Lords Sitting of 1 December 1983

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Oil Taxation Act,

Pwllheli Harbour Act,

Greater London Council (Money) Act,

Severn-Trent Water Authority Act,

Standard Chartered Merchant Bank Act.

Consumer Council Guidelines
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have now considered the proposals made by the chairmen of consumer councils for operating guidelines concerning nationalised industry consumer councils: and whether they intend to give priority for a debate in Parliament on these proposals.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead):My Lords, as I told the House on 27th October, we are currently considering these proposals: and further discussions will be necessary with the councils and others concerned before the guidelines are finalised. The question of a debate is a matter for the usual channels.
Baroness Burton of Coventry:My Lords, we do not seem to advance much further. Does the noble Lord recall that I sent him a list of Questions going back three years in which I had persevered on this matter? May I ask him whether the Government are really saying that nationalised industries are not for the Government to consider? Does he realise that this is a matter not only of consumer affairs, but of consumer affairs in nationalised industry? Could he not look further into that particular point?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should not like the noble Baroness to feel that she has not made progress. I think it is not least due to the persistence of the noble Baroness that we now have the Electricity Consumer Council on a statutory basis: we have new arrangements for liaison between the national councils under
796
the auspices of the National Consumer Council having been made; and of course preparations for guidelines have stimulated the consumer councils to reassess their working practices and approaches to several matters for the benefit of all.
So far as opportunity for a debate is concerned, there is of course the opportunity of the Wednesday debates allocated to the political parties, and balloted short debates on the same days, and an Unstarred Question. If the noble Baroness is thinking of a debate outside one of the more usual methods, then I would just make the point that the Order Paper is probably as congested as at any time during this time of the year in your Lordships' House. Only this week the House has sat on two days until well after 11 o'clock.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I appreciate that. I am sorry—no, I am not sorry, for one has to be persistent.I know that the noble Lord wishes to help, but does he realise that I really am tired of being pushed off on the question of a Wednesday debate, an Unstarred Question, or something like that? Does he not realise that the point I am making is that the question of nationalised industries is one for the Government? If the Government wished to give time they could. and why are they so resolutely refusing to do so?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I certainly accept on behalf of the Government the responsibility so far as the consumer councils are concerned. It is because the guidelines will define the operations of the consumer councils for some time to come that we have to get them right, and this means that we must talk with the consumer councils themselves, with the industries concerned, and with their sponsor departments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter:My Lords, will my noble friend reassure the noble Baroness that the best method of protecting the consumers of nationalised industries is to denationalise the industries?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that of course is precisely what the Government are doing.
Lord Beswick:My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that, when the Government have reached a conclusion about the representation of consumers, the same provisions will apply when the Government hold only a minority interest in these companies?
Lord Belstead:My Lords, we have a good example coming in the British Telecommunications Bill. So far as consumer interest is concerned, I think that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, absolutely when that Bill arrives in your Lordships' House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos:My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, if he and his Government had accepted the advice of the noble Lord, then the consumers in vast areas of Wales, Scotland, and the North of England would not have electricity, gas, drainage, or piped water, and the fear is that with denationalisation these services will be worse than they were before?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the nobleLord, I do not accept his thesis. But so far as his thesis may be true, that is precisely why we have acted in the way we have so that the citizens of Wales still have these very important public services.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, following the point that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if any of the big publicly-owned industries are privatised and they fall into a terrible condition and the nation is threatened, as in the case of Rolls-Royce, even a ConservativeGovernment, as they did then, will not hesitate to nationalise them? Are representatives of the consumer councils contacted when any possible price increase is envisaged on instruction by the Government against the desires of those who are running the industry?
Lord Belstead:My Lords, on the first point, I should be happy to give the noble Lord an assurance that there will be a Conservative Government in this country for a long time to come. and there will be a policy of denationalisation continuing for aslong as it is needed for a long time to come. On the noble Lord's second point, it is important for me to make the point that one of the things that the consumer councils have done of their own volition as a result of turning their minds to the guidelinesis to look closely at dealing with complaints from the industries that they monitor.
Lord Orr-Ewing:My Lords, is my noble friend aware that under the British Telecommunications Bill the Government have done away with POUNC, which was one of the more effective consumer councils, and that they are replacing it with the Office of Telecommunications? Is he sure that that office has sufficient teeth to correct any poor performance by British Telecom, who under the Government plans are going to own 97 per cent. of the market? Is he also sure that Oftel are going to have some obligation to see that there is true competition among consumers so that they can make their choice after denationalisation?
Lord Belstead:My Lords, I think we need to discuss these things when the Bill comes before us. The assurance I can give my noble friend is that the Office of Telecommunications will protect the interests of consumers in respect of all telecommunications matters.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, if we should at some time, unfortunately, find ourselves in a serious financial crisis in the United Kingdom and have to dispose of our assets, would it be worth our while to consider disposing of your Lordships'House, privatising the House of Lords, and getting a good price for it in a reasonable market?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord's charm is only competed for by his irrelevance.
Baroness Burton of Coventry:My Lords, might I ask the Minister, while accepting that we have to get the guidelines right, whether he is aware that the consumer organisations would like a chance of discussing these guidelines when they are put forward by the Government? Does it mean that when they have looked into
798
this matter, we shall have a chance of doing that? Arising out of the point made by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does he not agree that if we exchange public monopoly for private monopoly the needs of the consumers will equally require looking at?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think I shall follow the second part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question any further. But concerning the first part, it is precisely because discussions need to take place with the national consumer councils that it is necessary for a bit more time to elapse before the guidelines can be published.

Hamilton College of Education
3.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken by the Scottish Office to avoid a repetition of the circumstances in which Hamilton College was disposed of at a reported one-tenth of its potential value.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, the former Hamilton College of Education premises were sold for the best price that could be obtained in the open market. The circumstances of the sale are at present being examined in another place by the Committee of Public Accounts, whose report will be carefully considered when it is available.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe:My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the Auditor and Comptroller General quotes the Scottish Office valuation of these premises as £6 million, not £600,000, the price at which the college was disposed of? Is he aware that in a similar instance a few years ago, the disposal of Robroyston Hospital, the premises were sold for £400,000 and within two years the property speculator realised over £2 million? The Scottish Office laid down certain rules under the Halliday Report affecting the disposal of these assets. Why were these procedures not followed in the case of Hamilton College?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, perhaps I should first point out to the noble Lord that the chief valuer's provisional estimate was based on the possible outcome in a situation most favourable to the sellers. That situation did not prevail. I have no evidence to suggest that a better price would have been obtained had different procedures been followed. In view of the fact that the Public Accounts Committee is examining the whole question at present, it might be more beneficial if we were to wait until we have their report before we make a judgment.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, may I give my noble friend my congratulations on his good fortune in not being there at the time? When the appropriate committee has made its recommendations, will he ask

799
his right honourable friend to make certain that the people responsible are not rewarded by promotion?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. It might be best if we waited until we see what the report contains before making a judgment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, is it not true that, after the last case of a similar scandal with the Robroyston Hospital, the present Secretary of State in 1980 asked the advice of the Halliday Committee? The committee recommended that the chief valuer should be consulted and, following that, private estate agents, experienced and qualified, should be used to negotiate the sale. Did that take place? If not, why not? Lastly, and with a view to getting at culprits, did the Secretary of State approve the sale?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me who was responsible for taking the decision not to use private estate agents. The decision was taken by the governing body of Jordanhill College, to which responsibility was given after the rationalisation took place and the decision to close Hamilton Collegewas realised. It was for that body to decide who would be most fitted to carry out negotiations on its behalf. It had every confidence in its solicitors and decided that that firm should act on its behalf. The firm in question had experience of substantial property deals and was thought to be perfectly competent to act. As to the final decision, the noble Lord knows only too well that the Secretary of State is always made aware of the situation when such a sale takes place. The Secretary of State would not necessarily approve it but he decided not to hold up the sale.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe:My Lords, I welcome the assurance of the Minister that this matter will be deferred until the Public Accounts Committee has discussed it in full. May I simply ask how he can be sure that the market price was realised for this property when reputable estate agents were not employed in the sale and the property was not advertised in estate journals or property magazines of any kind?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the situation is that the property was advertised. It was advertised in the press. There were no fewer than 40 brochures circulated to various interested people. There was wide interest in the sale and. after sifting, there were about 15 serious bidders. In the long-term, there were four final bids which came in for serious consideration. So there is no question but that there was full advertising and that full opportunity was given to those who might be interested.
Lord Morris: My Lords, who decided who was interested?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the solicitors who were acting on behalf of the governing body of Jordanhill College advised the college on each step in the negotiations.
Lord Hale: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how the chief valuer makes a very provisional valuation and why he used this summary method for a substantial operation and, further, whether anyone else was told that it was very provisional before his advice began to become operative?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, as I have earlier explained, the situation was that the chief valuer made his provisional estimate on the basis of the possible outcome of a situation most favourable to the seller. As it transpired, at the time that the sale took place the situation was not necessarily most favourable to the seller. Therefore the original estimate—and it was a very rough estimate—by the chief valuer could not be held to be accurate in those circumstances.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, with regard to the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, why was it that the governors of Jordanhill were exempt from the Secretary of State's ruling that properties of this substantial character had to be sold through estate agents?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I must advise the noble Lord that that was not a ruling, and the remit had been passed to the governing body of Jordanhill College. It was for them to decide. They considered the possibility of employing outside agents but, in view of the fact that they had every confidence in their firm of solicitors, Messrs, Wright, Johnston and MacKenzie, who in the past had carried out substantial conveyances of that kind, they believed that they could get as good advice from their solicitors as they could from estate agents. The noble Lord will appreciate that the practice of selling property through the medium of solicitors rather than estate agents is one which has been commonplace in Scotland for very many years.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the noble Lord has not given me a proper answer. Will he tell us what was the advice of the chief valuer of Scotland, even in respect of estate agents? Secondly, is he also telling the House that the Scottish Education Department was not concerned about this matter?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the chief valuer gave his initial estimate of the price. The noble Lord must be reasonable with me on this point. He gave his initial figure. When he was asked a second time to comment, in view of the fact that it was not a sellers'market which he had anticipated in the first instance, he declined to revise his figures.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, what about the Education Department?
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, in the light of the recent Robroyston difficulty, would not the Minister agree that Scottish Office management stands condemned yet again?
Lord Gray of Contin:No, my Lords, I certainly would not accept that Scottish Office management stands condemned. I would rather save my judgment until we have the report of the Public Accounts Committee and perhaps see what is its finding, after

801
which the Scottish Office will have its opportunity to respond.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to press this matter, but will the Minister confirm that, while the property was advertised in the Glasgow Herald, the Scotsman, and the Times Literary Supplement, it was not advertised in any reputable property journal or estates journal, and consequently had a limited appeal in that market?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. It was not advertised in the journals to which he referred. Nevertheless, there was still a large number of interested persons, and more than 40 brochures were applied for and distributed.

Housing Benefit: Payment Arrangements
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the transfer of responsibility for the payment of housing benefit from the DHSS to local authorities has proceeded smoothly; and that extra costs to the local authorities have been fully covered by subsidy.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the introduction of housing benefit affected over 7 million households, and it was only to be expected that authorities would experience some difficulties at first over one aspect or another of the new arrangements. However, we believe that most of the initial problems have now been sorted out. On the question of subsidy, the Government have made arrangements to meet in full the additional costs incurred by local authorities as a result of the new scheme.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that in Cambridge city the figures given me by the city treasurer indicate that there will be a shortfall of about £41,000 on the reimbursement which they expect to get from the Government, and that this will have to he met from the rates?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases. It will not be possible to make firm estimates of local authorities' administration staffing costs until the new scheme has settled down, but all reasonable additional costs will be met.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is it not irresponsible of the Government now, while local authorities are going through these difficulties, to place upon them new changes in the housing benefit arrangements? Can the noble Baroness tell the House how much the Government are expecting to gain from further impoverishment of the poorest people in the country? How many tenants are involved in these changes? Does she know how many of them are pensioners, and how many are unemployed young people? Has she talked
802
to the Social Security Advisory Committee about these changes; and does she not agree that the Government really ought to reconsider their proposals in the light of the existing difficulties instead of adding to those difficulties?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am positively drowned under the eloquence of the noble Baroness. May I deal with how many will be deprived, which I think was one of her supplementary questions? I presume that the noble Baroness is referring to the proposed reductions referred to in the Autumn Statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the moment, it is not possible to give an overall figure of gainers and losers from this package because of the complex interaction between the various changes. However, we estimate that 2.2 million people, including 1a million pensioners, will be affected by the higher tapers and increased minima. But the scheme will give help to 6¼ million households, including 3½ million pensioner households. The scheme has been introduced, apart from the savings which it is hoped will ensue, to help the very poor.
Lord Banks: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what will he the maximum loss under the alterations which are now being made? Is it true that in particular cases it could be as much as £60 per month?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is little point in talking about people with exceptional or peculiar combinations of circumstances with regard to maximum loss, because this is not representative. I can only repeat that we have designed the package so that the majority of losses are borne either by those on higher incomes or by those with non-dependent people living in their households.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, could my noble friend clarify for me whether this housing benefit applies to privately rented or local authority property and, if to both, whether she is aware of the proposal put forward by Sheffield City Council of their intent artificially to increase the rents to the poorest tenants in order to be able to manipulate the scheme and achieve extra benefit for their own city council at the expense of other people in this country?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, the package is for private housing as well as for the public sector. I am not aware of the particular case to which she refers and, as I have said before, it is impossible for me to comment on individual cases.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in view of the answer which the noble Baroness gave to my noble friend Lord Banks, since when did the Government take unto itself the power to dictate what should or should not be discussed in your Lordships' House? Would not the noble Baroness reconsider her refusal to give my noble friend figures of the maximum loss that could be sustained by a tenant?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot possibly give a maximum loss, because there are too many individual cases.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, would my noble friend assure me that, although she cannot comment on particular cases, the Government do take the view that housing benefit is to help those in real need, and that any schemes deliberately arranged to manipulate this benefit for the benefit of those not in real need will be carefully looked into by the Government and efforts made to control them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I confirm the first part of my noble friend's question: of course that is true. As to the second part, 1 am sure that my right honourable friend will look into these matters.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, surely the noble Baroness is not saying that it is impossible to calculate what the maximum loss might be under the regulations? Does she not have the advantage of all modern methods of calculation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this scheme has not been running very long. It is impossible to tell at this stage what the maximum losses will be.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, is the noble Baroness admitting that they made the scheme without that information?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can tell your Lordships how much money the package will save. The package will save about £230 million; and about £170 million is saved on housing benefit and £60 million on supplementary benefit.
Lord Banks: My Lords, is it not a fact that the extent of the cuts which the Government are now making is considerably greater than they indicated at first? Have not the Government made a serious mistake in this matter? Would it not be wise to withdraw these drastic proposals now for review and consultation to take place?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, may I press the noble Baroness again? We are trying to help some of the poorest people in this country. If they are going to take away from them £170 million, surely this should be looked at again. I sympathise with the difficulties of the noble Baroness in dealing with all these questions, but surely that difficulty indicates the need for the Government to look at the matter again?
Baroness Trumpington: Aha! my Lords, I have discovered what the average loss is. The average loss from the main changes—higher tapers and increased minima—will be £1per week for non-pensioners and 80p for pensioners.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us what effect the 75p per week increase in the recommended guidelines issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment some time ago will have on the figures she has given us today?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is another question.

Calke Abbey
3.34 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will remove the obstacles which now prevent Calke Abbey from passing to the National Trust in the usual way with endowment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the National Trust have indicated that they would require approximately £8 million to provide a capital fund and an endowment, if they were to take on Calke Abbey. The Government would be willing in principle to accept Calke Abbey, together with its contents and essential adjoining land, in lieu of tax at a cost of about £2 million. However, they could not agree in addition to provide the £8 million or so requested by the National Trust, whether directly or through the acceptance of other "non-heritage" property offered in lieu of tax by the trustees of the estate.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if the difficulty is non-heritage land, is it not the case that the Government did accept non-heritage land in endowment for Hardwick Hall? If the difficulty is the "bunching"of grand houses—Belton the other day, Calke Abbey now and perhaps Kedleston in the near future—could not the Government devise some system of ironing out the money over a period of years? People do not die at regular intervals. Also would it not he possible for the Government to consider helping the trustees of Calke Abbey, who I understand want to make the endowment money available if they can but are held up by the fact that they are legally bound to find a putative missing heir in America, which may take them months? Would it not be a shame to let Calke Abbey be lost because of this delay and could not the Government help the trustees to tide over the delay in some way?
Lord Skelmersdale:My Lords, it is some 25 years now since Hardwick was accepted by the Government. In that case—the noble Lord is quite right—non-heritage land was involved. But since that time the history of our care as a nation of heritage properties has moved on and we have the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which was created as a body to provide support for important heritage causes, together with much improved fiscal arrangements since this Government came into office. I must be the first to congratulate them because they are doing a magnificent job; but I should point out that the fund is an independent body and there is no guarantee that the trustees, even if they had the money, would come to the conclusion that this was the right way to spend it. Neither the Government nor anybody else in the House could put that obligation upon them.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the whole question is really the acceptance of the agricultural land, which would provide sufficient endowment? Will the Government really take this seriously and try to alter the arrangements? Are they

805
aware that Kedleston was going to be lost because of a quibble about VAT which was raised by the Customs and Excise and was saved because the rules were changed on the intervention of the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister? Will the noble Lord also try to take this a little further and show some effort and imagination?
Lord Skelmersdale:My Lords, that is a most unfair charge. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary in charge of these matters has been in constant touch both through officials and on his own behalf with the Harpur-Crewe Trustees. He and they have constructively explored every avenue that has been put to us, but the avenues that have been put to us have been made on the assumption that the Government will continue to fund these heritage estates out of their own pocket, though many other people—and indeed your Lordships, who have great expertise in this matter—have managed through their own efforts, with Government help, to make provision for their estates. I cannot see any good reason why that should not happen in this case.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is possible that this estate, having paid £1,300 a day in interest during the one and a half years or so that this great property has been on offer to the Government, may be feeling that it has had enough?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, all sorts of things might persuade them that they had had enough and, as I have said, the Government are fully open to all reasonable approaches. So far as the £1,300 goes, that is an estimate, but it is a statutory duty of the Inland Revenue to recover unpaid tax; and so long as the tax is unpaid there is no way of varying this interest charge.

