT or will they be conducted by special bodies to be appointed?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, my noble friend raises a point of importance. I can assure him that we will watch the method of carrying out these studies very carefully. We will ensure that the United Kingdom plays an active part and makes an important contribution; but, as regards the exact administrative measures to be taken, that is a matter on which agreement still has to be reached.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Secretary of State agree that the weakness of the GATT is that the reservations made by this country, and by all the other 80 signatories, to safeguard their own national interest should trade require it, are such, because a subjective judgment is taken of those national interests, that if they all implemented those reservations we would really be in a protectionist world, despite the GATT, and was no progress made on reducing the reservations?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we live in a hard world in which the practical issues need to be borne in mind throughout. Where we, or other people, find a domestic industry very seriously threatened by a rising tide of imports, it is almost impossible to justify taking no action. The important point is to ensure that action of that kind—safeguard action, as it is known under the terms of the GATT; and there is specific provision in the GATT itself, under Article 19, for such action—should be taken only where the facts so demand, where the situation is sufficiently serious to justify the action taken. The fact that the signatories to GATT agreed on a general declaration, that it was in the interests of all of us to maintain a liberal open trading system, represents a matter of very great significance.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend a few questions and whether he

1075
would give us a bit more—I think it is all we can expect from him at this time, so close to the meeting—about his general impressions of the meeting and of what came out of it. First, on the trade in services, does he envisage, for instance, an agreement being arrived at within the Community on the whole question of free trade in services, so that the Community will be enabled in this aspect of the study to speak with one voice? Secondly, where the newly industrialised countries are concerned, was there general agreement among the NICs themselves that they enter this study with a real will to bring something out of it?
Thirdly, on the question of trade in agricultural goods, I perfectly accept, of course, what my noble friend said, in that the EEC did not feel in any way able to commit itself to what might flow from the results of the study. But did he get the impression that the EEC as a whole, including France, is now ready to enter into an international study on trade in agricultural products and, in particular, on the subsidies on trade in agricultural products with the rest of the world outside the EEC? Finally, does my noble friend feel, generally speaking—which we all hope he does—that this ministerial meeting ended with a resolve to hold fast to the principles of free trade and not to increase the danger, which a possibly increasing recession is likely to enforce upon the world, of sliding inexorably into a greater degree of protectionism, with every country saying that it has its own interests to protect?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, my noble friend will be well aware that, with 87 countries represented at an international conference, there will be a wide divergence of views on a number of matters and that not everybody will take the same view as other people on separate issues. So far as the procedures in the European Community are concerned—and my noble friend raised specifically the case of services—the method of procedure which has always been adopted is for the European Community to endeavour to establish a common line in advance, although individual countries still continue to make their separate views well known.
So far as the newly industrialised countries are concerned, the agreement, of course, related to the whole of the developing world and it is inevitable, with the very large number of countries involved, that there should be a divergence of view between many of them. It was a very considerable achievement that agreement was reached that a study of this kind should be launched, directed to improving the level of trade between the developed world and the less developed world. In the case of agriculture, my noble friend is perhaps even better informed than I am on the tensions and views which exist inside the European Community on this particular matter. There was a reservation put in at the end by the European Community. There has been agreement on undertaking the study, but the European Community is not prepared at this stage to commit itself to negotiations arising out of that study.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question: In the absence of complete agreement—and he himself has demonstrated that there
1076
was not complete agreement, except on the general point of the liberalisation of trade—from the point of view of the United Kingdom, and those countries which are convinced that liberalisation of trade is essential, would it not be better to rely on bilateral agreements?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, while I appreciate the point which the noble Lord makes, I would not, in fact, agree with him. International trade is, of course, by its very nature, multilateral. One has surpluses with some countries and deficits with others, and if one tries to rely entirely on bilateral agreements the effect is, in fact, to limit the total amount of international trade. There is no question whatever that the negotiation of the original GATT itself resulted in a very big increase in the level of international trade to the benefit of the world as a whole, and of this country in particular.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I wonder whether I may press my noble friend the Secretary of State. I was asking him whether he would give his own personal impression. Of course, I know that every individual country in the GATT has its own interests to protect. But the main objective of this conference was, in effect, to aid the freeing-up of trade and to stop the protectionist movement, which has been growing in strength as a result of the increasing recession. Is it his impression that this has been stopped, and that we can look forward to a greater degree of understanding and sympathy among members of GATT towards sustaining a free trade system?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the very fact that the ministerial conference as a whole subscribed to a document which expressed their confidence in the value to the world as a whole of the continuation of an open liberal trading system is a matter of immense importance. The amount of progress that could be made while the world is in recession, and while there are very strong protectionist tendencies, is inevitably limited. As I said earlier, the progress that we have made is not perhaps as much as we would have liked, but progress, nevertheless, it is and, as such, is of great value.

British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Amendment Bill [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in returning to the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Amendment Bill, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Vickers on her continuing advocacy of the cause of the Falkland Islanders. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was, I think, the first to raise the matter in this House when he tabled a Question on the matter in July. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, then brought in a Bill on similar lines to the one we are debating today, though there was insufficient time left to consider it in what remained of the last Session. Today's debate, therefore, provides our first opportunity to debate the matter thoroughly. We do so

1077
on the basis of my noble friend's Bill, which seeks to ensure that all the Falkland Islanders become British citizens.
As things stand, about three-quarters of all Falkland Islanders will become British citizens when the British Nationality Act 1981 comes into force on 1 st January next year. That will be the case whether my noble friend's Bill becomes law or not. But the remainder, about 400 people in all, may not do so because their ties are mainly with the Falkland Islands, while their connections with the United Kingdom are more distant. Those 400 would therefore hold the important parallel citizenship which is called British Dependent Territories citizenship. That citizenship was deliberately designed to reflect, not a distancing of the holders from the United Kingdom but a recognition of the fact that the holders' connections are with a dependent territory rather than the United Kingdom itself.
The new citizenship arrangements now set out in Part II of the British Nationality Act 1981 in no way weaken the constitutional relationship of the United Kingdom with the Falkland Islands or any other dependency. The Government have always made that absolutely plain. The White Paper we published in July 1980 contained the outline of our proposed legislation. In it we said, in paragraph 16:
"The establishment of a separate citizenship for the British Dependent Territories would in no way alter the relationship of those territories and the United Kingdom, nor the Government's obligations and commitments to the dependent territories and to their citizens".
My honourable and right honourable friends who spoke for the Government during the passage of the subsequent legislation lost no opportunity of repeating that assurance. I gladly repeat it today.
It must also be recognised that the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981 has not changed the immigration position of people from the dependencies. People from our dependent territories who do not hold certain specified links with the United Kingdom have been subject to immigration control ever since the passage of the first Commonwealth Immigrants Act in 1962. The controls were confirmed in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, passed by the party of the noble Lords opposite, and by the Immigration Act 1971.
All that the 1981 Act did was to change the title of the citizenship held by people who did not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. This change of citizenship title was essential if one of the main aims of the new nationality legislation was to be realised. That aim was to define as British citizens only those people who had the right of entry here. This, my Lords, finally brought to an end the misleading and unsatisfactory situation whereby people were called citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies even though they had no right under our immigration law to enter the United Kingdom.
My noble friend's Bill would make an exception for the Falkland Islanders. The Falkland Islands are only one among 15 dependent territories listed in Schedule 6 to the Act. But it would only be their inhabitants who would automatically become British citizens as well as British Dependent Territories citizens. Before I come to the question of whether such exceptional and preferential treatment may be
1078
justified, I feel that I should mention briefly one other matter.
My noble friend's Bill sets out to bestow British citizenship upon all Falkland Islanders, regardless of whether they are entitled to it by other means. Before I turn to the merits of the aim of doing this, I think I should briefly point out the defects in the way in which the Bill sets out to achieve it.
First, the Bill refers to the Falkland Islands only, although the dependent territory is described in Schedule 6 as "Falkland Islands and Dependencies". Even though they are for the most part uninhabited at present, the Bill would probably be better able to avoid future controversy if it included the dependencies. Next, the new Section 11A(1)(b), which Clause 1 would insert into the parent Act, confers British citizenship on a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who was ordinarily resident immediately before commencement. But it does not say for how long he or she must have been ordinarily resident. It may be thought odd that the ordinary residence could be as little as one day. It is in fact unnecessary to have this criterion in the Bill at all, since the people whom my noble friend wants to cover can probably be described rather better in a different way. Thirdly, the new section also refers to people whose parents were settled in the Falkland Islands before commencement, apparently in order to give them British citizenship by descent. But they would be British citizens otherwise than by descent, since no amendment has been suggested to Section 14, which sets out who is to be a citizen by descent.
These defects are of course purely technical. They can readily be corrected in Committee. But I felt it right to indicate that there were drafting deficiencies in the Bill. They were one of the reasons why the Government did not feel that it would have been right to allow a Bill in these terms to pass undebated through another place when it was introduced there by Mr. Kilroy-Silk.
I now pass to the merits of the Bill. I must stress that the Government believe that they have already, in other ways, taken very full account of the special needs of the Falkland Islanders. Indeed, we have consistently undertaken to bear their special circumstances in mind. This was so, even when we felt obliged to recommend that no exception be made in the citizenship area when the relevant amendments to the British Nationality Bill were debated in your Lordships' House last year.
We have all along given specific assurances to the Falkland Islanders. The first pledge was given in December 1979 by my honourable friend Mr. Nicholas Ridley when he was Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This assurance was repeated at all appropriate stages of the Bill, and we kept our word. As your Lordships will recollect, on 8th April—very soon after the outbreak of the conflict with Argentina—my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced that no Falkland Islander would have any difficulty over admission to the United Kingdom, whether he had a right of abode or not. That remains the position. In merely practical terms, it is very difficult to see what my noble friend's Bill offers the Falkland Islanders which they do not already have available. Indeed, it is because the Government have acted generously and sympathetically that it is

1079
possible to argue that, having gone this far, really it is only a small extra step to take to confer British citizenship on everyone connected with the islands.
It is not a small step. It has significant implications for the whole scheme of new citizenships created by the British Nationality Act 1981. That Act for the first time put our citizenship law on to a clear and rational footing. Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, which is what we have under the 1948 Act, gives a confused and imprecise idea of where people belong. It confers citizenship without regard to immigration laws which, by controlling entry to the United Kingdom, seem inconsistent with a citizenship title which includes the United Kingdom.
The 1981 Act gets away from this confusion by creating one citizenship, British citizenship, for those who belong to the United Kingdom; a second, British Dependent Territories citizenship, for those who have connection with a dependent territory; and a third, British Overseas citizenship, for those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have no continuing connections with either the United Kingdom or our remaining dependent territories. These new citizenship titles reflect what has for a long time been the reality of the situation.
To the extent that exceptions are made, the position will remain misleading and unsatisfactory. It is contrary to the scheme of the 1981 Act to describe people as British citizens if their connections are actually with a dependent territory and not with the United Kingdom. We must therefore be very clear that to make one category of former citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies a special case must not establish a misleading precedent.
I must make it plain that the Government take the view that on immigration grounds it is quite out of the question to alter the citizenship categories of either the other British Dependent Territories citizens or of British Overseas citizens. British Dependent Territories citizenship is an important citizenship parallel to British citizenship. It indicates that citizenship is firmly linked to one of the British Dependent Territories. British Overseas citizens, where eligible, enjoy the special benefits of the special voucher scheme, which is in itself a recognition, appropriate to the circumstances, of their particular situation. I would suggest that the special steps taken by the Government (to admit the Falkland Islanders to this country whether they have the right of abode or not) are an equally appropriate way of responding to the special circumstances of their particular situation.
I now turn to the basic point, which seems to me to be this. In October last year, your Lordships voted—by the narrowest possible majority, it is true—to reject an amendment sponsored, among others, by my noble friend Lady Vickers, which would have had precisely the same effect as her present Bill. Indeed, my noble friend's Bill is very closely based on her amendment. A lot has happened since then, but events have not necessarily changed the force of the argument which the Government advanced against the amendment when it was put. To grant the islanders British citizenship even where their connections lay with the Falkland Islands alone would still be contrary to the
1080
logic of the Act, and it is to logic that I have so far addressed myself.
But it is not only logic with which we have to deal. There are other things in life of profound importance and almost equal reality, and I am fully aware of the extent to which those lie behind our present arguments and the extent to which they influence your Lordships' House. The Government accept that, in the circumstances of the Falkland Islanders, logic is not enough. A lot has happened that has not only served to emphasise the close bond that unites the people of the British Isles with those of the Falkland Islands but that has amply demonstrated the loyalty and commitment of our Government and our people to preserving them; and my noble friend has referred to many of them. But when the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Sir Bedivere" docked at Southampton a fortnight ago, she bore a more eloquent testimony to that which either my noble friend or I can ever do. It may well be, therefore, that your Lordships will consider that the case for granting British citizenship to all the islanders should be conceded because it is wholly exceptional.
I cannot promise Government time in another place, but I shall not ask your Lordships to resist my noble friend's Bill. If your Lordships do decide to give the Bill a Second Reading, I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the Government will be prepared to assist my noble friend with the drafting of amendments to remove from the Bill the defects which I have already listed.
I hope that I have now made plain the Government's views on the matter. We are by no means unsympathetic to the position of the Falkland Islanders. On the contrary, we have gone to great lengths to respond to their special needs and claims in the immigration and nationality area. Their special position has been amply recognised by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's speedy decision that the islanders should all be freely admitted to the United Kingdom whether or not they hold the right of abode. I thought it right to draw your Lordships' attention to the implications of making an exception for the Falkland Islands alone among the dependent territories. That said, we will none the less help with the drafting of the Bill if your Lordships give it a Second Reading. May I conclude by once more expressing my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Vickers for giving your Lordships this very valuable opportunity to debate the question in depth.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on behalf of those who sit behind me, I too would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, on bringing forward her Bill. It is true that the Bill bears substantial similarities in text with the one which I had the honour to put before your Lordships at First Reading shortly before the Recess. That is of small consequence; what is of consequence is that, as the House well knows, the noble Baroness had fought consistently, aided from time to time by her noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for the principles involved in this Bill. For our part we are very grateful to her, as will be the remainder of the 90 Peers of various parties who sought to sustain the noble Baroness in the Lobby and who did not, regrettably, include many noble Lords

