Sitting of 2 July 1974

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CLERICAL, MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL [Lords]
  CRUDE OIL TERMINALS (HUMBER) BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  ASHDOWN FOREST BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow.

  WORKINGTON HARBOUR BILL
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Read the Third time and passed.

  WRIGHTSON NMA LIMITED BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the revised date for the first test flight of the MRCA.
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the MRCA project.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the MRCA project.
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): The first flight of the MRCA has been delayed but we expect that it will take place within the next few weeks. As I said on 9th April, we are reviewing all aspects of the project before authorising the next phase of development.
    Mr. Whitehead: In carrying out that review, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to make perfectly clear that Her Majesty's Government would not tolerate the moves which appear to be contemplated by the German Government of seeking an alternative engine for the aircraft? It has been suggested that the General Electric YJ101 turbojet might be put into the aeroplane instead of the RB119—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a statement, not a question.
    Mr. Whitehead: I was coming on to a question, Mr. Speaker. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity of saying that Her Majesty's Government would not accept that kind of change in the MRCA project?
    Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend should not be too worried about speculations of that kind, which are familiar at this stage of any important project. I certainly give him the undertaking for which he has asked.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the development costs of the aircraft between 1969 and 1972 increased

    187
    by 150 per cent.? Does he agree that 380 of these aircraft would cost £1,400 million? Will; he give the House a firm assurance that he is reviewing this matter with a view to cutting the project and resisting the brass hats in the Civil Service and the right wing members of the Tory Party who are still pursuing daydreams of the cold war?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I must answer "No" to all three questions. I can reassure him that the figures he has mentioned are not familiar to me and that any increase in costs during the period has been due far more to inflation and changes in exchange rates than to any other factors. Of course we must look at the project carefully, and I have given a clear undertaking to do so, but in the proper spirit in which we shall look at all projects in the defence programme.
    Mr. Wiggin: Is not the estimated cost of the aircraft currently running closer to the original estimate than was the case in any previous project of this kind? Barring inflation, is not the increased cost well under 5 per cent. of the original estimate?
    Mr. Rodgers: I agree with the general comment of the hon. Gentleman but would not wish to be committed to his specific figure.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is my hon. Friend aware that rapidly looming up is another TSR2-type decision, which was not a fortunate one for the last Labour Government? Will he bear in mind that a great deal of concern is still felt about the outcome of that last decision, and will he undertake that the scrutiny of the project, particularly with regard to the possible installation of an alternative engine, will be more thorough than it was on the previous occasion?
    Mr. Rodgers: I do not accept the parallel, but to my hon. Friend's question the answer is "Yes".

    Service Conditions and Facilities
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate a study into discrimination in living conditions, catering arrangements, leisure facilities and conditions generally in the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air
    188
    Force as between commissioned officers and other ranks; if he will take steps to remove this discrimination; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Rodgers: I am reluctant to initiate any study unless I can see its purpose clearly. In this case I am not sure that I do.
    Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that many large commercial undertakings are reducing discrimination among their staff so as to increase business efficiency? Does he accept that the same management criteria should operate in the modern, technically-dominated Armed Forces?
    Mr. Rodgers: I entirely accept that the same managerial criteria should apply, but I prefer to think of certain differences which inevitably arise from obligations and responsibilities rather than "discrimination", which is the word used by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Viggers: Will the Government consider the extension to the other two Services of the excellent house-purchase scheme operated by the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Rodgers: That is a different question.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Matherasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has completed his review of defence expenditure.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make an interim statement on his investigation of arms expenditure.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): I have not yet completed my review of defence expenditure, but as I said in the House on 13th May I hope to do so by the autumn. A White Paper will be published as soon as possible thereafter.
    Mr. Mather: Will not the long drawn-out uncertainty about where the axe will fall defeat the objective of any Secretary of State, namely, to inspire confidence in the Armed Forces? Will not the delay affect the credibility of our defence effort, confidence in a Service career and the morale of the security forces?
    Mr. Mason: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would be worried if that were the fact, but I do not think that the morale of the forces is affected. That is certainly not the case in regard to recruiting. To have this rational, thorough, long-term examination of defence expenditure is much wiser than to have three separate cuts in one year, as we experienced in 1973 under the Conservative administration.
    Mr. Allaun: In view of Britain's economic problems, will the Minister aim at cuts of £1,000 million a year rather than a figure of several hundred million pounds which he mentioned previously? Secondly, may I ask him a question to which we have never had a proper answer: why should Britain spend a higher proportion of our gross national product GNP on arms than is spent by any other Western European NATO country except Portugal?
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend does not do me justice and implies that I have misled him. He well knows that I have told him time and again that the starting point of the examination is to try to bring our percentage of defence expenditure related to GNP in line with that of our major European allies. That is the starting point, and it is the NATO statistics which we are using. Secondly, if we achieve that I do not think it will be necessary to go for my hon. Friend's figure as distinct from the manifesto figure of several hundred million pounds a year.
    Mr. Amery: While not wishing to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), may I ask whether the Secretary of State is aware that the uncertainty into which we have plunged is in many ways preferable to decisions which have been taken—for example, with regard to the sale of arms to Chile and South Africa? Is he further aware that many of us would be content for the defence review to be prolonged until there is a General Election or even a national Government?
    Mr. Mason: It is interesting to see the growth of the gnus and to observe that the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and his hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) are joining forces. The right hon. Gentleman should do his homework much more thoroughly. He is getting lazy in his old
    190
    age. The Chilean frigates and Oberons are going, and no contracts were cancelled with Chile. Those which are subject to cancellation are being negotiated.
    Mr. Fernyhough: In undertaking a review, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Americans have just negotiated a new agreement with the Germans on the offset costs of American forces stationed in Germany? As Germany has never yet in any single year since the Paris Treaty was signed met her obligations in respect of offset costs to Britain, will my right hon. Friend see that Germany now pays up?
    Mr. Mason: The Germans are honouring the agreement which has been established since 1971. It has five years to go and is a different agreement from the burden-sharing agreement which the Americans were trying to establish. I am sorry, but it is not my intention to interfere with that agreement at this moment of time.

    Harrier Aircraft
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what future plans he has for the Harrier.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Brynmor John): The Harrier is currently giving very satisfactory service with the Royal Air Force. Earlier aircraft are being fitted with more powerful engines and other improvements are planned including the fitting of advanced laser ranger equipment. In the longer term we are continuing to study possible further development of the aircraft.
    Mr. Adley: Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that the Labour Government are not considering a TSR2 solution for the Harrier? Will he further say whether the Labour Government and the Labour Party have any political reasons for not pushing ahead as fast as possible with an attempt to sell the Harrier to the Government of China?
    Mr. John: Since the TSR2 never flew—
    Mr. Churchill: Oh, yes, it did.
    Mr. John: It never flew operationally.
    Mr. Churchill: Whose fault was that?
    Mr. John: I marvel at the eloquence of sedentary Conservative Members. If they were as witty on their feet they would be a credit to the House. The Harrier is operational. It is giving the Royal Air Force valuable service. In regard to defence sales I am sure that any legitimate requests will be taken into account.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Has the Minister made a detailed analysis of the export potential of the maritime Harrier if a few were ordered for the Royal Navy?
    Mr. John: The maritime Harrier is another question, which is being studied separately.

