Sitting of 16 December 1974

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

    National Consumers' Agency
    Mr. Mike Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether it is her present intention to ask the TUC and the CBI to nominate members of the National Consumers' Agency; and whether she will make a statement on the composition of the agency.
    The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams): The composition of the agency is still under consideration. But as indicated in paragraph 5 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 5726), the TUC and CBI represent the interests of those concerned in the production of goods and services whereas the role of the agency will be to give similar voice to the interests of the consumer.
    Mr. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the agency should be independent of producer interests? Does he also agree that it is important that if it is to reach the status, described in the slim White Paper, of being equivalent to the CBI and the TUC, great thought must be given to its chairmanship, the composition of the committee and the stature of its members? Can the House be told fairly soon in a rather more detailed way than we have been told in the White Paper?
    Mr. Williams: I agree completely with my hon. Friend that the independence of the agency must be clearly established. It is for this reason that we are considering the membership. First we want to
    1092
    consult the prospective chairman, since he will to a great extent determine the success of the agency. We want to discuss with him the precise form of membership.
    Mr. Raison: Can the Minister give us an assurance that the agency will not be set up before the House has had an opportunity to debate the White Paper on the subject which was published only a relatively short time ago? Can the hon. Gentleman explain a mystery which has been puzzling a number of us—namely, that in the Labour Party manifesto it is categorically stated that
    " We have … set up a National Consumer Agency"?
    It appears that the Government are about to set up a National Consumers' Agency. Is not this a case where the manifesto should be reported to the Director General of Fair Trading?
    Mr. Williams: I do not recollect the passage which the hon. Gentleman mentions but I do not challenge the accuracy of what he says. All I would point out is that, since the White Paper was produced only in the late summer, it would, if anything, have been a printing error rather than an attempt to mislead since that was hardly the central point of the last General Election. As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate, I can understand his wish to have further discussion of the subject. I shall make the point to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House but I cannot give any guarantee. I would point out that when the Consumer Council was set up it was the then Opposition—the Labour Party— which provided part of one of its own Supply Days for a debate on the issue. I do not think there has been a single Question about the National Consumers' Agency from any right hon. or hon. Member on the Tory Front Bench or back benches.

    Food Subsidies
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what plans she has for the further subsidisation of bread and other basic foods.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): We are aware that, following the recent wage increases, plant bakers

    1093
    have recently submitted notifications of price increases to the Price Commission. We shall consider the need for changes in the existing subsidies when the Price Commission has completed its examination of these and any other notifications.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the subsidy, particularly of bread and certain other basic foods, is widely welcomed by the lower income groups? Will he also bear in mind that the recent, fully justified wage increases in the baking industry mean that if the bread subsidy is not increased its price will rise? Will he give an assurance that the price of bread will be stabilised by further subsidy if necessary?
    Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the value of the bread subsidy. The Government will have to decide whether to adjust the subsidy, and to what level, when the Price Commission has considered the relevant price notification.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman think for a moment about the problem of subsidies as they continue to grow, and will he think in partcular about milk? Will he accept that, if we go on creating a gap between the real price of milk and its subsidised price, we shall soon arrive at the point when people will say, as they are already saying, that milk is the cheapest form of dog and cat food available.
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that his own party when in government subsidised milk to the tune of £100 million per annum
    Mr. Stanleyasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she is satisfied that the expenditure on food subsidies is going to those in need of subsidisation.
    The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): As I made clear to the hon. Member in a reply on 11th November, I am satisfied that as a result of changes in direct taxation the net benefit of the Government's expenditure on food subsidies goes to the lower income groups.—
    Mr. Stanley: Will the Secretary of State consider again the implications of her
    1094
    reply to me on 11th November in which she said that no less than 67 per cent. of the total expenditure on food subsidies went to those earning more than £2,000 a year? Will she acknowledge that the higher rates of direct taxation announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are no justification for the huge subsidisation of the better off by her Department?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has got the figures wrong. Fifty-two per cent. of the expenditure goes to those earning over £50 a week. The hon. Gentleman has entirely failed to take account of what I said in my reply with regard to the net benefit of subsidy. It will not do for the Opposition so consistently to present themselves as being unable to understand the concept of net benefit. The net benefit is overwhelmingly to lower income groups who do not pay additional tax.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: What success is my right hon. Friend having in persuading her colleagues the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Energy that the same argument might be applied to the price structure in the nationalised industries, particularly electricity and gas?
    Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have had to deal with the effect of huge and indiscriminate subsidies paid to the nationalised industries which made no distinction between the income groups concerned in paying those prices. The Government are endeavouring to see what they can do in this respect also.
    Mr. Raison: Will the Secretary of State accept that in the present economic condition of the country we are in no position to go on increasing food subsidies indefinitely? Will she further accept that it is wrong to increase subsidies on commodities like bread to pay high rates of wage inflation?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must accept that there is a deep ambiguity in their position. Every month they complain about the rate of inflation, and every month they complain about the actions which the Government take to try to reduce it.
    Mr. Raison: Will the Secretary of State now answer my question?
    Mrs. Williams: I consider that I have answered it.
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will take steps designed to ensure that less than 52 per cent. of the estimated cost of food subsidies in the current financial year will be received by households with an income above £50 per week.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The changes in direct taxation introduced by the present Government are ensuring that the cost of the food subsidies programme is borne by households with incomes of over £50 per week. It is not part of our policy to require people to undergo a means test before receiving the benefit of food subsidies.
    Mr. Gow: Bearing in mind the words of her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he said that we were facing the gravest crisis since the war, does the right hon. Lady think it right in present economic circumstances that more than £250 million a year should go in subsidies to families with incomes of more than £50 a week?
    Mrs. Williams: It is very difficult to get this point over to the Opposition, but I shall try again. The additional taxation on those earning more than £60 a week is greater than the benefit from subsidy. Therefore, it does not matter that they receive the subsidy, because they more than pay for it.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that in the last Parliament there were several occasions when the Opposition could have voted against the food subsidies but that they could never quite bring themselves to do it?
    Mrs. Williams: My right hon. Friend will recollect that in their manifesto the Opposition could not quite find it in themselves to announce that they would end food subsidies.
    Mr. MacGregor: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the tax argument which she keeps using would apply only if the Government had made it clear that the increase in the higher tax rates was specifically to provide the food subsi-
    1096
    dies? As that is not so, there are much better ways of applying that higher tax revenue—either by payment direct and in tola to the groups in need or perhaps to reduce the Government's borrowing requirement.
    Mrs. Williams: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his March Budget for what purposes taxation was being raised, and food subsidies were among them. I repeat that the Opposition do not seem to grasp the point that in substantial part any means-tested benefit is not taken up by those whom it is intended to reach.

    Local Authorities (Chief Officers' Salaries)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether the study she is undertaking of penalties which might be imposed on employers who are in breach of guidelines laid down in the social contract will extend to cover the salaries paid to chief officers of local authorities.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Action through the Price Code, which I am studying, can influence employers only so far as their prices or charges are controlled under the code. Only the trading services of local authorities are so controlled.
    Mr. Steel: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is considerable public concern about the quite provocative increases in the salaries of local government officials, particularly those who will be doing, under reorganisation, much the same jobs but with different titles? Can she say whether the proposed inflation tax which apparently is being considered by Ministers will be introduced in time to make sure that some of the increases will be repaid to the community, as we proposed during the last election?
    Mrs. Williams: I can understand the hon. Gentieman's concern but the Price Code is probably not the best way to reflect it.

    Packaging
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she can estimate the average percentage of the retail prices of those commodities carrying a Government subsidy which relates to the cost of packaging.
    Mr. Maclennan: I regret that no statistics are available on which to base an estimate of packaging costs for the subsidised foods. However, we are aware that packaging can account for a significant proportion of total costs, and we are considering what action may be necessary in this field.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does not the Minister think it somewhat contradictory to subsidise foods only to find their cost increased by the cost of packaging? Will he engage in discussions with the manufacturers with a view to giving people a choice—either to pay the additional cost of fancy packaging and wrapping or to accept the goods rather less extensively packaged but at a price closer to their true cost?
    Mr. MacLennan: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's view that subsidised foods in particular are fancily packaged. I think there is no evidence of that. The references to the cost of packaging made recently by the Price Commission were not references to the impact on subsidised foods.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many food companies already offer a wide variety of goods, some of which do not carry a packaging premium? Does he also agree that, with a delivery cost of 4½p for first-class letters as against 5p for a pint of milk, the consumer has reason to doubt whether in the Government's view the cost of packaging or the content is more important?
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point in that it is impossible to reduce the cost of packaging of milk. The bottle would seem to be the necessary minimum.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what steps she is taking to investigate the inflationary effects of excessive packaging of consumer goods.
    Mr. Maclennan: I am anxious to ensure that packaging does not unnecessarily lead to increased prices for the consumer and I am considering the matter urgently.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: I am grateful for that reply, but would not the hon. Gentleman agree that whereas it is necessary
    1098
    to ensure that packaging protects and preserves foods and other goods adequately and hygienically, it not only adds to costs but often misleads consumers and creates an environmental problem? Does not the hon. Gentleman further agree that whereas it is not desirable that there should be statutory restrictions on packaging, it would be very useful if an independent inquiry could be set up by the hon. Gentleman's Department into the extent and cost of packaging, to assist the Director General of Fair Trading to arrive at an agreement with the trade on a voluntary code on packaging?
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady mentions a number of factors which we are looking at carefully. She will be aware that the Government published a Green Paper on waste and that we are setting up the Waste Management Advisory Council which doubtless will look into some of the factors she has mentioned. The hon. Lady particularly addressed me on the cost aspect, and I am considering this myself.
    Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that the somewhat quaintly named Waste Management Advisory Council is asked to devise an economic packaging standard along the lines of the "kite" system?
    Mr. Maclennan: That must be a matter for the Waste Management Advisory Council to consider for itself and to come up with recommendations to the Government.

    Cost of Living
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what was the increase in the cost of living over the past three months.
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is her latest estimate of the increase in the retail price index for the 12 months to November, and for the three months to November.
    Mr. Alan Williams: The retail price index for November was 18·3 per cent. higher than the figure for 1973. The increase over the three months to November was 4·9 per cent.
    Mr. Adley: Why is it that senior Ministers increasingly are ducking Questions and are not themselves answering obviously embarrassing Questions which are put to them? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection that we all admire her charm and skill but that neither her words nor those of her colleagues can possibly compensate pensioners and people on fixed incomes for the appalling and staggering increase in the cost of living? Will all the Ministers on the Government Front Bench get together and try to persuade their colleagues in the Cabinet to do something about introducing an effective incomes policy?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong if he thinks that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would duck a Question. The whole House knows the absurdity of that suggestion. As the hon. Gentleman will probably appreciate, and certainly as his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench appreciate, in allocating the answering of Questions there must be a balance in numbers between Ministers and we must try to ensure that the same Ministers are not popping up and down in succession to answer Questions. The hon. Gentleman should put the Question about an incomes policy to another Minister.
    Mr. John Garrett: Will my hon. Friend say what apparent effect food hoarding has had on the cost of living index in the last three months?
    Mr. Williams: I am not sure that it has had much effect on the cost of living index. It seems to have had a considerable impact on the leadership prospects of certain politicians on the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Rost: As the Secretary of State told shoppers on 7th October during the election campaign that price rises were slowing down at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was saying that the rate of inflation was 8·4 per cent., since when price rises have doubled, what does the Secretary of State say now?
    Mr. Williams: Last month's price increase was still lower than that in January when the Conservative Party was in office. There were two important abnormal factors on the food side. One concerned milk. Conservative Members
    1100
    had been shouting and demanding in the House that the return on milk to the producer should be increased. The other factor concerned sugar. The world price of sugar has passed through into manufacturers' costs of biscuits, sweets and so on.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: As the now notorious three-monthly rate of inflation of 8·4 per cent. quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection in the election has in two months increased to a three-monthly rate of 21·3 per cent., can the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend tell the House precisely which of the main factors which have contributed to this increase she was unaware of when she made that statement and when she said on radio that all she could say about inflation was that it was beginning to move downwards? Is she aware that the 9½month period of dreamland, fairy-story government is over and that it is becoming a waking nightmare for the people because it is now clear to everybody that the Government have no effective plans for tackling inflation, that they duped the electorate about the impending rate of inflation, duped them about the social contract and duped them about the economic situation?
    Mr. Williams: I thought that the hon. Lady was going to blow a gasket. [AN HON. MEMBER : "It is not funny."] It is not funny. Frankly, it has been depressing week after week to listen to the Opposition knocking every action taken by the Government to try to contend with the prices situation but never coming forward with a positive suggestion themselves.

    Petrol Retailers
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she has yet received the report of the Price Commission on petrol retailers' margins; and whether she will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclennan: We do not expect to receive the report of the Price Commission until the early part of next year.
    Mr. Huckfield: With regard to certain Press reports yesterday, is my hon. Friend aware that even at present price and profit margins some garages are doing

    1101
    very well—in fact, so well that they can afford to give away Green Shield stamps, glasses and goodness knows what? Will he accept that what is wrong is that 70 per cent. of retail sales outlets are owned by the major oil companies? Does he not think it is time that another look was taken at the undertaking which they gave the Monopolies Commission in 1965 that they would not acquire any more?
    Mr. Maclennan: I could not accept what my hon. Friend has said in the first part of his supplementary question without having the full report of the Price Commission with me. It may be that in part it will substantiate what he has said. But I must maintain an open mind on that matter. We are considering the point which my hon. Friend has raised in the second part of his supplementary question.

    Local Consumer Protection Services
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many local authorities now offer some form of consumer protection service to their own ratepayers.
    Mr. Alan Williams: All local weights and measures authorities enforce a wide range of consumer protection legislation. There are now 46 local authority consumer advice centres and there are plans for others.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that consumer advice and protection at local level is extremely important? What sanctions are open to local authorities if they find that traders are offending against good practice in consumer matters?
    Mr. Williams: I agree completely with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely essential to have effective consumer protection at local level. Indeed, that is where it becomes meaningful to the consumer. The question of sanctions depends on the nature of the practice. Generally the first line of action is to approach the local weights and measures or trading standards inspectors. They are able to take action if necessary. There is also the facility of being able to draw continued abuses to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading, who can make recommendations to the Government, as
    1102
    he has done, concerning the introduction of orders to make certain activities illegal.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Can the hon. Gentleman think of a better form of protection for ratepayers than for local authorities to hold down the level of their expenditure?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind, as all hon. Members must bear in mind at some time, that there is always a balance between how far we should hold down expenditure and how far we should cut back services. Holding down expenditure is not always the most advantageous course in the long run from the consumer's point of view. It is a delicate balance. We can leave it to the local authorities to do what they think appropriate with regard to consumer protection.
    Mr. Ward: In view of the economic restraints preventing many authorities from progressing with their consumer advice centres as they would wish to do, does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to consult the local authority associations about how the practices of the best authorities can be disseminated among the other authorities and how greater cooperation can be arranged between adjoining authorities to make the most economic use of the existing facilities?
    Mr. Williams: Certainly such a meeting would be helpful, and it is our intention to invite local authority representatives to discussions with us during the new year. We have already held one such meeting and we hope that we can have a further constructive exchange.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment last Thursday from the Box adjured all local authorities to reduce expenditure and to economise in staff? As the Minister is now encouraging them to spend more on consumer protection, will he have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment to see which of them will prevail in this internecine struggle?
    Mr. Williams: There is no internecine struggle. Struggles between individual hon. Members seem to take place nowadays among Conservative Members. Consumer protection is covered in the rate support grant.

    Food Manufacture (Small Companies)
    Mr. Alisonasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what monitoring of the effect of the cash flow position of smaller food manufacturing companies caused by price controls is undertaken by her Department; how many redundancies or closures have occurred in this context; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I keep in close touch with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Employment about cash flow and employment in the food manufacturing industry and I have carefully considered many representations from the industry during the current review of the Price Code. While there have been some redundancies and closures over the last 12 months it is impossible to say to what extent the Price Code is responsible as opposed to other factors.
    Mr. Alison: Has the right hon. Lady heard about the closure of Anglia Canners Company at Wetherby in my constituency, which was directly due to the operation of the Price Code? Is it not perverse of the Government to facilitate a growth in consumer expenditure while at the same time making it impossible for producers to produce the goods and services on which consumers can spend money?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman may know that there have been redundancies and closures in the food manufacturing industry for many months past, long pre-dating the present administration and pre-dating the Price Code. Market factors are at least as important at present as is the Price Code, and I suspect considerably more so. But we are endeavouring to ease the Price Code at least to some extent to meet the problem of unemployment in this field.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House when she expects, by publishing the revised Price Code, to end the suspense in which these manufacturers find themselves?
    Mrs. Williams: Yes. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the
    1104
    revised Price Code will be laid before the House on Wednesday.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: In view of the representations which the right hon. Lady has had from the food industry, may I ask whether she is aware that, despite the concessions made to it both in the Price Code and the Budget, the net cash outflow in the industry is many millions of pounds? Will she take this into account in deciding the final amendments she makes to the Price Code so as to protect the variety and supply of food in our shops?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is one matter which we have taken into account in our discussions and consultations about the Price Code. I also have a great responsibility to try to reduce the effects of the increased rate of inflation and, therefore, we cannot go all the way to meet what the industry wants.

    Sale of Goods (Prescribed Quantities)
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what progress she is making with the extension to a wide variety of goods of the provision to sell them in prescribed standardised quantities.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Formal consultations were opened last week on proposals relating to biscuits and shortbread. In the new year I also expect to be able to announce plans for wine sold both by the carafe and by the glass and for implementing the EEC range for chocolate bars.
    Miss Fookes: I welcome these signs of progress, but my I ask the Minister to speed it up because we seem always to move at a snail's pace in these matters?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. It is frustrating for Government as well as Opposition. She will be aware of the contraints imposed by the 1963 Act which require consultation with all interested parties, so that the Department faces what are known as the "102 steps" which are necessary to prepare such a measure. The difficulty is that in the process of speeding up the orders, which will be long-lasting in their effect, if one cuts down the consultation one may do irreparable harm to an

    1105
    interest which one does not wish to damage.
    Mr. Ward: In making such arrangements will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the problems of pensioners who have to buy small quantities to keep within their limited incomes?
    Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. We are very conscious of it in the Department. The EEC has stressed this when ranges have been considered and has sought to have small sizes included.
    Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that 39 steps are probably better than 102, and will he tell us how far he has got with unit pricing?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman and I have followed the saga of unit pricing for a long time. He will be aware that certain measures have been introduced since the Government came to office, and we are considering where else unit pricing would be appropriate. I think the hon. Gentleman shares the view of most of his hon. Friends and most of my colleagues that, in general, prescribed quantities are preferable, but these are instances where unit pricing is the only effective means of protection.

    Special Offers
    Mrs. Haymanasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will take measures to stop the abuses in pricing policy on certain goods currently caused by "special offers "which in fact work to the disadvantage of the consumer.
    Mr. Alan Williams: The Director General of Fair Trading has invited evidence on misleading price comparisons, including abuses of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind, with a view to a possible reference to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. I am sure that he will be glad to receive any representations she cares to send him.
    Mrs. Hayman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and I shall make representations to the Director General. Shoppers are extremely irritated when they find that a commodity price, apparently 2p less that it was the week before, is in fact lp more and that the item can be bought more cheaply at the
    1106
    shop next door. Is my hon. Friend aware that this ludicrous method of trying to induce shoppers to buy a certain brand leads to such anomalies as the packet of soap powder which I bought this week which was marked "Special low price"?
    Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is correct. Unlike the Liberal spokesman, I actually do some of the family shopping and I am fully aware of the annoyance produced by the practice described by my hon. Friend. Even this morning I spoke to the Director General about this matter, and he assures me that he hopes to bring forward recommendations early in the new year. There will then have been consultation on the recommendations. There is action in the now famous pipeline.
    Mr. McCrindle: On the other side of the coin, has the Minister any comment to make on supermarkets which recently have been prepared to provide scarce commodities such as sugar only in return for a minimum amount of spending by their customers? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such a practice is unfortunate for old-age pensioners and people on fixed incomes? Has he plans to make a recommendation to discourage that practice?
    Mr. Williams: There is a Question on this subject on the Order Paper which it would be improper for me to anticipate.
    Miss Fookes: Is the Director General of Fair Trading taking into account my bête noire, the manufacturers' recommended price, which I believe should be abolished?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, indeed, he is taking that into account. If the hon. Lady has examples of gross bêtes noires which she would like to put before the Director General I shall be delighted to hear of them.
    Later—
    Mr. McCrindle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I put a supplementary question on Question No. 16, I was told that the matter I had raised would be answered in reply to a later Question. May I know which Question between Question 17 and Question 28 refers to the matter I raised?
    Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order. As I made the point, I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at Question No. 18. I was not trying to dodge the hon. Gentleman's question. I would gladly have answered it, but it would have been discourteous to the hon. Gentleman who asked the other Question, had he been present.

    Milk Subsidies
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is now the total annual cost of subsidies to milk.
    Mr. Maclennan: About £323 million in the current financial year.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is 5 per cent. of the Government's deficit? Does he not agree that if the Government were serious in wanting to make some impact on inflation the best way to do it would be to cut out milk subsidies altogether, and quickly?
    Mr. Maclennan: I must again remind the hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Conservative administration and should be aware of this, that his own Government subsidised milk to the tune of £100 million per annum. It is an important element in the diet particularly of the less well off, and it is necessary in the inflationary situation in which we are living to seek to protect those members of our society.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us on this side of the House who take a serious interest in the well-being of our constituents can think of a hundred items on which we would cut a subsidy before we would cut a subsidy on milk?
    Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure he is right.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Surely it must be wrong that the price of milk should be less than the price of a bottle of bitter lemon and about one-quarter of the price of a pint of beer. Surely something is wrong with the hon. Gentleman's mathematics and proportions. Is it not about time that the real price was paid for a pint of milk? Is it not time that the subsidy ended?
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the nutritional
    1108
    value of bitter lemon or beer is greater than that of milk? Surely he must recognise that milk is an important item in the diet of the less well off, the young and the elderly, and as such it is a most appropriate candidate for subsidy.
    Mr. Woodall: Does not my hon. Friend agree that we should increase the subsidy on milk in order to restore the milk which was pinched from the kids by the last Conservative administration?
    Mr. Maclennan: We shall have to consider the level of subsidy for milk in the new year in the light of any decision that may be taken about increasing producers' prices.

    Sugar
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what effect the recently announced arrangements for purchasing sugar will have on the food price index.
    Mr. Maclennan: Following the agreement to pay £140 per ton fob to Commonwealth sugar suppliers for shipments between 1st September 1974 and 31st December 1974, the average retail price of a 2-1b. bag of granulated sugar has risen by 4½p. The price of sugar next year will depend on a number of factors including the outcome of price negotiations with Commonwealth suppliers and the quantities subject to the EEC subsidy scheme. An increase of 1p in the retail price of the 2-lb. bag of granulated sugar raises the food index by 0·16 points.
    Mr. Latham: How much of the weekly benefit of food subsidies will be wiped out by the increase in sugar prices during the next 12 months?
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman will know that it is impossible for me to answer that question until the level is settled, and this depends on the current negotiations with the Protocol 22 countries and on the outcome of the Lardinois proposals.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in view of the rotten state of the nation's teeth—particularly children's teeth—and the growing obesity among older people, sugar is one commodity that ought not to be subsidised?
    Mr. Maclennan: It is true that we as a nation eat substantially more sugar than other countries. I have no doubt that from the point of view of that consideration my hon. Friend's remarks are justified.

    CBI (Price Code)
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secre-tar of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what form her invitation took, to the CBI, to become participants in the social contract in relation to the Price Code.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I wrote to the CBI on 12th November inviting its views on all aspects of the consultative document on the review of the Price Code, and I discussed it with the CBI on 28th November.
    Mr. Renton: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that at the present time of extreme inflation it is essential that both employers and unions alike should be party to any social contract that is worth while? Will the right hon. Lady tell the House at what level of wage inflation 25 per cent. or 30 per cent.—she would think it appropriate to reapproach the TUC and the CBI to suggest some new form of restraint based on statutory controls of wages and prices?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I explored with the CBI the possibility of linking the productivity deduction to the level of labour unit costs, but it did not want to proceed with the matter. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and not for me.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does not the right on. Lady agree that, while there is no harm in consulting the CBI and seeking its views, there can be no purpose in attempting to get its signature to the social contract when it would have no power to make any subject obey the contract?
    Mrs. Williams: That is one of the problems which the CBI faces in this respect.

    Price Code
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on her plans for implementing paragraph 13 of the Price Code.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I did so in the debate on 2nd December.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, desipte the sliding scale, the average company will face a 20 per cent. productivity deduction? Is she further aware that for the most efficient company this must mean a reduction in profit margins, which will lead eventually to redundancies and possibly shortages?
    Mrs. Williams: Once again, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a difficult line to tread in these matters. The 50 per cent. productivity deduction was, in the Government's view, too great for companies to bear if there was not to be a substantial increase in unemployment. Consequently we reduced the productivity deduction, but it is the main plank of a price restriction machinery and therefore it would have been most unwise at this stage to do away with it.
    Mr. Raison: As the right hon. Lady knows, during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill the other day the Undersecretary talked about a new Prices Bill. Can the right hon. Lady give an assurance that a new Prices Bill will not contain a version of Section 13, and will she explain what the Bill will contain and why it is needed?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will discover that the existing Prices Act has within it the possibility of extending its powers with regard to subsidy. There is, however, a figure in it of £700 million. It would require a Bill to be put before the House if that figure were to be raised to allow subsidies to continue even at their present level for a further period. Therefore, the Bill would be largely a technicality.
    With regard to Section 13, that matter does not arise. It was a matter for the review of the Price Code. Therefore, if any further action had to be taken on it, it would be a matter for discussion with both sides of industry before anything further was done.

    Food Subsidies (Cost)
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the latest estimate of the total cost of food subsidies for the current financial year.
    Mr. Maclennan: About £503 million.
    Mr. Neubert: Does not the hon. Gentleman now accept that he cannot single-handed, by open-ended subsidies, stem both the causes and the effects of inflation? With price increases running at an annual rate of 18 per cent. and wage increases running since July at an average of 24 per cent., is it not high time that the Minister made representations to the Secretary of State for Employment, that custodian of the social contract, reports of the existence of which are greatly exaggerated, that he should fulfil his part of the bargain?
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the situation in speaking of the open-ended nature of subsidies. The financial limits to the subsidy programme have been made clear. The subsidies offer a valuable contribution to holding the rise in the retail price index. They are saving over one and a half points on that index and six points on the food index.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that people who are concerned about the public borrowing requirement can find alternatives to scrapping the subsidy programme, and that those alternatives will be found when my right hon. Friend the Chanccellor of the Exchequer introduces the wealth tax and so raises the revenue for subsidies by taxation?
    Mr. Maclennan: Almost every hon. Member has his own views on how best to limit the borrowing requirement. The Government's priorities are different from those of the Opposition.
    Mr. Cormack: Will not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his Government are stoking the fires of inflation by this prodigal waste of public money? Will he come clean, realise that the election is over and discard the most expensive camouflage for which the public have ever had to pay?
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends refuse to recognise
    1112
    that the least-well-off members of our community must be the first charge upon the Government in their attempt to protect them from the rise in the cost of living. The subsidy programme is an important contribution to that, and we shall maintain it for that reason.

    Advertising
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on her proposals to test advertising claims and to control false, misleading and wasteful advertising.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Existing legislation, notably the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, gives the consumer substantial protection against misleading claims. As already announced, the Act's provisions are being reviewed. Meanwhile we are watching closely the steps the advertising industry is taking to strengthen its own system of control and whether further statutory controls will be necessary.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time when we should be importing less and exporting more, we should look again at the increasing advertising by foreign manufacturers encouraging people to spend more? In particular will he examine the pharmaceutical industry, where people are being encouraged to buy medicines which are at best useless?
    Mr. Williams: The Medicines Act and the Food and Drugs Act lay down certain requirements with regard to advertising in the pharmaceutical sector, and the Trade Descriptions Act gives additional protection. But if my hon. Friend, who I know follows these matters closely, lets me have examples of the specific abuses of which he complains, I shall gladly examine them.

    Diabetic Foods
    Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if any considerations of medical necessity are taken into account when her Department is considering price increases on diabetic foods.
    Mr. Maclennan: In scrutinising proposals for price increases on diabetic foods, the Prime Commission applies the same criteria as it does to other products.
    Mr. Dodsworth: Will the Minister bear in mind that people who require diabetic foods are by definition restricted in their shopping alternatives and opportunities, and that increases in price of more than 50 per cent. have borne very heavily upon diabetics of all income groups, because diabetic necessity qualifies itself not by income group but by medical conditions?
    Mr. Maclennan: Diabetics benefit from the Government's subsidy programme and can eat most of the foods on the subsidy list. However, most of the foods specially used for diabetics are intended to vary their diet. I recognise that there have been substantial cost increases for the industry in raw material prices in particular. It would be difficult for us to subsidise them away.

  TRADE

    Court Line (Holiday Payments)
    Mr. Stanleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade when those who lost advance payments on holidays as a result of the collapse of Court Line will be recompensed; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on 18th November.—[Vol. 881, c. 886.]
    Mr. Stanley: As the Minister's Department has now admitted responsibility for the sums lost by holidaymakers who booked with Court Line, will he say whether, when the sums are eventually repaid, repayment will be made with interest accrued from the date of the Government statement in July?
    Mr. Deakins: There has been no admission of responsibility of which I am aware. The matter of what sums are to be repaid to the holidaymakers will have to await the legislation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will introduce soon after the Christmas Recess.
    Mr. Adley: Was the hon. Gentleman or his Department aware that the difficulties over Court Line had been going on for years? Was he aware of the problem of building hotels on the wrong side of the island of St. Lucia
    1114
    of the problems of LIAT and Clarksons and of the over-enthusiasm in buying TriStars? Is he not aware than many people have been given the impression that his Department suddenly found itself confronted with a novel difficulty in the case of Court Line? Will he please give us an answer to this question?
    Mr. Deakins: I am well aware of the deficiencies of a great deal of private enterprise in this country, as instanced by the Court Line collapse. However, it is not for my Department so closely to monitor the activities of every firm within its field in a way that perhaps the directors should be doing but are not.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can my hon. Friend explain why, when nationalisation of any industry is mooted, the Opposition utter cries of terror but when a private enterprise company goes on the rocks they expect the Government to take full responsibility for it?
    Mr. Deakins: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says in his supplementary question.
    Mr. Higgins: Does the Minister propose that the compensation should be paid out of the payments of future holidaymakers, or be paid by the taxpayers or his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Trade?
    Mr. Deakins: I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the details of the scheme, which will be available fairly early in the new year when my right hon. Friend introduces the Tourist Reserve Fund Bill. There will then be a full opportunity to debate all these matters and go into the details for which the hon. Gentleman has asked.

    Agricultural Imports (EEC Countries)
    Mr. James Spicerasked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the total value of agricultural imports from the EEC in the first nine months of this year and the percentage increase this represents over the corresponding period for 1973.
    Mr. Deakins: Agricultural imports— Section O of SITC(R)—from the EEC, including transhipments, in the first nine months of this year were valued at £1,072 million, 57 per cent. higher than in the same period last year.
    Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to the Minister for giving us those figures. Will he confirm that we should all be grateful for that increase, as are our farmers, and in particular for the 90 per cent. increase in the maize exports from the Community to this country, which made up for the shortfall from the American continent and without which the cost of feeding stuffs this winter would be considerably higher?
    Mr. Deakins: Certainly our farmers have every reason to be grateful for the make-up in the shortfall of supplies. That also applies to butter. But I am not certain whether the consumers will be entirely happy with, for example, beef imports which might have come more cheaply from other countries.
    Mr. Body: What proportion of the imports could we have purchased more cheaply from outside the Community?
    Mr. Deakins: It would be very difficult to isolate any one sector. Three main areas—cereals, dairy products and beef— account for the bulk of the increase. It is difficult to separate one from the other because one has to take into account first the price relationships, secondly the volume increases, and thirdly the decrease in the value of sterling. It is a very complicated matter.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend be more specific? Where could we have got these things cheaper than in the Community?
    Mr. Deakins: There is plenty of beef available on world markets. I was referring to the fact that for several months past and for several months to come the Community has been, is and is likely to be closed to beef imports from the rest of the world.

    Tariffs
    Mr. Tom Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will give an estimate of the overall effect of the changes in United Kingdom tariffs due on 1st January next designed to bring the United Kingdom more into line with the EEC common external tariff.
    Mr. Deakins: The overall effect of the changes being made on 1st January in duties on imports from non-Community countries is expected to be very small.
    Mr. Ellis: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer will be received with great pleasure by a large number of people? Does he agree that the net effect of our internal tariffs, taken together with the Community subsidies on imports from third countries, has so far been appreciably less than lp in the pound?
    Mr. Deakins: I think that my hon. Friend is slightly mistaken. There are no Community subsidies other than those on sugar on imports from third countries, and to set against that one must remember that there are duties and levies on agricultural imports from third countries, which rather complicates the matter.
    Mr. Marten: Why is there to be an increase in import tax on lambs from third countries?
    Mr. Deakins: Because that is part of the Treaty of Accession obligations which we accepted on entry. We are bound by the treaty. We cannot change it. But I do not think that this further move will in any way prejudice the Government's attitude in renegotiation.
    Mr. Jay: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if it were not for the ban on beef imports from outside the Community, we could buy beef more cheaply from Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, Poland, Yugoslavia and several other countries?
    Mr. Deakins: We could buy certain commodities more cheaply, but, to be fair, I must point out that there are also commodities that we can buy currently in the Community more cheaply because of the relationship between the EEC and world prices at present in those commodities.
    Mr. Higgins: Is it not a question of the overall effect? Taking individual items is a deceptive way to look at the situation. Is the overall effect to increase or to decrease the rate of increase in the cost of living?
    Mr. Deakins: The overall effect of changes of duties on imports from non-Community countries is very little. If one were to take into account, which Question No. 33 does not, changes in duties, including changes in intra-Community traffic, there would be a reduction.

  ENERGY

    Romanian Oil
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Sec-retary of State for Energy, in view of the shortage of oil, whether he will now reconsider the refusal of his predecessors to allow imports of Romanian oil until compensation has been received for the seizure by Romania of British assets, since agreements are made with other East European countries who have made such seizures.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): No, Sir. There is no physical shortage of oil. There are no grounds for lifting the embargo, since an important part of the claims made for compensation remain unresolved.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some 18 months ago I was told by the last Government that they were pressing for a settlement, that there had been two rounds of negotiation and that they expected that the Romanian Government would shortly be making a satisfactory offer? What has happened to that satisfactory offer?
    Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the present Government cannot accept responsibility for a previous Government. It is true that discussions were going on, but they still remain unresolved.

  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Beef Subsidy
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps her Department is taking to publicise the EEC's social beef consumer subsidy.
    Mr. James Spicerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps her Department is taking to publicise the social beef EEC consumer subsidy.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): Advertisements appeared in national daily and Sunday papers between 14th and 18th November, and posters were displayed in post offices from 11th November. Tokens were issued automatically to eligible beneficiaries.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What has been the take-up since the initiation of this scheme? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that pensioners can use these tokens for other meat commodities as well as for beef? There seems to be some confusion about the matter.
    Mr. Jones: It was made clear that the tokens would be available for beef and veal. It is too early to know the extent of the take-up, but all those entitled to the tokens have been advised about how they can get them.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Dressed Poultry
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations from the Consumers Association he has received about the continuing sale of New York dressed poultry.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Representations have been received from several consumer interests. Most of them, but not the Consumers Association, have supported continuation of the New York dressed trade.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the date of 1982 for the abolition of New York dressed poultry? Is he aware that many of us were pressing for, and almost succeeded in getting, the exclusion of the United Kingdom from this harmonisation? Will he press the Council of Ministers that there should be optional and not total harmonisation?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the previous announcements which have been made with regard to 1982. He will also appreciate that there will still be some scope for this trade in sales directly from the farmer to the consumer after 1982.
    Mr. Cormack: That answer is not good enough. Is it not time that the Government supported what my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has said? It is intolerable that the British housewife should have only another five or six years in which she can buy

    1119
    New York dressed poultry, to which we are traditionally accustomed. Will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again and do something positive?
    Mr. Strang: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's attitude, but there is nothing that I can add now to what has been said.
    Mr. Marten: Is not this purely an example of fussy interference by mandarins in Brussels? Do we need to have this legislation at all? Have we ever asked for it?
    Mr. Strang: We have not asked for the legislation, but I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that there are some good things in this harmonisation and that there will be some raising of health standards by it. I take the point that it is regrettable that the trade in New York dressed poultry will have to decline after 1982.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Nationalised Industry Prices
    Mr. Giles Shawasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect he estimates the proposed increases in nationalised industries' prices will have on the retail prices index.
    Mr. Speaker: The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I must apologise, Mr. Speaker, for the fact that for some reason or other my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here.
    Mr. Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be in order for the Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, who is present, to answer the Question?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The Question is extremely important. I will discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see that the House is given the best estimate available.
    Sir David Renton: While congratulating the First Lord of the Treasury upon
    1120
    his impromptu reply, may I ask him a very serious supplementary question? Can he tell us why we should go on putting up for ever with self-inflicted wounds arising from the fact that when the price of coal goes up, the price of electricity goes up, and that when the price of electricity goes up the price of coal goes up, and the nationalised industries go chasing each other's prices for ever upwards at the expense of the consumers and to the detriment of the economy?
    The Prime Minister: I think that in putting that question the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have regard to the statement made in the House on 17th December last year—just a year ago—when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Treasury could no longer go on subsidising nationalised industries and that prices must relate to total costs.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with this matter in his Budget Statement in March and said what he thought that would mean on the estimates then available. It has now become clear that it will cost more to carry out the intentions announced by the then right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, now Lord Barber of somewhere or other.
    Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for answering so nobly the Question addressed to his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer. May I ask two brief supplementary questions? As nationalised industry prices are to be adjusted by subsidies being removed, why do the Government still believe that food subsidies as a policy for keeping prices down are so much better for that part of the economy?
    The Prime Minister: Because, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the effect on the cost of living of the average family in relation to so many millions of pounds subsidy, in relation to so many points on the cost of living, is more serious in the case of food.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time you ruled on a point of order raised

    1121
    by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) about a supplementary question he had not been able to put because the Minister said it should have been taken on Question No. 18.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not rule on any such point of order. In fact, there was no point of order arising.
    Mr. Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister replied that he had taken the matter on my Question but that I was not here to put it. I was here to put it, I put the Question and it was answered by the Under-Secretary of State.
    Mr. Speaker: That is as it should be, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

EEC (HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about last week's meeting in Paris, which I regret I was not able to make last Thursday as I had hoped.
On the invitation of the President of France, the Heads of Government of the European Community met together on Monday and Tuesday, 9th and 10th December.
Our conclusions were recorded in a communiqué which has been published as a White Paper, Cmnd. 5830.
The House will see from the White Paper that a considerable part of the discussions related to worldwide issues, in particular the economic situation, trade, employment and inflation.
A high priority was given by all of us to the problems posed by the world threat of general recession, and in this connection we discussed the policies to be followed by individual countries, by the Community, and the wider world. The Federal German Chancellor dealt with the problems facing his own country on which announcements since the meeting in Paris were subsequently made by his Government in the German Parliament. Since they involve a substantial measure of reflation by a surplus country, I am sure all of us in this House will warmly welcome them.
1122
On energy, we sought to get an improved consensus of views between the European Governments and the United States, and in particular the possibility of closer co-operation between oil-exporting and oil-importing countries. This meant that the French President in his discussions this weekend with the President of the United States would have a clearer view of the ideas and hopes of all of us on these matters.
Co-operation in the field of energy is to be pursued further at a meeting of energy Ministers in Brussels tomorrow.
On the renegotiation of the terms on which Britain entered the Community in 1971, I informed the other Heads of Government of the position of Her Majesty's Government, and the particular issues to which we attach high priority; the issues set out in our election manifesto in February and endorsed again by the people in October. I informed them also of the terms of the speech I made in London on 7th December, of which a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
Substantial progress was made on the question of Britain's budgetary contribution to the Community and appropriate instructions given to the Community institutions, so that they can now get to work to set up as soon as possible what was called the "correcting mechanism" referred to in the communiqué. We intend to have a firm proposal and decision on this by the early spring.
Since the communiqué was published, anxiety has been expressed by hon. Members and others about two matters. The one relates to the principle of majority voting, and the Luxembourg Compromise as it has become known. I can assure the House that there is no question at all— and that this was clear in the minds of all the Heads of Government—of any member State, when important national interests are at stake, being required to set those interests aside as a result of a majority voting procedure. The communiqué makes it plain that each country will continue to be free to maintain our respective positions regarding the Luxembourg Compromise of 1966. What the meeting had in mind was the un-desirability of having too frequent a recourse to the veto, where, for example, relatively minor matters were involved.

1123
The other issue related to the desire of most Heads of Government to make progress towards the election of the European Assembly by universal suffrage. I made it clear that the British Government could not take up any position on this question until after the renegotiations are complete and the results submitted to the British people for decision. And this was specifically reserved in the communiqué as a
"Statement by the British Prime Minister."
On institutional matters generally, the House will have seen that the Prime Minister of Belgium, Monsieur Tinde-mans, has been invited to prepare a report on the institutional development of the Community, so that this can be considered by a meeting of Heads of Government a year or more from now.
The Heads of Government also reached decisions on the Regional Development Fund. The fund will be endowed with 1,300 million units of account—that is about £540 million—over the three years 1975 to 1977. Twenty-eight per cent. of the fund will be allocated to this country. Our net share of the fund could turn out to be about £60 million in all. Compared with the Government's own national expenditure on the regions of about £500 million a year the results will naturally be modest.
I was particularly concerned to press upon our colleagues the importance of national Governments, such as our own, particularly at a time of worldwide anxiety about employment, being able to act speedily with existing, and where necessary novel means of providing national aids for regional employment and regional development. On this I found full understanding among the other Heads of Government. I emphasised, of course, that such action should not offend against the Community rules of fair competition, nor amount to competitive bidding, one country against another, in order, for example, to attract some new development, say an American-owned company settling in Europe.
I have referred to institutional aspects of the Community. There is a general wish, which I share, to have important decisions taken quickly and effectively at the political level, both by Foreign and other Ministers and by Heads of
1124
Government themselves. The meeting in Paris was in effect the first European Council. In future there will be three of these meetings a year, and more if they are required to deal with particular problems. They will be concerned both with Community matters and with important questions of policy, for example on world energy and related world finance problems, outside the Community area.
Our partners in the conference were left in no doubt that while we were not dissatisfied with the progress made on the budgetary question, there was a substantial number of other matters on which we should expect satisfaction. There is still a long way to go if Britain's essential requirements are to be met, and it is in the best interests both of this country and of Europe that speedy progress be made and the issues decided.
These questions will be taken up in meetings, early in the new year, of the Council of Ministers, and, as appropriate, at the next Heads of Government meeting to be held in the new year in Dublin under the presidency of the Irish Republic.
Mr. Heath: On behalf of the House, I welcome the Prime Minister back after his illness and express our pleasure at his recovery and thank him for the statement that he has made amplifying the communiqué which was published after the Heads of Government summit meeting.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the conclusions of the summit and the fact that he put his name to everything in the communiqué with the reservation about direct elections of which he spoke?
It is now apparent that the summit in itself was an important meeting which decided to implement and carry further the decisions which were reached at the Paris summit of 1972 and the Copenhagen summit of a year ago.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the work of the Heads of Government seems to have decided itself into a number of groupings? The first is to improve the work of the Community, which we welcome, and, in particular, that when the Foreign Ministers meet in council it will be possible for them to deal with political co-operation at the same time.

1125
That has always been a controversial matter and we welcome that it has been settled. The Commission will play its full part, common diplomatic positions will be taken up by the member States of the Community and the Assembly will be more closely allied with them.
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of the decision that, to use the phrasing of the communiqué, the Luxembourg Agreement should be renounced? That is not quite as the Prime Minister put it. Of course, the right to preserve national interests remains to members of the Community, but I believe that it is also right that the Luxembourg Agreement, which has always been an agreement to differ, should have been renounced.
Thirdly, the group of proposals which will affect people in the Community—in particular, the study on common passport legislation, common alien legislation, and so on—will be a step forward and will bind people in the Community closer together.
Fourthly, I welcome that the Heads of Government agreed to pursue the Paris summit agreement in the hope of achieving an overall European union and to stick to the date of achieving it by 1980. The method of approach by the Belgian Prime Minister, of producing a report by the end of 1975, is a good way of handling it. I also welcome that the Prime Minister and the conference confirmed the objective of economic and monetary union and that their will has not changed.
Fifthly, I think that the House will welcome the work done at the summit dealing with inflation, the danger of unemployment, and that those States in balance of payments surplus should help those with deficits. I should think that that was an admirable example of the member States helping each other when the necessary occasion arises.
Sixthly, we welcome the establishment of the regional development fund, which was agreed in principle at the Paris summit. The amount is only half what we hoped for, but it is a beginning on which all Governments can work. Although £60 million may be a small proportion compared with what we spend on regional development, it is a large amount compared with the budgetary contribution of
1126
this country towards the Community as a whole. Therefore, we welcome it.
Lastly, on the budget, as the communiqué specifically sets out, the Heads of Government of all member States referred to what was achieved in the accession negotiations—that if an unacceptable situation arose, the Community would have to deal with it. We welcome that they are now dealing with it in the interests of the Community as a whole, not only in the interests of Britain. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has accepted that situation.
To sum up, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was a worthwhile summit and that all the agreements point to a dynamic Community which is working with determination towards the solution of its immediate problems and a stronger European unity in the long term?
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about my return. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to read anything that he wishes into the communiqué and the accounts of the summit, but he will recognise that it was certainly a more successful summit than the one which he attended in Paris which laid down a large number of absolutely unattainable objectives which have bedevilled the Community ever since. As for Copenhagen, they never tried to reach agreement on anything, as far as I can see, except the regional fund, on which he failed to get any agreement at all.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about political co-operation. That matter has been much pressed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Compared with the original formulation of the Community, my right hon. Friend sees much greater activity by Foreign Ministers acting as Foreign Ministers discussing worldwide questions, which perhaps have been somewhat neglected in the past. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for what was decided on these particular questions.
No change in the practice regarding the Luxembourg compromise was agreed. We have agreed on the desire to avoid an over-use of the veto on matters which may not be of overall national importance. But there was no disagreement when I asked the question, "Does this mean that if there is a vital national interest it cannot be used?" They all said,

1127
"No, of course not." They agreed that we would all want to use the veto from time to time, but that it should not be over-used. We fully accept that.
European union—I think that the right hon. Gentleman referred to this matter in the context of the Paris summit of two years ago—is a very desirable objective, but there was no agreement on what it meant at the Paris summit two years ago. At the meeting of Foreign Ministers at Schloss Gymnich at Easter, my right hon. Friend asked each of the other eight what they meant by it. There was no agreement about the meaning of that phrase. It means what individual countries or individuals want it to mean. Therefore, we were quite happy to go along with the reference to European union. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has ever clearly defined what he means by European union.
I regard as more important the reference to economic and monetary union which the right hon. Gentleman glibly accepted in Paris two years ago. That, again, has never been properly defined. There was an attempt to operate the snake for a few weeks, which collapsed following the floating of sterling by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I did not find anyone in Paris—my right hon. Friend will confirm this—who believed that there was the remotest possibility of economic and monetary union by 1980, which the right hon. Gentleman is now commending to the House. No progress whatsoever has been made towards it. If the right hon. Gentleman knows what it means and has views about it, the House will be passionately anxious to hear what he has in mind-perhaps in the debate that we are to have on Thursday. The view expressed by some of our leading colleagues was that it could not become a reality in the near future.
Indeed, when the right hon. Gentleman just now, I thought rightly, praised the action taken by particular countries of following different economic policies—for example, German reflation when others are faced with deflation—that was a total denial of the concept of immediate or early economic and monetary union. A simple union, as was strongly pointed out by our colleagues, would mean one central bank, one central currency and one central Finance Minister. It would also mean
1128
that every country would have to pursue exactly the same policy with that single currency when the need at present is for Germany to reflate and for others to draw in their horns considerably. Therefore that is an illusion.
We agreed to the communiqué about economic and monetary union. In the same way, I am happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that just as he agreed, when he was Head of Government, we in Government have agreed to the long-term ideal of general and complete disarmament. I am all for it. But I do not expect it by 1980. That was the phrase that I used last week in respect of economic and monetary union. We accept it as a long-term objective, but it was not accepted by anyone as an objective by 1980, any more than total disarmament was, and that was the phrase that I used.
Regarding the regional fund—[HON. MEMBERS : "Too long."] I have been asked seven questions, and I propose to give seven answers. Regarding the regional fund, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was only half what he was asking for. In fact, in Copenhagen he did not get anything, so he should welcome the fact that we have got half. The right hon. Gentleman got a form of words. We have got cash, which is rather different.
What is much more important, as I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree, is that I emphasised the need for reasonable freedom, especially in the present world situation, to follow national policies of regional help without it being questioned by fussy interference from the Commission or anybody else. I wish that he had made that plea for this country. I wish that he had laid claim to that when he negotiated the terms of entry in 1971.
Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]. I am sorry that hon. Members are so frivolous about these important European questions. We were creating a precedent by sticking up for national British interests there.
With regard to the budget question, the right hon. Gentleman was right in what he said. But what he did was to turn the form of words agreed to in 1972 into procedures and into an instruction to the institutions of the Community —namely, the Council and the Commission—to create a self-corrective mechanism on the basis for which we asked.

1129
The right hon. Gentleman was right, I think, in another remark that he made here. The position is that in the years immediately ahead it is clear—as it was in his day; and that was why he asked for this saving clause—that the cost of entry into the Common Market will inevitably be a net disbalance for Britain. I think that was recognised by the right hon. Gentleman's Government. That was why he asked for this waiver. But when we come into the 1980s and when there is North Sea oil and the rest of it, if the terms of renegotiation are such that we are still in the Common Market, we would feel it right that we should make a bigger contribution then, following a smaller contribution in the late 1970s.
Mr. Jay: As what my right hon. Friend has said today about the Luxembourg Agreement is not what is contained in the communiqué and as it is rather important to be clear on this issue, will he now say clearly whether or not we have renounced the Luxembourg Agreement?
The Prime Minister: The position is that we said we would renounce the practice, which consists of making agreements on all questions—all questions, major and minor—with the unanimous consent of the member States, whatever their respective positions may be regarding the conclusion reached in Luxembourg on 28th January 1966. All members of the meeting said that where vital national questions are involved we have the right to indicate disagreement, and then agreements will not follow. That is the position we have taken up to now. It is the position we are taking following the meeting last week.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people will regard with a certain degree of incredulity his reference to the endorsement of his manifesto by the people when fewer than one-third of the people actually voted for his party in a constructive way?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a matter of great regret, on all sides of the House, that Britain should specifically—the Prime Minister referred to the fact that it was specifically —be the means of delaying the democratisation of the Community? How does the right hon. Gentleman square the
1130
speeding up of political decision, to which he referred, with a refusal to improve the democratisation of the Community and a rejection of any movement towards supra-nationalism in regard to the Luxembourg Agreement?
Finally, the Prime Minister referred in approbatory terms to the Federal Chancellor. Will he take this opportunity completely to reject the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman), who referred to the Federal Chancellor as a "patronising Hun"?
The Prime Minister: With regard to the third question, I deplore that remark. I very much regret anything of that kind being said about a distinguished visitor to this country. I do not like phrases which even hint at racialism.
With regard to the question about what the hon. Gentleman calls "the democratisation of the Community", and his reference to the communiqé delaying any democratisation of the Community, if by that the hon. Gentleman means direct elections, these are matters which I think can all be considered if and when satisfactory terms arise from our renegotiation and the British people accept them.
Mr. Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the negotiations which he is at present conducting are within the terms laid down in the Labour Party manifesto as issued at the last General Election?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, entirely, they are, indeed, entirely consistent with what we asked for in 1966 and 1967. With regard to my right hon. Friend's question, I dealt with these matters in some detail in a speech in London just before the meeting in Paris and, as I have said, a copy of that has been placed in the Library. There are seven points on which we are insisting. We have made good progress on the budgetary point. One or two points may not now appear to be quite so difficult—for example, value added tax, on which harmonisation seems to be almost a dirty word in the Community. I have referred to EMU in this connection as totally unrealistic. But, as far as I am concerned, if we get the terms set out in the manifesto, approved by the British people in two elections, I believe that we shall have got what we set out to get. If we do not—as I

1131
said in the same speech—we shall have to make our own arrangements.
Mr. Walters: As the Prime Minister appears to be well satisfied with the progress at the summit, would he not consider it helpful at this stage if he made a clear statement of how he and his Cabinet would stand if he completes the renegotiation successfully?
The Prime Minister: I have just referred to that. We have made some progress on the budgetary question, which I very much welcome. I have referred to the fact that one or two of the other points to which we have attached great importance look to some extent like solving themselves because of pressure within the Community itself. I have just referred to some of them. But on other matters —for example, access to food, the question of the unfairness of the Commission in industrial matters, such as steel, as we have had over the last week, and the question of national aids for regional development—there are still a number of problems to be solved. We must see how we go on them. We have made progress last week. There is still a long way to go.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is giving the impression of blowing up minor concessions into major triumphs and that ordinary people will not be fooled by this, even though he might temporarily have the support of The Times, the BBC and almost every other organ of the media, which have broadcast all manner of distortion and censorship on this issue to try to prevent the true facts being presented to the British people?
The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend has been fooled by the Tory Press acclamation of what happened last week, there was no ministerial responsibility for my hon. Friend being fooled in that way. But were he listening to what I said a few minutes ago, he would have noted that I said that there were seven major points for renegotiation in our manifesto, which has been the policy of our party for a considerable time, and that I asserted that there was limited progress on one of the seven. I hope that my hon. Friend will deduce from that that there is a long way to go on the others.
Mr. Powell: On the subject of a Community budget, has it been made clear to the other member States of the Community that both the taxes which provide the Community's own resources and the purposes on which they are mostly to be spent have been declared to be unacceptable to the British Government and that, therefore, in those respects there will have to be fundamental alterations before the negotiations can, in that respect, be regarded as successful?
The Prime Minister: It was the fundamental changes we were seeking in the discussions on the budget. What I have said to our colleagues in the Community —as indeed, has my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on many more occasions—is that the particular way in which the own resources system has been worked out—and was so tamely accepted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite three years ago—ignores the fact that Britain is a very considerable food-importing nation, probably the biggest food-importing nation in the world. Therefore, a budget based right across the board on levies and duties on food imported by a country which has to import a lot of its food, compared with many European countries which are self-sufficient and even food exporters, necessarily involves great unfairness. At each point we were pressing, and in particular for fundamental changes in the budget.
Mr. Mackintosh: I understand my right hon. Friend's policy about the whole pattern of renegotiation, but does he agree that the most difficult single problem has been solved and that the sooner renegotiation is over the better, because then the Community can turn together to face major problems of recession, energy shortage, and reflation, which we can solve only in common and of which the benefits to people in this country will be greater than any other?
The Prime Minister: Both in my speech to the London mayors and to the conference I said that in the interests of all of us—of Britain and also of the other members of the Community—it is vitally important that we make the maximum progress to get these matters settled so that we can put the issue to the British people and everyone here and in other parts of Europe can know where he is.

1133
That I believe to be urgent, and both my right hon. Friend and I impressed that upon our colleagues. That was why we had some anxiety on the budget point. We should have liked to see even more rapid progress.
My hon. Friend has listed various problems, including the dangers of recession, which were greatly stressed by the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.
There are also questions of energy problems, the question of inflation, the question of a healthy balance of payments, recycling, and the rest. We were not inhibited in any way from discussing these questions fully, both in the larger meetings which included the Heads of Government and the Foreign Ministers, and also in the more limited meetings of the Heads of Government, where we pursued these matters very frankly. This was with a particular view to the fact that the President of France, who was our chairman, is to meet the President of the United States very soon, and we wanted to give him freedom to discuss matters freely, and also because others of us will be having meetings with the President of the United States and in the Soviet Union as well as with other Heads of Government shortly.
Sir Bernard Braine: The communiquà does not appear to make any reference to one of the gravest problems facing the Community in its relations with the outside world, namely, the continuing world food crisis and the absolute fact that 30 million to 40 million people will die of starvation somewhere in the world in the next 12 months. Was the subject discussed?
The Prime Minister: Yes. I pay tribute to the hon. Member, who has been active with other hon. Members throughout the period he has been in the House—indeed I have often joined forces with the hon. Gentleman on this—in drawing attention to the vital importance of this subject. The problem was discussed. The Council of Ministers has been giving attention to this matter following the World Food Conference. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that one of the seven items I referred to on which considerable progress was made —it is referred to in the document I
1134
have placed in the Library—was the not unsuccessful negotiations in Jamaica of the Ministers in relation to making benefits available to certain developing countries—a wide range of Caribbean, African and Pacific countries.
Here I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development, who played a significant part in those negotiations. I know that the hon. Member will welcome the progress which has been made. I should like to see even more progress made—for example, in relation to the Indian sub-continent. It is certainly the case that it is no longer true, as a result of progress made in recent months, that it is only the old French and Belgian colonies that are being favourably considered.
Mr. Atkinson: Has my right hon. Friend any misgivings about our seemingly total acceptance of the Treaty of Accession? Has he any regrets about having said that he personally will advise the British people to accept the conclusion of the renegotiation outcome in advance of any decision taken by the Labour Party conference?
The Prime Minister: When I attacked in the House the Treaty of Accession from my position on the Opposition benches I was referring to the terms negotiated in 1971. I thought that they were deplorable. It is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition was a soft touch and was so regarded by our colleagues in Europe. We are trying to renegotiate those terms. It is quite clear that they can be so renegotiated within the terms of the treaty. That was said in early April by my right hon. Friend.
That does not mean that we must lie down under the appalling surrender on sugar. The Leader of the Opposition can turn and laugh at my reference to sugar. He knows that the problems in relation to sugar that the British housewife is facing are due entirely to the sell out on the sugar terms negotiated by his Government. This point is being made this week by the Commonwealth sugar producers. They were given no guarantees. We made that point very strongly outside the House when the terms were negotiated.
The terms of the Treaty of Accession are to be varied, not by treaty changes, if we are successful here, but by changing

1135
the terms on which the right hon. Gentleman negotiated our entry into the Market three years ago. We are making some progress—not fast enough, but considering what the right hon. Gentleman achieved we are not doing badly up to now.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, what I said was entirely in accordance with the Labour Party manifesto. I fought two elections on the manifesto. I had a lot to do with the production of the manifesto over a period of time. I stand by the manifesto.
Mr. Heath: Hear, hear.
The Prime Minister: I am glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition say "Hear, hear". I hope that he means that he stands by the manifesto. He has spent the last three years opposing everything that we said in the manifesto. That is why he is on the Opposition Front Bench, not on the Treasury Front Bench.
I stand by the manifesto. I stand by the requirements we have set out. We are now seeking to attain those requirements, and if we achieve them, it stands to reason that I can commend them to the people. If we do not, we must, as I said in the statement, make other arrangements, because I could not commend them to the people. Every Labour Member of Parliament was elected on the manifesto. All our constituents will expect us to honour the manifesto. If the Leader of the Opposition had a manifesto half like it, he might not be in the trouble he is in now.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that we all welcome his return to health, both physical and European, and that we recognise all his reservations, cautions, conditions, apprehensions, and strictures upon the inadequacy of the Opposition in their negotiations, but that many of us think that things are going very well and that we congratulate him and that we hope things will continue to go well.
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) for his very kind words concerning my temporary indisposition. As he said, I have returned from European sickness. I am not sure of the cause of the disability. I was better once I
1136
returned to some good, plain English food —we all have our tastes, do we not?— and beer.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to my remarks about the Opposition. Although I did not take much time to deal with the Liberal Party, what I had to say in my strictures on the official Opposition must apply equally, if not a fortiori, to what the Liberal Party has been saying.
Mr. Marten: The Prime Minister said in answer to my right hon. Friend's supplementary question that there was no agreement on what political union means. He then said that it is a desirable objective. How can there be a desirable objective when there is no agreement on political union?
Second, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite a study of what is meant by political union before we have a referendum? That is one matter about which the people will want to know. The people will want to know what is entailed by political union. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, will he, before the referendum, move the repeal of Section 2 of the European Communities Act?
The Prime Minister: Many of us were concerned—even had we thought that the terms were right—about the way in which the Act was drafted in terms of its effects on the rights of Parliament. Political unity has been demanded by many people but I have never yet heard a clear definition or an agreed definition of what it means.
I doubt whether the right hon. Leader of the Opposition could tell us what he means by political unity, but he has said it is something that he desires to see. It is obviously very desirable in principle, but no one has begun to say what they mean by the term. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will tell us this week what he means by political unity. I doubt whether he knows. For example, the unity of the Conservative Party is desirable, but I have no idea if everyone would define its unity in the same way or define how its unity will be achieved. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Labour Party?"] We are doing quite nicely thank you in that respect.
As it was clear that the nine countries had no idea what European union meant

1137
in definitive terms, we all agreed with enthusiasm that M. Tindemans, who carries high respect within the Community from all countries, whatever their points of view, should spend next year considering all aspects of the institutions, including political unity. At the end of that time—that is if we are still in the Community and depending on the terms and so on—we shall be prepared to consider what he recommends. Her Majesty's Government will have absolute freedom in saying what type of European union we are prepared to recommend to the House. So far there are no proposals on the tapis at all.
Mr. Dalyell: In the discussions on European energy policy, was much said about North Sea oil?
The Prime Minister: Yes. I have already said that I referred to it in the context of the budget. There was relatively little discussion about specific European energy policy because all of us recognised that the big energy challenge, including recycling, is of worldwide dimensions. It was that which we spent most of our time discussing. We did not try to work out a specific European energy policy, but, as I have told the House and as the communiqué says, the energy Ministers of the nine countries will be meeting in Brussels tomorrow.
Mr. Heath: Almost without exception among my right hon. and hon. Friends and from many parts of the Labour benches there has been a welcome for the communiqué to which the Prime Minister has put his name and for the statement which he has made today. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to allow himself to undermine his own position as he has been doing in the answers which he has given to many supplementary questions.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of rereading the communiqué and his statement and seeing exactly what it is to which he has agreed. It is very important. We welcome the fact that he has signed.
I point out to him that the reply that he gave on own resources reaffirms that the system of own resources represents one of the fundamental elements of the economic integration of the Community and that the rearrangement which is being
1138
made will be within the framework of that system. That is perfectly right. We arranged for that in the accession negotiations. I heard for the first time that the Prime Minister thinks that in the 1980s we might be paying a greater proportion than that set out in the Treaty of Accession. That shows that we negotiated an arrangement that has sufficient flexibility to handle both the current economic problems and the better position we hope to have in the 1980s.
On the question of EMU, does the Prime Minister mean that he has reaffirmed that the will of the Community has not weakened and that its objective has not changed since the Paris con ference? There is not very much room for criticism of us on that point because the right hon. Gentleman has reaffirmed everything we set down.
On the regional development fund I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has obtained £60 million. That will do a great deal to redress the balance of the budget. The right hon. Gentle man said that we did not provide safeguards but he then said that national aids will be within the rules of fair competition and will not amount to competitive bidding. Both those decisions are absolutely right and we made both when we were in Government. Will he recognise that that is what he has agreed and will he abandon this sham of renegotiation? He has said that he accepts the Treaty of Accession. Let him say honestly to the country that what he is doing is using the normal machinery of the Community to make the necessary adjustments as we go along.
The Prime Minister: We are using such machinery as is available to us to repair the damage done by the right hon. Gentleman in his negotiations. I have already mentioned sugar. But for the sell out on sugar, on which we warned the House and the then Government, we would not be facing a desperate and costly sugar situation today.
On the main point of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention—I was not sure whether it was a question—nothing I have said in the House today in relation to the communiqué is other than what I said, as my right hon. Friend will confirm, in the negotiations with our colleagues last Monday and Tuesday. On every

1139
point on which I have reserved our position today I reserved it specifically and in terms last week.
I have answered the point about European monetary union. The right hon. Gentleman signed on EMU a blank cheque. He did not have the faintest idea what it meant. He must have realised that it was unattainable or, if attainable, utterly damaging to this country. We made EMU a long-term objective. There is not a hope in hell—I mean in the Common Market—as the other Heads of Government have made clear, of EMU taking place in the near future. Everything that is in the communiqué which bears on the points which we are renegotiating was specifically reserved by my reading out the seven items on which we require satisfaction on renegotiation. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Nevertheless, I do not mind if he chooses to take satisfaction from this point. We are working hard to undo the damage which he has implanted on the country.