Restrictive Trade Practices (Stock Exchange) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Commonwealth Summit: New Delhi and Goa
3.40 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
"I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting which I attended in New Delhi and Goa from 23rd to 29th November. My right honourable friend, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, also attended for the first three days. I have arranged for the communique to be placed in the Library of the House.
806
"Two specific matters—Grenada and Cyprus—were considered early in the proceedings. On Grenada there was a long and detailed debate. Heads of Government decided to concentrate on the future, not the past—on reconstruction, not recrimination. They welcomed the establishment of an interim civilian administration, looked forward to free and fair elections and confirmed their' willingness on certain conditions to consider sympathetically Grenadan requests for assistance.
"There was also a more general discussion of the practical need to give greater security to small states, many of them islands, not only in the Caribbean but elsewhere in the Commonwealth. The Secretary-General was asked to undertake a study of the problem. As the House knows, this is a matter to which Her Majesty's Government are also giving thought. Regional groups may have a special role to play.
"With regard to Cyprus, Commonwealth leaders fully endorsed United Nations Security Council Resolution 541 which deplored the Turkish Cypriot declaration of secession as legally invalid, requested the United Nations Secretary-General to pursue his mission of good offices and called upon the parties to co-operate fully. But it was also felt that the Commonwealth should itself try to help bring about a solution, and an action group was established to assist in implementation of the Security Council Resolution. Britain is not a member of that group since we already have a particular role as a guarantor power.
"Among the other specific subjects Southern Africa was discussed at length. We considered the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence and the present obstacles to its achievement. The concept of a conditional link between the independence of Namibia and the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola was rejected. But clearly the fact that other nations have made the linkage is material to how and when the problem will be resolved.
"On more general matters the meeting issued two declarations. The main theme of the Goa declaration on international security is that at a time of heightened tension in the world the first objective must be to re-establish a constructive dialogue between East and West, by increasing contacts and by rebuilding a climate of confidence. We support that objective.
"The statement on economic action deals with current international economic problems, notes that all countries have a responsibility for pursuing prudent domestic economic policies and recognises the need for the Bretton Woods institutions to be adapted and better equipped to deal with the problems of the international economy. It was decided to establish a consultative group, on which the United Kingdom will berepresented, for the purpose of promoting wider agreement on the issues we discussed. The group will report to Commonwealth Finance Ministers before their 1984 meeting in Toronto".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. Would he agree that the Commonwealth and these periodic summit conferences are of real value, notwithstanding some of the obvious limitations of an association of this nature? Is he aware that we welcome the measure of agreement which emerged on a number of subjects; for example, on apartheid and on Namibian independence through the implementation of UN Resolution 435? Will he give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will continue to pursue this matter with vigour?
The Statement which he has just read refers to linkage. Will he confirm that we are not committed to the principle of linkage, and that we reject it? It is important that the Government should make that point absolutely clear. Was the question of South African aggression against neighbouring states discussed in the conference, and did Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to make to deal with that? We welcome the agreement—also referred to in the Statement—that the emphasis in Grenada should be, "on reconstruction, not recrimination", and on the establishment of an interim civilian administration on the island.
The Statement also refers to assistance to Grenada. What assistance did the summit conference have in mind, and what contribution are her Majesty's Government expected to make? Is the noble Viscount aware that we also welcome the reference in the Statement to the Goa declaration on the problems of small states, and the proposed study by the Secretary-General of their special needs? Can he confirm that we are supporting the Trudeau initiative, about which. according to the press, there was some doubt at some stage?
Is he aware that we also support the initiative proposed to deal with the problems of Cyprus and the setting up of the action group? Although the United Kingdom cannot sit as a member of the group, because this country is a guarantor, will he confirm that we shall continue to work for a just solution as one of the guarantor powers?
Can the noble Viscount confirm whether it is true that there was in fact a good deal of disagreement about a new Bretton Woods conference, and that the Prime Minister exercised the veto on 10 occasions? If this is true it shows that the Prime Minister behaved at the summit as she does in the Cabinet of which the noble Viscount is a distinguished member. Did she oppose the initiative for a conference on the international economic situation, and will Her Majesty's Government support that? May I say that we on this side most warmly welcome the call by the conference on the United States and Soviet Russia to resume a genuine political dialogue. Will the Government continue to work for a meeting between President Reagan and Mr. Andropov?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Viscount for being good enough to repeat this important Statement in your Lordships'House. I want to underline a good deal of what has already been said. In particular, I want to underline what the noble Lord. Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, has said about the welcome we give to the fact that the
808
Prime Minister was able to find the time to go and encourage the holding regularly of these Commonwealth conferences, to which we attach enormous importance.
Is the noble Viscount aware that we welcome many of the paragraphs included in the Statement? For example, we welcome the willingness to consider sympathetically Grenadan requests for assistance. Is he aware that we further welcome the importance put on establishing a constructive dialogue between East and West? It would be difficult to attach too much importance to that Statement, so vital is it in the current situation in the world. Is he aware, too, that we welcome in the Statement the recognition of the need for the Bretton Woods institutions to he adapted and better equipped to deal with the problems of the international economy?
I hope that the noble Viscount is pleased with the number of examples that I have given of the way in which we welcome points in the Statement. Is he aware that it is not unusual to put the welcoming parts first and to go on, secondly, to those parts for which one has less than a full welcome? Therefore, will the noble Viscount say a good deal more about the things which are hinted at in the Statement and which are expressed in other media as being areas of disagreement? In particular, will he say whether the Prime Minister regards herself as primus inter pares—
The Lord Chancellor: Prima.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am grateful for the lesson in refreshing my knowledge of the classics. Perhaps I was referring to the phrase primus inter pares, and to the non-sexual nature of a Prime Minister. Will the noble Viscount therefore say whether the Prime Minister regards herself as limited to that responsibility and attitude in dealing with the Commonwealth Conference, as all Prime Ministers hitherto have considered themselves primi inter pares?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to the Statement and for the general welcome they have given to the holding of a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, and its value. It is very easy to point to the resolutions as being compromises or, in some cases, as not meaning very much, but surely the important point is that the conference provided the opportunity to have a dialogue and discussion with many nations from different parts of the world which hold totally different points of view on many issues of world-wide significance. The fact that the 48 nations of the Commonwealth, so diverse as they are, can come together and have a dialogue and discussion is surely of great value. Those who criticise these conferences for not coming to more concrete conclusions sometimes claim at the same time how vital it is that there should be dialogue and discussion in the world. They cannot have it both ways. If, therefore, dialogue and discussion take place on this scale, surely it is of value to the world and to the Commonwealth. I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister feels very strongly that this is the case.
That covers the welcome which both noble Lords have given to various parts of the communique.

809
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the detailed points. The noble Lord, Lord Clewyn of Penrhos, asked me about the problems in South Africa and Namibia, and the linkage with Angola. As my right honourable friend made clear, we have to accept that that linkage exists in other people's minds and that we shall not solve the problem until we can find a way of getting round it. We are ready to do so and we are seeking to do so. Certainly we support Mr. Trudeau's initiative.
So far as Grenada is concerned, we have given an undertaking that we shall he prepared to help, with others, in such matters as policing and elections. I believe noble Lords will agree that this country has considerable experience in these matters, as my noble friend Lord Soames made so clear in Zimbabwe, and we could again give help, if required. I would give the same answer to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. We have already promised some £750 million of overseas aid, and—I believe the figure is not £750 million but £750,000. I will find the correct answer and give it to your Lordships.
As to the question of disagreement, to which both noble Lords referred and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who asked whether the Prime Minister regarded herself as primus inter pares at the Commonwealth Conference, I would reply to both noble Lords in the same sense: wherever the Prime Minister is, whether she is in Cabinet in this country, at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference or anywhere else, she shows herself to be an outstanding and a very great leader, which is of great value to this country. Much of the success of the conference was due to the Prime Minister exhibiting those very qualities.
Lord Oram:My Lords, we understand that Mr. Trudeau left the conference and went to Peking in order to seek Chinese help in bringing the two superpowers into a better state of relationship. Can the noble Viscount say whether Mr. Trudeau went, so to speak, as an envoy from the conference or whether he went to Peking on his own initiative? Did Mr. Trudeau return to the conference and report to his colleagues, and, if so, to what effect?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, Mr. Trudeau went on this tour on his own initiative, but he had had the benefit of discussions with his colleagues at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers'Conference. Naturally, the talks would be held in the light of the knowledge he had gained from his Commonwealth colleagues. Perhaps I could say at this point that the previous answer I gave was wrong. The figure was £750,000, not £750 million.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he heard the early morning broadcast which said that Mr. Mugabe and the Prime Minister had had a very agreeable discussion which would make a great difference to their friendship in the future?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am glad to be able to inform my noble friend and the House that I understand that the Prime Minister and Mr. Mugabe had a very useful exchange of views. The Prime
810
Minister said this morning how pleased she was to have heard on the radio that Mr. Mugabe also thought that to be the case. It may help my noble friend and the House to know that the question of the air force officers, naturally, was paramount in the discussions. A fourth officer was released following the recommendation of the review tribunal. My right honourable friend understands that the appeal of the remaining three officers will come before the review tribunal in the same way, so we continue to hope for their early release.
Lord Gladwyn:My Lords, may I put two supplementary questions to the noble Viscount? First, I see that, very rightly, they are looking forward to elections in Grenada. May I ask the noble Viscount whether the intention is that the elections should be held before the American troops evacuate the island, or afterwards? If afterwards, will elections be held in the presence of a Commonwealth force? Will somebody keep order during the elections? My second question is related to the assistance given to small states and to the general idea that the Commonwealth should in certain circumstances act in much the same way as the President of the United States acted in regard to Grenada.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, on the noble Lord's second point, which I shall answer first, this matter was remitted for study by the Commonwealth Secretary-General. No further decision was taken. It is for the Secretary-General to report his conclusions as a result of his study. I do not wish to make further commitments beyond that. The noble Lord's first point has certainly not been discussed or decided. Everybody hopes—it is known that the United States Government so hope—that it will be possible for United States forces to he withdrawn from Grenada as soon as possible. The question of assistance and who would take over has still be be discussed in a wider forum than the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. It is for the Governor to decide when he thinks it would be best to hold the elections; but we remain ready to help, should we be required to do so, in the conduct of those elections, or with any policing problems which might arise.
Lord Soames:My Lords, in view of the welcome so very rightly given by the conference to the Grenada request for future Commonwealth assistance, was it at any time considered during the conference that gratitude should be expressed to the United States for the assistance they gave to Grenada in their hour of greatest need?
Viscount Whitelaw:My Lords, I must answer my noble friend by saying that if this was discussed during the conference it did not appear in the communique. I have no knowledge of what was said during the detailed discussions.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I, from the Back-Benches, repeat my thanks to the noble Viscount for repeating this Statment and congratulate the Government on the very full report which they have made to Parliament. Would he not agree that it is extraordinarily welcome that the Commonwealth Ministers,

811
representing many countries which were struggling for their independence 30 years ago, now linked with Great Britain and with her Majesty the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth, and with the Dominions, should reach agreement on so many important issues?
Added to that, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he does not think it regrettable that our Prime Minister found herself on so many occasions during the conference in a minority, supported by only one or two against the great majority of representatives at the conference? I could recite the instances, but is it not particularly regrettable that she opposed the idea of an international conference to review the Bretton Woods decisions? Those decisions on trade relations between the developing countries and the developed countries have left 13 million people in hunger and in a state of medical neglect. Surely our Government should be supporting an international conference to review those uneven trading relations?
Viscount Whitelaw:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his general welcome of the Commonwealth Conference and the possibility of so many nations with diverse views, as I said earlier, coming to substantial agreement on many issues. Equally, the noble Lord was generous to mention the very real position of Her Majesty the Queen as part of those conferences when she goes there. I am sure that was greatly welcomed by everybody concerned, and I am sure that this House will wish to say so.
When it comes to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister finding herself in a minority on certain issues, it must be for me to say that what matters in the end is what the communiqu says; what comes out of the communique, and what is the agreed communique. There may be all sorts of discussions about who may have said what during the conference, and what may be published in the press. Some of those reports may be true, and some may not. But I would have thought it was true that in a gathering of that sort a great many Prime Ministers found themselves in a minority on many different issues, and I would have thought it very surprising had it been otherwise.
For that reason. I do not consider it is unreasonable if we in Britain, with our particular interests—which are manifestly not the same, after all, as those of some other countries in different parts of the world—stand up for those interests and for what we believe to be best. That, surely, is the position of our Prime Minister. If I may say so to the noble Lord, that has been the position of Prime Ministers of this country at such conferences for a very long time.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I ask one question on the Cyprus issue? My noble friend referred to an action group that had been set up in that connection. I doubt if he is in a position today to give them to us, but I would ask him to give the House details of that action group at an early opportunity, as it is a matter of great importance. In particular, it will be important for the action group to find out at first hand for themselves what are the grievances of the Turkish Cypriots which have led to the action that has been taken by them.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend I can say that the action group will consist of Australia, Guyana. India, Nigeria and Zambia.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount three questions? First, is it not the case that the Secretary-General made a specific appeal before the conference started for a new form of Bretton Woods conference? Whilst welcoming that part of the communiqué which suggests that a working party be set up, already there has been disappointment expressed as to the powers that it may have. What attitude do the British Government take to that?
Secondly, is it not disappointing that during the conference the Prime Minister took the opportunity, according to Press reports, of lecturing third world countries as to how they have to standon their own feet, whereas the Commonwealth itself is based upon a co-operative venture between rich and poor, as outlined not just in the Commonwealth but also in the Brandt Commission Report?
Finally, as the British Government have always steadfastly opposed the concept of linkage with the presence of Cuban troops helping the Angolans to defend themselves against South African aggression, can the noble Viscount say that. whatever there may be in the communiqué, the British Government have not altered their opposition to that linkage by one iota?
Viscount Whitelaw:My Lords, first, on the point which the noble Lord raised on the question of the economic summit, my right honourable friend made perfectly clear to the conference that our position stoodon these matters where it was at the Williamsburg Summit, and we could not accept any commitment to an international conference. Our position had been made clear before and was made clear throughout, that that was the reason, and it is fully consistent with the position we have persistently taken up.
On the second point, the noble Lord referred to press reports about what my right honourable friend said at various parts of the conference. If we were to conduct our view of exactly what happens at every conference by just picking up whichever press report happens to fit in with our own views, we would not have a very productive time. I do not believe that my right honourable friend lectured them at all. I have long experience of my right honourable friend, and she frequently tells me her views and makes them very clear to me; but I would not describe her as lecturing me on that basis, and I do not believe that many people would so describe her. My right honourable friend made it perfectly clear what she felt in those debates. After all, that is what this country would expect her to do.
On the noble Lord's last point concerning linkage. I hope I made myself clear in answer to the previous questions. It is a fact that we do not like the idea of the linkage. We do not approve of it, but we have persistently said that it is a view held by other countries and it is therefore only by getting around that particular problem that the very difficult position of Namibia can hope to be solved. We shall continue to use our best endeavours to that end.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich:My Lords, is the noble Viscount the Leader of the House aware that it gave particular pleasure to those of us on these Benches when in the Statement we heard the words
"constructive dialogue between East and West"?
The noble Viscount knows that although those of us who sit on these Benches do so by virtue of our English bishoprics, yet we have a relationship right across the world in the Anglican community, which is really coterminous with the Commonwealth. Does the noble Viscount know that it gives very great pleasure to the bishops to hear that in the wider setting of the Commonwealth—a third, perhaps, of the whole of the world—his right honourable friend the Prime Minister made that particularly strong and resolute call for constructive dialogue between East and West? Does the noble Viscount know that that is something which pleases this Bench; and will he assure the Prime Minister of our prayers for her continued work for world peace?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate for what he has said. I will certainly communicate his views as coming from the Bishops' Bench to my right honourable friend, and I know that she will he extremely grateful. Perhaps I might say in return that many of us notice that which the Bishops of the Church of England, the Anglican Bishops, do in the world to promote such dialogues, and particularly the very wide travels (of which I know he has taken another) of the most reverend Primate, who has travelled much over the world and, I am sure, has done a great deal of good in that way.

British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Cockfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Social Fund Review: ECC Report
4.9 p.m.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Review of the European Social Fund. [2nd Report, 1983–84, H.L. 22].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion before the House is to take note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Review of the European Social Fund. This is the second report on the social fund: the earlier one was presented to your Lordships in 1981. The first report dealt in some detail with the history and background of the fund, which is not repeated in the second report. At this stage I
814
should like tomake the comment that anybody who has read it will recognise the very skilful drafting of my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, who I see is in the House, and who at great personal inconvenience redrafted practically the whole of that report. Iwould make only two comments on the background which seem relevant to today's debate.
The first is that the fund was started in the 1960s, when the economic scene was one of prosperity and growth, and only certain clearly defined areas needed special assistance. These were originally Greenland, the French overseas territories, and the Mezzogiorno in Italy. In fact, later Ireland and Northern Ireland were added, and later still Greece, and 40 per cent. of the total fund is still allocated to those special countries.
It was not until 1971 that the first major change was made, to widen the fund's role, and a change was made again in 1977, when unemployment was increasing and there seemed to be no immediate prospect of renewed economic growth. The Council of Ministers adopted the Commission's proposed amendments on 1st January 1978, and it was these new guidelines that were studied by the Select Committee in its 1981 report.
My second comment is that the word "social" in the fund's title can be misleading. as it has no connection with the British meaning, which is in the context of welfare or social services, but in the report it is concerned solely with alleviating unemployment by supporting projects for training and re-training unemployed persons, and allied problems which I shall describe later.
The second report, which is before your Lordships today, inquires into how far the recommendations of the first report have been adopted and into the fresh guidelines put forward by the Commission in 1982, and it asks whether these are acceptable or could be further improved.
The committee took oral evidence from a large number of bodies, including the Department of Employment. RADAR—which is the Royal Association of Disablement and Rehabilitation—the Association of District Councils, the European Commission, in the persons of Mr. Ivor Richard, Mr. N. Stabenow, and Miss K. Fogg, and the National Council of Voluntary Organisations. It also received memoranda from other local authority bodies, the Commission for Racial Equality, and others. To all these we are most grateful.
I would remind your Lordships that the main types of scheme which are assisted are training and retraining schemes, schemes for the resettlement of workers and their families who have to move, measures to make access to employment easier for disabled or elderly people and vocational preparation and job creation for newly engaged workers. The fund also supports pilot schemes which have an innovatory approach which are of potential relevance throughout the Community. Applications for assistance must also have financial support from a public authority, which must also guarantee the completion of the project.
The size of the fund was described in the earlier report as pitiably small, and so it is, but as so many projects are small and of an experimental nature, there