1081
opposite—principally, those on the Government Benches.
The intention of the Government was leaked in The Sunday Times yesterday. I was uncertain at that time as to how to regard the leak that it was the Government's intention to support the noble Baroness, because one normally prefers to hear items of considerable importance first of all from the Front Bench rather than from reading in the columns of the press beforehand, authoritative reports emanating, perhaps, from some of the noble Lord's colleagues or even from his department. Nevertheless, it is very welcome news.
I was a little puzzled by the noble Lord's speech. It seemed to me that he spent about three-quarters of the time which he took to address us in seeking to justify all that had been done before. Perhaps that was a little unwise in view of the significance of what was said by his noble friend Lord Trefgarne during the course of the debate on 7th October 1981, when the noble Lord was quite adamant—and the Government with him—as to what was happening. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said:
"But whatever may have happened in the past there is no argument in equity or in logic"—
and the noble Lord added the word "equity" to the word "logic" which the noble Lord has already used—
"that a British citizen of whatever generation in the Falkland Islands should be able to transmit his citizenship to his children born there but that a British citizen in any other dependency or in any other country of the world should not".
Then he made the point which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has made this afternoon:
"It is not as though the Falkland Islands is the only place overseas where people of United Kingdom descent have settled. There must be in the other dependencies alone many more people of United Kingdom descent living there than there are in the Falkland Islands".
That rejection of the arguments put forward on that occasion by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, was delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his usual very decisive fashion, and it was certainly most emphatic.
The noble Lord has given as a reason for his general support of the measure a reversion to sentiment in the special case of the Falkland Islands. I wonder why sentiment was not expressed before. When Mr. Kilroy-Silk's Bill was presented in another place for Second Reading it was objected to and there was no case that it would pass through without debate or anything of that kind. Why, then, was there objection in another place, if there are going to be considerations of sentiment or emotion—which are very laudable things for people to experience? Why was there not an immediate reaction when the Bill was presented in another place? The noble Lord, I thought, sought refuge in the possible technicality that the Government were not prepared to allow a Bill through at that time without debate. There is no question of there being no debate.
With the Government's agreement—now, we must say, very reluctantly expressed, and I do not believe that the noble Lord can accuse himself of being wildly enthusiastic about the Bill introduced by his noble friend—is it perhaps because the Government have to anticipate the results of the Franks Committee Report and want, if they can, to clear the decks before then? I say that because there appears in the current issue of
1082
the Economist a very interesting feature which expresses in more temperate terms the sentiments which I might otherwise be tempted to express. The feature, which appeared in last week's issue, says this:
"Before the Argentine invasion, the British Government was sending out a series of unintentional signals to Buenos Aires suggesting a reduced commitment to British possessions in the South Atlantic. These signals had little to do with the Foreign Office—supposedly the custodian of the Falklands 'policy'. They included the proposed withdrawal of 'HMS Endurance' from the South Atlantic (Ministry of Defence); the giving up of the survey base on South Georgia (Department of Education); the removal of full British citizenship from most of the Falklanders (Home Office); the lack of enthusiasm for the Ridley leaseback initiative (Overseas Defence Committee)".
Can it be that the reluctant agreement that we have heard of from the noble Lord today now acknowledges that perhaps the Home Office's insistence upon the British Nationality Bill, applying the full rigours to the Falkland Islands, may have constituted, together with the other factors I have mentioned, a signal to the Argentines which eventually resulted in a gross miscalculation? Perhaps it is clearing the decks for that.
What is certain, in the light of the events that have taken place since the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whose departure from office is regretted by many from all sides of the House, is that his resignation was possibly not the only resignation that was called for in those circumstances, bearing in mind the responsibilities of the other departments of State and of their co-ordinator, through the Overseas Defence Committee, no less than those of the right honourable lady the Prime Minister herself. Well, is this support reluctantly dragged from the noble Lord possibly in anticipation of adverse criticism as a result of publication of the Franks Report?
Or, alternatively, is it due to the Prime Minister herself? I had the pleasure of seeing the Prime Minister on television on a Saturday afternoon a fortnight ago and she was discussing matters of this kind. With the utmost clarity—and nobody can accuse the Prime Minister of lack of clarity in her diction or of directness in her expression—she made the following observation in her usual pugnacious style in terms of real force and eloquence. This is precisely what she said:
"The Falklanders are British and will remain British".
Evidently the Prime Minister was unaware of the defects in the British Nationality Bill. Doubtless soon after she made the observation, which can be verified from the transcript, there was a fluttering in the dovecots in the Home Office because the Prime Minister had said something which according to the Home Office was not strictly true. Can it therefore be that this reluctant amende honorable has been made in order that the Home Office may bring itself into conformity with the position that the Prime Minister has publicly adopted?
I felt it wise to go into rather greater detail in this matter than the content of this Bill might seem to justify. But I think it is important on occasion, particularly when one is dealing with the Home Office, if I may say so, to have the utmost clarity as to exactly what the position is. The noble Lord will forgive me if I say that the example he has given this afternoon, of proving that the whole thing really was not necessary anyway and that the Government's position was

1083
perfectly clear from the beginning, necessitates perhaps a more detailed examination into Home Office motives, as one gives to Home Office actions. So, we will, of course, give every conceivable support to the noble Baroness when the Bill comes up at Committee, and we are glad that the noble Lord himself has offered to give technical assistance in the drafting. In the light of the Home Office's whole attitude towards this question from the beginning, which the noble Lord himself has seen fit to emphasise once again today, may I assure him and may I assure the noble Baroness that we shall examine this in Committee with the utmost care, to make quite sure that the purposes which the noble Baroness had in mind when putting down this Bill are in fact carried into legal effect.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, may I begin by doing three things; first of all, to congratulate the noble Baroness on having had the opportunity and the wit and the perseverance to bring this Bill before your Lordships today; secondly, to apologise to your Lordships since, because of the lateness of the hour and the number of Members down to speak and owing to a previous engagement, I may not be able to stay till the end, much as I would have wished to; and thirdly, to commiserate somewhat with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I think he has done his best in a difficult situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has said, he has perhaps not got quite the same didactic approach to these subjects as his predecessor Lord Trefgarne. He has indeed allowed logic to be bent or to be put aside for a minute, and I am quite sure his predecessor would not have allowed that.
It would be very easy to have a considerable amount of fun this afternoon at the Government's expense, but the situation is much more serious than that, and I will try to confine my remarks to those items where I believe the Government have made serious mistakes and where this simply underlines those mistakes. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has already touched on the general situation with regard to the Falkland Islands: the question of the removal of "Endurance"; the removal of the rights of the Falkland Islanders by the Nationality Bill. May I add to the list that he gave the removal of the foreign language broadcasts. All noble Lords on this side of the House and some on the other side gave very clear warning to the Government that in doing what they did they were creating great dangers for this country's overseas activities. Only a very limited amount of notice, although some notice, was taken of that; but of course the Spanish broadcasts were among those that suffered.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, we on these Benches await with great interest the result of the Franks Report to see what other mistakes are going to be revealed. I do not perhaps go quite so far down that road with him in suggesting that this is a cosmetic exercise, but I do agree with him that it is all part of a package. I was somewhat worried to see in the newspapers a suggestion that the Prime Minister is going to do everything in her power to keep as much
1084
as possible of the Franks Report secret. I hope that that is not another leak from any Government department.
I am sure very few of the Government's supporters can feel happy about the situation with regard to this Bill. It underlines the weaknesses of the Nationality Act. Some very clear statements were made both on the Gibraltarian issue and on Hong Kong during the passage of that Bill through Parliament. It seems to me that the logic of that has now been exposed at a number of points, as we remove one exception after another—and be assured that people will continue to try to remove other exceptions. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, will say something this afternoon on Hong Kong. I think that we again through the popular print have information on certain assurances being given to Hong Kong when the Prime Minister visited there recently, and apparently, according to the Daily Telegraph, the word "British" will appear on Hong Kong passports.
I quote from today's Daily Telegraph which states that:
"the Foreign Office emphasises that British is used entirely descriptively and Hong Kong citizens will continue to be tightly restricted by Britain's immigration laws".
I suggest that "entirely descriptively" might be replaced by "entirely deceptively". If we are to use the word "British", let it mean what it means. Let us not try to fool people in other parts of the world in the same way as we have been trying to fool ourselves with the British Nationality Act.
I do not intend to spend more than a very few minutes on the Bill. It is an important step forward. It removes an unfortunate anomaly which was present in the British Nationality Act, but, sadly, it exposes many other anomalies and makes it more and more clear that the Government are occasionally prepared to give way on those matters where white citizens of the world are concerned. Would that it were prepared to give way more graciously, even occasionally, in cases where coloured citizens of the former Commonwealth are involved. The trouble, as I have said previously, is that the Government behave like Humpty Dumpty. They always want words to mean what the Government say they mean and not the generally accepted meaning. The intellectual consistency of the Act is destroyed if the Bill is passed by your Lordships, as I very much hope it will be.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, may I, I think for the first time in nearly 40 years, ask for your Lordships' indulgence and express an apology to the Minister and to the House for my inability to be here at the end of the debate if it continues for very long. I should like to condone that apology by saying that my remarks will be very brief indeed. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and the Government on the outcome of the Bill that she has promoted and the promises that Her Majesty's Government have made. I think that the Bill, or the amendment to the British Nationality Act, which gives the Falklanders the same status as those who live in the Channel Islands or in Gibraltar is laudable and will please your Lordships in all quarters of the House. I was fascinated to listen to the Minister. His delivery was very rapid, quick, and, for me, difficult to take in, skipping over

1085
the British Nationality Act and the technicalities of this Bill. I am reminded of a man who, on being asked to describe an elephant said, "I don't know. I cannot describe one, but I know one when I see it". I, too, know a full British citizen when I meet him.
This issue cannot help but be related to the Falkland ordeal of aggression and invasion which the inhabitants have overcome so determinedly and bravely over the past few months. The Bill should not pass without our paying a tribute to the courage and resistance of the Falklanders. If the Bill had not come forward and if everyone had to prove who their grandparents were, or where they were born—I doubt whether I could—we would have divided the Falklanders into the sheep and the goats. About 1,400 of them would have been the sheep, possessing full British citizenship rights, and 400 would have been the goats, with restricted citizenship. I am glad to say that we shall not hear any more of that in the future. What a reward that would have been for those who faced aggression, and just a few months after they had been through their ordeal.
Her Majesty's Government have had another escape. Their attitude could have been likened to the situation in Mr. George Orwell's Animal Farm—
"All men are equal, but some are more equal than others".
Fortunately, in future all the Falkland citizens will be equal with full rights of citizenship.
Finally, resentment in this, country and in the Falklands would have grown and grown if the Government had not had the courage to turn back on an error and misjudgment which they made earlier. I hope that the Government will feel that they are rewarded by the feelings of those who objected very much to the division of the Falklanders into two, and will wish all those Falklanders who are from January to be full citizens of Britain the very best of futures for their bravery which justifies that wish.
4. 27 p.m.
Lord Maclehose of Beoch: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, on introducing the Bill. I intervene briefly on one point. The Bill discriminates against other dependent territories and the question arises as to what extent that is an obstacle. I accept that it was the Government's intention that in its treatment of dependent territories the British Nationality Act should be neutral. But there is an enormous difference between legalities and human feelings. The fact is that the British Nationality Act was bitterly resented in the dependent territories, including Hong Kong. It is true that, as the noble Lord said, the door to the United Kingdom was closed to residents of dependent territories in 1962, but the British Nationality Act appeared gratuitously to double lock the door. Similarly, the change in the name of citizenship was regarded as explicable—I repeat, regarded as explicable—only as an act of political disengagement. As the situation developed the then Governor of Hong Kong exhausted himself in explanations, and indeed in epithets, but with only marginal success, in moving Her Majesty's Government; and I do not intend to repeat them this afternoon. However, I should acknowledge the recent administrative change authorised in Hong Kong passports, which is helpful and
1086
welcome, as far as it goes, since it may facililtate travel in third countries.
I mention all this because there is still very deep bitterness in Hong Kong, and for all I know in other territories, on this subject and that is an unhappy background to the Bill. One reaction will certainly be that the Bill will be criticised in Hong Kong and other territories as discriminatory. I sympathise with that reaction, but I do not wish to oppose the Bill on that ground because there are other, deeper considerations which I hope will be apparent in Hong Kong, and if the Bill appeals to your Lordships on balance of other grounds I do not think that the situation I have described should be regarded as an obstacle.
In the first place, I do not think it would be in the interests of Hong Kong or of any other dependent territory to appear to stand in the way of a benefit to the Falkland Islands in which the emotions and policies of the United Kingdom are so deeply involved at this time. Moreover, I do not think that Hong Kong people themselves would wish to carry their resentment to the extent of opposing doing something for the Falkland Islands. Furthermore, if this Bill becomes law, the Government will have accepted, admittedly in this very special case, the need to amend the Act's provisions over a dependent territory, within the limits of what is necessary and numerically possible, when justified by special circumstances. Such a proposition would be welcome. My Lords, on all these grounds I support the Bill.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for introducing the Bill. It gives those of us on this Bench an opportunity to support her, as we did when she introduced an amendment with the same objective in mind during the passage of what was then the Bill last year. During the passage of that Bill, which now is an Act and comes into force on 1 st January, from all sides of the House and from almost every country associated with Great Britain, the anomalies, the unfairnesses, that might arise once it became law were pointed out. We felt then, as we feel now—and as most people felt—that it was quite wrong that one replaced the automatic right of a child born in this country to be a British citizen by a system whereby the requirement was that the child should have one, or both, British parents.
In the Bill now before us the noble Baroness is seeking to put right a wrong affecting at this stage only about one fifth of the people of the Falkland Islands. I say "at this stage" because the remaining perhaps 1,400 are British and it is true, as the Minister has said, that they all become citizens of a British dependency, but they wish to become full British citizens. Therefore, it is accurate to say that at the moment it is only affecting about 350. But what about the remaining 1,400 as the generations move on? They will become citizens of a British dependency but will lose their full British citizenship unless, of course, now and again, members of the family come here and are able, in one way or another, through intermarrying to restore British citizenship. That is hardly likely to happen.
I should like to quote one case to your Lordships—and I am certainly not going to mention

1087
the name—of a gallant gentleman, a third generation Falklander, who assisted the British Task Force and was awarded the MBE quite recently. He is British because his grandparents were British. What of his children and their children? They will lose their British citizenship and become again citizens of a British dependency. But it is not enough, and we do not regard it as enough. They feel that they are British, and as British as the people of the Isle of Wight. They feel that they are as entitled to British citizenship as the people of the Isle of Wight. It is true that the Falklands are 8,000 miles away, but they have always shown an unquestioning loyalty to this country. They have never had any need to prove it, but, if proof were needed, we saw it during the Argentinian invasion.
During the passage of the British Nationality Bill last year the citizens of Gibraltar were given British citizenship. There are many others who ought perhaps to have it. I hope that the Government, in looking at this Bill, will widen the whole question, because there is a problem affecting the smaller British dependencies, none of which is really big enough to become an independent country. I have in mind Tristan da Cunha, the Caymans, and the Ascension Islands, with probably not 15 people living there normally. Therefore, if the Government accept this Bill, I hope they will look carefully at all these aspects also, and take an opportunity to put the thing right, because none of the British dependencies feels that citizenship of a British dependency is in any way equal to full British citizenship.
I recall that last year when we were discussing the Falklands amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, those of us who supported her—and there were many—were accused of being over-emotional. I hope that after the happenings on those islands a few months ago now no one will ever again be accused of being over-emotional about the Falkland Islands. In fully supporting this Bill we hope that the Government will accept it. We are heartened by what the Minister has said. We hope that if it passes through this House—and he said that he will help whenever redrafting is necessary—the Government will not only assist in redrafting the Bill and give us the opportunity of passing it through this House, but will give an assurance also that they will find time for it in another place as a Government Bill or permit someone, maybe on their own side of the House, to sponsor it and see it safely through that House too.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Vickers for her persistence in bringing back this Bill. It may be more helpful, as the merits of the Bill have been spoken about by many of your Lordships, if I refer to some of the wider issues which strike me because of my tolerable familiarity with that part of the world. The importance of the Government's response is no longer, in my view, related only to the merits of the Bill, because what has become the paramount issue is what we might call the Argentine interpretation factor, and also the Latin American and United Nations interpretation factor. We are being watched in South America and in the United Nations to see whether Britain means what it said and did. We are being
1088
watched to see whether the task force was just a flash in the pan, and whether in the future officialdom will one day revert to appeasement of a corrupt régime which is now distrusted within its own borders. All will be watching to see whether one day sovereignty may yet again be up for negotiation.
I must promise you, my Lords, that I am not straying from the issues of the Bill. Everything I have to say relates directly to the Government's decision today. It came as a shock to me when the question of sovereignty and the possible negotiation of it seemed to be clearly implied, after all that has occurred, in a letter from our United Nations representative to the Security Council last August. But I have the impression that the Foreign Secretary has since restored the situation.
Last month I took the opportunity to be in New York during the United Nations' debate and took soundings of both American and Latin American opinion on this. My own impressions were different from most, and personally I welcomed the debate because it was so absurdly premature that nobody would take it really seriously. 1 also welcomed the somewhat irresponsible vote against us because it got certain parties at a very early stage off the hook, especially those countries which have been embarrassed by the Falklands war. On the whole most countries, apart from Argentina and Soviet subordinates and so on, are fairly bored with the Malvinas cause. But obviously the Organisation of American States countries had to adopt a public posture in support of Argentina. Having done so, and having won the United Nations vote, honour may well have been served for those who matter. It will not be served, and they will not be off the hook, if we continue to give any signals at all that sovereignty could ever be negotiated with Argentina.
Regarding the United States, it is ironic and unfair that it was not Britain that was unpopular in South America after the Falklands war but the United States. Britain has restored her credit and prestige and is now widely respected for doing so. But, sadly for America, she is unpopular for not standing shoulder to shoulder with OAS in a typically unprincipled ganging-up during the hostilities. Therefore it should surprise nobody that America seized the first opportunity at the United Nations of winning back a few bonus points.
Most Americans I spoke to after the United Nations debate were at pains to point out that they had given Britain solid support when it mattered, and they had merely voted with the opposition in the United Nations when it did not matter. Nobody from any country seems to expect us to take much notice of that preposterous United Nations debate—premature and unprincipled—and we shall simply lose international respect if we do. The United Nations has, in my view, a lot of reputation and image to recover after such a shameful performance.
The Government's response to this Bill, therefore, will be the second significant milestone in recent times since the Falklands operations. The first was the decision not to axe "Endurance", and this is the second, the sort of signal that can be recognised on the other side of the Atlantic and the other side of the Equator.