FIRES (LONDON AND NOTTINGHAM)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about two tragic fires that occurred in the last few days.
The first occurred at the Grand Metropolitan Hotels staff hostel at 9–17 Clifton Gardens, London, W.9, shortly after 3 a.m. on Friday 13th December. The premises comprise five interlinked terrace houses consisting of a basement and four storeys, with an attic. The fire developed rapidly in the upper part of the building, and although 19 people were rescued by emergency means, I very much regret to say that seven persons, including one fireman, were killed. Three other firemen were injured.
The premises fall within the scope of the Fire Precautions (Hotels and Boarding Houses) Order 1972. Application had been made for a fire certificate, and the premises had been inspected and the necessary work specified, but it had not yet been carried out.
The London Fire Brigade is conducting a full inquiry into the cause of the fire, and I will decide in the light of the out-
1140
come of that inquiry whether there is a need for further action on my part.
The other fire occurred at Fairfield, an old people's home, at Edwalton, Nottinghamshire, shortly before 2 o'clock in the morning of Sunday 15th December. Although two fire appliances arrived within six minutes of receipt of the fire call, the fire spread rapidly, and resulted in the deaths of 18 people.
These premises consisted of a single-storey, purpose-built building, comprising a central core from which radiated a number of self-contained units each of eight or nine bedrooms. The premises were equipped with smoke-stop doors, fire alarms, and fire extinguishers and means of escape in accordance with the recommendation of the fire authority.
The cause of the fire and its place of origin are not yet known, but this is being investigated by forensic science experts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has called for a full report from the Nottinghamshire County Council on the circumstances.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, my deep sympathy with the bereaved and injured, together with my appreciation of the gallant work of the fire brigades concerned.
Mr. Arthur Latham: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement about the dreadful tragedies that have taken place within the past three days. I should certainly like to be associated with his expressions of condolence to the bereaved and sympathy with the injured.
I should especially like to pay tribute to the fireman, Mr. Hamish Pettit, who lost his life in the Paddington fire on Friday. He was one of a group of brave men who knowingly and valiantly risk their lives daily to save others, and there is no greater community service and courage. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could assure me that adequate provision will be made for this man's young widow and baby son.
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is alarmingly significant that only 18 months ago the Worsley hotel was in full use as a hotel, some two years after the passing of the 1971 Act? Does he confirm that in London there are still four out of five hotels not complying with

1141
the safety regulations? Could he establish a study into that general problem to see what may be done to speed up the process, perhaps with particular emphasis on the financial difficulties that arise and possibly some bridging financial assistance if that is appropriate?
Lastly, could my right hon. Friend seriously consider whether hotel buildings used as staff hostels represent by the very nature of that use an even greater hazard than a hotel building used for normal hotel purposes? My right hon. Friend will recall the Islington incident of not long ago. Could he look into a tightening of the standards applying to hostel accommodation of this kind?
Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the moving way in which he has expressed his tribute to the fireman who lost his life, and not only to that fireman, but to all those who played, as they so often play, a gallant part. I will certainly look into the question of proper provision for the young widow and the baby son of the dead man.
There is a major problem about hotels complying with the safety regulations. We are making progress. In the GLC area, out of 1,489 applications received 1,475 had been surveyed to a recent date. But only a relatively small number of fire certificates have been issued, and, as was the case with these premises, there is a great deal of work to be done, although it is in hand.
But it is no good the House pretending that we can solve the problem overnight. The responsibility is finally that of the local authority, in London and elsewhere, to operate under the 1971 Act and the regulations of 1972, and certainly we shall give them every encouragement to do so. However, there is a major problem.
There is no doubt that these premises were clearly within the scope of the Hotels and Boarding Houses Order 1972. An application for a certificate in respect of them had been made. I should like to look into whether there is some special hazard associated with their being used as a hostel rather than as a hotel. I am not sure whether there is any validity in my hon. Friend's observation on that matter, but I should certainly like to look into it. As a result of the Islington
1142
tragedy we are issuing new guidance to local authorities and they are to report to us at an early date. We will keep these points in mind for any further guidance that we may issue.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is the Home Secretary aware that my constituents and the relatives of those who died in the Fairfield fire will be grateful for his expressions of sympathy? With many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I should like to be associated with what he has said.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the old people's home in question was modern, very well appointed and well administered, and that those concerned have nothing but praise for the action of the staff on duty and the emergency services that responded to the fire call? That shows that there is full confidence locally in Nottinghamshire in the local inquiries into the cause of the accident.
Nevertheless, the CLASP system of building, which was pioneered in Nottinghamshire, is now used widely in many areas for this kind of building. There is a local expectation that the Home Secretary will order a wider public inquiry so that other users of this system may be reassured, and so that we may all be reassured, that the fire precautions standards of this kind of building are brought up to date. Does the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he has not ruled out the possibility of a full public inquiry into the cause of the fire?
Finally, when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, whom I see in her place, calls for a report on this tragedy, will he ask her to bear in mind the possibility that this kind of tragedy is due in no way to lack of fire precautions or the proper provision of facilities, but to the fact that a very high proportion of the residents of these oldish people's homes are either bed-ridden, or very infirm and immobile, so that they cannot take any advantage of the precautions? With the wisdom of hindsight, if that is to be applied, could the right hon. Lady perhaps consider whether local authorities should be advised to keep down the proportion of totally immobile residents in the larger old people's homes, or to reconsider staffing arrangements, or the manner of

1143
exit, when they have a high proportion of totally immobile residents housed in one complex?
Mr. Jenkins: Again I am grateful for what has been said. I am grateful, too, for the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the work of the emergency services and of the way in which this tragic home, as it turned out, was run.
It is, of course, the case that this was not an old building. It was built in 1959–60. The CLASP method of building is not a technical description, but refers to building by a consortium of local authorities, and it originated largely in Nottinghamshire. It has been used for a variety of purposes—old people's homes, schools and other buildings of that sort. I will consider urgently whether there is any matter falling within my responsibility and the Government as a whole will consider whether there is any problem that arises within Government responsibility.
But I do not think that it would be right at this stage for the House and the country to assume that these buildings are unsafe. Fire tragedies of this sort, alas, occur in a wide variety of different types of building. The most rigorous investigation is necessary, and will take place, but it would not be right to assume, immediately and automatically, that the fire was something to do with the type of building, although we will consider that.
I have held open the decision about an inquiry, and I will seriously consider what has been said. My powers to order an inquiry in relation to a fire, or efficient fire prevention, or fire precautions activities, within a local authority area are limited by the Act of 1947. Indeed. I think that there has been only one inquiry under that Act. My power relates essentially to the efficient working of the fire brigade in a local authority area.
My right hon. Friend will consider whether there are other aspects of the matter that call for a public inquiry. I should not wish to prejudge this question in any way. It may be a joint inquiry, between us; it may be one primarily under her authority; it may be one primarily under my authority; it may not be called for. However, we will look at this most urgently. My right hon. Friend has just told me, and I can tell the House, that she is going to Notting-
1144
hamshire tomorrow to see the position and to receive reports on the spot
Sir Keith Joseph: I should like to associate the Opposition with words of sympathy to the victims and of tribute to the firemen.
Would the right hon. Gentleman consider initiating a departmental review into the workings of the Fire Precautions Act 1971? We understand the scale of the task that has to be done to protect against fire in so many buildings, but does he recognise that there may be need to consider the delays and difficulties involved in the three different stages of inspection, financing and actual execution of the work? Will he therefore consider a departmental review?
Secondly, as to the fire at Fairfield, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in the light of the fact that this was a purpose-built home, there were a large number of deaths? There will inevitably be widespread concern and perhaps lessons for widespread application, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be asked why she has not decided to hold a public inquiry. I well remember the tragedy at Coldharbour, as I am sure does the right hon. Lady. At least the inquiry which has been ordered should be published. I hope the Home Secretary will convey to his right hon. Friend the view that a public inquiry might be the best solution in this case.
Mr. Jenkins: If I may deal with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question first, I do not understand that my right hon. Friend has begun to decide that a public inquiry is not called for. One of the problems involved in the Private Notice Question procedure —this is a statement for technical reasons—is that it is right and desirable that the House should be informed and should be able to express its views when national tragedies take place. However, it must also be recognised that the Ministers concerned inevitably have to respond at very short notice, and it is undesirable that by this procedure my right hon. Friend, or I, or any other Minister should be forced into a snap decision, one way or the other, which would be premature. I think it is right that my

1145
right hon. Friend should see the position, as she will tomorrow morning, on the spot, and then make up her mind, perhaps in conjunction with me, although probably it will primarily be a matter for her as to whether a public inquiry is justified.
I assure the House that there is no question of either my right hon. Friend or I having begun to close our minds against a public inquiry at this stage.
The earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's question dealt with whether I should hold a departmental review into the working of the 1971 Act. I shall certainly consider any suggestion of that sort which is put to me. The right hon. Gentleman rightly outlines the three phases of inspection, of financing, and of execution. The Act does not make the fire hazard greater, although it makes it more obvious, which is a step forward. However, by no Act or order or expression of this House can we change overnight the position with regard to fire precautions in a vast range of buildings in London and throughout the rest of the country.
As regards financing, there is an intention on the part of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to table an amendment to the Finance Bill, which will make a limited improvement—I hope a worthwhile one—with regard to the financing aspect of this matter.
I will press on with the other aspects. This is a local authority responsibility primarily, but in so far as I can give guidance and encouragement with the effective implementation of the Act I shall do so, and, without any commitment, I would be willing to consider a review— whether in the exact form suggested or not—if I thought that it would help.
Mr. Beith: I should like to associate my right hon. and hon, Friends with the expressions of sympathy and appreciation already made.
May I ask the Home Secretary whether he knows how deep is the concern that such a tragic fire should have occurred in a building which has passed fairly exacting fire safety standards? Does he recognise that many of us are concerned
1146
about old people's homes in converted buildings of more than one storey which are presenting severe financial difficulties to local authorities trying to meet fire standards and which will present difficulties if a fire takes place? Does he not recognise that it would take time to implement this Act and to improve buildings up to the standards which we now have, and that there is a case for temporary measures such as additional fire drills, higher rates of night staffing and possibly lower rates of occupation in institutions which have not yet been brought up to the fire standards?
Mr. Jenkins: Clearly, of the three points mentioned, two—the staffing and the lower rates of occupation—would be matters for my right hon. Friend and not for me.
With regard to fire drills, and without in any way wishing to encourage any sense of panic, I think it would be useful if those responsible for running such homes, which exist I think in 8,000 buildings, within a wide variety of old and new premises, some purpose built and some converted, were to seek guidance from the chief fire officer or from the local fire service at a high level as to the conditions there and how best they can deal in a cautionary, and not a panicmongering, way with the problem which has been highlighted by this tragic occurrence in Nottinghamshire.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Other questions must be put down by hon. Members in the usual way. There are more than 40 right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak in the next debate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That at this day's Sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion relating to the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1974 at half-past Eleven o'clock or so soon as proceedings on the Motion relating to the Defence Review have been disposed of, whichever is the later. —[Mr. John Ellis.]

DEFENCE
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Defence I ought to inform the House that I have selected the Opposition amendment.
Mr. Stanley Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I note that you have not selected the amendment standing in my name and the names of a number of my hon. Friends, which means that many of us will be deprived of the opportunity of expressing a point of view about which many of us feel very deeply. I am aware of the precedents which apply in cases of this sort, but I wonder whether it would be possible for further consideration to be given to this matter, since it prevents the debate from accurately reflecting points of view held by many hon. Members and which are widely held outside the House.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to and in support of that point of order, would you not, Mr. Speaker, agree that it would be helpful if the Procedure Committee were quickly to report on this matter, which has been referred to it, for the assistance of minority parties and groups within the parties?
Mr. Speaker: That is certainly the case. With regard to today's debate, I am afraid my selection must stand. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) said that certain hon. Members ought to have the opportunity to express their opinions. If the hon. Member persists, he may very easily catch my eye and be able to make a speech during the debate.
4.38 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Secretary of State for Defence's Statement on Tuesday 3rd December 1974.
It might be for the convenience of the House if we included in the debate the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1974.
On 3rd December I made a statement to the House about the progress made so far in the defence review. Today I should like to explain more fully some of the background to the review, which has been, I believe, the most comprehensive examination of our defence commitments
1148
and the resources available to meet them since the post-1945 rundown.
In the broad historical perspective, it will, I think, be seen as part of the process through which Britain adapted itself politically, psychologically and economically to a new rôle as an influential middle-rank Power without post-Imperial pretensions.
As part of that process, the Labour Government, in 1968, took important decisions on our world-wide defence commitments, designed to achieve a complete withdrawal of our forces from east of Suez—with the exception of Hong Kong —by the end of 1971.
In his supplementary statement on defence policy in 1970, the then Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Carrington, reversed or modified a number of those decisions. Therefore, when I came into office in March of this year I inherited a programme which included forces stationed in a number of places throughout the world on a scale which was no longer in keeping with Britain's economic and political position.
I inherited a defence budget of £3,667 million for 1974–75, representing about 5½ per cent. of our gross national product. Morever, the long-term costings for 1974, projected forward for 10 years, showed that to maintain and progressively reequip forces on the scale then planned would cost at 1974 public expenditure survey prices £4,300 million a year, or about 6 per cent. of the GNP, by 1978–79, and about £4,500 million a year, or over 5½ per cent. of the GNP, by 1983–84. In other words, in terms of the proportion it took of our national wealth, the burden of the defence expenditure on the British economy throughout the 10 years would have been half as much again as that borne by West Germany and a third greater than that borne by France, both of whose economies are richer than ours and are expected to grow significantly faster than our own. It was clear to the Government that the economic situation of the country and the burden of defence expenditure at the level of the plans costed in February 1974 were incompatible, and, from the succession of short-term cuts made by the previous Conservative administration in their last year of office, it seemed that the penny, or the pounds, had begun to drop with them as well.

1149
On 17th December last year the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a £178 million reduction in defence expenditure, and this was on top of cuts totalling £72 million imposed in the previous May and October, adding up to a total of £250 million, or £291 million at 1974 prices. But, unlike the policy of the then Government, I was determined that the process of adjustment to the realities of our economic, strategic and political position should not be by a series of arbitrary cuts. Above all, I wanted to make sure that our defence priorities were seen to make sense and that our forces were seen to be tailored to what Parliament, the British people and our allies accept as essential to our security and that of the North Atlantic alliance.
Even while the review has been under way, the international economic environment in which Britain must survive and prosper has become even more unfavourable. Over the past 12 months there have been further increases in the price of oil charged by the producing States, and for this reason, among others, the terms of trade are now about 11 per cent. worse than they were 12 months ago.
While it was essential that the review should take account of this economic reality, I also had throughout in the forefront of my mind the other reality of the continuing threat to Western security posed by the massive and growing military power of the Warsaw Pact.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the economic side, will he now admit that, far from there being a real reduction in spending, his review will mean a considerable increase in both real and cash terms compared with the estimate which he has just mentioned for this year of £3,667 million? Did he not admit last week in a Written Reply to a member of the Opposition that next year in real terms the spending will go up to £3,700 million and in the following year to £3,800 million, and that it will remain at that figure for at least seven years? Is that an increase or a reduction?
Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend has a point, which I must recognise. I have always said—I said it in my statement.
1150
I have reiterated it publicly since, and I have repeated it in answer to Questions in this House—that we have cut back defence expenditure on the proposals and plans which we inherited and that in 1975–76 the increase in defence expenditure was to rise to £4,000 million. We have cut that back to £3,700 million, effecting a saving of £300 million, on the plans and proposals which we inherited. Yes, there is bound to be a small increase in the real expenditure on defence, and I acknowledge that, but it is on the proposals which we inherited that we are effecting the savings.
I was explaining that there are two sides to the coin. One is the economic realities of the situation. The other is the threat posed to which we have to have a credible defence posture.
I must stress that the Western alliance of which we are a member is a defensive alliance. Its aim throughout has been to preserve stability and peace by deploying military forces in sufficient strength to deter aggression on whatever scale and in whatever form it may occur. If we were to reduce our contributions too far, and this example were followed by other countries, there would be a serious risk that the credibility of NATO strategy would be destroyed. We would risk undermining the cohesion of the alliance as a whole. From the outset, therefore, I have been at pains to emphasise that the review should be—and it has been, I believe— conducted calmly and rationally.
For example, we did not attempt to make easy economies through arbitrary raids on the equipment Votes, or through across-the-board adjustments in procurement schedules to produce short-term savings which would make little military sense. Instead, we started by reviewing strategic and military priorities among our defence commitments, and against these priorities we examined alternatives with an open mind. In the process we analysed every aspect of our defence policy. This is why our review has taken so long.
It was clear from the outset that our search for economies would have to extend beyond our military deployments outside the NATO area. It was equally clear that we could not abandon our obligations towards our remaining dependent territories, nor withdraw

1151
entirely and at short notice from our commitments to other non-NATO allies and partners. But we believe that the commitments that we propose to retain to our allies and partners outside NATO are the maximum that we can afford given the high priority that we attach to our NATO contribution.
As for our non-NATO allies and partners, consultations are still in progress, and I cannot at this stage give more information. It is my hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will cover the reasoning behind our proposals on our non-NATO withdrawals, in view of the fact that he has been especially involved in this stage of the consultation process. But we believe that the proposed reductions in our forces will not threaten the security of any of these allies and partners.
Sir Anthony Royle: I have just returned from talks at the highest level in both Malaysia and Singapore, where there is some resignation to the Labour Government's attitude and the decision which they have taken. However, there is total bewilderment about the decision which the right hon. Gentleman has apparently taken to withdraw the Gurkha battalion from Brunei. This decision will save the taxpayer no money at all, especially as the battalion is administered from Hong Kong. As a result of this withdrawal, the stability of Eastern Malaysia may be put at risk, plus the fall-out on commercial interests in the whole area. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain a little more the cuts in this non-NATO area?
Mr. Mason: I cannot give much more detail than hitherto. But the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I feel that there was a recognition by the rive-Power defence arrangement countries that once a Labour Government were returned with a working majority they were likely to carry out the 1968 commitment, and they were resigned to that fact.
As regards Brunei, we propose to cut back the strength of our Gurkha forces. The Gurkhas are stationed in Brunei at no cost to us. We have made the proposal that we would like to withdraw them from Brunei and concentrate Gurkha forces in Hong Kong. This is still subject to consultation with the Sultan
1152
of Brunei, but that is the proposal before the countries of the Far East. We shall have to wait to see what the consultation process reveals. But in view of the fact that we are planning to cut back the Gurkhas by about 1,000 and that we would like to concentrate on Hong Kong, we felt that we could sensibly withdraw from Brunei. That is still subject—
Sir Anthony Royle Sir Anthony Royle rose—
Mr. Mason: I am not giving way again. I have given the hon. Gentleman a lengthy reply. I have said that the proposal is still subject to the consultative process with the Sultan of Brunei—
Sir Anthony Royle Sir Anthony Royle rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Gentleman is a senior Member of the House and he knows that if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way he must resume his seat.
Sir Anthony Royle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wanted to thank him for his assurance that the decision over the Gurkhas in Brunei is not final and is now being reconsidered.
Mr. Mason: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not try to push it too far by saying that this is being reconsidered. I said quite clearly that this is a proposal. We have to go through the consultative process. By the time the White Paper is prepared we shall be able to take a decision. I have given the hon. Gentleman a lengthy reply and I hope that he will not push it too far.
Within the NATO area we are concentrating our efforts on those commitments and capabilities where we judge our contributions to be most effective and essential. These priorities are, first of all, our land and air forces in the central region of Europe, where the Warsaw Pact confronts the alliance with a marked superiority in manpower and conventional weapons. It has a superiority of about 2½:1 in tanks and 2:1 in field guns and aircraft. The Warsaw Pact has over 20 per cent. more soldiers and 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. more soldiers in fighting units. In addition, the Soviet Union enjoys formidable advantages of geography and reinforcement over secure and relatively short routes and continues

1153
to introduce ever more sophisticated army and air force equipment. That, therefore, is our first priority.
Our second is with our sea and air forces in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas, where we provide the bulk of the maritime "ready" forces available to NATO, and where, if our alliance is to deter the Soviet Union in times of tension, not only from open acts of aggression but from the range of opportunities for exerting pressure by means short of aggression which sea power so readily provides, we and the other European navies must be able to preserve the use of the high seas for NATO and make it possible for the United States to reinforce Europe by sea as well as by air. This calls for an evident ability to counter the growing maritime power of the Soviet Union, particularly its submarine force, which already out-numbers that of NATO by nearly 2:1.
Our third priority will be our sea, land and air forces for the direct security of the United Kingdom, including the ability, which will not be imperilled by the review, to continue to deploy adequate numbers of troops in Northern Ireland. We must also assure the use of the home base for operations in support of our NATO allies. In addition, we propose to maintain the effectiveness of our Polaris forces. This force is assigned to NATO. The premium is not large. The cost of operating and maintaining an effective Polaris force over the next 10 years is a tiny fraction of the defence budget.
In our examination of NATO commitments we have looked particularly hard at our planned reinforcement and intervention capabilities by sea and air, an area in which we felt it would be possible to make savings without prejudicing the viability of contribution to NATO. Our specialist reinforcement and assault forces were originally developed to meet our worldwide commitments, as an alternative to maintaining large garrisons overseas. They comprised, in addition to the land element, large air transport and helicopter forces and an amphibious assault capability. But we cannot in future afford to provide the army element of these forces with all the heavy and sophisticated equipment they would need to play a full part in a
1154
mobile, mechanised European war. Nor can we afford to provide all these reinforcements with the air and other transport capability to enable them to be deployed worldwide or even throughout the whole NATO area. We therefore feel that we should reduce the size of these specialist forces, thereby making savings in their support and specialised transport. We plan, therefore, to reduce the land element of the United Kingdom Mobile Force assigned to NATO to about one-third of its present capability.
Mr. Peter Viggers: If the Government have approached this problem with an open mind, as they say, in view of the statistics which the right hon. Gentleman has given us on the comparative strength of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO allied countries how can they now wish to cut defence expenditure?
Mr. Mason: I must stress that, although I gave the Soviet and Warsaw Pact figures, it is not Great Britain alone against the Soviet Power and that of the Warsaw Pact. We are playing a part within the NATO alliance. We want to play our part according to what our economy can bear. Therefore, not being able to effect the savings we want from non-NATO commitments, we are obliged to look at NATO. During the course of this we have tried to maintain a credible defence posture within NATO and to look at the areas which we can sensibly cut back. I am now outlining to the House where I think our cuts can be made.
I have said that we shall reduce the land element of the Mobile Force assigned to NATO to about one-third of its present capability. Secondly, we shall withdraw our present Joint Airborne Task Force contribution. We want to maintain a limited parachute capability. We propose making no change in our contribution to the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force of 1 Battalion Group, its supporting units and helicopters, and the Harrier air element. This allied force can be deployed in the NATO area at the discretion of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, either in the centre or on the flanks.
The Royal Marines, which provide the landing forces element of the amphibious force, would be reduced by about 1,200 men, including the disbandment of one Commando in due course. We should no

1155
longer plan to replace our existing amphibious ships with new purpose-built vessels. The three remaining Commandos will remain committed to NATO, and the Royal Marines will continue to perform its traditional rôles. We shall be examining the best means of deploying the Commandos in the longer term without the use of purpose-built transport, when the existing amphibious ships reach the end of their useful life. The "Fearless", "Intrepid" and "Hermes" are planned to remain in service for some years to come.
Mr. Peter Rees: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the cuts in the Royal Marines, will he tell the House what amphibious rôle he sees for the Marines outside Europe?
Mr. Mason: I do not see a big rôle, for the Royal Marines outside Europe. The reduced forces—the Commandos and the assault forces—will be available for the northern flank. Those forces will be committed to NATO, and I would see that as their main task in the future.
There will still be a small intervention capability outside NATO but it will be small, and if it is to be effective it will be slower than it has been in the past. We shall not be able to move assault forces into any non-NATO area as rapidly as in the past. I am afraid that once we cut back defence expenditure in this fashion, although we have done it in what we think is a sensible and rational way, we have to recognise that the NATO rôle will be our main rôle and the assault forces, including the Commandos, will be committed to NATO, mainly to the northern flank.
The reductions we have proposed in our maritime forces both outside the NATO area and in the Mediterranean will enable us to maintain the strength of our contribution to the crucial sea area of the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel. I believe that that contribution is still a substantial one, amounting currently to an average of 40 surface ships and 20 submbarines which form the backbone of NATO's "ready" naval forces deployed in these forward areas.
The current strength of the RAF Nimrod maritime patrol force based in the
1156
United Kingdom is to be maintained and we shall refit these aircraft so that they can counter the more sophisticated submarines of the future. We mean to maintain that contribution as a balanced force, including high quality ships. The fact is that the quality, as well as the size, of the Soviet Navy is advancing by leaps and bounds. If our fleet is to continue to contribute to the deterrence of Soviet sea power we must have quality too. For this reason the nuclear-powered submarine programme will be continued, as will the cruiser programme. The anti-submarine capability of our new cruisers, for example, will be very much greater than that of all the frigates we could purchase with the same money. If our Navy is to be credible in the eyes of both the Soviets and our allies its capabilities must be recognised. Therefore, although there will be some reduction in the rate at which new ships and weapons enter service, there should be no basic change in the planned shape of the fleet.
The Army's re-equipment programme, much more than those of the other Services, consists of a large number of relatively small projects. Numerous and substantial modifications will have to be made to this programme in order to reduce the growth of its cost. I do not propose to recite a list of the changes, particularly as final decisions have, in many cases, still to be taken, but I have already announced that the likely measures will include reductions in the planned purchases of light helicopters and reconnaissance vehicles, including the cancellation of Vixen, and withdrawal from the collaborative RS80 general rocket support system. We are consulting our partners and suppliers on these matters.
The Army's other main collaborative projects—the FH70 towed gun and the SP70 self-propelled gun, both of which we are developing with Germany and Italy, are unaffected. We are proceeding, with several of our European allies, with the purchase of the Lance tactical nuclear missile system from the United States as a replacement for Honest John.
Our proposals for the Army would reduce the manpower by about 12,000 compared with the strength in April this year. But the extent of the reduction, and its timing, is a matter on which we

1157
shall be consulting our partners and allies.
One point which I should emphasise is that we do not propose, in advance of a satisfactory agreement on mutual and balanced force reductions between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, to reduce the forces which we maintain in Germany in accordance with our Brussels Treaty obligations. We shall retain our ability to reinforce BAOR in time of emergency or war.
No reduction in the size of the TAVR is proposed. Indeed, with a smaller regular Army, it will be an even more important and effective partner for the regular Army than before. We shall look to improve its present strength, and we plan a major recruiting effort in the New Year.
So far as possible, we shall achieve the reduction in Army manpower by structural adjustment—that is, by such measures as pruning overheads, reducing the size and number of headquarters and extending spans of command. This process of adjustment will cover the Army as a whole, but it will mean some major changes in organisation. However, its objective will be to preserve combat strength and efficiency and, where possible, to increase it. We shall also make every effort to avoid a significant impact on the loyalties and traditions of the regimental system.
Mr. Neville Trotter: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Parachute Regiment will continue in existence as a regular body, or is it intended that the parachute capability will be confined to the regulars of the Special Air Service?
Mr. Mason: I passed that matter some minutes ago. The hon. Gentleman just caught up with it. I said that the commitment of the parachute battalions to NATO would be cut back and we would retain a limited parachute capability. That is one of the savings we are effecting.
Our proposals for the Royal Air Force will inevitably affect the strength and deployment of the Royal Air Force. The review of commitments and priorities which we have undertaken will make it possible to reduce the air transport fleet by half and allow some reduction in the planned helicopter strength.
1158
The final extent of the reduction and the composition of the residual force are matters which must await the outcome of consultations with our allies and partners, but, clearly, changes of this order will enable us to achieve economies in engineering effort and numbers to be trained for air crew and ground duties, and by these and other rearrangements reduce the number of RAF stations by about 12.
Again, the proposed changes in overseas deployments will inevitably lead to some reduction in the Royal Air Force Regiment and, in the longer term, in maritime patrol aircraft. But by making the most of the economies which flow naturally from the review of our commitments we can concentrate our air power on our major priorities in NATO and so preserve in all essential respects the combat strength of the Royal Air Force in RAF Germany and in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Michael Brotherton Mr. Michael Brotherton (Louth) rose—
Mr. Mason: I have given way enough. I should make progress.
It is by means of this policy of greater concentration on our essential NATO commitments that we are able to continue with the current Jaguar re-equipment programme, introduce the Phantom into the air defence rôle, and so improve the combat capability of the RAF. To ensure that that capability is maintained in future, we are continuing with the MRCA collaborative programme—a project which I believe most hon. Members on both sides recognise as being of major importance to the RAF and to the future of the British and European aircraft industries.
We currently plan to have 385 MRCAs. But as we plan the RAF budget over the years ahead we expect to have to spread the costs over a somewhat longer period. We shall, therefore, be discussing with our German and Italian partners some slowing down in the rate at which we will take delivery of the MRCA.
The general prospects so far as the RAF is concerned, apart from the transport fleet reductions, are encouraging. The proportion of combat forces within the total will be increased. Its front-line combat strength in the United Kingdom

1159
and Germany will be maintained in numbers and quality, and it can look forward to a substantial re-equipment programme. Throughout all three Services we have also sought economies in overheads, headquarters staffs and support. Considerable economies have been made in the past, but I am determined that, following a major re-shaping of our front line, we shall pursue new economies in this field.
My proposals would result in a reduction of about 35,000 Service men from the strengths at 1st April of this year and about 30,000 directly employed civilians. Of the Service figures, 5,000 will come from the Royal Navy and Marines, 12,000 from the Army, and about 18,000 from the Royal Air Force. Of the civilians, about half will be locally entered, serving abroad.
I wish to stress once again that these figures are approximations at this stage and will be determined according to our consultations over the next few months. Only after the process of consultations is over shall I be able to give firmer estimates but we expect to make the bulk of the reductions, Service men and civilians, in the course of the next five years.
I have stressed in the House before that the morale and well-being of the Services and of the civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence is one of my primary concerns, and I shall be taking all the steps I possibly can to ensure that the process of adjustment will be largely achieved by normal wastage, and, where necessary, some adjustment to recruitment targets.
Fair terms will be offered to those made redundant, and we shall be looking into the help that the Government can give with resettlement of Service men into civilian life.
The Services will still continue to offer a wide range of rewarding career opportunities for young men and women. We shall continue to need men and women of the highest calibre for the Armed Forces. We shall need to maintain a satisfactory balance of ranks, ages and skills and good career structure. We shall continue to recruit keenly and provide full and worthwhile careers for all those we recruit.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the question of resettlement, is my right hon. Friend aware that those who represent new towns are finding a trend whereby it is increasingly difficult for ex-Service men to be accepted on new town housing lists? Will the Ministry of Defence exert some pressure in this regard?
Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. We are aware of the problem and have been working with the Ministry of Housing on it. We are trying to encourage local authorities to put Service men on the waiting lists when they have completed their engagements. That will be all the more essential as we work through the proposed programme.
I trust that what I have said will be borne in mind by young people all over the country and by those who advise them on their careers, and I earnestly hope that the House, in debating our proposals seriously and responsibly, will do nothing to undermine public confidence in the Services, which is so important both to them in the difficult rôle they have to play and to all of us who rely on them to such a great extent.
In our deliberations on the defence review we have been very conscious of the industrial and employment implications of our proposals and have weighed them very carefully in coming to our provisional conclusions. They will be borne fully in mind when we take our final decisions. It may be some time before the adjustment to equipment proposals, which will be a properly planned and orderly process, is fully reflected in the work load of individual firms or factories, but talks have already been begun with the firms engaged on the projects that I mentioned in my statement.
Among these is Westland, at Yeovil. The main effect of cuts in requirements for helicopters will be felt by Westland towards the end of this decade. Rolls-Royce's engine production at Leavesden will also be affected. On the aircraft side I also mentioned the MRCA. A reduction in the planned rate of delivery for the Royal Air Force will affect the production of BAC in Lancashire, and of Rolls-Royce at Bristol, which is responsible for the RB199 engine. In the vehicle industry and in the conventional armaments I mentioned the

1161
tracked reconnaissance vehicle, which is the responsibility of Alvis at Coventry, and the RS80, which is the responsibility of Hunting at Bedford.
I shall be in close touch with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Industry and Employment over any particular difficulties that may arise, but in general I feel confident that these problems will prove manageable. Much will, of course, depend on flexibility in switching to civil work and the success that we are able to achieve in our vital export markets, both civil and military.
I am satisfied that the financial savings against the previous plans will be very large indeed and will be found as a result of a positive redirection of our defence effort to areas where it will be most effective for the security of Britain and of the alliance as a whole. That has been made possible only through the vigorous analysis of capabilities against firm priorities which has been achieved.
Compared with the long-range estimates of defence expenditure as they stood in March, I shall be able to save about £300 million in 1975–76 and similar sums in each of the two succeeding years, about £500 million in 1978–79, £600 million to £700 million in each of the succeeding four years and about £750 million in 1983-84, in all a total of £4,700 million. I do not believe that anyone can say that that is not a very large contribution to the resources needed for improving the balance of payments, for productive investment and for economic growth. By reducing defence spending by several hundred million pounds a year over the next 10 years, I shall have fulfilled the Government's pledge to reduce the cost of defence as a proportion of GNP.
Within the total resources that we can devote to defence, we are putting forward to our allies at this stage provisional conclusions rather than final decisions. Final decisions will not be taken until the process of full and meaningful consultations with our allies has taken place. In my recent statement I briefly indicated how consultation is to be fulfilled, but I should like to elaborate a little on the procedures involved and the timetable we have in mind
1162
In parallel with the statement of 3rd December, we informed our allies outside NATO of the proposals which involve them or their interests. We invited them to make their views known to us and offered to discuss with them our views on minimising any problems which our proposals might create for them. The review has been received with a sympathetic understanding of our problems and the situation which has led us to carry out this review.
Arrangements are already in hand for further consultation. Some talks at official level have already taken place with New Zealand on the practical consequences of our withdrawal from Singapore, and further detailed planning will probably take place early in the new year. The visit to London of the Prime Minister of Australia this week will offer an opportunity to hear his views. We have already begun the detailed consultations with our NATO allies on the changes we propose to our NATO commitments.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that these are true consultations in the full meaning of the word and not briefing sessions and, therefore, that all the matters he has mentioned are open to some degree of change?
Mr. Mason: Yes, I thought that I had stressed that early in my speech. They are genuine consultations. Our allies are being made aware of our proposals, and now consultations are to begin.
There is an established procedure for this, involving, first, an appreciation by the NATO military authorities of any proposals by a member country which constitute a major change in declared forces. This is followed by political consideration of the military assessment by the NATO Defence Planning Committee. A presentation was made to the NATO Military Committee and to the NATO Defence Planning Committee in Permanent Session on 3rd December when I made my statement to the House. I have already participated in ministerial discussions in Brussels last week. I took the opportunity to emphasise our firm commitment to the alliance, and to explain to my colleagues the basic principles which have guided us in the defence review.

1163
I believe that those meetings were both successful and important to them. They really believe that we are involved in genuine consultations with them. We have given them eight weeks to consider our proposals.
As many hon. Members will be aware, one of the main topics of discussion was the question of standardisation and increased collaboration on equipment. I stressed the importance of progress in this area and made some specific suggestions, relating, for example, to the FH70, SP70 artillery projects, the Anglo-French Lynx helicopter, and the new light-weight torpedo which we are developing.
There was general agreement—and in this I include my colleague the United States Defense Secretary—that progress on standardisation of equipment must involve genuine "two-way" traffic between the European allies and the United States. At the Defence Planning Council meeting during the past week, I thought that it was a breakthrough that the United States Defense Secretary should at least acknowledge that principle.
No one present doubted that there was much to do, but all within Eurogroup were determined to proceed along these lines with greater vigour than hitherto. I shall have perhaps a special opportunity to do so, since I have accepted the invitation of my Eurogroup ministerial colleagues to act as their chairman during the coming year.
Our NATO allies are now considering our defence review proposals in detail. If we are to give them, as I am sure we must, adequate time to digest what we propose and to give us a considered reaction, we shall not be in a position to set out our final decisions until the White paper.
In conclusion, let me stress the following points. We have framed our proposals responsibly and with full regard to the need to maintain the viability of our contribution to the Western alliance and the security of the home base. They do not imperil the security of the State. If anything, I believe that this retrenchment enhances our ability to concentrate upon our defence priorities, particularly our rôle as a European Power, irrespective of whether we stay within the EEC.
1164
What we have proposed, however, will certainly start to release resources to help us gain our economic health, without which no defence posture in NATO or elsewhere would be of any use. But I must emphasise to all who believe in a reasonable defence posture for Britain, to all who believe in the NATO alliance, to all those who recognise that we cannot go on policing the world, that a new clearly denned defence rôle is necessary. and that is inherent in our review.
We promised the electorate that we would save several hundred million pounds over a period, and that our defence burden would be brought into line with that of our main European allies. We are now bent upon that task. I know that many may ask" what price survival?" Let me say that a Government's greatest service to their people is that of the preservation of life and freedom. The Government value that concept dearly. They are satisfied that my proposals do not imperil the security of our nation but strengthen our defence posture, and will enable us to play our part in the defence of the West and its freedoms, I believe, much more efficiently than before, and, after all, a country's defence will only be as strong as the economy permits.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
and regrets that the proposals contained in the Statement will imperil the nation's security.
I first thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and the Government for agreeing to extend the time for the debate so that more hon. Members on both sides of the House can contribute to it. I believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have received no fewer than 40 applications from hon. Members wishing to speak in the debate, and this indicates how desirable it would be to have another day to debate this topic soon after the Christmas Recess.
The review which the right hon. Gentleman has just defended was a review which we always looked upon with considerable fears and anxiety. It would be true to say that the worst of our fears have not been met in that I suppose the worst of our fears were that the right hon Gentleman might have produced a review

1165
that had resulted in his hon. Friends below the Gangway deciding not to move an amendment at all. The fact that they have put forward an amendment shows that the right hon. Gentleman has not gone to the irresponsible extreme to which he was urged to go by both the Labour Party conference and a large number of members of the Parliamentary Labour Party prior to the February General Election.
Our basic fears of the review are illustrated by the events and the announcing of cuts by the Secretary of State. The first thing that was wrong with the review from our point of view was that it was not a review conducted to see what were the defence requirements of our country. It was a review conducted to see how best the Government could comply with the expressed wish of the Labour Party to reduce expenditure on defence. This has put the Secretary of State at a basic disadvantage in that he was not free to look at our defence needs and say what was required. He was free only to argue what reductions should not take place and what reductions—perhaps many of them—he had reluctantly to concede.
The second outstanding weakness of the review concerned the basis behind it. It must be the first defence review in history in which the basis was the strength of our allies, not of our enemies. The whole attitude, from the commencement of the review, was to try to bring us in line with what the allies were contributing, not with what our potential enemies were doing. That is no way to conduct a review of the defence arrangements of our country.
The third factor was the constant manner in which the basis was concerned with GNP comparisons. This is a "phoney" method of dealing with the problem. It is "phoney" for a number of reasons. First, I judge by the peroration to the Secretary of State's speech that he would never concede that investment in defence should go up and down according to the strength or weakness of the economy. Even firms in dire straits would continue to pay their fire premiums even though they could not afford other expenditure. The Secretary of State must agree that defence is a fundamental and basic form of expenditure which should be diminished only if the world situation enables that to happen. But it is a
1166
"phoney" comparison to look at the GNP of other nations.
It is a fact that many of the comparisons made are with countries that have conscription, not voluntary Services. In those countries with conscription the actual payments paid to the armed Services are much lower than we pay in this country to our volunteer forces. Other countries put in separate budgets much of the social expenditure involved in the armed Services. Other countries, like France, do not put the whole of nuclear costs into the defence budget, but spread them throughout other budgets within the Government system. For all those reasons comparison on a GNP basis was nonsense.
With regard to future projections, it is interesting to learn from one of the few Written Answers that actually give answers to Questions that this proportion of GNP is based upon an assumption that over the next 10 years the nation's GNP will rise by 3 per cent. per annum. Judging from the present form of the Government in relation to the economy, if they remain in office we shall not reach that figure at all. The other argument on which figures are based is that of constant prices, and there is no need to comment on that. But it means that, as an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway complains, figures for savings in, for example, 1976–77 of £270 millions are unlikely on these projections to be met in reality.
What of the argument that we are paying more than our share of the security of the Western world? If we take this on a per head basis we find that we are paying rather less than our share. The United States is paying £152 per head, Germany £81, France £76, and the United Kingdom £63, almost identical to Norway. France is spending £250 million more on defence than we are. Western Germany is spending £1,300 million more than we are. Therefore, for this Government —bearing in mind the present figures, not those in the review as outlined by the Secretary of State—to decide on further substantial cuts on a unilateral basis, and not on the basis of negotiation with the Warsaw Pact countries, is a thoroughly bad example to the Western alliance.
The reality is that world wars do not start because of the aggressiveness of democracies. The political leaders of the democracies are far too close to the

1167
people they represent and share with equal anxiety their repugnance of war. In this century it is the totalitarian régimes —of both Left and Right—which have been the real threat to world peace. World wars start, therefore, when the democracies are too unprepared, too frightened, and too cowardly—or just too tired.
The major totalitarian Power in the world today, in terms of military might, is the Soviet Union, and it is significant that the Soviet Union has described the present defence review as being a step in the right direction—
Mr. Frank Hooley: If the right hon. Gentleman took the trouble to visit the cemetery in Leningrad, where there are 450,000 dead Russians as a result of the last war, he would not talk so airily about the indifference of the other people to war.
Mr. Walker: Perhaps I would if any of the 450,000 had ever had the right to vote in a democratic election.
Let us look at the attitude of the Soviet Government to the problems we are considering. The Soviet Government are not pursuing a course that the hon. Gentleman and his Friends constantly urge upon British Governments. They are not embarking on a course of disarmament at present. Year by year, as talks on disarmament continue, Soviet military might is increasing. A Soviet nuclear submarine is produced every month, and Soviet naval activity spreads throughout the world. In the Indian Ocean it has quadrupled in the past six years, and in our seas Soviet spy-ships photograph our vital North Sea installations. The Soviet Union invests millions of pounds in a new port in the Indian Ocean, and Britain, under pressure from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, seeks to abandon her facilities in Simonstown.
We have a situation in which as the Secretary of State said, the Soviet Union at present has twice as many submarines as the Western Powers. The Secretary of State's response is to reduce the number of aircraft suitable for chasing and destroying submarines—
Mr. Newens: Will the right hon. Gentleman state some of the things that
1168
the United States is doing to spread its military power throughout the world? The right hon. Gentleman does well to speak of Soviet growth and investment in the Indian Ocean. Will he also mention that in the Government's defence review we have agreed to further development by the United States at Diego Garcia, for them to have a base there? It is not one-sided. I am not defending the Soviet Union—
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman hopes to catch the eye of the Chair later. Long interruptions mean fewer speakers.
Mr. Walker: The day Pravda criticises the hon. Gentleman will be a day of rejoicing.
Mr. Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to make smears which he cannot justify about another hon. Member?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is never in order to imply unworthy motives, but I do not think that that is what the right hon. Gentleman was doing.
Mr. Walker: I am delighted that at last the hon. Gentleman considers that being criticised by Pravda is a smear.
I hope that hon. Members and the country at large will realise just how much the defences of the West have been eroded in the past decade compared with the Soviet Union's. In 1964 the United States had four times as many intercontinental ballistic missiles as the Soviet Union. Ten years later the Soviet Union had half as many again as the United States. In 1964 the United States had more than three times as many submarine-launched ballistic missiles as the Soviet Union. By 1974 the Soviet Union had many more than the United States. In the same decade the United States reduced the number of men under arms by 500,000. The Soviet Union has increased the number of men under arms by 125,000. The West constantly cuts back on its investment in research into new weapons. The Soviet Union year by year increases its investment in improving the effectiveness of its offensive weapons. Project this trend a further decade, and we see that Soviet military might will be

1169
so dominant as to enable its Government to dictate to the Western world.
I hope that when the Secretary of State prepares his White Paper he will consider the inclusion of an illustration of the current strength of the Warsaw Pact Powers. It would be interesting for the country to see in a White Paper not just the known strength but a projection of that strength if over the next 10 years the Soviet Union continues to increase its military might at the same pace as it has done over the past five years alone. The picture of its expanding military strength in a period when we are contracting ours would very much alarm our country.
In the face of all that, we have the review, described proudly by the right hon. Gentleman as the most thorough review that has ever taken place in peace time. It was a wrong review, because it was not to review our needs but to reduce our expenditure. Even in that context, it has been ineffective. Normally, it would probably have been completed by June or July, but it was postponed until after the General Election and then until after the Labour Party conference.
One would have expected such a time lag at least to enable the Government to come to conclusions. But a week of Written Questions since the Secretary of State's statement has shown just how uncertain has been their approach. What information has been given to the House over the past week about the Army, for example? We have been told that it is not possible to give an estimate of the phasing of the 12,000 reduction in manpower or to say where it will take place.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army gave a remarkable reply to a Question asking specifically how the reduction of 12,000 Service men is to be spread between Army regiments. He said:
"I cannot at this stage provide details about the composition of the expected reduction in Army manpower. However, I confirm that it is our intention to achieve the reduction to the maximum extent possible by pruning overheads and by structural adjustment and we shall make every effort to avoid a significant impact on the regimental system with its historic loyalties and traditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 62.]
Before completing the review, the Undersecretary should have known whether a
1170
reduction of 12,000 men would have that effect.
Nothing is known about the phasing of the reduction of 12,000 men. There is no indication of when their numbers will be reduced, or how. The Government's position on the Army can almost be described in the words of the song "Don't know where, Don't know when." The Government only hope that the cuts will take place some day. No final decision has been taken about the reductions in helicopters and reconnaissance cars.
We are told that the Government do not know when the 5,000 reduction in Navy manpower will take place. They have not yet considered the effect on the RNVR. That is under consideration. No information is available on how the reduction of one third in support ships will be made. No decision has been taken on the future of the "Ark Royal", and the position of HMS "Bulwark" is being considered. It is not known whether the through-deck cruiser will be a one-off project or will become one of a series and a class. No decision has been taken on the future of the maritime Harrier. With that mass of uncertainty surrounding the future, how can the Secretary of State put forward firm figures as to his reduced expenditure?
I turn to the RAF. We are told that reductions in maritime patrol aircraft have not yet been decided. The extent of the slower phasing of the MRCA is not known. The phasing of the halving of RAF transport depends on eventualities, and the increased need to charter aircraft as a result is not known. It is not possible to give details of the phasing of the 18,000 reduction in manpower. The extent and speed of reduction of the RAF Regiment is not clear. As to the closing of the 12 RAF stations, it is not known which stations will close, and we are told that the information cannot be given until all relevant figures are carefully considered. If the Government have not considered the relevant figures, why did they decide to close 12 stations?
As to the civilian staff, the Minister's knowledge, after the most detailed review in peace time, is as non-existent as it is for the Armed Services. The phasing of the 30,000 reduction cannot be given, nor can the locations of those affected. We are told that it is too early to say

1171
which shipbuilders will be affected, and too early to judge the effects of the change of policy on ship refitting. Ministers have told us that they have not decided the effects on the Royal Ordnance factories. When we asked questions about where 10,000 jobs would be lost in industry, and which firms would be affected, we were told that the 10,000 figure was a "broad order of magnitude". As for the 10 per cent. reduction in research and development, we are told that the Government have not decided which projects will be affected.
If ignorance is bliss, we must have the most contented group of defence Ministers in our history.
We dispute the international strategy which has supposedly come out of the review. The view taken increasingly by the Secretary of State, that the defence of this country is almost totally concerned with the position in central Europe, is dangerous. Ten years ago the late President Kennedy said that we must learn to think inter-continentally. That is true of NATO. The oil crisis should have taught the West the vital importance of securing our raw materials and the safety of our sea routes.
Let us look at the way in which the changes have taken place. Listening to the Secretary of State today, one might almost have believed that he had withdrawn everything throughout the world and made substantial savings. He has not. He has kept most of the overseas obligations, but has weakened the ability of the Services to meet them in time of difficulty. There is no decision about the magnitude of the reduction in Hong Kong. Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the garrison there is not too large to meet some of the potential problems which could arise?
The decision about Brunei and the Gurkha battalion is remarkable. We are pleased to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that it is not final. We are glad that he will consult the sultan and consider the position. The countries in that area are good allies of ours, and they judge this move as being beyond comprehension, particularly as the present situation does not cost the British taxpayer one penny. Recently, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member
1172
for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle), who, while at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, had a great deal to do with that area, the reply by the Secretary of State lacked only one thing—any logical reason for his decision.
Mr. Dalyell: Exactly what are the Opposition proposing? Am I right in thinking that their suggestion is that we need more troops in Hong Kong?
Mr. Walker: It is our view that the garrison is not too large. The Secretary of State is suggesting a reduction but we do not know by how many men. It has not yet been decided that there will be a reduction, but our view is that the garrison is not too large to meet some of the potential problems which may arise.
One gathers that a very small number of men is to be left in Singapore but that we are to keep all our treaty and defence obligations in that area. If the Secretary of State insists on withdrawing our forces from the area, I hope that he will consider whether there is not something to be said for retaining at least enough to look after the facilities out there on a care and maintenance basis.
The proposals for the situation in the Indian Ocean will weaken our position. We must await the results of the renegotiation of the Simonstown agreement. If it results in all our facilities at Simonstown being preserved under different names and different treaties, perhaps our criticism will be somewhat subdued. But, in fact, the renegotiation is purely political and is being carried out in order to please the Left. If facilities at Simonstown are preserved, there will be considerable relief in the light of the Soviet naval activity in the Indian Ocean. Simonstown is valuable to us because of the security information which comes from our facilities with the South African Government and which is of immense importance to protecting our sea routes.
I turn now to our position in NATO. I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would say something about the criticisms he received, seemingly, at the ministerial conference last week about some of his decisions. We gather that the Italians were critical of the manner in which he is going to weaken our position in the Mediterranean, and that the Germans

1173
and Americans were critical of the manner in which the northern flank will be adversely affected by the decision to do away with the amphibious force we have now. The flanks of NATO are of immense importance to the defence of the whole area. I hope that the representations made to the right hon. Gentleman by our NATO allies concerning our contribution to the northern and southern flanks will be carefully considered.
We were all relieved by the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the importance he places upon the Territorial Army. If the right hon. Gentleman pursues many of his decisions—we hope that he will not—there is no doubt that there will be increasing need to have available reserve forces and forces which can assist if necessary at a time of mobilisation. When the Government are reducing the forces to the degree they propose now, one has grave concern about the mobilisation capacity of the country in an emergency.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: It would be of assistance to us if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us whether he is aware that during the period of the Conservative Government from 1970 to 1974 the total personnel of the Armed Forces fell by 20,000. My right hon. Friend now proposes a reduction over 10 years of 35,000. He is, in effect, proposing to reduce the rate of reduction in the Armed Forces which he inherited from the Conservative Government.
Mr. Walker: We considered that the changes we made in defence expenditure were the maximum that could be undertaken in the light of our commitments. The present Government are to make further substantial reductions without reducing any of our major commitments. Added to that, we are seeing no success and no breakthrough in the disarmament negotiations with the Soviet Union, and a considerable build-up in its activities in many areas. For example, month by month we see an increase in Soviet sea power. Yet the Government have decided to make some of their biggest cuts in the Royal Navy. We condemn the nature of many of these cuts.
In terms of the capacity to mobilise, I ask the Secretary of State to tell us
1174
whether, when he does decide which 12 airfields he is to close, after having looked at the relevant facts, he intends to keep some or all on a care and maintenance basis at least so that they could be used again if the need arose.
Our condemnation of the defence review is that it reeks of a series of expediencies to meet the pressures from one section of the Labour Party. The losses from any such expedient actions always far outweigh any temporary gains. It is not juggling with the mechanics and finance of defence which makes a nation secure, but the determination of the Government to defend the nation. The nature of this review leaves us with grave doubt about the inner spirit and determination of the Government to secure the safety of our nation.
5.47 p.m.
Mr. Frank Allaun: I wish to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and other of my hon. Friends. I regret to have to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that the cuts he has referred to in his statement are "phoney". We have been misled, or—let me put it another way—many people have been misled into believing that this defence review will mean large reductions in spending on arms. I again regret to have to say that the truth is the exact opposite. People have been misled on the matter additionally because of the way the Press has treated this point.
The savings of hundreds of millions of pounds which are being claimed are fictitious, because they are not savings in comparison with our present vast arms spending; they are savings compared with the even more fantastic proposals of the Conservative Government for arms spending over the next five years. Secondly, far from reducing spending, there is a real and cash increase compared with the £3,660 million estimated for this year last winter. Indeed, in reply to a Written Question which went almost unreported in the Press, my right hon. Friend admitted that next year, in real terms— that is, current terms—the spending is to be £3,700 million, and in the following year £3,800 million. He stated that that level is to be maintained for the next seven years.

1175
That is spending in real terms. God knows what it will be in terms of pounds and pence. If the current rate of inflation—18½ per cent.—continues for the next five years, at the end of that time we shall be spending more than £8,000 million a year on arms. This is no minor matter, but one that threatens us with bankruptcy. Last week, an all-time record deficit of £534 million was reported in our monthly trade figures. In this serious economic situation we cannot afford to continue, never mind increase, our present rate of spending on arms.
Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: There is no disagreement on the Government side of the House about the importance of a strong economic base for our defence forces. How would my hon. Friend explain to 70,000 civilian and Service personnel that they are liable to lose their jobs as a result of the review? How are these cuts "phoney"?
Mr. Allaun: I shall come to that if my hon. Friends will wait a few moments. I do not think that anyone who considers this matter has overlooked the problem raised by my hon. Friend. I do not want to dodge such an important question, particularly as many of my close personal friends in the engineering industry may be affected. The answer is that we believe in different employment, not unemployment.
We were to have had a two-days' debate on defence. It is ironic that this debate has been cut to one day to allow for a debate on the economic crisis. To forgo the real reductions that we can achieve is the height of lunacy.
I shall be brief, because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Far from lessening tension, an increase in arms spending by this or any other country, in the East or West, will increase tension and reduce our hopes of detente. Some recent Press editorials make me sick. The talk about detente while simultaneously demanding the intensification of war preparations.
Mr. Churchill: What is the Soviet Union doing?
Mr. Allaun: The same as America is doing, and I regret it more than the hon. Gentleman does.
1176
Whether or not they like it, hon. Members on both sides of the House must admit the truth of every one of the points made in our amendment. They may not like them, but these are factual points that cannot be denied. They are statements of fact.
When addressing the North Atlantic Assembly on 14th December the Prime Minister said:
"In our economic situation we can no longer afford to bear a higher proportionate burden than that of our major Western European allies."
I have been in touch with a couple of high-powered statisticians. One of them is Dr. Frank Blackaby, the Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. They assure me that if we were to reduce our share of the GNP spent on arms to that spent by other Western European allies we should save £1,180 million a year. We need that money to re-equip our industry, to provide houses and schools and to reduce the rate of inflation, because nothing can be more inflationary than an arms programme of the present magnitude.
Mr. Mason: I do not want to interfere with the theme of my hon. Friend's speech, but I do not want him to believe that these are "phoney" cuts. They may not represent the savagery that my hon. Friends wants, but I hope his doctor colleague is not advising him wrongly.
If my hon. Friend wants to cut defence expenditure in real terms, he must realise that he has to stop projects that are now being built, that he has to axe Service men tomorrow and that he has to create unemployment in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries immediately, because no alternative employment is available and we have not made any plans to find other employment for those who would be made redundant.
If we were to resort to savagery in making defence cuts, the result would be higher redundancy pay and the severing of contracts. We should have to recompense the industries concerned, and in the first 12 months the saving would be very small. In the meantime, however, we should increase purchasing power by paying a higher rate of redundancy pay, increased unemployment, sever contracts and cause disarray and confusion in the defence industries.
Mr. Allaun: I recognise the reasonableness of my right hon. Friend's interjection. Having suffered a little unemployment myself, just as my hon. Friend has, neither of us is anxious to make people unemployed. But the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that the dockyards can be employed on non-military work. Cammell Laird and Vickers could be engaged on building rigs for oil development, or giant oil tankers. I am glad to note that my right hon. Friend agrees with me. I accept that all this cannot be done in three months, but my right hon. Friend has been referring to a period of 10 years.
The second point of my right hon. Friend's interjection must be answered. He said that these are not "phoney" cuts. Gentlemen in the Press Gallery have reported that my right hon. Friend will save £4,700 million over 10 years. I am saying that that is a "phoney" cut, and a few moments ago, in reply to a question from me, my right hon. Friend said that there was a slight real increase in spending. It seems to me, therefore, that he has admitted the case that I am making.
My right hon. Friend's statement refers to certain savings. One of these is a manpower saving of 70,000 but, compared with the total of 700,000 employed in the Ministry of Defence, that is only 10 per cent. over 10 years.
There is a reference to savings in manpower and bases. If there is to be a reduction in certain spheres but the total bill is to increase it must mean that there will be a large increase in certain other spheres in the defence budget. I think I know what those are. Perhaps the Minister of State will deal with this matter when he replies to the debate.
I suspect that there will be a huge increase in our already vast research and development programme of £400 million a year. We know that certain items will grow. For instance, if we buy 385 multi-rôle combat aircraft, it will cost far more than the Channel Tunnel, which we agree that we cannot afford. Moreover, some of these low-flying aircraft are now highly vulnerable to missiles, as the recent Middle East war showed.
There will be an increase in the outlay on the through-deck cruisers which, with
1178
their complement of aircraft, are estimated to cost £140 million each.
In our election manifesto, to which reference has been made by my right hon. Friend, we stated that as a first step we would seek the removal of the United States Polaris base from Britain. Why is there no mention of that in the defence review? Presumably because it will continue for 10 years. Yet we all know that it is a suicide weapon. Once released it will mean the extermination of our people. Moreover, there is no protection against similar weapons directed at this country. Indeed, it makes our whole nation highly vulnerable.
Mr. Churchill: Highly indefensible.
Mr. Allaun: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. I maintain that we are indefensible because we can be wiped out by a dozen hydrogen bombs in the first few minutes of the next war.
Many hon. Members and a great number of people outside this House are asking not that the Secretary of State should now say, "Very well, here and now I will cut my Estimate", but that, before producing his White Paper in March, he should have taken these views into consideration.
The Opposition are saying not that we are spending too much but that we are not spending enough. I wonder how much they think we should spend. I suggest that if we doubled our spending on defence, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, with very few exceptions, would still say that we were not spending enough.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we increased our conventional forces we would reduce the risk of having to use our nuclear forces—which should be his aim?
Mr. Allaun: I do not believe that there is any need for either. We could get into a long debate on this matter. I do not think that it is possible to defend this country any longer by military means. We are far more likely to have influence in the world if we are economically viable rather than economically bankrupt though militarily strong.
I repeat the question, which I hope will be taken up: how much do right

1179
hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to spend on arms? It is a bottomless pit. We could go on spending more millions, and still they would say that it was not enough. This country would still be indefensible. It would merely have the effect of increasing arms spending by other nations.
Mr. John Lee: A possible answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend is that the Opposition want us to spend as much as is necessary to wreck the economic plans of any Labour Government.
Mr. Allaun: I do not know whether that is their conscious motive, but that would be the effect.
We utterly reject the view of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and strongly support the amendment.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I rise for the first time in this House to plead a cause about which my constituents and I feel most strongly. Before doing so, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Christopher Chataway, who served our country and this House for over 12 years, first as Member of Parliament for Lewisham, North and, for the past five years, as the right hon. Member for Chichester, During that time he rose to high office as Minister for Posts and Telecommunications and, more latterly, Minister for Industrial Development. Though I may lack his athletic prowess and his appeal to television audiences I shall certainly strive to maintain the same high standards and purpose that he displayed throughout his parliamentary career. I hope that this House will join me in wishing him every happiness and success in his new ventures.
It is also proper that I should tell the House a little about Chichester. It is, of course, familiar to those who enjoy sailing at Bosham and Itchenor, to those who enjoy the racing at Goodwood, to those who have visited our famous Festival Theatre, and even to those who have enjoyed rambling over our beautiful downs. Spreading for 500 square miles from the coast, Chichester is primarily an agricultural constituency surrounding the historic cathedral city. It is without
1180
doubt the most beautiful constituency in the country, but it shares with other areas many of the same social and economic problems.
We have an efficient and productive horticulture industry which will be hard hit by the decision not to continue the growers' oil subsidy next year.
We have many small pig and beef producers who have been forced to sell their stock without the benefit of the new guarantee payments.
In common with many other parts of the country, we have a large number of families in need of housing, and, at the same time, many houses lying vacant or under-utilised.
We have the pressures of urbanisation, transport and development, which are gradually eroding the tranquil nature of our countryside and the aesthetic appeal of our city and villages.
Despite these pressing problems, I have chosen to speak on a subject which, at first sight, may appear divorced from the matters that I have mentioned. Yet my constituents have never taken for granted the state of peace that we have been privileged to enjoy for some years, nor have they been the last to respond to the call in time of need. Indeed, since Alfred the Great routed the Danes from Wessex and set up fortifications, we have been mindful of our responsibilities and zealous of our security.
I regard defence as the primary responsibility of the Government. I consider the proper and adequate security of our people to be the prerequisite to all other policies or ambitions of the Government. Without that security, those policies or ambitions may never be realised.
Moreover, I believe that we are entering a changing period of world political structure—a time when planetary politics will become a reality. We have already seen the grouping of the oil-producing countries under OPEC and the first indications that primary producing countries are becoming a collective force. We see world conferences discussing people's needs rather than their interests, and we see a recognition, both nationally and internationally, that collective economic force and power can change the balance of the world. I believe that we should welcome

1181
all these changes, but we would be foolish not to recognise that they bring grave problems and threats to national security and to our prospects for peaceful co-existence.
I have three principal objections to the proposed cuts in defence expenditure which have been announced by the Secretary of State for Defence. My first and major concern is that these cuts will reduce the nuclear threshold—that is to say, the point at which conventional warfare will escalate into nuclear warfare. Although the definitions of nuclear and conventional warfare have become somewhat blurred, my main fear is that a major reduction in force levels will leave a gap in our defence network and strategy which can be filled only by the nuclear deterrent. The reduction in the number of the Royal Navy's frigates and destroyers by one-seventh, the reduction in the number of conventional submarines by one-quarter, the cancellation of the RS80 long-range artillery rocket and the reduction in the rate of deliveries of the MRCA, about which we heard today, provide exactly such a gap in our front-line forces.
The British Government have played a full part in the Geneva Conference on Security and Co-operation and the Vienna Conference on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions, and have had consultations with the United States in regard to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. Today we have heard of the importance placed on the Western alliance. But the House must ask for far more visible evidence that limitation and non-proliferation of armaments is being undertaken before we, as a House, sanction the unilateral dismantling of our own armaments.
My second objection concerns our inability to counter the massive build-up of Soviet armaments and forces throughout the world. I am reassured genuinely that the present Government accord high priority to our NATO contribution. But NATO does not cover many parts of the world where Soviet forces extend. Indeed, in the last 10 years the Soviet deployment of warships in international waters has increased by over 10 times. Soviet industry is building over 700 fighters a year. Massive sums are being spent on the production of the new swing-wing bomber, called—somewhat optimistically—"Backfire", for which there is no equivalent in
1182
the West. Research and development— we have heard again today—account for one-third of Soviet defence expenditure. Indeed, it was the present Secretary of State for Defence who was moved to say in the House of 2nd July:
"I warn the House that there is on its way a new generation of sophisticated advanced weaponry coming from the Soviet Union."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 256.]
Negotiating from strength has always been a basic element of Soviet foreign policy. Yet no one should be deluded that this build-up is for ceremonial purposes. In central Europe alone the Soviet forces that are evident are far more than are needed to deter attack, and in the Indian Ocean far more than our joint and token contribution with the United States in Diego Garcia can hope to contend with. In these circumstances, is it surprising that a reduction of 35,000 in the number of British Service men and a reduction in the planned defence programme will be welcomed only by the Soviet Union?
Thirdly, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle), I much regret the Government's proposal to withdraw our forces stationed under the five-Power defence arrangements in South-East Asia—particularly the withdrawal of over 3,000 Service men from Singapore. The White Paper on Defence last year concluded that Britain's
"world-wide political and trading interests cannot flourish without stability outside Europe."
We seem to have forgotten or ignored that it is barely 10 years since we were defending Malaysia against Communist infiltration from Indonesia and from the mainland further north, and that we successfully defended Malaysia and our interests therein.
The air bases in Singapore provide excellent runways for tactical and strategic bombers, as well as dispersal facilities for aircraft with nuclear capability. The naval base has provided valuable facilities for ship refitting.
Having lived for a number of years on one such base—RAF Changi, in Singapore—and having had the privilege of travelling extensively throughout the Far East, I feel to some extent qualified to tell the House of the value and reassurance that our presence in that island affords to many, many people whom I

1183
have met from other countries which are signatories to that five-Power agreement —that is, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand and Australia—and not least to our countrymen who live and work in that part of the world.
As a young man, I recognise that I cannot draw on the experience of many who will wish to contribute to the debate, but I believe that I can say with genuine concern that decisions taken now will have to be paid for by my generation and future generations. I urge the Government most strongly to think again before undertaking such an irrecoverable course of action. History should surely have taught us that defence has always been easy to cut but never easy to build up in a time of emergency. Who among us is brave enough to say, at a time of increasing international terrorism and military insurgence and aggression, that such an emergency will not again exist for this country? Greater voices than mine have pleaded in the House for adequate defence for this country. However, the kind of attention which hon. Members have afforded to me this afternoon encourages me to hope that this time, perhaps, these words of warning will not fall upon deaf ears.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Stanley Newens: It falls to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on his speech. I do so with great pleasure. I agree with him very much about the beauties of his constituency—just about as strongly as I disagree with him in his views on defence Nevertheless, I think that the whole House will have recognised the sincerity with which he expressed those views. All of us will look forward to listening carefully to what he has to say in the future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) said, today's debate is taking place against a background of economic gloom and acute anxieties about the future of our country. All around there is a rising chorus of demands to tighten belts, to roll up sleeves and to stop living beyond our means. Yet any impartial observer would search in vain for evidence on the Opposition side of the House that the compelling impending peril of the economic situation has
1184
penetrated the consciousness of many of those who discuss these defence matters.
The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), I fear, is too politically illiterate to understand that there are some people who can oppose defence expenditure without being spokesmen for Soviet policy. I myself, having in the past denounced such crimes as the Soviet intervention into Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the way in which, at the same time, the Soviets have developed their armaments, strongly resent the suggestion that the views which I am expressing now are merely a reflection of the views of Moscow. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends will take that into account in the future.
The present Government came to power committed by a manifesto which said that we would seek
"to reduce the proportion of the nation's resources devoted to defence so that the burden we bear will be brought in line with that carried by our main European allies."
Such a realignment, we were told, at present levels of defence spending—not future levels—would mean achieving annual savings of several hundred million pounds, over a period on defence expenditure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East has shown, the savings which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has postulated are economies on future and not present levels of expenditure. As such, many of us do not regard what he is doing as being in line with the promises which we made in the manifesto.
The defence review does not mean an immediate reduction, either, in the proportion of the nation's resources devoted to defence, as compared with that of our main European allies. It means merely the designation of a distant target. The projections on which that target is based, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East has shown, are estimates of economic growth in the United Kingdom, Europe and elsewhere which are highly tendentious. They also depend upon assumptions of a degree of stability and predictability in international affairs which is absent and upon the ability of one Defence Minister to bind his successors, which he cannot.
In these circumstances, the major economies which we have heard are to