815
can be no doubt that to many recipients it has been a godsend. The actual figures allotted in the Community budget have grown from 538 million ECUs (that is about £300 million), or 4.4 per cent. of the EEC budget, in 1978. to 1,696 million ECUs, or £860 million—about 5 per cent. of the budget for 1983. This compares with 65 per cent. of the budget which goes to agriculture, and it is not surprising therefore that the applications to the fund exceed the money available by over 100 per cent. However, the United Kingdom gets 30 per cent. of the fund, which I think we must consider reasonable.
Apart from the actual size of the fund, main views of the 1980 committee were as follows. It drew attention to the potentially catastrophic problem of youth unemployment. The 1982 proposals from the Commission allocate 75 per cent. of the fund to those unemployed who are 25 years or under.
Next the committee argued that the administrative procedures should be simplified. Clearly this has been taken seriously by the Commission. but the Select Committee considers that still further improvements can be made in their application. For instance, it was pointed out by the Commission that the forms had to meet the varying conditions in all the member states. My own opinion is that it is not beyond the wit of man to devise separate forms for each country if there really are major differences in requirements.
Finally, the 1980 committee considered that more publicity should be given to the availability of the fund. and the Select Committee is glad to report that a useful pamphlet has since been issued by the Department of the Environment, which has gone to over 6,000 recipients. The National Council of Voluntary Organisations remains a considerable source of help to voluntary bodies and explains the very low take-up as being due to the complexity, the long time-scale and the unavailability of matching funds from public sources.
At this point must tell the House that the Select, Committee finds itself in something of a dilemma. The sub-committee began taking evidence in January of this year and hoped to report to the House before the Council of Labour and Social Affairs met to consider the Commission's review of the Social Fund in June. However, on 13th May Parliament was dissolved, and the committee was unable to meet the deadline. Many, aspects of the review were, therefore, not considered by the Council of Ministers, and the Select Committee's suggestions became, at least temporarily, irrelevant. However, there will be further reviews, possibly biennially, in the future, and the Select Committee's report may, we hope, carry some weight in these procedures. I propose, therefore. to mention briefly the improvements proposed in our report not already mentioned and to explain how they are affected by the Council of Ministers' document.
The Commission's proposals brought in a broad range of eligible people and operations, largely as before, but with two significant additions. First, there are young people under the age of 18 who have completed compulsory education, whether or not employed, and then persons or bodies involved in vocational guidance, placement or development work at local level.
The Commission also proposed to reduce the qualification of priorities from level 2 regions to level 3 regions (which in the case of the United Kingdom means counties), which is an improvement, and also included certain "black spots", which though located in more prosperous counties, have an unemployment rate more than three times the national average. That the committee believes to be unrealistic, as the national average is 13 per cent., and a rate of 39 per cent. before obtaining help seems somewhat absurd as a criterion of need. Twice the national average would perhaps be more realistic.
A special case was made out by the CRE, EOC, and RADAR for racial minorities and women, but the committee supports the Commission's policy of trying to ensure that the small sums available are concentrated in the deprived regions. Those categories, of course, would not be excluded in those regions.
The problem of additionality was discussed. While it is difficult to ensure in large schemes, it is almost certainly "additional" where voluntary and pilot schemes are concerned. The Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, however, gave evidence that Social Fund money does not in any way enhance the budgets of these organisations. The AMA argues that those authorities which take advantage of it will probably suffer a significant loss of rate support grant. The committee urges the Government to revise their method of calculating local authority expenditure so as to eliminate this contradiction.
Other speakers will no doubt deal more thoroughly with the administrative problems, but there are two important recommendations in the Commission review. These were: first, to reduce the necessity for 50 per cent. of the money to come from a public authority to 30 per cent., leaving the balance of 20 per cent. to come from any source, while retaining the fund's contribution to 50 per cent. of the total; and, secondly, to increase the down payment on acceptance of a scheme to 60 per cent. instead of 30 per cent. of the EEC contribution. Thatwould help the smaller recipients appreciably. However, it has not been accepted by the Council of Ministers.
In any inquiries of this kind interesting matters are raised which are not strictly relevant to the subject at issue. I shall mention only one, as it could have relevance to Community policy in a parallel field. It relates to the suggestion put forward by the Royal Association for Disablement and Rehabilitation. This was to encourage the development of schemes whereby disabled people are employed by an industrial sponsor on sheltered employment terms. They normally work on the premises of an organisation. The organisation does not lose out. as the MSC will provide the financial support to bring the earnings up to the standard level.
This brings the disabled into the normal working environment instead of being isolated in a sheltered workshop and is a considerable saving in national expenditure and can be extended from the present pattern of simple manufacture to white collar trades and even to working at home. In all cases a valuation is made of the value of the work done and the difference is made up by the Commission to an agreed total. RADAR consider that there are all sorts of jobs

817
that could be done that are not being done for economic reasons that this scheme, if developed, would uncover.
To sum up, therefore, the committee concluded, inter alia,that the fund was regrettably small; a situation which is likely to worsen with the arrival of Spain and Portugal in due course. They welcome the emphasis on the needs of young people, the simplification of procedures, but disagree with the definition of "black spots". They welcome the proposed inclusion of the training of trainers, provision of vocational guidance and "development" agents. The relaxation of matching funds is welcome but should go further to enable voluntary bodies to match fund money with private money. They consider, as I have already said, that the Government should take steps to ensure additionality.
Finally, my Lords, I must describe briefly the effect of the Council of Ministers' review on our hopes and expectations. It is pretty basic and leaves detailed guidelines to be prepared by the Commission, and these are due, as it happens, today. I have inquired but have not yet received them. Whether they will arrive shortly I do not know.
The major differences of substance between the Commission Opinion on the Review and the text agreed by the Council are as follows. While preserving the priority for young people they identify a numberof categories over 25 whose employment should be promoted—in particular the long-term unemployed and those threatened by unemployment. These, of course, are welcome. Women who wish to return to work, disabled people, migrant workers and particularly those people working in small or medium-sized undertakings who need retraining in new technology are also good suggestions. They still allocate 40 per cent. of the total fund to the superiority regions which I have mentioned before.
They hope that, when the Commission draws up its guidelines, henceforth annually, they will allow for help to suitable projects in small areas of high unemployment which are in regions of relatively low unemployment. The "black spot" proposal has been abandoned but may be covered by asking the Commission to give special attention to areas where there is an exceptionally high rate of unemployment compared with the national average.
As regards the matching of funds, the Council is even more rigid and states that assistance shall be granted at the rate of 50 per cent. of eligible expenditure without exceeding the amount of financial contribution from the public authorities. That means it must be an exact matching.
The agreed dates for submission and adoption should be 21st October (not 1st September as has been suggested) and 31st March (not 31st January). The normal advance payment will be 50 per cent. of the eligible sum (not 60 per cent. as proposed by the Commission). This will have caused some disappointment to many, I have no doubt, but the European Parliament has yet to debate the Council's review and perhaps your Lordships' report may in due course induce some reconsideration. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Review of the European Social Fund. [2nd Report, 1983–84, H.L. 22].—(Lord Seebohm.)
4.24 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and his colleagues who served on the Select Committee for the very thorough and obviously efficient and first-class job they have done on behalf of your Lordships. It will be obvious to anyone who has read the report, from the number of witnesses who were interviewed and the number of organisations from which information was taken, that their efforts to find a proper solution and present a report to this House were very wide-ranging indeed.
The report comes back to the basic issue and concludes—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said in introducing the report—that the funds, such as they are at present or as envisaged, are quite inadequate for the schemes or to make any real impact on the problems before us. However, I was delighted to hear his reference to the deep concern over youth unemployment, in a general sense, and to the retraining or training of people who find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own. One of the aspects that disturbs me in the conclusions—I think it is the first conclusion that is reached—is the reference to a lack of applications from the United Kingdom for projects for women. In highlighting this aspect in the report, the noble Lord and his colleagues have perhaps done a more immense service to the women's movement, or the people championing the cause of women in the United Kingdom, than they may imagine. Certainly, I was not aware that such a situation existed and I suspect that many of your Lordships would say the same. Knowing the people who are interested in the advancement of the cause of women in our society, I have no doubt that this point will be taken up and that the proper authorities in the United Kingdom will be made aware of this failing.
I was also interested to hear during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm—he made special reference to it and I was extremely grateful—that the Committee took note of the increasing problem of the long-term unemployed. I do not want to be repetitive, but my maiden speech in this House two or three weeks ago was, in fact, in a debate on unemployment. I referred to the ever-increasing numbers of permanent or long-term unemployed. It is that group which believes it is being disregarded by society. They are being bypassed in the crusade to siphon or direct most of the funds to youth unemployment.
I find it extremely sad, and I am sure other noble Lords of all political persuasions will agree, that people in the 40–60 year age group, some of them with special skills that they have displayed for a number of years since leaving school, and so on, through no fault of their own now find themselves on the scrap heap with very little prospect of further employment. Very often they still have a mortgage to pay and children at the developing age and they need considerable funding to keep them solvent and give them some quality of life. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and his colleagues for having highlighted this facet.

819
Another point which interested me when I read the report, and which I found somewhat amazing—obviously I am not as familiar with the report as the noble Lord and his colleagues, because it is their report—was that one of the criteria that they would probably be adopting was the "three times the national average unemployment" in certain conditions criterion. I believe the noble Lord said that they recommend a reduction of that figure to twice the national average. I think that is more realistic, because there is an anachronism when one talks about regional unemployment. For instance, the region in which I live, West Yorkshire and Humberside, is possibly marginally below the national average. But if one takes parts of Yorkshire in isolation, they have some of the worst pockets of unemployment in the United Kingdom, including South Wales and Northern Ireland. In fact, in one small part of the constituency of Leeds, West, that I formerly represented, known as Bramley, the unemployment was comparable to any black spot in the United Kingdom. It is to the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and his colleagues that they have highlighted this type of thing and would like to bring pressure to bear on behalf of such people.
I was glad to note that the noble Lord also made reference to the speed with which the money ought to be made available when projects are submitted. The part of Yorkshire from which I come has been a beneficiary of EEC funds for this type of activity. They were extremely welcome and were put to an objective use by the recipients. But very often, unless the application is dealt with quickly, the person who initiated it may be disappointed. The project falls through the lack of speed in the money getting to the right place at the right time.
I was also glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, speak on the question of what is sometimes termed additional money. The committee received observations from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. The association involves solely the local authorities. It indicated that members had made application for assistance for specific schemes, which was granted, but they found themselves the losers at the other end through loss of rate support grant. I can understand the views of the AMA. Its constituent members are elected members who in local government represent over 40 per cent. of the population of the whole of the United Kingdom.
In the main the association covers the Greater London area and what one would term the old large inner city conurbations round such cities as Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and what used to be called "The Big Six" in the North-East. Those are the areas covered by the AMA and the areas where most of the pressure points are. People from those areas express the view that if money is to be applied for from the EEC regional fund and granted for specific purposes, they might find themselves the victims by losing rate support grant from the Government because of their successful application. If I were once again leading a local authority, that would induce me to take a completely negative attitude and to ask, "Why did I bother in the first place?". It means to say that the money is being given with one hand and taken away with another.
820
I was also pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, talk about the voluntary organisations. In helping to provide employment in some of the worst hit areas, the voluntary organisations play an important part through small projects and businesses. They do a wonderful job and I am glad that they may receive better consideration.
I come back to the original point. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, put it more eloquently than I probably can. In the context of the problems with which we are trying to deal, the amount of money available is monumentally small. I would hope that the EEC can look to rejigging some of its priorities. I start from the premise that I was not originally pro-European. I still am not. But I accept that we shall be in Europe for the foreseeable future; I think we are probably in it for time immemorial. While we are a member, I consider that it is the function even of those of us who hold my views to get the best possible deal, as we see it. for the people—it would be wrong to use the term "who send us here"—on whose behalf we are expected to express our beliefs. If this type of fund was to receive anything like thepriority of the notorious common agricultural policy fund, we should be talking in terms that would put beyond doubt our continuing membership into any foreseeable future.
I close by again thanking on behalf of the whole House the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and his colleagues who served on the committee for the excellent work that they have done. The report gives us many points to think about. It illustrates what is happening and what the committee thinks should happen.
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords. Ivery much agree with the noble Lords, Lord Seebohm and Lord Dean of Beswick, that the amount of money in the social fund is far too small to cope with the problems with which it is faced. I urge once again—I know that it has been urged so often andthat repetition becomes wearisome—that some of the money going to the CAP should be diverted to the social fund. Whether or not additional money is going into the EEC, there is plenty of room to reduce the CAP and increase the social fund—topay somewhat less attention to the agricultural policy and a very great deal more to the industrial policy and to the social aspects which flow from it, because that is the genesis of the social fund. The so-called social fund was introduced to deal withthe inevitable consequences of the restructuring of industry which was being undertaken with a view to increasing the overall efficiency and wealth creating capacity of member states.
The fund is undoubtedly too small for the problems facing it. However, small though it is, it is not negligible and in some respects it is already very important. It is a pity that more attention and interest is not taken in the social fund. That fact is reflected by the attendance in your Lordships' House this afternoon for this debate. There is a theme running through the report that opportunities for benefiting from the social fund are being neglected in this country through lack of knowledge and of determination to get the benefits that are offered. This stems in no small part from ignorance and lack of realisation of the

821
advantages that can be obtained from attention to the detail of the provisions which are there to make the fund available. After all, in the year 1982 this country got over £283 million out of the social fund. That may not be a vast wealth but it has been very welcome in a great many quarters. I have been connected with small organisations—and perhaps the fund is particularly beneficial to small organisations—which have had great help from the social fund. I should like that to be on record.
However, I should like to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said about the way in which the money comes through. It is extremely good to be able to get this money, but when oneis embarking on a project in a voluntary organisation and it takes something like 12 months to get the first payment it is, to put it mildly, a bit discouraging. Small organisations have the most appalling cash flow problems. It is very difficult to persuade people to wait for the money to come through.
I recognise the difficulties in Brussels. After all, Brussels is spending public money. One is sometimes left with the impression that it is giving us a gracious gift out of its own pocket. The fact of the matter is that it is spending taxpayers'money—quite a hit of it—which has been raised in this country. It is not really its own personal generosity. It is public money and it is important that Brussels should see that it is properly spent and that no fiddles are indulged in. I recognise that it is extremely difficult to do this by remote control from Brussels. I should, however, have thought that it is not beyond the wit of the Government and their professional advisers, and Brussels and its professional advisers, to find ways to take proper care of public money but at the same time speeding up the payments—because this is really a very serious problem for a great many organisations. That is the first critical point that I should like to make.
In looking at the new tradition, one must welcome recognition of the seriousness of youth unemployment. In the future 75 per cent. of the funds, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said, are to go to deal with the problems of youth unemployment. I am second to none in my recognition of the seriousness of this problem; but there are a large number of other groups in very considerable need and I am not sure that we may not perhaps be overemphasising, relatively, the problems of the unemployed aged under 25 in relation to some of these other groups. It is true that mention is made of them. Some of these groups are explicitly included in the regulations in the final decision which has come through.
I am particularly glad to see that provision for women is being maintained, and funds for women wishing to return into the labour market are mentioned as a particular category which will qualify for funds from the social fund. I want to dwell for one moment on that particular category, because it is a fact that as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has said—perhaps somewhat surprisingly—women in this country have been singularly unsuccessful in getting the funds which are available. We were told, for instance—I think, if my memory serves me rightly, by Mr. Ivor Richard himself—that no less than 80 per cent. of the money available for training women in non-technical
822
occupations had gone to the Germans. It had gone to the Germans because they were around. More publicity is needed so that people realise that these resources are there. A much more positive attempt is needed, starting with the Government and being taken up by voluntary organisations and local authorities throughout the country, to alert people concerned with schemes of this kind for women in order to take advantage of the cash which is there.
In particular, it is important in connection with the re-entry of women to the labour market, because it is most necessary that many of the women returning should get training in non-traditional jobs—non-traditional for women that is—because the jobs that they left when they left the labour market to look after their families are diminishing and diminishing at a great rate. Unless they get this retraining they are going to be in an extremely difficult position.
Some organisations have taken advantage of this. I have quoted before in your Lordships' House the case of Hatfield Polytechnic which for some years now has been running a specially devised course in accountancy for women returning to the labour market. The time of the course has been adjusted to suit women with domestic responsibilities so they can easily attend. It is a two-year course and it puts them well on the way to obtaining jobs in an area in which all overthe country, in good times and bad, there are jobs available. If it can be done in Hatfield with money from the ESF—because that course was supported by money from the ESF—why can it not be done in all the polytechnics up and down the country?
I make no apology for mentioning this point, as I have done before, because publicity for schemes of this kind is urgently needed. I beg the Government to take steps to see that this kind of opportunity for women-only courses for non-traditional jobs—particularly for older women as this category is explicitly mentioned in the new decisions—should be taken up on a much greater scale than has been done in the past.
The second point that I want to make is about the new proposals. I am echoing what has already been said but I want to emphasise and underline it. It is a pity, I think, that we have not gone further in the development of the idea of the black spot. I recognise the difficulties in defining what is meant by a "black spot", and it is, I suppose, an improvement that we are moving from regions to counties. The fact remains that that kind of geographical identification of need is not really very appropriate at the present time. This is well borne out if you are looking at the problems to be dealt with in schemes for the benefit of ethnic minorities: it is very much easier for members of ethnic minorities to get money in Toxteth but not in Brixton for particular schemes. The same scheme in Toxteth as in Brixton would have a different response if application were made to the social fund. There is something quite ridiculous about this. The fact that Brixton is in the southeast, which makes it an area which is regarded as prosperous, and Toxteth is in the northwest and in an area which is regarded—undoubtedly correctly—as extremely unprosperous, does not really make much difference to the particular groups of members of ethnic minorities in Brixton and in Toxteth who should be benefiting from schemes of this sort. I suspect that we