    Royal Navy Hydrographic Service
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure in his review of defence expenditure, that the requirements of the Royal Navy's hydrographic service are adequately met.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): As I explained to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Archer) on 3rd May, 1974, the requirements of the Royal Navy's hydrographic service, the importance of which is fully recognised, are being considered as part of the review of defence expenditure.—[Vol. 872, c. 556–7.]
    Miss Fookes: Does not the Minister realise that that is what I am afraid of? Will he recognise that this service should be strengthened rather than weakened?
    Mr. Judd: The increased size of vessels and new shipping patterns present new problems for the hydrographer. But these involve questions of priority—and that is, of course, exactly what the defence review is all about.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make an official visit to the units of the British Army doing duty at the Maze prison, Long Kesh.
    Mr. Mason: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Dalyell: Since we insist on running what is, after all, a major barbed
    192
    wire prisoner-of-war camp, is there not a moral obligation on a senior Cabinet Minister to find out for himself what it is all about? If my right hon. Friend can go to Lossiemouth and make other worthy visits, surely he should go on this awkward visit. Some of us, having visited Long Kesh, at least understand why people are driven to commit outrages of which we do not approve—[Interruption.] You have not been there. Go and see what is going on.
    Mr. Mason: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that the next time I visit Belfast or Northern Ireland in general I shall try to take Long Kesh into my itinerary. I should advise my hon. Friend, however, that there are some moral obligations on the people of Northern Ireland too. A situation has been created in which there are large numbers of people—terrorists, bombers and murderers—in Long Kesh, and that is the necessity for Long Kesh.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of British troops in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about operations in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Mason: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 25th June.
    Mr. Mitchell: What is the estimated cost of maintaining the Army in Northern Ireland? Is my right hon. Friend aware that on several occasions he has said we can have a major reduction in our defence expenditure only if we reduce our commitments? Will he look at Northern Ireland as a commitment which he might reduce?
    Mr. Mason: I am speaking off the cuff, but I think that the total cost is £33 million a year.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is it still the objective of the Government to alter the time-lag between emergency tours in Northern Ireland for infantry battalions to 12 months, and if so what progress is being made regarding this?
    Mr. Mason: I can inform the House that it is our intention to work to do what the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but that we cannot do this in the meantime, because of the persisting levels of violence. If we can encourage more people to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment and take over some of the peace and part-time military rôles, we can lower the unit levels and thus give a longer respite between tours.
    Mr. Dalyell: When in 300 years have English and Scottish troops ever had any success in Ireland?
    Mr. Mason: I would have thought that the Scottish units there acquit themselves well and are having great success against terrorists and bombers, particular proxy bombers. If I were my hon. Friend I would go out of my way to praise some of those young men who in their difficult security rôle, acting as civilian police, are standing up to the arduous conditions extremely well.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members on his back benches care about finance only in unlikely situations regarding defence, and that they do not otherwise care a hoot about finance?
    Mr. Mason: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friends and other Members of the House have a right to express their concern. [Interruption.] it is their democratic right to express that concern in this House and it is just as right that hon. Gentlemen should understand my hon. Friend's point of view as that they have to listen to the hon. Gentleman's point of view.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope the House knows that in my remarks I was not criticising the troops themselves.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Defence what approximate proportion of British troops in Northern Ireland are engaged upon controlling the frontier with the Republic.
    Mr. Mason: In broad terms, five of the 15 units which are there now have areas which include parts of the border. As I told the hon. Member on 21st May,
    194
    the General Officer Commanding allocates the forces under his command taking into account all the operational factors involved.
    Mr. Marten: Would it not ease the military burden if suitable sectors of the frontier were totally closed, in agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman is worrying this bone persistently week after week. I have tried to explain to him that there are 300 miles of border and 280 crossing points and that it is extremely difficult to patrol all of it. With infantry and helicopter patrols, however, we are managing to patrol most of it fairly successfully. I think that with the increasing co-operation that is now coming from the South we may have greater success still. As I have told the hon. Gentleman previously, it is not possible to build a Berlin Wall between the North and the South of Ireland.
    Mr. Bradford: Is the Minister aware that a significant number of Ulstermen would involve themselves readily in border patrols but are excluded because they belong to certain religious orders and because they have in the past belonged to certain special constabulary units?
    Mr. Mason: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is aware of that and I am aware of it too. But I must leave matters of that kind to the GOC who is in charge of operations. The hon. Member may also appeal for more people to join the RUC and the UDR. If that happened we should be able to withdraw our troops from Ireland more quickly.
    Mr. Churchill: The Israelis have a border with their Arab neighbours rather longer than the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. With forces smaller than those which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated are at present patrolling the border of Northern Ireland, the Israelis are able to ensure control of their border far more effectively. Will the Minister reconsider the situation in view of the 280 crossing points to which he referred? Is he really satisfied that with so many crossing points lie is able to control what is coming across the border from the Republic?
    Mr. Mason: No, I am satisfied that we cannot completely and successfully control the 280 points with the forces that we have there and the number of Irishmen who are prepared to help. That happens to be a fact. We must do the best in the situation. I thought that the analogy with the Israelis was ridiculous.
    Mr. Whitehead: Would not a much better solution than any of those proposed so far from the Opposition side of the House be to have joint patrols with the army of the Republic and the Gardai as soon as that can be arranged?
    Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am hoping that much more of this will happen. My hon. Friend must have heard me indicate earlier that this co-operation is forthcoming and that the police of Southern Ireland are now co-operating much more than they were previously. It would be a good cooperative step forward if there could be joint patrols.
    Sir John Hall: Does the Minister agree that the great demand for troops in Northern Ireland is leading to armoured units being employed as infantry, with great detriment to their training, which is likely to make it impossible for them to carry out their NATO rôle? Will he do something to offset the damage that is now being caused?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the more the operation in Northern Ireland continues, calling upon 15,000 troops at one time, the more it is bound to affect their training and their effectiveness in NATO and the British Army of the Rhine. But until the level of terrorism allows, it will not be possible for us to withdraw the troops.

    West Germany
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to visit defence establishments in West Germany.
    Mr. Mason: I hope to be able to do so before very long, but I have no immediate plans for a visit.
    Mr. Rooker: When my right hon. Friend visits West Germany, will he have talks with his West German counterpart and find out why that gentleman has been able to give in West Germany figures, of the cost of the MRCA which we in
    196
    this country have not been able to obtain?
    Mr. Mason: I have been to Bonn and I have met my counterpart there, Mr. Leber, the West German Defence Minister. We discussed MRCA. The Germans are backing it just as strongly as we are. No figures have been officially released by the West German Government. There are lobbies operating in West Germany and I would ask my hon. Friend to treat figures with some reserve and caution.
    Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reasons for not always divulging figures flow from the fact that he considers that such a course is best in the national interest? Might not this argument equally have applied some weeks ago to Concorde?
    Mr. Mason: Concorde is a civil aviation aircraft for which I am not responsible. I have some responsibility for MRCA.