1185
be made are not for immediate realisation but for future achievement. They certainly will not satisfy people like myself, either in the House or in the country at large. The prognostications of my right hon. Friend about what will happen in 10 years' time are no better guide to the situation as it will be at that time than are the speculations of Old Moore's Almanac.
My right hon. Friend has not announced the cancellation of, or drastic changes in, any major weapon projects. He made it clear that he will carry on, albeit with some delay, with the MRCA, the through-deck cruiser, and so on. The result is that savings will be insufficient to help even to stabilise the present level of costs.
Although my right hon. Friend has said that we will concentrate on NATO, we are still prepared to shoulder a whole variety of commitments east of Suez. I refer to one in particular, namely, the commitment in Oman. British forces, whether seconded to the service of the Sultan of Oman or posted to British bases there, are engaged in operations to suppress the liberation movement in Dhofar. The Labour Party manifesto published in October 1974 said:
"We will continue to support the liberation movements of Southern Africa."
How, then, can we justify the suppression of liberation movements elsewhere? The argument is advanced that this particular liberation is supported from abroad and receives Soviet arms. Does not the same argument apply to some of the liberation movements in Africa? If the major objection is to intervention by external powers, do we view with equanimity the introduction of Iranian forces from across the Gulf into Oman?
I believe that we should seek to neutralise the area and initiate talks for the withdrawal of all foreign troops, including the British, from Oman. As long as we are prepared to continue to support that régime we can expect only that those who oppose it will seek reinforcements and armaments from abroad.
My right hon. Friend has said on numerous occasions that the purpose of defence is to defend democracy. What democracy, in any sense that we can understand, exists at present in Oman?
Mr. Churchill: What about South Yemen?
Mr. Newens: I agree that in many of those areas of the world there is no democracy and that we should be seeking to help in any way that we can to lead those people forward, but we shall not do it merely by supporting the most reactionary forces in those countries, as we did in the 1950s and 1960s in the case of the South Yemen, thus driving the people there into the arms of the Soviet Union.
Mr. George Younger: To clarify the mind of the House on this matter, will the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no democracy behind the Iron Curtain, and do his remarks apply there also?
Mr. Newens: I agree that the degree of democracy behind the Iron Curtain, as in many other parts of the world, is very unsatisfactory from our point of view. I am not prepared to justify everything that happens in the Soviet Union, in the United States, and in those countries which happen to be in the orbit of the United States round the world. I endeavour to judge those countries in an even-handed manner.
The decision to permit the expansion of the United States to the Indian Ocean, which we are at present countenancing by allowing Diego Garcia to be developed, is totally wrong. The majority of nations bordering the Indian Ocean wish demilitarisation to occur there, yet we permit the United States to build up on Diego Garcia as a base. It may be that this is some sort of quid pro quo for Simons-town, as David Wood suggested in The Times today, but I believe that it is part of a policy which the United States embarked upon even in the 1960s to establish a base in that area from which she would be free to send forces to any part of Southern Asia where she wished to preserve what she regards as stability.
I turn to the question of Soviet naval bases in that area. If previous British policies in Aden and South Yemen had not been entirely in support of the sheikhs and the forces of yesterday, we might have enjoyed much more sympathy in that area than we do today. We must ensure that British policy throughout the world is put in tune much more with the progressive movements that are not necessarily dependent on the Soviet Union and which

1187
are inevitably coming to light in all the under-developed countries.
At present, the major expenditure is occurring in Europe. As one who does not believe in British membership of NATO, I say that we cannot continue indefinitely to support the heavy burden in foreign exchange costs involved in the maintenance of forces in Germany. Every year for several decades Western Germany has received an inflow of funds against our outflow produced by Great Britain's accepting a burden of which western Germany is free. We all know that in recent years western Germany and Japan have achieved much higher rates of economic growth than we have. One of the reasons for that is the comparative freedom those countries have enjoyed, for many years, from the military burden which we have been prepared to shoulder.
We must recognise that we cannot go on with this burden indefinitely and that sooner or later we shall have to cut those forces back on economic grounds. Does it make sense to allow funds to be drained from this country while we have to go cap in hand to Saudi Arabia and Iran and ask them to keep their investments here so that we can somehow avoid economic collapse? That is not the sort of strength that the British people believe in. I believe that sooner or later there must be a change. I am anxious that we should press for its achievement rather than that things should be allowed to drift on as at present.
I accept the argument about the buildup of forces by the Warsaw Pact. I should say, in all fairness, that the figures reveal that most of the European members of the Warsaw Pact, except the GDR and the Soviet Union, spend a lower proportion of their GNP on defence than does Great Britain. The Russians spend considerably more. As far as possible we should seek to bring about the earliest possible withdrawal of all Soviet forces from eastern Europe—[HON. MEMBERS : "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear Conservative Members supporting that. I hope that they will be prepared to support what I say is the corollary. If we are to bring about that withdrawal we must work for the withdrawal of the forces which are at present deployed by the United States and by NATO in western
1188
Europe. We cannot expect anything to occur if we allow the present situation to continue.
I believe that many people in eastern Europe would welcome unilateral action by Britain. That would enable them to bring additional pressures to bear on the Soviet Union to withdraw its forces. Anyone who does not believe the desire of many people in eastern Europe to get rid of Soviet forces should examine the case of Romania.
Mr. Viggers: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the United States has ever perpetrated an act on any country in Europe comparable with the act that Russia perpetrated in Czechoslovakia?
Mr. Newens: I think that the United States has been guilty of perpetrating an act in Vietnam even worse than that which was perpetrated by the Soviet Union on the people in Czechoslovakia. The people of Vietnam are every bit as important, as individuals and human beings, as the people of Czechoslovakia. Therefore. I denounce both the United States and the USSR. I only wish that the same principles would apply amongst Conservative Members.
I believe that we must seek to achieve the withdrawal of all forces from western and eastern Europe to their own countries and the neutralisation of an area separating the Powers concerned. If we allow all the initiative to be taken at summit level we shall be accepting a position in which we have no independence of action ourselves. When we remember what occurred recently at Vladivostok we see that the situation is one in which the super-Powers are making all the decisions between themselves on the development of arms. The countries of western and eastern Europe are acting as though they were members or parts of mere spheres of interest. I believe that the present Government should be prepared to embark on real initiatives to help to bring about mutual force reductions on both sides.
We are now facing an economic crisis which is fraught with great political potential. When we consider the past of Northern Ireland—and Ireland as a whole —we see that the failure to take steps at an appropriate time merely stored up trouble for the present generation. It might be said that dragons' teeth were

1189
sown. In my opinion Britain and the world at large are sowing dragons' teeth. In Britain there are problems gathering momentum in housing, education and welfare. It is clear that we are breeding an even larger and more significant minority of young people who feel alienated from the society in which they are being brought up because they are being denied proper homes, proper education and proper services. We could provide those services if we were prepared to make more far-reaching defence cuts.
Unless we reverse the present tendency we shall be faced with a far greater problem in dealing with our own affairs than anything which threatens us from abroad. The world is going along the wrong road. It seems that we are concerned primarily with the problem of possible aggression and possible war occurring as a result of the Soviet Union's build-up of arms. The real problems of humanity which threaten chaos throughout the world are those of hunger, uncontrolled population explosion and our failure to deal with the demand for development which could provide decent conditions for everyone.
Generations to come will deplore the shortsightedness and the biased concentration by many men, including leading statesmen throughout the world, on military expenditure when we might have used the resources at our disposal to deal with the real problems that mankind is facing. The amendment which was not called sets forth many of the ideas which my hon. Friends and I feel should have come to the fore in the defence review. We are extremely disappointed that they have not. Let us make no mistake about it—the position in the country at large is that the people will not be prepared indefinitely to tolerate ever-increasing expenditure on military ends. Sooner or later this House will have to take note of that attitude and make the sort of cuts which we, below the Gangway, have been demanding for so long.
6.38 p.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on his maiden speech. It was a speech which was well thought out and articulate. On this occasion the hon. Gentleman had the benefit of not being interrupted. Anyone
1190
who blandly says in this House that his constituency is the most beautiful in the country will in future be interrupted on more than one occasion.
It is difficult to argue with the hon. Members for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and Harlow (Mr. Newens). They both take fundamentalist views, which I suspect are not capable of influence one way or the other. Essentially, they are not views with which I concur.
The hon. Member for Salford, East has a long and honourable record of supporting pacifism in his party and in the country. I do not condemn him for that, but I and my party do not believe that that is a realistic stance to take at present. Nor do I accept what was said by the hon. Member for Harlow, namely, that he sought to judge the United States and the USSR in an even-handed manner. I do not accept that that is posible. One is a great and massive dictatorship and the other is an incompetent kind of democracy which—I do not dispute this —has perpetrated bad things in parts of the world. But it is an open society. One thing that Watergate has demonstrated clearly and beyond per-adventure is that it is an open society. That would never happen in the USSR. Therefore, I do not think that we should talk about "We in eastern and western Europe", as the hon. Member for Harlow did.
I accept entirely that all of us in the developed countries, whether East or West, spend far too few of our resources on dealing with the problems of the world's hunger and over-population and the other problems that the hon. Member for Harlow rightly emphasised. But it is important to the House and to the country that we stand for freedom and liberty, and that we oppose the kind of brutality and oppression that—let there be no mistake about it—have occurred and are occurring in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its satellites.
Because of the pressure of time, I shall confine myself to four or five observations. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) rightly asked what was the basis of the review. It appears to be based purely on bringing our ratio of GNP to expenditure on defence into line with that of our NATO allies. The right hon. Member quoted the per capita figures to indicate that

1191
although our GNP is, pro rata, less than that of Germany and the Netherlands, it could be fairly argued that our expenditure on defence per head of the population—which is as good a standard measure as any—is less than that of our main allies. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) smiles, but I assure him that that is so.
The per head expenditure on defence in Britain is $155 and the corresponding figures for France and Germany are even higher while in neutral Sweden it rises to $211.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: I had not intended to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman has almost invited me to do so. Does he regard GNP as an artificial measurement of the industrial and economic activities of the countries concerned? If it is not artificial, but relatively accurate, does he not accept it as a reasonable measurement of the relative amounts that we can afford to spend on defence?
Mr. Johnston: All I am saying is that both measures are dubious. Certainly our GNP now and in the 1980s may be entirely different. That equally goes for per capita expenditure. What I am saying is that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence has made that the total basis of his defence review, and that seems to be objectionable on economic as well as defence grounds.
There is plainly not the time to deal with each Service in turn, and I should like to take as an example the manpower reductions in the Army. The Army is to be reduced by about 12,000 men. As the right hon. Member for Worcester demonstrated by quotations from Written Answers, it is still unclear where and when the cuts will fall, as presumably they will. On what basis is this reduction to be made? For example, is it on the basis that there is to be a political solution in Northern Ireland? I should have thought that a very germane consideration when considering the size of the Army was one's prognostication of that situation, which is tying up a large part of our forces, and I should like Ministers to give us some idea of their views in that respect—because, let us face it, the situation there could get worse and we might have to commit even more men to it.
1192
Secondly, there is the Soviet threat, on which the hon. Member for Harlow expostulated. Is that now regarded as a weakening threat? The most serious criticism of the defence review, either in the House or outside, is that the northern flank of NATO is being weakened, because the British contribution is to be reduced. One is entitled to ask whether, despite the figures showing that the Russians are producing more submarines, more aircraft and more tanks, we are right to reduce our commitment to NATO, particularly on what may be one of the most exposed parts of the NATO line of confrontation.
On that subject, I also mention the European concept of our defence system. The Liberal Party goes along with the Labour Party view that we must recognise that we can no longer police the world. That, we all have to accept, as we Liberals have accepted it for many years, but I should have thought that the fact that the Government were in the middle of negotiations about our position within the European Community would have some effect on their thinking about our relationships within NATO and towards our European allies.
Standardisation of equipment has so far been too little emphasised. It seems to be the only sensible way, in the long term, to reduce defence expenditure without reducing effectiveness, yet the subject has hardly been mentioned. The Secretary of State said rather more about it today, and listed what we had done already. One hon. Member referred to the cuts in research and development, reputed to be about 10 per cent. Why should we not talk in terms of R and D on a NATO basis, or at least look forward to it, for that would save money without reducing the effectiveness of the R and D in question?
The Government have been reorientating the basis of our defence posture towards Europe, but many people within the Armed Forces themselves still appear to have their thinking oriented towards previous roles. I doubt whether there are more Europeans in the staff colleges now than there were in the 1950s.
I come, thirdly, to the subject of the North Sea. When the statement on the defence review was made, the Secretary of State indicated that a further survey was

1193
being undertaken, but I should have thought that to consider his review adequately we needed a better indication of his attitude on the subject. This is not just a matter of a Soviet threat to the oil installations. Because of their exposed position, the installations are open to sabotage of various kinds. We seem to lack naval vessels of the kind that would be able effectively to protect the installations from such attacks. If they were suddenly subjected to a sabotage attack, there would immediately be a tremendous upheaval, and attempts would be made to improve the situation, but the thing to do is to make that improvement before the attack occurs.
My fourth subject is Polaris. Its future is unclear. I recall the test in the United States, made, I suspect, rather contrary to the holy writ of the Labour Party manifesto. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that Polaris would go on its merry way for 10 years, but we ought to have a clear statement about its future. The Liberal Party has not advocated scrapping Polaris now, but we certainly do not advocate improving it and moving to the next generation, because that would be beyond the country's economic capacity. I should like some indication of what the Minister regards as the period of time after which Polaris will become obsolescent, and what the attitude will be towards that weapon and to the submarines which operate it.
I accept the logic of the withdrawal east of Suez. Despite what the right hon. Member for Worcester said, it is highly debatable whether Simonstown genuinely occupies an important strategic position for this country. Certainly we can no longer for any length of time continue to maintain commitments so far away from our own shores.
I should like to know whether the Government visualise a future commitment to any United Nations peacekeeping forces and whether that is a factor which may have influenced the Government's attitude, for example, towards making available the paratroopers and mobile forces generally.
Reference has been made to consultations within NATO.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Before the hon. Member leaves
1194
his point concerning the defence of overseas trade routes, will he say whether it is the policy of the Liberal Party—the great apostles of free trade everywhere— to take no heed whatever of the way in which it should be defended as it passes overseas?
Mr. Johnston: Obviously, no. It would be a foolish apostle who paid no heed to how anything is defended. I said that I thought the view was held by many people that the threat to the South African coast route is not a real one in the event of a medium-term conflict, which we were speaking about. A full-scale conflict would imply a completely different situation, in which, basically, our defence mechanisms would have failed to prevent the war which we would all wish to prevent.
The Opposition amendment suggests that this review imperils the security of the country. That is not a view which we accept. We consider that there are elements which give us cause for concern, but we would find the general direction of the review acceptable.
6.55 p.m.
Mr. James Boyden: The criticism of the Liberal Party spokesman of the Secretary of State's views and actions on the standardisation of weapons is somewhat naïve. The Secretary of State said he was engaged in negotiations with the United States on this matter, and no one can be in a stronger position to do so than the Chairman of the Euro-group.
The United States is well entrenched in the provision of arms to Europe. I am sure that the Secretary of State is right to tackle the problem in the way he has described. I congratulate him on the proposals he has put forward. Considerable economies have been made, and there will be a considerable reduction in the number of people employed.
I regard the civilised treatment of public servants as an essential requirement of a Socialist. The fact that they are soldiers, airmen or people who make tanks does not make them any less qualified to receive careful and humane treatment when they are made redundant.
I was very glad to hear the Secretary of State stress particularly that he plans

1195
to cause the minimum hardship to Service men and people employed in ordnance factories. I would have welcomed a little more information concerning the improvements in the process of the resettlement of Service men when redundancies arise.
Reference was made to the need to provide houses for Service families when Service men leave the Armed Forces. I think that a strong circular should be sent by the Secretary of State for the Environment to local authorities and to the new town corporations asking them to pay special attention to Service men and their families. I speak with considerable experience of the worries of Army men and their families when they come to the end of their engagements and seek new jobs. Not only do they experience difficulty in finding jobs; they experience problems in regard to the education of their children. Most of these ex-Service people are still fairly young, and their children need to continue their education. These people need houses. They experience difficulties in acquiring furniture and other basic goods, apart from the loss of jobs. When this problem arises fairly suddenly or unexpectedly, in the way it will happen now, it will need special attention.
I therefore put it to the Minister that the resettlement courses for ex-Service people need strengthening and improving. Much more thought needs to be given to the equivalence of Service qualifications with those in industry. I know that the trade unions are very good. They accept many trades carried out in the Services as being basically equivalent to those of industry, but greater thought needs to be given to this because there are still anomalies and areas where a Service man with a reasonable qualification is not acceptable in industry. Would the Secretary of State apply his mind to teaching more skills, which would be useful to industry, to the general duties Service men employed in the Air Force, the infantry and the Army, for such people probably have the greatest difficulty in finding employment. I would suspect that the axe falling on the Army will affect the infantry as much as any other body.
I ask very seriously that there should be an increase in the amount of money spent
1196
on the resettlement of Service people who will no longer be needed because of the cuts.
If I could make a suggestion as to where to find money for that purpose, this will only be in the way of saving candle ends but it might help. This is the moment for Ministers to direct Chiefs of Staff to make economies in ceremonies and martial music. I have always felt that there were too many military bands. I have also felt that there were too many central schools of music. From my experience on the Expenditure Committee I discovered that there was such training not for three Services but for four. The Royal Marines had their own ideas of training as well as the three other Services. I have a distinct impression that there are four central schools of music.
Mr. Brotherton: The Royal Navy has no central school of music.
Mr. Boyden: I am very glad to hear that, since it means no doubt that the Royal Marines and the Navy have one school of music between them. There could be a serious argument, since I have made a point concerning the Army, in favour of establishing Kneller Hall as the central school for the Ministry of Defence.
In all senses a further review of the position of Service bands should be undertaken. Economies could be effected there.
I make the same point concerning ceremonial. The Service chiefs will find themselves in a somewhat weak position to make their own economies. They need to experience pressure from Ministers. They are very conscious of the need to maintain morale. They perhaps exaggerate the role played by bands and ceremonial in maintaining morale. Morale is a very subjective matter. I hope that pressure will be applied by Ministers to ensure that serious economies are made. I can suggest some. I have always thought that the Royal Air Force Queen's Colour Squadron was superfluous. I know that the reason for it is that station commanders do not like using their ordinary men for ceremony and display and much prefer to have people trained entirely for the purpose. But it is arguable at least that it might be better to have people on stations taking part in ceremony than people who are not connected with those stations.

1197
As regards the Army, I venture high heresy in that possibly the Royal Horse Artillery Troop in Regent's Park might be dispensed with, and I shall commit high treason by suggesting that the Guards regiments might spend less time on ceremony. Bringing matters down to an operational level, I am sure that the protection of the Sovereign and of London by the Guards is not as effective as the police protection which is given. There could be effective economies in horses, men and operational efficiency in reconsidering this kind of ceremony and tradition, which is ingrained in the Army.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not asking us to believe that he, as an ex-Army Minister, feels that the Guards are used purely for ceremonial duties. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not throwing cold water on the fighting ability of the Guards when it comes to a showdown.
Mr. Boyden: Of course not. It is one of the keys to the success of their ceremonials. I agree that they are amongst the best fighting regiments that there are. But I suggest that they could be relieved of many ceremonial duties with some economy and possibly an increase in their operational efficiency. I may also say to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) that perhaps the Navy could fire fewer guns in South Africa.
I put this forward as a serious point. It will save only candle ends—it will not save the economy in the way suggested by one of my hon. Friends—but it would have a useful by-product in that it would concentrate the minds of the Services on getting greater military efficiency from their organisations.
At meetings of the WEU and other international bodies which I have attended, I have found that Conservatives generally always push to one side in any consideration of defence any thought of what the Warsaw Pact countries might think of what they are saying about detente and balanced force reductions. My right hon. Friend is right to concentrate on NATO and to regard it as a key bargaining power in terms of force reductions. In a debate of this description, it is essential to continue steadily, as the present Government are doing, to
1198
press in NATO and with the Americans for continuous and better negotiations with the Warsaw Pact for force reductions.
For years in this House I have heard no references made to the Geneva disarmament conference. The Conservative Party tends to write it off. In the past four or five years, it has had some successes as regards chemical warfare, and it may have others in other areas. The very fact that the Geneva conference is in session and is attended by the representatives of a great many nations helps towards ultimate success in achieving balanced force reductions.
Mr. Peter Walker: But if we want to make progress in these negotiations, it is more likely to come if we do not announce reductions unilaterally.
Mr. Boyden: My right hon. Friend has announced slight reductions in NATO, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman that two of my colleagues have attacked him for them. But NATO remains the absolute linchpin of Government policy, and this is a clear and sound argument in relation to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. In any consideration of reductions in defence expenditure there must be reference to continuous negotiations.
There is one other matter to which I hope my right hon. Friend will direct his mind. He referred to it in passing, as did an Opposition Member. It is the need to look carefully at our reserves in the TAVR. I want especially to refer to the medical branch. The Defence Committee, dealing with medical services, is very disappointed about the time that the Services and the Ministry of Defence have taken to implement the Jarrett Report. It was published some time ago. Progress in rationalising the hospital service for the Services and in making changes in medical training and the training of nurses has been going far too slowly.
I throw into this pool the need to consider the position of doctors on the Reserve and the need to widen the reserve of doctors for BAOR. It is a serious weakness in our Services in NATO that we are short of doctors and that we do not have a sufficient reserve of medical staff. In my days in the Ministry of Defence, bandsmen were remustered as partial medical assistants, but that was

1199
not quite enough. Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend to look into the state of our medical services since they are so vital for the morale of Service people and for NATO.
Considerable economies are being made. There will be considerable redundancies. The fact that my right hon. Friend is proposing to take this gradually and carefully is a tribute to the defence review and not a criticism of it.
7.6 p.m.
Mr. David Walder: Taking up one point made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), perhaps I may quote Kipling. Part of the hon. Gentleman's discourse was devoted to the principle,
"'Thank you, Mr. Atkins,' when the band begins to play."
I agree, and I do not cross swords with much of the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
It is a pity that, rather like the captains and the kings, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) has left us. In my innocence and simplicity, I had thought that those hon. Members who favoured his amendment, rather in the terms of that excellent book, "1066 and All That", had hitherto thought of the USSR and its position in eastern Europe as a good thing. However, I was surprised to discover that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do not think that. In my view, therefore, any basis for their argument disappears, and what they say is completely without validity. I am mystified. For that reason, I shall deal not with the band but with Mr. Atkins.
Whenever we discuss defence in this House, there is disagreement between the Conservative and Labour Parties. In a previous defence debate, I can remember the Minister of State saying, with obvious sincerity, that in the heart of every Socialist there was a pacifist. I feel that that is something of a luxury, because pacifists enjoy a society which is preserved and defended by men and women who are not pacifists.
I accept that a nation has to gear its defence expenditure to the state of its own economy and to what it can bear, especially in a democracy. However, I
1200
am sure that Mr. Brezhnev's reported aside to the French that one in three roubles is spent on defence is not one which we would think either desirable or possible in the Western world. I accept also that a nation can be destroyed economically as well as militarily.
Throughout the two debates on defence and the defence review, so far, the Secretary of State has banged away at the theme that NATO is the linchpin of our defence posture. I agree with that. I sometimes wonder how some Labour Members regard that. I sometimes get the impression that they do not take the view that we and the Secretary of State take—that NATO is essentially a defensive alliance. They do not seem to share our occasional puzzlement over attempts to make the NATO organisation and the Warsaw Pact appear equal when NATO's actions throughout have been defensive. With the Warsaw Pact we have seen the situation in Czechoslovakia and in Hungary. We notice how the Soviet Union is immediately alerted when there is a crisis in the Middle East, if there are NATO exercises in the North Sea, or if there seems to be a crisis of some sort brewing in the Mediterranean.
Can we really think that this interest displayed by the Soviets is for peaceful purposes—for purposes beneficial to ourselves in the West, or ourselves in this country? I would hardly have thought so. One would have to be very innocent to believe that.
I can see that it is militarily logical to maintain the Western alliance but I would have thought it rather naive to argue that by reducing the capability on the two flanks of NATO we thus increase the capability on the central front. That, as I understand it, is the Secretary of State's argument. There is also an overall reduction in manpower. Disarmament and detente are in the air. But detente will be achieved only by tough, close bargaining. To begin that bargaining by throwing away a principal card, face upwards, without any compensatory advantage is, to my mind, foolishness. We are unilaterally reducing our defence potential, not on military grounds but on monetary grounds.
So much for NATO. Logically and militarily it is possible to make a case for reducing our global commitments. The

1201
Secretary of State talked about our giving up the Imperial role. That was given up many years ago. It is curious that although the right hon. Gentleman talks in those terms he has not done that. There are still forces seemingly to be distributed over the globe in penny packets. RAF Transport Command will be halved. I do not know how we shall communicate with the penny packets, or how we shall ever reinforce them. It seems almost impossible.
Not only does the Secretary of State propose to reduce the possibility of reinforcement but at the same time he is to reduce the credibility of the forces on the ground, unless we imagine him running round, possibly at night, trying to arrange in an emergency, to fix up transport with the charter airlines. There is a case for cutting global commitments, and in those circumstances we have to make up our minds what sort of war we are likely to wage. The catch is that this is not always within our power or choice.
How many Members of this House 10 years ago would have predicted the current situation in Northern Ireland? Yet by this review we are cutting the Army by 12,000 men—the equivalent of two brigades or 10 major units. This must inevitably mean that our Army is overstretched, even beyond its present tasks. It must mean more tours for regiments and units in Ireland. I was in Ireland just before the election. I saw deployed there an infantry regiment, a Sapper regiment acting as infantry and a Gunner regiment acting as infantry. If we take 10 major units out of the Army List we shall inevitably exacerbate that sort of situation.
We reduce numbers overall by this defence review. Inevitably, mobility will become difficult and reinforcement unlikely. We are told that there will be consultation with our allies. I would be expressing the view held on the Conservative benches if I said that we are still uneasy. What is this consultation to be? Will it really be argument with our Allies and consultation with them? Will we know their views? Will we have any indication that all the 13 nations in NATO agree, or are they to be presented with a fait accompli and are we to get the results returned to us as the Secretary of State has sketched out in his review?
1202
If it is not to be meaningful consultation with our allies it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman were honest with us and did not go through such bogus manoeuvres.
We all know NATO's faults. One is a lack of standardisation. Another has been pointed out in recent weeks by Sir Peter Hill-Norton. We know the defects of NATO. We know that militarily NATO forces look less credible and less effective than Warsaw Pact forces. They lack the cohesion of the Soviet forces. Yet within NATO we, the British, are regarded as the professionals, the trained experts with an all-Regular force. That primacy is bought at a price. It is bought at the price of active Service experience, sometimes in other parts of the globe but also in Northern Ireland.
It is also bought at a financial price. All-Regular forces are more expensive than conscript forces. Sometimes our European allies expect too much. Sometimes there is a suggestion that the British should continue to garrison various parts of the world, such as the Far East and the Middle East. I have heard this suggestion from German and French politicians who, putting it in a simple way, say that we should stay in the Middle East to help preserve the supplies of oil to Europe. That may be well and good. I have sometimes suggested that Europeans, too, should take an interest. I have never received any takers for that.
A great deal of the cost of our forces is taken up in pay and accommodation. Those Labour Members who support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Harlow seem entirely to have left the Chamber, so I cannot address them. I am always intrigued by the arguments which try to show that most defence expenditure is upon equipment and the like. The mass of it is on pay and accommodation. Kipling once talked about
"single men in barricks, most remarkable like you."
The trouble is that they are no longer single. There are more women and children in BAOR and RAF Germany than there are Service men. Our most modern comprehensive school for British children is in Cyprus. If money is their sole consideration, those who wish to see Polaris submarines and the like disappear

1203
—the Left wing of the Labour Party— might do better to concentrate their attention on the many schoolteachers, social workers and NAAFI managers who are involved.
No one, certainly among the Labour Party, would advocate a conscript service even if it could be done on the cheap. No one would suggest that the British Service man should not enjoy the same facilities as his brother in industry. We must recognise that to provide Regular forces with all that they and their wives and families expect today is a costly process and is likely to become more so.
I have already suggested that our forces, with the proposed manpower reductions, are bound to be over-strained. There will be fewer facilities for training abroad. There will be fewer inducements for young men and women to go into the forces. There will be less travel and less adventure training. The promotion triangle, whether for officers or men, will be more acute. The career prospects will be dimmed. No parent, looking at the present defence review, would say to a son or daughter, "There is a marvellous career for you". The Secretary of State has said that the Government will embark on a great recruiting drive next year. Speech fails me. What a wonderful time to choose!
All those factors are relevant to providing Regular forces. A heavier burden will be placed on the shoulders of Service men and, perhaps more important, on their families. At the same time, the credibility of our forces will be reduced. It is vital that it should be preserved to deter potential enemies, and it is very important internally. The Service man has his pride. It is important that he should think that the forces are credible, important and worth while.
If we are to believe all that we are told, the Secretary of State—I never doubt his patriotism—has fought a battle with his Cabinet colleagues over this review and undoubtedly with the Left wing of his party. I do not think that the review contains much military logic. On the basis of the appearance of short monetary gains, and sometimes not even that, a curious situation has been produced. I know that the South Africans and probably the Sultan of Bahrein
1204
occupy a position in what I might call the demonology of the Labour Party. They remain there. But in the same breath the Saudi Arabians seem to have gone into its hagiology. This I find difficult to reconcile. However, I give the Secretary of State credit. He has fought a battle. Sadly, I think that he has lost it, but, I still hope, not irretrievably.
7.23 p.m.
Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: May I first establish my credentials in the only way which is apparently acceptable to the Opposition. I was recently criticised personally in the Soviet Press —not, it is true, in Pravda, but in lsvestia. Therefore, although hon. Members opposite may disagree with some of the things that I say, I hope that they will not impugn my motives in the unfortunate manner in which the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) dealt with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens).
I wish to make two points. The first concerns the question of the Indian Ocean on which the Opposition give vent to much sound and fury. The essence of the argument as stated by the right hon. Member for Worcester when commenting on my right hon. Friend's far-reaching and generally praiseworthy review 10 days ago was that 2,000 British ships use the Cape Route every year, that 1 million tons of oil pass over that route each day, and that in the last two years Soviet naval strength has quadrupled in the area.
Let me deal first with the question of the ships round the Cape. There is a problem here. A constituent of mine, a sailor, has written to me about how his ship has often been followed by Soviet naval vessels—an unpleasant nuisance, certainly, but is it much more than that? If we have not been able to prevent it in the past, as clearly we have not, I cannot see what difference maintaining a naval presence in that area will make in future. Besides, Soviet ships constantly monitor and follow our NATO task forces when they are engaged in manoeuvres, and there is nothing we can do about it.
The difficulty about the Opposition's stand on the Indian Ocean issue is that two facts, the number of British trading vessels rounding the Cape, and the size

1205
of the Russian fleet, are juxtaposed in a menacing way without any clear indication of precisely what scenario is feared. I am glad that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) mentioned the need to anticipate what form a conflict might take. I should like briefly to anticipate one or two possible scenarios which may be in the hon. Gentleman's mind.
Are the Soviet vessels going to halt British commerce in time of peace? I suggest not. There has been only one serious blockade of that type since the war, when the Americans prevented Soviet ships from carrying rockets into Cuba. It was done only because the United States felt that there was a grave threat to United States security—something which the Russians are hardly likely to feel about British commercial vessels rounding the Cape.
Might the Soviet Navy try to cut oft British and Western European oil supplies to bring Europe to its knees? Does anyone seriously believe that if the Soviet Union were going to risk a worldwide conflagration—that is precisely what such a move would entail—it would adopt a course of action which would alert the West, give us time to co-ordinate our strategy and lose Moscow any hope of surprise in the vital area, central Europe?
What about war time? I cannot believe that there are many hon. Members who think that a third world war would repeat the patterns of the First and Second World Wars, long-drawn-out struggles in which the preservation of open sea lanes for years on end was a strategic necessity. Most hon. Members would admit that the likelihood is that a third world war would in practice last less time than it takes an oil tanker to get from the Persian Gulf to a British port.
Mr. Patrick Wall: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why oil must come to this country round the Cape? It has to be defended somehow. Why is the Soviet Union spending so much money on its navy when it is already probably the biggest nuclear Power in the world? If it is in a position to blackmail the West by saying "Unless you do as we say we shall stop your submarines", that is all it wants. Is not that the reason behind its immense expenditure on naval arms?
Mr. MacFarquhar: I have answered that in part by suggesting that the Soviet Union would be unlikely to be so silly as to attempt that kind of confrontation, because then, in the central sphere, the NATO area, we would be alerted and it would fear a response there. I shall return to that point later.
For the sake of argument—the Opposition's argument—let us consider that most vital cargo which comes round the Cape, oil. The right hon. Member for Worcester mentioned 10 days ago that it amounted to 1 million tons a day, and that is 365 million tons a year. Of course, not all of it goes to the United Kingdom. In 1973, we imported over 82 million tons from Iran and the Middle East. The other 280 million tons went elsewhere, including 54½ million tons for Germany and 92 million tons for France. Clearly both countries, as well as other smaller European countries which I have not mentioned, are heavily dependent on oil supplies from round the Cape. What naval precautions do they take to protect those supplies?
The latest edition of the military balance issued by the Institute for Strategic Studies shows that while the United Kingdom boasts 74 major surface combat vessels and 30 non-strategic submarines— that is, submarines not connected with the nuclear deterrent—France has only 49 major surface combat vessels and 19 ordinary submarines, and Germany has 22 surface vessels and 13 coastal submarines. France maintains an Indian Ocean presence, but not even the most Gaullist admiral could claim that it would do much to protect French shipping in war time, while the Germans plainly maintain a basically coastal fleet for Baltic purposes. Does anyone in the Bundestag, on the Right, on the Left or in the Centre, thunder about the need to build a new high seas fleet to protect those vital German oil supplies? Of course not.
If that is because Germany and other European allies believe that we, the British, can stand guard for them and that a British naval presence is desirable in the Indian Ocean area, it is about time that this should be accepted as a European responsibility and not just a British responsibility, and we should be subsidised for performing this role when their stake is as great as ours.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am very grateful—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the third time that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) has interrupted in an hour. It is rather unfair on other hon. Members who wish to speak.
Mr. MacFarquhar: I had better get on with it.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there a limitation on interventions in a debate?
Mr. Speaker: It is just a question of selfishness, and whether another hon. Member will be unable to get in to make his speech.
Mr. MacFarquhar: I do not believe that that is the reason for the absence of other European fleets from the Indian Ocean. The real reason is that the other ex-imperial Powers have given up their memories of grandeur more expeditiously than we have. They have translated the concept of being purely European Powers into practical terms. The sooner we do the same the better, and I applaud my right hon. Friend's decision to complete the withdrawal from east of Suez. If the Russians and Americans wish to play at super-Power politics by showing the flag in the Indian Ocean, let them incur the expense and the odium of the littoral Powers for so doing. I only ask my right hon. Friend whether he has any intention of continuing to show the flag in the Indian Ocean and, if so, in what strength, how often and, most importantly, why?
My second, briefer, point has to do with the nature of the manpower cuts. My right hon. Friend will doubtless remember that the scientific basis for Parkinson's Law lay in naval statistics for the first quarter of this century, which proved that while ships declined in number Admiralty and dockyard officials increased enormously in number. I trust that my right hon. Friend is aware that in the period of office of his Conservative predecessor there was an alarming variation of this law. Between 1970–71 and 1973–74 the number of Service personnel in the Royal Navy declined by 18 per cent. but, while the staff of the Whitehall headquarters of the Ministry of Defence declined too, it declined only by half as
1208
much, 9 per cent. I should like to know the reason for that.
Even more disturbing is another statistic. According to the Economist of 7th December Britain currently has one general or his equivalent for only 545 Service men. The comparative figures are, for Germany, one per 1,800, France, one per 1,400, and the United States, one per 2,000.
When I looked into the Army figures over a period I was even more disturbed. At the end of 1964 Britain employed one general to 393 other ranks, that is about half a battalion. By September 1974 the figure had improved marginally to one general to 403 other ranks. Those figures are for brigadiers and above. The figures for major-generals and above are somewhat more reassuring, but going the wrong way. It is the earlier comparative statistics that are dismaying.
We hear a great deal about the professionalism of our all volunteer Army and I am sure that that is, by and large, true, but comparative statistics of this type have a somewhat Ruritanian flavour. Will my right hon. Friend explain why we need so many generals, relatively speaking, as compared with our closest allies? Will he tell the House what measures he will be taking in reshaping our Armed Forces to ensure that they truly resemble the British bulldog—lots of teeth and little tail?
7.33 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am glad that the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) raised the question of manpower. I approach it in a rather more serious way than perhaps he did. What the House and our allies have to realise is that eventually the strength of the country and its armed forces is largely judged by the number of reserve troops and the number of men who can actualy be put in the field.
Both Government and Opposition over the last few years have witnessed a dangerous decline in the amount of military—by which I mean Army—manpower that is available. The right hon. Gentleman announced a cut in military manpower which, if taken with the cut in the Commandos and the Royal Air Force Regiment means that about 15,000 men are being cut out of the front line, although we have a civil war in Ireland

1209
and a large number of commitments outside Europe.
Even more alarming, reserve manpower has fallen from June of last year by 75 per cent. with the ending of the Army General Reserve. The main problem in any military planning is facing the unknown and totally unexpected events which occur. Northern Ireland is one such event. The Korean war, our involvement in Malaya and our involvement in Africa are three other recent examples.
Within the last 18 months, whether it be the fault of the Government or of events, the reserve forces available on the ground have fallen from about 360,000 to fewer than 100,000 men. That is an alarming figure. Dr. Luns is reported today as being somewhat distressed by the Government's review. That must have been one of the figures which he took into consideration.
May I explain how the other European countries stand with reserve forces? I am referring not to air reserve forces but military, on the ground, reserve forces. France has 450,000 reservists available— in a week ; Germany has 450,000 reservists ; Bulgaria has 250,000, although the less reliable members of the Eastern bloc are allowed fewer, and Hungary has only 40,000. This country now has fewer than 100,000 men able to come forward. If one looks at commitments outside Europe, Europe has far larger standing armies than we have. I consider that the question of the reserves and what can be done about them is alarming.
I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say this afternoon that he was to have a recruiting drive for the TAVR. There are only two reserves in existence today. First, there is the Regular Army Reserve, which is under 60,000, of which only section A is of immediate use. The number in section A can be worked out roughly by dividing the Regular Army Reserve by three, which gives 20,000. Secondly, there is the Territorial Army, whose strength has fallen by about 10,000 since 1972. Those are the reserves available to meet every sort of condition outlined, whether it be from the Left or the Right, with world conditions becoming more turbulent and more dangerous every day. That is the
1210
most serious problem with which our Armed Forces are faced.
I hope that the Minister who is to reply will tell us about the size of the age groupings of the Regular Army Reserve. When we had a three-year term of service, which is now becoming unfashionable, the age of the Regular Army Reserve was comparatively low. I suspect that now, with a longer term of service, the age of the Regular Army Reserve has become very much higher.
We have this fixed number of regular reservists which will decrease because the size of the Armed Forces will decrease. It will be a diminishing entity. We are left with the only other form of reserve available to the country, which is the TAVR—the Territorial Army. It is regarding this that I would like to make various suggestions.
I say to the whole House, to hon. Members on both sides, that we shall be judged by the number of reserve soldiers we can put in the field. Unless we can show an infinitely greater number than we have today, this House will be faced with the re-introduction of conscription in the not far distant future. That is an ugly thought, and is probably not acceptable to either Front Bench. A catastrophic fall has inevitably followed from the ending of conscription, at the time of which the Army General Reserve average age must have been about 37. We are faced with the fact that we have not at the moment anything like a sufficiency of soldiers to put on the ground, to protect various interests to which we are committed, and to deal with problems here at home. Therefore, so far as the Territorial Army is concerned, we must look at this much more seriously than merely thinking in terms of a recruiting drive.
In 1967, when the last major reform of the Territorial Army was carried out, its recruited strength was 115,000. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer then reduced the strength of the establishment to 55,000. Two years ago a Conservative Secretary of State for Defence pushed it up again to 65,000. Overall the strength of the force is 74,000, including various people who do the training of cadet battalions, and so forth. Of this figure of 74,000, about 54,000 are recruited.

1211
The first step towards trying to build up a proper reserve in this country must be to bring the TA up to establishment. To bring the figure up from 54,000 to 74,000—or whatever the precise figure may be—will take a lot of doing, and three things are essential in this respect. First, there needs to be a statement not only by the Secretary of State but also perhaps by the Prime Minister, and by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in which they can make clear how important they believe the TA to be. There is undoubtedly a collapse of morale. I had to reorganise the TA back in 1960. It has had too many reorganisations. The TA wants to be put put on a firm basis, and to be told more precisely what its role is. That is of vital importance.
Secondly, there is the importance of increasing the bounty. It has remained without any improvement since 1957, and must be increased. These men give up a lot. They have a fortnight in camp, and undertake a large number of drills throughout the year.
Beyond that, the next stage, once recruiting has been achieved, is that the powers-that-be must seriously consider a considerable increase in the strength and size of the Territorial Army above the present figure of 74,000. When a former Labour Secretary of State reduced the size of the Territorial Army he also reduced the number of drill halls. Out of a total of 1,200, 800 were disposed of. In addition, a considerable number of specialist battalions — the docker battalion, the transport battalion and the railway battalion—were largely cut. Recruitment of a sufficiency of reserve forces must depend on going to where the men are available. This is in the rural areas, where the drill halls are gone, and in the industrial areas, where there has been a diminution of what are now called, I think, the sponsored forces. A considerable increase could be made in this.
I turn finally to finance. The Secretary of State is keen to save money. We must accept that as expenditure on new weapons goes up by a geometrical rate, we shall probably be able to afford fewer. But we must be prepared to see that we are protected by a sufficiency of armed men. That, at the end of the
1212
day, is what matters. There is an example on costings that we can consider here. As hon. Members will know, on mobilisation one-third of BAOR consists of TAVR reinforcements. That is a pretty alarming thought, but that is how BAOR is brought up to strength, and the cost of the TAVR contribution of one third is 4 per cent. of the Army budget.
If hon. Gentlemen wish to see the defence of this country undertaken not at immense expense but on the cheap they should note my belief that we have a great chance to build up this force so that we have a proper reserve. In this respect we are unlike European countries, with their enormous reserves, and unlike Israel, which can mobilise 275,000 men within 30 hours. We have a reserve of 100,000 men, and yet we have civil war in one of our main provinces. Not a single country in Europe has this sort of trouble. Nor do those countries have commitments outside Europe, but we have commitments in Oman, Singapore and the Far East, and we also have potential commitments. It is no good hon. Members opposite shaking their heads. Hon. Gentlemen on the Government side talk of their responsibility to decide the fate of Rhodesia. It is no good saying that we have not a responsibility. We have a responsibility, yet we have behind us at the moment 100,000 reserve soldiers, and this is not nearly good enough.
Perhaps both Front Benches have not paid enough attention to this point. Now is the time, before it is too late, to recruit and build up a citizen force, within the framework of the British Army.
The Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Before I call the next hon. Member, I draw attention to the fact, as Mr. Speaker has probably done, that there is a lengthy list of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. The number now stands at 23. I am sure that hon. Members can work out for themselves the best method for the Chair to be able to call as many hon. Members as possible.
7.49 p.m.
Mr. Alec Woodall: I promise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall be as brief as possible.
I have spent most of my life in a Yorkshire mining community, and so in

1213
contributing to the debate I cannot follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser). Nor do I speak from close study of high strategy or from a detailed technical knowledge of the modern weapons of war. As the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) can confirm, I was his platoon corporal in the last war, in 1940, when it was my job to instruct him in the use of the infantry weapons of that time— the Bren gun, the rifle and bayonet, and the grenade. They were hardly sophisticated weapons by today's standards, judging from the literature produced in the recruitment campaign.
I welcome the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, both on 3rd December and as further outlined today. He had a difficult task. He could not please everyone, and indeed, he appears to have pleased very-few, but I think that he has got it about right.
As a trade unionist, and now as a Member of Parliament, I value the freedoms that we all take for granted—the right to organise, the freedom of speech, the right to strike. I was a miner on strike last February. Those are precious things that people in many parts of the world do not have. They are worth fighting for, even if we go down fighting.
Some of my hon. Friends are pacifists. I wholly respect their views. After my experiences in the last war I, like many thousands, was hopeful that never again would the world see arms taken up, but my experience in life suggests that we cannot expect our enemy to lay down his arms just because we have done so. The Labour movement, to which I belong, believes in disarmament, but of a multilateral kind. We support the United Nations, just as years ago we supported the League of Nations, but till all the major countries of the world are prepared to join in the ending of the arms race we must be prepared to defend ourselves and our freedoms.
That is why I am worried about those who believe that we can save on defence larger and larger sums, without considering the consequences. I do not believe that there will be a war tomorrow, but I believe that to reduce our defences
1214
beyond a certain point could provoke those who would like ultimately to destroy our freedom to argue in the way that we are arguing now.
During the past 10 months we have had two General Elections in which we pledged to cut arms expenditure to a figure somewhere in line with that of our European partners. We have worked out how to do it, and now we shall honour that pledge. Having grown up in a mining community, I am fully aware of the economic and social needs of ray constituents. Unless we can solve the balance of payments problem and check inflation their standards of living will suffer. In addition, we need more money for homes, schools and hospitals.
If we do not improve standards of living our people will become disillusioned, just as some of my constituents were disillusioned during the 1960s because of pit closures and their effects. In the end our system, which has been stable, could collapse. If we are concerned only with defending ourselves against the external enemy we could betray the hopes and aspirations of those we are defending. That is why it is a matter of judgment how much we can cut defence spending. It is a matter of fact that we could realistically make savings only in projects which we inherited. The cost of cancellations could be astronomic and the unemployment prospects devastating. This is why I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has struck the right balance in a very satisfactory way. I hope that he will now take particular care in the consultations he will be having to minimise the employment consequences of his defence review.
I say to some of my hon. Friends that we cannot have it both ways. If we are to save money on equipment, some job will be lost, but I hope that everything will be done to bring civil work to areas where military work declines. I hope that my right hon. Friend will remember in particular the needs of those areas, especially in the North, where industrial decline is a continuing problem. I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said in the debate, as I welcomed his statement. The great majority of the British people are behind him in carrying out his difficult task.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. Neville Trotter: It is well known that the Government's attitude to defence was decided long before the defence review began. To use a medical term, I think that the instructions were to give the patient not a check-up but surgery. The Secretary of State for Defence has carried out those orders.
In his statement of 3rd December, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the various factors to be taken into account. I would refer to a similar statement by Admiral Gorshkov, head of the Soviet Navy, who has been at the head of that modern and expanding force for some 20 years. He has said:
"The condition of the economy determines the power of that most important weapon of poicy, the armed forces of a country, whose condition is a reflection of the economic might of the State."
There is a great deal of truth in that. It is what has been said by Labour Members. But another factor has been left out of account—the political will of the leadership of a country to maintain adequate defences. That will is sadly lacking on the part of our Government.
The Secretary of State said on 3rd December that producing the defence review had been a tortuous exercise. I can well believe that it was very tortuous, bearing in mind the views expressed by so many of his colleagues behind him.
When visiting the Soviet Union, one cannot but be struck by the low standard of living. Yet that country, with a standard of living only a fraction of our own, continually spends more and more in real terms on armaments, largely of an offensive nature. The burden is all the heavier because of the low living standards of the ordinary people. Why then, do their leaders choose to spend money on tanks, not cars; on fighters, not holiday flights to the sun; on missiles, not houses; on submarines, not shops?
We can readily understand why the people accept the burden. They are better off than they have ever been, and they genuinely fear attack, because they are told by the propaganda machine that it is a real danger. They are ignorant of what they are missing in the way of living standards and of the true wishes of the people of the West, who want nothing more than to leave them in peace.
But why do the leaders, the hard-headed realists in the Kremlin, impose
1216
this burden on their people? They know full well that there is no intention in the West of attacking the Soviet Union, yet they have built up a great capability for war. We must consider their intentions. It would be folly not to. At present they talk of detente, but what do they do? They constantly increase both the quantity and quality of their armaments, and the gap between the West and the Soviet Union is constantly widening.
On 3rd December the Minister made great play of the fact that in the Warsaw Pact 85 per cent, of the strength were conscripts. I reply with two other facts. First, one can do more for one's money with conscripts. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, the army of Nazi Germany was also composed of conscripts, and that did not stop it over-running Europe in 1940.
I do not believe for a moment that at present the Soviet leaders wish to engage in an act of outright military aggression. They prefer to obtain their way by pressure and subversion. But if we allow the gap between us to widen too far there will be a process of intimidation. We shall encourage aggression. There will be a danger of a fait accompli, of aggression by incident and by accident.
The whole basis of the review is fallacious. It is fallacious to refer to the gross national product of our allies and their spending on defence. In 1954 we spent 10 per cent, of our GNP on defence. In 1964 defence spending was down to 6·7 per cent. This year it is 5·5 per cent. Now we are told that it is going down to 4·5 per cent.
It is interesting to note that in 1954 the expenditure amounted to about one-quarter of total public spending. Now it is down to only one-tenth. Has the world been any safer in the last 20 years, or, indeed, in the last 10? In fact, in the last 10 years, the world has become very much more unstable than it was.
We do not spend less on education or social services, nor propose to do so, just because our friends and allies are growing wealthier than we are. We should equally not accept that we must spend less on defence which is a first essential. The most important assurance the right hon. Gentleman could give today would be that there will be no further cuts during the period of the review on future

1217
grounds that the percentage of the gross national product spent by our allies has become greater than ours simply because they have again grown faster than we have.
It is sobering to think that this country spends more on drink and tobacco than on defence. We are spending about 50 per cent, more on booze and baccy than we do on defence. With those figures, I do not accept that we cannot afford to maintain an adequate level of defence.
The Secretary of State has said that the waters of the eastern Atlantic are crucial, and that is true. But does not he accept that equally crucial is the Cape route. Eighty per cent, of Europe's oil and 50 per cent, of its raw materials come along that route. There is a ship every 25 miles strung out over the thousands of miles between the Cape and British ports. I shall not enter into an argument about South Africa. Many things there do not appeal to me. But it is a fact of life that Simonstown is the only base with adequate facilities on this vital sea route.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) has reminded us of the evasiveness of the answers to the many Questions that we have put down about defence. Today I did obtain an answer which was more definite. I asked whether there ware any dry dock or dockyard facilities at Diego Garcia, and, if not, whether it was proposed to construct any. The Minister, in reply, said that there were no dry docks or dockyard facilities there and that there would be a modest expansion of the facilities for the United States Navy, including an improved anchorage and ship support facilities. He added that there were no plans for a dry dock. This is wholly inadequate as an alternative to the excellent facilities at Simonstown.
Yet the Soviet navy is increasing rapidly and is now a most formidable and modern force. The "Ark Royal" is now being phased out. When it is to go is a secret, and we must not be told, apparently— but I hazard a guess that the "Ark Royal" will go at about the same time as the first proper Soviet aircraft carrier takes to the high seas. It is an ironical situation. It might be fitting for the Minister to arrange for a photograph to be taken of the two ships passing each other—the "Ark Royal" going to the
1218
scrapyard and the "Kiev ", or whatever it may be called, proceeding to the high seas.
The United Kingdom is particularly vulnerable to attack on its sea lanes. I do not agree that because our NATO allies have devoted their resources to land armies rather than to their navies it is an excuse for our not providing adequate naval forces. If the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) would delve further into his statistics he would find that the armies of France and Germany are much bigger than our own, but that, instead, we have concentrated—understandably, in view of our tradition, geographical situation and pattern of trade— on the Royal Navy.
I turn now to the effect of the cuts on the shipyards, particularly the civilian yards. There was an awkward political problem of how to keep open the four naval dockyards as the Navy's ships are to be reduced greatly in number. We are told that the solution is for the naval dockyards to have moved into them work which is at present carried out in civilian yards. But all that this will mean is shifting unemployment from Portsmouth and Chatham to the North-East and Scotland. That is neither desirable not creditable. However, it fulfils promises made by the Government during the General Election—promises made in Portsmouth and Chatham, but certainly not made on Tyneside, which will suffer seriously as a result of this move.
The NATO flanks are particularly weak. We are not just talking about the Arctic wastes of Norway, important as they are to those who think deeply about the implications of a possible conflict. Nor are we talking just about the mountains of Thrace. We are also talking of the Baltic, because it is one of the flanks just as much as are the north of Norway and Thrace.
Today, there has been a NATO communiqué about the situation in the Mediterranean. It refers to the instability there as causing grave disquiet, and adds that there is need for special vigilance in that part of the world. How are we to react? We are to bring home our planes, our ships and our commandos, reduce our naval capabilities, withdraw from Malta, and cut our forces in Cyprus.

1219
The defence review has been described as the most extensive and thorough in peacetime. One intriguing aspect is that there appears to be not one single direction in which it has been found desirable or necessary, as a result of the review, to increase the strength of our forces. That is surely a tremendous tribute to the last Conservative Government. It is amazing that there is nothing at all that requires strengthening after this searching review.
The details of the review are vague. It seems that they have not yet been worked out. My right hon. Friend mentioned the sort of answer we have been getting—" not in a position to say", "under review", "the implications are still under consideration", "too soon to say", or, simply, "cannot say". However, there have been two exceptions. I have been informed, in reply to questions, that the University Air Squadrons will continue and we shall not be giving up the sovereign base a Dekhelia. But, in considering the detail, how can the Secretory of State impose a cut of 12,000 men in the Army without knowing what sort of units will be disbanded? How can he say that after the cuts we shall have an Army of optimum strength?
The Secretary of State has left two particular mysteries. Those of us who listened to him today are none the wiser about why the Government are getting rid of a battalion of Gurkhas. There has been no explanation. Why are we coming out of Brunei? There has been no explanation of that. It costs us nothing to be there. We do not even know how many Gurkhas the Government are getting rid of. That, we are told, has also not yet been decided.
The second mystery concerns the Parachute Regiment. May we be assured that it will continue? Why the mystery? If it is to continue, why not say so? In the last 10 years, nine out of 10 of the exercises in which the regiment has taken part abroad have been in Germany or Denmark. It has not been in the habit of going to far distant places. It has been in the centre of Europe.
I have a suspicion that after the internal dogfight in the Labour Party a total was arbitrarily arrived at, and that total was shared out between each Service
1220
in about the same percentages as they are now getting. I shall table a Question on this point, as I wish to be enlightened, but no doubt I shall get an evasive answer. I suggest that the Army, because it retains a lot of men, is to have cuts made in its equipment; that the RAF, because it is to have much new equipment, is to have large cuts in the number of men; while the Royal Navy is to end up with smaller cuts in the number of men and larger cuts in the number of ships. There has been no explanation of the way in which the fundamental balance between the three Services and their cuts has been arrived at, while the details seem to be largely undecided.
This review will be more welcome in the Kremlin than in the capitals of our allies.
There have been protestations that the consultations with allies will be genuine but I fear that in fact they will be much more of a charade. I wonder about Brunei. If the Government of Bruei and our other allies in that area wish the Gurkha battalion to remain at their expense, will it be allowed to do so? I suggest to the House that if we had maintained our modest presence in the Persian Gulf, at the expense of the local State, instead of having it removed by a previous Socialist Defence Minister, we may not have seen the development of the oil crisis to the present extent.
I suggest that we might well set up a Select Committee of the House to consider the future of the Armed Services following the example of the Dutch Government. All the options could be considered. We have not been told what the options are. After considering the opinions of our allies and after open discussion the Committee could put forward its proposals on this matter of great importance.
8.11 p.m.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I think that the way in which my right hon. Friend produced his statement in December, the way in which he is now going through the process of consultation and the manner in which he spoke this afternoon ensure a certain flexibility. I welcome this because it means that he will be taking into consideration many of the points that have been mentioaed not only during the debate today but in consultation with our allies.

1221
I do not share the criticism of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) that the review is not cut and dried. I particularly welcome the fact that it is not cut and dried and that we are in a position, as the House should be, to make our points and suggestions. The situation is unique, because normally the House is presented with a White Paper and everything is decided, and the debate is just a formality. On this occasion, I feel that there is genuine consultation.
I recognise that in a debate such as this it will be difficult to marry all the points that are made. I listened with great interest to what was said by the hon. Member for Tynemouth. His speech reminded me of the kind of speech that would be made to get the nomination for a safe Conservative seat. It seemed to be aimed more at traditional Conservative prejudices than at facing the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves. I do not think that anyone who is honest would deny that any Government taking office in February would have been faced with the need to make substantial defence cuts. There is no escaping that central difficulty.
I think that my right hon. Friend has faced the problem in a realistic way. After all, he has in the Chancellor of the Exchequer a former Defence Secretary, and very good one at that, who knows all the arguments. In spite of that, in spite of the pressure that must have been put upon him in the Cabinet, and despite pressure from some of my hon. Friends and others, my right hon. Friend has come to the sensible conclusion that many of us reached a long time ago; namely, that the main defence contribution of this country must be in NATO and on the central front.
There is no point in thinking that we can have the third battle of the Atlantic. We must, as a member of NATO, concentrate our resources on the central front, and this seems to raise the possibility that, in consultations with our allies, we may be able to work out a much more realistic strategy in central Europe itself.
I think that there is a need for modification, for a variant perhaps on the flexible response strategy, taking into account recent defence technology and bearing in mind the lessons of the Middle
1222
East war, the use of the "Snapper" and "Sagger" anti-tank weapons, and the use of the modern SAM missiles against aircraft. But I should have some hesitation in inviting everyone to go along with my right hon. Friend in respect of the multi-role combat aircraft. I am in favour of the co-operation involved, as this is the way in which sensible defence procurement policies can be pursued, but I wonder whether this aircraft is not, in the circumstances, extremely vulnerable.
Mr. Alan Clark Mr. Alan Clark (Plymouth, Sutton) rose—
Mr. Williams: I think that it would be better if I were to respond to the request by the Chair to make a brief speech so that other hon. Members will be able to take part in the debate.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will reconsider the MRCA from the military point of view of vulnerability.
I believe that we are faced with the possibility of some kind of redeployment of forces in Central Europe itself. Does my hon. Friend the Minister of State agree that it is unlikely that there will be an increase in conventional forces? No member of NATO is in that mood. It is unrealistic to talk in terms of an increase in conventional forces, and that being so, it seems to me that we might move some of our forces back so that they are in a much better position to counter-attack.
The lessons of technology appear to be that the advantages are moving from the attacker to the defender. In other words, with the aid of technology and all the weapons that have been deployed in the Middle East one can have a strategy that gives the advantage to the defender and not necessarily to the attacker. I speak as a layman in these matters, and I throw these points out for consideration only, but, with respect, I do not think they can be dismissed contemptuously.
If there is unlikely to be a willingness to come forward with conventional forces, and if it is even more unlikely that there will be reserve forces, that raises serious difficulties. It raises problems about the nuclear question. The House knows that the Russians have about 750 intermediate-range nuclear weapons facing about 75 major cities in Western Europe and

1223
that they are geared to go into operation in much the same way as the NATO strategy, which is a flexible response.
The argument thrown up by both sides of the House is that we are moving into a situation in which the nuclear threshold is increasingly being lowered. If that is so, I should like my right hon. Friend to tell the House what consultations he has had with the Americans, or what consultations the Americans have had with us about the use and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. This is of vital importance for us because of our geographical position, and I should like to hear a lot more about the role of tactical nuclear weapons.
Some time ago I argued in a letter to The Times that we ought to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a way of offsetting the preponderance of Russian forces on the central front. Nevertheless—and I say this tentatively because the implications for us are enormous, and it is not a policy that can be gone into without due consideration— in the end the essence of the matter is defence co-operation within the Nine. I know that this is a sensitive subject on both sides of the House, but there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome about defence implications, yet we saw a certain alignment of ideas with a common position arising from the European Security Conference.
The House will recall that the Davignon Committee enabled members of the Nine to reach an agreed position in respect of the European Security Conference. The implications of this in defence matters are clear to see, and this can be done without violating the Treaty of Rome by the proposals put forward two or three years ago by the former Foreign Secretary of Belgium, M. Harmel. It will be possible through these proposals for NATO to have a responsibility in areas where it considers that its interests are threatened by the Russians outside the Treaty area.
This approach would have to be thought through very carefully. I do not believe that it is any longer possible to go on speaking as if Britain were a world Power capable of discharging world responsibilities. We must all recognise that those days are over. However, we
1224
can play a constructive part in NATO and thereby ensure that the future of mankind itself, which is the ultimate end that we all seek, will bring about stability in Europe. If we get stability in Europe, there is a good chance that we can get peace in the world as whole.
8.21 p.m.
Mr. Julian Amery: The hon. Member for Horn-church (Mr. Williams) made a most original and constructive speech. I hope that he will get some answers from his right hon. Friend, for what he said about the balance between the offensive and the defensive in modern strategy and the need for co-operation between the Nine in Europe struck chords to which I respond.
The underlying theme of the hon. Gentleman's speech, like that of the Secretary of State for Defence and every hon. Member opposite who has taken part in the debate, has been economic. The Secretary of State takes the line that we cannot afford the defence policy that we have and some of his critics below the Gangway have said that we cannot even afford what the right hon. Gentleman has proposed.
Unfortunately, that is not a new theme in this House. It is the theme that we had before both the First World War and the Second World War. There will be many who will ask whether the refusal to accept higher defence expenditure did not contribute to the outbreak of both those wars and to the setbacks that we had in their early stages.
I grant that we are facing the most serious economic and financial crisis since the war. The rearrangement of our business this week underlines that problem. Yet, I cannot help wondering whether the Secretary of State's proposals are relevant to the economic crisis through which we are going.
We have a double crisis: domestic inflation at home and the fear of a world recession. The right hon. Gentleman's cuts, particularly when they are offset by redundancy payments, golden bowlers, and so on, will have very little effect on the inflationary situation. Certainly in the next year or two they will mark a very small diminution in public expenditure.