823
have got to work hard on finding a different way of identifying where the need really is for which support should be given.
I also want to say that it seems to me a very great pity that the EEC has set its face against allowing much more liberal development of these schemes for financing from voluntary bodies, and are insisting that 50 per cent. of the money should come from public authorities. There are—especially where small schemes are concerned—a great many voluntary organisations up and down this country capable of finding and raising money. and which have money, for schemes which they have studied and for which very good value would be obtained but which may not, for one reason or another, attract public funds.
When the commissioner was over here, the committee pressed him very hard to see if there was not some way in which this requirement that there should be 50 per cent. of public funding could be withdrawn; and that it should be possible in the case of voluntary organisations of high repute and with a good track record for running schemes efficiently to be able to apply that money and get ESF money without having public funding. This has been turned down completely and I hope the Government will think about this again; not least because, as was pointed out to Mr. Ivor Richard when he was over here, if you had voluntary organisation funding as a matching ESF funding without public backing, then the whole problem of additionality—which is a polite way of saying the problem of the Treasury swiping the money which is intended for the scheme—would be disposed of, because there would be no way in which the Treasury could get its claws on money if it was voluntary money and ESF money with no public contribution at all.
I very much hope that the Government will think about this again and will see whether they can press for a change—or at least a modification. In the original proposal there was a suggestion that this should be modified. As it came in the final decision, they have reverted to a strict 50 per cent., of funding and that seems to me to be retrogressive.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord. Lord Seebohm. for not only chairing the Committee and this report. but for the very courteous way he did it, always giving Members of the committee a chance to have their word, which is not always done in committee proceedings. It is interesting to note that Britain and Italy are the top receivers of money and our £285 million is divided as follows: £151 million for training as job-creation schemes for the under 25s; £65 million to train adults in assisted areas; and £23 million for training handicapped people. The method of applying for grants takes too long. I shall not go into details which have already been clearly expressed. However, having to go through two channels takes anything from six to seven months, and sometimes 12 months, to achieve results. It was strange to read in reports of the Community's Court of Auditors and the European Commission that in certain countries approved projects are delayed. or the countries never take up their money. The result is that
824
over £200 million will have to be carried over from this year to next year. There must be some reason for this. Is it that the countries cannot wait long enough to get the money? Or do they lack knowledge of how the scheme works? When we are short of money and when, so we are told, we are over-subscribed, it seems extraordinary that we should have this large balance at the end of the year.
We should have more meetings with the MEPs. They should try to spread knowledge of the fund more than they do. They have been active in Parliament. In fact, they achieved 50 per cent. extra grant this year through their debates. I shall not be talking about voluntary organisations because we have an expert in the House who will do so, but I should like to suggest that we invite MEPs to our meetings. I have a meeting for deaf children on Monday. One of the members will be coming to explain what the social fund really means.
I should like to draw attention to the memorandum by Dr. Doreen Collins of Leeds University, who, referring to the Social Fund Committee, on page 118 of our report, states:
"The changes aredesigned to clarify what the committee is supposed to do and make its work more purposeful. The emphasis is upon general tasks. The committee should: (a) help draft the budget. It should therefore bring forward national expertise about developments in national labour markets and about where priorities should lie. (h) help in revising operating rules because committee members should be able to report on how the system is working. It should help to draft the guidelines. (c) advise on the selection of projects in view of national situations and Community priorities. (d) set up a sub-committee for detailed work, including sifting applications."
Those are helpful suggestions. I have quoted them because I think it is wise to set down one or two things that can be followed up.
Dr. Collins adds:
"The emphasis is upon members of the committee acting as a bridge between the national environment and the Fund so that national experiences and needs are brought to bear on the Fund's decisions and operation, including the selection of applications".
There has been mention of the difficulties that may arise with the admission of Spain and Portugal. Both are poor countries. They will need a great deal of help. I wonder whether they will understand how to submit applications. I gather that this is a problem in relation to Greece. Will those countries be given information prior to sending people to the committee?
Unless the fund is greatly increased, there will have to be more changes when these two countries are admitted. I understand that the MEPs were successful in getting a 50 per cent. increase in the social fund in 1983. There was also the help provided by Commissioner Richard who supplied us with interesting information. He has been successful in increasing the budget for the social fund from 7 per cent. to 35 to 36 per cent. We hope that the report will be well read and that it will be given further publicity through the Government or other agencies. To have £200 million left, not by this country but by several others, is a great mistake when we are so short of money and when so many people are in need.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee I should like to begin by paying my tribute to the manner in which my noble friend Lord

825
Seebohm conducted our deliberations. It was a pity that we had to pause in mid-stream for reasons that the noble Lord has explained, so that the Council of Ministers came to its conclusions without the benefit of our advice. I suppose, however, that there were considerations other than the state of play in Sub-Committee C which were regarded as relevant in fixing the date of the General Election. Anyway, as has been pointed out, the operation of the fund is not being settled on this round for all time to come.
It seemed to me, as our inquiry proceeded, that there were three things that stood out about the social fund. The first is its misleading title to which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred. This gives rise to quite a bit of misapprehension and also, on occasion, to needless disappointment on the part of some who discover rather too late what the scope of the fund is. Secondly, although it has increased in size—the point is very obvious and has been made by previous speakers—the fund is still not nearly big enough. The fashion seems to be to call it over-subscribed. This does not mean, as might be thought at first sight, that it has too much money, but rather the exact opposite—that there is not nearly enough to go round to meet all deserving applications.
Thirdly, following a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, although the fund and its purposes are by now pretty well known to the authorities, national and local, and, increasingly, I think, to voluntary organisations, it is still not widely known among the Community. Over the last few weeks, I have asked various people whether they were aware of the social fund and how much this country got out of it. Invariably, I have been met with a look of blank puzzlement.
We hear a lot about the defects of the EEC. It is a pity that we do not hear a bit more about the ways in which this country benefits. The United Kingdom gets a pretty good share of what is going. When I was in Strasbourg, an Italian Member of the European Parliament complained to me with some eloquence that the rules had been so drafted to ensure that the United Kingdom got the lion's share. I thought that a bit hard. It so happens that Italy has done very well indeed out of the fund. But we, here, cannot have all that much complaint about our own allocation.
The one point that I want to make this evening is that, within the overall figure, the share that goes to the voluntary organisations is still disappointingly small when, in this country, perhaps more so than in any other member state, voluntary effort makes such a signal contribution towards our social and economic wellbeing. I realise that there may be some hidden benefit to voluntary organisations. It is possible, for example, that they derive some indirect help from social fund money which finds its way to the Manpower Services Commission for certain aspects of the youth training scheme.
On direct applications, the record is not all that good. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, making fairlyarbitrary decisions about what organisations can be called voluntary, has calculated that some 27 such organisations in England and Wales have received social fund grants this year. This figure is certainly better than in previous years. The total is getting on for double last year's figure,
826
according to the evidence we received, but some of the grants are minuscule, and the total allocation is still quite a tiny proportion of the United Kingdom's allotment—something like 1 per cent.
The schemes are indeed worthy ones. Let me pick out a couple of illustrations from London, both of them affecting women, which is perhaps appropriate in view of what has been said previously. I mention the Lambeth Women's Workshop on the Parkhall trading estate, which in a year provides 16-week courses in carpentry for some 48 women over the age of 25. There is also the contribution towards the scheme run by the Tower Hamlets Training Forum, which was mentioned in the evidence that we received, for training Bengali women for the clothing industry. Those are just two illustrations taken more or less at random. My point is that there is scope for many more of these schemes up and down the country.
We have not yet seen the very important new guidelines about the detailed operation of the new rules, and until we do see them and have an opportunity to digest them it is difficult to be sure whether the new rules will improve the position for voluntary organisations. However, I fear that there are clearly going to be some continuing grounds for disquiet.
One particular trouble is the business of matching funds, to which reference has been made. One's hopes were raised by the EEC Commission proposals suggesting some relaxation of the requirement that for any scheme to qualify there must be a matching 50 per cent. from public funds. As has been explained, they were contemplating that the public authority contribution could be only 30 per cent. and that 20 per cent. could be raised from other sources. The council decision dashedthose hopes by insisting on a rather more rigid requirement than hitherto of matching funds from public sources of 50 per cent. for all schemes, including innovatory schemes, as 1 understand it. All seems to be lost on this round, but I should like to go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in expressing the hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that this point will be borne in mind and pressed on future occasions.
Although there have certainly been some administrative improvements, the whole procedure is still a complicated one. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred in particular to the forms. If past experience is any guide, the forms that will have to be completed are likely to be such as to fill me, as an ex-bureaucrat, with admiration, but are equally likely to be somewhat dispiriting to those in voluntary organisations who have actually to complete them. This year, so far as I can make out, the programme is going to be particularly tight. We are told that the forms should become available during December and that the completed forms have to be in the hands of the Department of Employment by 20th January, with Christmas intervening. As the forms do not have to reach Brussels until mid-March, I wonder whether it would be possible for the noble Earl the Minister to tell us that some leeway can be allowed before the completed forms have to be put in to the department.
Behind all this, the whole set-up is so complex that there is an area of doubt at the margins as to the precise nature of the schemes which qualify under the

827
fund. Although the Department of Employment are invariably helpful, they have not invariably turned out to be right. The decision to have only one date for submissions should help, but even so, the inevitable time-lag between submission and knowing that one is going to get the money, and still more actually getting the money—especially when it is a question of fitting in the timing with the grant of matching funds from a local authority—tends to cause considerable cash flow problems for the smaller organisation and to make the nerve of all but the boldest falter a little.
Finally, there is the point that some of the voluntary organisations feel that they could be of special help in coping with some of the problems affecting the ethnic minorities. But it looks as though the guidelines, for all that they will say about migrant workers, will remain silent as regards these groups. The problems do not necessarily arise in the areas of highest unemployment. Although a few schemes have had some help, the chances of some of the relevant applications receiving the necessary priority cannot be very good. There does seem to be something of a gap here.
I recognise that this is an international scheme, that complications are unavoidable, and also that there are many other deserving applicants. Even so, I cannot help thinking that it is a pity that the voluntary organisations in this country, which have such an outstanding record of achievement and the capability of helping in just the kind of area which the social fund tries to cover, should not have done a little better, to the point that a good many of them tend to be discouraged from putting in applications at all. There has certainly been some improvement and there is certainly no prospect under the current reorganisation of any thing dramatically new being done on this round. But if there are any words of comfort which the Minister can give in this context, I shall not by any means be alone in being glad to hear them.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour:My Lords, unlike previous speakers I was not a member of the committee when it produced its report, but I congratulate them on its contents. I want to say a brief word about one particular aspect of the social fund and to talk about it in relation particularly to local authorities. The part that I want to discuss is the 5 per cent. of the whole social fund which is now earmarked for what the Commission describes as projects of a pilot or innovative nature. These schemes are to be designed specifically to explore the practical possibilities of new ideas, new ways of doing things, so that if they are successful they can be developed on a larger scale within the country concerned and even act as a catalyst in parts of the Community elsewhere.
The sum is not large, although the percentage is larger than it was. Indeed, 5 per cent. of the total fund will mean something of the order of 46 million for innovatory schemes across the whole of the Community. But in his evidence to the committee, Mr. Ivor Richard made plain the Commission's enthusiasm for this particular aspect. This was reflected also in his assurances that officials in Brussels were always ready to discuss possible schemes at an
828
early stage of their development to help local councils design them so that they would maximise the likelihood of obtaining a grant.
It goes without saying that local areas that are able to produce the most original and potentially fruitful ideas are the ones that will attract themoney. It seems exceedingly important that local government people in Great Britain should be keenly aware of just what the possibilities are. Indeed, I should like to suggest that local authorities in this country are, at the present time, well placed to make good use of this part of the fund and, much more importantly, to go so far as playing a lead role in Europe in pioneering new ways for meeting new needs within the constraints and opportunities of modern times.
Until two or three years ago local government people were accustomed to thinking that, when new needs arose, of necessity new policies had to be added to old policies, and of necessity new money had to be added to existing money. With the recession, the onset of cash limits, and the rapidly changing social scene, local government was for a short time nonplussed. With no new money, no apparent public will to reduce or change services which already existed, and at the same time huge and mounting pressure to do something about unemployment, about the position in which young people found themselves, about basic adult education, about training particularly for women in the new technology, and the rest, they simply could not see a way forward.
Whether the public rhetoric revealed it or not, it did not take long for the more imaginative and flexible local councils to realise that they, like many other organizations, had to improve their entrepreneurial skills and begin to work in new ways. Soon all sorts of innovative schemes were being designed by local government in response to new forms of funding which had been made available through the Manpower Services Commission, through the Department of Employment, through the somewhat older urban aid mechanism, and indeed through the European Social Fund itself as it then was.
As a variety of experimental schemes began in this way and were seen in practice to work, so it became politically possible locally to shift resources away from one area of spending into a new one. Pump-priming money from a source outside the funds of the local authority has come to be seen not just as useful in itself but also as an extremely valuable catalyst for change.
Some local councils are more adept at working in this way than others, but it is noticeable that those who do—and I would instance from my own experience in Scotland two regional councils of different political persuasion. Strathclyde and Tayside Regions, which are particularly good at experimenting in this way—are the people who seem best at succeeding in making broad innovative change which works within cash limits.
It seems to me, therefore, that the smallness of the fund should not deter local government councils from finding out about this particular part of the social fund, and beginning to think through innovative schemes into which they might put a small amount of money and, in turn, attract an equal amount from this section of the fund. They might thus pilot something which

829
would show a more general way forward not just for their own area but for the whole country, and perhaps even for other countries.
Might I therefore conclude by suggesting to my noble friend the Minister that he might draw the attention of his right honourable friend to the need for adequate publicity by the Department of Employment, and adequate explanation, to be made available to local government so that this particular catalyst for progress becomes better known.
5.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and members of the European Communities Committee, for their well considered report. Although it was presented at a time when the current fund review was not complete, it focuses clearly and helpfully on relevant general issues. I should also like to give thanks to those who gave evidence, particularly Commissioner Richard and Mr. Stabenow, the head of the Social Fund Directorate, who came from Brussels to do so.
It is now almost 11 years since we joined the Community. I think there may still be a tendency to see ourselves as outsiders. We have our suspicions of Brussels bureaucracy, our feelings that we may be losing out, or that other countries are setting the priorities. The social fund provides a striking refutation of such arguments, and I welcome the remarks that were made in this context by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. It squarely addresses the major social problem which we share with our Community partners—unemployment. It channels Community resources into tackling it in the most practical way—through training, and particularly through help for the young and for the long-term unemployed. The latter group were quite rightly mentioned with emphasis on their needs by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. It recognises the need to adapt to new technology. It gives priority to the problems which we face in the United Kingdom.
Since joining the Community we have received an average of nearly 25 per cent. of the fund, a total of nearly £1,000 million, not including the current year. Last year nearly 30 per cent. of the fund was allocated to United Kingdom projects—about £260 million. Nearly 700,000 people benefited from that money. Our share of actual receipts is even higher than our share of allocations because we are more efficient than others in taking up the money allocated to us. The fund does not operate on a system of national quotas, and we gain by putting in relevant applications and following them up efficiently.
Since the fund was set up in 1957 it has had to adapt to very considerable changes. At that time it was concerned largely with promoting labour mobility in conditions of full employment. It has had to adapt first to the enlargement of the Community, and then to the general massive rise in unemployment which has taken place across the whole Community since the fund was last reviewed in 1977. We sometimes talk as though unemployment was a phenomenon restricted to this country. It is not. It is afflicting the Community as a whole.
830
The fund is the main Community instrument for helping those affected by unemployment, and not surprisingly it has become considerably oversubscribed. Of course, we would like to see the fund grow in real terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and others have urged, and as a proportion of Community spending, so long as this can take place within the overall need for budgetary constraint. In 1982 the fund budget was about £880 million—just under 6 per cent. of the total Community budget. The Government agree with the Committee that this is out of proportion to relative needs when compared with the £7,000 million spent on the common agricultural policy.
The review did not concern itself with the overall size of the fund. It recognised that for practical purposes the fund would continue to be oversubscribed, and it addressed itself to the best way to concentrate its assistance where this could be most effective. Its main proposals were to concentrate fundson helping young people, particularly through training (as I have already said), and to give priority to the parts of the Community which needed it most, because of high unemployment, and it also sought to simplify budgetary and administrative procedures.The United Kingdom Government fully supported these objectives.
The Council of Ministers agreed new rules for the fund last June, based largely on the review. Unfortunately, there has been a delay in implementing the new rules due to a lengthy process of consultation with the European Parliament which was not concluded until the end of October. As a result the Commission has not yet been able to draw up its operating guidelines which will set priorities for assistance. We hope that they will be issued shortly, together with application forms, so that the Department of Employment can deal with applications for the coming year. Time is short because the timetable requires applications to be in Brussels by 13th March. 1 do not think it would be at all easy for us to extend that. We are not yet therefore in a position to say exactly how the new fund will operate. However, the review itself, together with the committee's report. gives scope for useful discussion on the general aims and priorities of the fund.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale:My Lords, I may not have made myself perfectly clear. I did not see any prospect of interfering with the date of 13th March: it was the date by which the forms had to be with the Department of Employment, which I think is some time in January.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, as always, made himself clear, but obviously the forms will have to he in to the department in good time so that the latter date can be adhered to.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not think that that is an adequate answer. We are being put under great pressure because these forms have not come. It is not the fault of the people who want to apply. If the date of 13th March is immutable—I accept that it has to be—I think this is one of these exceptional occasions when the authorities have to put themselves out so that the general public can get a decent deal.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I will take on board the points made both by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and see what I can do.
The main effect of the review and the new fund rules is that 75 per cent. of the fund will be spent on schemes to help young people who currently account for 41 per cent. of the Community's unemployed. The United Kingdom strongly supported the priority given to their needs and the emphasis which will be given to vocational training. In the past we have been able to fund a good proportion of our schemes for young people from social fund allocations. At a very rough estimate, one in five of those on the youth opportunities programme in 1982 was funded by the social fund. We hope that for the youth training scheme, with its appropriately enlarged training content, we will gain an even higher proportion of funding.
In its report the Commission referred to the issue of "additionality"; that is, the extent to which fund money is additional to the resources available to recipients. As far as central Government expenditure is concerned, the present position is that expected receipts from the fund are taken into account when decisions are taken on the resources to be devoted to relevant programmes, for instance as the youth training scheme. Support from the social fund is noted in the Public Expenditure White Paper and the MSC corporate plan. It can thus be shown that the fund enables public expenditure on relevant activities to be significantly higher than it would otherwise be. I do not however think it would be practicable or desirable to seek to establish a more directlink. I have already said that it is essential, not least for the interests of sustainable employment, that the Government should maintain a firm control of public spending. While European Community receipts are given serious consideration in fixing levelsof expenditure, a direct link would not be consistent with that overall aim.
Receipts for non-Exchequer bodies, for instance local authorities, nationalised industries, training boards, private firms and voluntary organisations, are passed on in full to those bodies and are not retained by the Exchequer. Local authorities also receive fund receipts on the understanding that they will be put to balances and the relief of rates.
The rules of the fund require that every fund grant must, in general, be matchedby an equivalent contribution from a public authority. This rule provides the Commission with some assurance that a scheme applied for is worthwhile, will be subject to scrutiny by an authority of the member state and is also a kind of guarantee of safe delivery. The committee's report refers to some relaxation of the rules for matching of fund aid by public authority money—and so have noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—which would allow the normal 50 per cent. funds support to be matched by 30 per cent. public authority support and the remaining 20 per cent. from any other source.
This proposal was eventually dropped and the 50-50 rule still applies, except in the so-called "super priority areas" (for instance, Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom) where the rate is 55 per cent. Social
832
fund to 45 per cent. public authority support. I can tell the House from my experience in Northern Ireland that that is so small and so centrally controlled an area of the Kingdom that it does not provide a great deal of practical difficulty to have that difference. The Government support the principle that assistance should match public expenditure, because this helps to ensure that Community and national priorities work together.
The point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and by the noble Baroness. It seems to me that public funding is a reasonable condition to ensure delivery of the schemes, and that 50 per cent. seems to be about the right level of commitment for this purpose. Benefits to voluntary bodies can still be very great, especially if fund procedures can be speeded up. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that allocations to voluntary bodies have been rising—over £1 million in 1982. We give every encouragement to applications in respect of all eligible schemes.
A further way in which the review aimed to concentrate its assistance was by giving priority to those areas most needing it. It was originally intended that a list of all regions in the Community would be drawn up in order of priority according to objective criteria of need as indicated by relative unemployment and low GDP. However, member states were unable to reach agreement on this. The revised rules provide for the continuation of the existing areas of special priority (Greenland, Greece, the French overseas departments, Ireland, the Italian Mezzogiorno and Northern Ireland) which will obtain up to 38 per cent. of the fund. We welcome this recognition of the special difficulties which Northern Ireland faces. Under its existing special priority status Northern Ireland obtained from the fund some £47 million last year or about £75 for every member of the working population.
The revised rules provide that after the special priority regions have been served, fund aid is to be concentrated on areas of high or long term unemployment or industrial or sectoral restructuring. The commission has been asked to prepare proposals to this end by next July, with a view to their adoption by the council before the end of the year. We do not yet know how the commission will define the other areas to which it will give priority, but we shall certainly press for the problems of the high unemployment areas of the United Kingdom to be given suitable recognition.
One matter to which the committee drew attention was the commission's proposals to deal with "blackspots". The council agreed, in a statement attached to the revised rules, that special attention should be paid to areas where the unemployment rate was "exceptionally high" compared with the national average. We hope this will be of some benefit to areas with special problems in this country, though our main concern is to ensure that the future overall regionalallocation of the fund gives proper recognition to relative needs within the Community.
One further feature of the revised rules is the provision for up to 5 per cent. of the fund to be available to support innovatory projects throughout