    Scotland
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to visit defence establishments in Scotland.
    Mr. Mason: I recently visited RAF Lossiemouth and I hope to visit other defence establishments in Scotland in due course, although I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern in Scotland about the recent mischievous and highly dangerous activity of Soviet naval vessels operating close beside oil rigs? What reply have the Government received to their protests in this matter, and have they received an assurance that it will not happen again?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman must know that Lossiemouth and Kinloss in particular are playing a very intent operational rôle in the surveillance of the coastline and the seas to which he referred. Therefore, watches are kept and records are made of incursions by the Soviet naval fleet and by these trawlers with their technical equipment. We have studies in hand on how best we might be able to combat most of the offshore activities of alien forces.
    Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance on the future of Rosyth Dockyard, which although not in my constituency employs a lot of my constituents? Does he appreciate that if there were a separate Scottish Government, under the proposals of the Scottish National Party Rosyth, employing over 6,000 people, would be redundant?
    Mr. Mason: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that point to my attention. I am not aware that there is any danger to Rosyth. If my hon. Friend has any other worries or concerns and will let me know, I will look into them and write to him in due course.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I assure the Minister that an independent Scottish Government would need all the conventional bases that we have in Scotland, although they would not for one moment put up with the base on the River Clyde beside the industrial population of Scotland. As the right hon. Gentleman so recently visited my constituency, may I ask whether he drew any conclusions about the housing situation for the personnel at the two bases and the number of separated families and whether there is any intention of adding to the stock of RAF houses to solve the problem?
    Mr. Mason: I am sorry that I am not fully aware of or conversant with the problem to which the hon. Lady refers. It did not come before me. I spent a whole day in Lossiemouth and at the RAF station to which she referred, but that problem was not presented to me. Nevertheless, as she has raised it I will look into it.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give the House any information on the recent incident when a trawler was reported to be photographing one of our oil rigs? How soon will it be before we can make sure that such incidents as that described in the Press will not occur again?
    Mr. Mason: I can only generally indicate to the right hon. Gentleman that it was Soviet trawler activity that breached the safety regulations by going too near the rig and taking photographs. As I indicated earlier, we have studies in hand on how best to look at what is a major exercise because of the increasing dangers to rigs and pipelines in the North Sea.

    Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards MRCA in view of the fact that its costs are rising as expressed in the resolution signed by 60 members of the German Bundestag.
    Mr. William Rodgers: I would like to help my hon. Friend but I regret that I know nothing of the resolution which he describes.
    Mr. Cook: I shall take the earliest opportunity of sending my hon. Friend a copy. When he receives and reads it he will realise that the figure given in the statement indicates that the unit cost of the MRCA has increased by 100 per cent. While I appreciate the difficulty of asking my hon. Friend to comment on that figure, may I ask him to confirm that the figure of increase in unit costs of 50 per cent. given to the House by the Expenditure Committee in February is correct? Secondly, will he confirm whether figures have been given by the German Bundestag Budgetary Committee on MRCA unit costs? If such figures have been given, does my hon. Friend accept that so long as our Governments are involved in joint ventures our legislatures are entitled to equal access to financial costs?
    Mr. Rodgers: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said at the end of his supplementary question. It is right that Parliament should know any information which is passed to the Parliaments of either Germany or Italy. We have no reason to believe that any thin information has been given officially to any other parliamentary body, but we are endeavouring to discover whether there is any information of a kind that could be released by mutual agreement.
    Mr. Marten: Is it not true that at this stage of the development of almost any aircraft, be it civil or military, a great number of bogus figures are floated around by rivals who want to snatch the contract?
    Mr. Rodgers: I think that is right. The figures mentioned today show great variations. There are also variations in prices between flyaway, programme, systems and life cycle costs. It is a very complicated equation.
    Mr. Tinn: I accept what my hon. Friend said about the difficulties of comparing figures. Will he confirm that on all the evidence available to us this aircraft represents a much better buy in terms of the capability that it offers than anything we could obtain elsewhere?
    Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend puts it very well. I would not wish to attempt to improve upon what he said.

    NATO Nuclear Planning Group
    Mr. Alan Lee Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with existing procedures and arrangements in the NATO nuclear planning group; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. The Nuclear Planning Group is the principal NATO forum for the study and evaluation of nuclear policy questions of interest to the Alliance. Planning and consultation takes place both at official level and at the biannual ministerial meetings of the group, when policy plans, programmes and procedures for the possible use of nuclear weapons are established and reviewed. I recently attended the fifteenth ministerial meeting held in Bergen on 11th and 12th June.
    Mr. Williams: Discussion is going on in the Pentagon about counter-force, counter-city strategy. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that in his view that is in no way damaging to the European element of NATO?
    Mr. Mason: I certainly give that assurance to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I praise the doctrine in the new strategy. It is in keeping with flexible response. The Americans can now develop a new targeting policy on counter-force—that is, against military targets as distinct from the major umbrella—as well as counter-city strategy.

    Nuclear Submarines (Operating Procedure)
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his intention to authorise any new safety procedures on Polaris nuclear submarines following the recent court hearings when the Captain of HMS "Renown" was found to have hazarded his vessel.
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the standard operating procedures for the manoeuvring of nuclear submarines following the outcome of a recent court-martial at Rosyth.
    Mr. Judd: The court martial found that the accident was due to negligence and not to any defects in the operating or safety procedures.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that this was a serious incident because, by comparison, a nuclear accident would make Flixborough look trivial? Is the real answer not secret underground tests at Nevada but rather the removal of Polaris bases? Why cannot the Secretary of State accept the official Labour Party policy on this matter?
    Mr. Judd: There was no risk to the public or to the crew. There was no damage to the nuclear reactor. The reference to Holy Loch in the Labour Party's manifesto means what it says. It makes no reference to a unilateral demand for the removal of the base but refers to such removal as a first step to be taken in the context of multilateral disarmament negotiations. As my right hon. Friend made clear, that remains the Government's position.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the Minister realise that when any commanding officer or ex-commanding officer reads of somebody hitting the putty, he immediately thinks, "There but for the grace of God …"? Will the hon. Gentleman explain that there are good reasons for these large ships, after refit, carrying out trials in relatively shallow waters, that it is an extremely difficult job to avoid the bottom sometimes and that this was therefore a relatively trivial incident?
    Mr. Judd: I am sure that the whole House will be pleased that the grace of God has gone with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I am sure we also accept his observations about trials of this kind.
    Mr. Lee: Does my hon. Friend agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), and will he indicate just how great the potential hazard is? Does he not also agree that the accident could have been

    201
    much more serious and that a nuclear hazard could have been involved?
    Mr. Judd: I can only repeat what I said earlier: that there was no risk to the public or to the crew and no damage to the nuclear reactor.
    Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Scotland as a whole are extremely pleased to have the Royal Navy stationed in West Scotland and hope that it will stay there a long time?
    Mr. Judd: I am always doubtful whether the hon. Gentleman can speak with authority for the people of Scotland, but I note what he says.
    Mr. Baxter: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there should be a plebiscite in Scotland as to whether the people of Scotland agree with the view of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) with regard to the siting of Polaris submarines in Scotland? I have a different opinion from him on this matter, but I would like the question to be tested by a poll of the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Judd: On the whole issue of government, and indeed on defence policy as part of government, the people of Scotland will have an opportunity to express their views in a General Election in due course.