1225
The right hon. Gentleman's proposals may prove even more sinister concerning world recession. When there is a world recession our exports dry up. This is the classical time when rearmament often serves a constructive economic as well as foreign policy purpose, but to undertake it we must have the research development going on all the time and the forces and their bases to re-equip.
There is another economic aspect that we ought to have very much in mind. We depend for our survival and livelihood more than ever—certainly more than when we were a great empire—on access to raw materials in foreign markets Therefore, the safety of our trade routes is no less important—in some ways more important—than before.
I do not think that the cuts proposed by the Secretary of State can be justified on economic grounds. They might be justified on other grounds, but on economic grounds, unless the Government have accepted hook, line and sinker the gospel according to the Hudson Institute, these proposals cannot be justified.
This is not merely an economic problem. We have always been told that Socialism is the language of priorities. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and others have talked about the need for better housing, better schools and the re-equipment of industry, but surely the security of what we have today is even more important than the improvements that we would all like to see.
If there were no danger there would be no, or very little, objection to the kind of proposals brought forward by the Secretary of State, but no one, least of all the right hon. Gentleman, is saying that there is no danger. Clearly he is not saying that. The right hon. Gentleman told us today rather more fully than in his statement a week ago about the steady build up of Soviet forces in central Europe, despite the fact that they are also increasing their forces on the Chinese border. The Russians do not worry very much about the proportion of GNP which goes on defence.
What are these forces for? They are much larger than are needed to defend the Soviet Union against any conceivable attack. They are larger than are needed
1226
to subjugate any satellite revolt. There can be only one explanation for the decision to maintain these enormous forces— that the Soviet Government wish to keep open the option of using force, or the threat of force, if they think that it will serve their interests.
The Government, to do them credit, recognise that that is the Soviet purpose, and in response to it they have decided to concentrate as much of their main effort as possible in central Europe. Are they right to do so? Is that the right place to concentrate almost the whole of our overseas military effort? Will the decision whether the Americans stay in Europe and whether the alliance holds together depend on whether we maintain practically everything we have on the central European front? I spent two years at the Foreign Office studying, among other things, our defence problems. I was always left with the nagging doubt: was it possible that the Soviets wanted to pin down the main forces of the West in central Europe so that they could nibble away at the periphery? I do not know.
However, I cannot help asking, is this the time to cut back in the Mediterranean? Our military effort in Cyprus yielded a very good dividend in both the October war last year and the recent Cyprus troubles. Is the situation in the eastern Mediterranean more peaceful than it was? Can we say that relations between Greece and NATO are going to develop harmoniously again? Do we feel no concern about the future of Yugosalavia in the post-Tito period whenever it should come? Are we confident that Greece and Turkey will make friends again? Has the danger of war in the Middle East diminished?
At the same time, we should remember that Britain is the only member of the European Community which has a presence in the eastern Mediterranean. We and the Americans have not always seen eye to eye on Middle Eastern and eastern Mediterranean matters. Is this the time to leave them a monopoly of the Western presence in the area?
I join forces with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) about the importance of the northern flank. After all, it guards the approaches to the eastern Atlantic, the sea lanes to

1227
this country, and the approaches to our vital North Sea oil.
I should like to comment on the reductions proposed east of Suez. A very high proportion of our trade lies with the great crescent of countries around the Indian Ocean—New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Malaya, the sub-continent, the Persian Gulf and down the African coast to South Africa. We get many of our raw materials from there. We pay for them by the goods we sell there. We still have very substantial investments in that area. When we face economic troubles, is this a time to cut our insurance policy and to diminish our commitment in the Indian Ocean when the Soviet commitment is growing steadily?
I agree that it is no good dropping backwards. I am one of those who believe that if we had stayed and maintained a military presence in the Gulf, the price of oil might not have risen as it has risen, and we certainly should not be reading in the newspapers today about plans by the Pentagon to make a possible descent on the Persian Gulf littoral. Is there not really a danger today that one super-Power or the other may take rash action there? Is there not a danger that Iraq, serving as a cat's-paw for the Soviets, may extend its influence down the Gulf? Here at least I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State on having decided to maintain our commitment to Oman and, presumably, to the station at Masirah. This stops us from producing a total vacuum in the area.
Going further south from the Gulf, does it really make sense for us to terminate the Simonstown Agreement when the Soviets are developing facilities in Aden and Somalia—and, perhaps tomorrow, in Ethiopia? Is it really wise for the West to retreat from Southern Africa when the potential enemy is digging into the Horn of Africa? The Simonstown decision is purely political. We all know that. We are told that it is provocative to the African countries if we maintain this rather special relationship with South Africa.
If the Secretary of State had said that in return for leaving Simonstown he had special arrangements with Mombasa or Dar-es-Salaam we should all take a great interest in what he said, but we are here surrendering a tangible asset in the hope
1228
of getting goodwill. Suppose we do not get it. It is a little odd to be doing this when, for the first time for a generation or more, there are signs of improvement in relations between South Africa and the black African countries. It would be a supreme irony if we should quarrel with Pretoria just at the moment when they were mending their fences with their African neighbours, and if we were then to ask for the return of the Simonstown facilities and they were to say, perhaps, "It would complicate our relations with our new non-aligned neighbours."
It is a foolish decision, but the folly is compounded by the decision to withdraw from Mauritius and Gan. There may be an argument for withdrawing from one or the other, but to withdraw from both seems very dangerous.
I want to ask one or two questions about Gan. What is to be its future? Are we to pay compensation to the Maldive Islands for the loss of income which will result from our withdrawal? The treaty signed in 1965 by the Labour Government runs, I think, to 1986. Under that treaty we, and we alone, have the right to use the facilities at Gan. Shall we be abrogating the treaty? If we are not abrogating it, and we withdraw, how shall we enforce it? How shall we stop the Soviets or someone else coming along and making use of the anchorage and air facilities? How do we stop someone else making use of the remarkable complex that we have built up at enormous expense?
I am glad that we are going ahead with the joint development at Diego Garcia. I welcome that, but it will be a long time before Diego Garcia is even as strong as Gan. It could never be Singapore. It will also be under dual control. Dual control means a danger of ineffectiveness in a crisis.
I come now to Singapore. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) made a very remarkable maiden speech. He was very right to remind us of the success of British arms in the confrontation with Sukarno's Indonesia 10 years or so ago. That was a remarkable victory achieved at a remarkably low cost. Britain was the cement which made that achievement possible. Take away that cement and the five-Power system which has been built up may fall apart. South-East Asia, as we see from what

1229
goes on in Vietnam today, is none too stable.
Of course, as the Secretary of State has said, Britain by herself can no longer act as the policeman of the world or play alone a world role. We do not suggest that that should be so. Thanks to Simons-town, there has just been an extremely effective four-Power naval exercise, South African, British, French and American, off the South African coast.
Looking ahead in Europe, we can appreciate that if we build up a Euro pean union it is bound to be outward looking because it will not have the raw materials of the market which it needs outside Europe, so it will be dependent on these trade routes. Because of the legacy of history, we happen to be established in certain places with the good will and acceptance of the inhabitants and Governments concerned. In a sense, we hold our position in Singapore, in Gan, in Simonstown—or we could hold it there—in trust for Europe. Is it wise to throw these cards away? Nobody else can pick them up all that easily. Certainly nobody else in Europe would have the chance of doing it. It is not as if the Europeans were interested. It is only the Americans who are interested to retain the footholds we still have.
I was very struck—if the Press report is accurate—by the emphasis which the German Minister of Defence, Herr Leber, put on this in his intervention at the recent NATO meeting in Brussels. Some hon. Members may think that I am exaggerating the threat to our trade routes.
Reference has been made to the enormous strength of the Soviet submarine fleet. In this respect we need to think of the submarine menace which in the First and Second World Wars nearly brought us to our knees.
What are those Russian submarines for? Again, the option can be only to use force or the threat of force. The submarine option is more flexible than the land option. It could be used without necessarily leading to all-out war. There could be random sinkings of our shipping, just as there were random sinkings of our shipping in the Spanish Civil War by Italian submarines in the Mediterranean. There could be a blockade of important trading areas—the Persian Gulf, or South Africa. Are we to sit
1230
idly by if this happens, or are we to be expected to sit idly by if we cut out our maritime reconnaissance and the staging posts from which certain of our submarines and aircraft operate?
I am opposed to the cuts which have been proposed. I think that, if anything, we should increase expenditure at present, at a time when we have, in number, a third of the number of tanks that Israel has with 2½ million people—Israel has about 3,000 tanks and we have about 900—and at a time when we have about half as many tanks as the Syrians, a nation of about 4½ million people. I question whether, even within the assumptions on which the Government are proceeding, they have their priorities right. Of course NATO is of immense importance, but our top priority, if we are to cut to the bone, must be the defence of this island and its supply routes for our 55 million people.
Just as Winston Churchill was right not to commit the Royal Air Force to the Battle of France in 1940, so in the last analysis must we depend on our own nuclear deterrent, on our sea and air power, and on the sea and air transport which serves as the legs of the Army. I see great dangers in the balance with which the cuts are being applied—by sea, in the air, on the flanks, and in research and development.
We are only at the beginning of the defence debate. There is still the White Paper to come. It is to be a five-year programme. Much still lies in the future. I agree with the hon. Member for Horn-church. I, too, see some advantage in the fact that there is still an area which is grey and indefinite.
I regret that the Secretary of State's proposals correspond to no theme or philosophy, to no grand design. They are an attempt to meet the usual demands of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who should know better but who has, by all accounts, exploited his experience in defence to play the bully against a weaker though more honourable colleague. It is an attempt to make a compromise between protecting our national interests and meeting pressure from a Left wing which at least is influenced, whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, by the thinking of Britain's enemies. As a result, in putting forward the defence review, like

1231
the social contract or the referendum, the Government have never had in mind any kind of system, right or wrong. They have simply invented a tale for the day so as to sneak out of difficulties in which they became engaged at their party conference.
However, I do not despair. I do not think that this Government will last. I think that a Government of national unity will come. When such a Government appears the House of Commons will call for and get a defence policy that corresponds to Britain's national interest and to the defence of our island and our supply lines.
8.40 p.m.
Mr. Frank Hooley: I shall not try to cover all my right hon. Friend's statement. I shall deal with only three aspects—Simonstown, the Hong Kong garrison, and manpower.
Recently, military exercises with South Africa have been bigger and bigger and have involved not only the Navy but the RAF. I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that we intend to change this policy—at least, I hope we do—by negotiating the termination of the Simonstown Agreement. I would go further and inform the south African Government that we intend to abrogate the agreement without delay.
I should like some assurance that there is no intention that naval and military co-operation with South Africa will go on after the agreement has been finished. I should like a firm assurance that there will be no future British naval visits and no secret defence understanding with South Africa—that we shall terminate all military exchanges, visits and technical arrangements with that country.
The problem in that part of the world is not military but political. Opposition Members who do not believe that should pay attention to what has happened in Angola and Mozambique. For 15 years this country—under successive Governments, I am sorry to say—gave full military, diplomatic and economic support to the Portuguese dictatorship in Angola and Mozambique while the African Socialists were fighting in Guinea and Mozambique to destroy it. They have succeeded in their policy and we have failed in ours. It would be a dis-
1232
aster if this country drifted into the same position with regard to South Africa.
I should like to say a few words about Hong Kong. It seems to be just a British wart on the nose of China. In his statement my right hon. Friend says that we intend to keep our forces in Hong Kong, which to some extent seems to contradict his general proposition, reiterated in his speech today, that in future we shall concentrate our efforts within NATO and the European theatre.
What I simply do not understand is the proposal to abandon Simonstown, Gan, Mauritius and Singapore, but to stay in Hong Kong—to break away all the links in the chain, but, as it were, to leave the pendant floating in mid-air with no linking mechanism or defence. In simple logic, that does not seem to make sense.
I cannot understand why these 10,000 men should be in Hong Kong at all. It cannot be for defence. It cannot be seriously argued that 10,000 infantry, with a few tanks and artillery but no air cover or anti-aircraft protection, and no anti-aircraft missiles, are there for any serious defensive purpose. From where is the attack to come; from Japan. Russia or China?
This is the only remaining overseas garrison of any size, and it makes absolutely no sense. Is it there to uphold some form of Western democratic government in Asia? One could hardly argue that. There are no elections to the legislative council, no elections to the executive council, and the urban council has fewer powers than Sheffield District Council. In the annual report for 1973 there is the clear statement that
"The policy of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is that there shall be no major constitutional change."
There are good reasons why there should not be constitutional change. The Chinese Government would take strong exception to it if there were.
China has taken the view for a long time that Hong Kong is a Chinese city. There is a lease on the territories concerned, but the Peking Government see absolutely no reason why Hong Kong should not be regarded as a Chinese city. Why on earth should I go back to the old-age pensioners in my constituency and ask them to pay heavy taxes to maintain a British garrison in a Chinese

1233
city? There is no democracy there, but there is vicious exploitation of women and child labour. There have been serious allegations of widespread corruption throughout the administration. There are appalling housing and social conditions and, what is most sinister in present circumstances, there is rising unemployment.
It may be argued that the garrison is not there for defence in the orthodox sense but simply for some form of internal security. In my view it is not the business of the British Army to act as a gendarmerie to police a 19th century colony, particularly where there are no institutions of self-government and where there is serious exploitation of women and child workers. If it is necessary, for internal security purposes, to keep a force there, there should be a local militia of some kind, which is locally raised and locally financed. If the Peking Government object to that, we should say quite bluntly and shortly that the lease is terminated and we are withdrawing.
As regards manpower, my right hon. Friend is proposing that there should be, over 10 years, a rundown of 35,000 Service men, and about 15,000 civilians in the United Kingdom, which would release 50,000 people for productive work in United Kingdom industry and which in itself would be useful.
A more unsatisfactory aspect is that the reductions in the planned defence programme are likely to reduce employment in the defence industry by only 4 per cent. by 1978–79—that is to say, by about 10,000 people. That is not good enough, in the light of the deficit of £534 million on our overseas balance of payments last month.
Contrary to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend, the problem in this country is not one of unemployment, and he does wrong to try to terrify the Labour Party and the general public by parading the spectre of unemployment. There is a shortage of skilled labour at the moment, to a large degree concentrated in the engineering industries, which are engaged in producing much of our armament.
If my right hon. Friend argues that cancelling major weapons projects will result in mass unemployment, I am afraid the historical record is against him. A Conservative Minister cancelled Blue Streak. A Labour Minister cancelled TSR2. If
1234
my right hon. Friend will consider the history of weapons system throughout the 1950s and the 1960s he will find that many projects of advanced war technology had to be scrapped, either because they were inherently unsound in a strategic sense or, more likely, because we could not afford them. It will not do for him to argue that if we decide to run down the armaments industry there will be mass unemployment.
I should like to give some examples of areas in which we could be ready to deploy our resources, with great benefit to the country, by providing equipment for the exploitation of North Sea oil. There is a myth current that to exploit North Sea oil we need simply to build great oil rigs. Of course we do, but they are in some respects just one part of the business of extracting the oil. I should like to give a list of equipment required for the exploitation of North Sea oil, much of which is being purchased from abroad, or which British industry cannot or will not produce. The list includes diving equipment, generators, diesel motors, derricks, pumps, storage tanks, cranes, helicopters, light aircraft, steel pipes, valves, compressors, gas turbines, water distillation units, flooding equipment, fire fighting equipment, alternators, switch gear, electrical distribution systems, welding equipment, gas treatment equipment, oil pumps, deck winches, cargo barges, derrick barges, tugs, drill ships, tankers, support ships, and many more items.
I could go on at length. I have drawn this long list of items from the IMEG Report of 1972—two years ago. They are all items of equipment required on the rigs or for the exploitation of North Sea oil. There is a market there worth £10,000 million in the next 10 years. It is a market into which British industry has only begun to get over the past 18 months, and it is one to which we should pay far more attention.
In recent years, one of the most appalling aspects of this business has been that the shipbuilding industry has been so preoccupied with refitting Chilean destroyers, with its defence contracts, and so on, that every time people have asked, "Why do not you go into the North Sea oil business? Why not develop your resources and diversify your efforts as Norway has done?", its excuse has been, "We have enough work on hand. We are not

1235
bothered. We are not interested." It is very important to tackle much more vigorously and much more effectively the redeployment of our manpower and of our industry away from armaments and into peaceful production. It also affects our capacity in worldwide export markets. I do not regard it as satisfactory that we should over the next 10 years contemplate keeping 250,000 workers in non-productive armaments.
I am not tempted to make any general apparisal of the defence strategy outlined by my right hon. Friend, but I believe that these are three very important points. South Africa is a political and not a military problem. As for China, it is utterly absurd to leave 10,000 British troops on the coast of the mainland of China for no useful purpose. Finally, it is essential that we switch the productive resources of British industry from munitions of war to the munitions of peace.
8.52 p.m.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: The Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, will wish to study these defence cuts in some detail before coming to any firm conclusions. We shall be doing this early in the new year and shall be reporting. However, if we accept that in the present economic situation some further cuts have to be made in defence spending, in principle I extend a cautious welcome to the way in which the Secretary of State appears to have tackled the subject.
In our last report on the defence cuts made by the two previous Government, my Committee urged that there should be no more short-term cuts without corresponding reductions in commitments, and we expressed the hope that this defence review would result in long-term stability for the defence budget at a sustainable level calculated to meet our commitments. Some of us have reservations about the rundown of our forces in Cyprus after the part played thereby the events this year, thus reducing our commitment to the defence of the southern flank of NATO. Cyprus was the southern claw, and the RAF there was a very great deterrent.
I personally may be emotionally critical of our leaving Singapore. I was there 30
1236
years ago, but I have been back there since and seen how much both Singapore and Malaysia like having our forces there as part of the Five-Power Pact, whilst they are training their own.
Armed forces can be effective and can maintain high morale only if they have modern equipment and all Service men know that they will get a fair deal I am glad that the Secretary of State said that our forces would be equipped to the highest standards and that fine career opportunities would remain. Therefore, I repeat that my Committee will be looking in detail at the right hon. Gentleman's decisions. In general, we accept that, rather than deny our forces modern and effective weapons, we should be prepared to reduce the number of Service men whenever possible.
It is often said that we spend more in terms of GNP than some of our NATO allies. It can equally be said that we spend less per head on defence than Germany, France and the United States. That is no more valid an argument for increasing defence expenditure than is the percentage of GNP a reason in itself for spending less. This was brought out very well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Walker) when he opened the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. We seek to maintain a reasonably well-paid, properly-equipped professional force. This is bound to be an expensive business.
Those who seek massive cuts in defence spending beyond the substantial reductions proposed in this review should say whether they would prefer to bring back conscription and get defence on the cheap or whether they would allow our forces to run down to a much reduced level. If it is the latter, I suggest that they have not learned the lessons of history.
I turn to a few specific subjects which have been considered by my Committee. In February we reported on the multi-role combat aircraft, much mentioned in today's debate, and recommended a stringent review of the air defence version of this aircraft. We also commented on the cost increases. In doing so we hoped to stimulate constructive criticism rather than to attack the project. We saw the aircraft in Munich last year and were very pleased with what we saw. Having talked to the RAF, we fully accept that it must have modern aircraft, and the

1237
MRCA—which has the advantage of being a collaborative project with Germany, Italy and ourselves—seems at present to offer the cheapest and most effective solution. I and some members of the Committee are to visit the British Aircraft Corporation factory near Preston on Wednesday and hope to see this aircraft flying.
The Secretary of State said on 3rd December that we are to continue with the MRCA programme although we may have to make a reduction in the planned rate of deliveries over the period. I am glad that today he was specific and said that it was still intended to buy 385 of these aircraft. He was not so specific about what the delay would be or how far away the purchase was. Perhaps in replying the Minister can give us more details.
My Committee also looked at the Royal Navy's through-deck cruiser, now being called the anti-submarine cruiser. The first of these is now being built. This is another major project which we have examined. We were aboard HMS "Blake" during our visit to Gibraltar this year. We appreciate that a new purpose-built ship to carry Sea King helicopters will provide a much more effective fighting force with a smaller crew. It is a high priority for the Navy.
The Secretary of State said that this programme will continue. Can the Minister tell us how many of these cruisers we are to have? I understand that the keel for the second cruiser should be laid about now. Will this happen? The cruiser is intended to operate not on its own but as part of a task force which might include ships from other NATO navies. It seems more likely that a cruiser task force will need to use NATO escorts as a result of the decision to cut the frigate and destroyer force. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the cruisers will be adequately screened in view of what Admiral Sir Peter Hill-Norton is reported to have said on 11th December in The Times, to the effect that NATO ships cannot always communicate properly because two incompatible communication systems are in use? If what he claims is true, who is responsible for doing something about it, and how long will it be before something is done?
I am a little at a loss to understand how it will be possible to carry out the
1238
full cut in the Army. Are we not counting some soldiers twice over—that is, they are with their battalion which is in Germany and are counted as part of BAOR and then they are seconded to do a short tour in Northern Ireland and counted there as fighting troops? If the tragic situation in Northern Ireland were to be resolved, possibly these cuts would be more understandable, but the House will require a very good explanation of them.
I am glad that there is to be no cut in our four Polaris submarines. To my mind—and I have studied this matter— they are the best deterrent we have. We acquired them extremely cheaply through the generosity of the United States and it is vital that we retain them. They are at present effective. But we have to look ahead and it may be that when the Americans have built their Trident submarines, with their far greater range, they will be posted on the eastern waters of America and be in a position to land missiles from there beyond the Iron Curtain.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Good heavens.
Sir H. Harrison: The hon. Gentleman says "Good heavens", but these submarines have not yet been built. We heard details about them when we were there.
I hope that when the Secretary of State discusses the defence review with our NATO allies, and in the Eurogroup meetings, he will continue to take a strong lead in proposing action to secure further standardisation of equipment. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being made chairman. The Defence Sub-Committee is well aware of some of the obstacles, rooted mainly in national and industrial interests, to more effective cooperation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have the support of the whole House in his efforts to achieve progress in this difficult field, in which some, but nothing like enough, progress has been made in the last 10 years. Perhaps the answer lies partly in a series of reciprocal deals with our major allies, with each nation specialising according to its ability. It would be intolerable if we were to go on duplicating expensive research and development work and producing weapons which are incompatible

1239
with those of our allies while procurement programmes were being cut for lack of resources.
I wish to say a few words on the question of manpower, the cost of which accounts for nearly half the defence budget. The defence review proposes a reduction of 65,000, of which 30,000 are civilians, and which, I take it, will mainly follow reductions in commitments. My Committee only recently was considering ways in which manpower savings could be made without reducing commitments. Last week we heard that the Royal Air Force had saved 7,000 posts between 1971 and 1974, worth about £20 million a year, by a determined economy drive inspired from the top by a small vigorous team in getting the whole co-operation of the Royal Air Force. Those responsible for initiating and pursuing the project deserve our congratulations.
Both the Army and the Navy have reduced their manpower, but the savings in the Royal Air Force in the last three years or so have been proportionately much greater. We were therefore rather disappointed that the imaginative approach adopted by the RAF had not, through the Ministry of Defence, been tried in the other two Services.
Earlier this year the Committee looked at training, a subject in which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), whom I am glad to see in his place, takes a special interest. Here again we felt that economies could safely be made if the Services were prepared to accept an even greater degree of flexibility. We want more joint training. More important perhaps, consideration of training leads us to think of ways in which the Services' operational facilities can be unified or simplified; for example, by using the same forms for pay and records.
The Committee intends to report its findings on manpower and training early in the new year. I know that the Minister will read the report carefully, but may I assure him that we seek to present constructive criticism, and we recognise that there are obstacles to overcome? We do not expect sweeping changes to be made overnight, but we believe that worthwhile recurrent savings can be made if common problems are tackled
1240
together, particularly at headquarters level, rather than on a single-Service basis. In the aftermath of the defence review, in our present economic difficulties, I hope that there will be a fresh impulse for the Services to work as a team, even if they have to sacrifice a degree of autonomy.
Having spoken, I hope objectively, about the cuts which have been made, I must issue this word of warning to the House. I am afraid that the cuts will be taken by many people without being examined in detail. That is particularly so of Service men, and I am worried that this may have a grave effect on their morale. I ask the Minister to see that the cuts are well and carefully explained to all Service personnel. If it is essential in the Government's view to cut our Services, I put in a special plea— which has been mentioned frequently today—for the building up of our reserves. I am an old TA officer, and I believe that the reserves are one of the cheapest forms of Army one can have.
I feel that the cuts are not being well received by our allies across the Atlantic. They have always looked to us to be the leaders of Western defence. If we falter, how much more will our weaker allies falter? We may get to the position in which the Americans will say "If Europe is not prepared to defend herself, why should we bother? "To have American forces in Europe is alien to the traditional policy of the United States, whose citizens were escapists and nonconformists from Europe in years gone by. When Mr. Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister he said that to me, and remembered it in all his policies.
When I was in Washington last year I found a body of opinion in America in favour of withdrawal from Europe. So far as I could tell, it was centred in a section of the Democratic Party. Who knows, if at the next presidential election a Democratic President with a vast Democratic majority in the Senate and Congress is elected, that feeling might mount and concessions would have to be made. This needs the highest consideration at the highest level.
All this is taking place when, from the best intelligence I can get, Russia is still expanding her forces on her Western borders. She is not now building up so much in the East. Why is that? What

1241
does she want? Are we wise, for the sake of a few comforts now, to mortgage the whole future of our country?
9.4 p.m.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: A year ago tomorrow the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the House that he would cut defence expenditure by £178 million. I have listened carefully to all the Opposition speeches but have failed to detect in any of them even a hint that the speakers were conscious of the irony that they are celebrating that anniversary by attacking my right hon. Friend for his much more cautious approach to the matter. I remind the Opposition that the cuts imposed in December last year were not phased over 10 years. They had an immediate impact on the defence programme. They were based not on an analysis of our commitments but purely on financial and economic stringency.
The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) has had great fun at the expense of Government Front Bench spokesmen, on the basis that they cannot provide hard facts and figures to flesh up the defence review which they have announced. I refer the right hon. Gentleman, or, in his absence, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), to the last report of the Defence Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee where he will find that as late as June this year the Ministry of Defence still did not know where the cut of £178 million was to fall in the Budget. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on not adopting a similarly irresponsible approach.
Having said that, I am afraid that there I leave him. I have listened carefully on a number of occasions when he has tried to argue that his increase in defence expenditure comes within the scope of the word "savings", but I have not been persuaded. I was in the House last Monday when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced that he hoped to save 10 per cent. of our energy consumption over the next few years. Is there an hon. Member in the House who was then present who would not be outraged by a sense of deception if it were to turn out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy had meant that there would be an in-
1242
crease in energy consumption, because the expected increase would outstrip the 10 per cent. cut proposed? If he did not mean that, we must say that the Government are using the same word, namely, "savings" to describe two very different concepts, and to put it no more strongly that does not lend itself to clarity.
Even if we accept the idea that any reduction of anticipated expenditure is a saving as a working definition, our right hon. and hon. Friends are putting it against the wrong measuring rod. They are comparing the expenditure under their review with the figures announced in the 1973 public expenditure forecast. That forecast was drawn up in the autumn of 1973 in a very different economic climate, before the three-day working week and before the oil crisis—at a time when at least one hon. Gentleman opposite was talking about Britain suffering from the problems of affluence.
We are in a different situation now. I appreciate that the Opposition, in discussing this defence review, have to huff and puff and blow with all their might. Indeed, they have a constitutional duty to do so. But if they were in office now and compiling the public expenditure forecasts for the next five or 10 years, they would be making cuts in defence. Those cuts would probably not be precisely the present cuts—probably they would retain the Gurkhas and the Marines, for which there are powerful lobbies in their party—but there would be cuts.
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is going to insist on measuring his savings against anticipated expenditure, and if he is to be fair, he must measure them not against the expected expenditure in 1973 but from what it would have been in 1974 without his defence review—the expenditure which the Opposition would have embarked on had they still been in office. If we adopt that definition we are faced with savings probably not of hundreds of millions of pounds but only of tens of millions of pounds.
If we turn to the review, it is not surprising that we are getting a gloomy financial picture emerging, because where the cuts fall the savings are largely illusory.
I want to deal with the manpower cuts that have been mentioned a number of times in the debate. The review proposes to cut manpower by 35,000 over

1243
the next five years. I took the precaution of arming myself with manpower figures for the past 15 years that I obtained from the Library. Over the past five years manpower has fallen by 30,000 in any event—in other words the projected reduction over the coming five years is almost exactly the same as the actual reduction of the past five years, for most of which the Opposition were in power.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: When do we reach zero?
Mr. Cook: The hon. and gallant Gentleman raises an interesting question. I have here a graph of recruitment to the Armed Services over the past five years. Going by the graph, we are in danger of touching zero in the foreseeable future.
On the basis of recruitment, we shall cut more than 35,000 from our defence personnel within the next five years. I suspect that my right hon. Friends have taken the recruitment figures of recent years and projected them to see what the establishment will be anyway, and then reduced that establishment in line with the figures. That is sensible, because if one is to end up with a force below establishment one should reduce the establishment figures to bring them into line. But there is no point in pretending that one is saving money by doing so.
If we turn from what is in the defence review to what is not, we find an extraordinary feature. The review is apparently aimed at saving money, yet all the major projects, the most expensive projects, have got through unscathed. The through-deck cruiser is still in our programme, although we do not know how many such cruisers we shall have. I suspect that the through-deck cruiser has been retained not so much as a result of an analysis of the kind of Navy we shall need in 1980 but because of the Navy's traditional preference for large surface command and control ships.
The MRCA is also still in our programme, apparently with every one of the 385 models with which it entered the defence review. That is a measure of the pressure of the Royal Air Force in demanding a traditional manned fighter force. I am disappointed, even if the hon. and and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) is not, that the Defence Department did not seriously examine the
1244
suggestion that the air defence rô1e could be adequately served by missiles.
The greatest prestige system of them all, Polaris, is still there, and will apparently continue throughout the period covered by the review. I am glad that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has returned to the Chamber. I appreciated his comment that the mention of Polaris in the review is almost Delphic in its obscurity. Some time in the next 10 years we shall face a decision on the future of Polaris, because it will become obsolete in that period, for technological reasons. There is no mention of that in the review.
The House is indebted to Margaret Gowing for her comprehensive work on the history of the way in which we got into the nuclear business in the first place. It is significant that it is almost impossible to identify any conscious decision to go nuclear. In the light of that, it may be reasonable to hope that if we are to cease to be a nuclear Power in the next 10 years, as looks likely, it may be the result of a deliberate and conscious choice and not a decision forced on us by economic and technological decline—which is the way in which we have changed our defence posture every time in the past 15 years.
My right hon. Friends may reply that all these weapons systems—through-deck cruiser, MRCA, Polaris—have to be retained because they are committed to NATO and are essential to our role in NATO. Here we come to the crux of the matter, because if we insist that we shall remain a leading member of an alliance based on sophisticated weapons systems, no substantial cut in defence expenditure is available to us.
There have been many changes in the past 10 years. Listening to some Conservative Members, one would not think so, but there have been diplomatic and economic breaks through in East-West relations. For example, the German position has largely stabilised, through actions of the Germans themselves. The substantial increase in trade between East and West is bound in time to be more effective and more important than any diplomatic breakthrough.
The tragedy is that these diplomatic and economic détentes are not reflected in any comparable military détente. The

1245
reason is that both sides—I accuse both equally—have created military-industrial complexes which are developing military technology at a rate which has a mad momentum of its own and which continues regardless of the economic and diplomatic changes. The most depressing thing about the defence review is that it projects that trend for the next 10 years, and sees us in 1984 with both NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries armed to the teeth and glaring at each other over the Berlin Wall in a state of armed hostility.
The real absurdity is that the kind of prestige hardware one needs for that kind of confrontation is ludicrously irrelevant to the rôle the Army has had since the war. The place where the Army is most involved is Northern Ireland. I am surprised that so many commentators on defence still insist that the role of the Army there is an aberration from its real job and that some day soon it will be able to get back to fighting Russians and Poles.
I do not wish to be pessimistic. Like everyone else in the House, I hope that the Army can get out of Northern Ireland as soon as possible. But it has been there for almost as long as the duration of the Second World War, and there are men in senior places under the Secretary of State who believe, with some force, that the role that the Army has in Northern Ireland now is likely to be more typical of its job in the next 30 years than the kind of role envisaged in the defence review—fighting a highly sophisticated, highly advanced, global enemy. There is no hint of that in the review.
I return to the essential economic point. Five years from now—at the end of this Parliament, when my right hon. Friend and I are returning to our constituencies to seek re-election—we shall be spending more than 5 per cent. of our gross national product on defence. I accept all the criticisms of this as a measure of our defence expenditure—that it is rough and ready, and that it does not adequately value the cost to a country of a conscript army. But it is the best available measure to compare the proportion which each country devotes from its economy to defence expenditure.
If, therefore, we accept it as a standard of comparison and look five years ahead,
1246
we find that, far from averaging with our allies, we are likely to move up from third place to second place in NATO in terms of the percentage spent on defence, because it is certain that Portugal will drop down in the scale, since it is going to cut its defence expenditure. We shall have the ludicrous situation in 1980 of Britain, by then one of the poorest countries in NATO, remaining one of the last of the big spenders.
The latest report of the Defence Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee said:
"The Committee would also draw attention to the very serious implications for future expenditure if the Ministry of Defence continued to base their forward approach on an unrealistic projection of growth in the gross national product."
This defence review is based on a 3 per cent. growth per annum. I suspect that one thing which unites the supporters of both amendments is that we do not believe that we shall have an annual growth of 3 per cent. over the next 10 years. If we do not have such growth we shall be faced with annual reviews of defence expenditure of the sort we had from the Conservative Government last December, with short-term, disruptive and damaging cuts in defence. Perhaps the time will come in the not-too-distant future when many in this Chamber will wish that they had not caused such disruption to the Armed Forces by not reaching out and grasping the nettle and bringing defence expenditure into line with our economic expectations of the next five years.
9.19 p.m.
Mr. Julian Critchley: This debate is the hors d'oeuvre for what promises to be a four-course lunch—four defence debates between now and the beginning of March. Whether this means that defence is at long last becoming a fashionable subject to debate, I am not so certain, but I would like to think so. It has always been an unfashionable topic, certainly as long as I have been in the House. The House of Lords speaks with rather more authority on defence than we do, yet outside this place there is an intellectual awareness of the problems of defence not always reflected in the House of Commons itself. Perhaps times are changing, and perhaps this is a symptom of something that will improve.

1247
I am sorry for the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. They are both robust defenders of the concept of collective security. They are social democrats. Indeed, the Minister of State might possibly claim to be the first social democrat in the British context. Yet the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are responsible for a defence review the object of which is to reduce defence spending to an artificial limit at a time when our enemies have never been stronger. Just as "renegotiation" is a sham, a device to neutralise the division of opinion within the Labour Party over Europe, so the defence review is simply an adhesive, a pot of glue, which at some risk to the security of the West may succeed in making a gift of apparent harmony within the Labour movement.
The Secretary of State has claimed more than once that NATO remains the linchpin of British security while at the same time announcing reductions of defence spending, which, even were his example not to be followed by our allies, must weaken the capacity of this country to wage war.
The right hon. Gentleman's argument about the proportion of GNP spent on defence by Britain and her allies is specious in the extreme. We are in no position to claim that we contribute more than our fair share to NATO as a whole. As has been said by many speakers, we make a contribution that is considerably less than that made by either France or Germany. In fact, our contribution on an annual basis is 67 per cent. of the German defence budget, and our figure is boosted by the fact of a volunteer army that has within it a large provision for social welfare and education. And why should our share of the common defence be measured, not by the strength of our enemies, but by the contributions of our friends?
We should be engaged in strengthening the NATO alliance, not in weakening it, and I am fairly certain that hon. Members will have seen on the tape—
Mr. Douglas Hoyle: Why should not it be measured against the economic position of the country? Surely that is the test of what we can spend on defence.
Mr. Critchley: The defence of a country is the first charge upon its
1248
economic resources, and when one looks at the rate and pattern of expenditure in general, and sees the smaller proportion of money spent on defence in the past decade, and compares that with the Soviet threat, one realises how foolish it is to make reductions at this time.
I wonder how many Labour Members have seen this evening's news from Brussels, which is that Dr. Luns, the Secretary-General of NATO, has expressed anxiety and apprehension about the Government's defence review. So much for the warm welcome that our allies have given to this document. Mr. Schlesinger's remarks were less than enthusiastic, and now they have been followed by those of Dr. Luns himself. I wonder whether that point might be put to the Secretary of State on his return from dinner.
When the Dutch suggested earlier this year that they reduce the number of their forces in NATO it was agreed within NATO that after the bargaining and consultation between NATO and Holland the military council should meet and agree a communiqué that would set out the results of the threatened reduction in the Netherland's defence expenditure. That happened for the first time. Will the Secretary of State be prepared to act in a similar way with our defence review at the end of six weeks of consultation and discussion in Brussels?
At present, force levels in Europe are just adequate to ensure deterrence as required by a strategy of flexible response, and, at the moment, two factors still work in our favour. They are rationalisation, if it can be made to work, and the MBFR talks in Vienna. Clearly we must build a more effective system of defence at levels of expenditure no larger than now exist, but were rationalisation to fail, and were the allied position at Vienna to crumble—the Netherlands have already broken ranks at Vienna—and, as a consequence, unilateral reductions in our "ready" forces take place, NATO would be unable to sustain its present strategy.
If this were to happen, have hon. Members opposite, especially those who are not in favour of defence, who perhaps hanker after a neutral Britain— whether that Britain could have an armed or a disarmed neutrality is a point that we have never been able to extract from them—thought through the implications?

1249
Let us go through the implications of being obliged to alter NATO's strategy because the number of our "ready" forces are reduced.
Were flexible response to fail, one possibility would be a return to the immediate, and first, use of nuclear weapons—the tripwire strategy of the 1950s and early 1960s. Is there any hon. Member who still believes that nuclear weapons would be used first against a Russian conventional attack? Has the Labour Party been reconverted to a reliance upon a nuclear strategy? The decision to introduce nuclear weapons into the battlefield would be continually postponed for fear of Soviet reprisals.
Nuclear weapons deter nuclear weapons. Conventional weapons deter conventional weapons. Even were the strategy of flexible response to be kept, even if we were still able to keep a sufficiency of "ready" forces, any strategy which relies upon the uncertainty of response must become less credible with the passing of time.
Allied nuclear weapons, large and small, are effectively under the control of the United States, However, the United States and the USSR are now effectively restricted to the use of non-nuclear force in almost every conceivable situation in which force might be needed. Are the Government, therefore, placing their hope in the fact that the United States, will be prepared to keep in Southern Germany the same number of land forces as they have for the past 15 to 20 years?
If not the "tripwire", the only alternative would be the substitution of a strategy which would be based upon warning, but would that short period— a day, a week—be used with courage and determination? Would the politicians, faced with a crisis, be prepared to take the measures necessary to overcome weaknesses in deployment, which are very great indeed, and summon reinforcements from abroad at a time of tension? Would not the signals of Soviet movement and manoeuvre be filtered out by our preconceptions? Would we not see only what we wanted to see? History is filled with examples of warnings unheeded.
The truth is that NATO is being nibbled at by time and boredom. We require from the Secretary of State some evidence that he is prepared to do some-
1250
thing positive to overcome NATO's weaknesses. Admiral Hill-Norton has spelt some of them out. There are serious deficiencies in NATO manning levels, reserve stocks, electronic warfare capabilities, air defence and anti-submarine warfare. The gap between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is widening to our disadvantage. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Given the superiority of Warsaw Pact manpower and their more effective capacity to reinforce, the admiral's view, that the Russians need only one man in a support role whereas NATO needs two, makes a mockery of a defence policy based ostensibly upon economy, but in reality upon expediency.
What is wanted is an AD75. That is a plan similar to AD70, which was instituted in 1968 after the invasion of Czechoslovakia. But AD75, if the Secretary of State would adopt it, would be a plan which, by taking inflation into account and increased operating costs, would initiate a programme of specialisation, rationalisation and standardisation. NATO needs to standardise its equipment. At present it operates 25 different types of aircraft and 15 different types of armoured vehicles.
Even more important than the standardisation of its equipment, it needs to standardise its logistics. Much greater effort is needed both in the establishment of reserve units—for reinforcement would be vital to NATO's success—and in the building up of the full logistic support necessary to deploy reserves in sectors where they would be most needed. NATO's real weakness lies in a lack of compatibility and inter-operability of its forces. The point is that as the forces of the various nations depend upon national lines of communication, and as their equipment, and often their doctrine, too, is not standardised, the supreme commander is unable to deploy them at the place of his choice.
The integration of command and control with operational planning has, as yet, no equivalent whatsoever in the field of logistics. This, in its turn, sets narrow limits on the flexibility of operational command and control.
In the past Labour's defence policy— and this is not the first of Labour's defence reviews; it is not, in fact, the

1251
most radical of them—may be described as exercises designed not to betray but to deceive, to pull the wool over the eyes of one-third of its own political party. It was, after all, Mrs. Wilson who launched the fourth Polaris submarine. Perhaps today the motive behind the exercise is the same. But as reduction follows reduction, and as Russia grows stronger and the West is in a state of disarray, is there not a real chance that the Secretary of State may succeed not only in the deception of his friends but also in the betrayal of his country's interests?
9.38 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) touched on the costs of education and social welfare in the forces, he raised a real and important question. I should like to ask my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench this question. How much of the defence budget can properly be put down to education and social welfare and, indeed, to the technology that goes with the civilian involvement with North Sea oil rigs and diving? I should be very grateful if that question could be answered by the Minister of State. I am sure the figures are readily available. It is a very clear question as to how much non-military expenditure can rightly be put down to the defence budget.
Mr. Mason: I should like to inform my hon. Friend that on hospitals, schools and housing the Defence vote carries £210 million.
Mr. Dalyell: That says a lot. But perhaps we could leave that subject.
I should like to reflect that, until my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) started speaking, any serving soldier of the British Army sitting up in the Public Gallery would have thought that the House of Commons was a very odd and strange place. If I were a serving soldier in the British Army, I should, regardless of any political views I held, think that the Members of Parliament might be discussing the subject of Ireland, because with the prospect of being posted there, perhaps for the third, fourth or fifth time, this would seem a
1252
little less remote than Gan and all the other places we have visited today.
Last Thursday, in the aftermath of the Northern Ireland debate, a number of hon. Members, not all on the Government side of the House, said rather gloomily "Of course, you are right in suspecting that the Army presence in Ulster, far from bringing peace, actually makes the situation worse. But you really ought not to say this in the House of Commons, since it undermines the morale of the Army and encourages the IRA". It is precisely this kind of consideration which has kept some of us tight-lipped for two years or more, but now it renders no service at all to the country, to the Army or to Ireland to remain muted any longer.
Convention or no convention, it is just not credible that there is a solution round the proverbial corner, and the plea "Be patient. Wait a little longer. Give this or that a chance" that we have had from successive Front Benchers has worn too thin.
I think of the periods 1939–45 and 1969–75. The open conflict in Northern Ireland has now lasted, as my hon. Friend said, for nearly the period of the Second World War. How many of us who sat here on 13th October 1969 conceived in our wildest nightmares that six years later the Army would still be operating in Northern Ireland?
Dick Crossman's diaries will reveal, if and when they are published, that the members of the Cabinet not immediately concerned with Northern Ireland were assured that this was a three-month, or at the most a six-month, police operation. This is what they were told. It is perhaps ironic that the Member on this side of the House who possibly, with the exception of the Secretary of State, knew most, and certainly cared most, about the British Army was the one to challenge the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, pleased with his handiwork and that of his Ministers.
In October 1969 to his credit George Wigg said to Sir Philip Allen "You have put them in. Now just tell me how you are going to get them out."
This was a problem that the Secretary of State was aware of, because in his

1253
celebrated speech at Newcastle-under-Lyme on 24th April he said:
"Pressure is mounting on the Mainland to pull out the troops—equally, demands are being being made to set a date for withdrawal, thereby forcing the leaders of the warring factions to get together and to hammer out a solution."
That is the most urgent defence issue of 1975.
I thought that it was bizarre and unreal for my right hon. Friend to mention Northern Ireland only once in passing in his opening address. If we are not careful, this country has the prospect of a 30 years' war on its hands. To some of us it is the IRA and not the Russians or the Chinese who present the most immediate threat. Any hon. Member who has seen the youngsters in Long Kesh or on the streets of Derry or of Belfast will not pooh-pooh that remark.
Before I utter another word I must put it on the record that the soldiers are involved in a most miserable situation and that most units have shown incredible restraint in the face of odious provocation. Again as my right hon. Friend said at Newcastle-under-Lyme—
"Their restraint is remarkable—trying to maintain peace between the IRA, the Provisional IRA, extreme Protestants and other purely criminal activities that fester and grow in such a situation."
I echo that.
However, the awkward fact remains that soon after the troops were widely welcomed in 1969, the chemistry of the situation underwent a change, and for years now the soldiers have not been seen as "our British Army" but have been seen by many in Ulster as an alien English, Scottish and Welsh Army. It has become a "They and us" situation. It is quite clear from speaking to returning soldiers, if not to their officers, who are more discreet, that the Northern Irish have become as alien to any members of the British Army as were the Cypriots in the 1950s and 1960s and the Adenis in the late 1960s. Any idea of British soldiers being "our Army" for any extremists on both sides was scotched by the understandable, though not necessarily correct, decision not to send the Irish regiments to Ulster.
The truth is very distasteful. Our boys in uniform have become a focus for hatred, and a considerable number of men and women are waging what amounts to a
1254
kind of holy war to get the "Brits" out. There is widespread sympathy for many who harbour the IRA, and there is an enormous fund of anti-English myth and legend, and perhaps some little fact— we have to admit it—as we have recently learned from the High Court.
Some half century ago, 72,000 British soldiers in Ireland failed against Michael Collins. Less recently, Cromwell, Straf-ford and Edward Plantagenet, full of what they doubtless thought honourable motives, met with bloodshed and catastrophe. I do not know why Ministers of either party, given the history of Ireland, think that they can do any better, because now the whole premise on which the Army is there—namely, to back up and buy time for the moderates—is shaky. There are fewer moderates than we like to suppose, and fewer still who have any real influence. The history of Ireland, if it tells us anything, tells us that extremes settle with one another.
For the reasons I gave on Thursday, I do not assume that there would be a blood bath if the Army were to withdraw, but I think that there will be considerable loss of blood if detention, and especially detention without trial, continues. However—and this is the fix that the Government are in—to let out men of violence, or suspected violence, who have been rounded up in the first place at the risk of the lives of troops would be intolerable if at the same time the House of Commons and the Government asked the British Army to stay.
We cannot have it both ways. I agree that it is absolutely impossible to ask that of soldiers. If we bring detention to an end and let people out of Long Kesh, it is impossible and, indeed immoral to ask the Army to stay, because the soldiers have been risking their lives to round up those men, and to let them out would destroy the morale of the British Army. Somehow this vicious circle has to be broken, because the uncomfortable fact is that as long as something approaching 3.000 Irishmen are in what are seen as English gaols, violence will continue.
I must refer, if briefly, to the remarkable and formidable speech of the Home Secretary. He said:
"No Home Secretary can bind his successor. But in my view—and I speak with full consideration here—there is no prospect of

1255
amnesties for those who have committed coldblooded and indiscriminate murder or maiming in this country. I do not recognise political excuses for crimes of that order. Those who have received long sentences should, in my view, serve them, whatever political settlements there may be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December 1974 ; Vol. 883, c. 634.]
Well, he probably had to say this, did he not? I simply reflect that these people regard themselves not as criminals but as prisoners of war and it may go against the grain, but the alternative— this has to be said—may be conflict for the lifetime in public life of most of us here.
The exit would be inglorious, but, then, de Gaulle had to make an inglorious exit from Algeria. I would not interpret it as being craven or letting people down but simply, from the other aspect, facing reality. If we kept the British Army beyond the spring, we would be on an expensive hiding to nothing in terms of money and, much more important, on an expensive hiding to nothing in terms of human life.
I end—and I do not think that this is unfair, because I am one of his admirers —with a sentence again from the remarkable speech of my right hon. Friend at Newcastle-under-Lyme on 24th April. He said:
"It just cannot go on—deep seated hatreds are germinating in young breasts—soon all the young people of Ulster will be filled with hate; hatred against their own kinsmen as well as our own forces."
It would be an abuse of the House if I were to repeat the detailed arguments that I was allowed to make 10 days ago in the Irish debate. I end by pleading with my right hon. Friend to think about a different and alternative strategy in Ireland, because until this is done we cannot meaningfully discuss the defence review.
9.50 p.m.
Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) into the labyrinth of Ulster, although I echo his tribute to the bearing and forbearance of our troops serving there.
I listened to the Minister's statement and read it carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have listened to the Minister again today. The Minister called his statement a defence review. It is nothing of the kind. A defence review should review our defence needs and our com-
1256
mitments, and the balance and capacity of our forces. The statement does none of those things.
Will the Minister tell us whether, after these cuts have been made, we shall have balanced defence forces as a national entity, or whether they will be complementary to those of other NATO countries? Will he tell us to what extent consideration has been given to the types of ships, aircraft and tanks best suited to our needs and to our obligations? For example, the Navy is now engaged on anti-gun-running patrols off Ireland. Would not comparatively small, fast and simple patrol boats do this job better than the larger, more sophisticated vessels now being used?
In his statement the Minister told us what cuts were to be made. There are provisos that we shall consult our allies, and that is right. On 21st March the Minister said that the review would commence. On 3rd December he said:
"We are today beginning our consultations with our allies in NATO."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December 1974; Vol. 981, c. 1352.]
What happened in that eight months' interval? Why were there no consultations during that comparatively long period?
The Minister announced cuts and consultations. What form will those consultations take? What form can they take, and has he aready decided on them? I know that the Minister qualified that statement today, but definite figures are contained in the statement. What form can those consultations take, except a statement to our allies, "This is what we have decided, but we are prepared to discuss details."
This is not a defence review. This is a price review. It is the announcement of a compromise between the maximum cut the Minister can persuade the Services to agree to and the minimum cuts he thinks will satisfy his own Left wing. The Government have decided to peg defence expenditure at 4½ per cent. of the gross national product. If that is correct and they really mean it, they must restrict Defence Estimates to defence expenditure. Here I take up the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian, who spoke about the expenditure on education for the forces.
Other Ministries must make provision in their Estimates and their expenditure

1257
for items which are not truly defence items. There is the education of children of Service men. There is university education. There is technical training, training of apprentices, retraining for civil life, the health services, hospitals, doctors, nurses, and welfare services of every kind. The Royal Navy maintains surveying ships and services providing charts and navigational publications. The RAF produces its own publications and runs a weather service. The Army produces maps and even maintains roads. These and other services are provided by the forces, and they come under the heading of defence expenditure. But they are widely used by the public at large and they should be apportioned amongst all the Ministries according to their use.
In more detail the statement says that manpower is to be reduced by 35,000 compared with the strength in April. Will the Minister make it quite clear whether that means a reduction in the actual strength or in the establishment strength, because the two figures can vary considerably? Will the hon. Gentleman state categorically that these reduced figures will be adequate for all our commitments?
It has been the strategy for a long time to have small garrisons overseas with the capacity for rapid build-up from the United Kingdom or Germany. But RAF transport is to be reduced by half, one Marine Commando is to go, and no assault ships are to be built. I understood the Secretary of State to say that that policy has now been abandoned. What happens to those overseas garrisons? Are they to be sitting ducks for the first aggressor who likes to come along?
The Hong Kong garrison is to be maintained, but Gan is to go. Gan is the most important staging post for the Far East. Diego Garcia is a long way south. Can it replace Gan without seriously reducing the payload of aircraft? If Gan is to go and Diego Garcia cannot replace it, how is Hong Kong to be serviced? In any event, what is to happen to Gan? Will the installations there be destroyed, or will they be abandoned, for the first-comer to take them over, or will they be given to Russia? The Minister should tell the House what
1258
is to happen to Gan, that most important position in the Indian Ocean.
What about the Gurkhas in Brunei? My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) emphasised that the battalion cost us nothing. The Secretary of State tried to explain the situation. I do not know whether he was confused, but he managed to confuse me. I hope that he will come clean and tell us the real reason for withdrawing the Gurkhas from Brunei.
About the only welcome news is that the Polaris force is to be maintained. Once again I plead for an increase in the force by one submarine. At present we have four submarines. All too often it means that with refitting and so on there is only one out of four in the operational zone. One more submarine—
It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Defence Review may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock. —[Mr. Donald Coleman.]
Question again proposed.
Mr. Pink: With five Polaris submarines we could have two in the patrol area the whole time. We would get a 100 per cent. effective increase in our force for a 25 per cent. increase in the fleet. These boats are getting old and obsolete. If we are to retain the Polaris force, what is the programme for replacing them with newer and more modern boats?
These proposals in the review are a danger to the safety of this country. The Government must know the danger of these cuts and of reducing our defences at a time when the Warsaw Pact countries are increasing theirs. I appeal to the Government to reverse these policies. If they are not prepared to do so I can only hope that our NATO allies will knock some sense into them when the consultations take place.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now reaching the end of the debate. I have been trying to extract a little more time for back benchers by taking it from the time alloted to the Front Benches for the replies. I hope very much to be able to call four more speakers from the back

1259
benches. That will mean an absolute maximum of 10 minutes per speech.
10.3 p.m.
Miss Jo Richardson: My hon. Friends and I who tabled an amendment were, naturally, disappointed that you could not find it possible to select that amendment, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to remind the House of the terms of that amendment. I trust I shall be forgiven for reading it. We have said that we decline to:
"take note of the statement on the Defence Review on the grounds that in present critical economic circumstances it proposes an increase in real terms in arms spending on the £3,612 million estimate for 1974–75 made at the beginning of the year to £3,800 million in 1976–77; that it commits Great Britain for the next 10 years to spend a higher proportion of the gross national product on defence than any of our major western allies; that it fails to propose significant reductions in major weapon projects; that it leaves Great Britain to maintain unjustifiable commitments east of Suez for the next decade ; and that it fails to release real resources and skilled manpower to industries which directly boost our exports and economic growth".
We were bitterly disappointed that the defence review was not in line with the programme on which all of us in the Labour Party, including the Secretary of State for Defence, fought the last General Election. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he believes that it fulfils the Labour Party manifesto commitment. But it is stretching credulity too far to say that so-called reductions of £300 million in 1975–76, £500 million by 1978–79 and £750 million by 1983–84 come anywhere near to meeting the arguments which the Labour Party put forward during the General Election. In real terms the review represents an increase in spending. What the Secretary of State has done is to trim off some of the fat which should have been trimmed away earlier.
I speak as a layman. I am not like many of the military strategists on the benches opposite who remind me of nursery days when one moves battalions here and platoons there. I am sorry to say that I do not understand these matters. However, I understand the expenditure side. It seems that we are cutting a battalion in Brunei—which I gather will not cost us anything anyway— and our forces in Mauritius and Gan, and making some reductions in Cyprus
1260
and eventually in Malta, but nothing— and this is the important point—to speak of is being done in Europe. That is what is swallowing up the money. It is our contribution to NATO which is crippling us because it amounts to about 90 per cent. of our defence spending.
Why are we still maintaining Polaris submarines? Why are we maintaining British and American nuclear bases? They are not a deterrent. If they were I might be convinced. I believe that their existence actually represents a danger to people in this country. What is more, we have no real control over them. The Nassau agreement said that we could use them only in the most dire emergency. Otherwise their use will be a NATO decision. That means that we are committed totally to NATO plans and NATO targeting. But to what extent is NATO's targeting policy the same as that of its dominant partner, the United States, and to what extent are our weapons systems tied to American weapons systems?
I am sorry to hear that we are still committed to the MRCA. We are told that 385 planes are on order at today's prices, and they are about £4 million each. The Secretary of State said that we may slow down the programme. But does that not mean that in our present state of inflation we shall probably pay more for them in the end even if he phases their delivery over a longer period?
We are still proceeding with the through-deck cruiser programme. The cost of each cruiser is getting on for £1 million. Why are we cutting our research and development by only 10 per cent? We could cut it out altogether and buy what we needed from our partners.
We are reducing manpower by 65,000, plus 15,000 locally employed people. Why cannot we plan to cut more? Some of my hon. Friends have already shown that we could easily absorb more people into useful industries instead of putting them on the useless work that they are doing now.
Is it not time that we took a long cool look at NATO? The supposed reason for its existence is to defend us against the threat from the Warsaw Pact. I believe that that threat is vastly overstated. The Soviet Union, though I regret

1261
that she spends so much of her resources and manpower on defence and requires her allies to do likewise, has far too much to lose to risk endangering her people and her economic future by involving herself in another war. However, even if the Soviet Union were involved in some kind of confrontation, would not we in Britain be first in line for attack because of our possession of nuclear weapons and Polaris and because of our position in NATO?
My personal view is that a genuine threat comes from NATO, and that in reality NATO is being used to prevent social change. We in this country should not be associated with that. Let us remember that NATO consists not simply of the countries of Western Europe but is dominated by the United States.
We have already seen the rôle of the CIA in Chile. I have no doubt that the CIA is carefully watching the changes which have taken place in Portugal. We may be sure that any hope of social change in Spain will be prevented by American influence. If it had not been for what I believe was a conspiracy between the United States and the Greek colonels, what happened in Cyprus might never have happened. The possibly antidemocratic nature of NATO should be
1262
watched. I believe that the Common Market is an economic counterpart of NATO, supporting the same reactionary forces. That is one reason why I am opposed to it.
Should we not now be beginning to re-think our rôle in Europe and the world? We were once a great military Power. We have not been one for a long time, and it is time we faced that. We could be a great Power in an entirely different way. We should gain much more respect if we rejected our rôle of trailing behind the United States and NATO, and if we stood on our own, unhampered by pressures from outside. Then we should build a better Britain. We could use the resources which we so released to re-equip our run-down industry.
I thought that we were supposed to be in the middle of an economic crisis. We could spend more on social services, which hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly telling us cost too much, and we could make a real contribution to the relief of world poverty and hunger, which are the real enemy of peace in the world.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for keeping to her time.
10.12 p.m.
Mr. Alan Clark: On all previous occasions when my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have questioned the Secretary of State and his colleagues on this topic we have been told to wait on points of detail for the publication of the defence review. The defence review is now upon us, but the elucidation of the details of expenditure, cost effectiveness and savings is remarkably obscure. For example, it is hard to relate the savings to the measures and cuts which are embodied in the review. As to the withdrawals which the Secretary of State proposes, how much individually will be saved by withdrawing from Gan, Mauritius and Brunei? It is hard to see how the proper discussions and consultations, which the Secretary of State promised, can be conducted if the individual figures attaching to these measures cannot be provided.
I go further and question whether the withdrawals are advisable at all. These stations are not truly "Imperial" in the old pejorative sense. They do not involve rule by an alien force against the wishes of a native population. They are pieces of strategically vital real estate. Real estate of that kind is vital for several military and economic purposes, not simply as supply bases but also for the protection of trade units, as dispersal points, missile tracking stations and so forth.
The House has lately been reminded of the importance of such pieces of real estate by the Falkland Islands, of which we might well have been tempted to divest ourselves, in spite of the expressed wishes of their inhabitants and in spite of their potential strategic advantages. Now it has been established that there is oil in their territorial waters, and they offer one of the most favourable platforms for the exploration of the mineral-rich Antarctic. How easily we might have disposed of the Falkland Islands some years ago to please the Argentinians, or even the Chileans in the days when they found favour with the Labour Party.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider carefully the suggested withdrawals, because of all strategic decisions in defence planning, physical withdrawals
1264
are the most difficult to reverse. Weapons programmes, recruitment and research can suffer harm, but need not be irreversible, given the will and the resources at a later date. But physical withdrawals from territory are final. I listened earlier with great interest to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), who spoke of the Middle and Near East. He might dissent from me on this point, but I do not believe that it is too much to say that the whole of the present oil deficit crisis, which troubles the Labour Party and the country, has its origins in the failure of nerve by the British Government in 1956 when they withdrew from Suez.
The function of defence policy, in conjunction with foreign policy, is to advance, nurture and protect the interests of the United Kingdom. This is its primary function. Obligations to alliances are important, but only where such alliances contribute to this essential purpose. Plainly, any alliance that takes precedence over the individual interests of the United Kingdom would cease to command any obligation.
I note that the right hon. Gentleman declared the intention to maintain his bias of strength in the centre and in harmony with the NATO alliance. But is there not a danger of becoming mesmerised by the strength of the Warsaw Pact forces to the detriment of the position which it is essential that the United Kingdom maintains if it is to preserve its trading capacity? Any collision in the central front on a major scale is bound to involve the use of nuclear weapons. Is this really a probability? In Hermann Kahn's phrase, no one will just "press the nuclear button and go home to tea." Far more likely must be rated the possibility of a conventional blockade either of the United Kingdom alone or of the United Kingdom and a part of western Europe by the Soviet fleet. To break or loosen such a blockade by the use of nuclear weapons would put the West in the position of an aggressor. To avoid this, it is necessary to have an adequate conventional capacity to resist such a blockade, at least for some weeks while negotiated positions are established.
This brings me to the subject of weaponry, the hardware with which the forces fight. The Secretary of State drew

1265
attention to the rapidly increasing efficiency of the Russian navy. I have constituents in Plymouth who can remember the "Royal Sovereign" returning from being lent to the Soviet navy at the the end of the war. They remember the filthy condition in which it was returned, with no equipment working properly, the sights of the guns out of alignment and dirt all over the decks. These constituents now have sons who served in the Royal Navy and in Operation Northern Merger last September, they were shadowed for the whole duration of the exercise by a "Kriva" class destroyer. I know that some hon. Members on the Government side have a fraternal interest in the welfare and efficiency of the Soviet navy. They will be interested to learn that this destroyer was on good terms with the ships in the exercise and would converse with them over the signals system. On one exceedingly stormy night the admiral in command asked all ships under his command to signal details of the best speed they could maintain during the night, and various answers came back, of 12, 14 and 18 knots. When every ship in the fleet had sent an answer, the Russian Kriva destroyer signalled "28 knots," and it was serious. The most significant thing about this shadowing operation was that the "Kriva" destroyer never had to take on fuel throughout the exercise. The "Leanders" were taking on fuel every three days. What more vivid corrobora-tion could there be that in terms of quality the Soviet navy is now fast advancing to a state where it will be ship for ship, the most formidable in the world? [Interruption.] I am delighted that Labour Members should feel so concerned.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State and his colleagues questions about their accounting. The right hon. Gentleman says that weapons research is to be cut by 10 per cent. Is that qualitative or quantitative? Will he be axing some projects in their entirety, leaving others to their former budget, or is there to be a 10 per cent. cut across the board?
The hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) suggested that weapons research should be cut out altogether. But it is the most important single sector of all defence expenditure if forward planning is to have any significance.
1266
What would our predecessors—not just those who sat on the Government benches 59 or 70 years ago, but Clem Attlee's old Cabinet—have thought of priorities which gave free contraceptives to children under the age of consent and cut back on the essential requirements of the Royal Navy? [Laughter.] I have been in the House long enough to know that when Labour Members start laughing they are feeling uncomfortable. What would Clem Attlee's old Cabinet have thought of priorities which allocated revenue towards colour television sets for prisoners in preference to new reconnaissance vehicles for the Army? There is a fundamental difference in attitude on this question.
The Secretary of State has said that he will cut spending by a percentage of the GNP. What if the GNP should expand over the period in question? What if all the new workers' co-operatives and part-owned enterprises we are promised should lead to a great upsurge in the GNP? Will there be a restoration of some of the cuts? If, as is much more likely, GNP contracts, will the Secretary of State at six-monthly or lengthier intervals explain that still further cuts are needed, that still more mutilation of the Services is required? Will the reviews become more frequent as the GNP contracts?
When he made his statement the Secretary of State was pressed by my hon. Friends on the effects of the cuts on industry. He answered—but his voice noticeably tailed away—that the resources released would go into exports. Leaving aside the validity of the claim of resources being released, what causes the right hon. Gentleman to believe that such resources would automatically flow in that direction? I have heard of the free market philosophy, but that is very optimistic.
I know that Labour Members are touchy about whom they export arms to, but the armaments industry is one of our most important export industries. If the Government properly supported the armament industry and fostered its quests for contracts by those means of diplomacy and pressure employed by our competitors, and often by our allies, the industry would be even more successful. That is a much more effective way of directly fostering exports than simply by cutting into and mutilating the industry and hoping that the resources released

1267
will find their own way into the export trade by some obscure alchemy of the free market.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember my request for brevity. He has had 12 minutes.
Mr. Clark: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I am about to conclude.
The resources the right hon. Gentleman has promised to release are essentially human. What about the gunsmiths, drawing office technicians, armourers, electronic engineers and dockyard welders? Are they to learn new trades or variants of a trade? From heavy industry to a light technology and engineering, prosperity and defence are closely linked, and that link is, or should be, even more important in times of industrial recession. To meddle with one is seriously to jeopardise the other.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. John Lee: I do not think I shall follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) on the after-dinner speech with which he has managed to entertain the House, except for one or two points. One may say that he must be the last surviving supporter of the Suez strategy of 1956. To that extent, he has a certain antique value to the House.
The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder), in a rather more serious speech, sang the praises of NATO, which prompts me to remind the House that if there is one thing that the NATO organisation has failed to do, it has been to save two countries that have been the subject of Soviet aggression since the war—Czechoslovakia and Hungary. It failed to do so for the simple reason that even those who were ruling this country at the time knew perfectly well that any attempt by us to intervene would result in a nuclear war in which we would be faced with complete destruction. The fact is that NATO's bluff was called long ago. It no longer serves any useful purpose for any of us to pretend that it serves a useful function.
All that one can say of the defence review, is that one looks for small mercies in it. There is something for those who, for the last seven years, have been anxious to get the Government to come back from east of Suez. Some
1268
movement has been achieved in that regard. But it is still a very depressing situation at a time of unparalleled economic crisis, when not only is it true that those who are fair-minded realise that there has to be a considerable reduction in expenditure if we are not to go on enfeebling our economy, but the United States Defence Secretary, Mr. Schlesinger, a few weeks ago was prepared to concede that the nuclear deterrent was no longer a valid concept. If such a view was forthcoming from so unexpected a source, one would have thought that the Government would have considered the time had arrived to bring to an end the nuclear deterrent.
Because the Government have not done so, some of us are going to find ourselves in revolt tonight. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will probably have a lot of explaining to do. I do not suppose that anything he says will be sufficient to make us change our minds on the matter, but as he was one of those responsible some years ago for trying to secure the reversal of the Labour Party conference's successful anti-nuclear campaign, he will have an opportunity to see that many of us in the Labour Party still do not regard the battle of 1961 as being over. He will see that we are as committed as ever to the removal of the unilateral nuclear deterrent from this country. We regard its retention as madness, and, whatever the outcome of the vote tonight, will go on fighting until we have got rid of it.
10.29 p.m.
Mr. Peter Viggers:
"… once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, no hospitals, no schools. We have a heap of cinders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]
I am glad that the members of the "Shadow Opposition" on the Government benches are in their places to hear that graphic description of excessive defence cuts, because it was given by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Secretary of State for Defence. It proves that as Chancellor of the Exchequer he makes a first-class Secretary of State for Defence.
Yet the Labour Party conference in 1973 called for military spending to be cut by at least £1,000 million a year. Furthermore, Labour Party conference

1269
resolutions in 1972 and 1973 opposed a defence policy based on the nuclear deterrent. There is no clearer example of the Labour Party conference's disregard for the realities of this world, and no clearer example of the country's good fortune in one respect at least— that the relationship between the Labour Party conference and the Labour Government is roughly the relationship between John Gilpin and his horse.
The truth of the matter is that the Government's freedom of action on defence has been severely circumscribed. Faced by demands for cuts, they have, nevertheless, had to pay regard to the world around us and to certain overriding commitments. They have had to observe our treaty obligations. They have had to observe the NATO commitment, and particularly the requirement for troops to be kept in Germany. There is the Northern Ireland commitment, which shows no sign of lessening. There is the continued need for a nuclear deterrent, and this is fulfilled quite inexpensively through the Polaris submarine fleet. There is the commitment, given before the General Election and before the rest of the defence review was announced, to keep open all four naval dockyards.
There is the need to safeguard employment in certain areas where major defence projects are under construction. This is not strictly related to the defence of the realm but it clearly remains an important factor in the Government's eyes. Finally, each of the Services has established its case to retain its prestige projects involving advanced technology at an expense commensurate with the level of the technology. The cumulative effect of these requirements, the validity of which the Government have been forced to recognise, has been to render it impossible to make cuts that are sound from an economic and a defence standpoint.
Faced by demands for a reduction in defence expenditure, demands that are in no sense based upon the needs of the defence programme, the Government have been forced to direct their cuts at the muscle of the Armed Services, and this will weaken our ability to respond in emergencies. If the review continues the proposals will drastically reduce the transport capacity of the Royal Air Force. They will reduce the number of con-
1270
ventional submarines and conventional surface vessels in the Royal Navy. Afloat support will be cut by one third, and the ability of the Armed Services to man amphibious operations will be drastically reduced.
These cuts may all seem acceptable in time of peace, but the object of maintaining defence forces is to have a flexible capacity to deal with situations of disorder and unrest, as well as situations of limited and total war. The vital attribute we may lose is flexibility—the ability to respond to any one of a range of emergencies. Most of the sections of the Armed Services that are proposed for cutting have it in common that in time of peace they may seem dispensable but in time of emergency they would give that flexibility that we should be certain to need.
Before committing this country to his proposals the Secretary of State should look again at the employment implications of his plans. Unemployment is about to rise rapidly—just how rapidly is known to those involved in industry. The Secretary of State is proposing to contribute to this unemployment by direct cuts in jobs. He is proposing defence cuts that will affect the jobs of 75,000 people, 60,000 of whom will be in this country. These will include indirect redundancies through a reduction of purchasing of new equipment or the postponing of deliveries of equipment.
This loss of home orders the threatened equipment manufacturers— aircraft companies, shipbuilding companies, and so on—might be able to deal with were it not for the fact that approaching them steadily from the other side, impervious to arguments and logic, is the Secretary of State's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, who is determined to nationalise these companies. He is doctrinally committed to achieve his purpose, and the implications of his action need examination.
Let us look at the example of warship manufacturers. Foreign purchasers-foreign Governments—at present have a choice of dealing with United Kingdom companies direct or through the United Kingdom Government. About 90 per cent. of foreign purchasers prefer to deal direct with United Kingdom companies, despite the security advantages which seem to be given by dealing through the

1271
Government. If these companies were nationalised, the foreign purchasers would be forced to deal through the Government or through a Government agency. Another disadvantage of nationalisation would be that some foreign Governments may be prepared to deal with a British company, but not with the British Government, and vice versa.
The Labour Government's prejudices in their preparedness to sell to some countries and not to others has been noted in export markets and is damaging our trade. If warship builders were to be nationalised, there would undoubtedly be a loss of export orders. Moreover, British Government work is to be switched from commercial yards to the dockyards to keep them open, in accordance with their pledge given before the election.
What will happen to the excess commercial shipyard capacity? Will the Secretary of State for Defence come to the rescue of industry thus annoying the Left-wing "Shadow Opposition", by placing further ship orders for the Royal Navy to safeguard these yards from redundancy?
I suggest that this situation should not be allowed to occur. The right course is for the Secretary of State for Industry to confine himself to the major problems that he has and to keep away from creating problems in areas where there are currently no problems
I make the following positive proposals. First, the Government should reconsider the need for flexibility in our Armed Forces, and in particular look again at the need for retaining conventional forces capable of great mobility.
Secondly, the Government should give a new major impetus to reserve training and commitment. This must be the most cost-effective way of improving the broad range of our defence preparedness and capacity.
Thirdly, there should be the widest range of consultation on the defence proposals, particularly with industrial representatives and local authorities, to safeguard employment. Some areas will be hit particularly hard if the cuts are implemented in their present form. As there are grants to subsidise industrial activity in areas of traditionally high unemploy-
1272
ment, I suggest that a special grant should be available to stimulate an early growth of industrial activity to compensate for defence reductions, if such there should be.
The Government should recognise that people who enter Government service, particularly defence, do so because, first, they are prepared to take a lower level of remuneration because they feel that they are entering a secure employment, and, secondly, because they have a sense of loyalty. Both ideas will be undermined and shattered if the Government now decide to make these people redundant. If the State is to do that, it is right that it should minimise the damage that it is doing.
Finally—the most important point of all—we have heard of this so-called defence review since March. We were frequently told how searching and fundamental the review was to be. Now that we have the interim results—subject to consultation—may we have a clear and positive undertaking that when decisions are implemented no other defence reductions will follow within the period covered by the review projections? Such an assurance will enable those in the Armed Services and ancillary activities to plan their careers with the knowledge of security, enable defence plans to be made with confidence and certainty, and show our allies and those who might work against us that this country understands the realities of defence in a potentially hostile world.
10.39 p.m.
Mr. George Younger: I think that probably all hon. Members are sorry that circumstances have meant that we are not having the two-day debate for which we hoped. I make no criticism of the Government for that, because it was our choice, and it is right, that that should be the position. On the other hand, we have had an extension, thanks to some wise guidance from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker, and many hon. Members have managed to take part.
One of the happiest occasions this evening has been a truly remarkable maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). I have heard a number of maiden speeches, but I cannot recall one with so much assurance and fluency. The whole House will look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend

1273
again in our debates. With a name like his, it is very appropriate that he should have started in a defence debate.
Secondly, I should like—I think with the support of the House—to repeat, in a defence debate, something which cannot be said too often. That is how much we all admire the astonishingly good reputation and skilful execution of tasks carried out by our Armed Services. They have always had a high reputation. It has probably never stood higher in the world generally than it stands today. This reflects the greatest credit on all concerned in the Armed Forces.
Thirdly, I should like to mention in passing a subject which has not been dealt with very much in the debate— Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised this subject. He has great knowledge and sincerity in these matters. I listened to him with great interest. I am sorry to say that I could not agree with his main thesis. But I would add this to what he said. There are many people who have strong views about what the next course of policy in Northern Ireland should be. But from the defence point of view it is very clear that the job of the defence forces is to serve the policy of the Government generally. Our forces are doing that extremely well in the most appalling circumstances, and with great pride, to some extent, in doing such a difficult job so very well. I am certain that the vast majority of our troops who have been in, and are in, Northern Ireland, although finding it a very difficult and in many ways a distasteful job, do manage to find a satisfaction, of some sort at any rate, in the skill with which they do their job.
I welcome the debate and the statement which preceded it as the deliberate intention of the Secretary of State to give us the opportunity of commenting on his proposals in time—I think that these were his words—to influence the course of events hereafter. Both sides of the House hope very much that he and his Ministers will think very carefully about many of the things which have been said today, because we should like to see some changes in what he has proposed. We hope also that the Secretary of State will pay very close attention to the views expressed in the consultations which he will be having with our friends and allies all
1274
over the world. He mentioned earlier in the debate the rather disappointed reaction of Mr. Schlesinger in the United States. The right hon. Gentleman may also have noted today the remarks of Dr. Luns, making it clear that he has a number of reservations about the right-ness of what the Government are proposing in this case.
I hope that these views will be taken into account. If these serious views should be the general reaction which the Government receive to this review, I hope that they will not be too proud at this stage to return in a month or so and say that they have made changes in the original proposals set out in the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
There were a number of things one could welcome in the statement. In particular, I welcome warmly the Government's decision, reiterated, to continue the Polaris submarines. This is an essential part of our deterrent. They know that it is. They are very wise to be maintaining it.
I am extremely glad that the MRCA is to carry on. Several hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have raised questions about more detail being required about the slowing down of the ordering programme. I hope that we shall have that detail before too long.
I was glad to hear that the through-deck cruiser programme is to continue. But we have not yet been told whether the programme is for two vessels or just the vessel which is being built. We should like more details.
I greatly welcome, as do many of my hon. Friends, the Secretary of State's strong words today about the need for the TAVR to be maintained and even strengthened if possible. He is right. There is great potential there for effective reserves which can stand us in good stead in unforeseen circumstances ahead.
I hope that the disappointment which I must express about the review will not come as too great a shock to the right hon. Gentleman. My disappointment arises from the approach he has adopted to his task. Time and time again in the past few months the right hon. Gentleman and his junior Ministers have said that this defence review would be quite different, that on this occasion they would look at our commitments all over the world,

1275
that they would consider what was necessary, and that at the end of it all they would come back and say, "These are our commitments. We must do this. We are providing the money with which to do it."
I am sure that Ministers started with that intention, but, unfortunately, it has not turned out that way. Overshadowing the whole review has been the loudly voiced and wholly impracticable resolution carried by the Labour Party conference and the watered down version of it which was put into the Labour Party manifesto.
It is sad that we are now facing in many ways the same hotchpotch of proposals as the right hon. Gentleman was trying to avoid. He has once more had to start from the point of saying, "How can I save the money which the Labour Party manifesto requires me to save?" As the right hon. Gentleman himself said, that is not the way to tackle the nation's affairs.
I therefore question the right hon. Gentleman on the results of the review, all of which stem from the fact that he had to approach matters from the wrong end. That is why, though he has been able to tell us in outline many things that he wants to do, astonishingly he has not been able to tell us how he proposes to do them. One thing that I thought we should get out of this nine-month long review was a pretty good idea of how the Government proposed to do these things. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know how he is to make these changes, how they will turn out on the ground, and what he will lose by making some of the changes, I reach the inevitable conclusion that he has merely set out to do an arithmetical calculation of how much money he can save and that he must now sit down to determine how it will all work out.
How can the right hon. Gentleman say that he is cutting the RAF transport capability by one half and the personnel in the RAF by 18,000 without being able to tell us how our forces are to be transported in the future? He does not appear to know. Is it to be by chartering civilian aircraft? If so, how is that to be achieved? Are there to be some new measures whereby civilian aircraft can be chartered without notice? What is to
1276
happen if something crops up like the recent crisis in Cyprus at the peak holiday period when every charter aircraft worth flying is flying people to holiday locations world-wide? Will extra Government powers be needed so that we can get extra aircraft without notice? This capability cannot be cut by half without something being provided in its place?
What about the reduction of 12,000 in the Army? It amazes me that we are apparently discussing such a large reduction in the number of personnel in the Army, yet in answer to Written Questions the Secretary of State has not so far been able to tell us who they are to be. He went a little further in his speech today and rather engagingly painted for us the picture that there was nothing very particular that he could tell us about the 12,000, that it was all to be worked out by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army, who would trot round various Army units picking out a cook here and a storeman there and eventually they would all add up to 12,000. We have had nothing more concrete than that.
We are assured that no major units are to go. We are assured that the cuts will not affect our contribution in Northern Ireland. We are assured that the cuts will not affect our contribution to NATO, except in relation to the specific contributions announced for the flanks. Where are the 12,000 soldiers to come from? We are entitled to know that, and I hope that the Minister of State will tell us all tonight.
Then there is the strange mystery of the Gurkha battalion. The Secretary of State has twice been questioned in the House on this subject, once the other day and once this afternoon. His customary fluency has deserted him on this occasion, and I ask his hon. Friend to come a little cleaner with us this evening. What is the answer to this mystery about the battalion of Gurkhas? So far as I know, the men are very happy in their work, and it costs this country nothing whatever to keep the battalion in Brunei. Why are they being removed from there if it is not saving us any money? The right hon. Gentleman could give no answer to that question except to say that he wanted to use the same battalion in Hong Kong. If it will not save money, what is the purpose of the cut?