1089
Against that, we must recognise that voices are already being raised at home which are at odds with the nation as a whole, with the Government and, I suspect, with the majority in this House. Nevertheless, they are voices which are making themselves heard more and more—in the media; many writers and members of the establishment, whatever that may be—and there are many stimulating the line that we should not have done it, we could not afford it and who wants the Falklands, anyway? Nor on the official front has one perceived much sign of repentance, and the grapevine seems to indicate a certain smugness; "I told you so. Look at the costs", and so on. I believe that Ministers are being deliberately scared with grossly inflated estimates of future costs, including an unnecessary level of defence. All this will be noted in South America. They are signals which they take in and memorise.
There is also more hopeful talk in party circles of the "Falklands factor" wearing off. Happily, the heroic Falklands operation had a beginning, a middle and an end. The Falklands factor is not something that wears; it is a fact and it will not dim in the minds of the British public, ever. It is encapsulated, so to speak, with all its heroism and drama in the nation's mind and in our history. Those who hope to watch it wearing off remind me of agitators seeking to damage a brilliantly produced film by letting off stink bombs in the auditorium.
The Falklands were always an asset to this country, as Lord Shackleton's first report proved. It was deception when the opposite view was promoted. The Falklands can once again be turned into a thriving asset, but primarily our descendants will not thank us if we weaken our ability (which favours the free world and Latin America) to protect the sea lanes and the gateway to the Antarctic. The Argentine Government are not yet sufficiently stable for the free world to put at risk the sea routes round the Horn. As my noble friend Lady Vickers said, if the Soviets ever had a base in Tierra del Fuego opposite their big Antarctic base, which I have seen, off the Antarctic peninsula, and if the Panama Canal was also closed, that would be game, set and match as regards maritime communications in that part of the globe.
On the question of defence, I am convinced, like most people in Argentina and everyone else in South America, that the Junta would never have invaded British territory if they had thought we would retaliate. There has been much talk about deterrence, "Endurance" and so on. What we have learned in the Falklands is that deterrence is indeed a critical factor but that a deterrent can become a dubious factor unless it implies clearly that one will act decisively when challenged. A deterrent is merely window-dressing if the notion is around that one will not actually use it.
Therefore, this Bill is a signal. Provided Argentina, the rest of Latin America and the United Nations know that we will always protect British territory and British citizens—which, as I understand it, is the disposition of the Government and certainly of the electorate—there will never be another Argentine invasion of the Falklands. Provided that is the case—and that is why this amendment is a vital signal—all that are necessary, in my view (and I have been there many times) for effective deterrence backed by a clear,
1090
positive Falklands policy, are sophisticated early-warning devices, the smallest trip-wire presence in terms of troops, and immediate airborne access, which was never available before. That will be enough—not only in my view but in that of many others to whom I have spoken—permanently to discourage invasion.
Scaremongering is now being indulged in in reference to Exocet missiles and the danger of sudden air attack. We should tell Argentina now, plainly and fearlessly, that if one single attack is made on a British vessel in the South Atlantic, by Exocet or anything else, we will immediately sink an Argentine ship whether at sea or inside an Argentine harbour. I am not in the least belligerent, but that, in my view, would be a fair, rational and statesmanlike disposition, one which should help the Argentine people themselves and avert further catastrophic follies by their inept oppressors.
I should not like to close by leaving the impression that I am hostile to the Argentine people; what I say here may be repeated. I felt very deeply for Argentine friends in their humiliation, and they included diplomats, people in office and others in all walks of life. They suffered indeed through the stupidity of their pompous régime and through our own misleading and misguided policies over 18 years, which compounded the situation. I have already been in touch with some in Argentina and one prominent citizen who held high office replied within a fortnight:
"I agree with you and I think that independent citizens of both countries should get together and do something for the cause of peace".
Britain has always been, and still is, popular in most of South America. Most countries always believed in our resoluteness and resolution. However, these relations will not rebuild so long as there is any doubt about our intentions and so long as we have the sovereignty issue open at the United Nations. Only when the door has been finally and resolutely closed can everyone relax and move forward again. The Bill, if accepted by the Government, will assist that finality.
It is not properly appreciated after the horrors and hostilities of the war that the inhabitants of Argentina are delightful people, over 40 per cent. Italian, with a large Spanish component and a mixture of Germans, English, Welsh and so on. They are not a race in the accepted sense. Sadly, they have always had an unfortunate faculty of saddling themselves with the most frightful régimes. In the last century, the leaders proved themselves the worst colonialists almost in all history, resorting to genocide of the indigenous population on a huge scale. Today they have a junta who are fearful of handing over power to civilians because they shrink from disclosing what happened to 15,000 Argentine citizens.
I must say in passing how contemptible it is to think that anyone in this country could ever have contemplated even for a moment putting free British citizens under such a repellent rule, and it makes no difference whether their numbers be 18, 1,800 or 18,000. That rule is now distrusted and in many quarters despised by the majority of Argentina's own inhabitants. How incredible also now to think that some people in this country could publicly proclaim likewise. I wonder whether they are seriously prepared to stand up and solemnly declare that not only would they prefer to see those 1,800 British citizens subjugated under junta

1091
rule, but apparently would also prefer that today the British nation itself should be disconsolate, morose and humiliated, while an endless, ineffectual shouting-match ground on at the United Nations. That is what would certainly have happened, without question, without the task force and its spectacular and historic triumph.
It has always been my aim that understanding and agreement should be reached with Argentina over a broad spectrum of activity—including industry, trade, fishing, defence, conservation, the Antarctic and so on—but not on sovereignty. We are not helping the Argentine people if we encourage their military overlords to think that negotiating sovereignty is ever an option. Everything that we can do to discourage that impression is vital. Therefore the Bill that my noble friend has introduced, and the Government's response to it, are essential as a signal in relation to this particular aspect.
Certainly all Argentinians have been taught about in school, and feel fervour about, the Malvinas fables. Incidentally, it is not widely understood that the very last Buenos Aires settlement in the Falklands, in about 1830, was dispersed by the Americans, not by the British. But the fables, part of an aggressor rule's dream of being the dominant power in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic, are not our fault—we cannot help the fact that they have the fables, teach them in schools, and print them in books—and they cannot therefore be permitted to distort the international jigsaw that has been stable down there for 150 years. After all, it was in far more recent times that the Buenos Aires Government colonised Patagonia and exterminated the Indians.
Finally, I should like to say that the time for talks with Argentina is after military dictatorship has ended—and not before. To refer to the possibility now is a cynical disservice to all parties, including the majority of the Argentine people. To do so is to encourage the junta to hang on. To promise talks on everything except sovereignty, when, and only when, civilian government is restored, is the proper and honourable course. On sovereignty, there could be other options in the long term, in the context of the Antarctic Treaty in 1991, and other possibilities. That is why, in fairness to the Argentine, Latin American countries, the Falkland islanders, and the people of this country, we must be consistent. Therefore we have to support this amendment; the Government have to accept the amendment, and I am delighted to hear that that may be the prospect. To do otherwise would simply confuse the world.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, when we first knew the text of the British Nationality Bill I think that there were a great many of us, both in this House and elsewhere, who felt that it was a profoundly unsatisfactory Bill, and that that concept of British dependent territory citizenship was not a satisfactory one. What has now happened is, that for a concatenation of reasons, this particular example of its madness has appeared, and the factors in this case that make us aware of the defects of the Nationality Act are as follows. First, there is the natural feeling that
1092
everyone by now has about the special rights and claims of the Falkland islanders. The noble Lord argued that there are occasions when logic must be overridden. Well, he need not apologise for that; it is perfectly clear in this case. One could argue until one was black in the face that there are certain legal and practical difficulties about treating the Falklanders as having exactly the same citizenship as we have. One might make that case most eloquently, carefully and logically, and nobody will believe it, either now or later, because in fact it does not make sense. I am glad—very glad indeed—that the Government have realised that, and we must all congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, on having been the person in particular who got them into that position.
Another reason why we regard the situation as something that brings out in particular the weaknesses of the Nationality Act concerns the numbers involved. We know what would be the feeling of the Falklanders if the Bill now before us were turned down. As the noble Lord who has just spoken has pointed out, we know also what Argentine Governments, and South Americans generally, might think if the Bill were turned down. Could we possibly do that because of a few hundred people? It would be absurd to run all the risks that are involved in defeating the Bill merely because we feel that these few hundred people ought not to have this advantage. I stress this point the more since it would divide the Falkland islanders themselves between those who would be British citizens and those who would be citizens of a British dependent territory. Again, argue the logic of it, or the historical reasons for it, as much as you like, and at the end of it nobody will believe in the validity of what you are saying.
To that we must add—and here again I would refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa—what he called. I think very rightly, the interpretation factor. Quite clearly, we must consider what will the world at large think about the way we handle this issue? If the Bill were rejected, the general conclusion would be that the British Parliament, having had a second opportunity to show its confidence in, and its fellow feeling for, the Falklanders, had for a second time turned down the opportunity of doing so; and I believe that the international effects of that could not but be disastrous.
I know—and here I see that there is a point of substance—that there is a possibility of its being argued that on the basis of treating the Falklanders in this way, the same must happen to every dependent territory. I think that argument was quite decisively dealt with by the wise and generous speech by my noble friend Lord Maclehose of Beoch. He, more than any others, is in the position to speak of what the people of Hong Kong might feel about the matter. He explained to us that the people of Hong Kong are by no means at all happy about the Bill, but that certainly they would not wish us to deny to the Falklanders the advantages that the Bill gives them.
There is only one further point that I want to make, and it is about the future of the Bill. The Government have indicated that they will positively help the Bill in its passage through this House; that they will help the noble Baroness in any amendment that may need framing. They were not quite so explicit about what might happen elsewhere. Here again one can argue

1093
elegantly and say that a Government spokesman in this House cannot give definite pledges as to what will happen in another place. But I say to the Government that everyone knows that if they really want the Bill to go through another place, it will go through. If it does not, the conclusion will be that the Government have prevented it from doing so; and for that there would be no conceivable excuse whatever.
Just as the Government have been led—I will not say "pushed"—to accept the validity of the argument that the Falklanders ought to have British citizenship, so they must accept the compelling nature of the argument that by doing that they are taking on themselves, whether or not they like it, and whether or not they now admit it, a responsibility for seeing that the Bill becomes law. If in a few months' time we were faced with a situation in which it had not become law, the Government would have very few friends on any side in this House. I hope that they will remember that.
Lord Gore-Booth: My Lords, I have listened—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Gore-Booth: I am sorry, my Lords. Am I out of order?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, unless the noble Lord was going to ask a question of the noble Lord who has just sat down, I think that he is out of order.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has been kind enough to give way and, if I may intervene, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, that his name appears a further four places down the list—
Several noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Elton: I am sorry, my Lords; I meant the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, whose name is not yet on the list of speakers, and I would suggest that he might care to speak when we reach what is commonly called the "gap".
5 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I may address your Lordships very briefly. My particular reason for doing so is because I misjudged the business of the House in October of last year and so missed being here for the essential vote on my noble friend's amendment, which was lost for the lack of one vote; and I should like to congratulate her very much on returning to the charge. I should also like to make the point, which many other noble Lords have already made but which I am afraid I must make again, that at the time I wished to cast that vote in the direction which would have put this provision into the Bill it was because I was so appalled, as I had tried to say to the Government for six months, that they had made public that they were going to do away with "Endurance", because it seemed to me, exactly as my noble friend Lord Buxton has just said, that the messages going across the Atlantic would give the Argentines the wrong impression. But I must confess that I never thought that they would be stupid enough to act when they did. I did not think it would happen
1094
quite so soon; I suspected it would more likely come about this winter.
However, this is old history. But the fact of the matter is that signals they were, and signals are terribly important—and not only across the Atlantic to South America. Signals are made which can be misinterpreted in all parts of the world; and I would hope that the Government take good care to ensure that their actions are understood in the light of how other people may interpret them. I rather feel that in the demonstration of our activities overseas we sometimes forget that aspect.
Not to waste your Lordships' time, I am simply delighted that the Government have had the wisdom to override their logic, and I would ask them only one thing. That is whether, having taken that step and having said that they will give support to my noble friend in making her Bill more acceptable in law, they will then accelerate the progress of this Bill through both Houses and ensure that it is as fast as possible, in order that the message and the signal may be clearly understood in Argentina and in the world at large.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of Dudley: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness on the success of her enterprise and on the introduction of this Bill; and I should also like to congratulate the Government and the Minister on their response to it. I think it is fair comment that in respect of the Falkland Islands the characteristic of the Government's policy has been to respond to events rather than to initiate them. Last summer they responded vigorously and successfully. They have responded sensibly to the noble Baroness; and in respect of the vote in the General Assembly they have responded wisely in having taken the decision not to respond at all.
I think that perhaps the most encouraging feature that emerges from the Government's decision is that their response shows that they propose to stand by the Falkland Islands in the future. I think we can draw that conclusion; and I should like to add this to the point made by my noble friend Lord Buxton and the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, who said that, of course, the eyes of Latin America, the eyes of Argentina, have been on this Bill and on the decision taken by the Government and by this House. I should like to add that had the Argentines been in a position to make any such offer, I am sure they would have been gratified to give the islanders both full Argentine citizenship and the right of abode in the Argentine.
My Lords, one thing is certain. If the future of the islands is to be assured, if the updated report of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is to be implemented, people are going to be needed in those islands. It seems to me very much better that the islanders and those who are likely to join them should receive at least as favourable treatment, if not better treatment, from our own democracy than they would have received from an Argentine dictatorship.
I have never been to the Falkland Islands. I have been to Argentina, and, as I have explained before in this House, I have three children by an Argentine marriage. I have no hostility, either, towards Argentina, although I believe that while they are, as my noble friend Lord Buxton said, a charming and