    Tyneham, Dorset
    Mr. MacFarlaneasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he can now say if he intends to implement the Nugent Committee's recommendation to return the village of Tyneham to the people of Dorset.
    Mr. William Rodgers: We are still considering the Nugent Committee's proposals.
    Mr. MacFarlane: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his somewhat terse reply. I declare by interest as a member of the National Trust. Is there any need for the retention of this village in any military capacity? Is there nothing that the Minister and his Department can do to hasten the return of the village to the people of Dorset?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am anxious that we reach conclusions and publish soon the
    202
    Nugent Committee's proposals which will cover the point the hon. Gentleman has raised. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has indicated to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King), in whose constituency the village of Tyne-ham is situated, that he hopes we shall have a debate on the Nugent proposals before the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is the Minister aware that there is overwhelming opposition in my constituency about proposals that the range should be transferred from Lulworth to Castlemartin? Is he aware of the motion on the Order Paper in the last Parliament, signed by the present Secretary of State for Wales and many other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen? Is he further aware of the large number of houses standing empty pending a decision, and will he accelerate a decision as much as he can?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of all the considerations that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and I confirm that we shall announce to the House very soon the conclusions of our review.

    NATO (British Contribution)
    Mr. Dixonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the warning which he gave in Brussels on 13th June about reductions in British contributions to NATO.
    Mr. Mason: At the recent NATO meetings in Brussels I explained to my ministerial colleagues, as I did to this House in the defence debate on 13th May, that the defence review which I have initiated is a serious and comprehensive one. I also made it clear that no decisions have yet been made and that there will be full consultation with our allies wherever their interests are involved.
    Mr. Dixon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the proposition that rather than try to persuade our European allies that we should reduce our percentage of the gross national product spent on defence to their level we might persuade them to increase to our level the percentage of their gross national product so applied?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman has a point which is well understood, but on absolute levels of spending the French and the Germans spend more than we do. In our present economic plight—this is understood absolutely and clearly in NATO circles—we cannot possibly afford to carry this heavy burden of defence expenditure. It is essential as quickly as possible to be able to divert some of the defence budget to industries that are export-led growth industries and to plough some of the money into investment in industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: It was reported from Brussels when the right hon. Gentleman held talks there that he was to give his conclusions by August and was to have further talks then, but reference has been made to the White Paper being ready in the autumn. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he will be entering again on consultations on his conclusions with the NATO countries before the White Paper is ready?
    Mr. Mason: I shall try, on present timing, to talk to our NATO allies before the White Paper is published because I believe in genuine consultation and in trying to give two months' notice. Mr. Vredeling, the Dutch Minister, gave only four weeks' notice of his cuts and was embarrassed in the NATO Council. Therefore it is my aim to carry out genuine consultations; but only if the papers are prepared and Ministers see them before the House rises—and that is still in doubt—will I be able to carry out the timetable I have mentioned.

    Singapore and Malaysia
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the future of the British military commitment to the ANZUK Force in Singapore and Malaysia.
    Mr. Mason: I refer the hon. Member to my announcement on 21st March that I had set in hand a defence review. All our commitments and capabilities are being carefully examined. I have nothing to add at this stage.
    Mr. Latham: Has the Secretary of State received any request from Lee Kuan Yew that the existing five-Power agreement should be abrogated?
    Mr. Mason: As the hon. Gentleman might know, my hon. Friend the Minister of State has already been on the first round of talks to the five-Power defence agreement countries with a view to ascertaining their views, and nothing more than that. I have already met the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, and he has let me know what he feels about our presence there. I shall take all these matters into consideration when we consider our review.
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the withdrawal of the RAF units from Singapore.
    Mr. John: No decision about withdrawing the RAF units in Singapore has been made, pending the outcome of the defence review. Two helicopters, which are surplus to present requirements there, are being redeployed to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Aitken: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the withdrawal of these RAF helicopters from Singapore is resulting in a shabby deal for the existing civilian coastguard helicopter service operating from RAF Manston? Is he satisfied that it is right that the taxpayer should have to pay twice as much money for the search and rescue service simply because the Government have withdrawn helicopters from Singapore and have nowhere else to put them?
    Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman's figures are widely exaggerated in regard to the cost to the taxpayer. I am satisfied that there is no significant difference to the taxpayer in the present redeployment. The use of Wessex helicopters in search and rescue operations will lead to a significant improvement in the service in this regard.

    BAOR (Television Facilities)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Minister of Defence whether he is now able to give a firm undertaking to provide a system for transmitting British television programmes to the British Forces and their families in Germany; and when he expects work to start.
    Mr. William Rodgers: I cannot at present add to the Written Answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary

    205
    of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force to the hon. Member on 22nd May.—[Vol. 874, c. 200.]
    Mr. Blaker: Will the Minister of State confirm that he is aware of the feasibility study carried out by the Conservative Government into this project, which showed that it could be put into effect? Does he agree that this is one of the most important projects that one could imagine from the point of view of the morale of our forces in Germany, especially at a time when so many of the men are doing emergency tours in Northern Ireland? Will he see whether at least a start can be made on this project this year?
    Mr. Rodgers: Yes, indeed. I know the hon. Gentleman's close personal interest in this matter. I am aware of the discussions and investigations which took place last year. I entirely agree that we should try to bring them to fruition very soon indeed.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend do what he can to facilitate this service, because the job that is being done by the Royal Air Force in Germany is an extremely good one? The 1,000 people who visited RAF Gatow on Sunday showed that the Berliners certainly admired and understood the great contribution being made to their safety by the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be much appreciated.

  SOCIAL CONTRACT
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will seek a meeting with the TUC to discuss progress made in the implementation of the social compact.
  Mr. MacGregorasked the Prime Minister what recent meetings he has held with the leaders of the TUC.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have had no recent meetings with the TUC on specific subjects and no such meetings are planned at present but, as I have already announced, I shall be taking the chair at the meeting of the NEDC tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment
  206
  and other Ministers concerned have been holding detailed discussions with the TUC on the implementation of the social contract.
  Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his recent statements about the dangers inherent in the threshold agreements will be widely welcomed by those who want to tackle inflation? In view of those statements, however, can he be a little more specific on this point and about what will happen at the end of phase 3? Will he consider making a television broadcast indicating to the British people the extreme seriousness of the economic problems that we are now facing and the importance of implementing in full, in the spirit and in the letter, the social compact with the trade unions?
  The Prime Minister: While thresholds have not worked out as intended, it is certainly a fact that both the then Government and the then Opposition were in favour of introducing them as a protection. What has happened is that the hopes about world commodity price levels failed to be realised after thresholds were introduced, in a bit of a gamble, by the previous Government last year. The threshold issue raises many difficulties. There will be discussions in the post-stage 3 situation. Of course, the problem is that very many union-employer agreements incorporate thresholds and some do not. But the TUC has made clear—I think that this will be welcomed—that where there have been thresholds one does not get one's thresholds a second time in a subsequent wage agreement.
  Mr. MacGregor: In view of the Prime Minister's reference over the weekend to the difficulties of even maintaining living standards, when he takes part in these consultations, particularly with the TUC, will he investigate the possibility of using percentage thresholds as the norm for general increases in wages for everyone, as the National Economic Review has suggested, rather than as an addition on top, as the best means of protecting the majority of people from excessive wage rises and of offering some prospect of a slowing-down of the rise in prices?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the TUC has said that it attaches at this time, in the situation that I was describing, more importance to maintaining protection against