1277
We are not told very much about the maritime reconnaissance aircraft, the Nimrod. We are told that there is to be no reduction in the home-based Nimrods, but that there are to be some reductions overseas. What are those reductions, and why are they being made?
Then there is the question of the NATO flank force, the mobile commando force at present covering the NATO flanks. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to reduce this force so that it will be able to deal with only one of the flanks instead of both. We have not been told whether this means that it will be interchangeable, or whether as it is proposed that this force should be trained for winter warfare, as the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement, it will be more or less assigned to the northern flank. However, I know that it is reported that today Dr. Luns made it clear that if it affected the Mediterranean flank, the southern flank, of NATO, this was the strangest of times to be weakening our contribution to the southern flank protection of NATO. Has the Secretary of State forgotten all the difficulties at present over Greece's membership of NATO and the recent troubles in Cyprus? What is the answer, and why is this cut produced at this time? It does not seem to make any sense at all.
We want to know a lot more about how this force is to be transported. Again, the right hon. Gentleman seems to be starting to think about that instead of having been working it out for the past nine months.
I come briefly to the industrial effects of the defence review. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) touched on this subject. I should like to know a lot more about how it is proposed to employ the four naval dockyards. I am delighted that the Government are not closing any of them, because I should not like to see any of them closed, but how is the right hon. Gentleman to keep them working with such large reductions in the fleet without creating redundancies among civilian workers elsewhere? Large amounts of repair work and so on cannot be transferred to the naval dockyards from civilian shipyards without putting those shipyards and, what is
1278
more, civilian shipyard workers out of work in the process.
It has been suggested by some Labour Members that the dockyards could quote for the construction of oil rigs and so on, as if that were something that could easily be done by a naval dockyard without thinking about it. But what about the oil rig construction companies, Cam-mell Laird and others, losing the work that the dockyards get? How many people will be put out of work if the Royal Naval Dockyards take on this work?
The Government cannot avoid the consequences of their own defence review. If they are not putting out of work the 30,000 people in the dockyards, there will be a serious effect on employment in other parts of the industrial sector.
If the dockyards tender for outside work, on what basis will they do so? Will they be competitive? Will their costs be fairly assessed against those of possible competitors? How are we to know that the tenders they put out are fair as against other contractors trying for the same work? These questions have not been tackled, and it is time that the right hon. Gentleman or one of his Ministers answered or, dare I suggest—I shall probably regret this very much—is this a case when the Secretary of State for Industry will have to come in and tell us how he will control the use of the dockyards in this way?
In spite of the eight and a half months of gestation for this defence review, at this stage there is very little more information than could have been worked out on the back of an envelope by the right hon. Gentleman before the last General Election. The main burden of what the Minister has announced today must have been known very well indeed to him and to the Government long before the last election. The whole of this review was deliberately held back until after the election because the Government knew perfectly well that it was electorally unpopular.
The cat is now out of the bag. The Government, in consultation with many of our friends and allies who are mystified by what they are doing, will have to work out what it all actually amounts to. The whole picture suggests that this much-vaunted and most extensive and thorough

1279
review of our system of defence ever undertaken, which the right hon. Gentleman is so proud of, is in grave danger—if he does not take a grip on it from now on—of becoming a botched-up defence review.
The Government inherited from the Labour Party conference an impossible commitment to reduce defence expenditure without recognising the real needs of Britain. This Government have discovered that they cannot do this without either fatally weakening NATO or reducing our ability to carry out essential British tasks such as that involved in Northern Ireland, or both.
To their credit the Government have shrunk from either course as a whole but have opted instead for drastic cuts behind the scenes which, while they do not hit the headlines today, will within five years have fatally weakened our ability to carry out three essential actions: first, to carry out our commitment to reinforce the flanks of NATO; secondly, to move our forces swiftly by air or sea to any area where our interests are threatened; and, thirdly, to provide a reserve of strength to meet the unexpected, which was a point very well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser).
It is the duty of this House to alert the British people to the danger of what is being proposed in their name. We should remember that decisions concerning defence cannot easily or quickly be reversed once they are taken. On the contrary, decisions taken now will have their most telling effect five years or so from now. We do not, we cannot, know what threats we may face then. A sound defence policy, whoever is in charge of it, in any country at any time, must always provide some margin to allow for the unexpected.
The history of warfare and conflict is littered with examples of people who prepared for the wrong war at the wrong time. The Government, in this defence review, are fatally weakening their one insurance against being caught out the next time, which is the provision of an adequate reserve for contingencies capable of being switched around, capable of being moved to the point of conflict, able to deal with problems, difficulties and crises, of which the right
1280
hon. Gentleman cannot now know and of which he cannot be expected to know now.
The main damage being done by this defence review lies in the reduction of our ability to deal with the unexpected. That is the first thing that can be said of many a defence review. When the British people find that a crisis blows up in five years or so, and there is an immediate need—whether it is for rescuing people, for intervening in some difficult situation at the request of our allies or perhaps even of the United Nations, when it is required for the British forces to do so—the right hon. Gentleman must, if he is wise, hope that he will not be obliged to say, "I am sorry but the British forces cannot go on the relief expedition" or whatever it is "because we do not have the troops, the resources or the transport to convey them there." The decisions taken now will render those consequences the inevitable result in four or five years' time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be in office, experiencing the consequences of his own actions.
This defence review will decimate our future ability to deploy adequate forces to meet any situation which may occur. For that reason we shall divide the House tonight.
11.0 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): When the Opposition suddenly lost their enthusiasm for a two-day debate—and it was their choice and no one else's that we should not have one—I wondered what sort of justice we would do to my right hon. Friend's proposals in the shorter period left to us. My concern now, I admit freely, is not that we have failed to cover the ground —we have succeeded surprisingly well— but that in the time available I shall deal inadequately with the questions which have been asked in more than 20 speeches today. Certainly there are some matters which, to do them justice and to defer to the right hon. and hon. Members who have asked questions, I shall have to leave aside. I intend no discourtesy, and I shall write to the right hon. and Members concerned when it may seem appropriate—[Interruption.] I think it is better that I should write than that I should not write, and there are also some large issues—
Mr. Trotter: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he answers Written Questions instead?
Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has asked 94 Written Questions in the past week, and he has received answers to them all.
May I join the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) in his felicitous remarks about the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson)? The hon. Gentleman's remarks were pleasant, thoughtful and very confident, and, like other hon. Members, I look forward to his further contributions to our debates,
In commenting on my right hon. Friend's statement, right hon. and hon. Members have wanted it all ways. Some have asked us, perfectly reasonably, to take full account of their views in formulating the White Paper. The hon. Member for Ayr did this. We have been pressed about consultations with our allies by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) and with those affected in industry by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). We have been urged from both sides of the House to think again either of cuts recklessly planned, given our security requirements, or of cuts neglectfully forgone, given our economic situation.
I do not complain. On the contrary, this is consistent with the fact that my right hon. Friend's statement was concerned with proposals, and a White Paper is to follow. But it is illogical to see this as a debate which can influence policy— to ask the Government to take heed of what hon. Members say—and at the same time to object, as the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) did, to the lack of certainty.
"Mystery" was the word used by the hon. Member for Tynemouth. If details are missing, it is because there is still much time to decide, and if ministerial views are occasionally reserved it is because we want, as we have been asked, to listen and to consider. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) said, it would have been so much easier to present a neatly packaged review with the i's dotted and the t's crossed, with an accompanying brief giving all the answers.
1282
We have taken a bolder course. I had supposed that hon. Members were pleased to have a fuller statement of our proposals than they expected on 3rd December. I hope now that the House will be generous enough to see that openness on the part of the Government requires a matching response in flexibility from right hon. and hon. Members
In the past week we in the Defence Department have answered more than 200 Written Questions. That is a lot, even allowing for the 90-plus asked by the hon. Member for Tynemouth. We have tried in every case to be as forthcoming as possible. On a number of occasions we have given information to hon. Members which had not previously been made public. Between now and the publication of the White Paper we shall remain as helpful as possible, not only because we have a duty to the House but as a positive contribution to open discussion.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their satisfaction at the booklet we have produced for the convenience of hon. Members, giving basic facts about defence spending. The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) said that the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, of which he is the distinguished Chairman, will see a role for itself in further consideration of the statement.
I ought not to encourage inquiries that place a considerable strain upon the staff in the Defence Department, to whom I would like to pay a special tribute, in which I know the House will join, in view of the particularly heavy burden of work which it has recently carried. But we shall do our very best to provide information to the Sub-Committee so that scrutiny may continue.
There were times last week, and I admit this to the right hon. Member for Worcester, when we were obliged to reply that a particular matter was still under consideration or that it was too soon to say what the detailed outcome of certain proposals made in my right hon. Friend's statement would be. I fully understand the concern of hon. Members, and this includes the hon. Member for Gosport, over matters affecting employment in their own constituencies and the human problems which this involves. We

1283
shall do our best to help in every way we can.
Perhaps I could mention the Royal Ordnance factories, which have a special status and employ more than 18,000 people in 11 different locations, affecting the interests of a rather greater number of hon. Members. As I said in a Written Reply to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) the other day, I hope that the overall level of employment in the factories will not be seriously affected by the defence review. The factories have been particularly successful in winning overseas orders, and I have already been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and other colleagues, to draw to their attention the scope that may exist in the Royal Ordnance factories and in the Royal dockyards for carrying out work for civil customers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) will note that we have in mind the demands of the offshore oil industry.
Of course, there are problems, as the hon. Member for Ayr said. We are not claiming that they will be easy to solve. Surely it is right for the Government, if there is to be a decline in any of the establishments of Government, to seek additional opportunities for employment, wherever they may be. I would have thought that that view would commend itself to all hon. Members.
The proposals set out by my right hon. Friend on 3rd December represent the considered view of the Cabinet as a whole. But I am sure that any other group of 23 Members would reach conclusions different, at least in part. I would go further. If all hon. Members had a chance to sit in my right hon. Friend's chair I would expect 635 different solutions to the defence review. I know that some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), are bothered by Britain's involvement in Oman and attach rather less importance than the Government do to maintaining a small presence, at minimum cost, under long-standing obligations. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whose responsibility it mainly is, will take note of their con cern. I note, conversely, that there are those in the House who wish that we
1284
intended to retain a significant presence in Singapore. I confess that I have a certain wayward sympathy for their point of view.
As the House knows, I went earlier this year, when the defence review was in its initial stages, to Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Canberra and Wellington to consult our partners in the five-Power arrangements. In our debate on 2nd July I said that all four Governments had made clear publicly that they would prefer us to remain. But we have had to consider how far our remaining commitment of some 2,500 men, the facilities they require and the means of sustaining them are relevant to our principal interests today. When we looked at this we concluded that withdrawal made sense. Our partners have shown understanding, and have welcomed our willingness to leave a handful of men—although, of course, no equipment and no aircraft—to help to run the integrated air defence system.
Our decision on Singapore has been reflected in our decision on Gan. I noted what the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said about that. We shall be looking at the consequences of our decision to withdraw, but both decisions marry up with our further decision on Mauritius and our intention to negotiate an end to the Simonstown Agreement.
We are steadily continuing to withdraw from our military role east of Suez, not because we are blind to the existence and growth of the Soviet fleet, complacent about the prospects of stability or self-conscious about flying the flag. We simply cannot afford it, given the priorities we have set.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), in a typically lucid speech, made remarks which are relevant to this, and I commend right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who were not present when he spoke to read what he said. It made a great deal more sense than did the old-fashioned remarks of the right hon. Member for Pavilion about a grand design.
There are other commitments round the world which we retain because of longstanding and inescapable obligations or because it makes good sense for wider reasons of foreign policy. No one has suggested in the debate that we should abandon Gibraltar or the external de-

1285
fence of Belize as long as it is dependent upon us. No one has suggested either that the passionate wish of the Falkland Islanders to remain British should be lightly set aside. Similarly, it is not as easy as my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley suggested to dismiss our obligations to Hong Kong, although we intend to make some reductions in our forces and to seek from the Hong Kong Government a larger proportion of their cost. I agree that the need for this is urgent.
We should look at the decisions on Brunei in the light of our statutory obligations. We can argue whether it is right further to reduce our commitments east of Suez, but if it is right, if it makes sense in terms of priorities—and I sense that there is a larger understanding within the House than Opposition speeches suggested—we should look at our commitments as a whole and consider them as a piece.
As for Cyprus, we intend to make some early reductions in our forces stationed in the sovereign base areas, not because of the defence review but because of the need to relieve the present severe personnel overcrowding within the bases —for which there will be sympathy on both sides of the House. For that reason we shall begin to thin out our air forces early in the new year. These reductions, to meet the problem of overcrowding, are without prejudice to the outcome of consultations with our allies on the defence review to which my right hon. Friend referred in his statement of 3rd December.
I hope that, on reflection, the House will feel reasonably relaxed about these proposals, both when they mean breaking long-standing ties and when some further relatively modest obligations remain.
The same can be said of the Indian Ocean, where our agreement to a modest improvement of the support facilities at Diego Garcia at no cost to ourselves is quite compatible with our wish to see peace and stability in that area.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow will welcome what I am about to say. We shall continue to pursue consultations with the aim of developing realistic progress towards arms limitations in the Indian Ocean, about which a number of countries, notably Australia, have made constructive suggestions. This is because we support realistic arms con-
1286
trols and disarmament measures which can contribute effectively towards peace.
East-West negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions began in Vienna in October 1973, with the aim of providing undiminished security for both East and West at a lower level of forces. As the House knows, we cannot claim rapid progress, but the negotiations are complex and the talks have been businesslike and constructive. They should not be despised by anyone in the House, because both sides are seeking seriously for agreement. It is right that we should support the talks, and our support is evidence of the importance we attach to NATO as an instrument both of defence and detente. We hope that they will succeed.
It is too soon to speculate on the likely level of United Kingdom reductions in BAOR which might result from a successful agreement, but those who have asked whether the proposals we have made for defence spending over the next 10 years will survive, irrespective of changed circumstances, may assume that we shall act upon as well as welcome genuine progress towards disarmament at Vienna.
I have also been asked what on the contrary might happen if there were a significant deterioration of the world situation which, by common consent, increased the threat to British security and demanded urgent action. My answer is that I am certain that any future Government would act responsibly in the national interest, as has always happened at times of crisis.
I entirely take the point, which has been made several times, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), that it is very difficult to predict the course of events over the next 10 years. Obviously that is true. However, we make certain assumptions for planning purposes over a period which, incidentally, represents almost the minimum span of time for the development and production of new items of equipment, or we make ad hoc and short-term decisions with the severe penalties to which my right hon. Friend drew attention.
Of course the security situation may change either way, and of course GNP may rise faster than we have predicted, or more slowly. All these factors will

1287
have to be taken into account if and when they change markedly from our present assumptions. The situation as regards defence is essentially no different from that of other major public programmes, except in so far as our decisions affect our position world-wide and our relations with our allies and our partners.
I am sorry if some of my hon. Friends feel that they have been misled by the figures for savings given by my right hon. Friend in his statement. I hope that they will acquit him of such responsibility. He said quite clearly that the savings he proposed should be set against the long-range estimates of defence expenditure we inherited.
I filled in the details in reply to the right hon. Member for Worcester on 9th December, in an answer that I hope in this case met with his satisfaction. Similarly, in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on 11th December I made the point that savings can be measured only in terms of expenditure now envisaged compared with previous programmes. This is a public accounting convention that is well understood in the House, and makes good sense. It involves a comparison of like with like. I can remember many occasions on which we have debated cuts in public expenditure, and have deplored them from the Labour benches, in terms of a reduction in the rate of increase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belper was right to suggest that those who believe that our savings will be "phoney" cuts should tell that to the 70,000 people who will become reduntant.
Mr. Frank Allaun: My hon. Friend is dealing with the basic question. I think that on reflection he will admit that they are phoney cuts if in real terms the expenditure is rising. He cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Rodgers: I am not inclined to have it both ways. My hon. Friend—I do not want to say it harshly—is asking to have it both ways when he refers to phoney cuts and refuses to accept that phoney cuts would not, and could not by definition, result in the level of redundancies that there will be, and the changes in the equipment programme that we have announced.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Is it not time my hon. Friend and his colleagues stopped frightening us with the bogyman of redundancy? In two or three years after 1945 we cut the aircraft manufacturing industry from 2½ million to 200,000, and we took 5½ million men and women out of the Services and put them back into civilian employment, without a single person being out of work.
Mr. Rodgers: I would never attempt to frighten my hon. Friend. I was not suggesting, nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested, that we should forgo savings on defence expenditure because of the problems of redundancy. But it is no good pretending that we can have it both ways. If there are to be savings, there will be redundancies, and we should face up to them.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) referred in passing to fundamentalist views. There are three identifiable approaches to defence spending that rest upon indifference both to its level— it is always too much—and to getting value for money from it. There are those who believe that it is wrong to defend ourselves, those who believe that there is nothing worth defending, and those who believe that there is no one we need defend ourselves against.
The first group are pacifists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) said, they occupy an entirely respectable moral position, provided only that their pacificism extends to revulsion at the bearing of arms by anyone anywhere. The second group are so cynical or disillusioned as to be unrepresentative of the people of this country, and I do not believe that they have any spokesmen in the House. As for the third group, who say that they cannot conceive of a threat to our way of life, they are either extraordinarily naive or extraordinarily hypocritical.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend can see where his friends are.
Mr. Rodgers: Those in the third group are unrepresentative, and I am sure that no hon. Member would put himself in that category.
I return to the need to face up to the alternatives. If the items of spending

1289
that we propose are not justified, how do we otherwise achieve the capability? If we do not need the capability, what are the explicit assumptions that lie behind its abandonment? I confess—I do so reluctantly—to finding rigorous analysis of these questions not always characteristic of those critics of my right hon. Friend who say that he is not going far enough.
Let us take the MRCA. In his statement my right hon. Friend said that we may have to make a reduction in the planned rate of delivery. I can say no more at the moment, because we shall be discussing this with our partners in the project. But were we to cancel the MRCA, as is sometimes proposed, we are entitled to ask, what would be put in its place? Are we to buy American aircraft? If so, which aircraft, and at what price? Are we to skip a generation of aircraft and rely on the existing Vulcans, Buccaneers and Canberras until they fall apart? Or does this not matter, and is the attack on the MRCA an attack on preserving the credibility of NATO itself?
I exempt from this criticism my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central and others who have asked serious questions about alternatives to the MRCA, and particularly the aid defence variant. They are reasonable questions, and I would like the House to discuss them further. In this case the logic of the issues is being faced up to, and it is right that this should be so.
I return to the amendment that we are to vote upon. I concede that in recent years spending on defence has been overtaken by spending on social security, education and health. I go further: despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), I rejoice in the trend, and believe that it should continue. Twenty years ago defence spending was about one quarter of all public expenditure ; now it is 10 per cent. It is true that we are cutting our defence expenditure as a percentage of GNP from a figure higher than that of
our principal European allies. But 1 do not rest on that comparison, or on others. It is not what others spend, even within the alliance, which should finally determine our own decision. It is not even the claims—powerful, immediate, compelling—of this country's necessary social programme. It is a judgment, cool and considered, of what we need to spend to ensure our own security.
Of course, I understand those in this House who regret the passing of Britain's world role. I understand also the misgivings and private anxieties of those whose careers are affected by the review. I have said—perhaps too often and too moderately—that there is room for discussion. But I put it to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches that they do not serve the nation's cause by exaggeration ; on the contrary, to suggest, as they do in their amendment, that the country's security is imperilled, may be to feed the suspicions that they would otherwise wish to confound.
The right hon. Member for Worcester made a remarkable speech in his constituency a week ago. It was apparently mainly on matters other than defence— which is now the Opposition's custom. But the right hon. Gentleman found time to describe my right hon. Friend's statement as "a ghastly lapse" and spoke of disarmament and appeasement. I have already referred to disarmament. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will choose the structure of his speeches and his words more carefully in the future.
Hon. Members on the Government side of the House are not ashamed to have a vision of a world free from war, but equally we are not prepared to surrender our freedoms, our values and our way of life to anyone who seeks by threat or by stealth to take them away. Our vision endures, but our proposals are based on a robust common sense.
Question put, That the amendment be made: —
The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 316.

Division No. 35.]

AYES

[11.30 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Awdry, Daniel

Benyon, W. R.

Altken, J. W. P.

Baker, Kenneth

Berry, Hon Anthony

Alison, Michael

Banks, Robert

Biffen, John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bell, Ronald

Blggs-Davison, John

Arnold, Tom

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Blaker, Peter

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareh.)

Body, Richard

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hayhoe, Barney

Osborn, John

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Page, John (Harrow West)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Heseltine, Michael

Pattie, Geoffrey

Brittan, Leon

Hicks, Robert

Percival, Ian

Brotherton, Michael

Higgins, Terence L.

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Holland, Philip

Pink, R. Bonner

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hordern, Peter

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Prior, Rt Hon James

Buck, Antony

Howell, David (Guildford)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Budgen, Nick

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Raison, Timothy

Bulmer, Esmond

Hunt, John

Rathbone, Tim

Burden, F. A.

Hurd, Douglas

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Carlisle, Mark

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Carr, Rt Hon Robert

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Renton, Rt Hn Sir D. (Hunts.)

Channon, Paul

James, David

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Churchill, W. S.

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick (Redbr.)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, S)

Jessel, Toby

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Ridsdale, Julian

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Cockcroft, John

Jopling, Michael

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff N.W.)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Cope, John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Cordle, John

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Royle, Sir Anthony

Cormack, Patrick

Kershaw, Anthony

Sainsbury, Tim

Corrie, John

Kimball, Marcus

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Costain, A. P.

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Scott, Nicholas

Critchley, Julian

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Crouch, David

Kirk, Peter

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Crowder, F. P.

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Shelton, William (Lambeth St.)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Knox, David

Shepherd, Colin

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lamont, Norman

Shersby, Michael

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lane, David

Silvester, Fred

Durant, Tony

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Sims, Roger

Dykes, Hugh

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Sinclair, Sir George

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lawrence, Ivan

Skeet, T. H. H

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lawson, Nigel

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Elliott, Sir William

Le Marchant, Spencer

Speed, Keith

Emery, Peter

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Spence, John

Eyre, Reginald

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Spicer, James (W. Dorset)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Loveridge, John

Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Luce, Richard

Sproat, lain

Farr, John

McCrindle, Robert

Stainton, Keith

Fell, Anthony

Macfarlane, Neil

Stanbrook, Ivor

Finsberg, Geoffrey

MacGregor, John

Stanley, John

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Steen, Anthony (Liverpool)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N.)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Stokes, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Madel, David

Tapsell, Peter

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C.)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Fox, Marcus

Marten, Neil

Taylor, Teddy (Glasgow C.)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St.)

Mates, Michael

Tebbit, Norman

Fry, Peter

Mather, Carol

Temple-Morris, P.

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Maude, Angus

Thatcher, Rt Hon M.

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Barnet)

Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

Mawby, Ray

Townsend, Cyril D.

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Trotter, Neville

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Mayhew, Patrick

Tugendhat, Christopher

Glyn, Dr Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Goodhart, Philip

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Goodhew, Victor

Mills, Peter

Viggers, P. J.

Goodlad, A.

Miscampbell, Norman

Wakeham, John

Gorst, John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Gow, I. (Eastbourne)

Moate, Roger

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Monro, Hector

Wall, Patrick

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C.)

Montgomery, Fergus

Walters, Dennis

Grieve, Percy

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Warren, Kenneth

Griffiths, Eldon

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Weatherill, Bernard

Grist, Ian

Morgan, Geraint

Wells, John

Grylls, Michael

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Hall, Sir John

Morris, Michael (Northants)

Wiggin, Jerry (Weston-s-Mare)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Winterton Nicholas

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Morrison, Peter (Chester)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mudd, Da vid

Young, Sir George (Ealing)

Hannam, John

Neave, Airey

Younger, Hon George

Harrison, Sir Harwood (Eye)

Nelson, Anthony

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Neubert, Michael

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hastings, Stephen

Newton, Tony

Mr. Adam Butler and

Havers, Sir Michael

Nott, John

Mr. John stradling Thomas.

Hawkins, Paul

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

1292

1293

NOES

Abse Leo

English, Michael

Upton, Marcus

Allaun, Frank

Ennals, David

Lillerick, Tom

Anderson Donald

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Lomas, Kenneth

Archer Peter

Evans, loan L. (Aberdare)

Loyden, Eddie

Armstrong, Ernest

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Luard, Evan

Ashley, Jack

Faulds, Andrew

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Ashton, Joe

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Atkinson, Norman

Flannery, Martin

McCartney, Hugh

Bagier Gordon A T.

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

MacCormick, lain

Bain Mrs Margaret

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McElhone, Frank

Barnett Guy (Greenwich)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

MacFarquhar, R.

Barnett, Joel (Heywood)

Ford, Ben T.

Mackenzie, Gregor

Bates All

Forrester, John

Mackintosh, John P.

Bean' Robert E.

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Maclennan, Robert

Beith, A. J.

Freeson, Reginald

McNamara, Kevin

Benni Rt Hn Anthony Wedgwood

Garrell, John (Norwich S.)

Madden, Max

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Magee, Bryan

Bidwell, Sydney

George, Bruce

Mahon, Simon

Bishop, Edward

Gilbert, Dr John

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Ginsburg, David

Marks, Ken

Boardman, H.

Goldlng, John

Marquand, David

Booth, Albert

Gould, Bryan

Marshall Dr Edmund (Goole)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Gourlay, Harry

Marshall Jim (Leicester)

Botlomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Graham, Ted

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Boyden, James (Bish Auck.)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Bradley Tom

Grant, John (Islington C.)

Meacher, Michael

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Grocott, Bruce

Mikardo, Ian

Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Millan, Bruce

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle)

Hamllng, William

Miller, Dr M. (E. Kilbride)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S.)

Hardy, Peter

Miller, Mrs Millie(Redbridge)

Buchan, Norman

Harper, Joseph

Buchanan, Richard

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Molloy, William

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Haringey)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Moonman, Eric

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff S.)

Hattersley, Roy

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Callaghan, Jlm(Middleton &P.)

Hatton, Frank

Morris, Charles R.(Openshawe)

Campell, Ian

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Canavan, Dennis

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Moyle, Roland

Cant, R.B.

Heffer, Eric S.

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Carmicheal, Neil

Henderson, Douglas

Murray, Ronald King

Carter, Ray

Hooley, Frank

Newens, Stanley

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hooson, Emlyn

Noble, Mike

Cartwright, John

Horam, John

Oakes, Gordon

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Ogden, Eric

Clemitson, I. M.

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

O'Halloran, Michael

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)

Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)

O'Malley, Brian

Cohen, Stanley

Huckfleld, Leslie

Orbach, Maurice

Coleman, Donald

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Ovenden, John

Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Owen, Dr David

Conlan, Bernard

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)

Padley, Walter

Cook, Robin F. (Edln C)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Palmer, Arthur

Corbett, Robin

Hunter, Adam

Pardoe, John

Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot)

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (L'pool)

Park, George

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow M.)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Parker, John

Crawshaw, Richard

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Parry, Robert

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Pavitt, Laurie

Cryer, Bob

Janner, Greville

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Cunningham, G. (Islington S.)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Pendry, Tom

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh.)

Jenkins, Hugh (Wandsworth)

Perry, Ernest

Dalyell, Tarn

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (B'ham, St)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Davidson, Arthur

John, Brynmor

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Davies, Bryan (Entield N.)

Johnson, James (Kingston, W.)

Prescott, John

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Price, William (Rugby)

Davies, lfor (Gower)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Radlce, Giles

Davis, S. Clinton (Hackney C.)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S.)

Deakins, Eric

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Reid, George

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Judd, Frank

Richardson, Miss Jo

Delargy, Hugh

Kaufman, Gerald

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Kelley, Richard

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Dempsey, James

Kerr, Russell

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Doig, Peter

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Roderick, Caerwyn

Dormand, Jack

Kinnock, Nell

Rodgsrs, George (Chorley)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lambie David

Rodgers, William (Teesside)

Dutfy, A. E. P.

Lamborn, Harry

Rooker, J. W.

Dunn, James A.

Lamond, James

Roper, John

Dunnett, Jack

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Rose, Paul B.

Eadie, Alex

Leadbitter, Ted

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Edelman, Maurice

Lee, John

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)

Edge, Geottrey

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Rowlands, Ted

Edwards, Robert (Wolv. S.E.)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Ryman, John

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N.)

Sandelson, Neville

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Sedgemore, B.

1294

1295

Selby, Harry

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Wellbeloved, James

Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, IIf.)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Welsh, Andrew

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle)

While, Frank R. (Bury)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

White, James (Glasgow, P)

Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)

Thompson, George

Whitehead Phillip

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Thome, Stan (Preston)

Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

Silkin, Rt Hn John (Lewish.)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (Devon)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Silkin, Rt Hn S. C. (Southwk.)

Tierney, Sydney

Williams, Alan (Swansea)

Sillars, James

Tinn, James

Williams, Alan, Lee (Haver'g)

Silverman, Julius

Tomlinson, John

Williams, Rt Hn Shirley (Hertford)

Small, William

Torney, Tom

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Snape, Peter

Tuck, Raphael

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Spearing, Nigel

Urwin, T. W.

Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

Spriggs, Leslie

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)

Wilson, William (Coventry S.E.)

Stallard, A. W.

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

Woodall, Alec

Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F)

Waiker, Harold (Doncaster)

Woof, Robert

Stoddart, David

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Stott, Roger

Ward, Michael

Young, David (Bolton E.)

Strang, Gavin

Walkins, David

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Watkinson, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Watt, Hamish

Mr. James Hamilton and

Swain, Thomas

Weetch, Ken

Mr. Walter Johnson.

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Weitzman, David

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 58.

Division No. 36.]

AYES

[11.43 p.m.

Anderson, Donald

Dormand, Jack

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Archer. Peter

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Janner, Greville

Armstrong, Ernest

Duffy, A. E. P.

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Ashley, Jack

Dunn, James A.

Jenkins, Hugh (Wandsworth)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Dunnett, Jack

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (B'ham, St)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Eadie, Alex

John, Brynmor

Barnett, Joel (Heywood)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Johnson, James (Kingston, W.)

Bates, Alf

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Bean, Robert E.

English, Michael

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Beith, A. J.

Ennals, David

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Benn, Rt Hn Anthony Wedgwood

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Bishop, Edward

Faulds, Andrew

Judd, Frank

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Kaufman, Gerald

Boardman, H.

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Kelley, Richard

Booth, Albert

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Lambie, David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Ford, Ben T.

Lamborn, Harry

Boyden, James (Bish Auck.)

Forrester, John

Leadbitter, Ted

Bradley, Tom

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Freeson, Reginald

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle)

George, Bruce

Lipton, Marcus

Buchanan, Richard

Gilbert, Dr John

Lomas, Kenneth

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Haringey)

Ginsburg, David

Luard, Evan

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff S.)

Golding, John

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Campbell, Ian

Gourlay, Harry

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Cant, R. B.

Graham, Ted

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Carmichael, Neil

Grant, George (Morpeth)

McCartney, Hugh

Carter, Ray

Grant, John (Islington C.)

McElhone, Frank

Cartwright, John

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

MacFarquhar, R.

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Hamling, William

Mackenzie, Gregor

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)

Hardy, Peter

Maelennan, Robert

Cohen, Stanley

Harper, Joseph

Magee, Bryan

Coleman, Donald

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mahon, Simon

Conlan, Bernard

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot)

Hattersley, Roy

Marks, Ken

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow M.)

Hatton, Frank

Marquand, David

Crawshaw, Richard

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Mason, RI Hon Roy

Cunningham, G. (Islington S.)

Heffer, Eric S.

Meacher, Michael

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten.)

Henderson, Douglas

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Dalyell, Tarn

Hooley, Frank

Millan, Bruce

Davidson, Arthur

Hooson, Emlyn

Miller, Dr M. (E. Kilbride)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Horam, John

Miller, Mrs Millie (Redbridge)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)

Davis, S. Clinton (Hackney C.)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Molloy, William

Deakins, Eric

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)

Moonman, Eric

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hunter, Adam

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (L'pool)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Dempsey, James

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Dolg, Peter

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Moyle, Roland

1296

1297

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Rowlands, Ted

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Murray, Ronald King

Ryman, John

Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

Oakes, Gordon

Sandelson, Neville

Walker, Harold (Doncaoter)

Ogden, Eric

Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilf.)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

O'Halloran, Michael

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Ward, Michael

O'Malley, Brian

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Watkins, David

Orbach, Maurice

Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)

Watt, Hamish

Ovenden, John

Silkin, Rt Hn John (Lewish.)

Weetch, Ken

Owen, Dr David

Silkin, Rt Hn S. C. (Southwk.)

Weitzman, David

Padley, Walter

Small, William

Wellbeloved, James

Palmer, Arthur

Spearing, Nigel

Welsh, Andrew

Pardoe, John

Spriggs, Leslie

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Park, George

Stallard, A. W.

White, James (Glasgow, P)

Parker, John

Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F)

Whitehead, Phillip

Pavitt, Laurie

Stoddart, David

Whitlock, William

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Stott, Roger

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Pendry, Tom

Strang, Gavin

Williams, Alan (Swansea)

Perry, Ernest

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Williams, Alan, Lee (Haver'g)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Williams, Rt Hn Shirley (Hertford)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Swain, Thomas

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Price, William (Rugby)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Radice, Giles

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S.)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle)

Woodall, Alec

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Thompson, George

Woof, Robert

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (Devon)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Tierney, Sydney

Young, David (Bolton E.)

Rodgers, William (Teesside)

Tinn, James

Roper, John

Tomlinson, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Rose, Paul B.

Tuck, Raphael

Mr. James Hamilton and

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Urwin, T. W.

Mr. Walter Johnson.

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Grocott, Bruce

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Ashton, Joe

Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Huckfield, Leslie

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Atkinson, Norman

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Rooker, J. W.

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Sedgemore, B.

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Kinnock, Neil

Selby, Harry

Bidwell, Sydney

Lamond, James

SHIars, James

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P.)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Snape, Peter

Canavan, Dennis

Lee, John

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Litterick, Tom

Thomas, Datydd (Merioneth)

Clemitson, I. M.

Loyden, Eddie

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Coiquhoun, Mrs Maureen

McNamara, Kevin

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Madden, Max

Watkinson, John

Corbett, Robin

Marshall, Jim (Leicester)

Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

Cryer, Bob

Maynard, Miss Joan

Wilson, William (Coventry S.E.)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N.)

Newens, Stanley

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Edge, Geoffrey

Noble, Mike

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Parry, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Flannery, Martin

Prescott, John

Mr. Russell Kerr and

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Reid, George

Mr. IanMikardo.

Garrett, John (Norwich S.)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Secretary of State for Defence's Statement on Tuesday 3rd December 1974.

DEFENCE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Order this day,
That the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.— [Mr. John Ellis.]
Question agreed to.

MILK (PRICE CONTROL)
11.54 p.m.
The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I beg to move,
That the Milk (Extension of Period of Control of Maximum Prices) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members withdraw quietly and quickly?
Mr. Bishop: The purpose of the order is to extend for a further period of five years the power of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, to control the maximum price of liquid milk, and it is restricted solely to that.

1299
At present, the Minister, acting jointly with the Secretary of State, lays down the maximum retail prices for Great Britain and, acting alone, the maximum retail prices for Northern Ireland. The statutory powers derive from Section 6 of the Emergency Laws (Re-enactment and Repeals) Act 1964, seting the renewal by Order in Council at intervals not exceeding five years. In 1969 Parliament approved an order extending the powers until 31st December 1974.
The need for retail price controls on milk has been recognised by successive Governments for nearly 35 years, and the reasons leading to that decision in the past will, I believe, be generally recognised today as being still valid. They have, indeed, taken on an even greater importance in the light of the fight to control inflation. But perhaps I may briefly summarise these reasons.
First, there is the special importance of milk in the national diet. We are, of course, a nation of milk drinkers, and milk constitutes one of the largest single components of the food price index. Secondly, there is the special nature of the marketing arrangements for milk, which over the years have become concentrated mainly in the hands of large concerns. At first hand level, sales of raw milk are made through the milk marketing boards, while the processing, bottling and distribution to the doorstep are to a great extent caried on by a relatively small number of large firms. This has made for great efficiency and high standards of hygiene.
Control of the retail price of milk is an essential part of the existing interlinked arrangements covering the guarantee to producers, the Government-controlled remuneration to milk distributors, and the assurance of reasonable prices to the consumer. These arrangements have worked well for the benefit of all concerned, ensuring stable conditions in this important sector of the industry. In addition, at present control of the retail price of milk is a means of implementing the decision to pay a consumer subsidy as part of the Government's strategy for controlling the prices of certain basic foodstuffs.
I make one further point. Many hon. Members are, I know, concerned about the return to milk producers. The level
1300
of the return is determined by the decisions taken by the Government about the guaranteed prices and not by the level of retail prices. Having made the guaranteed price, the Government then have to decide whether the cost should be met by the consumer through an increase in the retail price, or whether there should be an element of subsidy.
Finally, the measures that we took in October to increase producers' returns by nearly 8p per gallon during the six months of winter showed the importance that we attach to ensuring an adequate return to our producers to enable them to meet the exceptional increases in costs. At the forthcoming annual review we shall be examining in detail with the fanners' unions all the factors affecting agriculture. For the reasons I have set out, we consider it appropriate to continue the Government's power to control the price of milk, and I therefore ask the House to approve the draft order.
11.59 p.m.
Mr. Robert Hicks: The order will give the Government authority to control the maximum price of milk for a further five years. In considering this matter I think it only right to remind the House that in dealing with the milk industry we are discussing an economic activity over which the Government maintain a very tight control. No other industry, not even in the nationalised sector, is under such control. This is nothing new. Control of some kind or another has existed since 1933, but surely that is not to say that this House should automatically renew this application for a further five years without first examining the current position, since in determining the maximum price the Government are setting the context into which the producers' incomes, and the distributors' margins and allowances, must be considered, as well as the final price paid by the consumer.
It is against that background that I should like to pursue three specific aspects inherent in the consequences of the acceptance of this order. The first concerns the period of five years. The Minister could clarify the position, since it appears that if there were a Government in office which were insensitive to changing circumstances, not only would hon. Members be restricted in the

1301
extent of their representations but individual sectors of the milk industry could suffer unnecessarily. Why, then, is a period of one or two years not specified —or does the Minister wish to keep permanent control over this important industry?
My second question relates to the position of the producer. This is crucial, since his position at present is not a happy one. This confirms my earlier observation about changing circumstances and the degree of flexibility and sensitivity shown by the Government.
The milk output of the nation at present is significantly below its potential production level. Milk for the liquid market is at present limited, while there are real shortages of milk for the manufacturing sector. I do not need to elaborate on the adverse consequences of this situation on our balance of payments if it is allowed to continue.
I am certain that the House would welcome some indication of how the Minister envisages increasing the level of producer returns to provide a muchneeded stimulus to domestic production in the context of this order, which will enable him to fix maximum prices, particularly bearing in mind the rapid and steep increases in producers' costs and the recommendations contained in the report on milk production of the Select Committee on Expenditure, which was published recently.
My third request for additional information and clarification concerns the relationship between this order and the Government policy of subsidising the cost of essential foods to the consumer. I appreciate that the price of milk has a significant weighting in the retail price index and the index of retail food prices. I believe that an increase of lp on a pint of milk would increase the retail food index by nearly 1 per cent. It is only since 1972 that the Government have used their ability to fix the retail price of milk as an instrument of policy in attempting to reduce the rate of increase in the cost of living. As a result the milk fund incurred a deficit in 1972.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the retail price of milk was to be reduced by lp per pint, and, although since September, when the Council of Ministers agreed on an award to milk producers, the retail
1302
price was increased by ½p per pint, it still means that during the current financial year, 1974–75, the estimated value of the subsidy to milk, will be of the order of £270 million. This, I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether this figure represents the total milk subsidy or whether there is a further latent subsidy in the form of a milk fund deficit. There could well be an overlap here of the use of the taxpayers' money, and we would welcome the Minister's clarification.
Above all, within the context of the order, the real practical problem is to provide a reasonable and consistent return for both producers and distributors and, at the same time, to charge a price to the consumer which is meaningful and yet will not reduce the overall level of demand for milk. It is not an easy equation to solve. But of one facet I am clear. Short-term price fixing at the expense of the producer will lead only to greater difficulties for the nation as a whole in the long term.
12.7 a.m.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for this opportunity to comment on the order, and from the original Act of 1964 it provides very tight control by the Government. This is a very good example of how the Government can control an industry. It is necessary for the Government to do so, and it seems that the Opposition accept this degree of Government control. It is the kind of Government control which could well be extended.
I ask the Minister to ensure, however, that milk production is safeguarded and possibly increased. He might like to comment on this. Over the past two or three years milk producers have been going through a very difficult period, and I recognise that.
The Minister said that a lot of milk was distributed by large distributors. I want to pay tribute to the many small distributors who distribute milk, often under arduous conditions, and who find a degree of difficulty under price control in obtaining a sufficient margin to enable an efficient distribution service to be maintained.
The Minister pointed out that milk was an important food and one of the most important elements in the food

1303
price index. I agree that it is a very important food, and that is why we control the price. But, in view of its importance, will the Minister consider extending the provision of milk at no price at all to 7 to 11-year-olds? Some members of the Labour Party fought vigorously in the past to provide milk for 7 to 11-year-olds. As it is such an important food, that is a possibility which my hon. Friend might consider.
I realise that there are difficulties about milk supply, but I ask for assurances about milk supply in the context of the control of prices—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. We are not discussing milk supply as much as whether the price of milk shall be controlled.
Mr. Cryer: The Minister referred to milk supply, and therefore I felt it reasonable to enlarge a little upon it.
In the context of Government control over the industry and the very searching scrutiny that the Government impose under the powers inherent in the Act of 1964, this order is to be welcomed. Price control is part of the social contract. It is pleasing that the Government are acting to extend these powers for five years. I recommend my hon. Friend to convey to the Government the feelings of some of their supporters that this sort of price control should be extended on a much wider basis so that the powers in the Act may be used more effectively.
12.10 a.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about the milk industry and the order. This is the second or third debate dealing with milk in which I have taken part during the past few years. Milk is one of the basic foods. It is a sensitive food politically. For my part of the country, the South-West, it is of vital importance. Everything that we do in this House has a profound effect on the milk industry. It is easy for Governments of all shades to bring various orders and regulations before us. Sometimes I do not think we fully realise the effect that they have on the milk producers and the industry generally.
This order sets out to control the maximum price to be charged for milk. For
1304
the time being I agree with the Government, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) in thinking that five years is too long. I should like the order to run for a year or two, and to see how the industry goes in the meantime. Certain results flow from a policy which controls the end price of a product. You may be thinking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that some of us may be getting out of order, but I submit that there is a chain reaction when the price of a product is controlled, and it is right that we should discuss this.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had better make clear what my ruling is. Hon. Members must confine themselves to discussing whether the maximum price of liquid milk should continue to be subject to control. If the hon. Gentleman relates his argument to that, he will remain in order.
Mr. Mills: I shall try, and with your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that I shall be kept on the right lines.
This order will have a chain reaction. Have the Government taken into account the effect the order will have on producers? Will we get the milk required? Producers and retailers are kept within certain limits by the order. In a world of inflation, which means rapidly rising costs, unless producers and retailers can recoup their costs we simply will not get the milk required. It is no good setting a controlled price if we do not get the milk we need. Both the producers and the retailers are concerned that it seems as though people want milk but do not want to pay a fair price for it. If we want milk, the lesson to be learned is that costs will have to be met. If we control the price of the end product, there has to be some way of enabling retailers and producers to recoup their costs. Certainly, the country needs more liquid milk, butter and cheese. Factories demand a constant supply of milk, and I hope that the Government will ensure that there is an adequate supply.
What is the position in the industry today? There are many factories running on half production because of the fall in the input of milk. We come back once again to the cardinal rule that if we want the milk, however much we control the end price, we must see that there is recoupment, otherwise we shall not get the necessary supplies.

1305
What does price control do to consumption? If we reject the order and milk is freed from price control, there will be a dramatic effect on consumption. The general public do not realise what a bargain they are getting in a pint of milk. It is still one of the best and cheapest foods. If there is no price control, costs will rise dramatically. But if there is price control the Government have to subsidise milk, and subsidisation distorts the whole pattern of the industry, milk consumption increases and there are insufficient supplies for manufacturing purposes. Will the Minister comment on that problem, which concerns producer, retailer and manufacturers?
I welcome the Minister's hint that he is concerned about the future of milk producers. I too am concerned. The Minister said that the Government are looking closely at costs in the industry and at the price review. I hope he will accept from me that if he wants milk the price review will have to be a satisfactory one.
What will happen to retailers if we accept the order? Their end price is controlled. Retailers and distributors are sometimes in extreme difficulty because of the tremendous rise in distribution costs. I wonder whether the public realise that the pint of milk on their doorstep represents the best milk distribution service in the world. I am full of praise for the Co-operative Society, Unigate, the Express Dairy and the smaller firms for the service they give to the public. But their end price is controlled and they as well as the producers must have a fair return to cover distribution costs. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interruptions from a sedentary position are no more welcome from the Front Bench than from the back benches.
Mr. Mills: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, though, with great respect, I am well able to look after myself.
This point is important. Perhaps the Minister of State can tell us about retailers and their costs and the fact that their end price is controlled.
I believe that the order represents the right course for the Government and I shall not vote against it, although some of my hon. Friends may well do so. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear
1306
in mind the points I have raised and will clearly tell us why he is bringing forward the order for a period of five years. There is a big question mark there, and the industry—retailers, producers and wholesalers—would like to know the reason.
12.21 a.m.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have constituents involved in the production and distribution of milk, and I too ask why it is necessary to bring in the order for a period of five years. During the next two or three years we should, I believe, move towards a market price for milk. It is intolerable, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the nationalised industries should stand on their own feet, particularly the energy industries, that milk should be heavily subsidised, to the detriment not only of the producer but also of the distributor. What is the total cost to public funds, in the milk fund and the direct subsidy, of keeping the price of milk as it is? As has been said, there could well be liquid milk shortages next year, and that forecast is substantiated by information from my constituency.
At the General Election in February I openly advocated a rise in the price of milk by at least one penny a pint. In my constituency there was no objection to it. I believe that the public realise the excellent bargain in a pint of milk. The delivery of a pint of milk to one's home each day is more reliable than the postal service. Probably we shall soon be paying 5p or 5½p per letter which is not guaranteed to be delivered next day. But milk is delivered to the doorstep every day.
The Minister should seriously consider in the next year or so phasing out the heavy liability of the taxpayer for milk subsidy and work towards a proper market price. It is important that that should be put on record at this stage.
I shall not vote against the order. I give it my support. It is right, however, that we should express our concern at the continuation of a very heavy subsidy for milk, and I hope that the present Government, and certainly the next Conservative Government which will not be too long in coming to office, will move towards a market price for milk, thereby producing a situation in which we get the milk we need and the producers feel that they are getting a fair return.
12.25 a.m.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I am on record as having made it clear just over 12 months ago that it would have been wise and right then to increase the retail price of milk, and thereby enable the farmer to have up to 8p a gallon extra for his product. We all know why that decision was not taken. We understand why the then Government were reluctant to do what I proposed. It is true that in the price review that followed in February—it was brought forward because of the election —the money was provided to the farmers and paid retrospectively.
The order raises a far bigger question than just the specific regulation to control the retail price of milk. It raises the whole question of whether we should subsidise foodstuffs at all. It goes further and encompasses the question whether marketing boards should be given the responsibility for the control of production and their relation to supply and price.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to wander. This is a narrow order, and my job is to see that the hon. Gentleman keeps to the straight and narrow path.
Mr. Wiggin: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the only agricultural product with a fixed retail price by order is milk. The order deals with that, and therefore it is surely within its terms to discuss the philosophy behind it. That is what I was trying to do, but I shall try to remain within your strict injunction.
The dairy industry is the main plank of farming in Somerset. A decline in the industry, whether from a fall in calf and cull cow prices or in the liquid milk price, is a crucial matter to the prosperity of the whole of our agricultural world, going a great deal further than the boundaries of the county.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) mentioned the chain reaction of Government control of the price of milk for electoral or other reasons without the prosperity of the dairy industry. As a farmer for most of my
1308
working life, I can only say that when Governments have had this power they have inevitably turned to the balance of votes and have seen that there are 55 million consumers and 300,000 farmers.
Tonight we are entitled to direct our attention to the farmers and their prosperity. I find the order nothing like as acceptable as do my hon. Friends. It is wrong to single out one agricultural product, however vital. Why should this product above all be singled out for strict control? I understand that the Minister's party has chosen to subsidise many foodstuffs, but that is a policy unacceptable to my party. Therefore, I am a little surprised at the reaction to the order from my side of the House. If the Minister does not give satisfactory answers, I shall not be able to support the order.
12.29 a.m.
Mr. Giles Shaw: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in drawing attention to the fact that milk at 5p a pint is ludicrously cheap compared with many other items that the consumer has to buy. It is particularly cheap compared with the 4½p and possibly 5p post, which suggests that the price of milk, with all its goodness and nutritional value, is only about ½p when delivered to the consumer's door.
Contrary to the marketing concept that the Minister wishes to establish, the consumer of liquid milk should recognise its value and pay a fair price. That price should allow an adequate margin for the wholesaler, retailer and ultimate producer. The first point to be made is that at 5p a pint of milk is far too cheap.
The second point, in relation to the subsidy, is that when we discussed in the Committee considering the Prices Bill those foods which might be suitable for subsidy, it was the Government's view that they would select foods which were inelastic in demand. Yet in relation to milk and the subsidy that has been levied on that product in the past months, I am led to believe that the demand—this is according to one of the major dairies with which I was in contact—has risen by 3 per cent. or 4 per cent., which is exceptional in relation to the dairy's recent past. It suggests that keeping the price artificially low stimulates demand, as one might expect, and this leads to problems

1309
within the agriculture industry. When the Minister seeks to obtain provision for five years he should recognise that the problems of supply and demand cannot be set on one side against the possible reaction by the consumer.
The third point concerns the question of length of time. It seems to me that when one discusses food subsidies—I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is not a debate on the principle, but that must surely follow in due course—one cannot take them in isolation from the general inflationary context. When one hears that the price of a commodity is held to within 4p, 5p, or even 6p or 7p in relation to the current rate of inflation and the depreciation of our currency, one must believe that that commodity will appear, by contrast, increasingly cheap and therefore of increasingly lower and lower value in real terms.
The consumer will judge the commodities she buys by the real value of the money she has in her purse. If she finds that a food, albeit a nutritional food such as milk, has become very cheap in relation to other commodities which she values equally highly, she is bound to set considerably lower store by that product, and the distortion therefore becomes so great that the Government find it almost impossible to remove.
With a valuable product like milk, the Government should take not a long-term but a short-term view. They should take a realistic view in relation to demand, in relation to the price charged in comparison with other commodities and in relation to the demands of the producer and the distributor of this vital product.
12.32 a.m.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I wish to raise only one point, which has not been raised so far. Before doing so, however, I should declare an interest as a milk producer. I ask the Minister whether he realises that by continuing the order he is perhaps not perpetuating but ensuring the continuation for a long time of the difficulties affecting small producers. The big man has difficulties, but he has a lot of land. He has kale planted and he can somehow feed his cows. But the small man, with no land and only a small herd, must buy foodstuffs and he is placed in great difficulties.
1310
I hope that the Minister realises this and will take it into account when implementing the order.
12.33 a.m.
Mr. Bishop: We have had a useful debate. I hope that I can stay within the terms of the order in making some replies.
There seems to be some contradiction among hon. Members on the Opposition benches about whether the order should be supported or whether it should be changed. The fact remains that similar orders have been presented to the House for about 35 years under successive Governments.
The only thing that we are debating in the order is whether we should continue with price control. Various questions have been raised by hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks). I thought that he put some responsible questions, and I shall try to answer them.
The question of the duration of the order has been causing some concern. The Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland fix maximum retail prices for milk by orders made under Section 6 of the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964. That section of the Act was due to continue in force until the end of 1969, but its operation was extended until 31st December of this year by the Milk (Extension of Period of Control of Maximum Prices) Order 1969. I would point out that the powers under the legislation are such that the Act may be extended for a further period of not more than five years by a similar Order in Council, subject to approval by resolution of both Houses.
The existing milk orders prescribe maximum retail prices for various types of liquid milk, and the powers in the enabling Act are permissive, not mandatory. If the Government wish at any time to disband or abolish control over any or all milk prices, this could be done. It is a permissive and not a mandatory order. If there were to be a substantial change, so that control was no longer necessary, the Government could at any time abandon that control by the existing milk price orders, or they could allow them to lapse without replacement.
It is important, incidentally, to have the possibility of a longer period, because such duration can give greater confidence

1311
to the industry. At a time when we are reminded about the lack of both confidence and long-term assurances, the fact that we have power to go on without, at this stage at any rate, any intention to change the situation is reassuring and welcome to the industry.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), the hon. Member for Bodmin and other hon. Members spoke about the profitability of milk production. This is the essence of getting the quantities of milk we need. The measures that the present Government took in October had the effect of increasing the returns of milk producers by 8p per gallon—I had better be precise and say 7·7p, in case I am accused of exaggerating —over the winter months October to March. They took into account the high cost of feeding stuffs and the present low returns on cull cows and calves, and the more recent measures taken for beef may give additional help here. The October award was worth over £100 million. This is a direct injection into the dairy industry towards giving it much greater confidence, and this was justified. It should help reverse the decline in milk production and put dairy farmers in a position to expand their production.
Mr. Hamish Watt: Can the Minister give an assurance that the 7·7p increase will continue after February? It is essential that the dairy farmers should know now what is to be the price next year, to enable them to work out their breeding programmes. Already there are far too many in-calf cows going to slaughterhouses that should be retained for spring, summer and autumn supplies of milk next year. It is essential that producers, who will be working out mating programmes in the next few weeks, know what the price is likely to be in a year's time.
Mr. Bishop: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be rather surprised if I were now to give him the information he seeks. He claims, I think, to speak for the industry, or at least for those whom he represents in his constituency. We are holding detailed discussions with the industry, with the NFU, and what the hon. Gentleman raises will be a matter for consideration in the price review. I take
1312
the hon. Gentleman's point. The Eighth Report of the Expenditure Committee has now recommended 8p per gallon and I am glad that we are able to accede to that recommendation.
The 1975 Annual Farm Price Review which is about to start will involve a detailed examination of all the factors affecting the dairy industry. It is not possible to anticipate the determination, but the points that have been made in the debate will be borne in mind. We must have regard to the factors which affect this industry, and I can give an assurance that we shall not be lacking in that respect.
The present system of price control is an essential part of the guarantee arrangements and the consumer subsidy. Before the introduction of the subsidy, successive Governments had fixed the retail price at a level which ensured that, taking one year with another, the consumer would meet the cost of the guarantee to producers as well as distributors' margins. Currently the price is fixed at a lower level and the balance is made good by the consumer subsidy.
The hon. Member for Bodmin asked about the fund. The guarantee is to milk marketing boards acting on behalf of milk producers. The essential feature is a guaranteed price for a standard quantity currently representing virtually all the milk produced. Until recently it has been the policy of successive Governments to set the retail price at such a level that, taking one year with another, the liquid milk consumer met the full cost of the guarantee as well as the margins for distribution.
The order is not directly linked with the subsidy that is being paid on liquid milk, although it provides the basis for imposing the maximum retail prices and thus helps to ensure that the consumer receives the benefit of the subsidy. The Government have brought relief from rapidly rising food prices by introducing subsidies on a number of basic foodstuffs. Milk was an obvious choice for subsidy as it is regularly purchased by most households and is particularly important to families with young children and to old people.
It is rather odd to hear Tory Members talking about milk being ridiculously cheap and the cost being far lower than

1313
it should be, because at both the last election and the one in February all parties pledged to take action on the cost of living. I am not sure of the current value of the food subsidies, but until recently it was at least 65p a week for the average family of four—that is, a man, his wife and two children. If the subsidy was not paid the cost of milk would rise and it might be that millions would go through the threshold much sooner and thereby add to the inflationary situation, I therefore feel that the subsidy, with other food subsidies, is justified.
I think I have answered all the questions that were asked. We recognise that the price of milk is a bargain. This commodity is cheaper now than it was when we took office in March, and a tribute should be paid to producers and to the milk marketing boards for a situation that is without parallel, for the work that has been done in producing the milk that is so essential to our community and for the efficient way in which the milk is made available to those who need it.
Mr. Cryer: I accept all my hon. Friend's arguments about the value of milk. Will he comment on my suggestion that because of its nutritional value and the importance of price control it would be a useful exercise to consider the restoration of free school milk to 7 to 11-year-olds?
Mr. Bishop: I was about to come—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister ventures to answer that question he will go beyond the scope of the debate.
Mr. Bishop: I was about to come to the point made by my hon. Friend in his tribute to the small man. Apart from the work done by the big men, the small men all over the country perform an important service.
I should not be in order if I were to answer my hon. Friend's question about free school milk, but if I were to deal with it I should say that it did not come within the terms of the order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is all right.
Mr. Wiggin: Before the Minister sits down, may I ask him to deal with the important point I made? On what ground does he justify singling out milk for Government control in this way?
Mr. Bishop: I think most people agree that milk is basic to all households. It is therefore an essential part of the food budget. If milk was not subsidised, the cost would be much greater and the inflationary spiral made greater by increasing wage demands in that direction.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) asked about the milk fund. From the retail sales of milk we get 51 per cent. of the price, from the sales of milk for manufacture within the standard quantity we get 22 per cent. and the subsidy represents 27 per cent. Therefore, without that subsidy the cost of milk would be much higher.
I hope that the House will accept the order, which gives power to control the price of milk for a maximum of another five years.
Mr. Winterton: Before the Minister sits down, may I put one question? Seemingly the order will be passed tonight. I am glad that it is not mandatory and that it allows the Minister discretion. May I ask for an assurance that the heavy rise in transport costs, particularly fuel and oil, facing distributors and producers will be fully recognised in any award that is made next year?
Mr. Bishop: I think I can give that assurance. That is a matter for the Milk Marketing Board in addition, but I am sure that the Government will bear these factors in mind in the forthcoming price review.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Milk (Extension of Period of Control of Maximum Prices) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Pavitt.]