833
the Community. Such projects will generally be related to a Community programme adopted by the Council of Ministers (for example, for disabled people or for women) and these will not be subject to a regional restriction. Five per cent. of the fund represents a much larger sum in real terms than has previously been provided for activities of this kind. We shall be watching these developments with great interest.
A major change in the structure of the new fund is that the ten "areas of intervention" under which the fund used to operate will now no longer apply. These covered such groups as disabled people, migrant workers and women. Each area of intervention had its own budget line. These groups will continue to qualify for fund assistance but without a specific budget allocation. This should allow the fund to be more flexible in its operation within the overall priorities established and agreed by the new rules. The administration of the fund has also been simplified. There will in future be only a single type of application form, one application deadline, not two, and money will be paid in fewer but larger instalments.
Schemes for the disabled, and training schemes for women, will now have access to the bulk of the fund, as I said. Whether they receive a greater proportion of the fund in practice will depend on the volume of eligible applications and on the priorities set. There is no reason to believe that they will necessarily be worse off because of the change.
The report, and also this debate, drew particular attentionto the projects for women and there has been a certain amount of publicity recently on the subject. Recent comments have tended to get the question a little out of proportion and there have been claims that the United Kingdom is losing out on the opportunities for training women with fund support. It is true that the United Kingdom had only about 5 per cent. of the budget line for women's training in 1982. That line was only about 3 per cent. of the total fund budget, of which we had 29 per cent. Women arewell represented in training schemes for which fund support is given—we estimate over a third of the trainees concerned. Moreover, our share of the budget line for women's training is improving and we have had a further increase in successful applications in 1983. Every eligible application of this kind is forwarded and we encourage any which are lawful under the Sex Discrimination Act.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness and by others about publicity in respect of women's training. my officials are in constant discussions with the local authorities and the voluntary organisations to encourage suitable applications. Every eligible application is sent to Brussels and, in general, great efforts are being made to get the maximum advantage.
It was gratifying to note the committee's congratulations for the department's efforts to publicise the fund. They will continue to encourage applications as much as they can in this direction. May I say to my noble friend Lady Carnegy that I agree with the new special section of the fund for innovatory projects of 5 per cent. which I mentioned earlier. It has interesting possibilities and my officials will help local authorities and other bodies which wish to push forward eligible
834
applications under the section. Again, we will be giving maximum publicity to this within the next few weeks.
I should like once more to thank the committee for a most useful report which has provided the base for what I am sure will be a worthwhile discussion in the community at large, as it has been in this House this afternoon.
Baroness Vickers:My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he say whether he will take action to chase up the £200 million which has been under-spent? Surely people should look into why the money has not been spent and see what has happened.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am sorry that I missed my noble friend's point. If I may, I will write to her on that issue.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for what he has said and for the interest he has taken in this problem. I think there are only two things on which I have reservations; and, on them, I shall read Hansard tomorrow rather more closely. One is the question of additionality. I am not sure that I got that quite right, or that the noble Earl got it quite right. I shall read Hansard tomorrow with some interest.
The other point that I should like to make again is the question of the 50–50 matching grant. The suggestion that it should come down to 50–30 was not made by us but was made by the Commission and was strongly welcomed by us. I think it is absolutely right that the public authorities should put up a reasonable proportion to show that it has their blessing and that they will take some of therisks. I think that 30 per cent. is quite ample to show that degree of involvement. I hope that those two points will be looked at carefully, and I shall certainly look at the former one myself tomorrow. Finally, I should like to thank warmly my noble friends who have joined me in this discussion and for the great help they have given throughout on the committee's work.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Messenger Newspaper Group- NGA Dispute
5.35 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the dispute between the Messenger Newspaper Group and the National Graphical Association, on the disorders which have arisen outside the company's works, and on the wider implications of the dispute.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I believe that what has happened in Warrington this week has shocked public opinion in this country. It has been one of the worst episodes of industrial violence which we have witnessed in this country for several years. Before discussing some of the issues involved, perhaps I may set up some of the

835
background to the dispute. Mr. Shah, the founder of the Messenger Group of newspapers. is a successful small businessman. With a staff of only five, he formed the first company in the existing group in 1974, when he founded the Sale & Altrincham Messenger, a free distribution newspaper. He now has six such newspapers, all in the North-West of England, and employs a staff of 120 people.
Mr. Shah's first printing work was carried out at Carlisle under a closed shop agreement with the National Graphical Association. Five years later, in 1979, he moved to Stockport. where he again signed a closed shop agreement with the NGA; and. as I believe a number of your Lordships will be aware. he himself was until this week a member of the NGA. Two years later. in 1981, serious problems began to arise at Stockport between Mr. Shah and the NGA over the introduction of new machinery and over a new house agreement.
Nevertheles, soon afterwards, in 1982, when Mr. Shah opened a new plant in Bury, he had discussions with the West Pennine Branch of the union, and an application was made for an interim closed shop agreement. However, Mr. Shah and the NGA failed to reach agreement on terms and working practices as between Bury and Stockport, and Mr. Shah cancelled his application for the closed shop at Bury. Four months later the Bury plant began to operate with a combination of people, some of whom were members of the trade union and some of whom were not.
By the beginning of this year Mr. Shah had begun to recruit for his printing works at Warrington. He had still not firmly ruled out a closed shop agreement, and he agreed to allow the NGA to make a presentation to his staffs at Bury and Warrington. This they did, and in June of this year the company held a secret ballot of its employees, inviting them to express a view on the post-entry closed shop. His staff rejected it. This was reported to the National Graphical Association executive, and there were further meetings with the Messenger company. However, as we all know, no progress was made on this, and, on 4th July this year. the NGA told his members in Stockport (where there was a closed shop agreement) to withdraw their labour. Eight NGA members did so.
However, notwithstanding that, Mr. Shah continued to publish his newspapers. So the NGA then moved against Northern County Newspapers, a subsidiary of Reed International. They were a minority shareholder in one of the Messenger Group newspapers. In order to emphasise their displeasure, NGA members in another Reed subsidiary, the Daily Mirror, disrupted production of its Northern and London editions for one night. Reed International promptly sold its minority stake in that one newspaper back to Mr. Shah, and. of course, the industrial disputes at the Daily Mirror then ceased.
At the same time the National Graphical Association persuaded the National Union of Journalists to join the dispute; and at this stage I should declare an interest in that I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists for over 30 years. The NUJ ordered its members not to supply editorial material to non-unionists. In September Mr. Shah went to the
836
courts against the NUJ for inducing its members to breach their contracts, and the High Court issued an injunction against the NUJ. The National Union of Journalists' executive were prepared to defy the court, but the majority of the members at Stockport were not. Nine NUJ members refused to cross the picket lines, but 14 others did so.
At about the same time Mr. Shah made application for two injunctions against the National Graphical Association. The first related to a letter from the National Graphical Associationto local advertisers. This asked them, in the bluntest terms, to withdraw their advertising. The letter read, in part:
"Such a demonstration would be appreciated by NGA members working on other newspapers, who may be handling your work for publication".
Mr. Justice Boreham granted the injunction, holding that this kind of pressure was unlawful. He also granted the second injunction, holding that secondary picketing at Bury and Warrington was unlawful. However, the picketing continued. Then, on the 10th November Mr. Shah applied for a writ of sequestration against the NGA because of its refusal to observe the terms of the second injunction. A week later the union was found to be in contempt and was fined £50.000. As we know, last Friday Mr. Justice Eastham fined the union a further £100,000 because of the continuance of the contempt, and issued the writ for sequestration. The National Graphical Association that night decided to close down Fleet Street.
I now turn to the issues that I believe arecentral to the dispute. When I saw Mr. Shah in Bury on Monday of this week he showed me the outline terms of his proposal to ACAS, which was aimed at settling the dispute. In this document he proposed some qualified acceptance of the closed shop and an offer to accept binding arbitration, with the re-employment of the sacked six NGA strikers from Stockport. The NGA rejected this formula out of hand later that afternoon.
That night, following the meeting of the TUC's Employment Policy and Organisation Committee, I still felt, on the basis of what I had learned in Bury that afternoon, that there was a prospect of success within 24 hours. But on Tuesday afternoon the National Graphical Association refused to meet the Messenger management unless Mr. Shah was there; and Mr. Shah would not leave his beseiged Warrington printing works unless the NGA ceased its unlawful picketing there. He would not, he said, desert his embattled staff. In the light of what happened a few hours later, I think most of us would understand why he took that view.
I now turn to the character of the picketing and the harassment waged by the NGA and some of its members against Mr. Shah and his staff. Even before the events of this week, there had been a series of exceptionally unpleasant incidents. First, there was last week's violence on the picket lines at Warrington, which was severe, but of course not as severe as we saw the night before last. The House will recall that when the Manchester Evening News endeavoured to report the appearance in court of some of those charged with offences in connection with that picketing, the NGA promptly shut down the Manchester Evening News.
Next, there were the telephone calls made indiscriminately to the staff of the Messenger, who are

837
of course continuing to work. Ordinary working men and women received calls designed to wake them up at two and three o'clock in the morning. There were obscenities, and there was shouting at and jostling of ordinary men and women who were simply trying to do a normal day's work. Then there was the ultimate piece of nastiness: the arrival late at night at Mr. Shah's house of three separate undertakers' vehicles, bearing coffins. There were three small children in the house on the night that that happened.
I now turn, if I may, to the events of this week. First, let us be clear—I think most of us are—about the state of the law. As I indicated on Tuesday, it is quite wrong to suggest that in some way the present Government's employment legislation is the central factor in the disturbances which took place this week in Warrington. In fact, that view is entirely mistaken. Mass picketing of the kind practised outside Mr. Shah's printing works was unlawful long before the passage of the present Government's legislation. Pickets have been entitled to operate only on the basis of what I shall describe as "peaceful persuasion". They have a right to communicate with anyone who is prepared to listen to the facts of a dispute and to appeal to them not to cross the picket lines. But how can anyone pretend that that was the intention of the 4,000 people who arrived in Warrington on Tuesday night? If their objective was in fact peaceful communication, why, I wonder, did so many of them arrive with bricks, bottles, and ironbars? In my view they arrived with one purpose: to blockade Mr. Shah's works and to prevent him from publishing and distributing his newspapers. Such conduct, of course, is wholly unlawful, and it was unlawful when there was a Labour Government in office.
Next, it is argued that the present Government's employment legislation has been so provocative that it has led to the violence that has occurred. That, I think, is a fairly odd theory. I suspect that the House can recall without great difficulty what happened in the first few months of 1979, during the "winter of discontent". There was then substantial violence, even though at that time the present Government had not been elected to office.
What, my Lords, about the Grunwick dispute? I remember being asked to go there as Minister of State at the Home Office by the then Home Secretary. I saw the thousands of pickets brought down there by Mr. Scargill and others, and I watched the violence when the pickets attempted to bar the way to coaches carrying employees of the company.
I am perfectly prepared to blame the Government for a very great deal, but the idea that they are the cause of the present dispute is, to be blunt, nonsensical.
Of course it is true that the courts now have greater powers to deal with unions who behave like the National Graphical Association; and the reason for that is that the electorate has willed that it should be so.
Certainly, I tend to look with some scepticism on the claims made perhaps by all political parties following general elections that they possess a number of clearly-defined mandates. On that, I very much agreed with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord
838
Chancellor said during his Dimbleby Lecture when he was in Opposition. But as regards the last election, how can anyone seriously suggest that there is not a mandate for trade union reform in this country? Trade union reform was in fact one of the central issues in the campaign. In that election two-thirds of those who voted supported either the Government or the Alliance, and 61 per cent. of trade unionists voted against Labour candidates. I believe that in such a situation public support for the legislation already passed, and the legislation that is pending, is strong and is growing. I believe that the events of this week at Warrington will make that public support overwhelming.
I have, I hope, made it clear what I believe the dispute is not about. Let me now say what I believe is the crucial issue now facing us. It is whether powerful men and powerful trade unions are exempt from the laws of this country. It is about whether the British people, or the National Graphical Association, will decide what legislation Parliament will he permitted to pass. It is about whether young men and women serving in the police service can be violently attacked in the streets when they are upholding the laws of this country. My Lords, it is about whether we are to maintain the rule of law.
5.51p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before I start to put the case as seen by the main Opposition party in another place, let me commence by stating at once that I have no pecuniary interest in this dispute, nor do I represent the NGA, nor have I met any officials of the NGA regarding this dispute. In my maiden speech in this Chamber I expressed my delight and appreciation at being ennobled and sent to this place in order to take part in the deliberations regarding the affairs of the nation. I was aware, however, and still am aware, that I was not joining a mutual admiration society. Politics being what they are, even though this place has a reputation for being somewhat less controversial or political than another place, I knew that there would be times when the differences that divided us would be minor and at other times more profound and serious, depending on the nature of the issue before us: and I submit to your Lordships that the debate taking place today comes into the latter category.
What, I ask myself, is the objective of the noble Lord. Lord Harris, in initiating this debate? Is it in order to try to bring some calm to bear in an explosive industrial dispute, or is it an attempt to exploit the situation and perhaps to restore the waning political fortunes of the Social Democratic and Liberal Alliance? Certainly, after listening to him this evening, watching the Leader of the Liberal Party on television last evening, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the radio this morning and reading comments in the press, the priority of the Alliance party appears to he the latter and not the former.
It was interesting to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, this morning concerning his visit to the Grunwick factory during the dispute there. I wonder whether he went there on the same day as the right honourable Mrs. Shirley Williams, the president of his party, who thought that that cause was worthy of

839
her support. He said that he went there as a Minister and violently disagreed with what was happening under a Labour Government in which he was serving. Why did he not do the honourable thing and resign his post, like other people of various Governments of different colours have done in the past—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to give way?
Lord Dean of Beswick: I will on that point.
Lord Harris of Greenwich:That is the only point that I am going to ask the noble Lord about. Is he aware that what I said was that I went there at the request of the then Home Secretary, who was deeply alarmed about what was going on in the Grunwick picket line and wished to be reassured that all possible steps were being taken by the Government to support the Metropolitan Police. What I saw then persuaded me that some change in the law was necessary, because of the very serious situations which were arising there; and, of course, there was clearly no adequate framework of law.
Lord Dean of Beswick:Nevertheless, my Lords, the noble Lord did not take the subsequent action that I would have expected him to take, if he had a violent disagreement with things that were taking place under a Government in which he was serving. So not only does the alliance party have two parties, two leaders and two policies, but it can also be seen on this occasion to have, quite blatantly, two faces.
The noble Lord also informed us on the radio this morning—and he has given a blow by blow account of it this evening—that he met Mr. Shah personally on this matter, but that he understood the NGA case by reading the newspapers. What a strange comparison it is that Mr. Shah had a private interview with the noble Lord, but the noble Lord chose to exercise his views on the NGA case through the newspapers, who are blatantly opposed to the NGA case, anyway. So much for impartiality.
However, my main purpose is to indicate to the House the views of the main Opposition party and, so that there will be no misunderstanding, I beg leave of the House to read a short statement on the dispute which was issued last night by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, the right honourable Neil Kinnock. He said:
"I am extremely concerned at the fearful way in which the dispute is developing and at the wider implications that it has. I welcome the role that the TUC is playing in seeking to resolve this dispute. It stands in sharp and serious contrast to the complacency demonstrated by the Government again this afternoon in the House of Commons"—
this was yesterday afternoon"—
"and that inactivity is clearly deliberate and politically motivated. I condemn without reservation the violence in Warrington, whoever uses it, and the union has on several occasions already made it plain that they completely share this view"—
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Dean of Beswick: No, my Lords. I am not giving way.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am not giving way. Then:
"I call upon the Government to exercise the power which only a Government has to take the initiative with the employers in order to bring them to further negotiations and resolve the dispute, which is the only practical means of ending the dangerous situation in Warrington".
I might underline that by saying that that is not the first time that has been said, because on previous occasions in this Chamber I have indicated quite clearly that violence of that type has no part in our philosophy. But to deal briefly with the statement, I am glad that it states that the use of violence in an industrial dispute serves no purpose whatsoever and, in my opinion, it very often takes the limelight away from the main issue that the argument is about.
Speaking as a grassroots trade union member of 46 years' standing, I indulged in my first strike at 15 years of age before the war. I was also included in industrial action during the war as a trainee apprentice, when the engineers—and I think my noble friend Lord Scanlon will remember this—received an increase of 3s. a week, while the apprentices had nothing. There was a national strike of apprentices, but there was a simple way of curing it. They sent us all our calling-up papers so the strike was called off. But I am bound to say from experience that the only parties who can finally settle an industrial dispute are the two parties involved. They may well be assisted in this by the conciliation services, but intervention by other agencies or bodies, whether they be the law or people who demonstrate on a picket line in a dispute in which they are not themselves involved, can only exacerbate the situation and make things more difficult.
The escalation in this dispute stems from the fact that after a peaceful dispute, which had lasted over 21 weeks, Mr. Shah sought redress or recourse to the law as passed in Acts of Parliament by the Conservative Government and now supported, obviously by the alliance party—
Lord Marsh:My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way.
Lord Dean of Beswick: No, my Lords. I am not giving way. The noble Lord is down to speak and no doubt he will make his point, when I shall not interrupt him. Those Acts of Parliament have been described by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls. He said that he had become very conscious, notably during his national Industrial Relations Court experience, that the legal system was not. in practice, evenhanded as between employers and unions. Current functions put the courts almost entirely in the business of restricting or penalising the latter and not remedying their grievances. In view of those opinions, how can we say that the trade unions, if taken to court, will receive justice? They will receive the verdict of the courts, based on the law as it stands. But what to them is that sort of justice, bearing in mind the opinions expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls on this subject?