  207
  increased prices than it does to going for wage increases having no relationship to those prices.
  Mr. John Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the myth spread abroad that wages rise and then prices rise as a result has now been completely destroyed? Will he also accept that we now have a situation in which prices rise first and, therefore, wages follow them? What is his real belief about this curious state of affairs? What is the next stage of play after that? Do we not have to control prices, in effect, to control wages?
  The Prime Minister: I dealt with that matter at considerable length in the speech I made on Sunday. I refer my hon. Friend to that speech. A fair and unbiased approach to this problem would be that over the last year or two it has been prices which have set the pace—partly overseas prices, and partly matters such as the Housing Finance Act and things of that kind. But the danger for 1975 and 1976 is the response of wages to those price levels and the need—as I have said; it was the main point I was urging—for us and other countries to tackle the price question as a matter of urgency, so that we do not get this catch-as-catch-can spiral.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: The whole House will be indebted to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) for drawing attention to the rate of inflation. Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that such is the current rate of inflation in costs to local authorities and such is the increase in the wage bill—as I know from the Socialist-controlled Staffordshire County Council—that unless there is some check or further help from central Government there will be increased precepts in September?
  The Prime Minister: That is, of course, an important part of a still wider national problem. As the right hon. Member said, there have been increases in wage bills. As a result of local government reform—perhaps this would have happened under any local government reform—there have also been fairly considerable increases in the salaries of some of the principal officers of those areas concerned. However that may be, the total burden falling on the rates is exactly as it was planned by the Con
  208
  servative Government. Recent arguments have been about the distribution of that burden in different areas.

  CBI (MEETING)
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he plans to have further talks with the CBI.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) on 27th June.—[Vol. 875, c. 512.]
  Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend next meets the CBI, should he not tell it not to smack its lips in anticipation of running "Great Britain Limited", because the only people who are now calling for a grand coalition are a bunch of Tory drop-outs? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest service he could render the country is to send the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), with all his Napoleonic illusions, to the Isle of Elba, provided he takes with him the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to travel round the Mediterranean selling hospitals?
  The Prime Minister: Since Napoleon came back from Elba perhaps St. Helena might have been a better suggestion. As I shall be meeting some members of the CBI at the NEDC meeting tomorrow I am not sure that the form of words my hon. Friend seeks to put into my mouth would be appropriate to the meeting, but I shall consider what he said with the greatest of care—and, of course, discretion. My experience of the CBI, which I am sure is shared by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, is that I have never regarded it as a lip-smacking organisation—quite the contrary.
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: If it were suggested by the CBI or TUC that the Prime Minister should co-operate in a Government of national unity, what would be his attitude?
  Hon. Members: No.
  The Prime Minister: I dealt with this matter at some length at the weekend. If it were to be a means by which either the Liberal Party or the Conservative

  209
  Party were to try to maximise votes for themselves, the whole country would refuse to be taken in by such a proposition.
  Mr. Grimond: Whom does the Prime Minister consult when he wants to know the views of small businesses and shopkeepers? Is he aware that to many of us the CBI is exclusively worried about the future nationalisation of big business but that there are many small businesses suffering from troubles which demand the attention of the Government and the House and which have existed for some years?
  The Prime Minister: That is a fair point which has been dealt with a few times recently at Question Time. I would not entirely agree that the CBI thinks only of big business. Many of its members who come to the quarterly meeting represent a large number of small firms. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a great deal of feverish activity has been whipped up about the anxieties of certain large firms and that far too little attention has been paid to small firms, many of whom took a heavy beating during the three-day week and found it difficult to recover. It is the duty of all of us to think how our policies can be oriented to help some of those small firms to expand their activities.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Newry.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 13th June.—[Vol. 874, c. 1822.]
  Mr. Dalyell: In relation to the historic problems of Ireland, is there not a distinction between on the one hand running away from a nasty situation in a manner which both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would regard as dishonourable and on the other hand recognising the brutal reality that a military presence by us is counter-productive to the solution of the problem?
  The Prime Minister: I do not agree with my hon. Friend on this, as I made clear in the debate on Northern Ireland. There were some hon. Members who took the view of my hon. Friend in that
  210
  debate, but I think the general view to emerge from that serious and important discussion a few weeks ago was that we must first seek a political solution and then consider what are the military implications of that solution.
  My hon. Friend the Secretary of State is discussing these matters with a very open mind, as he told the House, with the main parties and the other interests in Northern Ireland. I believe that to take the simplistic line of pulling out the troops before there is a really serious approach and preferably, as we have all said, a Northern Ireland solution to the problem which guarantees the rights of minorities would aggravate the situation and could lead to a bloodbath.

  GOVERNMENT MINISTERS (SECURITY)
  Mr. Whiteheadasked the Prime Minister if he remains satisfied with the security arrangements for Her Majesty's Ministers.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Prime Minister answers this Question, will he inform the House whether it refers to the safety or to the reliability of Her Majesty's Ministers?
  The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member makes that point in view of the problems of the past years. I interpreted the Question in the way it was put to me, and the answer is: Yes, Sir, all appropriate arrangements continue to be made.
  Mr. Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a most satisfactory answer and that the Question was put down on the day of the bomb outrage a fortnight ago? Is he aware that the House should not yield to some hysterical suggestions that we should have much tighter security arrangements? The safest place for Her Majesty's Ministers and for all hon. Members is in a free Parliament open to the public. The only danger which could befall Ministers short of being in a coalition with the parties on the Opposition benches, is to be in a Parliament or Whitehall which was turned into an armed camp.
  The Prime Minister: We have always found the House of Commons a safe place for democratic debate. We had some gas bombs on one occasion, but in the wider sense I agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] It did not happen under the present Government, not yet anyway. The security arrangements for Ministers are best left to those responsible for them and are better not discussed in detail. We have largely followed the improvements introduced by the last Government which were wise and which were certainly not based on panic or on preventing Ministers from doing their democratic duty both within and outside this House. Access to this House is a matter being considered by the Select Committee on Services.
  Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a right hon. Member to call into question the loyalty of Members on the Labour benches who have all taken the oath of loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think I detect anything for the Chair in what has happened today.
  Mr. Faulds: Did you not hear what he said?
  Mr. Peyton: None of us would wish any harm to befall Her Majesty's present Ministers, but will the Prime Minister, arising out of his earlier answer, reflect upon the fact that very few of us are yet satisfied that appropriate arrangements have been made to defend the country from Her Majesty's present Ministers?
  The Prime Minister: I greatly welcome the spirit in which that question was put and the great solicitude the right hon. Gentleman has shown. I can assure him that none of Her Majesty's Ministers at this time will, like himself, who was a Minister a few months ago, find themselves on the back or front Opposition benches
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Wait and see.
  Mr. McNamara: Referring back to the answers to the last two questions, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is Government policy to assert power sharing, the Irish dimension and adequate policing of the no-go areas as a prerequisite of any solution to the Northern Ireland problem?
  The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend's question relates principally to the security of the team of Northern Ireland Ministers, whose position, like that of those in the previous Government, the whole House understands and sympathises with. My hon. Friend raises a rather wider issue. As he knows, my right hon. Friend is conducting talks and hopes to make a statement shortly.
  Mr. Rost: Will the Prime Minister confirm that there is no truth in the rumour that he is relaxing the security surrounding the Secretary of State for Industry, in the hope that someone might be tempted to kidnap him?