BAKERLOO LINE
12.47 a.m.
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East): I am grateful for the opportunity of catching the attention of the House briefly on the Adjournment to raise the continuing problems of the Bakerloo Line. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for coming to the House at this late hour. I hope that I shall not detain him too long.
Apart from consuming milk, consumers also consume journeys on trains, and in London on the tube trains. I am understandably raising the problems still affecting the line which serves my constituency and adjacent areas—the Bakerloo Line. I have a great deal of sympathy for all users of the Bakerloo Line, wherever it may start, including South London as well as my particular section.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth), who may attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak in the debate. If so I shall be delighted, because he represents a constituency immediately to the north of mine which is served by Stanmore station, the end of the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo Line, which is in my constituency. That sets the geographical location. I shall now explain why I raise this matter on the Adjournment.
On 15th July I had the pleasure of accompanying the Chairman of London Transport on a journey on the Bakerloo Line. For various reasons we started at Baker Street rather than at Oxford Circus, although that station has tremendous problems of congestion in the rush hours, and went to Stanmore. It was an embarrassing trip for the Chairman of London Transport. I recall that we waited in the evening rush hour for 22 minutes for a train to Stanmore. At the end of that time three trains came in destined for Stanmore. The first and second trains were grossly overcrowded but we managed, painfully, to squeeze into the third one and went on our journey.
I was extremely grateful to the Chairman of London Transport for making that journey with me. I do not wish to extend vacuous criticism to him. It is all very well and easy for us to criticise
1316
the person who is the obvious fall guy on these occasions, especially when he faces the immense problem of running this extraordinarily complex transport network.
The Bakerloo Line is increasingly becoming the Cinderella line of the London area, just as the Northern Line was several years ago. The Chairman of London Transport has now seen for himself the problems of congestion, which are imemensely embarrassing during the rush hours. There is gross overcrowding. Antiquated rolling stock is in use. New rolling stock has been promised on the Bakerloo Line for far too long. There is inadequate co-ordination at Wembley Park, where a connection is made with the Metropolitan Line. People are often unable to change conveniently from one line to the other because one train leaves the station just before the other comes in. There are immense intervals between trains, not only in the rush hours—the main priority of my comments—but outside them. The gaps between the trains going on from Wembley Park to Stanmore have become an acute embarrassment to my constituents and probably to those of my hon. Friend, who are justifiably outraged about this.
However, as a result of being courageous enough to come and see these problems at first hand, the Chairman of London Transport promised that improvements would be made. He referred to wage increases and improvements in conditions for employees of London Transport which were introduced last August. One accepts that there had been a delay, but substantial improvements were introduced. It was a wage increase of about 25 per cent. on average. I am speaking from memory. There is now the prospect of fare increases next spring of about 35 per cent. on average. Instead of a single journey of 14 miles being purchased for 25p, the distance purchased will be nine miles.
None of the long overdue and now to be expected improvements for my constituents and others in the area—the line serves a very wide area—have yet occurred and there is little prospect of their occurring soon. Other Members of Parliament, apart from my hon. Friend and myself, are concerned about this matter. A Bakerloo Line Users' Committee

1317
has been formed. It was long overdue. I wish it success.
I am extremely alarmed about the continued deterioration. This is an important line serving an important area of North-West London. Up to June 1973 the daily schedule was 42 trains. Between June and October 1973 it was down to 40 trains. After October 1973 it was 32 trains. I think I am right in saying that the schedule is now down to less than 30 trains. That is the regular schedule. It excludes cancellations, particularly the damnable matter of the unannounced cancellations which drive to distraction my constituents and other consumers and commuters.
In a way, it is difficult for us in this House to distinguish between the agony of waiting for up to half an hour, or even longer, to get to work in the morning, and the sheer physical exhaustion of having taken perhaps an hour longer than expected to get home at night to the outer London areas. For those travelling to my hon. Friend's constituency who perhaps have to catch a bus in addition, the problem is even worse because the connection is impaired.
It is time that the future Chairman of London Transport—I am not referring to retirements or changes—got to grips with this problem. I hope that the Undersecretary will be able to make some useful comments and give reassurance to my constituents and the public at large, perhaps by referring generally to some of the problems of London Transport which I shall not have time to mention.
I accept that perhaps the Undersecretary will say—I hope with not too much alacrity—that he is faced with the delightful prospect of having no direct ministerial responsibility for these problems. We know the establishment and structure of London Transport and how the GLC relates to it. But we know that the London Transport Executive has direct operational responsibility for these matters within the overall budgetary decision as decided by its political master, the GLC. We know, therefore, that the relationship of the Government to all these matters is indirect.
I hope, however, that the Undersecretary will be positive in doing two or three things which could be of great help in attempting to renew public confidence
1318
in the future. Although the savage, high, spring fare increases of 35 per cent. have been delayed, I hope that the public may expect an improvement in the service in the future.
The provision of new rolling stock is long overdue. Something must be done urgently to ease the gross overcrowding on trains coming from central London, particularly in the evenings. It might be said that co-ordination at Wembley Park is now slightly better than it was six months ago, but it is still a serious problem. Recently the number of unexpected cancellations has tailed off. I do not know whether this has coincided with the fact that this Adjournment debate has been scheduled, but, judging from the number of letters I receive from my constituents on the subject, this too still is a serious problem.
The Government, through the Undersecretary, can say something to inspire confidence among commuters. They can say how they regard the urgent problems facing commuters in the outer London area. This is not to say that there are not many problems for inner London tube travellers. The Circle Line is a classic example of a line on which operational difficulties are experienced. By contrast, there is the splendid performance of the Victoria Line. In due course there will be the Fleet Line, which will have beneficial repercussions on the Bakerloo Line going out to Stanmore.
The outer London lines such as the Bakerloo Line and the Northern Line are the Cinderellas. The Government will no doubt assert that they have no direct responsibility and that they should not be pressed in this regard. We know the legislation. However, perhaps the Under-Secretary will be bold tonight and say what he would do and how he would react to a suggestion I shall make.
I have referred to the formation of a protest group, the Bakerloo Line Users' Committee, which consists primarily of people who are concentrated further up by Wembley Park and Finohley Road, although some of its members come from Stanmore. There are demands for an improved service and better conditions. There is the possibility of changes in the LTE in future. We know of the great financial problem facing London Transport and its serious budgetary problems for the future.

1319
In view of ideas emanating from the Greater London Council, the Government should give consideration to instituting a top-level professional inquiry into these matters. The inquiry should concentrate on conditions on the Bakerloo Line and similar outer London lines, although there may be advantages in the whole Underground network being studied. Such an inquiry is long overdue. Why should not the outgoing Chairman of London Transport be a member of such an inquiry? Why should not senior officials of the GLC work with officers of the Under-Secretary's Department on the inquiry?
Once the fare increases are implemented next spring there will be a groundswell of public indignation if there is no improvement in conditions and if public authorities, including the Government, are not prepared to say to long-suffering commuters, "We acknowledge our duty to examine all these problems and try to rectify them."
1.0 a.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to intervene in this debate, particularly to express the thanks of my constituents to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for raising this matter, which is causing grave personal concern to many of my constituents. The problems of the Bakerloo Line are especially oppressive, notably because of the crowded and unpleasant travelling conditions. I understand that there have been signs of an improvement in recruiting for London Transport and that one might therefore expect to see an early improvement in the situation. My hon. Friend and I are looking forward to that with our constituents so that we can report the results of the recruiting drive.
I particularly share my hon. Friend's view about the need for a public inquiry. I recently put a Question to the Minister on this subject, but I was unhappy to find that he felt that sufficient facts were known and that the difficulties were well known. I noticed that there was no recommendation about what action should be taken, and my hon. Friend and I are mostly concerned about action in the interests of those who have to use public transport services.
1320
There is a widespread feeling that not only the London Underground services but public transport services nationally are breaking down rapidly and that, unless speedy and urgent action is taken, there will be a clamour that will have to be recognised more materially than by a debate at this early hour.
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene in this short debate on a matter of great importance to my constituents.
1.2 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has eloquently described the difficulties that commuters on the Bakerloo Line to and from Stanmore face, and I certainly sympathise with them. Travelling conditions on the line are still far from ideal, which is due almost entirely to the shortage of train guards. I accept that earlier this year conditions were very unpleasant indeed. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) weighed in with his experiences and emphasised that similar problems affected his constituents.
I was interested in the suggestion by the hon. Member for Harrow, East that perhaps the increase in the efficiency of the service was due to the possibility of this Adjournment debate. I wonder whether we have found one of the secrets of solving transport problems, but I do not think so. If having an Adjournment debate were all that was necessary, we could do something about transport problems all over the country. But those problems are much more fundamental than that, and I am sure that the hon. Member realises it.
In the few minutes available to me 1 hope to explain some of the background and some of the things that have been done by the Government and London Transport to try to help. The hon. Member anticipated me: there is no doubt that it is not a responsibility of the Secretary of State to improve the quality of service on the Bakerloo or any other Underground line. Like other passenger transport executives—Scotland, Merseyside, Tyneside, the Midlands and elsewhere— London Transport is answerable to the appropriate elected local authority, in this

1321
case the Greater London Council. It is for the GLC, not the Secretary of State, to approve London Transport's policies.
Tonight I can answer the hon. Member's comments only on the basis of such information as has been given to me by London Transport. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue these matters, I can only suggest that he does so with London Transport, with which I know he has been in contact. I read the Press account of his journey with the Chairman of London Transport. I think that the hon. Member is quite right—it is good for the chairman to make these journeys, especially during the rush hour.
In view of their enormous responsibilities, chairmen of large organisations such as this must be highly selective in what they do because of the time factor. The Chairman of London Transport obviously knew from the figures and reports he had received that the situation on the Bakerloo Line had to be looked at. This is to some extent an answer to the points raised by both hon. Members about the top-level professional inquiry. It is not being superficial to say that the important facts are known. I think we can work with the facts we know and try to improve the situation from them in this and other transport situations before we need to go to the length of holding a special investigation into the situation. However, we have a long way to go to improve the conditions which we know should be improved with regard to all forms of public transport all over the country.
I should like to describe the situation on the Bakerloo Line in terms of train frequency. It is a tautology to say that frequency is of course of vital importance to commuters. It determines the length of time spent waiting for trains and the degree of over-crowding. Before the present difficulties arose, the scheduled service on the line gave a total of 210 trains a week running in the direction of peak flow in the two hours of the morning peaks. The same scheduled service operated in the evening peaks.
In June 1973 London Transport was forced because of crew shortage to introduce a reduced schedule which allowed for 160 trains in these peak periods. Even then it proved impossible to adhere to this
1322
revised schedule, so that in September of this year only about 120 out of the scheduled 160 trains were running. These unscheduled cuts were inevitably unpredictable, and could lead to long gaps between trains. At that time passengers undoubtedly experienced considerable delays and very uncomfortable travelling conditions. Despite what the hon. Member for Harrow, East has claimed, London Transport makes every possible effort, with the staff resources available, to keep passengers informed of the situation, but unavoidable last-minute cancellations may cause special difficulty. Sometimes people simply are not available to man the services.
The reduction in service frequency and the subsequent late running of trains caused by their overloading have led to the poor interchange between Bakerloo and Metropolitan Line trains at Wembley Park, to which the hon. Member referred. Trains which are scheduled to arrive at the station simultaneously usually wait long enough for passengers to transfer from one to the other, but if one is late the train on the other service proceeds so that the great majority of passengers on it who do not wish to change do not suffer an unnecessary delay and following trains are not delayed. This is really the lesser of two evils.
There has been a change, and I am happy to be able to report that since September the situation on the Bakerloo Line has steadily improved. London Transport is now running 155 of the 160 scheduled trains in weekday peak periods. I think the hon. Member suggested that the daily schedule worked out roughly at 31 trains. This figure is per peak period, not for the whole day.
Mr. Dykes: No ; 31 trains per hour.
Mr. Carmichael: I thought it was important to clear up that point. I should be horrified to think of only 31 trains running during an entire day.
In January it is planned to introduce a revised schedule with 190 trains at these times, although initially London Transport expects to be able to run only about 175 of these trains. In other words, there will be nearly a 50 per cent. increase in the number of peak period trains on the Bakerloo Line in the four months

1323
from September and January. This improvement in the service since the summer reflects a corresponding improvement in the staffing situation. The effects of labour shortages are very obvious on the railways since the absence of a single train guard or driver means that a train will not run. That obviously immediately inconveniences people, particularly those waiting on the platform. In other situations, when one individual does not turn up it may be possible to cover the vacancy. But London Transport knows that when an operator does not turn up, it is immediately obvious that his train cannot run.
In London there is a shortage of suitable labour to man the public services, and transport industries find it particularly difficult to attract staff because of the unsocial hours worked. The calibre of staff on the railways must be high if safety standards are to be maintained, and the need for selectivity adds to recruiting difficulties. The pass rate of would-be London Transport guards after the initial eight-week training course varies between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent.
Recruiting for London Transport is especially hard in North and West London where the traditional pool of railway workers has been tapped by alternative employment, mainly in the light manufacturing industry in which the hours are not unsocial, whatever the wages may be. The Bakerloo Line has therefore been particularly badly hit by staff shortages because a substantial part of its labour force is based at Neasden depot.
The pay award made to London Transport workers as a special case last August has already made a marked impact on the acute staff shortage which persisted throughout the summer. Six months ago there was a shortage of 360 trainmen on the Underground; this has now been reduced to 160. Recruitment of train staff is now proceeding at twice the normal rate for the time of year, while staff wastage due to retirement and people leaving for other reasons has remained fairly constant. Because of the time taken to train staff, present rates of recruitment should ensure that the quality of service on the Bakerloo Line will continue improving.
The condition of the rolling stock on the Bakerloo Line also makes it difficult
1324
for London Transport to provide a completely reliable service. The stock, built in 1938, is the oldest operating on the Underground and inevitably more liable to break down than modern stock. Although the stock is being reconditioned, work has been delayed by the shortage of skilled craftsmen. This is what we are up against all the time in public transport. All the vehicles in current use should be replaced by 1982 at the latest. It is an ongoing programme, and therefore improvements will be seen as time goes on between now and 1982.
So far I have been talking about the Bakerloo Line as a whole. But the hon. Gentleman is primarily concerned with the Stanmore branch. As the House will know, the Bakerloo Line divides into two northern branches at Baker Street. Inevitably the number of trains that can be run on each branch is only about half of that on the stem line between Baker Street and Elephant and Castle, which governs the total capacity of the line. The repercussions of the service cuts have been bad enough on the stem line, but in terms of intervals between trains they were obviously twice as bad on the branches.
The stem line too has its problems. The hon. Member has drawn attention to the overcrowding at Oxford Circus during rush hours. This was a problem when I first came to this House in 1962. The difficulties at Oxford Circus have existed for a long time, and I do not suggest that the situation is simply because of staff shortages on the Bakerloo Line, because staff was more easily available then. The only way in which this overcrowding could be substantially relieved in the short term would be by the staggering of working hours to reduce the numbers using the station at the height of the peak periods.
The only solution to this problem of the branches and that of overcrowding at Oxford Circus is a long-term one but one which, I am glad to say, is well under way. Stage I of the Fleet Line, which is planned to open in 1977, will take over the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo Line from Stanmore to Baker Street and then proceed to the Strand via Bond Street and Green Park. This will mean that train frequencies can be increased on both northern branches of the present Bakerloo Line and overcrowding on the

1325
stem section and at Oxford Circus Station could be relieved.
The Fleet Line will further benefit commuters on the Stanmore branch through its effects on staffing and rolling stock. Trains on the line will be one-man operated and the rolling stock used will be modern—initially new vehicles currently in use on the Northern Line and eventually new stock built specially for the line. Cancellations due to staff shortages and defective stock should be minimal. Thus the problems facing commuters on the Bakerloo Line to and from Stanmore have already begun to be eased.
The hon. Member may claim that the recent decline in the number of complaints London Transport has received about the line from the public is an indication that commuters despair of any improvements being made. Although he spoke of the Bakerloo Line Users' Committee, there has been a reduction in the number of complaints received by London Transport. It could be a matter of fatigue and a feeling of apathy on the part of commuters, but I consider that it is due much more—
Mr. Dykes: I do not want to give the wrong impression. The number of complaints that I am receiving is not reduced.
Mr. Carmichael: All 1 can say is that the number of complaints that London Transport is receiving is reduced. I think that the figures I have given have some significance in the short term. The number of complaints is reduced because the reason for complaint has been reduced. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West suggested that there had been an improvement, especially recently.
I have tried to show that, given the labour situation in public transport, which undoubtedly is an acute problem, especially because of unsocial hours—I think that we must accept that we have to pay people for working unsocial hours —future prospects are bright. The opening of the Fleet Line should guarantee commuters in the north-west of London one of the best Underground services in London, and I hope—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at seventeen minutes past One o'clock.

PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Food Hoarding
  Food Hoarding
  Voluntary Code
  Voluntary Code
  Press Conference
  Press Conference
  Price Fixing
  Price Fixing
  Gas
  Gas
  Bread
  Bread
  Footwear
  Footwear
  Food (Expenditure)
  Food (Expenditure)
  Petrol (Retail Sales)
  Petrol (Retail Sales)
TRADE
  Holiday Travel Bookings
  Holiday Travel Bookings
  Court Line (Holiday Payments)
  Court Line (Holiday Payments)
  Agricultural Machinery
  Agricultural Machinery
  Airlines (Policy Review)
  Airlines (Policy Review)
ENERGY
  Lighting Efficiency
  Lighting Efficiency
  Food (Import Duties)
  Food (Import Duties)
  Trade Balances
  Trade Balances
  Gas and Electricity
  Gas and Electricity
  Atomic Energy (South Africa)
  Atomic Energy (South Africa)
  Heating (Public Buildings)
  Heating (Public Buildings)
  Motor Vehicles
  Motor Vehicles
  Conservation
  Conservation
INDUSTRY
  Hawker Siddeley
  Hawker Siddeley
  Aerospace and Shipbuilding
  Aerospace and Shipbuilding
  Post Office (Chairman)
  Post Office (Chairman)
  Electronics (Scotland)
  Electronics (Scotland)
  Freight Charges (Post Office Parcels)
  Freight Charges (Post Office Parcels)
  Commercial Consultants
  Commercial Consultants
  Textile Fibres
  Textile Fibres
  Merseyside and Kirkby
  Merseyside and Kirkby
  Footwear
  Footwear
  North West Region
  North West Region
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Imported Eggs
  Imported Eggs
  Ration Books
  Ration Books
  Bloodstock
  Bloodstock
  Animals (Transport)
  Animals (Transport)
  Milk Distribution (Self-Employed Persons)
  Milk Distribution (Self-Employed Persons)
  Sugar Supplies (Yorkshire)
  Sugar Supplies (Yorkshire)
  Beef Consumption
  Beef Consumption
  Beef Tokens
  Beef Tokens
  CONTRACTS (EXCLUSION CLAUSES)
  CONTRACTS (EXCLUSION CLAUSES)
  SECURITY ORGANISATIONS
  SECURITY ORGANISATIONS
CIVIL SERVICE
  Security Organisations
  Security Organisations
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Diego Garcia
  Diego Garcia
  NATO
  NATO
  Ships (Refits)
  Ships (Refits)
  Low-Level Flying
  Low-Level Flying
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Celtic Sea
  Celtic Sea
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Students
  University Students
  School Milk
  School Milk
  School Meals
  School Meals
EMPLOYMENT
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  Distribution of Income and Wealth (Royal Commission)
  Distribution of Income and Wealth (Royal Commission)
  Lost Working Days (EEC Countries)
  Lost Working Days (EEC Countries)
  Redundancies (Scotland)
  Redundancies (Scotland)
  Social Contract
  Social Contract
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Self-Employed Persons
  Self-Employed Persons
  Ayrshire
  Ayrshire
  Health and Safety Commission
  Health and Safety Commission
  Brixton
  Brixton
  Press Releases
  Press Releases
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Collective Agreements
  Collective Agreements
  Haslingden, Bacup and Rawtenstall
  Haslingden, Bacup and Rawtenstall
  Diving Training
  Diving Training
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Palestinians
  Palestinians
  EEC Directives
  EEC Directives
  Greece
  Greece
  Oman
  Oman
  Palestine (1945–1948)
  Palestine (1945–1948)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Probation Officers (Pay)
  Probation Officers (Pay)
  Sex Discrimination (Legislation)
  Sex Discrimination (Legislation)
  IRA (Television Interviews)
  IRA (Television Interviews)
  Parliamentary Elections
  Parliamentary Elections
  Bombings
  Bombings
  Prostitution
  Prostitution
  Child Offenders (Age of Responsibility)
  Child Offenders (Age of Responsibility)
  Cypriots
  Cypriots
  Security Organisations
  Security Organisations
  Excluded Persons' Dependants
  Excluded Persons' Dependants
  Lady Margaret Hall Settlement, Kennington
  Lady Margaret Hall Settlement, Kennington
  Police (Wales)
  Police (Wales)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Petrol (Taxation)
  Petrol (Taxation)
  War Widows' Pensions
  War Widows' Pensions
  Redundancy Pay
  Redundancy Pay
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Iranian Petrol Price
  Iranian Petrol Price
  Education and Social Services (Expenditure)
  Education and Social Services (Expenditure)
  Widows' Pensions (Taxation)
  Widows' Pensions (Taxation)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Aldergrove Airport
  Aldergrove Airport
  Prevention of Terrorism (Entry Examiners)
  Prevention of Terrorism (Entry Examiners)
  Court Houses
  Court Houses
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Food Aid (EEC)
  Food Aid (EEC)
SCOTLAND
  Knoydart (Pylons)
  Knoydart (Pylons)
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Electricity (Coal Stocks)
  Electricity (Coal Stocks)
  Auchinleck Health Centre
  Auchinleck Health Centre
  Area Health Boards
  Area Health Boards
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Ayr District General Hospital
  Ayr District General Hospital
  Health Councils
  Health Councils
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Education Colleges (New Students)
  Education Colleges (New Students)
  Borders District General Hospital
  Borders District General Hospital
  Grant-Aided Schools
  Grant-Aided Schools
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Groby Road Hospital, Leicester
  Groby Road Hospital, Leicester
  Mount Hospital, Bipshopstoke
  Mount Hospital, Bipshopstoke
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Pension
  Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Pension
  Speech Therapy
  Speech Therapy
  Handicapped Persons (Private Motor Vehicles)
  Handicapped Persons (Private Motor Vehicles)
  North East Thames Regional Health Authority
  North East Thames Regional Health Authority
  National Insurance Benefit
  National Insurance Benefit
  Deferred Retirement
  Deferred Retirement
ENVIRONMENT
  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Transport Services
  Transport Services
  Railways
  Railways
  Layfield Committee
  Layfield Committee
  Darrington (Flyover)
  Darrington (Flyover)
  House Conversions
  House Conversions
  Bungalows
  Bungalows
  Water Rates
  Water Rates
  Motorways (Vehicle Breakdowns)
  Motorways (Vehicle Breakdowns)
  Roads (Noise Nuisance)
  Roads (Noise Nuisance)
  London Government Staffs
  London Government Staffs
  Little Waltham (Road Accidents)
  Little Waltham (Road Accidents)
  Inland Waterways
  Inland Waterways
  Floodlighting
  Floodlighting
  Mortgage Rates (Local Authorities)
  Mortgage Rates (Local Authorities)
  Rents (Barbican)
  Rents (Barbican)
  Roads
  Roads
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Harvington Bypass
  Harvington Bypass
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Motorway Lighting (Fuel Consumption)
  Motorway Lighting (Fuel Consumption)
  Building Materials Industry
  Building Materials Industry
  London Underground (Central Line)
  London Underground (Central Line)
  Road Haulage
  Road Haulage
  Irish Sea
  Irish Sea
  Waste Management Advisory Council
  Waste Management Advisory Council
WALES
  Departmental European Division
  Departmental European Division
  Handicapped Persons (Accommodation)
  Handicapped Persons (Accommodation)
  Welsh Land Agency
  Welsh Land Agency
  National Health Service (Doctors)
  National Health Service (Doctors)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Land
  Land
  Geriatric Beds (Ceredigion)
  Geriatric Beds (Ceredigion)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.
The Lord Woolley—Took the Oath.

CYPRUS: REFUGEES
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Cyprus passport holders have been refused admission to the United Kingdom in August, September, October and November, respectively.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, the numbers of Cypriots refused leave to enter in August, September and October were 15, 17 and 37. The figure for November is not yet available, but is likely to be about 60.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, do these figures indicate some change in the attitude of the immigration service? Have any fresh instructions been given to immigration officers at the ports to be less easy in admitting persons holding Cypriot passports? In view of the desperate situation in which many of these refugees existed before they left the island, would it not be only humanitarian and sensible to admit them on IS.96s pending clarification of the situation in Cyprus?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think the reason for the growth in the numbers in the month of November is that there was an increasing number of family groups who were in that month seeking entry, allegedly for a temporary purpose, but whose admission could not be justified. As regards the general principles underlying immigration control in this area, we are prepared to look very carefully at any exceptional case. But, broadly speaking, we have to
914
be convinced that a case is exceptional, and the sole fact that a family is coming from Cyprus is not a reason why they should be given exceptional treatment as compared with other types of Commonwealth immigrants.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who have many Cypriot friends know what excellent work has been done by Her Majesty's Government and by the Red Cross for Cypriot refugees? But will he ask his noble friend in the Department concerned with foreign affairs to see what he can do to bring to Cyprus understanding between our friends the Turkish Cypriots, and our friends the Greek Cypriots?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords; that is indeed the purpose of the present policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will answer my question about any instructions which may have been given to the immigration officers during the period to which my Question relates. Are the criteria still the same as they were before the emergency? Also, does he not consider that there are exceptional circumstances prevailing, in that many of these people have been driven away from their homes and are living in areas where the climate is, to say the least, hostile, and they may be in danger of their lives if they remain in their own country? Do those not constitute exceptional circumstances?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, where there are exceptional circumstances we can certainly agree to a family or an individual coming in here for a temporary period. There have been a series of instructions given to immigration officers during the period of the Cyprus emergency, but the fact is that the situation has, to some extent at least, improved recently, and that is perhaps the reason for the change in circumstances now.

HOUSING: HIGH RISE FLATS
2.40 p.m.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to stop the construction of high rise flats.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness BIRK): My Lords, the Government recognise that high rise flats are not suitable for families with children, but it would not be right to stop their construction altogether.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I must confess that I am rather disappointed by that Answer. Is my noble friend aware that there is medical evidence that the unfortunate mothers with very small children who are condemned to live in these high rise flats have been suffering from severe depression, and does she think that that is conducive to marital harmony and to preventing juvenile delinquency?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right and the Government are well aware of this research. In fact, Government research is strongly against high rise living for families with children, but it shows that it is suitable for single people and small households. I would remind my noble friend that whereas in 1966 18 per cent. of local authority dwellings in blocks of 10 storeys and over were approved, in 1973 only 1 per cent. were approved. So there has been a very considerable drop.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I wonder whether when high rise flats are being planned there could be some provision of recreational accommodation for children within the flats themselves, so that parents would not have to worry about them playing in the grounds without supervision.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. Provision is made and a subsidy of £18 per child is allowed. One of the problems has been the great demand on local government expenditure, so that although the ground is there a great deal of this work has not been carried out.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that a dirty street in London is a delicate social organism, and it is much better that people should stay there
916
than attack one another with knives in a high rise flat?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not really think that those are the alternatives. The problem is that we are short of land, the density is high and we have to do the best we can. But without any doubt we are decided and generally agreed—and most local authorities certainly accept this—that high rise living is not right for families with children.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, while agreeing that the Government cannot possibly impose a ban on high rise flats, can they give more attention to the safety factors involved? Is the noble Baroness aware that in some cases the barriers and safety rails are quite inadequate? May I further ask what discretion is given to local authorities in limiting the numbers of storeys to which these high rise flats can be built?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, one of the limiting factors in such buildings is the cost yardstick; the higher the building the more expensive it becomes. The Department have sent out a number of design bulletins, pointing out to local authorities the disadvantages of these buildings. If a local authority came forward with plans for a high rise building for family living of the type referred to by the noble Lord, the Department would stress very strongly what is now known against such buildings and would certainly ask them to think again.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, how high is "high rise"? Is there any reason why it should not be limited to six or seven storeys?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, "high rise" is above four storeys, where you need a lift.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that these flats are not an asset to family living? I should like to ask when we will get back to terra firma—say, with three or four-storey flats—rather than having them built as they are at the moment, under planning regulations made by local authorities on behalf of the Ministry.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is what we are trying to do, but it is extremely difficult to do it in heavily populated areas where land is short.

LLANGOLLEN INTERNATIONAL EISTEDDFOD
2.45 p.m.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the grant made to the Welsh National Eisteddfod, and in view of the tremendous increase in cost, they will consider making a grant to the Llangollen International Eisteddfod.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, while Her Majesty's Government admire the achievements and standing of the Llangollen International Eisteddfod and welcome the financial aid given to it through the Welsh Arts Council, I am sorry that no grant can be given from Government sources additional to this. The assistance given to the Council of the Eisteddfod Cenedlaethol, which translated is the National Eisteddfod, was an exceptional and once-for-all measure to enable it to keep a roof over its head.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that, although I have the highest regard for him, I cannot thank him for that most disappointing reply? I am aware, of course, that he speaks from a brief and not from his heart, but I must ask him whether he is aware that two days before the Summer Recess the Secretary of State for Wales, John Morris, deceived me and this House by declaring, through my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, that he was "unable" and "not empowered" to make a grant to any institution of this kind? Two weeks later he appeared on the platform at the National Eisteddfod and amid applause, which he greatly enjoyed, he stated that he was making a grant of £50,000. May I ask my noble and learned friend whether we are to suffer the present Administration in the Welsh Office for the next four years? If so, I say God help Wales or, in Welsh, Dum a helpo Cymru!
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, and even sorrier that he
918
has seen fit to accuse our noble friend of deception. What my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts indicated was that, in principle, it is better that cultural and artistic ventures should be helped through the agency of the Arts Council rather than directly by the Government. Indeed, in this coming year the Arts Council will make available £8,500 as a subsidy for the Llangollen Eisteddfod if it is required—as was done last year. The position in regard to the National Eisteddfod Pavilion is that it needed replacement. The Government's contribution was £50,000. The funds of the Eisteddfod itself amounted to well over £130,000. That is the explanation and I hope that it has now satisfied my noble friend—although I doubt it.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, unsatisfactory though the Answer is to this Question, may I presume to congratulate the noble and learned Lord in that it is the first time I have heard him answer a Question concerning Welsh affairs in your Lordships' House? May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is aware that the Llangollen Festival, concentrating largely as it does on singing and acting, is admired a great deal more than some aspects of the National Eisteddfod and that many American visitors come over to Llangollen to hear this music? Would not he agree that £8,500 is a pittance, considered in the light of a contribution towards the carrying on of the Festival?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should be a very poor spokesman indeed for Wales if I intervened in the matter of deciding the order of priorities or of excellence between the two Eistedd-fodau. I will not be drawn into that. The high quality and delight afforded by this great international festival, which also includes the art of dancing, is well known throughout the world. It will flourish; local authorities are contributing as are other bodies. I should like to appeal to them to continue, if not to increase, their own contributions.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, as one who was a Day President of the Llangollen Musical Festival, some two years ago, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he is aware that the fact that this little town stages a truly international cultural music

919
festival is one of the wonders of the world, and that any practical help he can give to it is well worth while?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that this has been a remarkable achievement for the little town of Llangollen, with its population of only about 3,000 people. The Answer I have given in no way reflects lack of enthusiastic admiration for what is done, but is inspired by the bitter economic circumstances of the day. May, I, however, make one correction to an answer which I gave earlier, which I fear will give no comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Maelor. The sum which the Welsh Arts Council are proposing to make available is £8,250, and not, alas, £8,500 as I earlier indicated.

T & AVR ORGANISATION
2.51 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of their recent Statement on defence, they can confirm that it is their intention to continue the organisation of the T & AVR upon lines which will retain existing units of company and squadron strength within it as identifiable entities capable of rapid expansion in times of emergency.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there will be some reorganisation and amalgamation of existing individual units as a result of the recommendations of the T & AVR Review Committee. But I can confirm that the organisation of the T & AVR will continue on lines which will retain company and squadron units as identifiable entities capable of rapid expansion as required in time of emergency.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him to be more precise in what he means by "some reorganisation and amalgamation?" In particular, may I ask whether this will mean the elimination
920
of either distinctive naming or badging of the companies or squadrons, or of the amalgamation of their call-up lists?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is rather a wide question. Tomorrow I want to expand on the future of the T & AVR. The situation is that there are certain units which have not been able to recruit to full strength. Certain units will be amalgamated because they have failed to maintain adequate strength. Some new units will be formed. The general aim of the reorganisation will be to improve recruiting and create a more efficient geographical and operational base. A major recruiting programme is foreseen for early next year.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, as the matter of the T & AVR is to be mentioned in the course of our defence debate tomorrow, will the noble Lord say how short of its strength is the T & AVR?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is 73 per cent. of forecast strength.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, are we to understand it will remain as such? Is the reorganisation associated with a further reduction or, at any rate, no attempt to increase the number of units in the T & AVR?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, what we are hoping to do is to raise the strength of the T & AVR from its present position of 73 per cent. of establishment to nearer its full establishment of 74,000. That is the object of the present exercise. Her Majesty's Government place great importance upon the T & AVR.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am much obliged for that answer. When my noble friend talks about an "establishment", how does that relate to the actual strength? Establishment is one thing—that is a target—but actual strength is another.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes precision, at the moment the position is that the latest figures available at the end of October this year show there were 53,827 individuals in the T & AVR, which is 73 per cent. of the total establishment as laid down on a legal basis.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether "reorganisation" means a reduction of establishment?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords. The establishment remains the same and unchanged.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving further information. Do I deduce from what he said (as I think I do) that units of about 73 per cent. strength, or with satisfactory recruiting records, need fear no terrible future?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, indeed. At the moment I should have thought the future for the T & AVR is better than it has ever been. Her Majesty's Government place great emphasis on the continuation and growth of the T & AVR within its existing establishment, which has not been reached.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree this depends on the maintenance of the continuity of regimental traditions at present concentrated into units of company and squadron size?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I said that at the beginning of my Answer to the noble Lord.

EEC: HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the EEC Heads of Government Meeting in Paris.

SAFETY OF SPORTS GROUNDS BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen
922
and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG moved the Amendment:
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
Grants
"The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the Sports Council, may out of monies to be provided by Parliament make a sum available to provide for safety at sports stadia and other sports grounds equal to the sum made available annually to the Arts Council out of monies provided by Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment in order to give Her Majesty's Government a further opportunity of reconsidering their policy. I have had to draft the Amendment in such a way as to keep within the terms of the Long Title. I view this Amendment as a peg on which to hang a wider argument. I have also included in my Amendment reference to the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the Sports Council, not because I want to extend a conflict of interest or exacerbate any frictional relations between these bodies, but because I want to leave the question of which body is the best body, or a combination of the two, to wiser minds than my own. I put the words in to recognise that there are two interests, one body an entirely voluntary organisation, the other a body which represents the interests of sport as a whole, but containing members nominated by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and persons of eminence who have shown an interest in the subject.
I am asking the Government now, as I have asked in the previous proceedings on the Bill, for nothing. I am not asking the Government to give me money; I am not even asking them to alter their policy. But I am asking that the Government as a whole should look at the problem. While my remarks are directed to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as the spokesman of the Home Office, there are much wider issues than that. It just happens that

923
it was the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who, when he was Home Secretary, introduced legislation dealing with betting, gaming and lotteries. He subsequently introduced the Bill dealing with the levy as a predecessor had introduced a Bill a generation before dealing with the same subject. He did it not because he was interested in this, but because of a pledge, properly made and redeemed by the Conservative Party at the 1959 Election, that they would deal with two major social evils. They dealt with that in a way which had my support. I am embarrassed when there is any deviation of the policy, particularly when, as I see it, it has been departed from by those who do not really thoroughly understand—and I say this with great respect—what they are up to.
I must remind both sides of the House that the country as a whole has benefited from what I regard as an objective view, taking full account of the interests right across the board. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but it needs to be recognised that when the Labour Government was formed in 1964 the total amount received was of the order of £33 million. It now amounts to £240 million—plus a levy for racing, which, in my submission, has probably gone as far as it can go, of the order of £8 million, plus a further emolument which is taken by the Racecourse Association of about £1 million-odd, certainly over £1 million in 1975, for the commentary fund. These are very large sums indeed. I just wonder whether noble Lords, the Government or Members of another place understand the real significance of a reply given by Lord Harris's colleague, Dr. Summerskill, when she announced that the total sum wagered was of the order of £441 million—if one deducts tax from that it is a sum of £257 miltion—against a total turnover of £2,700,000.
That means that the situation in which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, found himself in in 1959, for quite other reasons, is now being repeated; because it means that those right across the board who make a living or run organisations to profit from betting and gaming are working on a gross
924
figure of 8 per cent. That, of course, is not sustainable when one has to take into account that from that figure has to be deducted levies and the like. Therefore of course, human nature being what it is, if form in this field has any meaning at all, then sooner or later organisations will have to cease trade, individuals will go out of business, or—fearful thought!—they will start to act illegally, which must lead to a diminution of the amount which the Government collect by way of taxation, plus the fact that there will be a re-creation of a major social evil.
We have only to look across the Channel to an organisation constantly held up to us as a model of how to conduct affairs. It is now perfectly clear that the Tiercé, which was the source of all goodness, so we were told, is now a source of major corruption: there have been murders, beatings-up, arrests of a number of jockeys and trainers, and the story is not yet finished. Mr. Jean Cahan, who is responsible as a surety for this, produced a report of some 750 pages, and it has been on the go for some time. We do not want that here, and I again hold strong Party political views. But I pay my tribute—I have done so before and I repeat it again—to Lord Butler because his legislation was far-seeing. I do not believe that we have the Mafia or anything like the Mafia here, and, please, we do not want it. This is a major social evil and it comes about because, after all, whether we like it or not, a number of our fellow citizens choose to spend their time perhaps trying to win large sums with small stakes, and it provides a profitable field for some that they choose to bet in the way they do. It is there and no one can do very much about it, except to recognise the fact that if you want to alter it, it is a very slow, long process.
The Government here have introduced the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill. It imposes obligations, some of them which over the years could grow; it is going to be very massive in its consequences here, and they make no provision about finance. The argument put to me is of course that in these hard times we cannot do it, and some very silly things have been said. Just a week ago I picked up the point of those who said that we had not a penny for anything; I pointed out that

925
we managed to give the Arts Council I some £28 million—although I repeat I do not begrudge it—for the coming year. That is the figure reported in the Press. Certainly it has grown from £2 million in 1964 to £13½ million the year before last and £17½ million last year; it certainly is £22 million this year, and the only point is dispute is whether the addition of £6 million as reported is right or whether it is £3 million. Anyway, it is a large sum and I do not berudge a single penny of it, but it has been obtained because the Government have recognised the importance of the cultural life of the country and have supported it financially—and I repeat, quite rightly.
I also hold the point of view—and it was made by a noble Lord opposite when I spoke last week—that sport is tied up with character building. It is also tied up with the proper use of leisure. I ask noble Lords to go back some time and read the very able Report prepared by Sir Norman Chesters called Football. It was presented to yet another Minister, the Secretary of State for Education. The Report argues that there should be a levy on football. If I may be forgiven for saying it, having paid a tribute to Sir Norman Chesters' work, I wish he had come along and had a talk with some of us to explain how the levy would work, and then he would not have made the recommendations in quite the form he did. But he looked for a levy of 1 per cent. for football, and there was a Minority Report for 2 per cent. Be it noted, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, the man who could have put it into operation with a flick of his finger, is the present Secretary of State for the Home Department. He could have done it. But six years have gone by and nothing has been done by any Administration and for a very good reason.
I read again the account of the proceedings on the Levy Bill. Then I was somewhat isolated because on that occasion I voted five times against my own Party, for one very simple reason. I had been a member of the small Working Committee of only three who had had conversations with the Home Office and had produced proposals which subsequently were embraced in a Levy Bill, and it was not possible for me—at least I did not think so; I could not face it—
926
of doing one thing on the Committee and then, when the Bill came before the House of Commons, voting in the opposite direction. When the Home Secretary was faced with a demand for a levy he set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Leslie Peppiatt. Their Report was debated on 23rd May 1960, and Mr. Enoch Powell, who I thought at the time was quite wrong, advanced with some vigour and with a clarity of thought that one associates with Mr. Powell, the fact that he was opposed hook, line and sinker to anything that savoured of hypothecation. He talked about assignment of duties, and in fact it has been breached only once, as I understand it, and then in a minor degree, over the duties associated with the cinema. In order to get Sunday opening, the cinema industry undertook to make a contribution to charity, and that is the only breach of it. The opposition from the Treasury stemmed from the fact that it would lead to hypothecation. I did not believe him, and that is why I voted as I did in support of the Levy Bill. But I have had an opportunity of seeing it in practice, and it does lead to hypothecation—it is hypothecation—and it leads to all the pressures and errors which worried Mr. Powell.
May I give an example? There was a great discussion, as there is now, about how the Levy Board should be composed. I was a member of the old Racecourse Betting Control Board and was nominated by a Conservative Minister. That Board was composed rather like the Sports Council, right across the board. Every Department in Whitehall nominated somebody. I was nominated by the then Minister of Agriculture. When the new Bill came forward it was decided to have a Board composed of a very limited number of people: one member from the Jockey Club, one member from the National Hunt Committee, three independent members nominated by the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee, the Chairman of the Totalisator. The Jockey Club objected to having only one member and the National Hunt Committee another. They said: "We ought to have two." A great deal of discussion took place on that and I certainly was a party to giving them two. That gives them three out of the present Board.
I hope noble Lords will refresh their memories on this point. The Home Office spokesman said this: "It is a condition of the Home Office's accepting this proposal, not a requirement but a condition, that they shall represent interests right across the board, and there is no place here for special interests." It was accepted on that basis. It has not been honoured. It was never honoured. The interests have not been represented across the board. Indeed, until 1967 when this fact was pointed out to them with some force, no attempt whatever was made to represent the special interests. Therefore, I do not believe that the levy approach will make any further progress. I say this because the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in the Memorandum that was circulated in July when this Bill was for the second time put forward, suggested that there should be an extension of a football levy.
If one examines the facts. I do not believe that a football levy which was not acceptable in 1968 can possibly be acceptable now. If it is not extended, then there is no more in it than the present figure of £8 million. Also, if any concession is made to the extension of the levy to football, it will at once lead to a queue of other interests—not least, the dogs who would make the same claim. If there is no progress in that field, then there is the second leg which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, put forward; namely, that there should be lotteries. Here, again, the scoring is complicated. On 21st November, the noble Lord's colleague in another place described the situation as being complicated and controversial and said that it must not be approached piecemeal; it must be looked at right across the board.
The situation which the Government have to face is that five or six years ago there was a decision of this House, acting in its legal capacity, that what is called "Spot the ball" was illegal. They passed a measure, the Pools Competition Act 1971, extending the status quo until 1976. In the meantime, the Home Office were faced with an acute problem, because although the Gaming Board had put a limit on bingo there was no limit on football; and if one puts a limit on football at a low level it will ruin the football pools. Therefore they set up a departmental committee
928
under the chairmanship of a civil servant. His report has never been approved or disapproved; it is in limbo. I do not understand how, in the light of what one Minister of the Department says in the other place, another Minister can come to this House and hold out the hope that lotteries will provide a way out.
I had sent to me an exercise which was carried out by the GLC. As your Lordships know, the GLC is very close to the thinking in the Home Office. Their treasurer circulated a paper which showed that £500,000 was the most that could be collected under the legislation which was being considered in another place—a Private Member's Bill—that £225,000 is set aside every month for prizes and that the largest prize must not be less than £100,000; £6,500 is set aside for reserve and £43,500 for publicity and commission on the sale of tickets. If you have a monthly lottery of £500,000, it means you must sell 2 million tickets a month at 25p each, and if you have only £43,000 to promote it you are being very optimistic. And, joke upon joke, they had completely forgotten that a lottery of that kind is liable to a pool duty of 40 per cent. If, therefore, you take £200,000 from the £500,000 which the Treasury will collect, the figures look rather ridiculous. It is possible to extend the small lotteries which do not meet such a heavy burden of taxation, but I do not believe that there is any profit to be made in that direction.
The social consequences lie with the Home Office. The question of finance and taxation lies with the Treasury. The report on football is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Education. The Secretary of State for the Environment is concerned with the Sports Council's grant, and one has to remember that the Minister for Sport is one of his junior Ministers. All I am asking for is that the Government should take this complicated problem, which has its effect upon taxation, upon a number of sports and upon how our young people, both now and in the future, use their leisure time, and look at the problem right across the board. I would even make so bold as to say that it is a problem for the Prime Minister, because the Home Secretary does not have sufficient political mileage to interfere with the Treasury; nor does the Chancellor of the Exchequer

929
have sufficient political weight to interfere with the affairs of the Home Office. Then, for good measure, there is the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is also the fact that anything which has to do with the horse ought to be a matter for the Minister of Agriculture.
Therefore all that I am asking for is that one should recognise that it is a complicated, confused problem and that it should not be left on one side. I ask today, as I have asked on several previous occasions, that the Minister who replies should say, "I can give you no answer today, and I am sure you would not expect me to do so. However, I promise to take the problem away and have a look at it." If the Minister goes even further and says that there are certain aspects which need to be referred to a Select Committee of both Houses, in order that recommendations could be made to the Government about how the problems should be handled, I should regard it as very much of a bonus and would even be constrained to wish him a very happy Christmas. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is once again asking the House to amend this Bill so that public funds can be made available to sports stadia in order to cover the cost of implementing the regulations covering the safety certificates which are provided for under this Bill. I shall not detain the House by repeating the arguments which I used against this principle on Second Reading and at Committee stage. However, on this occasion the noble Lord is arguing that since public moneys are granted to the Arts Council, an equal amount should be made available to sports stadia. For that argument to be valid there must be certain similarities between the Arts Council and sports stadia, and about the needs of each.
I readily agree with the noble Lord that spectator sports are as much entertainment and, in some ways, as much art, in the broadest sense of the word, as theatre and opera. However, the noble Lord is asking for a sum which is equal to the amount that is given to the Arts Council, so that sports stadia need not themselves pay the cost of removing the risk to people that the stadia themselves have created. This presumes that the
930
original grant of £17½ million which was given to the Arts Council in the last financial year was for safety purposes. That is certainly not the case. Out of that grant of £17½ million, only £1½ million was spent upon what might be called "Housing the Arts". Of the total grant-in-aid to the professional theatres in England, which amounted to £2½ million in the last financial year, only £40,000 was spent upon capital improvements. In fact, the vast majority of the grant to the Arts Council goes in salaries and in guaranteeing unprofitable productions.
I am presuming that by his Amendment to a Bill on safety the noble Lord does not intend to subsidise the salaries of football players and the officials of football clubs, or to underwrite unprofitable football matches. Also, it should not be forgotten that the private revenue of football clubs is in general much greater than that received by the Arts. Without the subsidy and with only private revenue to rely upon, many people who are involved in the Arts would be faced with even more serious personal financial difficulties than those with which they are faced at the present time.
My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has made out his case, or that the House should accept this Amendment if the noble Lord should decide to press it. Under this Bill, the needs of the Arts Council and the needs of the sports stadia are not similar. I hold to my original belief that it is wrong for the Government to provide public funds, so that private enterprises can remove the risk to the public that they themselves have created in the first place.
3.19 p.m.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, I have listened most attentively to the presentation of his Amendment by my noble friend Lord Wigg. A favourite expression which was used by the noble Lord was "right across the board", and I began to wonder what is meant by that expression. Is his concern due only to professionalism, whereby the individual or the racecourse betting levy is imposed, profits accrue and taxation has to be met because the benefit comes from the betting that takes place during the course of a race meeting, or even from the amount of money that accrues from the people who go through the turnstiles at

931
a professional football match? If it is "right across the board", I wonder why consideration is not given to other sections of society in this country which engage in sport. For example, may I start with the schools? Our children, with their school teams, are looked after by sports teachers who spend a lot of their spare time—if, indeed, they have any—encouraging and moulding these young people so that they will turn out to be real sportsmen, in the true sense of the word, and may even rapidly grow into professional sportsmen.
Then there are the amateur clubs. I wonder whether noble Lords are aware of the number of football clubs in this country which play on Sundays. At one time, Sunday was looked upon as a day of rest. This sport is extending in such a way that it will depend upon the general public going along and contributing to a collection which may be made, even to pay the cost of the referee. I know of local amateur football clubs where the players themselves have to find the fee for the referee out of their own pockets. Therefore, when we speak of its being "right across the board", we surely ought not to stop at professional racing, professional football, professional rugby, or any other type of professional sport in this country.
The Arts Council was mentioned earlier. I have not been very interested in the Arts in the general sense, because it seems to me that the Arts are not heard of very much in the provinces where I come from. As I understand it, the greater part of the Arts is centred here in the metropolis, and in areas such as mine it does not reach that apex of understanding and operation that it reaches in London, where so many public bodies are interested in its continuation and where it receives benefit by way of taxation.
3.22 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will begin by reminding the House of the circumstances in which we are having this debate today. During the Report stage of the Bill on 10th December the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, made the following observation:
"I read with some amazement reports in the Press this morning, and again this afternoon. There have been murmurings over the last few days as to what is happening to the Arts Council. The Arts Council is to get
932
£6 million more."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10/12/74; c. 569.]
First, I hope I can set the noble Lord's mind at rest: the sum of £6 million referred to did indeed appear but this was in the Arts Council's recently published Report for 1973–74 as the sum which the Council needed from the Government. No figure has been agreed by the Government for the Council's grant for next year. I think that will to some extent meet the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord last week. The only increased Government grant which has been made available to the Arts Council, which appeared in the Supplementary Estimate in December, was not for £3 million which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, referred to earlier this afternoon, but for £1·75 million, and this was simply to take account of the effects of inflation. I say this because the noble Lord may not have been aware that my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Science in fact referred to some of this Press speculation in another place on Friday last. I hope that meets to some extent the anxieties which the noble Lord expressed on the 10th December.
I fear that the position of the Government—and my noble friend will not be altogether surprised to hear this—is not any different from what it was on Report stage, when the noble Lord raised this question, nor on the Committee stage nor on Second Reading. The position is that in the present economic state of the country, quite apart from the principles involved, the present situation is such that it is impossible to make monies available on the scale referred to in the noble Lord's Amendment. The noble Lord pointed out very fairly that he was to some extent in difficulty because of the Long Title of the Bill. However, the position is that if this Amendment were to be passed we should in fact be committing ourselves to expenditure of up to £19 million for safeguards which would be incorporated in sports stadia and foodball grounds, and I should think most Members of the House would take the view that in the present economic situation this is not an urgent priority matter so far as public expenditure is concerned.
With regard to the general question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, as I have endeavoured to point out to the

933
House on previous occasions when this Bill has been discussed, the financial problems of the football clubs are recognised by the Government and that is why the Bill is drafted as it is. In the first place, it can be implemented and will indeed be implemented by stages. Local authorities may require only what is reasonable and one of the elements of what is reasonable will be the cost of such precautions as may be necessary, and requirements can be adjusted to take account of factors such as average attendances rather than maximum capacity. Again as I have pointed out to the House on previous occasions, it will be possible for the necessary work to be carried out by stages and there will be ample opportunity to appeal to the Secretary of State against requirements of the certification procedure which are regarded as unreasonable by the club.
I fear that that is the only decision which the Government can take, given the present financial problems facing this country. I recognise that it is not anything like so far as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, would like us to go but I am afraid it is as far as we can go. I fear that the only point on which I can in any way respond to him is to agree with him in his concluding remarks as he sat down and warmly to wish him a very merry Christmas as well.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am much obliged for the noble Lord's good wishes for Christmas, but I would have been much happier if he could have responded a little further. He has moved a little but not very much. I should like to detain the House for a moment or two, just to deal with one or two of the points that have been made. It seems to me that the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, could not have heard me aright. I did not want to take anything off the Arts Council. I support the Arts Council, and that enables me to say to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, that perhaps the most remarkable part of its work is the extent to which it has stimulated an interest in the Arts in the Provinces. It is true that there are grants of just over £4 million to just four theatres. I am not surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, can accept that.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, if I gave the impression that I thought the noble
934
Lord, Lord Wigg, wanted to take money away from the Arts Council I apologise to him. I did not understand that at all.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am sorry; it is my complete inability to make myself plain. I have said it at least half a dozen times and I will say it again: I do not want to take a penny away from the Arts Council. I welcome all that they get and I wish they could get more. All I am pointing out is that they have got it, and they have got it as a result of enlightened pressures on both Labour and Conservative Administrations. They had not had to meet the fundamental point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, the charge of doing it on the basis of profitabilily. Covent Garden, the National Theatre, the Opera House and Sadlers Wells get £4¼ million.
Earl COWLEY: It is not £4 million to implement safety regulations. This is what the Bill is about.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I will try again. Does not the noble Earl see that if you apply the principle which he worships with the test of profitability then you must not subsidise clubs which cannot pay their way. If you are to do it on the basis of profitability you would say, "Of course, not a penny because you put on your shows and they do not pay so you will not get any money". They stand or fall by their ability to meet their costs. In that case they would die. Although the noble Lord, Lord Slater, does not recognise it, the help that has been given to the North-East by the Arts Council would not be there. It is recognised that you cannot do what the Arts Council sets out to do on the basis of the test of expenditure balancing income. It is just not on; it has to come from somewhere else.
Let us not quarrel with the figures. I was very careful to say £6 million. I said that I did not believe the Press; I do not believe the Press on any subject; I do not even agree when they tip winners. I am always careful never to back well-tipped horses. I do not believe in that kind of form. I have no respect for political correspondents, defence correspondents or even racing correspondents. I prefer to do my own homework. So I went to the Arts Council. I had doubts about the £6 million, and I said so. When we come to the £22 million

935
this is how it is made up. As I understand it, the Report just published was for the year before last. It shows £17½ million. The present figure, I understand, is £19½ million and they got £1,700,000 by way of a supplementary estimate, plus £750,000 to make up the VAT. I did not mention that fact in connection with racing or football. Football pays, in addition, £85 million by way of taxation; a vast sum is taken by VAT. I am informed by those who run the game that they pay more for the police than it costs them for the players. They have to meet this tremendous burden across the board stemming from a social problem.
The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, made comparison between what happens on a football ground and the football club which cannot afford to pay. I tried to take up this point on a previous occasion. At this game there are only about half a dozen who can pay their way. There must be all the other losers otherwise there would not be a game. If there is a team like Portsmouth making a loss last year of nearly £500,000, how much longer can it go on? As long as both sides of the House recognise what they are doing—I do not think they do—but it is a fact that a number of clubs will go out of existence. So far as the Home Office is concerned they are digging a pit for themselves. There is bound to grow in this country—I would not put it higher than that—the dangers of illegal betting, because you cannot sustain this edifice of £240 million taken out by taxation for ever and ever without at least recognising the problem you are creating. As I said on a previous occasion, "You cannot go on milking the cow unless you feed it". This is inevitable.
I have tried to put it all together. I am used to being in a minority of one here. I was in a minority of one so far as my own Party was concerned in relation to taxing betting in the first instance, and I rely on my own figures against the Press. We shall see on this as we shall see about defence tomorrow. If this problem is neglected then a vast social problem will be created. Racing, which is in a parlous condition, will receive no more money; football will not be able to meet its current obligations—never mind the obligations imposed here.
936
Those noble Lords who introduce other sports and who think that what I am saying is over their heads need to think again, because the reserve powers in this Bill are very great. It only needs a senior police officer at Epsom to apprehend that Langland stand is unsafe and to have a look at it. He makes an application to the Bench, the stand is closed and there is nothing the Home Secretary or anybody else can do about it. The reserve powers in this Bill are enormous. The Bill has been drafted by various officials to provide an alibi for Ministers. This is safety by phases. The situation may be as grave as was revealed at Ibrox. Please remember that the police officials were saying on the eve of Ibrox, "Absolutely safe: a perfect ground". It was, until a goal was scored at the last minute and 60-odd people died.
I said on Second Reading, I said when the Bill was first introduced in this House, "It is going to happen again". It is going to happen on a racecourse because paragraph 13 of the original legislation has never been implemented. So we shall have another accident in the line of Bolton, leading down to Ibrox. All that this Bill does—all it is intended to do—is to take it out of the hands of the Home Office and down to the local authorities. The responsibility rests with the police. Superimposed upon that is the problem of social wellbeing and the problem of taxation. My Lords, I have wearied the House too long. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EEC: HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with permission, I will now repeat a Statement which is now being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. I will use his own words:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about last week's meeting in Paris, which I regret I was not able to make last Thursday as I had hoped.

937
"On the invitation of the President of France the Heads of Government of the European Community met together on Monday and Tuesday, 9th and 10th December.
"Our conclusions are recorded in a Communiqué which has been published as a White Paper, Cmnd. 5830.
"The House will see from the White Paper that a considerable part of the discussions related to worldwide issues, in particular the economic situation, trade, employment and inflation.
"A high priority was given by all of us to the problems posed by the world threat of general recession, and in this connection we discussed the policies to be followed by individual countries, the Community, and the wider world. The Federal German Chancellor dealt with the problems facing his own country on which announcements were subsequently made by his Government in the German Parliament. Since they involve a substantial measure of reflation by a surplus country, I am sure all of us in this House will warmly welcome them.
"On energy we sought to get an improved consensus of views between the European Governments and the United States, and in particular the possibility of closer co-operation between oil-exporting and oil-importing countries. This meant that the French President in his discussions this weekend with the President of the United States would have a clearer view of the ideas and hopes of all of us on these matters.
"Co-operation in the field of energy is to be pursued further at a meeting of energy Ministers in Brussels tomorrow.
"On the renegotiation of the terms on which Britain entered the Community in 1971, I have informed the other Heads of Government of the position of Her Majesty's Government, and the particular issues to which we attach high priority; the issues set out in our Election Manifesto in February and endorsed again by the people in October. I informed them of the terms of the speech I made on 7th December, of which a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
938
"Substantial progress has been made on the question of Britain's budgetary contribution to the Community and appropriate instructions given to the Community institutions, so that they can now get to work to set up as soon as possible the 'correcting mechanism' referred to in the Communiqué. We intend to have a firm proposal and decision on this by the early spring.
"Since the Communiqué was published, anxiety has been expressed by honourable Members and others about two matters. The one relates to the principle of majority voting, and the Luxembourg Compromise. I can assure the House that there is no question at all—and that this was clear in the minds of all the Heads of Government—of any Member State, when important national interests are at stake, being required to set these interests aside as a result of a majority voting procedure. The Communiqué makes it plain that each country will continue to be free to maintain our respective positions regarding the Luxembourg Compromise of 1966. What the meeting had in mind was the undesirability of having too frequent a recourse to the veto, where for example relatively minor matters were involved.
"The other issue related to the desire of most Heads of Government to make progress towards the election of the European Assembly by universal suffrage. I made it clear that the British Government could not take up any position on this question until after the renegotiations are complete and the results submitted to the British people for decision. This was specifically reserved in the Communiqué as a Statement by the British Prime Minister.
"On institutional matters generally, the House will have seen that the Prime Minister of Belgium, Mr. Tindemans, has been invited to prepare a report on the institutional development of the Community, so that this can be considered by a meeting of Heads of Government a year or more from now.
"The Heads of Government also reached decisions on the Regional Development Fund. The Fund will be endowed with 1,300 million units of account (that is about £540 million)

939
over the three years 1975 to 1977. Twenty-eight per cent. of the Fund will be allocated to this country. Our net share of the Fund could turn out to be about £60 million in all. Compared with the Government's own regional expenditure of about £500 million a year the results will naturally be modest.
"I was particularly concerned to press upon our colleagues the importance of national Governments, such as our own, particularly at a time of anxiety about employment, being able to act speedily with existing, and where necessary, novel means of providing national aids for regional employment and regional development. On this I found full understanding among the other Heads of Government. I emphasised, of course, that such action should not offend against the Community rules of fair competition, nor amount to competitive bidding, one country against another, in order to attract some new development for example by an American-owned company.
"I have referred to institutional aspects of the Community. There is a general wish, which I share, to have important decisions taken quickly and effectively at the political level, both by Foreign and other Ministers and by Heads of Government themselves. The meeting in Paris was in effect the first European Council. In future there will be three of these meetings a year, and more if they are required to deal with particular problems. They will be concerned both with Community matters and with important questions of policy, for example on world energy and related world finance problems, outside the Community area.
"Our partners in the Conference, Mr. Speaker, were left in no doubt that while we were not dissatisfied with the progress made on the budgetary question, there was a substantial number of other matters on which we should expect satisfaction. There is still a long way to go if Britain's essential requirements are to be met, and it is in the best interests both of this country and of Europe that speedy progress be made and the issues decided.
940
"These questions will be taken up in meetings, early in the New Year, of the Council of Ministers, and, as appropriate, at the next Heads of Government meeting to be held in the New Year in Dublin under the Presidency of the Irish Republic."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, all noble Lords will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having repeated that Statement. I must say that for those of us who are anxious to see Britain remain as a member of the EEC, this is by no means a discouraging statement. There is a change of atmosphere in the Statement; indeed, I think there was a change of atmosphere in the speech made by the Prime Minister to the Labour Lord Mayors before he went to Paris. I would only point out, and do so without any ill will, that all this could have been done, all these negotiations could have been going on (and would have been) without all the drama of renegotiation. But if noble Lords opposite want to call it "renegotiation", and it helps them, I have no particular objection.
My Lords, I want to raise with the noble Lord the Leader of the House the question of the European Parliament. Is it the intention of the Government before the referendum to make known their views on how the European Parliament should be elected? The noble Lord will know there is a certain amount of Parliamentary difficulty about the European Parliament. It is a great pity—and the noble Lord knows it—that the Labour Party are not represented there, but there are difficulties which we all ought to try to solve. I commend to the noble Lord the Leader of the House a document produced by the European Parliament, with some amendments made by Conservative members of that Parliament as possible proposals for its election. I hope the noble Lord will look at that.
3.47 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, although I have not been able to consult them, as I have just returned from Luxembourg, I think all my colleagues on these Benches feel that in spite of the unfortunate, if necessary, stance of the Government, the Summit Conference on

941
the whole was a success. We would number the Regional Fund among the successes. As I understand it from the Paper, we are to receive gross £47 million a year for three years, but the Government, who seem intent on playing it down, say that it "could" be only £20 million net. May I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House what is the difference? To what is this enormous difference apparently due?
My Lords, with regard to rectifying our contribution to the Community budget, we think this is an advance and hope there is no longer any question of putting it as a major obstacle to our continuing to be a member of the Community. However, the main achievement at the conference seems to us to lie in the direction of political co-operation. We think the general scheme now put forward is probably a good one. We think that in spite of what the Government say—and perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House will say something about this—the Luxembourg Compromise seems in practice to have been modified by the phrase used in the Communiqué. It looks as if the intention now is at least to modify the operation of the Compromise. Perhaps the noble Lord will say whether this is so or not?
Finally, we note what the Government say about direct elections. Equally, however, is it not a fact that the great consensus of opinion in favour of those direct elections will influence the Government when they come to take their final decision? Will the noble Lord also admit that the phrases used about the European Parliament are significant? The Government seem actually to have agreed that the Parliament should now have more powers and that it should be more closely associated with the work of the Presidency. Have they in fact agreed with both the proposals? It is most significant if they have.
My Lords, we are disappointed at the continuing failure on energy and inflation. This was perhaps inevitable, but there is still failure. We are also disappointed at the continuing lack of progress on the whole question of harmonising foreign policy; but, generally speaking, we congratulate the Government on a qualified success.
3.50 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. There may be a change of atmosphere, but the position of the Government is what it has been ever since the long debate. The position of the Government and the Labour Party was, and is, that provided we get satisfactory terms—in our view the terms negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his friends were not satisfactory, and I think are now generally admitted not to have been satisfactory—and provided we consulted the British people, then we desire that we should continue and should co-operate within the European Economic Community. So while the atmosphere may have changed, the position of the Government has not.
In regard to the European Parliament—and this is directed to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—the Government do not intend, nor should we be expected, to take any firm position in this respect until the referendum has taken place. Certainly any question of direct elections to the European Parliament, which are bound to have some consequences upon the Parliament in Westminster is clearly something on which the British Parliament would have to be consulted. Therefore, the situation is that we do not take any firm position, although we recognise the difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred.
In regard to political co-operation, the Luxembourg Compromise and the veto, I think the Summit recognised that it was undesirable that the veto should be used frequently, but that where matters of great interest to a State arose, then it should be in a position to exercise its veto. But we would hope that in the course of time the need for such a course would diminish.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he recalls that the other day the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made some observations about all Members of your Lordships' House having equal privileges, which was acceptable. Do I understand, therefore, that I can make as long a speech as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, did, in the course of which I would expose the bag of tricks, refer to the vast sums of money spent

943
on propaganda, the apparent change in the climate, and refer to the pyrotechnic—I am not quite sure that this is the right word—attitude of some notabilities in the Labour Government? Would I be permitted to do that, or would my noble friend prefer that I defer the pleasure until some other occasion?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, since my noble friend has put the question to me, and recognising that he has as much right in your Lordships' House as has the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I would say a matter at which we may have to take a closer look is as to how we conduct ourselves in connection with Statements. But if my noble friend does put that question to me, I would ask him to refrain and perhaps set others an example.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, could my noble friend say who is in control of the European Parliament? Who sits in the chair or who sits in the Speaker's seat? Who conducts the business? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was directing a question to my noble friend on representation of the present Government in the European Parliament. That is what I gathered from his observations.
The second point I want to raise with my noble friend is that I think a direct insult has been directed against the Prime Minister of this country, as it was at the time when Mr. Heath was Prime Minister and carrying out negotiations on behalf of this country for entrance into Europe; they have to conduct their business with a Head of State, who is a political figure according to their set-up, the President of France, and not the Prime Minister of that country who is the opposite number of the Prime Minister of this country, who has to negotiate on behalf of the Government of the country and not Her Majesty the Queen.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in regard to the first supplementary question, I understand that the President and committees of members of the European Assembly—I think that is perhaps a better phrase, because it is basically a nominated assembly—conduct the affairs of the Assembly. The answer to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question is that this is a matter of opinion. At the end of the day, I do not think it
944
really matters a row of beans whether it is a President or a Prime Minister. What matters is the argument of the case that one puts forward. I think it is fair to say that the Heads of State meeting in Paris was perhaps the most successful of the meetings of Heads of Government. Therefore, to that extent credit ought to be given to the President of France. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that we have made some advance. It was a fairly successful conference.
The Earl of DUDLEY: My Lords, would the Lord Privy Seal confirm that only 43·6 per cent., or about £54 million, of the Regional Development Fund in the first year actually changes hands, and that the largest recipient is Italy? Would he also confirm that in the first year the share of the United Kingdom would be approximately £16 million, and in the following two years a little over £20 million?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, figures are difficult to assess. Clearly, what is important is the way in which the countries approach the Commission and set out their proposals. I would not deny or accept the figures the noble Earl has given. I think it is up to the Government and all those who will have a claim upon this Fund to see that their proposals are brought together and presented as quickly as possible. Then, of course, there is a better chance of getting a large sum in the first year.
The Earl of DUDLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to confirm this if I put a Question to him in writing?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am always prepared to do my best in response to the noble Earl. If he puts down a Question, I will certainly answer it. I only hope that the answer I have just given is the right one.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether there was any discussion at the Summit about the proposals made public by Simonet in Oxford ten days ago, and now repeated in the hand-outs from the European Community Commission office in London, to the effect that the Commission might be able to make proposals

945
to help finance the exploration for oil in the North Sea and, to quote their words:
"… thus give the United Kingdom Government more room for manoeuvre in its relationship with the multi-national oil companies."?
Was that discussed at the Summit?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it does not appear in the Communiqué, but, as the noble Earl is aware, the Ministers responsible for energy are meeting tomorrow, and clearly they will have in mind ways and means by which we can exploit our own natural European resources as soon as possible.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord go a little further and say "yes" or "no", to the question whether or not this Government have received proposals originating in the Commission to help them deal with the multinational oil companies in the proposal to take a stake in existing licences?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I very much regret that without notice I am not in a position to answer that question, but I will look into the matter and will communicate with the noble Earl.