1095
delightful people, and a mixture of many races, they have unfortunately proved themselves largely irresponsible in the field of government and in the field of their social relationships. From this point of view I, too, agree that sovereignty should not be negotiable for the foreseeable future.
I should also like to add to the very interesting remarks that my noble friend Lord Buxton made. I must apologise if my remarks are rather wider ranging than perhaps the context of tonight's debate permits, but I think this precedent has already been set and allowed by your Lordships in earlier speeches. I should like to add to Lord Buxton's remarks and also refer your Lordships back to a speech which my noble friend made 18 months ago during the debate on an Unstarred Question in this House, when he said words to the effect that the importance of the strategic position of the Falkland Islands and their dependencies at this point of history should not be in any way underestimated.
I should like to add my personal evidence following a recent visit to the United States, where I met a leading American banker with established South American connections. He told me of the flood, the cataract, of funds flowing from Latin America into the United States, converted at penal rates of exchange and impelled by the fear of Soviet communism and its spread throughout the Latin American continent. I think that a reasonable view of the needs of the West and of our needs as regards our future security should take account of the possibility that in the course of time the Latin American continent, or large parts of it, at least, may fall to Soviet communism. I can visualise circumstances in which the Falkland Islands would represent Europe's only safeguard of free passage between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, at least in those remote areas away from Soviet naval, air and missile-strike capability.
So I would say that I believe that the United States' dilemma, while it is a very real dilemma (whether it is their dilemma or the influence of the attitude of the Latin American section of their State Department, whose head I met in Washington on the occasion of my recent visit to the United States) should not lead them into what I think is a misunderstanding of their true interests, which are the retention of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands by this country and their incorporation at some later stage into a wider strategic arrangement for the security both of the islands and of the Western free world.
I put forward this view because I believe very strongly that the pressure on the Government from various quarters—from the United Nations, from the liberal world, from those, perhaps, who take the view that we should be more understanding in our attitude towards Latin America—might lead the Government at some point to weaken in their stand, and could lead them into actions which would be prejudicial both to our interests and to those of the United States. I think I have taken up enough of your Lordships' time. Finally, I should like to say how pleased I am that the words of the Prime Minister, repeated so often during the summer and repeated again in this House tonight, that these people are British, will now remain enshrined in the laws of this country.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Vickers has yet again done this House, this country, and the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands a great service by bringing forward this Bill. As my noble friend has observed, it is remarkably similar to her Amendment No. 65 to the then British Nationality Bill. I am sure that all in your Lordships' House most sincerely hope that a similar fate does not befall this Bill to that which befell that amendment. I most warmly support this Bill not only because of recent events in the South Atlantic, to which other noble Lords have referred much more eloquently than I ever can, but also for the reason that I and many other noble Lords expessed in October of last year: that once the Gibraltar amendment had been approved there was little or no logic in withholding British nationality from the other British dependent citizens, of whom the principal were those of the Falklands and Hong Kong.
I am sorry not to see my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in his place this evening, as I am sure he would have expected me to speak also on Hong Kong. I shall not disappoint him nor, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has said, I am sure that we listened to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Maclehose of Beoch, with particular interest. He is a very real authority on Hong Kong. I was personally sorry that he was not a Member of your Lordships' House at this time last year. Throughout the, at times, tortuous passage of the British Nationality Bill last year, many of your Lordships, including myself, stressed the vital importance to Hong Kong of the nationality—not the citizenship, but the nationality—of its citizens.
It was with considerable pleasure that I received advice last Thursday that, on the previous day, 24th November, the Chief Secretary of Hong Kong had announced to the Hong Kong Legislative Council:
"Her Majesty's Government have agreed that opposite the word 'nationality' on the first page of all British Dependent Terrorities' passports will appear the word 'British'. Immediately under this description of nationality, there will be a description of the passport holder's citizenship. In the case of Hong Kong, after the British Nationality Act comes into force on 1st January 1983, this description will be, 'British Dependent Territories Citizen, Hong Kong'. These descriptions do not, of course, alter or affect existing law so far as rights of entry to, or abode in, the United Kingdom or elsewhere are concerned, to which reference is made elsewhere in the passport. But the nationality and citizenship will be accurately described in passports, to the great satisfaction, I am sure, of members of this Council and of the Hong Kong community at large".
I think, my Lords, that we should all be most grateful to my noble friend the Minister if, in his summing up, he would confirm that that statement is correct.
After the narrow defeat of Amendment 117 A to the Nationality Bill on 13th October 1981, it is good news, indeed, to hear that perseverance has apparently prevailed, due, so one understands, to a significant extent to the persuasion of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Would that her practical touch had had the same effect 13 months ago and that Hong Kong had been spared that period of indecision and—I must say it, my Lords—of bitterness! At the same time let us be quite clear that, even with that concession, Hong Kong will not be on a par with Gibraltar or, if, hopefully, this Bill is carried through, the Falklands. So be it, at least pro tem. Here, we hope, is some good news for Hong Kong which, although I cannot and do

1097
not speak for that admirable and industrious territory, will surely give pleasure and bring some relief.
In this Bill there is positively good news for the Falkland Islands. How good it has been to hear my noble friend on the Front Bench giving it a fair wind today!—and I do congratulate him upon it. Let us hope that his and my honourable friends in another place continue so to do when it leaves your Lordships' House. How sad, however, that that was not done over a year ago. Who knows—as other noble Lords have said this evening—whether it might not have influenced Argentinian thoughts in April 1982?
5.18 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I, too, spoke in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness to the Nationality Bill on 17th October last year. I am delighted to have this opportunity to support her in the Bill that she has put before your Lordships today. The point has been made that the House on that occasion—and it was a very numerous House, of 180 Members—divided equally. I regard that as a total vindication of the noble Baroness's amendment on its intrinsic merits, because it must be assumed that some of the votes cast against it on that occasion were cast, very properly, in loyalty by a number of Government supporters. I was glad, as was everyone else who heard the Minister earlier this afternoon, to hear that the Government are now prepared to give favourable consideration to this Bill provided that the case is made out adequately in your Lordships' House. It seems to me that we have been making out the case adequately ever since he said it, but I am encouraged by his words to make a small contribution towards that case.
With other noble Lords, I take the line that the Falklands war has served to illustrate that the Act should have been amended so as to bring in the noble Baroness's amendment before the war occurred, and that, far from removing or even diminishing the need for her amendment, and, hence, for this Bill, the war has actually added force to it. I propose to follow the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, but I shall be making a very different argument from his. It will be an unpopular argument—from all that I have heard in your Lordships' House—and, therefore, a difficult line of argument to maintain. I am taking the line from the point where the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, spoke in the context of what he called the foreseeable future. I invite your Lordships to look further ahead into what in a very uncertain world is an unforeseeable future.
Totally wrong though the Argentinian invasion undoubtedly was, it revealed at the time—and it has continued to reveal ever since—the intensity of feeling among the whole Argentinian population and in South America generally—and in some other countries in the world—in regard to the opposing play; and that feeling, I predict, is not going to go away. I fully supported our action to repossess those islands. Indeed, who in your Lordships' House did not? We all did. As an old soldier, I am second to none in my appreciation of and admiration for a remarkable feat of arms.
At the same time, I do not believe—I choose not to believe—that that necessary act of force established for this country a stronger claim than we had before the
1098
invasion. It may well be that our claim is a very strong one. I do not dissent from that at all. However, to state, as some Government spokesmen—including the Prime Minister—have stated, that the interests of the islanders must be paramount does not establish the incontestable right to the territory. Sovereignty remains to be proved. I stress these words: at some time in the future there may have to be fresh negotiations with a future and different kind of Argentinian Government. As a consequence of those negotiations, a future British Government may renew our earlier offer—and let us not forget that we made that earlier offer—to have our claim to title tested before the International Court of Justice. This means that the future of subsequent generations of islanders beyond the foreseeable future is not secured in the islands for all time. They are, or will be, vulnerable.
If the Government really mean as they have so often said—and I believe them totally—what they said about safeguarding the interests of all the Falklanders—not only the present generation but the future generations—then they should give practical form and shape to that intention by granting full rights of citizenship to that considerable minority, that one quarter or one fifth, whatever it is, of the population, who under the present provisions of the Act are denied it. Sympathetic consideration of applications for British citizenship—the words of Mr. Timothy Raison in another place during the passage of the Bill—by potential applicants from that minority really is not good enough. Nor do I believe that the right of admission which the Home Secretary has assured will be given in certain circumstances to the Falkland Islanders—the undertaking that he made in April of this year—in those words does not amount to permanent residence.
In the years ahead, should any members of that minority—and do not let us forget that that minority is going to increase as the years go by—decide to leave the islands, whether out of personal choice, a change in their personal circumstances, or conceivably because of a future change in status of the islands themselves, then they should have the full right of entry to and residence in this country, if they so desire, and not have to come as suppliants to any future British Government.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise this evening to support my noble friend Lady Vickers with her Bill, which, when and if it is suitably amended, one hopes will pass through the other House and get support there so that full British citizenship will be granted to all the 1,800 British subjects in the Falkland Islands.
Before I continue with my main theme, may I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt? I am afraid that I cannot agree with his arguments about sovereignty. I think that these people in the Falklands have been subjected to a form of aggression and they have stood up steadfastly for the principles in which we all believe and which were the principles on which we went to attack those islands, to defend the charter of the United Nations. That is something which we owe to them in perpetuity. This is something that we should not forget. I have been more impressed, if I may say so, by the speeches of my noble friend Lord

1099
Buxton and also my noble friend Lord Dudley, who obviously speak from great experience and knowledge of the actual situation as they have found it on the spot.
Tonight a certain amount has been said about the Falkland islanders and their links with Britain. So far as I am concerned, they have greater links with Britain than any other colony or former colony which we once possessed and which has now become an independent nation. I therefore feel that what we desire and what it is desired to achieve in this Bill is more than justified. I am also justified in what I have just said by the loyalty that these people of the Falkland Islands showed to Britain, its institutions and its principles, and, moreover, by the fact they stood steadfast when, in defence of the United Nations charter, we mounted the attack to which I have referred.
I suppose that there are going to be certain criticisms of the position which we are about to adopt and which may be voiced when this Bill, suitably amended, becomes law. I suppose that there are many who may well see in what this Bill tries to achieve that it is we British who are endeavouring to perpetuate a form of colonialism. That view may well predominate in the United Nations and from some of its members with their double standards. It may also be a view expressed by some politicians, by some academics and by those who in the post-war years saw no good in anything that we as a nation were endeavouring to achieve with our Empire and the bestowing of independence upon our former territories.
All this, I feel, must be refuted. Have we forgotten that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth made an official release that every nation in the Commonwealth supported us when we set out to liberate the Falkland Islands? It is rather extraordinary—is it not?—that if there had been anything in the oppression that has been alleged against us in former years, the whole of the Commonwealth should have stood beside us when we went to liberate these people who had been the subject of aggression.
I hope that the Government will take note of what has been said this evening in what has been a most useful debate. I would make one final point about the reaction of people for whom we are responsible and who were deprived of their liberty by the aggression of others. If anything we have ever done in our association with people overseas was objectionable or oppressive to them, why is it that when they lose their freedom—that freedom that they enjoyed in our association with them—they do not lose their affection for this country, Britain, or its institutions and the principles which we represent?
Let me give an example which is my personal evidence. I spent four years of the last war as a guest of the Japanese. I spent that four years in Changi gaol. Malaysia was invaded. I was an overseas colonial officer. If there was a modicum of truth in that despised word "colonialism", how is it that I, a former colonial officer, am here this evening? I cannot give the whole story; it is too long. But I and others owe our lives to the efforts of those we served, those who under colonialism kept us alive in the situation in which we found ourselves. The pundits would have you believe
1100
that it is a period in our history that we had better forget for ever, but we have nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary, the evidence is that we were welcome and achieved much.
That is all I have to say this evening. I feel that the situation I have depicted is not dissimilar to that which we now face with this Bill in our future attitude to the Falkland Islands. I wish this Bill well, and thank my noble friend for her industry and for her achievement in introducing it. I hope it is successful.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have the privilege tonight to wind up this debate on a Bill moved, with her usual grace and ability, by the noble Baroness. Lady Vickers. I had a similar privilege of winding up the debate on the Second Reading of the British Nationality Bill and I remember that debate so well. I can remember those who, from various sides of this House, pointed out that the Bill which was then before us was ill-considered and that there had been no proper consultations with the dependent territories, of which the Falkland Islands was one. It was said that there was much misunderstanding as a result of a lack of public relations work even if the provisions of the Bill were right. I can remember the speeches made by the most reverend Primate and by some of the right reverend Prelates on that occasion.
I gladly join with all those who have spoken in the debate tonight in supporting this Bill. I am obviously glad to know that from the Government Front Bench the noble Lord, Lord Elton, a distinguished and much respected Minister in this House, has said that the Government will aid the Bill in this House and also, one assumes, in another place. But I would be less than honest if I did not say at this moment how clumsy we have been in what we have done in regard to the British Nationality Bill. In that Second Reading debate I can remember the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—and I am so sorry he is not in his place: I pay him a tribute and therefore am not in any way "stabbing him the back" in his absence—talking of Gibraltar being slapped in the face by the Government's presentation at that stage of the British Nationality Bill. He was answered, as were others who spoke of Gibraltar, by the clear statement that Gibraltar could not be made an exception. There was much hard feeling in Gibraltar—loyal, good old British Gibraltar.
Then there was a vote and your Lordships spoke with that fortitude which is very much a part of the tradition of this House; and the vote was against the Government. There was no immediate proclamation on behalf of the Government after that vote and that debate so that Gibraltar could be reassured and the feelings of discontent could be dispelled; it was not said that the Government were behind Gibraltar and, in view of the debate, would immediately confer full British nationality on the people of Gibraltar. It was not done. It took some little time and a great deal of consideration before the statement was made in another place: "Yes, those in Gibraltar, as a result of all parts of the House of Lords joining in, and not because of the benevolence or wisdom of Her Majesty's Government, will receive British citizenship".