GRANGEMOUTH DOCKS (EXPLOSION)
Mr. Harry Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the explosion in the docks at Grangemouth.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): At about 9 o'clock on Sunday night, 30th June, an explosion and fire occurred on board the small motor vessel "Milli" which was discharging a cargo of mixed butylenes, which are liquefied petroleum gases, at the British Petroleum Company's tanker terminal in Grangemouth Docks. The fire and explosion occurred in the ship's pump room. The Norwegian master of the vessel, who, it is believed, had visited the pump room to investigate why the rate of pumping was slow, was killed.
The fire in the vessel, which is Danish owned and registered in Cyprus and built for the purpose of transporting liquefied petroleum gas, was extinguished in about an hour.
The windows of a mess room on the quayside were broken but there was no structural or fire damage to quayside buildings. The dock was temporarily closed but, I understand, is now reopened, although ships are being kept away from the berth where the tanker is tied up.
The district inspector of factories is carrying out an investigation into the occurrence and a senior specialist chemical inspector from headquarters with particular knowledge of liquefied petroleum

213
gas problems has been flown to Scotland to assist him.
There is a "major incidents plan" for the Grangemouth complex which was prepared by the petrochemical companies in conjunction with the Factory Inspectorate, the fire brigade and the police.
This procedure was not implemented as the occurrence was not considered a major incident by the emergency services.
As hon. Members will know from my statement in the House on Thursday concerning the Flixborough inquiry, I have decided to set up an expert committee to begin work on hazards arising from modern chemical processes. The danger which might arise from incidents such as these in our docks with possible repercussions on petrochemical installations in the vicinity is a matter which the committee of experts will be considering.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has also instituted a statutory preliminary inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 into this incident.
Mr. Ewing: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very comprehensive statement on this serious incident. I also take this opportunity to express the sympathy of my constituents with the family of the Norwegian master of the vessel.
In the inquiry that is to take place, will the Department look for similarities between this explosion and the recent explosion of much more serious proportions at Flixborough? Will my right hon. Friend also call for a report on another recent incident in my constituuency, the fire which caused over £1 million-worth of damage at Scottish Tar Distillers in Falkirk? Running through all three incidents there appears to be a similar thread, in as much as the cause appears to be leakage. If that is established, will my right hon. Friend ask those responsible to put in hand work towards designing a much safer and more suitable coupling which could be used in connecting the hosepipes necessary to discharge such highly explosive and inflammable cargoes?
Will my right hon. Friend take those points on board in the inquiry?
Mr. Foot: I join my hon. Friend in expressing sympathy with the family of
214
the Norwegian master of the vessel who was killed.
I do not think it would be appropriate for me to suggest that there was any similarity between the incident and what occurred at Falkirk or Flixborough, without having the investigations carried out. We shall do everything we can on the expert committee to which I have referred and under the operations of the Health and Safety Commission, when it is established, to ensure that all the possibilities that my hon. Friend has raised are properly and speedily investigated.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, associate the Opposition side of the House with the expressions of sympathy with the family of the master of the vessel who lost his life.
I also pay tribute to the efficiency of the fire services in the Central Area Fire Brigade in Scotland for the speedy way in which they brought the fire under control. It is not only an area of Scotland which is well served by the fire services of the Central Area but one in which firms have shown particular awareness of the risks, and have their own industrial fire brigades. It is an area of high risk, with the chemical industry and so on. Were any of the industrial fire brigades in the area involved operationally, or were they alerted for action in the event of the fire becoming more serious?
Mr. Foot: As I said in my reply, there is a major incidents plan for dealing with such dangers, and it would have been used if the extent of the danger had been such that the plan required to be put into operation. However, it was the judgment of those on the spot that that was not necessary. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the fire was most speedily brought under control, and we are all grateful for that.
Mr. Grimond: On behalf of my colleagues, may I ask to be associated with the sympathy which has been expressed to the relatives of the master who so tragically lost his life?
Will the committee to which the Secretary of State referred, which was set up last week, examine only the danger of chemical and oil-based chemical explosions and fires, or will it take into

215
account the general dangers of oil, oil-related industries and gas, particularly in areas in which there are not very sophisticated fire brigades?
Mr. Foot: It will take account of major hazards—certainly the matters that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. John Ellis: If anything significant turns up that might be useful for the Flixborough inquiry, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the inspectors report it to that inquiry? I note that the ship was registered in Cyprus. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Union of Seamen has been saying for a considerable time that conditions are far from the best on board such ships? It is usually the Department of Trade that looks into this matter. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Factory Inspectorate has the right to go on board such ships, not only after an explosion but without waiting for an explosion?
Mr. Foot: If any information relevant to the other inquiry comes out of this inquiry, we shall certainly pass it on, although I am doubtful whether that would be the case. It is impossible to judge at present.
My hon. Friend's second question is a most important aspect of the matter, which is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. We are not satisfied with the regulations governing not the docks in this country but ships that come to them. The British Government have for a long time been seeking an ILO convention which would cover the matter more successfully. We are still striving to get it, and shall strive all the more strongly as a result of the incident, which has had a parallel in some other incidents of which my hon. Friend is well aware.

GLASGOW (BLIND WORKSHOP FIRE)
Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the fire which took place in the Blind Craft workshop in Glasgow in which a fatality occurred.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): A call was received at Glasgow Fire Brigade headquarters at 1.32 p.m. on Monday 1st July to a fire which had broken out shortly after lunch time at the Blind Craft factory in Saracen Street, Possilpark, Glasgow. Twenty fire appliances attended. At the time the appliances arrived about 230 people had been safely evacuated from the building, which was by then well alight on the fifth storey. The fire was brought under control in one hour. I regret to say that the body of a blind male employee was found lying near a door on the fifth storey. The House will wish me to express sympathy with the relatives. I would also join the fire service and the police in congratulating those responsible for the evacuation of the building. They undoubtedly prevented a far worse tragedy. The cause of the fire is being investigated.
A public inquiry will be held under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiries (Scotland) Acts 1895 to 1906.
Mr. Taylor: I offer my sincere congratulations to the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box.
Does the Minister agree that the most remarkable aspect of this tragedy was the efficient way in which the 250 blind and partially sighted workers were evacuated from the building in about three minutes while the fire was raging? Is that not a clear demonstration of the value of fire drills in factories, and particularly in Glasgow, where we have far too many fire tragedies? Will the Minister take a personal interest in ensuring that urgent steps are taken to repair the workshop, which provides such valuable employment to the blind in Glasgow?
Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the compliment which he paid me. I regret that my debut has to be on an occasion such as this. For obvious reasons I think that the precautions taken by the staff have been excellent. They were familiar with fire drill procedures, and I agree that they are perhaps an example to others who are more fortunate in having all their faculties. Any help that can be given and within my responsibility, will be given urgently and sympathetically.
Mr. Craigen: I am grateful for the Minister's statement and I add my