841
One of the first standing committees on which I served when a comparatively new Member of another place was a committee dealing with a criminal law Bill, a committee which was almost totally dominated by honourable and learned members from both sides of the House. During the period that this committee was processing the Bill an appeal was heard, and allowed, by the noble and learned Lords of Appeal concerning a particularly nasty and vicious sexual assault on a young woman. I am not challenging the judiciary but explaining what happened on that occasion. No doubt the noble and learned Lords were convinced that this course should be adopted and the appeal allowed; but, through the media, the public at large were astounded that such a verdict could be arrived at.
Following this, I made the point—and I make it again now—that in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, a law, to be good and effective, has to be seen by the majority of the people affected by it to be balanced, fair and equitable, otherwise it is a bad law and the courts administering it may well come into disrepute. However, it would require further legislation to redress the balance in this particular matter. Therefore I suggest we begin this as a matter ofurgency.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, gave a chronological report of the dispute, as seen through the eyes of the NGA. I say that it has been an ongoing dispute for 21 weeks and that it has developed in phases, as does any other industrial dispute. However, since I began at lunch time to write my notes for today's debate the dispute has taken a much more sinister turn. I understand that in another place at Question Time the Leader of the Opposition questioned the Prime Minister as to whether she had met Mr. Shah in private. I understand that her answer was not very conclusive. I have here a copy of Mr. Shah's newspaper, the Sale & Altrineham Messenger, which carries a photograph of the Prime Minister with Mr. Shah and Mr. Fergus Montgomery, the Member of Parliament for Sale and Altrincham, socialising together on the very day that Mr. Shah was granted his injunctions by the court. I am sure that the fair minded public will draw their own conclusions about that. This is a Prime Minister who stoodon the steps of No. 10 Downing Street and talked about uniting the people. It shows nothing but an absolutely intolerable, vindictive and vitriolic view of the Prime Minister and her views about trade unions.
Lord Denham: My Lords, order! The noble Lord must not mention a member of another place in opprobrious terms.
Lord Dean of Beswick:My Lords, if I have transgressed the normal practice of this House I willingly withdraw. Nevertheless, the facts are on record. The Prime Minister met Mr. Shah on the day he was awarded his injunctions by the court. I leave noble Lords to judge whether this was socialising—or what did they discuss? I am sure it was not a case of the Prime Minister discussing with Mr. Shah a course of action which would resolve the dispute in a manner acceptable to all the parties concerned.
To come to my final point on this particular dispute, it is within the power of the present Government to
842
take the initiative and bring the disputing factions together in order to resolve the problem. I submit that the Government will be failing in their duty if they fail to do so.
Lord Wigoder:My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as he earlier was—perhaps a little unusually for this House—unwilling to give way for what was intended to be an entirely courteous intervention, may I ask him simply this. He reports that his Leader in another place has condemned violence, whoever uses it. What is meant by that expression? And in particular, is there any allegation by the noble Lord that any unlawful force has been used by anybody on this occasion, except by the demonstrators?
Lord Dean of Beswick:My Lords, first may I say that I thought it was not in keeping with the traditions of this House for me to give way when I was reading a statement made by somebody else. The intervention ought to have come at the end of that statement, when I could have dealt with the matter and with the points of other noble Lords who may also have wanted to intervene. It has been made quite clear that when one speaks about violence it means violence from any quarter. I do not for one moment condone (nor does my Party) the fact that people who have no interest in the dispute are going up to Warrington. Perhaps noble Lords would take the trouble to read page 2 of today's Standard. This action has been openly condemned by some of the official union pickets, who are on record as having physically restrained people from attacking the police. That is no part of my speech; it is reported in the Standard. I believe I speak on behalf of the leader of the Opposition when I say that I do not believe for one moment that, though the police appear to have been justified in smashing up the van which the trade union was using, everybody in a democratic community would countenance that as being completely and utterly necessary. I believe the noble Lord said "from all quarters". If there were quarters from which no violence came, then obviously they are not involved in the statements. I leave it at that.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway:My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, if only to put a slightly different point of view. I am sure your Lordships are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for tabling this Question for, as he said, a grave situation exists. It is grave because it could impinge upon the maintenance of the rule of law, for here we have—let us strip it down to its essentials—a party to civil proceedings which has acted unlawfully and against whom an injunction has been granted, and is now in contempt which is continuing. At his instigation, others—not parties to these proceedings—are not only assisting in the continuance of that contempt but wilfully extending its ambit in open defiance not only of the civil law but of the criminal law.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who said on Tuesday that this dispute is no longer an industrial dispute. It is—and we have to face it—a political dispute which constitutes a direct challenge to the courts and to Parliament. It is a challenge mounted by

843
a mere handful of trade union officials with the apparent support not only of Her Majesty's Opposition but of the TUC—a handful of men who are able to summon forces of coercion and disruption, obedient to their instant command, to defy the civil and criminal law of the land, in the hope (in their hope) that in a dungeon of industrial turmoil of their own contrivance they may exert their various types of pressure at will.
What is the price of the ransom? With respect, I would ask the noble Lord. Lord Dean of Beswick, to attend to this point if he will; to do me the courtesy. The price of the ransom is one which no political party duly elected by parliamentary process could ever afford to pay; for this handful of men, infected by their zeal and dedicated to their cause, would burn our ballot boxes. The price demanded is no less than the right to govern in the wake of some fundamental changes in the order of our society, with terminal effect on parliamentary institutions and on the rule of law.
Where does Her Majesty's official Opposition stand? Where does the Trades Union Congress stand? It seems to some of us—with due respect to what has been said in your Lordships' House (and I refer not to what has been said in another place) by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. and as was adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, a moment ago—that it is a somewhat futile, Neronic gesture to say, albeit with sincerity, which I concede, "We, Her Majesty's official Opposition, abhor violence", and yet to take no positive step to dampen the flames of disorder.
It seems to some of us that the Trades Union Congress, by lending its support in such circumstances, has lost its way and has mistaken its true role in democratic society. It is not for the Trades Union Congress to challenge the courts or Parliament. It is not for the Trades Union Congress to aspire to govern. Indeed, Mr. Len Murray expressly so acknowledged earlier this year.
I should like to point out that, much to the vast credit of the trade unions, prior to the Act of 1971 there was no single case on record where the order of the court was not obeyed, however unpalatable that might have been. Not only that: when the Act of 1971 was introduced, it was made plain by trade unions that they would always obey the law of the land if only administered by ordinary courts and not if they were special laws administered in special courts by what they stylised as gentlemen wearing lounge suits instead of being duly attired in wigs and robes. This, they said—and I, for one, believed them—was an affront to dignity. I, for one, had considerable sympathy with that approach.
Subsequent to the Act of 1971, such was the attitude—and it continued. "We will always obey the courts": that was stated in open court as late as 1973 in a case in which I was concerned, the Cory Lighter-age case. That was stated by counsel on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Has that attitude suffered a sudden sea change?
Although it is possible for a civil court of its own motion to enforce its order against persons other than parties to the proceedings, it would be impracticable.
844
It would be politically unwise for the judiciary to take any initiative against those who, in open defiance of the law, seek to extend a measure of contempt on parties to the proceedings in the circumstances now obtaining. Indeed, it is hardly appropriate to leave the initiative there, with the attendant difficulties of identification which those of us who tend to practise occasionally in this branch of the law understand, and the expense which any layman who does not have to practise in the law understands even better. It is really hardly appropriate to leave that initiative to the aggrieved party to the proceedings.
I agree that the question of the repeal of legislation simply does not arise. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said, it is not a viable option. It affordsno solution. It would be unacceptable to the vast majority of the electorate who support the law as it stands. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. may I say that he argues that laws should be seen to be fair, balanced and equitable by those affected by them. But to the majority of those affected, the laws are; they are to the majority of the trade unions who put my party in office again—we would never have got in without their vote. It is idle for the noble Lord to seek to pretend otherwise. If he thinks about it for one moment, he must give me the point.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, permit me to intervene?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Of course, my Lords, I always give way to everybody.
Lord Dean of Beswick:My Lords, I made the point that the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls does not think so, either.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not quite understand what I was supposed to deal with by way of answer; I hope that if I do not answer, the noble Lord will not consider it as an intentional discourtesy.
The repeal of those laws would not even satisfy the insatiable demands of those who say that they will not obey the law because they do not like it—the vast minority. The whole concept not only would be an abnegation of government but would also debase the whole democratic system. It is not only unacceptable; it is inconceivable. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, should think and speak otherwise.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Of course, my Lords.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I know the noble Lord better than most—I knew that he would give way. I am sure he is not trying to be unfair to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick. My noble friend quoted the Master of the Rolls. It was the Master of the Rolls who pointed out that the present legislation appears to be imbalanced. Will the noble Lord say if he is criticising the Master of the Rolls?
Lord Campbell of Alloway:My Lords, I am quite prepared to criticise the Master of the Rolls in the right place, which is in his own court, when I am appearing before him—but certainly not in your Lordships' House.
Lord Beswick: But then to be fair, my Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, not criticise my noble friend if he is quoting the Master of the Rolls?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, my Lords. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—without the "Dean"—I maintain my criticism, albeit misconceived, because I believe it to be right. I am criticising the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for his stand on what he has said. He has in my submission put forward a political thesis which is not only
wholly unacceptable but inconceivable in any form of democratic society. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, I do not believe that he really understands what he has done. So I do not withdraw. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, knows that I always withdraw if I think I have got it wrong. I may have got it wrong, but I do not think I have got it wrong, and therefore I do not withdraw it.
Your Lordships have heard far too much from me, so I will say just this in conclusion. It is no longerto the point that this dispute erupted over half a dozen men in Warrington. It is no longer to the point that this union has assets in excess of £10 million subject to certain outstanding claims. It is not to the point that many of its members earn in excess of £300 a week, and some of the order of £700 a week. It is not to the point that this union happens to like the closed shop. And it is not to the point that this union implements a variety of restrictive working practices.
What is to the point is that we should work our way out of this moment of crisis. I again respectfully beg to disagree fundamentally with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, when he says that this is a political issue on which any democratically elected party can afford to disagree. In my submission, it is not, because it involves a fundamental challenge to our parliamentary institutions. I would greatly hope, and am sure (because I am an optimist, and, somehow, in this country we in fact work our way out of any crisis) that if the full implications can be seen in their true perspective, not only by Her Majesty's Opposition but also by the TUC, we shall be able to draw on our ample reserves of goodwill and commonsense and, I hope, close ranks to preserve the rule of law, whether or not we like it.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, 1 have a special reason for thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for asking this Question on the implications of the NGA dispute. Ever since arriving in your Lordships' House four years ago I have frequently been credited with, and occasionally criticised for, speeches by the noble Lord; and I have had to point out that Greenwich is in Social Democrat territory but High Cross is held from the Cross-Benches.
846
I find myself in quite exceptional agreement with the noble Lord in his strictures about the misuse of union power on this occasion. Unlike my namesake, or my noble friend Lord Marsh who will speak next, I am an economist, and I have been primarily concerned with the baneful effects of closed shops, which are the central pretext of the NGA campaign. It has always seemed to me clear that the unions' stranglehold over the supply of labour must operate simultaneously to violate the freedom of the individual and to produce all of the customary mischief that comes in the wake of a monopoly; and in printing the closed shop is particularly vicious because it inflates wage costs, preserves overmanning and obstructs modern methods.
Overmanning may appear to maintain employment, hut, as always, it protects yesterday's jobs, and in the short run, at the expense of tomorrow's employment opportunities. When the NGA uses its monopoly powers to raise wages in Fleet Street to £300, £400 and, I am reliably informed, occasionally £500 a week for semi-skilled workers, we have come quite a long way from the struggles of the early Tolpuddle Martyrs. It must be understood that none of these jobs occupied by NGA members is ever advertised in the press. If it was, there would be queues of applicants linking the job centres throughout our land—people willing to undertake these modest labours for suitably modest payment. So the essential fact is that we are here seeing a union struggling for great powers and with very great prizes at stake.
The 1982 Act provided for ballots on closed shops to be held, as I understand it, by next November. But the trouble is that such ballots will offer no relief from the exactions of the NGA, who will vote, if they have their modest wits about them, uniformly in favour of preserving their closed shop, on the principle that highwaymen do not readily surrender their weapons when there are rich pickings to be had. Nor could we expect relief from the employers of Fleet Street, who often come in for rather hard words for their lack of consistency, and so forth. But how can you expect employers to offer sustained, principled resistance when they are so vulnerable to interruption through strikes? I understand the Daily Mirror, which is not a paper I have regularly read, lost in a single day a net income of £2 million, for the simple reason that it could not sell Saturday's advertising and Saturday's newspapers on the Monday, when the NGA were prepared to permit them to republish.
So we must look to the Government to consider further measures to moderate the effects of the wholly irresponsible use of the closed shop. I am going to ask the Minister—I make an early announcement on this matter—if he will consider the introduction of a lay-off clause. In July 1982 (Vol. 433, cols. 177–183) the noble Lord. Lord Marsh, and I urged a lay-off clause in an amendment to the 1982 Bill, and indeed it was the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who resisted that amendment. The trouble is that, at present, managements faced with strikes by a minority of the workforce are not able to protect their businesses and their future employing capability, their ability to go on employing in the future, by limiting the outgoings when they are notable to sustain production. So that the NGA, representing, I understand, something like

847
25 per cent. of the production workers in Fleet Street, can go on strike with the result that the newspapers must continue to pay the other 75 per cent., mostly members of SOGAT, for doing nothing. In this strange situation, so far from SOGAT officials using their influence with the NGA to minimise the reckless use of strikes, SOGAT members stand to gain an extra holiday at full pay.
Even if there were not some political trouble-makers around, itching to aggravate this dispute and to confront the Government, Ministers have an urgent need to mobilise moderate and responsible opinion on the side of upholding the law and of avoiding so far as possible damaging strikes of this kind that threaten long-term employment in printing and ancillary businesses.
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, since he mentioned me. Before he leaves that question may I point out to him that managers have no obligation to continue paying any of their workforce in those circumstances.
Lord Harris of High Cross:My Lords, I believe that we went over this question a year ago. In most European countries there is a power vested in management to withhold wages on the service of certain notice and for a certain period of time in the event of force majeure, or some other circumstance, where they cannot maintain their production as a result of the minority of their workforce being on strike. It is true that in this country some employers—for example, in engineering—have, through negotiation, made arrangements for a lay-off clause. But the prospect of Fleet Street being able to negotiate with SOGAT, or the NGA, for a lay-off clause is very remote, and it is precisely in the circumstances of a powerless, beleaguered employer that the Government must reach out and arm them with this necessary authority. It would go some way towards redressing the balance of costs that now fall disproportionately upon employers who. I repeat, are the ultimate guardians of all future employment prospects.
Therefore, I am asking the Government to learn one lasting lesson from these unhappy events and express the readiness to reconsider the urgent case for a lay-off clause to strengthen what I continue to consider, despite the Master of the Rolls, is still an unbalanced and inadequate law that favours strikers and irresponsible conduct, rather than the continuity of business and employment.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising this subject on this particular occasion. I find it rather worrying in many ways that we are debating it on a rather one-sided basis. Many noble Lords are rising to condemn what has been happening, and many are expressing concern, but in terms of participation from the Opposition Benches this has been one of the most unbalanced debates that I have ever experienced in this House. It is somewhat strange.
848
One of the frightening things about this dispute and about the incidents which we see on our television screens and which we read about in our newspapers is the extent to which we know that the dispute is moving towards a major confrontation. The confrontation is not with the Conservative Party. Confrontations with the Conservative Party, or the Labour Party, are what politics are about. That does not worry any of us. It is confrontation with the state, with Parliament itself. The challenge is not to the Conservative Party, nor to the Prime Minister—she is capable of looking after herself. What is at issue is a challenge to the courts, a challenge to legal judgments which one may not like. Every time I get a parking ticket I find it offensive, oppressive and unreasonable, but that is the law, and I must observe it. Here we have people saying that this is a law that they do not like and that they will not observe it. That is a very different issue. That is not an argument about the Conservative Party, or the Labour Party; it is an argument about the way in which we live.
As one who knows some of the people involved, what worries me, and what I find frightening is that in many cases we are talking about reasonable and intelligent men who are allowing themselves to be used and exploited by the ultra Left, which does not have the faintest interest in six workers at an obscure newspaper in Stockport. This is presented as an industrial dispute, but there are a dozen industrial disputes going on around the country bigger than this on every day of every week, of every year. Normally we have more than that in Fleet Street on every day of every week, of every year. This is not a normal industrial dispute. Thousands of people book trains, hire coaches, get together and move in a valiant battle to defend trade union rights: 4,000 pickets threatened by 12 workers bringing out a newspaper! That is not a normal trade union dispute.
One must consider the people involved, some of whom I have had the privilege of working with over the years. Joe Wade is a very reasonable chap. Mr. George Jerome is also a highly intelligent, very able and reasonable chap, though I do not agree with all his politics. I cannot believe that they honestly think that the laws passed by a Government who were elected less than six months ago by a massive majority can be defied by the exercise of pure brute force. Of course there are many people who find the industrial relations laws offensive, but they were a major issue at the last election, and at the election before that.
The trade union movement organised many meetings around the country to oppose that legislation, which it found deeply and fundamentally offensive. The Labour Party put its case against the legislation clearly and consistently all the way. But at the end of the day we had an election; and these are not the Conservative Party's laws, they are the nation's laws. The nation voted for those laws by an overwhelming majority—whether one likes it or not. I am sure that many members of the CBI do not like laws passed by Labour Governments. In the event of a Labour Government, is the CBI then entitled to take direct action to frustrate those laws? There must be people in the services who would be opposed to some of the Government's policies in the defence field. Are they entitled to rise and use the power which they have