1101
We argue the case of the Falkland Islands, and when we talk of these places 1 hope that your Lordships will not think that I forget the general argument which was so eloquently advanced by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, apart from others of my colleagues. We felt there was very much a case against this business of selection. We felt there ought to be one treatment for the dependent territories. We thought we could get over the problems of Hong Kong—and when I select just the two cases of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar it is only because we are considering such cases today and not because I am forgetting the others who have been forgotten by her Majesty's Government.
In regard to the Falkland Islands we pleaded the case—and I am not talking politically—from all parts of the House. "No", said the Government, "Quite impossible; it is not logical, not constitutional; there would be great difficulties; no citizenship for the Falkland Islands". The effect, from a public relations point of view, upon those islanders can well be imagined. But the fight did not end there. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, unfortunately had not voted in regard to the Falkland Islands amendment but had he voted then, quite apart from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who regretted his absence on that occasion, the amendment would have been carried. But the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, voted the other way for, I have no doubt, very good reasons. I would say in his absence that I am sure he had very good reasons for voting in the way he did. But there was an equally good reason for the Question he posed in your Lordships' House on 29th July last. I am reading from col. 353 of the Official Report for that day. He asked this Question: whether Her Majesty's Government,
"will introduce legislation to amend the British Nationality Act 1982 so as to make citizenship of the United Kingdom available to citizens of the Falkland Islands on the same basis as it is available under that Act to the citizens of Gibraltar".
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, with his usual ability, answered the Question and, if I may paraphrase him—I hope perfectly fairly—pointed out that they had been promised sympathetic consideration in regard to their entry into the United Kingdom. I say in parenthesis that the Falkland Islanders are deserving of more than our sympathy in consideration; they are entitled to full legal rights which, happily, they will have if this Bill goes through.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, then pointed out something which has been forgotten in your Lordships' debate. Some of your Lordships have been dealing with the question of sovereignty and the whole argument in relation to the Argentine. I do not intend to depart from what I think ought to be the proper tenor of this debate. I do not think this is the occasion for us to argue that matter, although I was personally very interested in the very good speeches made on that theme. There is no doubt that the Argentinian debate will continue in the United Nations, and, it may be, by direct negotiation after a certain passage of time, with a different régime. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked the following question of the Minister on 29th July:
"Is my noble friend aware that when a group of wealthy Argentines during the recent conflict took advertising space in the press, they attached considerable weight to the allegation that under
1102
the British Nationality Act the Falklanders were not given the fullest rights of citizenship? Would it not be a very proper acknowledgement of the loyalty and devotion of these people under desperately trying conditions for Parliament now to confer this on them?"
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, replied as follows:
"My Lords, while I always have the highest regard for what my noble friend suggests, I do not think that it is proper to use legislation as an instrument of propaganda warfare."
The Official Report thereupon continued:
"Several noble Lords: Oh!" [Col. 354.]
I am one individual noble Lord who tonight wishes to say "Oh" to that concept as well.
With all that information, with all that background—if the Home Office were not mixed up with the Foreign Office—and with all this propaganda being put out as to what the British Nationality Act had done to the Falkland Islanders and as to how we were interested in defending them as a matter of territory, but not in defending them as a matter of individuals, someone in the Government could surely have had the intelligence to say, "Look, we faltered the first time. Let us, now this has been pointed out to us, come forward quickly with our own Bill and announce to the Falkland Islanders This is the Government's wish. This is a Government Bill. All right, we made a mistake. We have considered it. We are conferring nationality upon you—the 400 as well as the 1,400'." No, my Lords, it had to wait for my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington to put down a Bill, for Mr. Kilroy-Silk in another place to put down a Bill and then, with her usual courage, for the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, to put down a Bill, the Second Reading of which we are considering tonight.
So I think we come to the conclusion that the Government have seen the light, but in seeing the light they have not walked along the road to Damascus. They have stumbled on the road to Damascus. That is the sense of sorrow that one has, because—if I may finish upon this note—how odd we are as a nation if we are prepared to sacrifice national blood and treasure for the Falkland Islanders but have not been prepared before now to spend 40 lines of legislative ink on conferring upon them the nationality which we, and others, have said in the past they so richly deserve.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I begin, as I began before, by congratulating my noble friend upon the persistence of her pursuit of the cause of the Falkland Islanders. I do so now, strengthened in the knowledge of the eloquent sympathy of so many Members of your Lordships' House. By your Lordships' leave, I shall try to reply very briefly to points which were raised after I spoke, the first of which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who is as keen as any of us on getting this Bill adopted. But he received the news that the Government would not obstruct it with no more enthusiasm than did the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Its arrival on your Lordships' Table was greeted by him not with applause or gratitude, or even with any very lengthy approval. He treated us instead to a fascinating exercise in exegesis, in which he sought to divine what, possibly, could have caused Her Majesty's Government to be less at variance with his own and his party's views than usual. He mined every possible seam in search of material, and the noble Lord, Lord

1103
Tordoff. joined him in some of the more distant galleries, in which I shall not join him, in the territory of the Franks Committee.
The noble Lord also sought to persuade me that what I said earlier in this debate was inconsistent with what my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said on an earlier occasion. I must tell him, with a suitable degree of regret, that he has not persuaded me. I do not think there is great substance in that allegation. Indeed, I think it is borne out by the noble Lord's remarks about my own speech, because I made it clear, for what I think he said was about two-thirds of it, that there is still force in the arguments which my noble friend advanced; and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, thought that I ought to have spent two-thirds of the speech in outlining the Government's position and one-third in explaining that it was not inconsistent with what my noble friend had said. Circumstances most obviously affect judgments, and the circumstances have changed dramatically since my noble friend made his Statement last year. But, as I said earlier, logic cannot be paramount in this consideration.
May I confirm to my noble friend Lord Geddes that Her Majesty's Government have recently agreed that dependent territories, including Hong Kong, may insert the word "British" opposite the printed words "national status" in all British dependent territory citizen passports? The noble Lord, Lord Maclehose, made a speech of great importance and interest, and I welcome, as will other noble Lords, the wise advice of the noble Lord, whose knowledge of Hong Kong and its people is so extensive, and whom I had the pleasure of meeting briefly out there some years ago.
Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the strong feelings that the British Nationality Act aroused in Hong Kong. However, as I said earlier, the Act involves only a change of nomenclature. It does not take away from citizens of dependent territories any rights which they possessed previously as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Together with the noble Lord, I believe that the people of Hong Kong will realise that their situation is not similar to that of the Falkland Islanders, and will not wish to deny the latter the benefits proposed under this Bill. I welcome the noble Lord's view that the Bill should be considered on its merits, without regard to Hong Kong or the other dependent territories, since the situation of the Falkland Islands is, indeed, unique.
My noble friend Lord Buxton mentioned the question of negotiations and the recent vote at the United Nations General Assembly. The Government have made their view perfectly clear. We cannot be expected to negotiate with a country which will not renounce the unlawful use of force, which will not take account of the wishes of the islanders and which insists that negotiations shall lead only to the transfer of sovereignty. The General Assembly resolution is totally unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government. That is all the answer I can afford to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, glad though I am to acknowledge the support that we received from the Commonwealth, as my noble friend Lord Gridley underlined with all the depth of his personal experience and with great restraint.
1104
I was, indeed, glad to receive the commendation of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for the position we have taken up, though not as glad as I was to receive that of my noble friend Lord Dudley, because, unlike my noble friend, the noble Lord prefaced it with an attack on the position which Parliament took up on the passing of the British Nationality Act. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, raised the question of time to be given in the House of Commons to this Bill, and many other noble Lords did the same, particularly in the context of the Argentine dimension; that is to say, the signal that would be seen to be sent out by the proceedings of Parliament to places abroad, particularly in South America. That is true of my noble friend Lord Buxton, among others. The question has been raised as to whether Government time might be made available in the other place and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, conceded, this is, in fact, a matter for my right honourable friend the Leader of the House in another place. But I acknowledge the importance of not giving the wrong signals to Argentina, and I shall draw to his attention the strong feelings which have been expressed by your Lordships on this matter.
In a very graceful speech, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, regretted that your Lordships' trenchant views expresed in the debate about Gibraltar had not resulted in my noble friend Lord Belstead rising from this Bench at the end of the debate, almost before the tellers had sat down, to announce his own conversion—and that of his department, the Secretary of State, the entire Cabinet and the Prime Minister—to a new point of view as a result of that Division. That may be a travesty of what he intended to say, but it is fair to say that changes of policy take time to deliberate. Therefore, I should have hoped that he might have been a little more generous in acknowledging that, in this debate, the change of heart came at the beginning, not at the end.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also referred to an exchange between my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and myself on 29th July. He was a fraction less than his usual fair self. He referred to a reply. I shall always remember the reception which it received—the loud cries of "Oh!" which are recorded in Hansard, to which he has now added his own. As I made clear in the next column, I gave that reply under a misapprehension. It appeared to me from what the noble Lord to whom I was replying had said that it was suggested that we should pass a law in answer to an advertisement. That seemed to me to be an absurd proposition. In fact it was not the proposition which had been advanced. The noble Lord will find my correction at col. 355 of Hansard, and any noble Lords who doubt me will find it as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred also to the offer only of sympathy to the Falkland Islanders who might not be British citizens and who might wish to come to these shores. The noble Lord has not taken on board what it was that my right honourable friend said. He announced that they were able to come here if they wanted to, whether or not they had the right of abode, and to settle. And settlement eventually brings nationality.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I specially did not interrupt the noble Lord the Minister when he dealt with another of my points, to which I shall not refer. I do not believe that the House would like me to do so.However, regarding the point to which the noble Lord the Minister is now referring, may I remind him of the very clear statement which I made to which he has not referred?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not quite certain to which clear statement the noble Lord is referring. Whatever it is I did not refer to, I shall refer to it tomorrow; and if it is what I think it is, it will entirely bear out what I have just told your Lordships.
This has been a valuable debate. I have striven not to give a lengthy and therefore a weighty reply to it. I made our position clear at the beginning. I think it was broadly welcomed, although almost everybody treated it very much as a curate's egg. I am confident that the position which the Government now occupy is the right one. I am grateful to my noble friend for giving the opportunity to your Lordships and to the Government to make this clear. In the light of what has been said, it seems to me that your Lordships will very probably give a Second Reading to the Bill. Thereafter I shall abide by the undertaking I gave at the beginning of this debate. I think that that is as much as your Lordships would wish me to detain you with at this stage.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for a very interesting and informative debate. I am sure that we have all learned a great deal from it. I am delighted by the support which the Bill has received. I am grateful to the Government for the change of mind. My noble friend is expert at seeing both ways, which is very clever of him. It will stand him in great stead. He will be liked by everybody on all sides if he finds that he can give his consent to the various points which are made.
May I refer to two telegrams which I have received? In their telegram to me, the Falkland Islands Sheepowners' Association say that they support me in my efforts on behalf of the Falkland islanders, and the General Employees' Union say in their telegram that they support me. I thought that your Lordships might like to know about those two telegrams.
Let me first say that I shall be delighted to accept my noble friend's advice. I hope that it means that he will put me on the right, not the wrong track in the future. With regard to getting the Bill through the other place, may I point out that there will shortly be a ballot for Private Members' Bills? Perhaps we ought to find out whether a Member of the other place can take up this Bill.
I thank the noble lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his very powerful speech and, in view of the circumstances, for being very kind to me. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his kind support from the Liberal Benches. I hope that my noble friend will consider the question of language broadcasts in the future.
It was splendid of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, to speak. He is one of our oldest and most revered Members. It took him some time to make up his mind. He really thought out whether or not he
1106
would support the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Maclehose of Beoch, for coming specially all the way down from Scotland to put his very adequate point of view. He made an excellent maiden speech and now he is supporting very worthwhile causes. The noble Lord has also put us on the right track regarding the future. I hope that he will convey to the people of Hong Kong that we are still intensely interested in them.
I next thank the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, and the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, for being present at both debates, for putting their name to the amendment in our previous debate and for giving their usual helpful advice. To the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, and to the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, may I say that I am delighted whenever they speak. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, and the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, have real knowledge of the area. I did not agree with my noble friend's slightly unkind words. I do not know nearly as much as either of these noble Lords about the area, and their support has been very well worthwhile.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, was very doubtful at one time, but he has given a great deal of thought to the matter and now supports the Bill. I did not agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. However, I did agree when he said that it was a remarkable feat of arms by the task force. I know what my noble friend Lord Gridley went through in Malaysia, and about the work which he did for the Colonial Service. He feels as strongly as I do about our great Commonwealth of Nations. To the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who always makes delightful speeches, may I say that his speech today was not out of the usual strain?
We ought all tonight to pay a special tribute to the task force and to the magnificent job which they did. This debate has been about the support of human rights. I hope that this country will always be ready to support human rights, in whichever continent help may be needed.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 1982
5.58 p.m.
Lord Underbill Lord Underbill rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations [S.I. 1982 No. 1576], laid before the House on 16th November, be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will appreciate that the regulations are extremely technical and complicated. To a non-engineer such as myself even the memorandum does not put the points in a way which I can readily understand. Therefore, I am particularly grateful that the Government have issued a further memorandum which sets out some of the points in a very much more understandable form.
I must congratulate the Government on their publicity for their proposals. These are just some of the department's many statements, many of them reporting speeches by members of the Government, particularly Ministers, in support of the Government's proposals regarding heavy lorries and their general

1107
package. The Government have recognised quite clearly that they must lessen public concern about the heavy lorries proposals. There is general recognition that there is public resentment even of the present lorries because of their noise, their dirt, their speed, their intrusion and the congestion which they cause.
In saying that, I want to make it absolutely clear that I appreciate to the full the importance of road haulage. My comments are in no way an attack upon road haulage. Road freight is vital to the nation's economy, for some 80 per cent. of the total freight tonnage is carried by road—often with door-to-door advantage. At the same time we must recognise that road traffic uses three times more energy than rail; rail has the capacity to take more freight and its use would help to relieve congestion on our roads. Another point I wish to make perfectly clear is that, of course, there will be general welcome for some parts of the Government's package. The proposals in the regulations to provide for maximum length, maximum height, for rear under-run protection and for sideguards are all welcome—as are the steps proposed towards reduction in lorry noise, albeit vaguely limited, improved braking standards and possible development of spray suppression.
Most of those items are essential even if we had no proposal to increase lorry weights. One of the important points put forward by the Government is in relation to heavy lorries. We are told in particular that this increase is essential in order to save the haulage industry £150 million a year. Incidentally, I note that Ministers frequently prefer to use the figures £ 1 ½ billion over 10 years to put greater emphasise on the saving. Of course, savings are important, but we must recognise that a £150 million a year saving is only a fraction of the some £14,000 million which is spent each year on consumer costs for road haulage. This, I am told, is just one-tenth of a penny in the pound. Does that justify this saving, important though it may be? Does it justify the other factors which are involved in the proposals for heavy lorries?
The assurance is repeated by Ministers time and time again that heavier lorries will mean fewer vehicles. Past experience—and Armitage makes this clear—is that, whenever heavier lorries have been introduced at various stages through the years, that has never been the way things have worked out; heavier lorries have come and there has been an increase in the number of vehicles. Many organisations in this country just will not accept the assumption that heavier lorries will mean fewer vehicles.
I must ask, why the increase to 38 tonnes? The present maximum is 32½ tonnes. The EEC propose up to 44 tonnes on six axles. That was accepted by the Armitage Report published in December 1980. The Government White Paper published in December 1981 proposed an amendment to 40 tonnes on five axles. The present regulations propose 38 tonnes on five axles. I must ask, why this move from the original concept? I am not suggesting that we should revert to 44 tonnes but we shall be interested to hear the Government's arguments. Arguments have been put forward time and time again that heavier lorries do not mean larger lorries and that heavier lorries with
1108
additional axles would mean less damage to roads. Armitage saw no reason for excluding 44-tonne lorries. Paragraph 404 of Armitage stated:
"The 44-tonne lorries which we propose would do no more damage to the environment than lorries between 32.5 and 40 tonnes, would cause less damage to roads and no more damage to bridges and would give greater savings in transport costs."
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, speaking for the Government in our debate on Armitage on 19th April this year, said that the Government had seen some need to fit the Armitage proposals to our circumstances and for that reason had rejected proposals for 44-tonne lorries. I would ask the Minister to explain in his reply today what were the circumstances in which the Government had to change their original intentions in the White Paper, which itself was a reduction in that which was proposed by Armitage. The Government White Paper proposed an increase to 40 tonnes and the accompanying note by the department justified that proposal on the basis of fourth power law, to which I will refer later. Yet the Secretary of State, on the Second Reading of these regulations in another place on 25th November, stressed that 38 tonnes is the maximum that the Government can accept. In col. 1026 of the Official Report I find that the Secretary of State said:
"We also reject the higher limits on our axle weights, because they would not be acceptable on our roads".
Yet the White Paper published earlier had said that 40 tonnes would be acceptable on our roads. The same point was made by the Under-Secretary of State in reply to that debate in another place (col. 1097); she said:
"I believe that we were right to reject the increase to 40 tonnes in view of the public concern".
But there is public concern about the proposed increase to 38 tonnes, so perhaps the Government will listen to what is being said and will not proceed with a maximum of 38 tonnes.
Local authorities and their associations have expressed in varying degrees their concern at the Government's proposals. I have a note dated 26th November from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in which the following is stated:
"The Association of Metropolitan Authorities is totally against any increase in permitted lorry weights. We are not convinced that the benefits, if there are any benefits, would outweigh any damage to the environment, to living conditions, to our roads and bridges."
In a note which accompanied that statement, I find the following:
"The Association believes that heavier lorries will cause increasing damage to people's homes and privacy, added danger to pedestrians and further damage to roads, services and buildings".
It would appear that Armitage, the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and the Government all base their acceptance of heavier lorries on tests carried out by the American Association of State Highway Officials—which, if I have to refer to it again in the course of my remarks, I will call AASHO—between 1958 and 1960. This point was raised in the debate we had on the 19th April and I do not want to repeat all those arguments. But even Armitage expressed some uncertainties and I will paraphrase what Armitage said. Paragraph 377 said there was some controversy about measurement of damage by axle weights. Paragraph 379 stated that the fourth power law had been criticised by operators. Paragraph 382 said that