GENERAL RATE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
4.0 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS) rose The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS) rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper Developments in the European Communities March-October 1974 (Cmnd. 5790). The noble Lord said: My Lords, today this House has an opportunity to debate the first of the regular six-monthly reports on developments in the Community that the Government undertook last Session to provide to Parliament. It remains a major aim of our European policy to ensure not only that British interests are fully reflected in all decisions reached in Brussels, but also that the views of Parliament can be brought to bear before Ministers subscribe to those decisions. The production of the six-monthly reports and the provision
946
of time for their debate are intended by the Government to complement the valuable work being done by the European Communities Committee in another place to ensure that when Parliament formulates its views on European developments it does so in possession of all the relevant information.
Turning to the report itself, noble Lords will appreciate that since it was published a number of important developments have taken place, some of particular relevance to our renegotiation objectives, and I will with the permission of the House, return to these later. The report deals primarily with decisions reached by the Community in the period from March to October this year. In general, it does not cover matters which were still under discussion at the end of that period. Naturally, in a report of this kind it is impossible to cover effectively every Community decision affecting this country, however short-lived or trivial. But I think it is fair to say that all major developments in the three Communities are described in the report with particular reference to the position of the United Kingdom and the views of the Government.
Inevitably, the report has had to deal in some detail with the major preoccupation for the United Kingdom during the period in question; namely, the renegotiation. But it also shows that pending the outcome of renegotiation—and without prejudice to that outcome—the United Kingdom has been playing a full part in the current work of the Community, including the attendance by United Kingdom Ministers at meetings of the Council of Ministers, and participation by United Kingdom representatives at all levels of the Community's subsidiary bodies.
A list of both types of meeting is included in the report. The report also deals with major developments in the process of political co-operation between the Governments of the nine member States, as this is coming to represent an increasingly important element in the relations of the member Governments. Section IX deals with the arrangements which have been adopted both here and in another place for the handling of Community affairs; and, in particular, for the scrutiny of draft Community legislation. Your Lordships' House has recently had an opportunity for an extensive review of these arrangements, but if

947
any noble Lord or noble Baroness wishes to revert to this topic in today's debate, I shall listen with interest to what he or she has to say.
I should like now to talk in rather more detail about some of the more important subjects covered by the White Paper; in particular, about those areas in which events have moved on since the report was published. These are renegotiation, agriculture, the Protocol 22 negotiations, development aid, the regional development fund and energy policy. And then, of course, there is the Summit meeting i held in Paris on 9th and 10th December which has significant implications, as we have just heard, for many of the areas mentioned above, not least for our renegotiation objectives.
First, on the renegotiation, as the Prime Minister said following the recent Summit in Paris, useful progress has been made in renegotiation and things are moving along on schedule. Nevertheless, there is still some way to go and it will by no means be all plain sailing. It is the Government's intention that renegotiation should be concluded as soon as possible. We aim to dispose of outstanding matters by about early March. Our partners in the Community share our desire to expedite matters. At the Summit, the Prime Minister explained to his colleagues how he saw things going. He confirmed that the Foreign Secretary's statements of 1st April and 4th June set out the limits of renegotiation and that we were not seeking to add new items. Neither were we pressing for amendments to the Treaties, but seeking our objectives within the Community's normal programme of negotiations and discussions.
The position we have reached is that on certain items, and I am thinking of the Protocol 22 negotiations and access for 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth sugar, good progress has already been made. On others, such as the CAP, we are looking to further progress in the context of the price review which is imminent, and of stocktaking of the whole policy for which the German Government has pressed. We hope to see progress on that front by the spring. In the trade field, we shall be seeking continued access for New Zealand butter in the latter half of this decade and beyond, as well as
948
further liberalisation of the Community's GSP.
On the important question of the level of our contribution to the Community budget, the decision of principle taken by the heads of Government in Paris marked a very definite step forward. We have firmly established the existence of a serious potential difficulty and the institutions—the Council, the Commission—have been asked to devise a correcting mechanism as soon as possible. We look for early progress by the Council and Commission towards the establishment of that mechanism. All of this gives grounds for cautious optimism. There is still a lot left to do, but we are continuing to make progress according to plan.
I turn now to the question of agriculture. The White Paper deals at some length with the situation in the CAP as it obtained at the end of October. Things have moved on since then. Our objectives for renegotiation remain as set out in the White Paper. But there are some achievements to be chalked up. As the White Paper makes clear, the CAP is now operating in a situation of world prices which are in certain cases substantially higher than those within the EEC. The net effect has been that food prices to consumers have of late been slightly lower than they would have been had we remained outside the EEC. In the case of cereals and sugar, the difference between Community and world prices is substantial. This is a remarkable change. The Ministers of Agriculture are now launched on the annual price review for 1975, and have to complete their work by the end of January. We shall be pursuing our renegotiation objective in that price review and in the CAP stocktaking.
On beef production, the Minister of Agriculture had to take, with the approval of the EEC, appropriate measures to safeguard the position of British livestock farmers. In negotiating a new permanent Community régime of beef, the Minister of Agriculture will be looking for appropriate and flexible support arrangements which will ensure for producers—and they vary, as your Lordships know—a good return, while taking proper account of the needs of the consumer.
On sugar, we have won assured access for 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth sugar each year for an indefinite period.

949
A negotiating mandate has been agreed for discussions with the producers, and talks started last week.
Another area in which important progress has been made since the publication of the White Paper was the negotiations for the Association of forty-five developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific—the ACP countries as they are known—with the EEC. These renegotiations are now approaching their conclusion. The final decisions leading to signature will be taken at a joint Ministerial meeting between the ACP and the EEC countries either immediately before Christmas or early in the New Year.
It is of course for the Commonwealth countries concerned to decide for themselves whether to associate under the conditions negotiated, but it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that this is likely to be the best way for them to safeguard their trade interests. The arrangements for developing Commonwealth sugar producers form part of the Protocol 22 negotiations. As I have said, the Community has now accepted the principle of access for 1·4 million tons on a continuing basis. Negotiations are taking place with the supplying countries concerned.
We believe that there should be a more balanced distribution of Community aid; aid for associates through the EDF being supplemented by aid for the highly populated and very poor developing countries lying outside the circle of association. Many of these peculiarly disadvantaged countries lie outside the circle of association, as noble Lords know. Thanks to the efforts of my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Aid, progress has been made in bringing about this more balanced policy over the last eight months, In fact. agreement was reached recently that the countries to benefit from the first slice of the Cheysson Fund should be those developing countries most affected by the rise in oil and other raw material prices. The bulk will go to needy Commonwealth countries in South Asia which come into the category of peculiarly disadvantaged countries, to which I referred in an earlier section of my speech.
It will be our aim now to obtain the agreement of our Community partners
950
to the implementation in the near future of a programme of continuing financial aid for non-associates on the basis of the agreement reached between member States in July on the principle of such aid and the recently issued Commission study of future developments in the Community's aid policy.
On the Regional Development Fund the position is as follows. After the Commission's consultations with member Governments mentioned in paragraph 40 of the White Paper, it was decided at the Heads of Government meeting in Paris last week that the European Regional Development Fund be put into operation with effect from 1st January next. The Statement to which we have just listened gave some of the financial details involved. The Fund will be endowed with 1,300 million units of account (£54 million) for the three years from 1975 to 1977. It is envisaged that the United Kingdom will receive 28 per cent. of the Fund. How it is paid out net in each year will, I hope, be further clarified, if that is possible, when the Answer to the proposed Written Question is considered. As the Prime Minister said in his Statement in another place, this contribution will be welcome. The detailed implementation of the Heads of Government's decision—that is, on the RDF—will be settled by the Council.
Turning to energy, good progress has been made in Brussels on the examination of the details of the Community's energy strategy. I will not—at least in this opening statement on this point—go into detail as your Lordships debated this matter as recently as the 9th of this month. However, if any point is raised in the debate I will do my best to address myself to it when I briefly wind up at the end. Also, the meeting of the Council of Ministers on energy will be taking place in Brussels tomorrow, and we should await the results of that meeting.
Many of the strands of Community work, including those on which I have touched today, were drawn together by the Heads of Government when they met in Paris last week. The House will have seen the White Paper (Cmnd. 5830) published on 11th December, to which today's Statement referred. The House will have regard for the Statement by my right honourable friend the Prime

951
Minister, which was repeated this afternoon by my noble friend. I do not think that at this stage I should seek to add substantially to this Statement. I will, however, repeat that the Government regard this as having been a useful meeting, not only from the point of view of our renegotiation of the entry terms, but from the point of view of the Community as a whole. The Heads of Government were able to have a useful discussion of the grave economic problems which face all our countries—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred in his question to my noble friend.
They are agreed that although we cannot adopt the same policies because our situations are different, we must all do our best to act in a helpful way towards each other. In particular they agreed that it was essential for all of us to avoid protectionist policies. There was also a discussion of the energy situation and the consequent major financial problems created for the Community and the world at large. I have already mentioned the agreement on the setting up of a Regional Development Fund, and on the guidlelines for a solution to the budget problem which we have raised in the renegotiations. As the Prime Minister said, this was, in a sense, the first meeting of the European Council, and we think it has set a more realistic pattern for the future than perhaps earlier Summits have done.
The White Paper states that—and I quote:
"in the view of the Government political co-operation among the Nine has proved valuable".
We have indeed, as a country, played a full and active part in this. The Nine are increasingly aligning their positions on a large number of foreign policy questions. For example, we have worked together closely and effectively at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE); over Cyprus, including practical aspects such as our contributions to the UN peace-keeping force there; and in the dialogue which the Nine are conducting with the Arab World. In response to a proposal by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Nine are co-operating more closely on Rhodesia sanctions. Our delegations to the larger international organisations—that is, the
952
delegations of the Nine—have developed the habit of regular and fruitful consultation.
Naturally, it is not yet possible for us to agree on every issue. It never will be possible for that to happen. Some of the Nine countries have traditional links and policies which lead them, on occasion, to adopt a different position from that of their partners. But the important thing is that co-operation has become a habit, and the Nine consider the views of their partners even when they cannot agree with them. Political co-operation is, of course, voluntary co-operation. Its procedures are spelt out in various documents adopted by the countries belonging to the Community. But these documents are not binding international treaties, and political co-operation is separate from the EEC institutions as such. It is therefore the more remarkable that the Nine have been able to work together as closely as they have on so many diverse questions.
It is also important that relations between the Community and the United States of America have been much improved over the past months. The public quarrels of 1973 are now a thing of the past, and something which approached a crisis earlier this year has thankfully been laid to rest. The British Government played an active part in the agreement reached among the Nine and accepted by the United States on an informal procedure for consultation between the Nine and the United States. This is now being put into regular practice.
In conclusion, my Lords, looking back over this period—the period which began with the assumption of Office by the present Government; the period covered by the White Paper—and the subsequent developments which culminated in the Summit meeting in Paris last week, I think that we can all take a certain satisfaction in the balance sheet. The Community has in a number of ways developed in the directions which Her Majesty's Government have advocated. In our negotiations to achieve the objectives we have set ourselves to renegotiate, we are, as the Foreign Secretary has said, "on target". But I repeat that we have still some way to go, and I would warn noble Lords against any assumption that it is all "in the bag". Difficult negotiations in many

953
fields lie ahead in the next few months. Our debate today provides this House with an opportunity to express views on the many different facets of the Community's work, which Her Majesty's Government will take completely into account. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper Developments in the European Communities March-October 1974 (Cmnd. 5790).—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
4.25 p.m.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for opening this debate in a way for which I think many of us, and certainly I myself, are grateful, I think I might say that a matter of weeks ago, still less of months, I could scarcely have foreseen myself making a speech in this Parliament in a mood so pacific and benevolent towards those whom I suspected of seeking to disrupt the European aspiration. As it is, contemplating the Benches opposite and the smiling faces upon them with my habitual and compulsive amiability, at closer quarters than I have enjoyed for some time, the content of my speech may be almost soporifically anodyne. We are formally debating, as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has reminded us in detail, the White Paper (Cmnd. 5790) entitled Developments in the European Communities March-October 1974, printed and published only last month—and already well out of date. It is to the credit of Her Majesty's Government that this should be the case. This is only one of the compliments that I shall be joyfully paying to Ministers in the course of my words this afternoon. A Summit meeting of Prime Ministers of the European Community took place in Paris, a communiqué was issued and the consequent Statement by the Prime Minister was made this afternoon in another place and has been repeated here. There has not been much time to study the Statement, but at first sight it does not seem to depart in any important degree from what we had come to expect from the communiqué and from the Press except in one limited respect, to which I may be alluding later.
Continuing in my mood of total benignity, I can offer the personal observation, unsolicited, that the Summit in
954
Paris this month, with Britain represented by a Labour Government, produced more apparent results than the Summit in Copenhagen in December of last year, with Britain represented by a Conservative Government—and I can hardly say fairer than that. Having said so, and in expressing the hope that these putative results will be realised and implemented, I feel justified in calling for a return to candour, which Her Majesty's present Government, if they are sincere, can well afford and from which they can win greater esteem. Let them drop or set on one side, or quietly discontinue, the enjoyable, identifiable but not very dignified pretence that we and our partners have solemnly entered upon a process of "renegotiation"—and I hope that my inverted commas around the word it-self were as audible as those of Herr Helmut Schmidt when he used the term in his teasing but constructive speech at the Labour Party Conference.
What is taking place, as was said earlier by my noble friend and Leader Lord Carrington, is a continuing discussion between the partner nations of the Community as to how the system can best be maintained, adjusted and expanded to the maximum benefit of all. This process takes account of the fact, and was always intended to take account of the fact, that from time to time one or more of the partners might fall on hard times. It is then and thus, in the spirit of the whole Community, within the philosophy of the whole Community, that the currently healthier, stronger or perhaps just luckier members rally to assist. They rally with a view to putting that temporarily discomfited partner back on his feet. To fail to perceive that among the axioms of the European endeavour would be blind—and the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. is far from blind and Mr. Harold Wilson's political eyesight is very acute. He knew, and it would be insulting to suppose otherwise, before he himself approached the negotiations, the first and second time, that a helping hand to a friend in need was part of the deal.
What he and Mr. Healey and Mr. Callaghan lately have been able to do is to persuade the other partners that we, as a nation, are well and truly up a weedy creek with one broken paddle. They have succeeded in their persuasiveness to

955
such an extent that Herr Willy Brandt, a friend indeed and a man whose international worth is beyond question, proposed a formula which would have placed Britain and Italy in a special category within the Community, a category where less demands would be made upon our performance while being sustained by the rest of the Community, of which both of us would remain Members. The rationale of his theory, as noble Lords doubtless remember who read The Times of the 22nd of last month, was quoted as follows:
"In view of the considerable divergence between the economic situation of the various member States of the Community, the automatic equal treatment of all members as regards their rights and obligations would at present seriously compromise the cohesion of the Nine."
What he did not visualise, as The Times observed, was how the weaker brethren, Britain and Italy, once assisted, would be able to catch up and rejoin the others who had been pressing ahead at a faster rate in their integration. Perhaps because I am no economist I feel scant enthusiasm for this plan. More positively my misgivings stem from the sense, instilled during two years of working within the Community, that what our partners wish us to claim is an appropriate share of the leadership rather than an element of public assistance. But if the hard-luck story is repeated with sufficient pathos and pertinacity, the opinion of all may be one of pity, converted from admiration.
It has not reached this point and I am personally not predicting that it ever will reach this point; but I think that we can hardly leave out of account the measured words of that former Chancellor of West Germany, a Socialist Chancellor, who made emphatically plain his hope that Britain would remain a Member of the Community but who expressed equally plainly that the Community would not hold its momentum much longer, waiting upon us. He said, referring to the Community:
"Our survival is now at stake. That means that we must try to maintain the substance of the Treaty of Rome, even if some aspects of it temporarily cannot be applied."
This means, as I read it, that Britain and Italy under this scheme would be allowed to tag along as passengers, pedestrians, or camp followers. The proposal and the prospect must have wounded
956
Ministers of this country—they wounded me in a more particular way which I will try to describe without emotion or dramatisation.
On 16th January 1973, nearly two years ago, the British delegation together with those of Ireland and Denmark joined the European Parliament. We, the British delegation, were incomplete. We missed, and have missed ever since, the presence of the British Labour Party's delegates. I speak for myself, but also I think for all my companions, when I say that there has never been a day when we did not regret their absence. There have been times beyond counting when I think we should in all probability have voted together, Labour, Conservative, Liberal and my noble friend Lord O'Hagan—voted together not for narrow, selfish, national reasons but because our view on the world, our instincts drawn from Parliamentary experience and history might have harmonised. Sometimes, together, we should have been enough to have won a Division that in the event was lost; and looking back through my files I have found cases of that. On other occasions we should have voted on opposite sides and 18 British Labour members would have made, and still would make, the Socialist group the largest single political group in the European Parliament. Our whole tradition and reasoning persuade us that noble Lords and their right honourable and honourable friends from the Party opposite should be there.
Notwithstanding this fact, the impact made by the British delegation in this Parliament from the first moment was galvanising. Remembering for the moment, looking back on it now, it somewhat amazes me to think how brash we were in our onset. We said, overtly often enough and sometimes between the lines, that this was not functioning as a Parliament in our terms; it was not using its powers. Instead of being offended, affronted by these newcomers, the old stagers said in paraphrase: "That's what we needed to hear. With your impetus we can set it to rights!"
My Lords, it would be wrong to exaggerate what has been achieved. But if noble Lords opposite and their honourable friends in another place believe that change is only now being promoted by a Labour Government, they must, I think,

957
disabuse themselves of this illusion. I am not, at least consciously, overweening when I say that the current of change induced in the previous 14 months was there for incoming Labour Ministers to launch themselves into in March of this year—if they so wished. Unfortunately, the immediate effect has been to stop the current, to damn the flow for the time being—I hope not for long.
My Lords, it seems to me now that I have spoken too much about the immediate past when we are concerned with the immediate and consequent future. I will dwell only for a moment or two more on the past. I speak as if the change, the new momentum, was created only in the European Parliament. That is not so. It was created by the two British Commissioners, Sir Christopher Soames and Mr. George Thomson, by the British civil servants joining the Commission, by some of the British Ministers who attended the Council of Ministers and by those from the other two newly-joined Members. We are apt I suppose—and I have Parliamentary colleagues in the House today, including the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and my noble friend Lord Reay—to become obsessed with our work in that Parliament, and perhaps a degree of obsession is necessary to bear the load.
If I seek to typify the kind of impact which the British delegation made in 1973, I can, for convenience and for pungency, hardly do better than quote a passage or two from the opening speech of Mr. Peter Kirk, the Leader of this delegation. That speech was based on two principal themes: first, the importance of Parliament; and, secondly, the need for change. He said:
"We shall have much to say, particularly on such matters as the Common Agricultural Policy—which still, rightly or wrongly, causes much concern in my country—the proposed regional policy from which so many of our people have great expectations, and the monetary and economic policy which, if it is successful, cannot fail to transform our own economic position in the world even more drastically than the Community in its present form.
We shall have much to say, too, about the workings of the Parliament, for the health of this Parliament is essential to the health of the Community as a whole. The Community cannot function unless it has a base in the hearts and minds of the peoples, and Parliament is the only body which can provide that base."
958
I should have thought that noble Lords opposite, however critical of the Community, would be ready to consider that these words were laying the ground for the changes that they themselves demand to see and now wish to effect.
In fact I would wish to take as my text, as the Epistle for the day, Mr. Wilson's own speech to the Labour mayors two days before he departed for Paris. It is a speech which has often been quoted, and which has been quoted more than once today. It set out the seven conditions, as I think he called them, that he would be laying on the table in Paris. I am bound to say that, set against some knowledge of the way the Community works and regards its future, and against the communiqué issued after the Summit, the seven points do not appear to me to create particularly grave or new problems.
Your Lordships will perhaps permit me to take them very briefly one by one. The first referred to major changes in the Common Agricultural Policy. These are being effected. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said that things had changed a good deal since October. They have never stopped changing since we arrived, and that is something in which all of us, in this Parliament and in the other Parliament, may take pleasure and satisfaction. The second point was a demand for new and fairer methods of financing the Community budget, so that our contribution to Community finances is fair. I shall have more to say about this at a later stage and therefore would prefer to leave this for the present.
The third point concerned the rejection of any kind of international agreement which compelled us to accept unemployment for the sake of maintaining a fixed parity. It is true that a monetary policy was always planned and always Mr. Wilson himself spoke highly of the idea. It was, and is still, thought of as part of the normal business of the Community as it develops and evolves. There is nothing to do with renegotiation involved in this. Although it has been there as an idea, nothing has been spelled out and the important point is that if we wish to discuss it as regards the way it will affect us, we are inside and can discuss it on equal terms. If we were outside we should not be there to discuss it, however it

959
might affect us. In passing, perhaps I might observe that the only place where such a monetary system exists today is in the three Benelux countries, and this has been working since well before the formation of the European Community. This is the only case where more than one independent country has a monetary policy—and I concede that many people have some anxiety over monetary policy.
The fourth point concerned the retention of those Parliamentary powers over the British economy which are needed to effect regional and fiscal policies. In so far as regional policies are concerned, we will have a very great advantage—greater than almost any other member of the Community—from the Regional Fund which has been set up, as the noble Lord himself announced. I should like to ask him what may at first sight appear to be a very obvious question, and it is this. Emerging from a reading of the Prime Minister's points, do the Government wish to retain a right to top up and add to Community aid to a given region under the Regional Development Fund at their own will?—because I can see difficulties here, as I am sure he can.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Did he say that he could or could not see the difficulties involved?
Lord SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, I can see the difficulties, though they may or may not be those which the noble Lord sees. If a Government—our own or another—were to add on its own account to development funds to a particular region on top of the funds provided by Community sources, this could affect fair competition within the Community. What I think will be required when the Regional Fund is set up is not an absolute ban on national funds being sent to assist regions which are already receiving Community aid or grants, but a condition being insisted upon by the Community—perhaps by the Commission—that such additional aid should be cleared by agreement with the partner nations. I see this not as a very great difficulty, but as something which might be mentioned. I have no doubt that the Government have given thought to it, so the noble Lord may be able to give me some kind of answer today.
960
The fifth point concerned an agreement on capital movements which affects our balance of payments and full employment policies. I commend to the noble Lord the Selsdon Report, which spelled out what has happened in the two years since we joined, and which shows that there has not been a great outflow of capital from Britain. I can refer him to paragraphs 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7. The last is particularly interesting, because it refers to the disadvantages of foreign or strange bureaucracies; and this is where we, the Members of Parliament, come in, because it is really up to us to see that these disturbing bureaucratic barriers are removed. This can be done by ordinary legislation and by Community legislation, where such barriers might interfere with natural trade within the Community. My reason for raising this is that the figures so far in the past two years do not show that there has been a great capital outflow as a result of our membership.
The sixth point was that the economic interests of the Commonwealth and of developing countries must be better safeguarded. It really amazes me that this should have been put in. The old Commonwealth has benefited to an extraordinary degree and it is benefiting more and more by our membership of the Community. I hope the noble Lord will be able to meet Mr. Cheysson one day, if he has not done so already. He will find a man who is totally dedicated and who puts the whole of his soul into these matters. Also, as the noble Lord will know, a new agreement bringing in all the Commonwealth countries is about to be signed within a matter of a week or two, so I do not believe that this represents a serious problem, or indeed a serious barrier.
The seventh and last point raises a reference to a demand which was made that there should be no harmonisation of value added tax which would require us to tax necessities. I should like to know exactly what this means, because if it means a resistance on the part of the Government to total uniformity of structure and levels, then really such resistance is part of a general resistance. No country wants it and no Government wants it; nor does the Commission want it. In fact, the Commission produced a document only the other day which has not yet been published, but which has been

961
passed to the committees and to member Governments, setting out its reasons against such uniformity.
In what I have said—and I will not say a great deal more—I wonder whether I have seemed somewhat starry-eyed. I have not mentioned the failures, and I am not pretending there have been no failures. The most notable and distressing is the failure to create a European energy policy. I wish the best of fortune to the Ministers who are going tomorrow to the meeting on energy policy. I wish them better fortune than our Ministers had before them. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, a question which he will probably not be able to answer, but I understand from the Press today there was some kind of agreement between M. Giscard d'Estaing and President Ford on the beginnings of an energy policy. It may or may not be true. I am not seriously asking the Minister to give me an absolutely authoritative, cut and dried answer. I believe that we must have a European energy policy. We must either have that policy or revert to a Gadarene stampede not into a foaming rock-strewn torrent, but into a lagoon of hydro-carbon sludge. If I draw attention to the fact that not all has been monotonous triumph, there have been gains in which it has been wonderful to play a part. I will not continue boring your Lordships by saying how much I wish that others had shared that satisfaction with us. However, there have been gains.
The Summit, from what an outsider can see, ended on a happy and hopeful note. The most helpful opportunity was given to us in the European Parliament when on Wednesday the acting President in office of the Council came to speak to us and to report directly, the day after the Summit itself. Dr. Garret FitzGerald was in fact taking the place of M. Sauvagnargues, who was unable to come. But Dr. FitzGerald had himself come straight from the Summit meeting which he had attended throughout. As Foreign Minister of Ireland, he will take his turn as President of the Council for the first six months of next year, so that he was anticipating his office by only a few days. From what we saw, it will be a very stimulating six months coming next year. I should like to repeat a few phrases in a
962
disconnected fashion from his speech and replies to questions:
"There has been a firm commitment to maintain economic growth, a commitment now shared by all countries. And there has been a commitment by the surplus countries to undertake their duties in this respect. The atmosphere of the discussions and the outcome have encouraged all of us who are concerned that this should remain a Community of Nine and that the United Kingdom should find it easy to maintain its membership. There was also the reaffirmation of the determination of Heads of State or Government—gradually to adopt common positions and to co-ordinate the diplomatic activities in all areas of international affairs, which affect the interests of the European Community. There is also the decision, important from the point of view of this Assembly, that the European Parliament must be more closely associated with the work of the Presidency ".
Another observation which won applause was:
"May I say, without any breach in confidence, that in our discussion there was a very clear recognition of the undesirability, even impracticability, of having direct elections from a Parliament which has inadequate power."
That was a recognition by the Council that Parliament's powers are inadequate and must be strengthened, and there is a determination upon this from one wing to the other of the whole Parliament. It has been supported for a long time by the Commission, and now we are ensured of support by the Council.
Noble Lords opposite might have been touched to hear M. Radoux express joy over the paragraph relative to Great Britain's adherence to the Community, the impression that a rapprochement had been achieved. He ended:
"We socialists have never wished for a Community without Great Britain."
From my Strasbourg Hansard I see that this won applause from the extreme Left, but in fact there was no section which did not provide such applause.
There was another piece of illumination from Dr. FitzGerald referring to Paragraphs 34 to 37 of the Communiqué, seeking to meet the British case. He confirmed, when requested, that this reassurance was entirely within the framework of the Treaty of Rome. He said it was set out to guide the Community, if unacceptable situations arise.
The paragraphs are in fact concerned with Articles 108 and 109 of the Treaty of Rome and are easily discovered by anybody who seeks a copy of the Treaty

963
in the Library or Printed Paper Office. They deal with the possibilities of Member States helping each other. Article 108 begins:
"Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with difficulties as regards its balance of payments as a result either of the overall disequilibrium of its balance of payments or of the type of currency at its disposal"—
then action will be taken. This is the source of the co-operation which the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, described in part of his speech. What Dr. FitzGerald said was:
"What is proposed now is that the question will be studied to see what mechanism might best be adopted should such situations arise, and this is being done in what one might describe as very good time, before they do arise".
On these occasions of challenge and difficulty my mind goes back to a declaration made five years ago which gives encouragement:
"The economic and political integration of Europe are both essential as experience has shown, neither can go forward without the other. The European Communities remain the basis of European unity. … Europe must increasingly develop a common foreign policy so that she can act with growing effectiveness in internal affairs … In order to enhance its functions of guaranteeing security and stability, and within the other organisations to which we belong, the development of an European identity is a positive step in the process which is intended to lead to the creation of a united Europe".
I have to admit—and the House is always generous to admissions of honest misjudgment—that of late a teasing suspicion had entered my mind that the co-author of those fortifying words was beginning to lose his own conviction. They were issued on the 28th April 1969 as a joint declaration by Mr. Harold Wilson, the Prime Minister for Britain, and the President of Italy during the State visit of the latter to this country.
Because I feel that Mr. Wilson, and some close colleagues, have now reaffirmed in a somewhat lower key those earlier and most admirable sentiments, despite the understandably cautious words that we heard today from the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, my heart warms even more spontaneously towards the noble Lord opposite than it might have done a week or even a month ago.
964
I welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord for his speech.
5.0 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we have now been members of the European Economic Community for nearly two years. For the last seven months we have had a Government who say that they cannot make up their mind whether we should stay in the Community until they have consulted the British people by referendum or by some other means. So the Government's view, as we understand it, is that it is now the people and not Parliament which is sovereign; until the people have pronounced we must therefore presumably regard our membership of the Community as in some way sub judice. We are at once members and non-members: in other words we are in a state of limbo. It is in this rather schizophrenic frame of mind, apparently, that the Government have been handling Community matters for no less than seven months. On the whole, as we think on these Benches, the result has been perhaps less unfortunate than might have been supposed. That is perhaps only because the Dr. Jekylls in the Cabinet have usually prevailed over the Mr. Hydes. With this in mind, I should like to deal with the White Paper section by section.
We start off with what for some reason is called renegotiation. Of course, this is a process which would have occurred whatever Government had been in Power since 1972. For instance, it was agreed— this is a point that was mentioned by the noble Lord who has just spoken— that the British contribution to the central budget should be reviewed effectively when any member, and notably, the United Kingdom, encounters any really serious difficulties in regard to its balance of payments. It is certainly now the case that we in this country are in such difficulties; nobody can deny that. Apart from that, the actual net contribution which we shall in theory be obliged to make in 1978 or 1980 is unpredictable. It depends on how much we can, for instance, step up agricultural production in this country, in which case the levies on our agricultural imports, which we have to hand over to the budget, will be diminished and we shall pay less into the central fund, just as the total of

965
import duties which have to be handed over to the fund will be less the more we trade with the Community; and the tendency at the moment is for us to trade more and more with the Community.
However, it now looks, happily, as if the Government have at the Summit agreed in principle on a formula which, in addition to all these possibilities, would apparently achieve what I think is known by the experts as, "gross equity". This will certainly be welcome. Taking everything into consideration, it is rather difficult to see what genuine apprehensions the Government can now have in this regard. In other words, what the Government have always declared as the main obstacle in the way of our continuing membership of the Community has now in practice been surmounted or nearly surmounted. Besides, even if we do not achieve complete satisfaction on this point, it is surely impossible to maintain that we should for that reason alone tear up our Treaty obligations and leave the Community. For after all these precautions have been taken it could then only be, at the most, a question of adding a few million pounds to our national trading deficit in 1978, if indeed there is one, whereas if we abandon the Community we are certain to lose far more than that across the exchanges—this resulting no doubt, as has often been pointed out, in a closed economy or in widespread unemployment, or probably in both. Surely we must on this matter still preserve some sense of proportion.
So we come to the Common Agriculture Policy. The White Paper deals with this and we seem, I must admit, to have kept our end up quite well. We think that Mr. Peart is broadly speaking to be praised for his efforts. But it must be admitted that, for instance, as regards beef, if the Government had gone over to the intervention price system as soon as they came into power, instead of repudiating it, as is pointed out in paragraph 13, we might have had many fewer difficulties than we did have with our farming community. With regard to sugar, it has undoubtedly been the Community which has come to our rescue and has also made it possible for us to honour our commitment to the sugar-producing underdeveloped countries of the Commonwealth, although no doubt, I am afraid, at appalling cost. Finally, if we had not
966
been members of the Community we should have had to suffer a heavy additional increase in the price of bread and, indeed, of other comestibles, this adding substantially to our cost of living.
As we all know, the Common Agriculture Policy is not an ideal system; nobody would pretend that. Our own policy of deficiency payments would have suited us much better. But it was simply not possible to impose the deficiency payment system on our partners in 1971–72. To have insisted on it would have meant a collapse of the negotiations, and our then Government, very properly, took the decision to swallow the CAP and to try to modify it as time went on, rather than accept the alternative—exclusion from the European Community, probably for ever. This policy was incidentally approved by those members of the Labour Government then in Opposition who had been given responsibility, before the previous Labour Government fell, for initiating the negotiations at the beginning of 1970. It was entirely comprehensible and there is no reason at all why it should be held against the Tories at the present time. In any case, the Commission, as we all know, are re-examining the whole CAP—I think reference was made to that by the last speaker—and when they report early in February we may well be able to agree on some salutary reforms. Let us hope so.
So we come to Chapter IV which is called, "External relations: Trade and Aid". Here we can all approve of the final five of the six objectives set out in paragraph 18. We have all read the Report, my Lords, but the final five deal largely with the developing countries and with the liberal Community attitude to multilateral trade negotiations and so on. We can all agree with those objectives, but I cannot see that they are renegotiation objectives. They are, rather, objectives that were in any case inherent in our membership of the European Economic Community from the start. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, would agree with that. All of them, happily, seem either to have been achieved or to be well on the way to achievement. If that is not so, perhaps the noble Lord who winds up will tell us that it is not so; but so far as I can see, if one looks through these five objectives carefully and

967
objectively one sees that in practice they all seem to have been achieved as it is.
However, why put as objective No. 1 "improved access for agricultural products from developed"—I repeat, developed—"Commonwealth countries"? Why put that as objective No. 1? Why, indeed, put it as an objective at all? It seems to represent a kind of ancestral urge to return to a blissful state of affairs in which the Commonwealth, which now accounts for only about 14 per cent. of our exports, was our chief trading partner and in which it was possible for us to obtain the cheap food which in the old days was so helpful in our trading generally. Today there is no cheap food in Commonwealth countries, developed or underdeveloped; nor is there likely to be, I am afraid, in the future. All the chances are against it. In any event, the developed countries do not even fill their quotas of cheese and butter which we fought so hard to obtain for them in 1971. To a large and increasing degree they now sell their food in other markets. They have no overriding need for the United Kingdom as, of course, they used to have in the days gone by. Besides, why should we take from these countries scarce food that might otherwise go to feed the starving millions of the Fourth World? Would not it be much better to aim at self-sufficiency in food for the European Economic Community—in other words, to step up the proportion of home-grown food from the present 50 per cent. to 65 or 70 per cent. or more, which the experts tell me could easily be done over the years, and ourselves to consume more and more of the agricultural surpluses of that huge and, agriculturally-speaking, largely underdeveloped country, France?
Chapter V, which deals with economic and monetary questions, regional matters and so on, is interesting and I think we all agree that on the whole it is encouraging. It shows what can be done by co-operation within the European Economic Community machine. Although it is not as large as we should have liked, the recently agreed Regional Development Fund has now actually been established, and there is no reason to suppose that if the Community develops satisfactorily—and we must all hope that it will—we shall not be able to benefit from it even
968
more fully when the present three-year period is up.
While we are on that point, may I ask the noble Lord to answer the question which I put to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal on the Summit Statement but which he did not answer. The question was this: on the face of it, the gross amount of the fund which will come to the United Kingdom is, on average, about £47 million a year—28 per cent. of the total amount. However, we understand from the Summit that the Government think that it could be—I say "could" in inverted commas—as little as £20 million a year. Why is there such a large discrepancy? Of course, I understand that we must contribute something to the Fund, but I think that it is only 9 per cent.? However, if one deducts that 9 per cent., I think one finds that the net amount comes to considerably more than £20 million a year. My suspicion is that, for some reason best known to themselves, the Government want to play down the Regional Fund at this particular moment and do not wish to represent it as a great achievement. I may be wrong and perhaps the noble Lord will be able to reassure me.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, most certainly I shall!
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, even anti-marketeers must welcome the loans which are referred to in paragraph 42. It is rather depressing to think that this, and, indeed, all the obviously beneficent activity which is referred to in this Chapter, would come to an abrupt end if the Government, at the instigation of perhaps 20 per cent. of the British people, are so extraordinarily ill-advised as to denounce the Treaties. The same naturally applies to the substantial receipts from the Social Fund which are referred to in paragraph 44 and to all prospects of arriving at a common energy policy which are dealt with in paragraph 45. Of course, if we left the Communities there would not be a common energy policy.
Therefore, my Lords, I turn to institutional matters and political co-operation. Here to a considerable extent, the Government have been hoist with their own petard, owing to the extraordinary decision not to be represented in the

969
European Parliament, which they seem to think that they can diminish in importance by calling it by its original appellation of "Assembly". The Labour Party has had no part to play in the vital and extremely encouraging debates which went on at Strasbourg regarding the European Parliament's role in the approval of the European budget, which now amounts, as is noted in paragraph 32, to no less than £2,400 million. If it is ratified, I believe that the final arrangement will come into operation in about a year's time from now, and it will give the European Parliament very considerable powers over a considerable part of the budget. If it comes into operation, as I am sure that it will, then the importance of the European Parliament will be increased, and it will be evident that if we are to continue in the Community the European Parliament will have to be directly elected. It seems evident that, if the Government decide to remain in the Community, they will have to go along with that.
I do not know whether noble Lords have yet had time to read the Patijn Report which is likely to be approved by the plenary of the European Parliament in January. If they have not done so, noble Lords may find it well worth doing so. Mr. Patijn is a young Dutch Socialist of great energy and intelligence, and what he says in his report ought, one imagines, to make a strong appeal to social democrats in this contry, in so far as they are not blinded by anti-Market prejudice.
Finally, we must understand from what is said under the heading of "Political Co-operation" in paragraph 50, that the Government are pleased, on the whole, with the efforts which have been made since March to harmonise the foreign policy of the Nine. It has not been as successful as it might have been, owing to the inability of the Ministers to provide themselves with a secretariat which is situated in one place and also with an influential Secretary-General. If NATO have such an institution and such an officer, why should the Community not have them, too? But I admit that there has been some constructive endeavour. The so-called d'Avignon procedure works after a fashion and, very slowly, is being improved.
970
As is known, the Conference of Foreign Ministers is a separate institution from the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community. This is rather absurd, because certain aspects of common foreign policy, notably negotiations for Community treaties, aid to underdeveloped countries and so on, are handled already by the Commission. Theoretically, the Conference of Foreign Ministers of the Nine could continue to function even if the Community collapsed or even if the United Kingdom left the Community. In practice, however, the two machines—that is to say, the foreign policy machine and the Community machine—are interlocking, and one day they will be merged if the Community continues to exist throughout the ages.
My Lords, that brings me to my final point. In Chapter VII the Government say that there is now apparently a pretty general feeling in the Council of Ministers that economic and monetary union cannot be achieved by 1980 and that therefore there is no longer any need to examine this possibility. If that is not what they say, perhaps the Minister will correct me. That may be the mood at the present time, but I suggest that we have only got to wait until the full force of the coming "economic hurricane"—to borrow the vivid phrase of the Leader of the Opposition—hits us to see this attitude change; for either the hurricane will drive us all apart, which is quite possible, and the whole Community will dissolve or we shall all have to take cover in the same dugout.
In the meantime, why cannot British Ministers at least consider such interim measures for a European reserve currency as are proposed in the excellent work of Signor Magnifico which has just been awarded the Bentinck Prize in Paris for the work which has done most in the past year to encourage the European idea? And what is inherent in this idea? What is inherent in it is evidently some kind of democratic European union of a new and modern type, otherwise it makes no sense. On this point the Government say—I think in paragraph 55—that they have absolutely no notion what the Heads of Government meant when they launched this objective in October 1972; they have absolutely

971
no idea. But have not they any ideas of their own? They could say, for instance, that in principle they are in favour not so much of a federation in the old-fashioned sense or of a federation based upon the classical model but of the gradual development of the Council of Ministers, now, as we know, happily to be largely superseded by a kind of super-Council which will meet three or four times a year—a kind of supreme Council of Heads of Government, advised by the Commission, which will become the European Government of the future itself controlled by an elected Parliament.
There is no reason why they should not describe the kind of objective to which they are trying to move, even if progress may be slow. If they did, they would surely be only one step away from attempting to convince the British people—and this is what we ought to do, otherwise it is not much good going on—that it really is not a question of diminishing or limiting their sovereignty; that is to say, control over their destinies, but rather of expanding and extending it, so that their future lies in some close democratic association with their immediate neighbours and not in a most unsplendid and provincial isolation uninspired by any coherent political philosophy unless it be that propounded by the latter day disciples of Karl Marx or Trotsky or even conceivably Mao Tse Tung.
I repeat that I am nevertheless encouraged personally by the White Paper, which seems to show that the Government appreciate some of the benefits that flow from membership of the Market even though they cannot apparently emphasise this at the present time. We must hope and pray, however, that it will not be too long before they can do so in the context of what they will no doubt represent as a highly successful "renegotiation". If they do. I have no doubt whatever that, irrespective of Party, the vast majority of this House, which we like to think contains some of the best brains in this country, will give them, on this issue at any rate, what is known as fullhearted support.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BEL-HELVIE: My Lords, I should like to
972
add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for the way in which he introduced this White Paper and, above all, for the fact that he brought us up to date in consequent negotiations from the end of October, when this Paper ends. This debate has also given an opportunity to my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald to give us a most vivid account of his experiences in the European Parliament, which makes me want to visit it even more than I do already. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that this White Paper is an encouraging document. I feel I must mention the fact that as a Scot, while I congratulate the Government on at last achieving agreement over a regional fund, I wish the amount involved had been a great deal more.
This is the first speech that I have dared to make since being appointed, on 7th November. Chairman of the Select Committee of the European Communities. As the House knows, noble Lords of all political Parties take part in the work of the sub-committees, and many who are co-opted to the Committee. We have noble Lords who have voted against membership of the Market and those who have voted for it. Therefore, before I go on to other matters, I should like to draw the attention of the Government to some of the problems that I have already found confronting our Committee, because I think they are relevant to some parts of the White Paper.
The White Paper describes the function of the Select Committee, and I should like to thank the Government for the assurance that they have given, which was repeated today, that this House will be given the opportunity to debate matters of interest when a Report is made. Of course the reason why so many noble Lords give of their time and talent to this work is because, whether they are for or against the Market, they feel it is a British interest to try to make Parliamentary scrutiny work. May I take this opportunity of thanking the Government Departments and the Cabinet unit for the very large efforts they have made to try to keep us informed so far. However, I am going to refer to the problems—not to all the things that have gone right.

973
The Maybray-King Report rather forecast a problem which might arise. In paragraph 120 it said:
"There is the problem that some important Commission proposals are substantially modified by the Council".
In paragraph 49 of the White Paper we are discussing today it is said:
"Improvements have been introduced in the working procedures in the Council of Ministers."
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, whether he will define these improvements in the working procedures? For example, our sub-committees often find that they are considering EEC proposals on the basis of Papers and explanatory memoranda from Government Departments which, by the time the Scrutiny Committee considers them, are long out of date. This is not due to a backlog of proposals. Because of the great work done by my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, during the Parliamentary Recess, I think we shall have achieved the end of the backlog by the end of the Christmas Recess. I am speaking of up-to-date documents as they should be. Indeed, only last week I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who is chairman of Sub-Committee D which considers agriculture and consumers affairs. It said this:
"Two draft Instruments have been examined by the sub-committee and on each occasion the proposal was discovered to have been replaced—for all practical purposes—by a Ministry re-draft. The comments submitted at our invitation by various trade and consumer associations have all referred to the redrafted Instrument, which is of course a Council working document and, as such, not available for scrutiny. Indeed, in the evidence received from the Consumers' Association it was suggested that—and I quote—'to put it bluntly, we would be wasting their Lordships' time and ours if we were to consider what is now an historical document'."
The House will appreciate that, as Chairman, I find myself embarrassed at having invited so many noble Lords who have much else to do, to come and give of their time, unless the documents before us really are up to date. I would therefore suggest to the Government that there should be a regular procedure whereby Parliament is informed of any important modifications made in the Council's working parties or in the Commission's proposals.
Then of course it is well known that procedures in the Council are unsatis-
974
factory so far as fast-moving proposals are concerned, when agendas are altered at the last moment. I again suggest that the Government should press with their colleagues for changes in the working procedures, which they appear to have done but without expanding on them in the document before us today.
I feel also that I must refer to certain proposals on improving the working procedures of the Council as described in the Communiqué from the Heads of Government on which a Statement was made today. It is relevant to refer to it since the noble Lord who opened the debate referred to it himself and it makes one's own remarks more relevant. In the first paragraph on page 4 we have the statement about limiting the use of the veto. This is very important and it carries further the procedures which were envisaged in the Treaty of Rome. But I would ask how the Government, represented in the Council, are going to make sure that debates will take place in this House and in another House on proposals before the Council if they have to take a decision by majority vote. It is very important that the assurance given on debates should be undertaken in this new procedure.
Then on the same page the second paragraph says:
"Greater latitude will be given to the permanent representatives so that only the most important political problems need be discussed in the Council".
It goes on to say that it will be
"necessary to strengthen the role of the permanent representatives and involve them in preparing national positions on European affairs".
Documents will go from the Commission to COREPER, which is really an intergovernmental negotiating body. If amendments are made there (and decisions are likely to be made by the permanent representatives) will these amendments be available to the Scrutiny Committee before decisions are taken on them? If mandates are to be prepared for negotiating positions I would suggest to the House that mandates are not in fact confidential. I remember that when I was on the Bench opposite and was speaking as a Minister for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was on this Bench, he waved a negotiating mandate before me. Trade negotiations are within the

975
terms of reference of the Scrutiny Committee.
In paragraph 3, again on page 4 of the Communiqué the Heads of Government—
"agree on the advantage of making use of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome whereby the powers of implementation and management arising out of Community rules may be conferred on the Commission".
We do not, of course, study the administrative Acts of the Commission. But I suggest that we should be informed of politically sensitive matters which come before the Commission's Management Committee, and I give an example which is well-known, the "butter mountain". That is the kind of thing on which I believe the House should have had an opportunity to express its views before decisions were taken. I am really asking the Government to give us more information, to give it early and at the right time.
But if the Select Committee itself finds it difficult to keep up to date with information coming from the Community, how much more difficult it must be for members of the public. I suggest that it is the responsibility of the Government to inform the public how the Community works. Information is very badly needed, not least because there is a division of opinion on the merits of membership. I think instant information about the Council is an absolute necessity. I regret to say that this has not been done for the public either by the present Government or by their Conservative predecessors. The House knows that a great deal of work was done to inform the public about the Community, notably by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, at the time of negotiation and of British entry. But after entry—and then the Government was a Conservative Government—it was thought more suitable to have a Cabinet unit responsible for this information, in order to draw together the domestic departments. Personally I think we made a mistake. The task is so huge, and in a swift-moving situation I believe that information is better dealt with by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which, at the time of entry, had a very experienced team.
I submit to the House that it is essential that the Government should follow through their work now by informing
976
public opinion on all these matters, particularly as the noble Lord said from that Bench this afternoon that it was hoped to finish negotiations by the end of March. That means that some form of consultation with the public will be essential before October of next year. I would agree with my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary seem to have found how flexible and constructive the Community can be, not least in the paragraph quoted by the noble Lord that
"… prices of a number of important products, notably cereals and sugar, are now substantially below those on the word market."
If the Government decide in the end that they wish to recommend that Britain should stay in the Community, they will surely need a long period for providing information for the public, before the people decide through the ballot box, either by a referendum or a General Election.
It is constructive to recall the Danish experience before their referendum on the advantages of membership. In 1971 the Danish Government produced concise pamphlets for the Danish public on the European Community's activities and on the most important questions connected with Denmark's accession to an extended Community. There were 12 large and altogether separate subjects. In each pamphlet existing legislation within the Community was commented upon, as well as plans for the years ahead. A popular version of the Rome Treaty was issued (I think that it was quite good to be able to do it) and distributed to all Danish households—I hasten to say free of charge—and the Danish Parliament granted the equivalent of £1½ million for information alone. Of course they had an information office for the benefit of the public.
So far as consultation with the British public is concerned, it would be interesting to know at this stage whether the Government will give more information about how they propose to consult the people on EEC membership. For example, if it is decided to produce legislation enabling a referendum to be held, will the Government first issue a Green Paper on the mechanics of the question to encourage public discussion? Has consideration been given to the form of the question? It is surely important that it

977
should be easily understood. Your Lord-ships will recall the Italian divorce referendum, where confusion was caused by the voters being asked to vote "Yes" if they were against divorce, and "No" if they were in favour. I should like to ask whether the result of a referendum would be announced on a national, regional or constituency basis? In view of the extreme importance of the issue, have the Government given consideration to insisting on a certain minimum percentage of votes recorded, and a certain minimum majority in favour, for example, of leaving the EEC?
My Lords, whatever happens the time has come for us to hear the Government's views on the alternative to membership of the Community, because their thinking has never been defined. Is it thought, for example, that we could conclude free trade agreements with the Community, counting on the generosity of the Eight just after we have left it and with our own economy and circumstances so different from those of Norway? Is it thought that Denmark and Ireland would leave with us when by all accounts they are well satisfied with their own membership? Is it thought that we could develop trading links with the Commonwealth when so many members are trying to do just that with the Community? Is it thought that we could have greater influence on our own? The world has moved on a great deal since 1971. I suggest that it is now a prime British interest that as much information as possible is given to Parliament and the public, so that they can know how the Community works, and we can do our best to make it work.
5.39 p.m.
Lord REAY: My Lords, I should like to follow the example of the previous speakers in not confining my remarks to events which occurred before the end of October this year, but in referring to events which have occurred since and, equally, in looking to the future. I doubt whether there is anyone, whatever the horrors which he imagines would flow from the conclusion being the conclusion that he does not want, who will not be relieved when the Government's protest of renegotiation is officially announced to have come to an end. Despite the fascination of watching some of the skills, and
978
even more some of the complexities, which are at times demonstrated in the process, the prevailing impression is one of waiting. I would not deny that during the period of renegotiation there may be—there will be—an accrual of advantages within the Community in Britain's favour. But the magnitude of those advantages, earned in honest negotiation, do not compare with the magnitude of the opportunities and dangers which are presented to us by events in the world at large. The protraction of renegotiation distracts the attention, diverts the energies, postpones the concentration of effort which Europe as a whole, in unity, needs to devote to the defence of its civilisation.
I do not intend today to enter into details of the Government's process of renegotiation. For one thing, we have discussed some of them recently. I have particularly in mind the very full debate we had on the Community's relations with developing countries. Incidentally, it has given me satisfaction to see it reported that the Prime Minister currently agrees with my conclusion on that matter; namely, that in that quarter Community and British policies are converging satisfactorily. Another reason why I do not wish to enter into detail is the perplexing matter of how many points of renegotiation are actually at issue at any one moment, and the equally perplexing problem of knowing on how many of these points the Government at any one time consider they have got satisfaction.
In a normal world, particularly since most members of the Government do not disguise their belief that events are unrolling favourably, one would expect the number of points at issue to decline progressively in number. On the other hand, when he spoke at the annual dinner of the Labour Lord Mayors, the Prime Minister appears to have contrived to increase them in number. The fact is that we proceed not by ticking-off items on an agenda, but by subtle variations in emphasis, in the reservations and qualifications which fill the official announcements. For those outside the Labour Party, this is more a spectacle than an opportunity for debate. I doubt if my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald is right when he supposes that Her Majesty's Government could afford to respond to

979
his appeal for more candour in the way he requested.
My Lords, after renegotiation, God willing, comes the referendum. Of course, God may not be willing. So filled is the future with the possibilities of crisis that, whether or not such a crisis precipitated a General Election, events might so turn out that to hold a referendum would be an unthinkable irresponsibility. But let us suppose, as we must, that there is a referendum. In such a case, if the Government, in recommending the new terms to the British people, exaggerate the advantages, the great concessions they will claim to have won on the Continent, if the Prime Minister presents himself like Nelson to the British people I, for one, will not cavil too much. For the referendum was always bound to be a test, not of the terms, provided they were not exceptionally harsh—and they never were, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, implied today—but of the willingness of the British people to volunteer to remain members of the Community as such. The anti-Marketeers have seen it as that. It was they who demanded it, and for them, in conflict with their protestations of faith in the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, the referendum is just the last possibility of securing Britain's withdrawal.
There are two obstacles to the certainty that those who wish the United Kingdom to remain in the Community will win the referendum—the official position of the majority of the trade unions, and the pessimism of the British people. The unions have the problem of the continuity of their positions on this matter. The first opportunity for a change in attitude would be the moment of conclusion of renegotiation, supposing this to have been done to the publicly expressed satisfaction of the Government. The preponderant antagonism of the Labour movement to the EEC is based—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, was right when he talked of xenophobia—on the compensation which the working-class found in the past for their deprivations, in the reflection that, after all, they were British. But attitudes outlast the situations for which they were suitable. It is now obvious that for 20 years, British class attitudes have prevented the economic regeneration which
980
would have rendered such compensation unnecessary. Therefore, it is a vicious circle. As for the solution to this problem, I am not qualied to offer an answer. Any remark I made which was addressed directly to the unions would be brushed off as impudence. I will limit myself to this basis for an argument.
The trade union movement is not exclusively a national movement. There are international and regional groupings. British trade union leaders have shown themselves to be both wanted and willing to occupy senior functions in these confederations, as the example of the noble Lord, Lord Feather, demonstrates. He was the first President of the now rapidly expanding Trade Union Confederation, which itself grew from the coming together of the EFTA and the ECFTU unions in the early 'seventies, partly in anticipation of the enlargement of the Community. The importance of these confederations, of an integration of trade union movements across national frontiers, must increase in response to the ever expanding phenomenon of the multinational company, and in recognition of other developments, such as the increasing internationalisation of the approach of the unions in various matters—for example, worker participation—and as a method of organising the growing links between unions in different member States, which is now undertaken on an individual basis. The British Government should support the ambitions of such movements, and the claims which the United Kingdom trade union movement makes upon such movements.
As for the pessimism of the British people, I would say this—which is much that I would have said, and did say, three years ago, although I say it now more urgently. The British people need and deserve a situation in which they can have the sensation of being free to create. Despite economic expansion, the last 20 years—to speak only of the last 20 years—have been years of decline for Britain, because the fate of nations is more a comparative than an absolute matter. Every society would survive if none were to challenge it from outside. A society would change its character, but it would survive. The economic experience of Britain over the last quarter of a century has been a failure, not in absolute terms but because others with resources which were not superior—indeed, with resources which

981
were for historical reasons initially inferior—have used them better. However much the people give the impression of ignoring the outside world, they are conscious of failure. The experience is frustrating.
But frustration has become pessimism because, while internal attitudes have not changed decisively, new and formidable external dangers have arisen. Therefore, it is not simply sterile to retain attitudes that have lingered on from the time when Britain could control, command and summon to her service the reserves of an empire; it is also dangerous. This longing for the isolation which was possible in the past is expressed by various arguments, of which the argument about the sovereignty of Parliament is most certainly one. But the past does not exist. Subjected continents have risen to dispute the predominance of Western power. Relationships of dependence have been equalised, if not reversed. We are now a vulnerable and dependent island. Europe must unite to defend its civilisation. And we will serve the people's aspiration to create, and the fundamental consideration of its safety, if we unite with Europe in that vital task.
5.50 p.m.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, on this subject we have had a lot of high sounding phrases and speeches in the past, probably a lot too many. If it was a question of remaining in or not I reflect that the wool trade could probably give a better reason in five minutes for remaining in the Common Market than any speech I have heard, either in this House or out of it. May I say at the outset that I support and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, on her speech and on having put so clearly the feelings of many of us on the Scrutiny Committee of the House of Lords. It is the first time many of us have really come to grips with any of the practical mechanisms of the Common Market institutions. I heartily endorse her point that if you need two Select Committees, one here and one in the Commons, to alert Members as to what is going on, how on earth do we expect people in the country to know enough about it to vote in a referendum? I drew attention to this last July, and I do not retract one word of what I said then.
982
My contribution this afternoon is one which stems from practicalities. I am jealous that our Scrutiny Committees shall work; it is important that they be seen to work and seen to work well. Again, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, in the plea for more information. It was good to see from this report that our Ministers have been fully committed, as is said in paragraph 6, in the deliberations and decision making of the Community. United Kingdom Ministers have attended 28 times. This is good, and being able to identify Ministers who were present when EEC decisions were made will be very useful to the Scrutiny Committee of both Houses. I will try to explain why. We shall be able to get more information and be able to apportion responsibility to a particular Minister who was present when decisions were reached in the Council of Ministers. This matter of responsibility for decisions taken cannot be regarded too highly.
We may be able to look forward to the Council of Ministers having a proper agenda to work on at some time, because we have never had one up to date. I have rarely seen so much slapdash business coming from the Council of Ministers and the Commission. If they have a proper agenda to work on it will help the Scrutiny Committee, and it will help them enormously. This need for a realistic agenda is highlighted in the Special Reports which were submitted to our Government by the two Scrutiny Committees during the course of the summer.
I want to refer to what the Commons said, because it is very important that we up here should know what the Commons are thinking about this. I am not going to paraphrase. I quote from paragraph 16 of their Second Special Report which is applicable:
"… the agenda of each meeting of the Council of Ministers is finalised only days (or even hours) before the meeting takes place".
I go on:
"Scrutiny of the backlog has necessarily involved the taking at every meeting of items due to be considered by the Council later the same month, or in some cases the same week. In particular, problems have been caused by the inability of the Government departments primarily involved …. "—
these are our Government departments—
"to advise with certainty exactly what was on the agenda for the next meeting and (at least

983
for several days afterwards) what had been agreed at the last."
I quote again:
"In some cases also the summary procedure by which matters are agreed at the level of the Permanent Representatives (or equivalent) … (commonly called the 'A' point procedure) has caused comparable problems. The Committee is aware of the difficulties of the Government in these matters, which sometimes results from current Community practice."
That is what the Commons have said.
Let me draw attention to some of the dangers of this summary type of instant legislation. Members will remember that we debated on 7th November certain items that needed scrutiny by this Committee. They had to do with the packaging of liquids and of other types of goods. This came under the category of shotgun legislation. We had to act on these, and act quickly. We did our best with them, but I believe they were decided on before they were discussed in this House. It so happens that there was no harm done by the shotgun practice in that instance, but I am going to draw attention to something that might have more serious consequences.
Let us suppose that similiar measures were applied to other industries. Most of our export industries of any size have committed themselves to freight containers. There is a huge investment in containers and ships constructed to International Standards Organisation dimensions. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in her place, as she is the Chairman of the British Standards Institute, because I am going to refer to the British Standards Institute in a moment. It so happens that the EEC, the Commission, is proposing dimensions for certain packaged goods based on the continental module which fits the European railway pallet, but does not fit the International Standards Organisation. As the noble Baroness knows, the organisation which dealt with standards are the International Standards Organisation, the CEN—which is the European Standards Organisation—and our own British Standards Institute. I understand that the EEC Commission intends to adopt the CEN standards.
If legislation of a shotgun nature is brought to us with the same speed as
984
the packaging legislation was brought to us on 7th November, large sections of industry will be seriously damaged, to say the least. What I suggest—and the Government should take notice of it—is that strong representations must be made on both the CEN (the European organisation) and the ISO (the International Standards Oraganisation). If the British Standards Institute is starved of the funds so that they cannot do it well on our behalf, we shall be the losers. I make a plea that the Government should see to it that the British Standards Institute is backed to the hilt.
My next example of the inadequacy of the general control is a document that we discussed last week on the Scrutiny Committee. It was called the Regulation of the Council on Control of Concentrations between Undertakings; in other words, it meant mergers. We know that as a country we were 50 years behind the Americans in legislation covering monopolies (the Sherman Act of 1896; ours was in 1947) and that covering mergers (the Clayton Act in 1940, and ours was in 1965). This is a document setting out the pros and cons of the possibility of legislating on mergers. I do not want to refer to its merits, because it would take too long and I am not qualified to do it although I put the Bill covering mergers through Parliament in 1965, but I should think that it has precious little chance of ever seeing the light of day in its present state. That is by the way.
What I want to relate is how the document came into existence. This is fundamentally important, because we must know the antecedents of a document that comes to be examined by us. During the course of questioning, this sort of information came out. The Council of Ministers requested the appropriate member of the Commission to prepare a draft, which he did, but we do not know at this juncture who was the person who prepared it, or whether it was a junior who thought out a kind of White Paper for discussion.
A working party of civil servants was formed. We sent our quota over to Brussels, I presume, at regular intervals. We found that there was a difference of opinion on the working party as to the validity of a lot of the things in the paper, and no wonder, because of the nine countries in Europe only two have any merger

985
legislation whatever. Are the other seven countries asking the EEC to legislate for them? What philosophy lies behind the activities of the working parties that are set up to consider these proposals? Do the United Kingdom representatives have instructions from the home Government? These are the questions I should like answered. Who regulates the speed of the progress in these committees, and are they left to do as they like?
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, before my noble friend goes on—and he, like me, takes time—in the countries of the EEC we have, maybe, two who are complementary and seven competitors. We have to face real competition from the Far East, and some of it from areas for whom we still have responsibility. Is my noble friend really arguing that we could do it better alone, or that we could do it better as a member of the Nine?
Lord RHODES: No, my Lords, I am not. What I am doing, if the noble Lord will listen, is setting out some of the practicalities. I say without any fear of contradiction that by stopping in the Common Market we could do better in the way of having a defence against cheap imports of textiles than by going out. I will give the noble Lord that, if that is the answer that he wants.
Before the document comes to the Scrutiny Committee its origins should be stated—who was responsible for starting it, who wrote it, what working parties have considered it, and how far towards finality has the document reached—so that we do not need to waste time. It should also be stated which of our Ministers is accountable, so that we can question him. Personally, I do not think that any logical decision-making is practicable at the Council of Ministers, until they adopt a system of introducing a programme of legislation on the lines or the Queen's Speech. If from where we sit in our committees we knew what we could expect in the next twelve months in the way of proposed legislation from the EEC it would help everybody. Let us be able to identify which are White Papers, and which are Directives. Much of the argument that I heard last week on energy was fruitless, because of the nature of the documents from the EEC, which are not in the
986
nature of White Papers to discuss. I would make a plea on these lines, which may not be entirely workable. We must have an agenda for what we are doing. Otherwise, we shall be wasting time through not being able to get down to real business which is what many of us desire. We must be seen to be making these institutions work, and soon.
6.11 p.m.
The Earl of DUDLEY: My Lords, it is a pleasure and a challenge to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, especially as we are both colleagues on the European Communities Committee. I gladly join him in his warm tribute to our Chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, for her excellent work as Chairman and for her constructive, informative and thoughtful speech. That will be the last of my compliments. I must tell noble Lords that my remarks are likely to be less anodyne than the remarks of the noble Lord who replied to the Motion and those of other noble Lords. I hope that as the holiday season draws near my colleagues on the sub-committee will be indulgent if I find it necessary to depart from the strict standards of neutrality, which I set myself on that sub-committee, in order to make a few points which will be unpopular with noble Lords opposite.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said, the White Paper is the first of the Reports which the Government undertook to submit periodically on developments in the Community. They did not go along with another suggestion that they should furnish European agendas. A comparison between the White Paper and the Communiqué shows that this decision is in line with the Government's normal European posture of looking forward in Brussels and looking back at Westminster. Perhaps that will indicate that I felt less complimentary about the White Paper than do other noble Lords.
The White Paper may have some encouraging features, but it also has some very bad ones, not least that it contradicts itself on a number of important points. For instance, in paragraph 9 it is stated:
"The Report deals with decisions reached by the Community. In general it does not deal with matters which are still under discussion on which in many cases substantial progress has been made since March."