849
as small, unelected groups to frustrate the authority of such a Government?
The moment that one begins to look at the implications of these actions one is looking at the negation of democracy and our parliamentary system. This is no argument about the Prime Minister, the Conservative Party, or one of the legal gentlemen at the top. It is the system in which we live which is at stake. Powerful forces comprising unrepresentative people with whom noble Lords opposite would have very little sympathy are behind and in control of this particular dispute, and they are moving it to where it is almost totally out of control.
As one who has been a Minister in the past and has had to defend some fairly difficult briefs, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, did a gallant job, on which I congratulate him. I should not have wanted to be in his place. Had I been in his place—which I should not have enjoyed—I should have felt a little more comfortable and enthusiastic had I had a little more support from colleagues behind me. After all, they put him there. The amount of enthusiastic support coming from the Benches behind him, the mass of speakers on the list who want to rally to his support at this moment of conflict with the Government, is rather thin to say the least.
The noble Lord mentioned the presence of Mrs. Shirley Williams on the Grunwick picket line. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who is a flexible character, dealt with that particular point, but he was in some difficulty. I have no difficulty about that. I think that it was one of the very few incidents in her public life which were shameful. I believe that support for the Grunwick picket line was the beginning of what we are now seeing. I believe that the support of some of those people on that picket line was disgraceful when, as Parliamentarians, they stood there.
The noble Lord suggested that this industrial dispute was peaceful until Mr. Shah decided to invoke the industrial relations law. I attempted to intervene. The noble Lord was perfectly entitled not to give way at that point. I put the point now which I should like to have put then. Does the noble Lord not believe that the right of any citizen at any time and in any circumstances to invoke the law of the land is fundamental to our democratic system? That is not provocative. Anybody is entitled to invoke the law. That is what it is all about. There are noble Lords here whose ancestors we managed to rout in the past simply to preserve that particular point: the law applies to us all, and we are all entitled to use it. If the argument is that what precipitated the present circumstances with which we are faced of fighting in the streets and bloodstained policemen being carted away is that an individual went to the courts, I must say that I find the implications of that pretty frightening.
I was a full-time trade union official for nine years and I am proud of it. But I do not believe that when I ceased to be a trade union official and became a Cabinet Minister I somehow or other lost privileges which I had enjoyed as a trade union official to defy the law but were no longer with me when I became a Cabinet Minister. It is an argument that one really cannot sustain.
850
Let us look at some of the arguments which are put. Mr. Alf Parish, another very able man, who is the NGA's national secretary, said yesterday:
"Our members are opposed to violence".
I am sure we are all opposed to violence. We could take a quick vote on it. There is no dispute on that. He continued:
"Once they heard there was trouble at Warrington they did not want to be involved … I do not know where all these weirdos come from".
I could name a number of polytechnics and universities, but that would be a diversion. He went on:
"The only thing they have achieved is to deflect people's attention from the issue that really counts".
Oh no! That is not the issue which counts with these people. He goes on to say:
"We have been let down by the people who used us and did not do anything to support us …Other groups have used us for their own reasons".
Of course they have. Other groups have been using the Labour Party for their own reasons for several years past. That is how so many noble Lords in this House are sitting on Benches which must surprise them. Of course they are using the situation. Can anyone really believe that 4,000 people—many of them with no conceivable interest in the printing industry—for several cold nights laid siege to 12 print workers in Stockport, fighting and injuring dozens of policemen in the course of a normal industrial dispute?
People talk about mass picketing. In the past 10 years I doubt whether there have been six mass picketings in this country. It is a very unusual process indeed. Does anyone believe that a violent demonstration which resulted in 72 people appearing in court, only nine of whom were printers, was a normal dispute in the printing industry? All logic is opposed to this. Even more worrying, does anyone believe that this is a debate about a normal industrial dispute, when only one single member on the official Opposition Benches has the courage to express a view?
Why is it so difficult for members on those Benches of your Lordships' House—whichever way they feel—to stand up and say quite simply and clearly, "We support what the NGA is doing"—we can leave aside the fact that none of them want violence—or, alternatively, "We condemn what the NGA is doing"? What I find remarkable is this deafening silence on an issue of this importance. If I may say so, I think it would be accepted that the Labour Benches accommodate more people with direct experience of industrial relations than any other part of this House. There are many trade unionists of great experience sitting on those Benches. There is much accommodation over there for lawyers specialising in industrial relations or lecturers who write books about industrial relations.
The Earl of Lauderdale: No names, no pack drill.
Lord Marsh: No, no. I am speaking in very general terms. There are noble Lords who preside over tribunals concerned with industrial relations' problems; and yet in relation to this particular problem not a word is said. The reason that not a word is said, I believe, is that many people on both sides of this House and of another place recognise that this is

851
a wicked, dangerous and evil development in our society. I find more worrying than the knowledge that they recognise that the fact that they say nothing about it.
Today's Morning Star in its editorial defines the position clearly:
"We must fight to make the Tories the losers. Their anti-union laws must he shown—like the Industrial Relations Act and others—to be inoperative in the face of militant action".
If such an objective were to be achieved, it would mean that the electorate could vote for whichever party they wished; but at the end of the day the policies of that party could be vetoed after the election by the activities and pressures of small groups. None of us believe that the National Front, because it does not like the Race Relations laws, has a right to picket outside Mosques, or that the Brown Shirts of Hitler's Germany in the 1930s had a right to use their mass force to prevent Jewish traders carrying out their normal business.
I believe that this is a watershed in which this Parliament will have to make up its mind which side it is on. It is not about a printing dispute in Stockport; it is about democracy in Britain.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords. when my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich tabled his Unstarred Question last week, I must confess to having had some doubt as to whether it would be opportune for it to be asked today. This was because in my experience it has proved to be a sound maxim that during the course of an industrial dispute it is generally best that people who are not aware of all the relevant facts should say as little as possible in case unwittingly they make its resolution more difficult. It seems to me. However, that in the light of the events at Warrington during the past two nights the Question is asked in a timely way. If I may, I commend my noble friend on his prescience in putting the Question down for today. From what my noble friend said it is clear that he has gone to great trouble in obtaining as much first-hand information as possible about this dispute and its origins. I should like simply to support him by contributing a few words from the Liberal side of our Alliance and in so doing to respond, as other noble Lords have done, to one or two of the points made in the discussions so far.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, appeared to be resting his case on the point that, because the Employment Acts of 1980 and 1982 were not in his view—never mind the view of the Master of the Rolls—even-handed as between employers and trade unions, the Government should now intervene, presumably to bring pressure to bear on the employer to come to some compromise arrangement with the union that is chiefly involved. I disagree.
In my view one of the great advantages of recent employment legislation, as compared with the Industrial Relations Act 1971, is that the Government are now able to keep out of industrial disputes, settlement of which is left to the parties immediately involved, aided when desired by the independent Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which was established by a Labour Government in the first
852
place. Has not the time come for the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and his party to recognise that obstructive and intimidatory picketing has always been illegal in both criminal and civil law under Labour as much as under Conservative Governments? Should he and his noble friends not now make up their minds that such behaviour constitutes—as has been said by other noble Lords—a direct threat to the authority of Parliament and the judiciary, which for the sake of the future of our democratic way of life, they should join with the rest of us, including, I believe, the great majority of trade unionists, in condemning without reservation?
On the other hand, I have heard it suggested (not as yet today) that employers generally should now make more use of the powers open to them under the recent legislation in bringing actions for damages against trade unions. Again. I take leave to disagree with that view, and in so doing hope I shall not be accused of aiding and abetting collusion between employers and trade unions to circumvent the law: rather is it my view, a straightforward matter of recognising what I believe to he a fact of life in industrial relations, that the individual employer is best placed to judge whether it is in his company's overall interest to bring an action of this kind. He should be left alone by the rest of us to make that decision for himself.
Of course, it may sometimes be felt that employers are unwise in the course that they take or do not take. As we saw last weekend, the Messenger Group dispute has undoubtedly had repercussions on national newspapers. I have some sympathy with a remark reported to have been made by Mr. Len Murray. the General Secretary of the TUC, a few days ago, to the effect that newspaper proprietors have got the unions they deserve. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I think they have.
In its leading article this morning The Times pointed out that in Fleet Street weak management and strong unions have combined to suppress the impulsion of new technology and to limit competition. It is the consumer—in this case, of news—who has thereby suffered.
If there is one good thing besides an enhanced respect for the law that may come out of recent events at Warrington, I fervently hope that it will be the profits, wages, salaries and jobs of relatively small groups of people which will be up for grabs as never before. As a Liberal, I would welcome that warmly. Indeed, my Lords, let us hope that in the end we shall all have cause to look back with some thankfulness to the outcome of the cruel crunch that came at Warrington last Tuesday night.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I put down my name to speak on this Question for one reason only: to make a small point which I suspected would not be made by anyone else. I am not an employer; I am not an employee; I am self-employed, and as such I consider myself to be a member of the general public. What riles me about all this at the moment is the way that the unions talk about the law as being the laws of 1980 and 1982. The law that I, as a member of the general public, think is behind all this trouble is the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, Section13 of

853
which gives the unions almost total immunity from civil suit.
A lot of people say: "Why should the unions and members of the unions be above the law which ordinary people have to abide by, otherwise they will be taken to court?" The 1980 and 1982 laws have tried to trim those immunities a little. To my mind they have not gone nearly far enough and I hope that we shall see a 1984 law trimming those immunities even more. But, my Lords, let us remember that those are immunities—they are not rights. The law has given to the trade unions immunities from civil suit; the law has not given to the trade unions the right to do anything in the way of what we have seen up in the North this week. I thought that that was a point which ought to be made in this debate.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Scanlon:My Lords, I crave your indulgence to speak, not because of any of the innuendoes or hints from the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. The record will prove that I asked for my name to go down on the list of speakers long before he spoke and I do crave your indulgence on a number of points. First, I have an advantage over all your Lordships; I have been sequestrated and it is not a pleasant experience. Anyone who thinks otherwise had better go through it.
Let me say at the outset that one can create a situation to suit one's points of view merely by the art of exaggeration. But seeing that exaggertion is the order of the day, let us take the simple analogy that is being preached to us: we must accept the law. The German people voted for Hitler. If they have to have an excuse for the holocaust that happened, their excuse is: it was the law. We arc full of praise for Solidarity in Poland: they are defying their law as they know it. If we go back into history, the whole history of the trade union and Labour movement is based on a defiance of unjust laws. The Combination Acts would still be on the statute book if the Labour movement had not rebelled. if we had not objected. I am not justifying it; and I will come to in a moment—the Taff Vale dispute.
One talks, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, does about the graciousness that we should have as trade unionists because we have got immunity. There would have been no trade union movement if there were not immunities. Many of your Lordships opposite may well say: "And a good thing!" This law that we are presently talking about is aimed in that direction; so, of course, there will be objections and there will be resistance to unjust laws.
It seems to me, noble Lords, that we never learn. I will say—I think I have told your Lordships this before—that in the 3½ years that the Industrial Relations Act was in operation in Britain it cost my union alone £8 million: in sequestration of funds; in fines; in legal fees. And do not the legal gentlemen wax rich on any law and from disputes benefit?
We did not do anything illegal; we just refused to attend court. We said we would not accept the judgment of a court that in more private circles even the very hierarchy of the law itself objected to—there was objection to having two High Courts. But the simple fact remains that we did not do anything illegal.
854
We suffered the penalty. If one chooses to disobey the law or evade the law, then you suffer the penalties. The trouble with some evasion of the law is that you have very rich lawyers to tell you how to do it, and that goes particularly for income tax. I know the difference between evasion and avoidance, but it is a narrow line that many of us find very difficult to appreciate when we are talking the niceties of industrial law.
Let us come to the real issue. Nobody—nobody, that is, in his right mind—will do other than condemn in the most forthright terms the lunacy that has been taking place up in Stockport by people not connected with the dispute at all. If you want any more forthright declaration, let me tell your Lordships that in the height of the trouble that my union was involved in, in the Industrial Relations Act, I was called a Right Wing reactionary because I would not support the call for a general strike. That is the type of people you are dealing with and who attach themselves to some of these disputes. But that is not a reason for ignoring it or utilising what they have done, perhaps with very ulterior motives in order to destroy the very thing they arc supposed to be supporting. So I plead with you, "Deal with the dispute itself".
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, asked, "Will anyone get up and say that they support the NGA?" Yes, I will quite unequivocally. I believe that the NGA has the right to say that it will not pay fines imposed by this court and that it will suffer the penalty for that. It has decided to suffer that penalty. I should now like to say a word of caution, although it may well be too late. In the whole history of the Industrial Relations Act. not one responsible employer utilised that Act. Not one, in spite of difficulties. It was an adage among us that we would resolve our difficulties. Yes, we commit stupidities on the trade union side, almost equal to some of the stupidities committed by employers. But it is a far better way of dealing with it than the nonsense we are witnessing now as a result, not of the trade unions going to law, but an employer going to law.
In the whole of that history, I repeat, not one responsible employer used the Act. It was the "nutter"—if your Lordships will pardon the expression. It was the chap who was either seeking notoriety or a quick buck. Look back at history at the goads and the con men, and another small employer. What his motivation is, I do not know. But I would rather that we should make an appeal for direct negotiations or at least to use ACAS as a means of resolving this before we get into some of the confrontation that is likely later on. I know that Governments will not rescind Acts. Governments do not live by such means. They do not even put them on ice; but at least in these circumstances we could appeal. It is not my job to intervene in problems of other industries. But if an employer chooses to use the law, you are not just left with the judgment and its enforcement. You are left with all the acrimony, agony and antagonism that exists between employer and trade union thereafter. That is where the damage will be done.
So, my Lords, yes. condemn violence straightforwardly and outright by those who practise it, condemn this law for what it is—a direct affront to every thinking trade unionist. They will rebel against it. They will refuse to comply. I hope that somehow, in

855
some way, employers will see to it not to utilise this law but to utilise the forces of conciliation to resolve disputes because recourse to the law has never done anything other than bring far greater trouble than it ever resolved.
Lord Campbell of Alloway:My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he will concede that some of the employers who invoke the law, particularly the smaller ones, do so to stay in business?
Lord Scanlon:My Lords, I do not want either to impute motives or make allegations against anyone. All I will say is that if they believe that utilising the law will help them to stay in business, I believe that they are being wrongly advised. The acrimony that will follow afterwards is far more dangerous.
7.6 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, will know that I have a great deal of respect and affection for him because when I was a very new Employment Minister I learnt a great deal from him. But I must say that I can follow him in very little of what he said tonight. It seems to me that it was extraordinary for him to use the phrase "a direct affront to every thinking trade unionist" in terms of legislation that all opinion in your Lordships' House this evening—this was not even contested by the speaker from the official Opposition Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick—and all known tests of opinion, whether in election polls or in opinion polls, has shown to be wrong. As stated by speaker after speaker tonight, the threat to the law is a threat to laws that have been passed with an overwhelming degree of popular support from within the trade union movement as well as from outside it.
I think also that the noble Lord was quite wrong to raise the spectre of what could be called legitimate civil disobedience when he talked about Hitler and when he talked about Solidarity. The essence there, it would seem to me, is that the German people may have voted Hitler in, but having elected him in, they could not get him out. And the essence in the case of Solidarity is that Poland is not a parliamentary democracy.
The issue here is the importance not so much of electing your Government in (anyone can elect a Government in) but having the right to get it out. You must however obey its legislation while its legislation remains on the books. The important issue surely in a parliamentary democracy is the role of the Opposition. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that there are more important things at issue here than this sad and worrying dispute. It is absolutely integral to the political health of this country that we have an official Opposition, a loyal Opposition and a parliamentary Opposition. I beg the Labour Party to reconsider its position on this dispute and this matter. If it does not do so this week, we are, I believe, witnessing the disintegration and degradation of a great political party, a party that still has a lot to contribute to our essential political wellbeing.
This general issue notwithstanding, when an industrial relations dispute has occupied the attention
856
of the nation for a number of days, as has been the case with the Stockport Messenger newspaper dispute, it is, I think, healthy to stand back and remind ourselves of the basic facts at issue and the real issues at stake. I therefore welcome this debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the chance that it gives me to make a brief reply on behalf of the Government to it.
As speaker after speaker has acknowledged, this dispute is not about the sacking of six men. This is a dispute about the attempted imposition of a closed shop on people who have made it abundantly clear that they do not want one. There are two plants in the Messenger Group, at Warrington and at Bury, which have never had a closed shop and whose employees have signified by voting in a secret ballot that they do not want to work within a closed shop. That was not good enough for the NGA, who have throughout the dispute been seeking to impose a closed shop at Warrington and at Bury by industrial action. At an early stage that industrial action took the form of a strike at the third plant at the Messenger Group, at Stockport, where in fact there was a closed shop. When the six NGA members at Stockport broke their contracts and refused to work, they were dismissed, as their employer had every right to do.
In other words, the dismissal of the six NGA members was a consequence of a dispute which the NGA itself had started; it was not the origin of the dispute. It has been said that Mr. Shah is ready to concede a closed shop and that the only remaining difference between him and the NGA is the six dismissed NGA members. I do not know where this idea came from. I would simply point out that Mr. Shah has insisted throughout that any agreed settlement must protect his existing non-union employees, and that, of course, is quite inconsistent with the imposition of a full closed shop. It is, therefore, a cynical travesty to say, as the Labour Party has been saying, that the appalling violence we saw on the picket line at Warrington, notably last Tuesday night, is the direct result of the Employment Acts of 1980 and 1982. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for trenchantly reminding us of that.
Of course, Mr. Shah obtained an injunction to restrain the NGA's secondary picketing under the 1980 Act, and the union has subsequently been fined £150,000 for disobeying that injunction on two occasions. But all that is a matter for the civil law. The violence, intimidation and obstruction which took place at Warrington on Tuesday night were offences under the criminal law. Furthermore, they would have been criminal offences if they had occurred between 1974 and 1979—during the lifetime of the Labour Government—because the criminal law as it affects picketing has not been changed in any way under the present Government.
For instance, I have with me an extract from the TUC guide on the conduct of industrial disputes, which was published in February 1979, during the "winter of discontent", as it is called. It says:
"It is lawful for persons acting in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to picket at or near a workplace provided they do no more than peacefully obtain or communicate information or peacefully persuade workers to abstain from work".