217
sympathy to that which has already been expressed.
I believe that the fire and police authorities acted with commendable speed in the rescue arrangements. I hope that, pending the results of the inquiry into this tragedy, the Minister will authorise an immediate review of the fire prevention arrangements in any workshops where blind or disabled people are working. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance that he will give all possible help to the reconstruction of the Blind Craft centre in Glasgow.
Mr. Brown: I know of the interest that my hon. Friend takes in the Blind Craft factory. He has followed the excellent work that was done by his predecessor. I can give him the assurance that all the regulations were complied with and that the building held a fire certificate. My right hon. Friend will consult his colleagues to ascertain whether there is any need for further advice or information to be given to people who are employed in protected workshops.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I also welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Government Front Bench. I am sorry that his first appearance at the Dispatch Box should be on such a sad occasion.
I join the tribute of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) to the fire brigade, and I emphasise the benefit of fire drills. I know the interest that the Minister takes in these matters and I hope that he may use this occasion to emphasise to everyone in Scotland the benefit of proper fire prevention and fire precaution measures. As this tragedy comes early in the Scottish tourist season, I hope that he will use this opportunity to emphasise to everyone the benefit of such measures when properly carried out.
Mr. Brown: I am sure that there is great public interest in and sympathy with anything associated with blind people. It is unfortunate that yet another life should be lost in a fire, but it will perhaps remind the community of its general responsibility for taking the maximum precautions to prevent any further tragedies in any building of any kind. I shall take advantage of the public's response and sympathy on this occasion.
Mr. Buchanan: I ask my hon. Friend to reinforce the appeal that has been made regarding the protected nature of these workshops. If it is to take a long time to restore or rebuild the workshop, will my hon. Friend undertake to try to find some temporary premises in which these unfortunate unsighted people may be employed?
Mr. Brown: I repeat what I have already said. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall do everything we can to help to restore the building. As far as we know, one floor has been badly damaged and possibly another has been affected. That damage will not mean the loss of employment for the majority of those employed. I can assure my hon. Friend that anything that needs to be done will be done urgently. I know that my hon. Friend is the Member for a constituency near where the factory is sited. I shall get in touch with him and with other hon. Members who have an interest.
Dr. M. S. Miller: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his elevation to his exalted position.
As a fatality occurred on this occasion, is my hon. Friend satisfied that this was an inadvertent disaster? Will he ensure that any lesson which can be drawn from it is made clear in every respect and that any necessary steps will be taken in future to avoid a similar disaster involving people of such drastic incapacity?
Mr. Brown: It would be wrong to make any comment on any detail as there will be a public inquiry. To the best of my knowledge this incident did not happen arising out of the nature of the work carried out in the factory. I think that that answers my hon. Friend. At the moment it appears to be just an unfortunate accident.
Mr. Barry Henderson: I associate myself with the sympathy expressed by my hon. Friends and by Labour hon. Members. I ask the Minister to address himself particularly to the reopening of the workshop's full facilities. Does he confirm that a substantial part of the finance for the operation of the workshop comes from a number of local authorities? In a situation like this it may be that he could use his good

219
offices to get them to meet so that any decision that can be taken can be taken speedily.
Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the workshop is administered by a joint committee that represents almost all the local authorities in Glasgow and the West of Scotland. We have already made contact with them, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do everything possible as quickly as possible to ensure that all the employees are back at work as soon as possible.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, I propose, unless there is any objection, to put together the Questions relating to the four Statutory Instruments.
Motions made, and Questions put forthwith pursuant to the Standing Order (Statutory Instruments),
That the draft Regional Employment Premium (Continuation of Payments) (Winsford) (Amendment) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
That the draft International Development Association (Fourth Replacement: Interim Payments) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
That the draft International Development Association (Fourth Replenishment) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
That the draft Scottish Special Housing Association (Limit of Advances) (Scotland) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry]
Questions agreed to.

ONE-PARENT FAMILIES (FINER COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your guidance on a matter that concerns the whole House. Today the Finer Report on one-parent families has been published after about four years. I am not complaining that there has not been a statement from the Government, although some of my colleagues expected one, but the report itself is not available in the Vote Office. I understand from the Vote Office staff that, although we have the second volume, the first volume, which contains the substance of the report, is
220
unlikely to be here today. A Press conference is being given on the report at this very moment.
This matter highlights the difficulty under which the House has been labouring for some time with regard to printing. I ask you to give this matter some consideration, Mr. Speaker, with a view possibly to preventing a similar occurence. I suggest that when a report of this importance to all hon. Members is published the House should be given notice first.
Mr. Speaker: As I was not informed about this matter earlier I have not had time to go into it. I shall certainly consider it.

AMENDMENT OF SCHOOL- LEAVING AGE BILL
3.49 p.m.
Mr. Clement Freud: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the school-leaving age.
I crave the indulgence of the House as a maiden Ten Minutes Rule speaker. I have never been fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time and to see the right person to bring in a Ten-Minute Bill. I am also grateful for the Private Notice Questions of hon. Members because I understand that Ten-Minute Bills, after the National Anthem, are the fastest way of clearing a public building.
Today and every other day, more than half a million children play truant from school. Today and every other day, a member of the National Association of Schoolmasters reports an assault. This does not take into account the assaults which are not reported, or the many members of other unions who are assaulted—and it is generally recognised that there are many, perhaps too many, unions representing the teachers. Today and every other day, some 5,000 teachers are not at school because of illness, which illness may not be real illness but is probably fear or apprehension about what would happen if they went to school.
My contention is that much of this is the result of the raising of the school-leaving age, and my Bill seeks as a temporary measure to permit young people