987
This said, the Paper then goes on to deal with no less than 16 paragraphs, with some 21 matters still under discussion where no decision has been reached by the Community. How much of this backlog was caused by the active participation of Her Majesty's Government in Community affairs or by renegotiation the Paper does not say. But as there are important policy areas affected by renegotiation—namely, the Budget, CAP, Community policies towards the Commonwealth, trade and aid with developing countries, and, finally regional and industrial policy—it is fair to assume that progress in these areas has been delayed by the decision to renegotiate.
Turning to another piece of careless phraseology in paragraph 6 of the White Paper, noble Lords may read that the
"United Kingdom has played a full part in the deliberations and discussions of the Community in the period under review."
Your Lordships and Members of another place who are in favour of Britain's membership, would say that this was her right and obligation under the Treaties and that the Government have no freedom of choice. They would, I think, regard the statement as superfluous; but the claim to have
"played a full part"
is something else. What about the Labour Parliamentary delegation, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said? Where were they? We have not heard of them. But perhaps the White Paper is right and they do exist and are stranded looking for Maplin, or the entrance to the Channel Tunnel, or in a HS 146! "Full part" will be still less true of the current period. The communiqué reveals that the Government have withdrawn from discussions about the election to the European Assembly, but the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal confirmed this in his Statement to the House. I would have thought that many noble Lords would be dismayed by that decision and would expect that the Mother of Parliaments would bring her wisdom and experience to bear upon the developments of the Assembly, as it is her right to do. The Government have already shown their disregard for Parliament by their decision to appeal direct to the people over the heads of their elected representatives in
988
order to settle their own Party dispute over membership; and now they show their further disfavour by this high-handed and authoritarian decision taken without any regard for the will of Parliament.
The Report also claims that Ministers attended 28 meetings of the Council of Ministers up to the end of October. There must also have been innumerable meetings at official level, meetings of COREPER and the various committees of council, although the Paper does not mention this. I said that despite the Paper's disclaimer there are many matters in it other than Council decisions. That period of intense activity (and I do not dispute the activity, although I doubt the progress) has been followed by the Summit. Noble Lords would not, I think, argue with the proposition that at the Summit there were considered matters of major importance to the Community; nor would they dispute that there must have been many weeks, if not months, of official preparation for it. the communiqué sets out what these matters are and I shall list them in the order in which they appear.
First, there is the important decision that the President of the Council in Office will be spokesman for the Nine and will set out their views in international diplomacy. Secondly, there is the agreement that the European Assembly must be more closely associated with the work of political co-operation in the construction of Europe. Thirdly, there is the intention to renounce the practice whereby agreement to a proposal is conditional upon a unanimous vote in Council. That proposal is there despite the qualifications put upon it by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. Fourthly, there is the agreement to confer powers of implementation and management upon the Commission. Fifthly, there is the decision to provide for harmonisation of legislation affecting aliens and the abolition of passport control within the Community. Sixth, there is the instruction to a Working Party to study conditions and timing for citizens of the Nine member States to be given special rights as members of the Community. Seventh, there is the intention to achieve election of the European Assembly by universal suffrage as soon as possible and at any

989
time in or after 1978. Eighth, there is the extension of the Assembly's powers in the Community's legislative process.
My Lords, there are others, but first I should like to deal with those eight subjects. It is beyond the bounds of reason that these weighty matters did not form part of the pre-arranged agenda of the Summit meeting and that much previous study and consideration was not given to them. Yet what does the White Paper have to say about them? What do we find? Nothing! Silence! Omerta! as is said by the Mafiosi, using a word from that part of Europe which is to receive the largest part of the Regional Development Fund. Of course, my Lords, these matters are all strong meat for the anti-Marketeers. They are not the string of tasty sausages brandished by the White Paper—uncontroversial subjects such as GATT, Convention of Association, policies towards Mediterranean and State trading countries and the like. I am not disparaging the importance of these: I am merely mentioning their controversiality.
However, there are three other policy areas which the Government evidently considered of such moment as to be unavoidable for mention—European union, Economic and Monetary union and the Regional Development Fund. So they floated them gently in the air like coloured balloons, no doubt hoping that they would drift there for some time; but unfortunately they immediately exploded on the sharp points of the communiqué. On European union, I quote from the White Paper:
"The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the nine member Governments discussed this question at an informal meeting at Schloss Gymnich"—
no doubt pronounced "gimmick" by some members of the Cabinet—
"on 20th-21st April. Widely differing views were expressed at that meeting on meaning and content of European union, and it was clear that there was no common understanding of what was envisaged by the October 1972 communiqué".
Now the communiqué:
"The Heads of Government note that the process of transforming the whole complex of relations between the Member States in accordance with the decision taken in Paris in October 1972 has already started. They are determined to make further progress in that direction. In this connection they consider that the time has come for the Nine to
990
agree as far as possible an overall concept of European Union".
On Economic and Monetary co-operation, the White Paper says:
"There has in recent months been a major change of attitude on the part of other Member States on the practicability of an early move to permanently fixed parities between EEC countries, and the concept of attaining economic and monetary union by 1980. The Council of Ministers has discontinued the discussion of a draft resolution on the implementation of a second stage in the move towards EMU".
Now the communiqué:
"The Heads of Government having noted that internal and international difficulties have prevented in 1973 and 1974 the accomplishment of expected progress on the road to EMU affirm that in this field their will has not weakened and that their objective has not changed since the Paris conference".
On the Regional Development Fund the White Paper says:
"The Community has made no further progress in agreeing to the establishment of a Community Regional Development".
The communiqué:
"The Heads of Government decide that the European Regional Development Fund will be put into operation by the institutions of the Community with effect from 1st January 1975".
I think the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will be disappointed by the replies to his and my question. I had in fact worked out on the information available that, due to the contribution and also our share of the payment to Ireland, which Italy does not share, I am sure we do not receive in the first year much more than £16 million.
My Lords, where have been the thoughts of Ministers and officials during these past months? Were they listening? Were they deliberating? Were they discussing? Were they playing a full part? Did they realise that the elections in Germany and then France brought to power men of vision concerned to make progress in the development of a new Europe and in the securing of a fuller and better life for their peoples? I listened, my Lords, to the BBC's interview with the Prime Minister last Wednesday, on his return from Paris, when he said in reply to questions about the commitment to economic and monetary union—and his words were very little different from what I am going to say:
"There is absolutely no commitment; but I did not want to take away their vision".

991
My Lords, it is past time for Britain to make up her mind about Europe, about the Europe from which we all sprang or emigrated—Celts, Romans, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Normans, Jews and even the Ancient Britons, who must have come here from the Continent with the retreat of the ice. Their descendants have finally established, after centuries of struggle and war, here and in other Western European countries, a society which is democratic, radical and free. I urge that we stay in it, apply our minds to it, grow with it and unite it. We must decide soon, because we have it in our power and competence to take away the vision and to destroy Europe's future. What do those so minded intend to put in its place? A socialist Utopia? I do not need to point out to noble Lords opposite the distinction between international and national socialism; and a narrow isolationist socialist society would bring back the Ice Age quicker than any climatic change. Nor do I need to remind my noble friends of the difference between conservatism and jingoism. When "Land of Hope and Glory" is sung and if tears flow, they are shed not only for Britain but for lost hopes and past glories. But hope can be revived and glory shared with the other peoples of Europe, if their leaders will give them faith in the Community's future and not take the vision away.
6.26 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, not being a member of the European Parliament, and not having been to any of the EEC countries except for having been to Brussels, I do not take part in this debate as an acknowledged expert on this matter. But like most of your Lordships, I am in business as well as in politics, and there is a great deal of anxiety in the commercial and industrial field about Britain's future role in the EEC and any impending decision on it. The White Paper is an interesting document, but I for one find it extremely difficult to follow. How any member of the public who tried to follow it managed, I do not know; but it seemed to me to have many inconclusive adjuncts to it as well as any which may have been conclusive. However, my Lords, the one vital aspect of what we are discussing today seems to me to be whether or not
992
there is to be a referendum and what the result of such a referendum will be. As my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir, who has great experience of these matters, rightly said, what of the future of this country if the people, through a referendum, give a negative vote?
My Lords, I speak primarily because I was recently in the Eastern Caribbean on business, and there is a good deal of anxiety in that part of the world, particularly in the dependent territories. They are particularly worried, for example, if Britain comes out of the EEC—and this may well be a hypothetical question at this stage—what will be the position of their produce. I am thinking particularly of bananas, for example, from St. Lucia, where I spent one week on business. That is a territory which has been very loyal to this country and where bananas represent 80 per cent. of their exports. There are also the other dependent territories which have special reasons for concern about their produce, which they are particularly keen to export to this country. Whereas France has made arrangements with the Cameroons and so on for much of their produce, what have we done in this particular connection? Denmark was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir. Denmark is a country which has been one of our greatest allies and she is, of course, one of the newest members of the EEC. I have paid only one visit to that country, but I have met a number of Danish businessmen and they too are particularly concerned about our situation here.
In the Financial Times on 2nd December last there was a supplement on Europe in which there was an article from their Copenhagen correspondent from which I quote the final words:
"If Britain leaves the EEC there will be a new referendum in Denmark and recent polls suggest that there will be a substantial majority against continued membership."
This is, of course, from the electorate, although in both Houses of Parliament there continues to be a large majority for membership. It would be a very great pity if this country and Denmark became separated on this particular issue. I think that what is really needed is for the public to be taken fully into the con" fidence of Her Majesty's Government. One noble Lord suggested that a Green Paper might be published before any

993
final decision was taken. I think that this is very necessary; because I think that any referendum which is taken ought to be preceded, chapter and verse, by some very much more convincing reasons than we have had from this or any other Government up till now as to why this tremendous departure from our Constitution should be made.
6.33 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I rise briefly to reply to as many points as I can which have been raised in this debate. Though linked to the White Paper on Developments in the European Communities from March to October this year, the debate has covered very much more and, some may feel, more diffuse fields, and perhaps this is right. In agreeing to provide six-monthly reports it was part of the Government's intention to provide the opportunity for wide-ranging debate on European questions, which would add to Parliament's being more in-informed on the considerations involved, and help it to bring its influence to bear on the Government on EEC matters generally. I think that this kind of debate will yield perhaps more on reading and studying it in that respect rather than in simply listening to it. It is important that the debates in this House, if I may say so without disrespect to any other place, should be fully studied after the debate itself. Our reports, I would say, invariably are rewarding in that sense.
The debate has come at rather a good time. In the few weeks since the publication of the White Paper much has happened in the Community of high importance to this country in particular, and in introducing this debate I tried to bring the House up to date with the majority of developments which have taken place. Neither my noble friend Lord Shepherd nor I were able to produce immediate answers on specific financial and statistical questions, which I recognise that noble Lords wish to have, so far as we can provide them. I will later address myself to the RDF point made by more than one noble Lord, but I am not sure whether I have been able wholly to satisfy the quite proper questions on this score which have been addressed to me during the debate.
My Lords, I do not want to go over the same ground again, but perhaps the
994
House will bear with me if I address myself to one or two of the major questions which have been raised. First, I would refer to the political question. I think that there was fair agreement that political co-operation between the countries of the Nine has proceeded satisfactorily and encouragingly so This at least is part of the report that was not damned with faint praise by noble Lords speaking opposite. There has indeed been rather a striking development in co-operation politically among the Nine and I think that the present Government are entitled to some credit for that advance in that very important field. On the question of European union, the aim to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and others would wish this country to move more briskly, since the present Government came to power last March we have been asking our partners in Europe the meaning of the commitment to European union taken on by the Community Heads of Government at their meeting in Paris in October 1972. We have never had an answer.
I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, who referred to the seminar at Schloss Gymnich, and quite rightly so. It was partly our initiative; and it is no secret that it was disturbingly unproductive of any practical suggestions. For that reason, I think it is less appropriate to upbraid the present Government, who have been in power since March, for not having done more on this important aspect of European co-operation and union, than it is to praise the Nine for having placed the examination of this massive and complex question in the very capable hands of M. Tindemans, the Belgian Prime Minister.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that there was an interchange of views at Schloss Gymnich, but there was apparently no common view. Nobody knew what was meant; but everybody expressed some view. Could the noble Lord not tell us the view that the British Government expressed at this meeting?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it was a British initiative to seek to discover whether there was any European view about this often advocated and, I am sure, most important objective, and we took part in the discussion. It was not

995
a discussion which showed that much thinking had been going on in Europe about the practicalities of the matter. I am sure the House will forgive me if I refer it to a speech I made in reply to a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, on this matter. Now there has been a movement forward by the delegation to the Belgium Prime Minister of this study of the whole question in consultation with the institutions.
We may now hope to have something placed not only before this country but before the other countries concerned describing what is feasible, the alternatives; and until we get something of that sort I do not think it is up to anybody to demand that the United Kingdom alone should make the running and produce proposals. These are extremely important proposals which must be produced in relation to the alternatives. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, rightly pointed to the need to be a little untraditional in these matters. There are proposals for federalism, confederalism and so on. There are other possibilities of union in a political sense which may match better the concept of three Communities operating together in three economic and social fields. So the British contribution to examining the question of political union has been substantial and genuine.
The noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, once more raised the question of the non-inclusion or non-attendance of Labour Party members in the European Parliament. I recognise the strong feelings of noble Lords and of others in this country on the point, but very many people, not all of them members of my own Party, feel equally strongly that we should await the outcome of renegotiation before deciding whether or not to send members to this body. We cannot get away from this. The reservations, not only in the Labour Party but in the country as a whole, are deep-seated and substantial. Therefore it is no good going on and demanding that the Labour Party should fill this gap. A substantial majority of the Labour Party, in Parliament and in the country, have genuine reservations about this. Those of us who want to see a coherent Europe want also to carry with us this numerically
996
important section, together with other equally important sections, of British public opinion.
This brings me to the quite excellent speech given by the noble Baroness—my noble friend, perhaps I might be permitted to call her—who enabled us to take a new and searching look at our arrangements in Parliament to examine what it is proposed that our Government should agree to in Brussels. This is an extremely difficult technical arrangement to perfect and I do not need to explain to the noble Baroness, of all people, who has such distinguished Ministerial experience, how difficult this is going to be. It is perhaps early days yet to decide whether what has so far been achieved is satisfactory. Clearly it is not satisfactory in some respects. We had detailed examples of how it does not work—not to put too fine a point on it—and I refer in this connection to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Rhodes, to whom we listened with interest because of his industrial as well as Parliamentary experience of how these mechanics do and do not work.
What I would say to the House today is this: we have in this country—and I appeal to the experience of the noble Baroness, which is similar and perhaps superior to my own—a system of placing before Parliament policies in one form or another, and the Government of the day give mandates to Ministers, it may be in discussing with our friends the Icelanders, to give an acceptable example. In my own case, in my previous incarnation at the Foreign Office, we discussed fascinating subjects such as science and technology, but when we were mandated as Ministers—and going to councils is not very much different—we were mandated within certain parameters which the Government of the day framed for us, having regard to what the Government thought was public opinion or Parliamentary opinion. I do not recall, from my experience of three or four Departments, ever proceeding to any such meeting as a blissful plenipotentiary. One was always very heavily briefed, both horizontally and vertically, with a vast diversity of alternatives and things called "fallback situations". I will not detain the House, particularly as a former Permanent Secretary of that outstanding Department is present, with more jargon of the same depressing

997
character. Nevertheless, the nub is that in this country we have evolved a system of sending Ministers into international councils, not bound hand and foot but with a keen sense of the possibilities within which they must take decisions.
Perhaps we can add to the EEC system—I am thinking aloud for the moment and hope I shall not be trounced depart-mentally for joining the noble Baroness in thinking about these things—some system of referendum. It may or may not be possible. These are matters for continuing thought. I know they are constantly being studied with a view to improving the system, so that a document does not come before the Committee over which the noble Baroness presides so ably, or before one of its Sub-Committees, and is then suddenly overtaken by a change which happens in Brussels without their knowledge, so that by the time they have done their work a completely new document is extant. The point is taken: whether the solution is as easily assessed, I do not know; but I do know we need to work hard at this and get closer to the effectiveness which the noble Baroness so eloquently described as being necessary.
The noble Baroness also referred to the methods of consultation, and was joined in some of her suggestions by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. We shall take very careful note of all that the noble Baroness said on how consultation might be conducted. The method will be announced in January. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has recently said that we hope to come to a decision as to the form of consultation. It certainly will be by ballot but the precise form will be announced in January. It is therefore important that full information should be available to the people. The noble Baroness made a number of valuable suggestions, not least the one which suggested that her Department and my own should take the lead in this matter. I find this a very gratifying suggestion and I hasten to agree with her. Whether everybody else will agree with us that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should take this on, I do not know; but I am sure that there is much force in what she says about the experience of these matters which is available in the FCO. The noble Baroness and other speakers also raised the question of
998
Denmark, Norway and Ireland in more than one connection. No doubt a study is proceeding as to how those countries conducted their consultations.
As to the very interesting question of alternatives, I want to say this. The Government hope and expect that the terms which they will finally be enabled to place before the people of this country will be acceptable. It is a genuine renegotiation—if the word "renegotiation" does not give offence—which has been conducted since 1st April. It has yielded results. Whether those are entirely due to the virtues of a Labour Government does not really matter; it is the end result that matters. Tangible results have flowed during this past period of six months or so. We believe that the way that we have gone about it has at least helped. However, whatever the outcome we must, in precise but understandable terms, put the position fully to the people, and must also put the question precisely and clearly. A great deal of hard thinking and hard work is going ahead on these questions. I am sure the noble Baroness is glad to have that assurance from me.
I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but there are one or two more points that were raised; in particular, about the Regional Development Fund—the RDF. I have in the course of the debate endeavoured to get the precise figures. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, asked for them. I do not think I have the complete figures. The position is that we should get about £150 million on a gross basis, but we have to contribute to the Fund through the budget, and the net gain to us over three years looks like being £60 million, which is about £20 million a year, although I take the point that in the first year it will not be £20 million and, therefore, in the second and third years it will be so much the more. The difference—and I should like to look into this further—of £90 million would seem to me to be represented by our contribution. But I hasten to say that our contributions and receipts may not be as large. It is fair to say that I will seek to set this out a little more fully, if the noble Lords wish to have further information.
The figures I have given are as follows: £150 million, minus £90

999
million, equals £60 million which, divided by three, is £20 million per annum. I should like to look at the figure of £47 million which I know the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will raise now, and see how this squares with the calculation.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is the difference entirely composed of what we pay in and what we get out, and is there nothing else at all in the calculation?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the only answer I can give is "probably". But I want to look at that £90 million more closely. The noble Lord has a point about the difference between £47 million and £20 million, which I have not yet been able to track down.
My Lords, this debate has been useful. I could, of course, wish that certain noble Lords had spoken in a way which ascribed to the unworthy Government which I represent at this Box some of the credit for the undoubted success that has flown from the renegotiations of the past few months. As I said on one of the first occasions on which I spoke from this Box, the renegotiation was meant to be geninue, and was set in motion in the hope of being able to stay in—not as an excuse to come out. The trend of events and, above all, the results, however we qualify them, which have so far been secured justify what I then said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTIONS (WELSH FORMS) REGULATIONS 1974
6.55 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH rose to move, That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on 28th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in commending these Regulations to your Lordships' House, I think I can safely say that they are uncontroversial. They bring up to date the Welsh versions of a number of forms for use in connection with elec-
1000
toral registration and Parliamentary elections. These versions have all been previously prescribed. The only reason for the new Regulations is to take account of minor amendments introduced into the English originals by the Representation of the People Regulations 1974, which your Lordships approved on 28th March this year. The versions are of two kinds. One category is of bilingual forms which are to be used in Wales in all circumstances in place of the English version. The second category is of simple translations the use of which in Wales is optional.
Schedule 1 to the Regulations sets out the four bilingual forms. These are the annual canvass form for electoral registration (Form A); the proxy paper (Form D); the elector's official poll card (Form E); and the proxy's official poll card (Form F). These are bilingual forms, because they are issued in circumstances in which the electoral registration officer cannot be certain whether the recipient is Welsh-speaking. Schedule 2 sets out the Welsh translations of seven other forms. These comprise two forms (O and P), for making claims and objections in respect of the electors' lists, three forms (Q, R and S) for applying for absent voting facilities on various grounds, and two forms (U and V) relating to proxy voting. If these Regulations are approved by your Lordships and in another place they will come into operation in the New Year for use in connection with the preparation of the 1975 and subsequent registers of electors and any future Parliamentary elections. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on 28th November, be approved.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to welcome the noble Lord into the fraternity of those of us who discuss Welsh affairs. There are few noble Lords present. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Amory will join us on this occasion—he often "chips in" on Welsh matters. All I ought to say in bilingual form is, diolch yn fawr, thank you very much.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PATENTS (FEES AMENDMENT) ORDER 1974
6.57 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM rose to move, That the Draft Patents (Fees Amendment) Order 1974, laid before the House on 26th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Order in Council is to make it possible to raise the fees charged for the grant and maintenance of patents. The main revenue producing patent fees are governed by an Order in Council of 1970 which lays down the maxima which may be charged. These maxima can be changed only by means of an Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to outline at this stage the procedure for obtaining the increased fees which the Patent Office seeks to obtain.
As I have already indicated, the first stage in the process is to seek the approval of Parliament to change the maxima prescribed in the 1970 Order in Council. If Parliament confers its approval, the Patent Office, having already devised the scale of fees which it deems appropriate to meet the criteria imposed upon it, will refer to the Price Commission to obtain its agreement to recommend the specific fees within the limits prescribed by the new maxima. In the event that the Price Commission approves the application, a Statutory Instrument would be tabled, prescribing the new fees, which would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
It has been settled Government policy for many years that the fees payable to the Patent Office—those payable in respect of the grant and maintenance of patents and the registration and maintenance of trade marks and designs—should meet the costs of the respective branches of the Office administering the systems. However, during the period of price restraint the Patent Office has been limited as to the extent to which it could raise fees. Thus notwithstanding an increase under stage 2 of the Price Code, there was a deficit in respect of patents over the financial year of 1973–74 of about £1¼ million.
Despite the fact that every effort is made to keep costs down the deficit has continued to increase, largely as a result
1002
of labour costs which account for over 60 per cent. of total office expenditure. Present estimates are that if fees are not raised the deficit over the present financial year will reach £2½ million. It follows, therefore, that immediate increases in fees are imperative and, as I have said, specific proposals will shortly be put to the Price Commission. However, the present maximum fees Order allows for increases in the current fees level by only about 20 per cent. and so as a preliminary to increasing the actual fees charged it is necessary to raise the maxima.
I wish to emphasise that the fees now being considered are, of course, only maxima, governing the discretion which the Department of Trade has as to the actual fees to be charged. As I have stated previously, when it comes to prescribing the actual level of fees to be charged in the near future this will be done by Rules which will be laid before Parliament and will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. It is our belief that we should not have to present the House with a maximum fees order requiring an Affirmative Resolution at too frequent intervals, and since if the Office is to get back on an even keel a substantial increase is inevitable we propose increasing all but one of the maxima by 100 per cent. to accommodate the immediate increase and to allow for further increases. The exception is the £1 fee charged on application for a patent, which is unchanged. This £1 fee is a unique feature which enables the impecunious inventor to protect his invention at minimum cost for a year while looking for a backer. My Lords, I therefore move the approval of the draft Order.
Moved, That the Draft Patents (Fees Amendment) Order 1974, laid before the House on 26th November, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
7.2 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for laying before your Lordships the full details of this Order. The particular points to which I would draw your Lordships' attention in this case are certain specific points relating to the question of what a patentee expects. Any patentee on application wishes to acquire, first, registration, and secondly, security. I would ask the noble

1003
Lord, Lord Winterbottom, in view of the new scale of fees, covering the deficit he has mentioned to your Lordships of £2½ million, whether he can give the House an undertaking that the security which is so necessary in the case of patents and the problems concerned with retaining all the details under a fully secured system will be maintained. What is so necessary in our view is to encourage initiative in the young inventor, and the young impecunious inventor, which the noble Lord has particularly mentioned. We in this country are dependent on a vast number of inventive people who are particularly anxious to bring their ideas under guarantee. It is therefore important that these fees be maintained at the absolute minimum in order to cover the charges for registration. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord can provide the House with information about security, which in an era when industrial espionage is on the increase is a matter of great public importance.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, having been invited just now by my noble friend Lord Aberdare to intervene in the debate on the last Order, I have been preparing a speech to make on this Order. But, looking round, I feel rather daunted by the cohorts on the Benches opposite and I think I will hold my hand for another time.
7.4 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for his constructive attitude to the Order. Of course, all Parties at all times have been in full agreement that the young and (what shall I say?) creative but impecunious individual should have a chance to register his ideas and after registration to have a period of security. I am reasonably certain that that security system continues. In my time I have applied for patents—which brought me no money but which cost me something. Therefore, it is a great consolation to me to be able to reassure the noble Lord that security continues once registration has taken place and £1 fee has been paid. I am certain that the genius of this country will not be hampered by this particular Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1974
7.5 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Youth Employment Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before the House on 5th December, be approved. The purpose of this Order is to replace the present Youth Employment Service by new and improved arrangements. The main effect of the Order will be to dissolve the Northern Ireland Youth Employment Service Board, to transfer its staff to the Department of Manpower Services, where they will be employed within a new guidance and placement unit catering for all age groups, and to provide for the establishment of a Youth Careers Guidance Committee.
Until now, the Youth Employment Service has been the responsibility of a statutory Board which operated separately from Government Departments and which was established in 1961. Under the proposed future arrangements, the functions of the Board will be discharged by the Department of Manpower Services by a guidance and placement unit which is being created to cater for all age groups; information about careers, and personal guidance will be provided by specialist teachers employed within the school system, with support services provided by the Departments of Manpower Services and Education; and a Committee known as the Youth Careers Guidance Committee will be established ot review and make recommendations to the Departments of Education and Manpower Services about the services provided. This will be a kind of monitoring committee.
These changes follow from the recommendations of an Inter-Departmental Working Party which was set up at the beginning of 1974 to review the Youth Employment Service and related matters. The Working Party found that the development of the Youth Employment Service had been inhibited by a number of difficulties. Foremost among these difficulties was the fact that the service, provided as it was by a separate statutory

1005
Board, was divorced from the main stream of employment work, which is the responsibility of the Department of Manpower Services. Moreover, because comparatively little careers teaching was being undertaken by the schools themselves, the Board's officers had been obliged to spend a disproportionate amount of their effort on this most important function at the expense of developing contact with industry and building up a sufficiently detailed knowledge of job opportunities.
Through the absorption of the service within the Department of Manpower Services, young people will have the full benefit of the professional skills and information which are at the Department's disposal. By the development of specialist careers teachers—who will be fully supported by (although not employed by) the Departments of Manpower Services and Education and the Area Education and Library Boards—they will benefit from personal guidance and information services at a level which they have not hitherto enjoyed. I am confident, therefore, that the result of the changes now proposed will be the provision of much improved services for young people.
To look now at the Order itself, Article 3 provides that the Youth Employment Service Board will be dissolved on a date to be appointed. Article 4 provides for the transfer of the Board's officers to the Department of Manpower Services, and, together with Article 5, ensures that the interests of the officers are protected after transfer. Article 7 empowers the Departments of Manpower Services and Education jointly to establish the Youth Careers Guidance Committee to which I have referred. The changes for which provision is being made in no way imply criticism of the Youth Employment Service Board. On the contrary, the Board has done a most valuable job, despite the problems which it faced, not least among which were a number of bomb attacks on its premises and other terrorist activities.
In the belief that by means of a new, integrated employment service within the Department of Manpower Services young people will best be able to realise their full potential, I commend this Order to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Youth Employment Service (Northern Ireland) Order
1006
1974, laid before the House on 5th December, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
7.11 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the House is not always able to give Northern Ireland Orders the detailed consideration which they would receive if they were being considered at first hand in Northern Ireland. Thanks, therefore, are especially due to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for his detailed explanation of this Order, because it deals with a subject which is absolutely vital to the social and commercial development of Northern Ireland, namely, careers guidance and the placement in employment of young people.
My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained, the Order dissolves the Youth Employment Service Board and creates a new Youth Careers Guidance Committee. The affairs of the Board will be transferred to the Department of Manpower Services. May I make the point that this is a departure from the decision which was taken over a year ago in Great Britain where youth employment has become a duty for each local education authority. However, I understand the explanation of the reasons for this Order and I accept that for Northern Ireland the new structure is very probably right.
May I join with the Government in recognising the excellent work which has been done over the years by the Youth Employment Service under their chairman, Mr. Vivian Simpson. The officers and staff of the Board in Belfast often carried on their work in very difficult circumstances. As the noble Lord has said, on many occasions they suffered terrorist attack, and latterly the Board was faced with some uncertainty about the future, with consequent difficulties over staff recruitment. So for the officers who are to be transferred there will now be a wider and more secure career, and this I accept.
May I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are yet in a position to indicate how soon the Department of Manpower Services will be able to offer the new terms and conditions of employment to the officers who are definitely going to be transferred? This seems to me to be of the greatest importance to

1007
people who have served loyally in difficult circumstances. I am also thinking of those who serve in the Youth Employment Service area offices who could be hard hit if they were to find themselves redundant and they happen to be living in an area of especially high unemployment. I am particularly heartened to read of the composition of the new Youth Careers Guidance Committee. The matching of industry and commerce with education should provide an effective balance. I am only sorry that the Government are not yet in a position to be able to give information about the new chairman of this important committee.
My Lords, finally may I make two points which are related to paragraph 7(3) of the Order on careers guidance and placement in employment. I hope that the work of careers guidance in schools will continue to be encouraged in every way. The noble Lord referred to more or to new careers teachers. I do not think that this is the moment to question the noble Lord closely on this; however, I was interested in his passing remark. I hope that the new committee will have very close links with the Association of Careers Teachers which has done good work in Northern Ireland and, of course, has links with the association across the water in Great Britain.
Secondly, I trust that the placement of young people within the new unit of the Office of Manpower Services will not be swallowed up and become an indistinguishable part of the adult service, even though it is part of the new unit, To place a school leaver in employment can require very different considerations from adult placement, and those same considerations often continue to apply when a boy or a girl decides to go back again for advice for a second, or a third, or even a subsequent time. I hope that this is a point of which the new YCGC will not lose sight.
My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that Northern Ireland has every reason to be proud of its industrial training service. This is yet another reason for supporting the provisions which the noble Lord has explained, because they will strengthen the links between education and training. I hope that the Order will continue even more effectively the work
1008
for which the Youth Employment Service has been responsible.
7.16 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I was extremely interested not only in what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, said but in what was said by my noble friend, who also knows Northern Ireland very well. Clearly this decision is one of those pragmatic decisions which has been reached in the light of experience. To somebody who does not know Northern Ireland it seems that in those circumstances the degree of integration proposed may be a sensible solution. I do not think that we need to worry about the fact that these arrangements are not exactly in line with the arrangements here, provided they suit the circumstances in Northern Ireland at the moment.
Would it be in order for me to ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, whether the incidence of unemployment among the young in Northern Ireland is alarming in relation to the general level of unemployment there? That is to say, is the incidence of unemployment falling at the present time with particular severity upon the young?
7.17 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the loss of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, was my gain. Also the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, had time to think of something to say. If I may answer the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, I do not have figures with me, but I will write to him to give the exact figures. However, as your Lordships know, the position in Northern Ireland is that unemployment is very patchy; where it is bad, it is bad among the young as well.
I am glad to say that unexpectedly I find that I have the figures. The unemployment figures for school leavers in November were 1,368; the figures for young persons under the age of 18 who were unemployed, which includes school-leavers, were 2,270; and the number of young people entering employment in a normal year is 14,000 to 15,000. Therefore the proportion of unemployment is not unreasonable. However, this gives a more favourable picture than the truth because of the patchiness; there is no

1009
doubt that in the bad areas youth unemployment is disturbingly high, as is unemployment generally.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the welcome he has given to this Order. He asked me one or two questions, but first may I thank the noble Lord for his praise of the Board. We are very anxious that this perfectly normal and sensible change should not be regarded as a criticism. The point which the noble Lord made that employees of the old organisation wiil now have a wider ladder of promotion is very important and I can absolutely guarantee that there will be no redundancy; there is no question of this at all. We shall take on all those who were being employed. The noble Lord asked me about the chairman; I do not yet have his name. He asked me also about the date; this is still under discussion. It will be announced shortly, but I am afraid that I cannot yet give him the date. The noble Lord asked me, too, whether we would keep closely in touch with the Northern Ireland Schools Careers Association. The answer is, Yes, of course. That is exactly what the Youth Careers Guidance Committee is for, and it will keep in touch with that particular group and with any other relevant groups.
The noble Lord ended by asking me to ensure that the special skills required for dealing with young people would not be lost in the wider approach of the manpower services. There will have to be—and it is essential that there should be—specialists in careers and placement for the under-eighteens; but there should be no hard and fast line, as there has been up to date, performed by members of two different services. The difference will not be in the lack of specialism, but in the lack of a line between the two groups. It will be a specialised part of the overall service and I think that it will be all the stronger for its links outside its own specialties. My Lords, I think that I have answered the questions put by the noble Lord and I am grateful for his support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC SEARCH ROOM
7.20 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT rose Lord TEVIOT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether in the light of their recent statement they could consider further the essential need to keep to the Public Search Room of the Registrar General's Department in Central London. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. But before doing so I must apologise for keeping noble Lords away from the party of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, one of the most distinguished Parliamentarians of this century. The last three noble Lords who have spoken on their Orders have been like the three green bottles, but I am afraid that I shall be a green bottle in a concrete casing and I apologise if I keep any noble Lords waiting. I must declare an interest in this matter, in that I earn part of my living from making searches in the Public Search Room of the Registrar General's office at St. Catherine's House. The reason for asking this Question will now appear extremely obvious to your Lord-ships, but I can qualify this by saying that there will be many others affected by the move of the whole Department if the move from London to Southport takes place.
As your Lordships may know, the Registrar General's Department was founded in 1837 as a result of legislation as early as 17th August 1836, and Section 2 of the Act covering the registration of births, deaths and marriages in England stated:
"And be it enacted that it shall be lawful for His Majesty to provide an office in London or Westminster to be called the General Register Office."
His Majesty was, of course, King William IV. Unfortunately, that part of the Act was repealed in 1953; if it had not been repealed I should have been speaking to an Amendment Bill instead of asking an Unstarred Question—but never mind, my Lords.
Until January of this year, the office was housed at Somerset House and it was by that name that the Department was known throughout the English speaking world. Anyone who visited Somerset House for one reason or another—whether a resident of this country or from

1011
overseas—was struck dumb by the magnificence of this building, which is undoubtedly one of the finest in London. People instantly became more proud of their English or Welsh heritage——
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Or Scots.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I must correct my noble friend and tell him that that office is in Edinburgh. But people became more proud when they realised that the personal particulars of either themselves or their forefathers were lodged there. After nearly 137 years, this Department was literally thrown out to a modern building nearby. The art experts felt that the rooms were far too good for a Civil Service Department and would be better used as a museum. The Churchill Exhibition has been there this year and I believe that a theatrical museum will take its place. There was absolutely no credit given to a famous Department which had spent nearly one and a half centuries there: instead there was a victory for the purveyors of culture—here I must say I am not against the patrons of the Arts, but sometimes their self-importance is rather accentuated—who managed to evict some civil servants.
In 1972, I was concerned with the future of the Public Search Room and this prompted me to ask a Question as to where the Department was being moved, in order to dispel a rumour that it was going to the suburbs. The reply given by my noble friend Lord Sandford—who, unfortunately, is not here today but is happily replaced by my noble friend Lady Young, who I am sure will do justice to this Question—was that it was going to St. Catherine's House at the corner of Aldwych and Kingsway and that that place would be its permanent home.
I may mention here that St. Catherine's House is only 300 yards from the original Somerset House. I, and many others, were greatly relieved by this move and were told that the facilities would be very much improved and that there would be more room in which to make searches. I will not speak about that but as a result, willingly or unwillingly—because there were some of us who had more than a sneaking regard for the garret in Somerset
1012
House—we all made it our business to make ourselves at home at St. Catherine's House.
At this point, I should like to paint a picture of some of the people who use the Public Search Room. I am not placing them in any order of importance and I shall begin by mentioning the Foreign and Commonwealth guests, as it is polite to do so. All the year round, overseas visitors from the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and many other countries and colonies come to this country in order to find out where they came from and to trace their pedigrees. They consider this very important as they naturally like to have some roots in this country, however long ago their ancestors emigrated. It can be fairly certain that genealogy brings considerable trade to the tourist industry in this country, especially in London. Besides tourists, one sees many familiar faces in the Search Room, who are known as regulars and professionals and who may be connected with either the legal profession or genealogy. Some spend all their working hours there, while some spend time in the record repository as well.
Here I will slightly diverge. Genealogists, in order to pursue their searches from 1837 and onwards, need the Public Record Office in order to find the census returns and also for naval and military searches. That is only five minutes away. Also they need wills, which are to be found in the Principal Probate Registry in the old Somerset House; and lawyers—and I will come to them later—need Companies House which is in City Road, where some records will remain while others will be in Cardiff. Then there are people, including the noble Lord who will kindly answer this Question—and I apologise for the fact that I have not yet mentioned his kindness in waiting—who regard it as a right of people to enter the Public Search Room.
I must now break down those categories. The first is the amateur genealogist, of which there are many of all ages, from the age of about eight to 80 and probably beyond, who is pursuing details of his own family. The second and largest group are men and women who need their birth certificates for such essential purposes as pensions or passports. That group I will come to later. Then there

1013
is the third and probably the most important group in this context, the people who have never really known who they are or to whom they belong. They may be those who were adopted; they may be those who were foundlings; they may by those who were orphans, and at some point in their lives they go to St. Catherine's House—previously, Somerset House—and perhaps the officials there do not really appreciate how many of these people there are. I have been there regularly for four or five years, and there are also many others. These people come in with extremely sad problems and they want to know these facts. One cannot do very much for them, but they can look into the books and feel that there is something tangible that they can get down to. Some people spend a great number of years, and others just a few months, and they dig out details of a relative which they consider to be extremely important.
I now come to the question of moving to Southport, which is really the main point of this Question. Southport is a famous resort in North-West England, in Lancashire now known as Mersey-side—North of Liverpool. It is also a residential area and an important Merseyside suburb. I do not want to denigrate Southport at all, but it is 210 miles from the capital. The journey by rail, according to the ABC, is extremely inconvenient. If people want to go there for the day, they will have to catch a train at 8 o'clock in the morning from Euston, change at Wigan, North-West, walk down the road to Wigan, Wallgate, and catch a stopping train to Southport, arriving there at 11.32.
My first question to the Minister, which is not the most important, is: how far will the proposed building be from Southport railway station? If the office closes at 4.30, the first available train will be the 6.10 from Southport, which again means 45 minutes in Wigan, reaching London at 10.2. The fare is £11·5. Experts in transport will realise that this journey can be made quicker by catching a train to Liverpool and either walking three-quarters of a mile through Liverpool streets, or going by public transport or taking a taxi and then catching a fast train to London. But our foreign guests will have no idea about this facility.
As I said earlier, as well as doing this most people would have to consult the
1014
Principal Probate Registry, the Public Record Office, the British Museum and Companies House. The alternative to travelling would be to employ someone locally, or to correspond with the Department direct. Here I would ask the noble Lord two pertinent questions. The first is, how many people use this Department, either daily or weekly? How many people enter St. Catherine's House? I believe it is in terms of thousands. To hazard a guess, I would say the number is in the region of 5,000. The second point is: how many certificates are produced daily or yearly, and what is the revenue of that Department for certificates over the counter? I feel that this is extremely important.
I am now asking whether the Department will be equipped to handle the enormous number of increased postal applications? Formerly one of the cheapest things one could use was the post; but now it is extremely expensive, and trying to organise a postal department is very difficult indeed.
One then comes to the matter of getting people to search for birth, marriage and death certificates. At the moment the Department employs clerical assistants to do that job which I think is accepted in the Civil Service as a junior grade. I am not denigrating them, but I should like to put forward to your Lordships that this is an extremely expert job. If it is for yourself, you have the knowledge. If you want to look up your own birth certificate, you know the year you are born and probably the month and where you were born. You would just reach for the book and look for it. But that is often not the case. People do not really know what happened. It is also a fact that the records run from 1837 onwards.
I come to the question of name. A large proportion of the population were illiterate, some even unable to write their own names. They had to state their names to the best of their ability to the registrar, who may equally have got it wrong, and some names became rather more obscure than might otherwise have been the case. An easy example is those names with an "e" or without an "e". This is not an affectation; names were far more likely to have an "e" in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries than they are now. The name "Humphreys" is a

1015
very common example. I think there are at least eight different ways of spelling it—"Humphreys", "Humphries", "Hum-fries", "Humfreys" and several more with which I shall not bore your Lord-ships. There is the name "Shepherd". Your Lordships could give other splendid examples. Of the less obscure names, "Cockcroft" is quite often spelt "C-o-c-k-r-o-f-t". A less obscure name is Dytham, which may be spelt "D-i-t-a-m", and there are variants such as "D-i-g-h-t-a-m" and so on. I do not think one can expect a clerical assistant or any person in the Civil Service to be able to seek the information necessary with the complete expertise that is required.
For people searching for information regarding a marriage, the Registrar General's Department agrees for an extremely modest fee to look for five years for a marriage. But quite often the difference between the youngest child and the eldest child is 25 years. A mother may have been married at 16 or 17, have her first child at 18 or 19, and the poor woman is still having children at 43, 44 or 45. So there can be a long period of searching through these books. This I have done myself, with my wife; we have looked over 25 years, and the record has been 31 years.
This is an extremely complex business. One might be searching for the date of somebody's death and might look for the time when that person was last heard of, which might have been when one child was christened. Then you look to "kill" them off. If they live a very long time, as they do now, the period covered might be one of 40 to 50 years. This type of service being dealt with by correspondence is extremely difficult. I was talking to an eminent professor who married a Czech wife four or five years ago, and in the last four years he has had to make two dozen visits to St. Catherine's House, and previously to Somerset House, to go through all the formalities. Is this kind of thing to be dealt with at Southport? This office is part of our heritage, part of our essential life, and it should be kept in London.
I come now to the Hardman Report. I have been speaking for quite a long time, but now I will be much more
1016
specific. On page 174 of the Hardman Report, Section 4 states:
"If the office is dispersed in order to avoid almost certain loss of many of its trained survey practitioners and of medical statisticians, neither of whom could be replaced quickly if at all, the office woud probaby need to retain a number of such posts in London together with a handful of other senior posts, the Public Search Room, a few registration consultants and some limited support staff. The total number which the office would wish to retain in London would be up to one hundred posts."
I should like to ask another question of the noble Lord. If it had been suggested to Sir Henry Hardman that the Public Search Room could not be kept in London, would he have suggested that the office would be readily dispersable to Southport?
Finally, I would say in winding up that I am not alone in asking this Question. For once we have not got a lawyer present among us to ask questions. I am pleased to see many of my noble friends here who are very concerned; the genealogists and the College of Arms are also very concerned. I would ask, in all fairness and with no malice at all, whether the noble Lord's right honourable friend would think again if the decision has been taken to move the whole of this Department to Southport. With all respect to the Registrar General and his deputy, it might be very awkward to split the Department. If the Department cannot be split, I would ask whether he could keep the whole thing in London. It is essential for the people of this country and people from overseas that this Department remains in Central London.
7.39 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, the procedure for Unstarred Questions is in many ways unsatisfactory. One of the unfortunate things about it is that one is speaking to a House which is not, perhaps, as full as it is at normal Question Time at 2.30 in the afternoon. Also, one has to make one's speech on the assumption that the noble Lord who is kindly going to reply will give a most unsatisfactory reply, otherwise one is not quite sure why one is asking the question. In fact, one almost assumes that the reply will be unsatisfactory, because otherwise I take it that he would have had a private word with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and said, "There is no need to ask this Question, everything is going to be all right,

1017
the Government have thought again, and they are doing something sensible about it". So I apologise in advance to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who is to reply if my remarks seem to be a little hostile, because they are based on the assumption that he will tell us something not very satisfactory.
My Lords, on 28th November, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked a Starred Question and in reply the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, among other things, said:
"… the Government are well aware of the importance of the Research Room and the useful purpose it serves in a number of fields."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28/11/74; c. 1492.]
The noble Lord went on to speak of discussions with the Genealogical Society and the Law Society and said that the Government proposed to have discussions with other interested bodies. He also said:
"It is recognised there is a very strong case for research taking place in London",
and that he would be in a better position to say later on what was the outcome of the discussions. I then asked him whether, having waited for the outcome of the discussions it would be too late to influence the Government? To this he replied, not very satisfactorily:
"It could be too late, but in point of fact, as the noble Lord knows, it is open to any noble Lord to ask the Government what is happening."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28/11/74; col. 1493.]
That is all very well, but do we ask once a week, or once a month? Will the decision suddenly be taken behind our backs, while we are not looking, while we are in Recess?
My Lords, assuming an unsatisfactory answer—which again I apologise for in advance because I am hoping it will be something quite different—I propose to ask a number of questions which I have modestly cut down to nine. They are all quite simple questions, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will have the answer to each of them. First of all, can he tell us, in a relatively few words, what is to be gained by this proposed move? Secondly, are all the decisions already taken? Thirdly, what were the views of the Genealogical Society, the Law Society and the other bodies? Which were the other bodies?—historians, perhaps, biographers, the College of Heralds, and possibly the Guild-hall; I do not know.
1018
My fourth question is as follows: do Her Majesty's Government realise the value of the Public Search Room to the hosts of professional and amateur researchers at home and abroad? This has already been emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and I do not propose to say anything more at length about it except to stress the role of the amateur, of which I am one. I am deeply interested in certain genealogical problems, particularly of my own and of my wife's families.
It would be quite impossible to get professionals to do all the chores which I am prepared to do myself, because I do not think they would do them well enough to tell me the honest truth. I am sure they would give me the best possible answer to a straight question, but the kind of question that the amateur has to deal with is not so straight. The amateur has to ask himself, "When was Aunt Molly born? If we could find this out—it might be anywhere between 1851 and 1857—we might manage to obtain particulars of where her parents were living. If we obtain those, we could go to the Census Office and find out—if it was the Census of 1851 or later—where her father was born. This would help us to know where that branch of the family came from." This is the kind of thing that one has to do either for oneself, or one must put as much money in the pool as is necessary, because one cannot expect professionals to do hours of work and charge nothing at all, even if the whole of their researches turn out to be negative.
My Lords, the fifth question I have dealt with. It was the question of an amateur conducting his own researches and the impossibility of an amateur himself going to Southport, or conducting a lengthy postal research. Question six is partly covered already, so I will not make too much of it. Are Her Majesty's Government aware that the researches may take one from deaths to marriages, to the Guildhall, to Lambeth Palace, and especially the Department of the wills, the more recent of which used to be in Somerset House. The older ones are in the Public Record Office. Wills are often more easily found than certain other records. From there, one's researches could take one to the Census Department. At the moment, we have the enormous

1019
advantage that all these places are in one city. I am sure that the only city in this country in which those places could be would be London, or, with reference to Scottish genealogy, Edinburgh.
My Lords, with regard to question seven, could the noble Lord tell us how he sees an amateur like myself conducting these researches if half the Departments are moved to Southport? As a matter of practicalities, how would one do it? I have no answer to it. My eighth question is this: if this is to be a partial move, which parts of the Registrar General's Department will be moved? I can see that whenever there is a new decennial census with all the statistics which have to be worked out from it, a great deal of the census work is backroom stuff. So far as I can see, it does not matter very much whether this work is done in Southport, Newcastle, Cardiff, or elsewhere. I have tried to stress the interlocking importance of the Census—the births, marriages and deaths, the wills, the Guildhall records, the Lambeth Palace records, and so on.
My Lords, my question nine is a question about Wigan, which the noble Lord, Lord Tcviot, has already asked for me. Personally, I cannot "fork out" £11 and the time to go to Southport, only to come back and say, "Oh, my goodness!, while I was there I should have looked for so-and-so; I will have to go again tomorrow." Everybody who does genealogical research knows that this is the kind of thing which happens, I will not say every day, but it does happen. The more expert one becomes, the less often it happens. I am not making academic points, but describing without exaggeration some of the researches I have made for my own interest among the records which we are so pleased and proud to find in this City.
7.48 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I apologise because I have not put down my name to speak. I told the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply that I might "chip in". Knowing my great interest in the subject, my noble friend Lord Teviot drew my attention to this Unstarred Question only about one hour ago. So I feel slightly guilty because I did not read the Order Paper thoroughly
1020
enough to realise that this Question was coming. However, I know enough about the procedures of this subject to feel moderately strongly about it, as does my noble friend Lord Teviot and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, because I, too, am an amateur genealogist, interested in this subject.
I can totally confirm, for instance, the questions that arise in facing problems of spelling. I have only to look at my own name. Although in the 1400s Henry VI created a peerage of Stourton spelled in one way, in the 1660s we have signatures spelled "Stirton" and "Sturton". Henry VI and the family in the 1400s spelled it "Stourton", which we still do. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, made a very telling point when he mentioned this question of going to one place to look for what you want, then going somewhere else and finding that what you want is not there and having to go back again.
I am all for dispersal of Government Departments throughout the country to give them a fair share of these Ministerial outposts of civilisation, not only because it may be good for the Provinces to feel that they are sharing in Government, but also to disperse them out of London which is overcrowded. But there is all the difference in the world between this proposal and dispersing Ministries and civil servants dealing with transport or agriculture, who can do their job equally well there provided they find houses and so on. This does not apply to an office such as we are talking about now, which is used by the public.
Let me pay homage to Southport; I am in no way denigrating it. I have very happy memories of being given an excellent lunch by the mayor and corporation when I visited them in connection with their home improvement campaign. I might say that Southport has one of the best housing records in Lancashire, and I was very impressed by the fact that they were having a housing improvement campaign. But we already have pensions at Lytham St. Anne's. If one has to be fitted with limbs one also goes there. I went there just after the war when I was trying to fit an eye in my socket. We also have income tax people there, and Lancashire has already had people sent there. No doubt Southport would welcome them.

1021
As my noble friend Lord Teviot has pointed out, in London everything is centralised for the scholar, for the legal expert needing to find something, for the serious student from abroad. We have the British Museum, the Society of Genealogists with their unparalleled library dealing with these matters, and all the Harleian manuscripts dealing with parish registers and records, and there is the College of Arms with its incomparable records. Scholars need to jump about from one place to another; they are here today and there tomorrow, or here this morning and there in the afternoon. They cannot say, "Let us take a journey to Southport this afternoon and come back"; they will need to be millionaires.
This is an office which is already used by people. As we have heard, the wills are still staying at Somerset House. This office is not to be compared with the part of the National Library which is chiefly for vetting purposes, and which is going to Boston Spa in Yorkshire. That is not visited every day by scholars. I should like the noble Lord to give us the answer to the very important question he has been asked: how many people are using this record office?
My noble friend Lord Teviot twitted me about the fact that the Scots have their place in Edinburgh. I think my noble friend has forgotten that one of the best known exports from Scotland to England and to our Empire, when we had an Empire, was its sons and daughters. Where India and the East India Company would have been without Scotsmen to help them manage their affairs, I do not know. Indeed, ever since the reign of James VI, or James I as he was here, Scots have been regularly supplying manpower, brainpower, energies and skills to London and other parts of the British Empire. These Scotsmen, when they came back from far off overseas posts, very often settled in London. If you look through the London registers, you will find lots of Scots names. That is why I said "and Scots" to my noble friend. Lots of the descendants of these Scots later stayed in Australia and Canada. They came back in one generation and then their children went out in another generation. This applies to Irishmen, too. They quite often did a sojourn in London before going off in the 19th
1022
century to the United States or wherever it was.
I think I have made all the points I want to make. This is a question of being practical, and it is important to students. Many tourists who come to Britain have a secondary object of trying to find out something. If this sort of record office is sent to Southport, a disservice will be done to this country.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I wish to intervene briefly in this debate to support most warmly the remarks of my noble friend Lord Teviot on his Unstarred Question this evening. I am speaking, as he has already said, in the place of my noble friend Lord Sandford who is, unfortunately, unable to be present this evening. I am very glad to support my noble friend Lord Teviot, because it seems to me that he has made out an extraordinarily good case for keeping the Public Search Room of the Registrar General's Department located in Central London. I cannot give anything like the detail which he has put in his argument, nor indeed as was put in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Platt. I should, therefore, like to concentrate my remarks on two main points.
My noble friend Lord Teviot, has been interested in this matter for some time. As he said, he asked a similar Question on Wednesday, 13th September 1972 about the search facilities of the Registrar General's Office and he was given an assurance—at column 324 of Hansard—by my noble friend Lord Sandford in these terms:
"I imagine that the object of my noble friend's Question was to seek from me an assurance, which I am glad to give, that for the convenience of those who wish to attend on the Registrar General for certificates and research facilities the office should be in central London, and it will be."
That seems to me to be an absolutely clear-cut statement. Although, of course, I will accept it if I am told I am wrong, I have been unable to find any suggestion of any intervening statement to disprove or in any way to cast doubt upon what my noble friend Lord Sandford said on that occasion.
It seems to me a very serious matter if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is unable to give a similar assurance, and if

1023
an assurance from a Government Minister—on something which is not a matter of Party political policies and therefore liable to be changed at a General Election or with the swing of political opinion—is changed after only two years of its being made. Everybody understands that in the course of 20 or 25 years views and policies change, but I should have thought one could expect a policy to remain the same for two years. Therefore, it seems to me a very serious matter if its validity is in doubt. This seems to me an important point, because I read with great care what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said on Thursday, 28th November. I will not quote it because it has already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Platt. Having looked at it carefully, he seems to have cast doubt on this, and I think what we need to be sure about tonight is where we stand on this matter.
The second point that I wish to make is that the real argument about keeping search facilities in London, and keeping that part of the Registrar General's Office in London dealing with birth, death and marriage certificates, is its importance to the people. Everybody who has had any experience in public life talks about the well-known phrase, "people matter". I doubt whether there is one of us who has ever made any kind of political speech who has not used this phrase, and I have no doubt, in using it, has meant every word that he has said. Here, of course, we are being asked to stand up and be counted on a particular issue, because although it matters enormously to the staff of the Registrar General's office whether they are in London or South-port, or in, I believe, two of the other possible places to which they might go, where these offices are is also extremely important to members of the public. It is important for all the reasons that have been so well explained: the fact that because the offices are easily accessible it helps tourists and the amateur and professional geneologists. I would add only one more reason for keeping the offices in London; that is, that it seems to me that in this ever-increasingly complex society in which we live, the demand for keeping copies of vital certificates is likely to increase and not decrease.
It seems to me that the public ought to be helped in this matter. I make this
1024
as a very real, practical point, because it was often put to me when I was in local government that it was easy enough for some people to write letters to the town hall for the information they wanted, but many people find it much more difficult, and therefore it is often necessary for someone to go in person to collect a certificate. It is often much easier for them to do so, and we have an obligation to make everything as easy as we can for members of the public.
In the short time that I have had to prepare for this Unstarred Question, I regret to say that I have not had the opportunity of studying the Hardman Report in the detail that I should have liked. I of course read the relevant section on the population censuses and surveys, and I came across the quotation that my noble friend Lord Teviot used. But it seems to me that when there is a Government Report on the location of offices which in fact recommends that the public search rooms should remain in Central London, we must pay heed to what it says.
I also looked in the Hardman Report at the table of travelling times, because although everybody has talked about the difficulty of getting from London to Southport—which I have no doubt is very great—one has to remember that not everybody is going to use London as a starting point. When we come to look at the tables in Appendix 11 on how to get from one place to another, it is relatively straightforward if one is starting from London. But if one is starting from Cornwall, Yorkshire, somewhere in the Midlands, or even from Sussex, it is going to be infinitely more difficult. One has to remember, after all, that most people live outside London. I have no idea of the breakdown of the figures of visitors, but it is a serious matter that road, rail and public transport services link direct to London. It is the easiest place for most people to get to from any part of the country. As soon as a vital office is moved somewhere else, automatically it makes it more difficult for people.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who I know will have listened with great care to all the points that have been made, will realise that this is a serious matter. I think that it will cause considerable worry to large numbers of professional people and to

1025
members of the public if they realise exactly what is happening. At a time when we are suffering so many economic difficulties, it would be most regrettable to put any further difficulty in the way of the tourist industry which, after all, is a great invisible export earner and therefore a help to us all.
8.5 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I want to say at the beginning that this debate makes a very useful contribution to the consideration which is being given to this matter at the present moment. Let me say right at the start that no decisions at all have been made—and I would not make that statement if I believed otherwise. I understand—and I have been at some pains to find out—that no decisions have been made. I shall try to indicate why this matter is being considered at all. The Hardman Report has been mentioned, and the noble Baroness drew attention to the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on 13th September 1972, when he gave a firm assurance that there would not be any move in the future. I should like to point out that that statement was made on 13th September 1972, almost a year before the Hardman Report came out, and I want to remind your Lordships that the whole purpose of the Hardman Report was to consider the dispersal of Government work from London.
So far as this matter is concerned, it has to be seen in the light of the need to disperse some of the Government work in London. May I say—and I say it very sincerely—that the Government are concerned with the views of a number of people and a number of organisations, and are mindful of what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have already drawn to our attention; that is, the comment and observation of Sir Henry Hardman himself. He did not recommend that the Public Search Room remain. What he said was that the office would probably need to retain—and the word is "probably"—a number of such posts in London, together with a handful of other senior posts, the Public Search Room and so on.
Perhaps the noble Lord may think that I am splitting hairs, but the fact remains that Sir Henry Hardman has produced a
1026
Report in which he indicates that dispersal of the Office of Population and Censuses and Surveys to some other part of the country is necessary. Noble Lords may well ask the reason for this. I want only to indicate what is behind this, again reiterating that no decisions have been made, and again reiterating that the Public Search Room, for all I know, may remain, and to give your Lordships some idea of the thinking behind it.
I think that most of your Lordships will agree that Government offices and employment are concentrated far too much in London. Over a good many years we have pursued a policy of dispersal. There is a great deal of cost in maintaining both buildings and staff in London in terms of overheads. We have to face the fact that there is real difficulty of recruitment for staff in London. The situation is getting even more acute. At the moment we have about 935 members of staff of the OPCS in Southport; in fact the whole of the National Health Service Central Register of Doctors and Patients is kept there, as are the research people who produce information from those records. We have from the OPCS about 891 members of staff at Tichfield which is situated, as your Lordships may know, between Southampton and Portsmouth, who are engaged in processing statistics of births, deaths and marriages and where we have the Census staff. In London we have 988 members of staff and the Government's proposal, which is being considered at the moment, is to move some 500 of them to the Southport area, although the Hardman Report suggests that the entire 900-odd be moved, with the exception of the 100 to which Sir Henry Hardman refers.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much. But I am not splitting hairs on the differences in the Hardman Report. I am well aware of that aspect. The question I asked was whether it would have created a different complex if the Public Search Room was moved and whether he might have expressed his Report in other terms. But when the noble Lord talks about the Office of Population, Census and Surveys, and about figures in Southport and in Tichfield, I remind him that my Question concerns the old Registrar General's Department. That is the matter about which we are asking. Those

1027
are the posts with which we are concerned—not about the medical survey, statistics or anything else. I ask the noble Lord, with the greatest respect, to keep on the section which was the old Registrar General's Department of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: But the noble Lord will know that this is all part of the OPCS.
Lord TEVIOT: Yes, my Lords, it is all part, but I am talking about the stalk and not its stems. The kernel of the matter about which we ask concerns the whole trunk of the tree, not all its branches.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I appreciate that, but what I am trying to point out to the noble Lord is that the Registrar General's Department, to which he refers, is part of the OPCS, and the Hardman Report recommends the remaining 900-odd staff be transferred or dispersed to Southport, with the exception, as he says, of roughly 100 posts which will meet the needs of the Public Search Room, the support staff and so on.
I wanted to give noble Lords the present position because the decision as to which Department and staff go to South-port has in fact yet to be made. But I think that I must be honest and say that in making these decisions one has to take into account a number of factors. One has to take into account the effect such a move may have on the staff. We must face the fact that it will have an adverse effect on some members of staff. We have to take into account the effect on the community. I would not pretend for one moment that if one were to move the Registrar General's office to Southport it would not have an adverse effect on the community. I am sure that it would in a good many respects. We have to take into account the various matters which have been raised tonight, and the effect that the move will have on other bodies. We have to take into account the view of these other bodies. The noble Lord and I certainly know that the other bodies that have been consulted are certainly not in favour of dispersal. They are very much in favour of retaining the status quo.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, at this moment will the noble Lord, Lord Wells-
1028
Pestell, please say which bodies have been consulted? I believe that the Society of Genealogists were consulted in the sense that when they went to see the Department about something else they were told about this proposal. But at the present moment I do not think that any other bodies have yet been consulted. Can the noble Lord say which bodies have been consulted? I should be most interested.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to come to that matter in a moment, because I believe I can answer all the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has put to me. I intended to mention them in any case. We also have to take into account the general effect on efficiency and convenience. We would accept that if these proposals were carried out there would be a threat to efficiency, certainly for the time being. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked me a number of questions about the use of the Public Search Room. I think I am right in saying that about 3,700 persons use it every week. This means that roughly a similar number of certificates are issued. But I think noble Lords must bear in mind that while about 3,700 certificates are issued every week, about twice that number a week are issued as a result of postal applications and postal requests. So roughly one-third of the certificates are issued as a result of people calling and twice as many are issued as a result of postal application.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. If you go there yourself, you are often quite satisfied with what you get and you do not ask for a certificate. I should think that the majority of people do not ask for certificates. I should say that these statistics we are receiving are useless. It is the same in the Wills Department. You can go there and look up for yourself the reference number and wait no longer than three or five minutes for the will to be brought. You read it and then give it back. Only in most exceptional circumstances do you ever ask for a copy.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think we can only go on the sort of statistics that we have. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to correct one

1029
Statement which I made because I have misled the House. What I ought to have said was that there are a similar number of certificates issued as a result of postal application as there are from the number who visit. So the number of people——
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, as the point of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, is not being accepted by the noble Lord, with respect may I say that he started off by referring to 3,700 people a week and then went on to qualify that as being certificates and then said half of those were postal. But I would totally support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that a large number of people go there to look up a particular fact or facts, find things for themselves and go away. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to agree that the number of 3,700 is totally irrelevant to the number of people using this office every day.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, let us be frank about this. It is easy to say that a vast army of people use a place and do not ask for certificates. Nobody knows whether a vast army of people go in and ask to see this and that and do not ask for a certificate. All we know is that a number of people use the Public Search Room to look at documents. We know roughly the number of people who go in every week and I have given the figure of 3,700. About 3,700 certificates are issued and in addition a similar number are applied for by post and are issued in that way. I do not think that we can state a figure because nobody knows the number of people who go in and do not ask for a certificate but merely look at a record. It always suits an argument for people to say, "a large number" or "a vast number". We can work only from the figures that we know.
I think we also have to face the fact that the majority of callers' needs could be met as easily by post; and in a large number of instances the information they get from St. Catherine's House could be obtained by applying to the local registrar. I will accept the fact that one cannot get information from a local registrar unless, of course, one knows that the person about whom one needs a certificate or information lived in a certain area and was therefore recorded there. But a large number of people who are making applications
1030
of this kind know where a person originally lived or was born.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, and, with deference to the Deputy Chief Whip, I really must put this point. The noble Lord was saying that people know the registration district. I can tell your Lord-ships that this is not so. There have been such movements in this country that one gets very surprising results. One might expect people to turn up in the East End of London and then be very surprised when they turn up on the Borders of Scotland near to Penrith, or on the coast of Cornwall or somewhere else. It is not a question of knowing where they come from—and there are about 500 registration districts.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think we are straining, shall I say, the Rules of the House. I do not really object to letting other noble Lords intervene if it seems to me that there is a valid point, but I do not think we can carry on the debate in the way in which we have been carrying it on. I have said that decisions have yet to be made. I have tried to point out to the House that we are very well seized of all the arguments. We know what many people are feeling about this; and, as I said at the beginning, I think that this Unstarred Question asked by the noble Lord can do nothing but help in the decisions which will have to be made. We have some idea of the strength of feeling both in your Lordships' House and outside, but we are under an obligation as a result of the Hardman Report to consider very carefully the duty that was put upon Hardman in the matter of the dispersal of Government offices.
I was asked what is in London now and what might go. I cannot say what might go, for the simple reason that we have not reached the stage of deciding what is going. But as some noble Lords will know, there is a staff dealing with callers in the Public Search Room and in Records, there is a staff which deals with telephone inquiries and another which deals with local registrars. We have top statistical experts whose job it is to investigate statistics for publication, we have the Government Social Survey staff and we have the medical statisticians. Their job is to interpret statistics for the

1031
Department of Health and Social Security and other Government Departments. We recognise that it would not be easy to shift some of those, particularly the Social Survey staffs and the medical statisticians. We are not unmindful of the difficulties, but I think we are obligated, now that we have the Report—and we have had the Report for something like a year—to make some sort of decision in the matter, and this is what we are engaged in doing at the present moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, wanted to know whom we are consulting. The Registrar General is still discussing the problems and considering the position from every possible angle. As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will know, there have been discussions, which are still continuing, with the Society of Genealogists; my information is that there are discussions with the Law Society; and a good deal of correspondence has been received from quite a number of eminent people who are representing other organisations, some of which the noble Lord mentioned. We have also to discuss the matter with other Government Departments which will be involved. What is perhaps very important is that we have to take into account the staff considerations and the personal problems of those members of staff who would be involved if a move of this kind took place and who are near-ing retirement. That presents quite serious staff problems.
As I have said, no decision has been made but we are grateful to have had this debate tonight, because it has enabled the noble Lord and other noble Lords to put very forcefully what they feel and what has been said will be considered when a decision is made. I do not envisage that a decision will be made hurriedly, within the next two or three weeks. There is a great deal to be considered, and consideration is being given to that at the present moment.

  PAKISTAN: UK ENTRY CERTIFICATES
  PAKISTAN: UK ENTRY CERTIFICATES
  EEC AND THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER
  EEC AND THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER
  ACTS OF INDEMNITY
  ACTS OF INDEMNITY