1109
assessments of damage made by fourth power law were approximate and that there was still much uncertainty as to how axles damaged roads. Nothing the Government have said has cleared away all these doubts and uncertainties. In the debate to which I referred, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that the TRRL had examined the AASHO tests and concluded that they were well-designed. From my reference to the TRRL Report 590 it seems that it was an analysis of the position based on the acceptance of the AASHO tests and of the fourth power law. A digest of Report 590 states:
"The report is a contribution to the assessment of heavier vehicles but does not attempt to evaluate road damage in money terms nor are effects on bridges, road safety, traffic or the environment considered".
In fact, Report 590 of the TRRL states in chapter four:
"There is considerable debate about the applicability of the fourth power law for certain types of vehicles and road construction, but it has been taken as the best means of calculating the overall damage effects of a changed axle spectrum. There is also uncertainty about the best method for calculating the effects of heavier vehicles on bridges".
We know that many local authorities and their associations have expressed concern in particular about the possible effects of heavier lorries on bridges. The paragraphs I have referred to from Armitage leave room for considerable doubts, and the remarks of Ministers in the other place upon these regulations hardly give grounds for full acceptance of the case.
There do not appear to have been comprehensive tests on road damage by lorries undertaken in this country. The AASHO tests were undertaken between 1958 and 1960 in America. I am wondering whether the EEC before issuing its directive had given any thought to carrying out proper tests on an international basis on this question of road damage. Armitage was very definite in stating that lorries create 15 per cent. additional costs of road construction and that 90 per cent. of damage to roads is caused by lorries.
On one thing there is general agreement, Armitage included; there is insufficient knowledge about the effects of lorries on underground services, pipes, sewers and water mains, and about the effect of vibration by lorries on buildings and road furniture. This matter was raised in a Question in your Lordships' House on 20th October. In a supplementary question, I referred to the need for more research to be carried out into these matters. Armitage had stressed the need for research to be conducted on these matters. Following that Question, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, with his usual courtesy and efficiency, wrote to me and said there was no need to hold up Armitage recommendations for heavier lorries for further research to be carried out. I would say that there is no need to hold up safety and environmental proposals in Armitage in order to get through any proposals for heavier lorries.
A report, which noble lords may have seen, appeared in the Guardian on 24th November, which pointed out the limited use of existing articulated tipper vehicles, and that the experience has been that their use has been unsafe and uneconomic. With the Government's proposals in these regulations, a possible change to a 38-tonne articulated tipper could lead to a substantial shift of bulk freight from rail to road. This would be against the Section 8 provisions
1110
which the Government seek to encourage. The report also said that this could lead to a considerable increase in heavy lorry traffic in areas where there are coal mines, gravel pits, quarries or steelworks. This was brought up in the debate in another place on 20th November. I am sure that anyone reading that debate would agree with me that the Minister's replies on that particular point were somewhat unconvincing.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said in our own debate on 19th April—and with this I agree, and I think all noble Lords would agree—that the first requirement is to take lorry traffic away from the places where people live and work. The Government argue that their plans for by-passing towns and villages will help to do this. But many of the places that need to be by-passed will not be dealt with by 1990. What is the position of other communities, smaller communities, on other than trunk roads? A recent Civic Trust survey stated that only a quarter of communities with more than 500 persons on roads used extensively by lorries were actually by-passed, and that 55 per cent. of those communities which have not yet been by-passed had no plans whatever for bypassing. Incidentally, in our debates, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, referred to the M25 and how, when completed, that would relieve through traffic. But Armitage made absolutely clear that the M25 would only relieve some 5 per cent. of the lorry traffic now going through London, because all the rest—95 per cent—had business somewhere in the London area.
That leads on to the general problem of lorries coming into towns, something that will not be resolved by lorry routes. Lorries seek access to towns, often using narrow, congested roads for access, for delivery, for collection and for overnight parking. That will not be solved by by-passes. Those vehicles will still need to have access. Neither will it be solved by lorry routes. While lorry routes can be useful, noble Lords will appreciate that what some lorry routes will do will be to transfer the problem from one area to somebody else's doorstep. Also the Government have said nothing in their proposals about possible development of transhipment or break-bulk depots. If we are to have the heavier lorries, surely they will be essential if those same lorries seek to have access to our overcrowded areas.
My Lords, there are many points on which questions have not been fully answered by the Government, and while we want to see the package to civilise the lorry in many ways carried through, this should not be in order to get through at the same time heavier lorries, with all the accompanying menaces for our environment.
6. 17 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, should have taken time this evening largely to repeat the arguments that he laid before us in our debate on 19th April. He has added nothing new, whereas the Government and the media generally have answered many of those questions. Of course, the real reason is that those who are opposed to lorries will remain implacably opposed to lorries, whatever is done. But, of course, they cannot escape the fact that lorries are part of our life without which we would not survive. The noble Lord, Lord

1111
Stone, shakes his head; he shook his head in April. I do not know how he thinks he can compulsorily transfer freight from road to another mode if we live in a free society, because at the end of the day it is the consumer who chooses the mode, and consumers have progressively chosen, for a variety of reasons, the road mode. That British Rail should succeed in increasing their share of the market I hope most fervently—and I really do mean that—because there are undoubtedly a great many substances and varieties of goods which might be better carried by rail. But they will have to alter their practices, their pricing, their mode of operation, to suit the customer who pays.
This is the first complete package of proposals brought before the country in, I think, post-war years. As such it is to be welcomed. We have had two attempts before, the Dykes Act and the Foster Report, but neither of those in fact attempted to make any kind of balance between on the one hand the "no lorries at any price" lobby, and those who want to go all the way. This package, I believe, does.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about public resentment against the existing lorry. Of course, there is resentment against the existing lorry; it does intrude into our lives and has done so progressively. This is precisely why in 1979 this Government set up what is now known as the Armitage Inquiry. There are those who say that Armitage started off by being biased. I do not accept that at all. Armitage produced a whole range of options, of which the Government have selected those most beneficial to meet both sides of the argument.
The measures might perhaps be described as being those against the lorry or, it might be truer to say, to improve the lorry itself—braking, under-run guards, splash guards, silencing, and so on—for which the industry itself will have to pay. To ensure that the industry pays its fair share of track costs, because there is no subsidy any more, the licensing fees have been quite dramatically altered. In fact, if one takes a typical 32-ton 4-axle articulated vehicle, prior to the March 1982 Budget an annual licence cost £1,200. Since October of this year, with the introduction of gross vehicle weight taxing, it is £ 1,820—a net increase of about 40 per cent. on licensing alone. Do not let anyone be persuaded that the industry is not going to pay for the improvements which the environmentalists are, quite rightly, asking for and even demanding.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asks why we have not gone to a 44-ton 6-axle lorry which, as Armitage points out, will do even less damage? Probably the real reason is that the various benefits that might accrue could easily be offset by the non-benefits. The noble Lord talked about the numbers of lorries. He will recognise, I am sure, that the biggest increase in the number of lorries always ends up at the heavier end of the spectrum. The figures that I have taken out show that between 1960 and 1979 there was a net reduction in the number of lorries on our roads, although it must be admitted that in 1965 there was a slight increase. There is no doubt that, unless alternative modes of transport are sufficiently competitive, when there is an upturn of business and when the factories are churning out more goods, road transport will play the appropri-
1112
ate part that it has always played in being an extension of that production line and there may well be a return to larger numbers.
Having said that, there is no doubt that as Armitage and the Government have made abundantly clear, there are huge cost benefits to be gained to two or three elements. The first is to the consumers of goods because if road transport costs, which are a significant part of the end product price, can be reduced, halted or curtailed that will be reflected in the price in the shops. There is no doubt about that. There will be benefits to the industry itself. Those benefits will pay for the improvements that we are looking for. It is estimated that reducing the decibel rate of noise can progressively cost the industry up to £120 million a year. That is £1.2 billion over 10 years, to use the phraseology of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and is a considerable amount of money. The improvements in braking, under-run guards, and so on, are estimated to cost about £40 million. All those improvements must be paid for and it is not unreasonable to suppose that the money should be earned by increased carrying capacity and increased efficiency.
I asked a colleague of mine in the transport industry to conduct a short and very small survey. Yesterday he gave me the result of a visit to South Wales where he talked to 80 operators. Of those 80 operators, only four said that their kind of business would warrant going into the 38-ton, 5-axle vehicle. People do not jump into this size of vehicle for the fun of it. A tractor unit alone costs about £40,000. A refrigerated trailer costs about £45,000. The cheapest all-purpose trailer, other than the platform-to-container, costs about £25,000 and one must bear in mind that the life of such a piece of equipment is not much more than five or six years. People do not buy heavier vehicles to carry heavier loads just for the fun of it. They do so because there is a need. The British Chamber of Shipping reminds us in a broadsheet issued a few days ago that,
"current road restrictions in the United Kingdom apply only to the first or last few miles of a journey that may be of many thousands of miles since containers are shipped all over the world. United Kingdom exporters are therefore forced to use more containers than necessary with a consequent unnecessary increase in freight cost and are disabled from competing with their continental rivals on the same terms".
Therefore, they are looking for this benefit. The last area of benefit, of course, is for manufacturing industry. I know that my noble friend Lord Montgomery has something to say about that.
These things are for the benefit of all of us. There is no doubt that a quieter vehicle, with the additional axle, better braking, splash guards and all the other things that are contained in the regulations and the other proposed regulations, is of benefit to the community. So at the end of the day there has to be a balance. Whether noble Lords who oppose these regulations feel that the balance has not been fairly struck is entirely up to them. They will form their own opinion. I think, perhaps in my heart of hearts, that the balance has not been fairly struck. I should have liked to see a bigger lorry, but not bigger in size because the Government have made it clear that, apart from the half-metre on the tractor unit only, the lorry must not be bigger. In this context, when I say bigger I refer to the load-carrying capacity. I should have liked to go

1113
further, but one cannot always have it all one's own way.
The Government have proposed—it is in the regulations and quite clear—for the very first time ever that trailer lengths may not exceed existing lengths. Therefore, there will be nothing bigger there. For the first time the Government have set out width and height limits. So lorries cannot get bigger. I say to my friends in the haulage industry that it is now for them to make sure by the general appearance of their vehicles that they are less obtrusive than hitherto. That is the area from where most of the argument comes. A friend of mine told me the other day that one seldom hears a complaint about an articulated lorry in the Guinness livery, or in a petrol company livery, because people can identify with the need for the goods to arrive at a certain destination; their petrol station, their home-heating plant or the local pub. Where the intrusion to the eye occurs is with that unidentifiable box on an unidentifiable vehicle that is dirty; that has waste paper, perhaps—I make no criticism of that industry, I just use that as an example—spilling out of it. That is where the intrusion comes in.
For those who argue, yes, but, they should not go through towns and villages, of course they should not go through towns and villages. I hope that my noble friend the Minister is going to remind the House of exactly how many miles of new lorry routeing, motorway or otherwise, of how many bypasses, and so on, are going to be constructed perhaps before the end of this decade. The relief comes in moving them away as well as in lessening the numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made some play with this fourth power rule, and he quoted the TRRL reports and Armitage, as indeed he did in April. He then asked why there had not been comprehensive tests in the United Kingdom. I cannot see the point of embarking on an exercise to confirm what the AASHO tests have shown. These tests, however imperfect one body or one group may see them to be, have worldwide acceptance. Until somebody produces something better, we should go along that route.
There is one particular point on which the noble Lord touched, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, also raised it in our April debate—that is, as regards large, heavy lorries going into towns, where are the proposals for the transhipment, break-bulk depots?—because we have not heard too much about them, although I think that the noble Lord opposite will remember that I mentioned the Penrith depot. There have been two others since April; one in the West Country, and the other escapes me at the moment.
If perhaps British Railways with some of their surplus land could be brought together with some local authority and some central Government help, and with private sector finance, we could easily see these depots being built, though again there are objections to where they are going to be built, because they have to be built near the towns. Then we might get away from that problem. That would enable local authorities to implement more effectively the proposals contained in the so-called Dykes Act.
If the Government have not gone quite as far as everybody would wish, there are two sides to that point. I believe that these measures go a tremendously
1114
long way towards meeting the complaints against the large lorry. I believe that it is up to the railways—they have the Section 8 grants, and some have been made already—and they have the opportunity. I do not believe that in our kind of society an opportunity should be provided by denying other people their opportunities. At the end of the day, such denial would appear in our housekeeping bills. That, I suggest, is what nobody in your Lordships' House wants. I believe that the Government have gone as far as at this moment in time they could reasonably go. I should like to see some changes in another five or six years' time when we have assimilated this package. I hope that your Lordships will reject the Prayer in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, it is always difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in his homage to the heavy lorry. I feel that the lorries versus people argument is often wrongly put—not by the noble Lord, but in front of the general public. That is why I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has sought in his Motion to annul the regulations to allow us all to question the Government about these regulations in this more general context of lorries and people.
We accept that 90 per cent. of the regulations are necessary, and indeed are welcome. Also, there are factors that will, hopefully, create more employment as a result of them. The position that we take from these Benches is one of whether the considerations of conservation, environment and quality of life are going to be protected by these regulations and are not just given a sort of blessing by them in words only. It may be worth a moment to say that anyone who talks about the environment, the quality of life, is classified to be on the side of the righteous, and anyone who puts arguments against is considered to be on the distaff side. It is not quite like that when it comes to these regulations.
As I see it, it is in the form of a balance sheet: a balance sheet where on one side the environmentalists are—and I think that is where a majority of sensible people are—requesting more by-passes, and indeed the Government have recognised this, and asking for more heavy lorry parking. We are indeed asking for more depots of transfer in big cities. We are asking for more strengthening of bridges, more safety, more inspectors, more weighbridges, and more heavy rail freight. That is on one side of the balance sheet. On the other side, we want to see whether these regulations are going to produce less damage to pavements, sewers, water pipes, underneath the streets, and to historic buildings which are damaged by vibration, and noise, of which we also want less. We also want less pollution.
In the debate in another place these points were raised by many Members of Parliament. But interestingly enough, having read it, I could not find a single Member of another place who went so far as to welcome these regulations. I think that this was an oversight. They went really to question how it would affect their constituents, who were frightened by heavy lorries. This is a general feeling which is difficult to quantify. There is no doubt on looking at that debate that members of all parties—and most of them seem