857
It would have been nice (to put it at its most polite and mildest) for the Leader of the Opposition in another place to have turned his mind to that document, or for some of the senior members of a previous Government in another place to have done so.
The police were present at Warrington on Tuesday night to enforce the criminal law and to keep the peace. Their presence had nothing whatever to do with the injunction granted to Mr. Shah under the civil law, because the police have absolutely no role whatever in the enforcement of the civil law. The claim that the violence we saw on Tuesday night resulted from, or is excused by, the employers resorting to a civil law remedy is not merely grotesque: it is offensive (as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, reminded us in a memorable speech) to the very principle of the rule of law.
While I acknowledge that the law is always the law and must be obeyed until it is changed, I repeat that I can think of very few pieces of legislation over the last decade which have received such overwhelming support as the 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts. Your Lordships will well remember the revulsion against secondary picketing, which was never more cogently expressed than in your Lordships' House by a former chairman of the Labour Party, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He was echoed this evening by two former Labour Ministers—Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Marsh. We of course welcome these distinguished conversions, but we would remind your Lordships of who put the law on the books in the first place.
I should like to put it to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, whether the Opposition proposes to repeal the law on secondary picketing and so deny employers like Mr. Shah any remedy in civil law. I am also sorry to say that we failed to hear any specific repudiation by the official Opposition, either in another place or in this House this evening, of the barbarous and, I assume, criminal actions of members of the NGA and their supporters. It really does not do for the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, to talk about "nutters", because we know that the expenses were paid and the buses chartered by members of the union.
I should like to quote from an article by the political commentator who has been most consistently critical of this Government's policy over the broadest number of fronts; namely, Mr. Peter Jenkins of the Guardian, who yesterday wrote of the NGA:
"Its membership is exclusive, restrictive and rich. It is a bastion of obsolete craft privilege, a handy Luddite scapegoat for the technological backwardness of British industry".
Later he wrote:
"The union was in flagrant breach of the law not on behalf of the pay or working conditions of Mr. Shah's employees, but by seeking to induce him by secondary actions to sign closed shop agreements at other plants and against the wishes of the employees there. The character of the dispute was made evident in the presence of 1,000 or more pickets—their expenses paid—besieging and intimidating a company employing only 120, of whom only 35 were members of trade unions".
Mr. Jenkins concludes
"Under the circumstances the 'Stockport Six' were hardly Tolpuddle Martyrs".
All that we have heard from the official Opposition in this context are vague and unspecific disavowals of violence. That is simply not good enough. Moreover, several members of the party opposite admit to having
858
been on the picketing line on the night of Tuesday 29th November, and, in another place, have been boasting of being so present. What is the attitude of the Leader of the official Opposition to that? I think the public will want to know it.
Another myth in respect of this dispute is that the law is in some way preventing a resolution of this dispute by conciliation and negotiation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The obstacle to resumed negotiations is not the law, but the intimidatory picketing itself. Mr. Shah has repeatedly made clear that he is willing to meet the NGA but that he is not prepared to negotiate while his factory is blockaded by unlawful pickets. I do not think any person could find that attitude at all unreasonable.
In conclusion, I want to say just this. No one in his right mind wants to see this dispute prolonged for one day longer: but the way forward to the resolution which we all want is clear. It is for the NGA to call off its unlawful pickets, to obey the orders of the court and to put an end to the obscene and carefully rehearsed violence, to the bullying and intimidation which have gone on far too long and which have no place in British industrial relations. I am an optimist, and I have no doubt that they will come to their senses and do so. I am far more despairing, however, of the party which has the name of the Labour Party following suit.

RAF Regiment: US Bases
7.20 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the RAF Regiment comes under British or US command when it is defending US bases in this country.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask a series of questions and to air a topic which is of course related to the question of the control of cruise missiles but is not closely related to it. It is another topic, and I hope that noble Lords who are present will realise that it is a separate and I believe rather new topic. The Rapier missile—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—is a ground-to-air missile. It is for shooting down aircraft, to attack aircraft, perhaps bombers, and is very good for putting around airports and missile bases for defending them against air attack. It is British made and it is I believe always conventionally armed. It is not a nuclear missile.
We have sold Rapier missiles to the United States Air Force. What a good thing! They are good missiles, and the United States Air Force is a friendly air force. But I understand that some of the missiles which we have sold—or will sell—to the United States Air Force are to be lent back, or leased back, or in some arrangement made back to the Royal Air Force Regiment which will be protecting United States bases in this country. I may have got this wrong, but I hope if I have the misunderstanding can be cleared up. My present understanding is that some of the British-made weapons have been bought by the United States Air Force, but that they will fetch up in the control, in the hands, of the Royal Air Force Regiment.
My first question is, is this right? If so, are there any other weapons, or will there be any other weapons, in the hands of British forces which are the property of

859
the United States and which have been bought and paid for by the United States? My second question is this: does the presence of United States-owned weapons in the hands of this, or that, British unit anywhere affect the question of who commands that unit? The answer to this question will be relevant to further discussion about control of the cruise missiles themselves, because if the United States can give or lend us weapons which they have bought from us, how much the more easily could they give us weapons that they have made themselves.
I understand that the Royal Air Force Regiment is to be under the command of the United States when it is engaged on defending United States bases in the United Kingdom. I assume that that includes not only the United States aircraft bases which have been there for 30 years, mainly in East Anglia and the Midlands, but also the cruise missile bases.
My third question is a more general one. Can the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, tell us something about the general history of British forces coming under United States command in Britain since the nuclear age began? During the Second World War of course it was fairly common; but how much of it has happened since the nuclear age began? Can the noble Lord then describe the present situation? I am going to follow this up with more questions, which are simply a way of getting at a description of the present situation.
My fourth question is a more detailed one. Who will command the Royal Air Force Regiment on bases where United States aircraft are stationed in Britain?—that is, the United States' aircraft bases in Britain. My fifth question is who will command—Britain or the United States—the Royal Air Force Regiment when it is deployed for the protection of the bases where United States missiles are deployed?—that is, Greenham Common and, later, Molesworth.
My sixth question concerns the deployment of the cruise missiles from Greenham Common and Molesworth on exercises—or, of course, operationally if the balloon goes up—on to the roads, lanes, and fields of the country round about. Will the Royal Air Force Regiment go with the United States missiles on those deployments? If so will it take the Rapier missiles with it? In either case, will it, in the lanes, roads and fields of England, be under United States or British command?
My seventh question is a more sensational one. I am going to put these sensational questions not because I wish to raise sensation but because they go to the heart of what is national sovereignty, and thus to what is the right nature of an alliance between two sovereign nations which are friendly. If any British civilians invade a United States base so as to affect its operation and so as to render themselves liable to the opening of fire—to which the Secretary of State for Defence has said they would render themselves liable, and we on this Bench cannot dissent from that—by the forces defending United States bases (that is, the RAF Regiment) will the order to fire be given by a British officer or a United States officer?
I should like to know the answer to that question in each of the three cases that I have just outlined: in the
860
case of United States aircraft bases; in the case of the United States missile bases; and in the case of the deployment of United States missiles from the latter. I know that this is sensational, but it worries people. We know that it worries people, all politicians know that; and in my belief the Government will clearly be serving the public interest if they give a clear and detailed answer.
My next question concerns another sensational matter; and that is suggestions which have been put forward by Government supporters in the House of Commons to the effect that if the United States went against the dual control agreement which exists between the United States and Britain about the firing of the missiles, if they went against the absolute veto which the Prime Minister has stated is in her hands on the firing of those missiles, and fired them, in that case the United States could be physically prevented from doing so by the RAF Regiment.
The Government answer in the House of Commons was not awfully loud or clear to this suggestion. This question also is quite freely discussed in the country. It is quite freely discussed in the corridors of power, and has been quite freely discussed for four years past since the dual track decision of December 1979. If such a thing were to have to happen—and if this country is a sovereign nation it might have to happen—would it be the RAF Regiment that would have to undertake that horrible duty, or would it be another unit of the British armed forces and, if so, which? If I understand correctly, the RAF Regiment would be under United States command so it could not be them.
I have asked many questions. I hope that when the noble Lord answers this Un starred Question he will give full and clear answers. If he cannot, may I urge him to give neither cloudy answers instead nor, as he often does, to ignore the questions. If he cannot give full and clear answers may I urge him to say in so many words that the answer is secret and that it would not be in the national interest that it should be divulged. If he says that we shall know where we stand, but if he is able to give clear answers public discussion will proceed on a better informed basis, which I submit is the only proper basis between two great democracies.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising this important and timely matter. It may be late at night and there may be few Members speaking, but this matter is of vital importance now that missiles have been deployed in the United Kingdom. We should all be quite clear about the control arrangements with no possible doubt or possibility of error, because our futures are at stake. One should stress the fact that this Question implies no criticism of the United States. but good relationships depend on knowing agreed procedures and ensuring compliance with them.
We have had many questions and many debates in your Lordships' House indicating the grave anxieties of noble Lords; whether they are unilateralists, multilateralists, or both. We are all worried about the control of weapons, not only in times of emergency but at all times, as the noble Lord has said. We have

861
been told that the United Kingdom will provide RAF Regiment personnel and RAF police to the joint United States-United Kingdom defence force. From time to time we know it will be necessary to deploy it off base in time of tension and, indeed, in time of war. We have been assured many times that the arrangements which control the use in an emergency of the American bases and nuclear weapons systems are those provided for in the understanding reached between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, laying down that use would be a matter for joint decision between the United Kingdom and United States Governments. We are entitled to ask, as Lord Kennet has asked, whether this also covers aspects of security which will apply in time of emergency—let us hope that that situation does not arise.
The shooting down of the Korean airliner and the United States invasion of Grenada were both situations which, if they had been anticipated in your Lordships' House, would have been met by the Government's assurances that they could never possibly happen. But they did and we have to ensure that similar situations do not arise in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has raised some important questions about the control of the RAF Regiment and United Kingdom forces when defending United States bases in this country and also bases where United Kingdom and United States forces serve. The same concern might also cover the defence of bases such as Greenham and the mobile bases which could be anywhere in the United Kingdom, as the noble Lord said, and we want to know what control there is of them at all times. With all the assurances that the Prime Minister can give, with all the confidence she feels she radiates and the aura of infallibility with which she has been identified, we can be certain that the residents of even the most conservative town, village or hamlet will quake with fear when they become aware of the possible threat to their well being from United States personnel, which may arise unless clear assurances are given.
Surely even the special relationship between us does not allow for that possibility. It affects not only United Kingdom forces personnel but civilians in the vicinity of Greenham and many of the localities to which the noble Lord referred and where the forces may be stationed. If there is to be United States control of the RAF Regiment and United Kingdom forces, one wonders how the United States would react if United Kingdom forces on any United States territory were under the direct control of the British Prime Minister.
I will not repeat the Questions directed to the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, but the House is grateful to him for having raised this important subject. We are entitled to the answers and the assurances which we need to ensure that this special relationship continues unabated.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennet has done a service by putting these important questions clearly to the Government. It is a convention of the House that in reply to an Un starred Question the Government reply ends the debate. Normally this is satisfactory because one knows what the Govern-
862
ment will reply. On this occasion I must confess that I am not altogether clear what reply the noble Lord is proposing to give, but on the major question which my noble friend asked—namely, whether in the event of a decision by the United States to fire the weapons, the RAF Regiment remains under the control of the British Government—I think the answer is clear and has been given. The Government, both in this House and in another place, have made it quite plain that they regard the presence of the RAF Regiment on the spot as a safeguard against the remote possibility of the United States wishing to fire these missiles without British Government consent. If the Minister were to reply that it is not in the public interest to disclose the arrangements he would be subject to serious criticism because this would directly conflict with the assurances given by Government Ministers that the RAF Regiment in those circumstances would remain under British command. I hope that the Minister will answer particularly fully and clearly on this point.
7.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising this Question, and I welcome the opportunity to set the matter straight. Your Lordships may recall that in February 1981 the Government announced, among a number of other improvements to the air defence of the United Kingdom, the signature of a memorandum with the United States Government providing for the deployment of Rapier missile squadrons for the defence of the seven principal United States AirForce bases in the United Kingdom. Though these squadrons are dedicated to the defence of the United States bases, they are manned by Royal Air Force Regiment personnel. The command arrangements are precisely the same as for the squadrons deployed to protect Royal Air Force stations in the United Kingdom. I shall come to that in more detail later.
The Royal Air Force Regiment is an integral part of the Royal Air Force and is established to provide the local protection of key Royal Air Force operational bases and facilities. To fulfil these tasks light armoured squadrons of the regiment are equipped with armoured tracked vehicles for ground defence tasks, and air defence squadrons use the highly successful British Aerospace Rapier surface-to-air missile system.
The arrangements with the United States Air Force for the manning and deployment of Rapier in this country are an important example of co-operation between NATO allies. The Rapier systems which are now being deployed under the Memorandum of Understanding are wholly the property of the United States. But during negotiations for their procurement by the Americans, it became clear that neither the United States Air Force, nor the United States Army, would have the trained manpower available to operate them. Our allies thus found themselves in a peculiar difficulty. The United States Air Force has no direct equivalent of the Royal Air Force Regiment.
As matters stood, this important improvement in the air defence of the United Kingdom would have been frustrated, at least for a while, because of the

863
manpower problem. I am glad to say that the deployment of Rapiers for this essential role was not frustrated because Her Majesty's Government found it possible to respond to the situation by providing the manpower which the Americans could not. We therefore undertook to provide and train Royal Air Force Regiment personnel to meet the need of the Americans. Not only that, but we were able to ensure that the United States Air Force Rapiers would be fully integrated into the United Kingdom air defence system, which is itself a part of the NATO air defence system covering Western Europe as a whole.
The agreement between the two sides enabled an important air defence enhancement to be achieved in the most effective manner possible, and allowed the costs to fall upon the party benefiting; namely, the United States Air Force. The costs borne by the Royal Air Force in providing training and manpower were offset by a reduction in the research and development levy for the Trident Programme, which your Lordships will recall was published in an exchange of letters in July 1980.
May I now say something about the Rapier system which the United States Air Force is buying. It is a wholly British system, manufactured by British Aerospace. It is a world leader in ultra-low level air defence, with a supersonic missile with such accuracy that the target can be brought down by a direct hit. It can be used with an optical sighting system, as was the case in the Falklands conflict, or with the Marconi blindfire radar tracker, as in the version of the system which is being supplied to the United States Air Force, and which is already in service with the RAF Regiment in the United Kingdom and Germany. It is lightweight and highly mobile, and is easily carried by a helicopter or a transport aeroplane. It is ideal both for airfield defence, and for the protection of mobile ground forces. The agreement with the United States was thus a unique endorsement of Rapier's qualities. The value of the deal is rather more than £140 million.
Let me now turn to the command arrangements which lie at the heart of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question. The Royal Air Force is totally responsible for the administration and discipline of these personnel. Those who operate the United States missiles are no different in this respect from those responsible for protecting the Royal Air Force itself. As far as operational command is concerned, this responsibility, in peace and war, falls to the Commander-in-Chief Royal Air Force Strike Command, acting in his NATO capacity as CINCUKAIR. He is responsible to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe for all air defence operations within the United Kingdom area and for the command of all NATO air defence forces in the United Kingdom. It is he who orders the deployment and state of readiness of all United Kingdom Rapier squadrons. If called upon to act, these units follow agreed NATO rules of engagement, common to all our air defence forces.
It has been suggested that these Royal Air Force Regiment forces are in some degree under the operational command of the United States, and that this offends against our sovereignty and territorial rights. I wish to reassure your Lordships that this is in
864
no way the case. The Commander-in-Chief under whom they act is a British commander, and will always be so. The chain of command is both a British and a NATO command. There is no sense in which the wing commander in charge of the United States base protected by Rapiers could or would issue instructions which conflict with those of the Commander-in-Chief. The role of the United States wing commander in the scheme of things is exactly the same role as is assigned to a Royal Air Force station commander whose base is protected by a Rapier squadron. The wing commander's responsibilities are purely tactical. His function is to ensure effective local airspace management in the vicinity of his base; in other words, in simple language, to prevent his air defence forces from shooting down friendly aircraft. There, the United States commander's operational responsibility ends. He cannot independently order the missiles to fire. He must act in any operational situation according to the overall rules laid down by NATO and the specific instructions of the air defence commander.
May I now take up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and others about the arrangement in connection with the cruise missiles and defence policies. The first point I must make is that the operational function of the Royal Air Force personnel employed in the defence force at RAF Greenham Common is entirely different from the function of those manning the Rapier squadrons. The Greenham Common personnel are not employed to defend the base. They are part of an integrated force specifically dedicated to protecting the sensitive elements of the cruise missile system from armed attack by terrorists and saboteurs in peacetime and by enemy forces in wartime. They are not responsible for operating the missiles themselves. Their command arrangements are dictated by their function. Administratively, they are under British command and, operationally, under joint command.
If I can amplify that point a little further, the integrated command enjoys a United States Air Force commander with a Royal Air Force deputy commander. I trust that this leaves no remaining doubt on the issue of the command arrangements, or suggestion that the highly advantageous arrangement made with the Americans in connection with the Rapier system in any way conflicts with British sovereignty. The command arrangements for these Rapier forces assigned to the United States Air Force are dictated by the envoronment in which the Rapier squadrons are placed and by the integrated NATO control of all our air defence forces.
I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on the main thrust of the Un starred Question that he was asking. I am conscious that I have not answered all the detailed questions that he has put to me, but I hope that he will agree that I should study the questions that he has put, because some of them were quite profound, and let him have considered answers by correspondence in due course.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I agree with pleasure that the noble Lord should study them and answer later. He is right in saying that he did not cover the full ground. Can he confirm that what he said about the

865
joint force being under a United States commander at the missile base would lead to the order to fire on British saboteurs or attackers being given by a American officer?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think I said they were under joint command at the Greenham Common base and not under United States Air Force command. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to amplify that in correspondence for it is not, in fact, as simple a matter as some people would have us believe. With regard to the Rapiers, as I have said, the fact is that the Royal Air Force Regiment squadrons in the United Kingdom employed to defend the American bases are under British command. We have agreed to provide these squadrons to overcome a particularly difficult problem which has emerged. It is a measure of the strength of the NATO Alliance and our own flexibility that we could respond to the difficulties that arose in the way that we did. The Rapier arrangement reflects nothing but credit on all those involved and I hope your Lordships will agree with that.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he confirm that, since the operational use of the RAF Regiment at the missile sites is subject to joint control, there is no sense in which one can say that the RAF Regiment could veto a decision by the United States to fire the missiles?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the decision to fire the missile is a matter not for the RAF Regiment, not for the United States forces on the base, but for the President and the Prime Minister.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, may I ask the Minister briefly whether he will send me a copy of the correspondence which he is to send to the noble Lord? I am sure he will confirm there is no possibility of any United Kingdom citizens being shot by US personnel at a time of a possible breach of security.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.