1115
to have been from the Minister's side of the House—were considerably worried about the effects that these regulations might have.
There was one exception which came from the honourable Member for Hove, Mr. Tim Sainsbury. He argued that the new regulations should improve the flow of baked beans from Wigan to all points south. I am well aware of this feeling of relief that we all have that at least there is one good side to these regulations. The point that the honourable Member was making was not only about the flow of baked beans, but that the flow of this kind of freight would not be affected by the regulations. The load would be evenly distributed over all the axles.
One of the doubts raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and by many Members of another place, is this: when there is a mixed cargo on one of these heavy lorries, how is one to ascertain whether the loading is correctly distributed over the axle? That can only mean more weighbridges. I believe that of the 800 weighbridges now installed in the country, 200 are not suitable for that kind of assessment. Thus, my first question—this follows the queries raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—is whether the new regulations, when they become effective, can be tested at all weighbridges, and how many of the present weighbridges contain equipment for assessing whether the load in a closed container is properly distributed.
To paraphrase an intervention in another place by Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, the Member for Newbury, a study by Cambridge econometrics suggested that an increase of £500 million in civil works, such as road, water and sewerage works, would produce 40,000 jobs in construction and 20,000 in the construction supply industry. Those jobs could be achieved at a cost of £2,300 each, compared with £3,100 for a job through equivalent spending on employment subsidies, or £5,000 for an unemployed person. Will the regulations do anything to progress the very necessary civil works which are now outstanding throughout the country, and which are directly related to the increased density or increased weight of traffic which will occur as a result of the regulations?
The Minister of Transport, Mr. David Howell, said in another place that since the Armitage Report we had added by-passes to the trunk Toad programme to the value of £200 million and approved transport grants of £245 million for local by-passes, and the Minister said he hoped to approve an extra £154 million for 1983–84. "This is big money", he said. By my arithmetic, that comes to about £600 million. I would like your Lordships to bear that figure in mind because the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Mrs. Chalker, said that the 38-tonne lorry would, from the outset, cover 100 per cent. of the road track costs. My question is: will the £600 million in works specified by the Minister of Transport be covered by the duties and road taxes imposed on heavy lorries?
I ask that question because the Under-Secretary was categoric that the regulations would pay for themselves and there would be no subsidy element in road track costs. I find that difficult to accept, although 1 should be pleased if the Minister would confirm it for me. I would go further and hope that this is not just the
1116
end of the number of by-passes that require to be built. There remain outstanding a great number for which plans have been made but for which no allowance has been made on the financial side. I understand, further, that another £ 100 million is required for the strengthening of bridges. Is that also covered by the taxes paid by the road haulage industry?
Is it possible, as Armitage implied, that a 4 to 5 per cent. switch of heavy freight traffic from road to rail would solve many of British Rail's freight problems and, indeed, bring about its profitability? Bearing in mind that about 70 per cent. of all heavy freight on the Continent is carried by rail and only 44 per cent. of heavy freight is so carried in this country, it seems that a very small change in policy is needed—with, I imagine, only a small incentive—to bring about a loss-to-profit situation, as put forward by the rail industry.
I wish to finish with a generalisation, one which may extend the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I spent two weeks in the great city of Los Angeles, a city dedicated to and designed around road transport. They are now faced with the immense problem of installing a railway; they wish to run one from the airport to the centre of the city and a railway from the city centre to San Diego. The wayleaves or rights have gone; there is nowhere in that great city where they can put a railway system which they now find they require.
My worry is that if the enthusiasm which Her Majesty's Government now seem to have for road transport goes too far, the time may come, as the rail system and routes are closed down and the tracks are used for other purposes, when they may be required again. I would give, as only the one example, the line from Stranraer to Dumfries, which I fought to keep open in 1959 when I first stood as a candidate in Galloway. Once the systems are shut, they are unable to be reopened. If Los Angeles is now thinking of installing a rail system, rather late in the day, I am wondering whether our Government will protect the rail system in this country for the future, or whether they will go further with the roadification, if I may use that word, of rail routes.
In The Times today I read that the Government's Centre for Policy Studies, or Think Tank, has taken on a Mr. Ibbotson, a retired railway chairman—of Southern Region, I believe—mainly, it seems, because he has written a book in which he has suggested that the railways should be converted into roads for highspeed buses and lorries travelling at about 80 m.p.h. with specially trained drivers. May I ask the Minister to indicate the terms of reference of the Centre for Policy Studies with regard to plans for using railways for more roads? Is it the Government's intention to use the new 38-tonne lorries on converted rail tracks?
Would the Minister also give some advice about speed limits? I am interested to note Mr. Ibbotson's suggestion that high-speed buses and lorries should travel at 80 m.p.h. down converted railway lines. The present speed limit on motorways for heavy lorries is, I understand, 60 m.p.h. Would the Minister confirm that? Would he also confirm that it is the same limit for long-distance buses? Why was it that during the rail strike, when I had to drive to Scotland, between the Preston and Carlisle section of the motorway I had great difficulty in overtaking buses doing in excess of 100 m.p.h.?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Tanlaw: Perhaps I may have temporary leave to exceed the speed limit, my Lords. What is the speed limit for long-distance buses on such routes, and how well is it monitored? I ask that because it is difficult for private vehicles to proceed along motorways, often in difficult conditions, when, as I say, buses are travelling in excess of 100 m.p.h. The Minister will perhaps give consideration to those points when replying to the debate.
6.49 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, the regulations which are the subject of this debate have been presented by the Government as though they were a long-needed charter for the proper control of heavy lorries, with the hope, no doubt, that any dissentient voice will either be silenced or else dismissed as being opposed to a package so desirable from an environmental point of view. Without doubt, most of us would agree that reduction in noise, better safety regulations, more by-passes, and taxation related to damage caused, are very desirable objectives. But they are all very much required in relation to the large fleet of existing 32-tonne lorries, to which in fact very few of the provisions of the package would apply. What we are actually being offered are some declarations of intent to sugar the pill of the introduction of the 38-tonne lorry.
Of course, the Minister has for some time been under pressure to increase the maximum permitted weight of lorries in this country by up to 35 per cent., and he has yielded to this to the tune of about 17 per cent. Since the size of the trailer is very rightly not to be increased, the extra traffic to be won for road transport will be largely the kind of tonnage loads which are currently transported in the main by railways and waterways, and of which, most people would agree, less, not more, should be carried by road.
There is a suggestion that the introduction of heavier lorries would mean fewer such vehicles on the roads. It might be so temporarily if 38-tonners could overnight be substituted for existing 32½-tonners. But by the time that the changeover could be completed, the only effect would be that any possible reduction in numbers would have been overtaken by the further transfer to roads of traffic from railways and waterways.
In introducing the regulations and the so-called package, the Government admit that the environmental cost of road transport is already too great and must be reduced. They do not really spell out the material cost of doing that, but it will be high. Most of the items listed are already overdue at the present rate of traffic. Research into noise reduction has been in hand since 1971, and prototypes halving noise levels to 80 decibels were demonstrated four years ago. Noise tests for lorries could, and should, be introduced now, and certainly not await the "further research" advocated by the Government.
Improved braking performance to conform to EEC standards is also long overdue, bearing in mind that a 38-tonner, at a speed of 50 m.p.h., which is recommended in the Armitage Report, will generate an increase of 71 per cent. in impact force, as compared with an existing 32½-tonner at 40 m.p.h.
1118
Sideguards and rearguards are also welcome improvements, though they will not effect existing lorries. Finally, in this regard the need to do something about spray is acknowledged, but presumably this, too, will have to await "further research". Enforcement of the new regulations will have to be strict, and will entail increases in the establishment.
Turning to the question of access, I would say that the addition of 20 by-passes is welcome. However although some 200 are, I believe, under construction or in the pipeline, even this total is less than half the number which, it has been estimated, are urgently required. In my opinion it will certainly be the end of the century before they can all be completed. Even so, the problem of access will remain. As the Armitage Report made clear, the essence of road transport is its door-to-door facility, without the need for transhipment. If this is to be maintained, the heavy lorries will still require access not only to towns and cities, but also to villages and country lanes. "Taking the lorries away from the people", for which the report also called, however desirable, can be achieved only through a drastic rethinking of the whole basis of road transport.
Finally, we come to the vexed question of damage to existing roads, bridges and underground pipes and sewers, as well as houses and structures. It seems difficult for experts to reach agreement in quantifying the damage, probably because in addition to the axle load, there come into the equation a number of other factors, such as speed, springing, load distribution, and many others. However, it seems reasonable to suppose that bridges—certainly those over 20 metres in length—will be adversely affected by increased lorry weight, and many will need strengthening. Vibration, which affects underground services as well as structures, must also have a correlation with weight.
It should be borne in mind that the specification for the new 38-tonner yields a "standard axle" of 1·96, which is 25 per cent. more than the "standard axle" of the existing 32½-tonner. Furthermore, the amendment permits an increase in axle weight to 10·5 tonnes, despite the assurances that no increases would be allowed. It is difficult to believe that the increases will not lead to greater damage.
All in all, the heavier lorries will place a heavy burden on the public purse in the form of structural damage or the improvements necessary to prevent it. In the past this element appears to have been underestimated, or played down. A current case in point—there are several cases that one could quote—is that of the premature and costly repair programme which has been found necessary for the Severn Bridge. While it is true that some of the programme is due to an underestimate of the amount of traffic using the bridge, I understand that there has also been a failure to appreciate the amount of damage that it would actually cause. I believe that the raising of the maximum weight of lorries to 38 tonnes has not been justified and that its cost in material and environmental terms has not been fully spelt out. Therefore I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for bringing forward the Motion, and I support it.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for giving us the

1119
opportunity to press the Government on some of the points arising from the regulations. Speaking as a predecessor of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, in the Department of Transport, I personally am convinced of the economic arguments for heavier lorries, but in the absence of any real indication by the Government of much speedier implementation of the necessary environmental improvements, I cannot at this stage give my unconditional support to the regulations.
I accept all the arguments put forward by the manufacturers and the road haulage interests, but I believe that the environmental impact also must be considered. We are worried about the inadequacy of our existing roads to carry the larger vehicles and the heavier loads. We believe that there will be a need for massive public expenditure on the reconstruction of some of our existing roads, and since the Government's philosophy is one of minimum public expenditure, how can we be sure that they will cope with the problems—and cope with them quickly?
We need many more bypasses before the heavier lorries ought to be approved. I accept that this is an integral part of the package now being offered, but why cannot we have more bypasses before the weight is increased? We should like to see more freight moved on to the railways, and we welcome the increase in the greater availability of the Section 8 grants. We should also like to see our major rivers and our inland waterways used much more for freight transport, and thus take some of the juggernauts out of our cities and villages.
What about the timescale for all the environmental projects that really are needed? The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred to the noise element. We used to talk about having quieter lorries in the 'eighties. It seems to me that we are now beginning to talk about having quieter lorries in the 'nineties. Can we really expect determined action from the Government on noise levels—and quickly—and are the Government willing to give even financial help, if necessary, for more research into noise levels?
When are we to have more weighbridges and more traffic examiners? All three of the major local authority associations have said that they are against the regulations, and in one of its documents the AMA has suggested that 25 per cent. of the vehicles that are now inspected are overloaded. Will there necessarily be less overloading with the increased weight limit? Will the future enforcement procedures be better than those that we have at present? Will the required staff be trained—and quickly—and will the money be found to do that?
We are also concerned, all of us, about the effect of the juggernauts and other heavy traffic through our inner cities, through our historic town centres, and through our lovely old villages. We are worried, too, about damage from vibration—not only to our historic buildings, but to the homes of people who live on the lorry routes. Lorry action areas have been referred to, but how long will it be before we get them? As I understand it, consultations are only just beginning.
Meantime, how do we prevent the heavy lorries finding their own alternative routes through residential areas when the main routes are congested? What help is going to be given to the local authorities to provide
1120
parking facilities for lorries? Too often they park outside the home of the driver and, because of their size, outside his neighbours' home as well. They wake everybody up when the lorry starts off in the early hours of the morning; and sometimes, if they are refrigerated vans, they keep everyone awake at night. It is not possible to implement an overnight parking ban for lorries until the local authorities are able to provide conveniently situated lorry parks.
These are problems that have been with us for a long time, and they are not going to go away; but I think the Government have to accept that if these regulations are approved then, to be sure of having public support for the heavier lorries, they must come up with a much more convincing programme of environmental protection and safeguards than we have seen or heard to date.
7.1 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for not being in my place when the debate started. I understand there was a somewhat rapid change in the tempo of the previous debate, and my intelligence on the subject was clearly quite inadequate. That is by way of explanation rather than being an excuse; but it means that I did not hear all that he said, and I shall naturally read it tomorrow with interest.
It is difficult to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, as she is a considerable expert on environmental matters. Indeed, I have listened to her previouly in this House on this subject, and even earlier, when I was concerned with local government. But I think that there are still misconceptions about lorries and the damage they do. The fact of the matter is that lorries are here to stay; we cannot halt the wheel of progress. This was put much more eloquently than I can put it by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
Furthermore, one does not need to look at lorries totally in isolation. Of course railways are important. The fact of the matter is that rail freight in Europe is on a massive scale, but this has not precluded a major development in road freight transport as well. These things can, and indeed do, run in double harness; and in the sort of society that we are trying to create in this country it is, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, ultimately the consumer who will make the decision.
I was also interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, had to say. I think I ought to point out to him that Los Angeles is rather a different proposition from Stranraer; and however optimistic may be the projections about Stranraer, I do not think it will equate with Los Angeles until well into the 22nd, if not the 23rd, century.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. The point is that it has already happened in Stranraer. There is no railway between Stranraer and Dumfries.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: That may be, my Lords, but it does not mean that there could not be in the future. As to the other point which the noble Lord made—and I think that perhaps this is a personal matter—it may be he should take to flying. I appreciate, of course, that, if he does take to flying, at

1121
its present speed it will actually be slower, but it might be safer.
For my part, I welcome these regulations, and I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Avon on their introduction. As he will remember, ever since the debate on the Armitage Report initiated by Lord Underhill in April, I have been pressing him, by means of both oral and written Questions, that something should happen, and it is very gratifying that the egg has finally been laid. Of course, the egg may not appeal to everybody—nothing ever does—but it will certainly be welcomed very widely by manufacturing industry. It will be welcomed, not only by the heavy goods vehicles manufacturers; it will be welcomed also by the suppliers of parts and components, and all the many ancillary industries which are part of the heavy goods and transport industry.
In this context, of course, 40 tonnes would have been more desirable than 38. Forty tonnes is the maximum weight allowed on the Continent, and it would have been more sensible to go for the same regulations as are in force in the EEC. But 38 tonnes is very acceptable, and it is at least a decision. In fact, what industry wanted was decision on this matter, and decision we have finally had. For that reason, I hope the Government will reject the Motion moved this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I shall be even more brief than I thought I was going to be. I think your Lordships have listened to a very high standard of debate so far. I cannot consider myself in any way technically minded so as to be able to enter into some of the arguments that have been put forward, and there is very little room for original thought. But I believe this order to be sound, comprehensive and sensible, and the reasons are simple. For one reason, the distribution costs in relation to the overall cost of a manufactured product are high. Perhaps I am oversimplifying this, but, surely, allowing lorries to carry heavier weights will, hopefully, mean that prices can be held and, therefore, that inflation can be kept down, especially concerning food prices, in which respect, undeniably, I think, this Government have a very good record.
Before one gets on to the subject of roads, surely one has to take account of pollution. With these more modern lorries, the risk of pollution is very much less. I think that we as a nation have a fear, or anybody has, really, of anything being big or larger than ourselves. It is a sort of psychological paradox. What is more, people have always become terribly fussed and worried about lorries. In fact, I think one feels a jolly sight safer crossing a road when there is a lorry coming, rather than a car, because one knows that it is going to stop. On the whole, the drivers are better; and the modern lorry is less likely to stink than the average car.
One is also delighted to see the higher priority given to by-pass schemes. If we err as a nation, we do so by trying so hard to please everybody, which is impossible. One can think of many towns and villages where a by-pass is so overdue and where one would have gone ahead if there had not been endless complaints, some petty complaints, by some people. I think people always agree that there is a need for a by-pass, but never that it should be anywhere where it
1122
can affect them. In the end, when by-passes or motorways have been built, there have been few grumbles because, on the whole, they are constructed with taste and, in some cases, even with elegance, especially when it comes to bridges.
It is not necessarily lorries which make for congestion; it is still, I am afraid, the private car. Furthermore, as to transferring things to another mode of transport, to rail, that is a very old argument. When you consider the number of railways being closed, in consequence there are very few left, and they are not the ones which would be terribly suitable for freight, anyway. They are generally branch lines, which would not carry much freight. Therefore, I would agree with most of your Lordships tonight in supporting the Government, and I regret, on this occasion, not to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in speaking to these Regulations, S.I. 1982 No. 1576, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss them, and also for his presentation, which was very modest and very equal-handed at the beginning. At the same time—something which I confess I forgot to do last week—may I congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment as Deputy Leader and say how nice it is to have him in that capacity?
My Lords, emphasis this evening has been placed on the need to protect people, buildings and the environment from lorries and, particularly from annoyance, as well as on capacity—and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, made this point. The Government share that concern. The whole community has been worried and is worried, and recognition of the seriousness of the problem and of the fact that action is needed has been the basis of the Government's approach throughout. That is why I look this afternoon for support for this package, which, for the first time, makes a comprehensive, practical attack on the problem.
The Government are determined to control lorries and to grapple with what was threatening to become an intolerable situation. What we are talking about is the quality of people's lives: the choice to live relatively free from danger, dirt, damage and disturbance. Almost every Member of this House knows the problem from his own experience. Disturbance by traffic generally and lorries in particular is a matter of consuming concern in many communities throughout the land. The problem has not been evenly spread. Fortunately, many of the lorries have gone by motorway and high quality roads away from residential areas and shopping streets. Nevertheless, too many people have been badly affected.
All this has happened with existing lorries. This is the key to the whole lorry situation. Lorry problems are here with us now. They are not some figment of the future which will be created by heavier lorries. It is the failure to understand it which has put so many people, people committed to protecting the environment, on the wrong side of the argument. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, spoke about the balance sheet. I hope that, as I go through my remarks, he will see that the pluses really are the commitment which we intend to fulfil. If

1123
I may explain, first, the Government set up the Armitage Inquiry. It is worth going back to that report. It was Armitage which first authoritatively described the causes and consequences of the growth in lorry traffic and the effect on people and the environment; and the committee mapped out a way forward. They concluded that there must be improvements to cope with the effects of existing lorries. They made 58 detailed recommendations. We have accepted, in whole or in part, 51 of them and gone beyond some of them. Armitage did not make the mistake of concentrating on the weights issue. It produced a comprehensive package of measures, covering the whole spectrum of the environmental, safety and economic effects of lorries.
But this debate has, rightly, paid attention to the weights issue. It bears repetition perhaps that Armitage saw an updating of our outmoded weights regulations as helping the environment. I should like to quote the final paragraph:
"We strongly believe that the measures which we recommend provide a way of significantly reducing the effects of lorries on people and the environment without putting at risk the vital rôle of road freight transport in our economy. They enable us to gain economic advantages and substantial environmental advantages. They considerably reduce the effects of heavy lorries on people and the environment. Heavier lorries help in the improvement. Heavier lorries, even when considered in isolation from the wider changes affecting all lorries, would bring both economic and environmental benefits."
The validity of that conclusion, and the supporting evidence for it, have not been seriously challenged. And the Government accept the fundamental analysis and main recommendations of this distinguished inquiry. But I submit that there has been much more to it than that.
In the light of the Armitage Report, the Government published last December their White Paper, Lorries, People and the Environment, which set out their basic approach. But, since then, we have very substantially improved on our package of measures. We really have listened to and responded to the representations which have been made. When I say "responded to", the sheaf of press notices which the noble Lord produced might have some relation to this. The package deals with three main themes: improving the lorries themselves; controlling and influencing where they go; and enforcement of standards.
We have reduced the proposed increase in the maximum weight of 5-axle articulated lorries from 40 tonnes to 38 tonnes. My noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Montgomery reflected the opposite view to this. However, I am sure that this is the prudent course. The great bulk of the economic benefits, the cost savings, from heavier lorries can be obtained from 38-tonne lorries. British industry has relatively little call for 40-tonne, as opposed to 38-tonne, lorries. Individual 38-tonne lorries on 5 axles are no more damaging to the roads than existing 32·5-tonne lorries, and overall will mean there is less damage done to the roads to carry the same amount of freight.
We have abandoned altogether the proposal to increase the weights of 4-axle articulated lorries to 34 tonnes. This has disappointed many hauliers who wanted to use their existing lorries at higher weights without alteration. But the Government are not prepared to allow any lorries which will do more damage to the roads than existing lorries. We have
1124
abandoned any suggestion that there should be an increase in the weights of drawbar trailer combinations—that is, lorries pulling trailers. These are little used in Britain, in contrast to the Continent. Nor is there any question of our accepting lorries which would cause substantial additional repair costs to bridges. One or two noble Lords quoted from the AMA. Perhaps I may quote from the Association of County Councils, a major bridge owner. They have accepted that 38-tonne lorries, as proposed, cause no additional damage to bridges overall, and that where problems do exist, these are generally caused by existing traffic. I might add that the ACC, which represents the great majority of highway, traffic and planning authorities in the country, has welcomed broadly the Government's package of measures.
We are making lorries safer. From last month, higher braking standards were required. Sideguards and rearguards are to be mandatory. We have gone beyond Armitage in committing ourselves to a mandatory requirement to cut down spray, as soon as a standard is agreed in BSI. Lorries are being made quieter. From April the limit for the heaviest lorries will be reduced from 91dbA to 88dbA. This will be followed by a stricter test method in 1984 which will require all new models to be quietened by up to a further 3 decibels; 38-tonne lorries will have to meet exactly the same, fast improving, standards as 32.5-tonne lorries. And tighter noise limits will also reduce low-frequency emissions, which cause most vibration. There will be further substantial reductions in lorry noise. We are pressing for the fastest possible action by the European Community on this, and putting some £5 million into research contracts as part of the Quiet Heavy Vehicle 90 Project. Even though we improve the lorries, we should do all we can to get them away from people and I think my noble friend Lord Lucas made this point.
So we have taken action on many more bypasses. In the last year design work has been started or resumed on bypasses for nearly 40 more communities. The whole bypass programme is now very large indeed. Altogether 220 towns and villages will have relief from traffic in the next 4 to 5 years. And these are not empty or vague promises. Work is under way. This year, for example, Government financial assistance should enable counties to go ahead with 35 bypasses—and a further 35 next year. By the end of the decade virtually all towns on trunk roads that need bypasses should have them. Since Armitage, we have added bypasses to the trunk-road programme and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, quoted the figures so that I shall not do so now. I shall come back to the point that he raised about it later.
We have taken a tougher line on lorry routeing, backing up advice and encouragement and circulars to local authorities—who rightly have the responsibility because only they have the local knowledge—with financial incentives through a transport supplementary grant. We have also accepted the novel idea of lorry action areas to help especially badly affected places, where re-routeing is not possible. Local authorities have responded enthusiastically. We hope to support 60 schemes in the next TSG settlement, which will be made soon.
We have strengthened the grants to get freight on to the railways and canals where that makes environ-

1125
mental sense. The maximum fate of these "Section 8" grants has been increased to 60 per cent. The grants have also been extended to waterways and to Sealink and Freightliner, just as both British Rail and Armitage wanted.
Some people say we should not introduce our package of measures because of the possible effect on BR. But no one, least of all BR, wants artificial protection. What we all want is free and fair competition. We shall tax the 38-tonne lorries fully to cover road track costs from the outset. This will ensure fair competition. And BR envisage that the more generous Section 8 grants will bring them substantial extra business.
We have stepped up enforcement, recruiting more traffic examiners and increasing expenditure on weighbridges by 50 per cent. Many more lorries are being checked now—and perhaps this is the figure that we all ought to look at; 25 percent. more than in 1980. Enforcement authorities can and do detain vehicles and prevent them moving on until their load has been reduced to the proper limits. This is a big deterrent.
It could be argued that all our proposals are desirable and that we should have all of them except for the proposed increase in weights. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, put that point herself. I am afraid that we do not accept this. The increase in weights, as Armitage made clear, itself contributes to improving the environment by reducing the number of lorry journeys for a given amount of freight: fewer journeys to cause disturbance, noise and accidents.
British industry, too, will make big economic savings. The whole of industry agrees. Many individual examples have been given, and those who read Hansard of the other place last week will have seen some. Incidentally, rather than what the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, suggested, I think that the point which the honourable Member for Hove was making was that there would be fewer lorries coming down from Wigan with baked beans on them. A 38-tonne lorry can offer 20 per cent. or more payload than a 32.5 tonne lorry. How can we in one breath tell industry that it must become more competitive and in the next say that it cannot have the means to do so? There will also be a boost for United Kingdom trailer and lorry manufacturers.
If I may now answer one or two points made during the debate, to take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about the articulated tipper lorries, we expect most of the new and modified tippers to measure within the range 12 to 12½ metres. Although that is marginally longer than the present 11 metres, longer vehicles would still not be necessary to carry the load. This I understand is the view of industry. By having these longer tippers, there will be a reduction in their number; and a quarry, for example, could despatch its product with 23 per cent. fewer 12½-metre articulated tippers at that limit.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also produced the fourth power rule. If I may, I shall in response confine myself to two points, as my noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned this matter. First, this is an internationally recognised way of calculating road damage used by highway administrations in many countries and, in the opinion of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, gives the best representation of the damage caused by axles of different weights. Secondly, whether
1126
the fourth power rule is exactly right—whether it should be, for example, a fifth power rule—is not critical to the question of whether the 38-tonne vehicle will cause less damage. The fact is that the 38-tonne vehicle has one axle that is very slightly—3 per cent.—heavier than at present, balanced by substantially lighter trailer axles. However the calculations are done, the saving in road damage from the trailer with the extra axle is far more significant than the additional damage from the heavier drive axle on the tractor. Armitage concluded that the fourth power law is the best single approximation there is and is universally used by authorities responsible for road design and lorry weights.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, made a point about the higher proportion of freight going by rail in Europe. This is mainly because of international traffic which is not available to British Rail. Armitage studied this point. I quote from paragraph 46 of his report:
"International traffic accounts for over 20 per cent. of all rail tonnage in France and West Germany, compared to 2 per cent.in this country. Indeed, excluding this international traffic, British Rail have the same share of all freight traffic in terms of tonnage as the railways do in France and West Germany and a greater share than on other European railways".
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, also spoke about vehicle taxes. The vehicle excise duty, like other taxes, goes into the general expenses of the Exchequer. The point is that heavier lorries of 38-tonnes will have to pay for all of their allocated road track costs thus ensuring we believe fair competition. The noble Lord also quoted from Mr. Ibbotson. I feel that I cannot comment on an article which was written today in The Times. He also questioned the speed limits on motorways. I must say to him that if he is trying to overtake buses going at 100 miles per hour, he is confessing to something and I hope that parliamentary privilege will allow him to escape from the judges! Next time he sees a bus travelling at over 70 miles per hour he will know that that bus is disobeying the law. The speed limit for lorries is 60 miles per hour on motorways.
The noble Lord spoke about weighbridges. All dynamic weighbridges allow one to weigh individual axles, even of a closed container lorry, so one knows how well the load has been distributed inside the lorry. The modern weighbridges are being installed quickly. We already have 35; we shall have five more soon, and we are looking at sites for a further 80.Ihope that that will give the noble Lord some confidence.
The noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, in his interesting speech, suggested at one stage that we had no regulations now on European Community braking standards or their noise. But of course in fact we do because last month we introduced higher European Community braking standards. The present noise regulations will be substantially strengthened next April. The noble Viscount also mentioned standard axles of 38 tonnes and 32.5 tonnes. They produce almost exactly the same pressure.
The standard axle of a vehicle is of course a number representing the amount of damage that vehicle does to the road. It is calculated by adding the fourth powers of each individual axle and dividing by 10,000. If I may give an example, 64+104+84+84equals approximately 21,000. Therefore standard axles from

1127
such a four-axled 30-tonne vehicle have a value of 2·1. Noble Lords who have studied Armitage will find that in paragraph 377.
We are debating this evening not only the general issues affecting lorries, people and the environment but also a specific Motion to annul Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1576. Perhaps I may therefore tell the House very briefly what this contains. It deals with four aspects of the construction and use of heavy goods vehicles. These are: maximum weight, maximum dimensions, the fitting of rear underrun protective devices and the fitting of side guards. I have already gone over the reasons why we have decided to permit an increase in weight. We have also decided, for much the same reasons, that detailed control is necessary of the spacing between adjacent axles. This is achieved by the table set out on page 17. The maximum weight on wheels and single axles are set out in the table on page 13.
The new figures for the length of articulated vehicles and semi-trailers are in the table on page 3. The figure of 15·5 metres is an increase of 0·5 metres on the existing legal limit which, as I have explained, is incompatible with the slightly longer and improved tractor units that have come into use during the past 10 years.
The figure of 12.2 metres, which is 40 feet, controls the length of new semi-trailers to ensure that the increase in permitted total length does not result in any increase in the semi-trailer part of the articulated vehicle. Rear underrun protection is dealt with on pages 4–6.
The provisions on sideguards in regulations 46C and 46D are set out on pages 6–9. This requirement breaks new ground as there is at present no international standard, and only a few countries have the most rudimentary provisions designed to cover the space at the sides of vehicles, to prevent pedestrians and cyclists from getting trapped under the vehicle. Rear underrun protection and sideguards will be a requirement on all new trailers manufactured after 1st May 1983 and all new motor vehicles manufactured from 1st October 1983 and first used on or after 1st April 1984.
Taken together, these provisions will result during the coming years in a progressive reduction in the number of fatal and serious accidents in which heavy lorries are involved. The regulations will reduce the number of heavy articulated vehicles and increase their safety through the fitting of sideguards from next May. Over a longer period all lorries, regardless of weight, will become safer as sideguards and rear underrun protective devices are fitted by the manufacturers. Improved braking standards on new lorries from last month will also help sustain the reduction in accident rates which we have seen over the last decade.
I recognise the genuine concern of your Lordships about the environment. As I said, the Government share it. The regulations, with all our other measures, show that this is one instance where we can serve industry and the environment at the same time. In every single measure in our heavy lorry package the environment has been considered. The package as a whole will be good for British industry, let the lorries run fuller and add an extra axle to make sure there is
1128
no extra damage to the roads. In this way we can help industry, jobs, costs and have fewer of the lorries which caused the trouble in the first place. I commend these regulations, my Lords.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said, the Motion has provided an opportunity for noble Lords to question the Government, and various noble Lords have taken advantage of that opportunity. I want to comment on just one contribution, that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, because I must reject what he said—that moving this Motion was opposition to all lorries at any price. I thought I had made that position absolutely clear in the opening words of my speech, but I wish to stress that what many noble Lords and myself seek to ensure is that the lorry is made more acceptable; and a number of speakers emphasised that point as well. There was general agreement, as I expected, to the proposals in the regulations which lead to safety improvement and to environmental improvement. But, as many noble Lords have said, there is a long way to go yet, particularly in dealing with improvements in the environment.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for his detailed reply, which I am certain other noble Lords as well as myself will study with keen interest when we read Hansard in detail tomorrow. I hope the Government will take serious note of some of the expressions of concern that have been voiced this evening. I hope the Government will monitor the developments, and I am certain that other noble Lords will themselves monitor what happens when these regulations and other proposals in the Government's package come into effect.
I adhere quite firmly to the criticisms of and objections to the heavy lorries which have been supported by other noble Lords, but I shall not be pressing the annulment of the regulations, which after all have been approved in the other place. I believe the debate has been helpful and I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I stress again my hope that the Government will recognise the serious points of concern which have been expressed. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eight o'clock.