221
to leave school before the age of 16 while remaining under the umbrella of the Department of Education and Science. I am not trying to send 11-year-olds down the pits—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear that Government supporters finally appreciate one point.
Raising the school-leaving age to 16 has occupied educationists and parliamentarians since the Spens Report in 1938. It featured in the 1944 Education Act, and it was finally implemented in September 1973. Despite all those years, many of us feel that little real thought was given to the educational benefits which would flow from it. It was generally thought that simply by raising the school-leaving age there would be benefits. Although £125 million was spent on providing additional school rooms and additional buildings, not nearly enough time or thought was devoted to trying to make the syllabus for fifth-year students attractive.
I have received many letters from teachers in my own constituency who are bewildered as to what they should do with these fifth-year students. I had a letter the other day from one teacher who wrote:
"I took my 15-year-olds fishing, and it was a very rewarding exercise. We got on very well. But is this what was intended by the raising of the school-leaving age?"
Mrs. Renée Short: Why not? They may not have been fishing before.
Mr. Freud: I shall come to that in a moment. I am glad that the hon. Lady, from her prone position, has spoken.
In addition, nothing was done to reprogramme, for want of a better word. the approach of the teaching professions in order to change them from a paternalistic attitude to one of mutual respect and understanding.
My Bill proposes to let youths under 16 leave school, subject to certain and very definite controls. I remind the House that the raising of the school-leaving age was never intended to be a sentence without remission. It was a move by an affluent society to share its wealth and its teaching excellence among the youth of the country.
My Bill would allow those who would not benefit from that additional year
222
to go into employment, with day release or some other form of further educational facility, to join the Army, to join a voluntary organisation, or to take up an apprenticeship. I am aware that many apprenticeships do not start until the age of 16. However, there are some which start at 15.
This would be subject to the permission of the local Department of Education and to the express wishes of the youth and his parents, with no complaint from any of the teachers. It would significantly benefit education in a number of ways. It would benefit education by demanding an element of responsibility from a student who, in order to qualify for a younger leaving of school while remaining under the umbrella of the Department, would have to pass a basic school leaving examination. It would benefit by making more room for pupils who wanted to learn—[Interruption.] There are at the moment some 20 to 30 per cent. truants. All that I am doing in seeking to introduce this Bill is in some way to legalise truancy. There is no point in people who have left school trying to get illicit jobs and to get work without a work card, which they are doing at the moment—[Interruption.]
In 1863, before many Government supporters even began to learn manners, an educationist named Shuttleworth said:
"The difficulty is getting people to realise that education and schooling are different things."
That is the crux of my argument.
There are 15-year-olds who are admirably suited to school. But there are many for whom school can do nothing. It is with the latter that my Bill seeks to deal. If a youth of 15 desires to leave school, if his parents want him to leave, if his teachers have no objection, and if the local Department of Employment sees no reason why a few more youths should not be released on to the market, provided that the youth passes an elementary certificate of education he should be allowed to leave his formal schooling.
The purpose of my Bill is not only to remove from the hard-pressed comprehensive school system the truculent and disinterested 15 to 16-year-olds whose boredom leaves to truancy and to violence resulting in fear on the part of the teachers. It is also to give them a chance

223
to find employment and to provide them with a welcome element of responsibility.
I remind the House that the raising of the school-leaving age was never intended to be a punishment. It is very easy for those hon. Members who will oppose my Bill to say that it is a retrogressive step to suggest that the 15-year-olds who will leave school are those who would most benefit from it, and that since no public school boy leaves school before the age of 16, it is wrong of me to be making this proposal.
My Bill may not be welcomed by the Government. Probably it will not be welcomed by the National Union of Teachers, which seems to welcome hardly anything these days. However, it has overwhelming support from teachers, parents and the youths for whom it is intended. I have received a great many letters from responsible teachers and headmasters to that effect.
I hope, therefore, that the House will give me leave to bring in this Bill.
Mr. Kenneth Marks rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) wish to oppose the Bill?
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Marks: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The new battle cry for the Liberals is "One step forward, two steps back", or, since the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) wishes to take us back to 1918, perhaps more than two steps back. Perhaps this is the first fruit of the new coalition, the right-wing Conservative and the retarded Liberal, the black paper Tory and the white napkin Whig. The hon. Gentleman is the official Liberal spokesman on education. It is significant that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who had considerable experience as chairman of an education committee, a progressive education committee, is not in his place today.
I understand that the Leader of the Liberal Party is to speak to his candidates on Friday. According to Miss Beloff in The Observer of 30th June 1974, he intends to emphasise the socially pro-
224
gressive conditions on which the party would insist before joining any coalition? Is this part of his socially progressive package? If it is, it will gain support from that group of the Conservative Party which is to the right of the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
This Bill is similar to the Fisher Act of 56 years ago, in its day a progressive measure. It made education compulsory up to the age of 14 despite objections from employers, some parents and some Members of Parliament. It made provision for day release and other educational opportunities such as the hon. Gentleman has been talking about. But day release and the other opportunities were never implemented because, it was argued, "of the economic situation".
Has the sponsor of this Bill seriously considered what would happen if his Bill were approved? One thing is certain: no son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter of any Member of this House would be leaving school as a result of it. I doubt whether Eton will be arranging a special one-year course for those who want to leave at the age of 14.
Who will leave school? Will it be the toughs, the vandals, the truants, the football rowdies, the break-time smokers, and so on? It might, although the provisions which the hon. Gentleman outlined suggest that they would not be allowed to do so. The fact that these youngsters are most in need of real education, academic, social, and moral, seems not to concern the sponsor. It is another group which will suffer. It will be the group which suffers now from the deficiencies of our educational and social systems—the economically deprived, those with poor home backgrounds, those under pressure to earn money, who are often not the rowdies but the quiet and the subdued, the slow-learning, the children of the single-parent families, the children of uninterested parents. If hon. Members wish to see the people who will be leaving school as a result of this they should go to a streamed secondary school, ask to see the bottom stream of the third form and then look at the children who would be leaving school and entering industry.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not declare an interest when

225
we consider who will employ these children of 14 and 15 years of age.
Mr. John Pardoe: Who mentioned 14?
Mr. Marks: If the hon. Gentleman is now talking about 15, then he has changed his tune in the past couple of days. In the debate on social problems on 1st November he said,
"The position in the hotel industry is that, due to the virtual non-existence of menial staff, hotels are closing down and restaurants are ceasing to function."
The words were "menial jobs". How well that sounds to these young people. I realise that on that occasion the hon. Gentleman was urging the importation of more unskilled foreign labour. As he said,
"it does not matter where the labour comes from."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1973, Vol. 863, c. 375.]
Perhaps in their nostalgia for the Liberal heyday of the 1900s, the 14-year-old boy or girl could be coaxed to enter service and to become the downstairs part of a new "Upstairs, Downstairs" situation.
We are nearing the end of the first full year of the raising of the school-leaving age. Some pupils are restless. Perhaps the most restless now are not those who would be leaving at 14 but those who have taken examinations and who would like to leave school and take a job before the end of July.
There is a strong case for a single school-leaving date, perhaps making it 1st June, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). There is no case at this early date for abandoning the 1972 decision by the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley, which I supported, because of difficulties in the first year. There is truancy and ill-discipline in the schools. This is nothing new in the past twelve months. It is 30 years since an education Act specifically provided for a leaving age of 16. It is 10 years since notice was given to the teachers and the local education authorities that this would be carried out in 1970. Later it was—admittedly by a Labour Government—postponed for two years. There has been
226
ample time for consideration and preparation.
Some authorities, head teachers and teachers have used that time well. Their efforts have been well publicised, encouraged by the schools councils and other bodies. Others have preferred not to think about it, not to work at it, to carry on as if this "evil" day would never arise.
It is seven years since I entered the House from the teaching profession. I know from frequent visits, and from the fact that I am reminded of it by my wife and other colleagues, that teaching has become more difficult in those seven years. I agree that, because of changed attitudes of parents, teachers and pupils, that may well be true.
There have been some improvements, particularly in secondary schools, particularly in facilities and in staffing ratios. We and the Department of Education and Science and the local authorities must ask why some schools in apparently bad conditions continue to maintain good relationships, good standards and reasonable order while taking children of all shades of ability and income, yet others—some of the selective schools among them—do not.
The Bill may have popular support. There has always been strong opposition to educational progress. Support will come from part of industry—not the best part—from those teachers who would prefer to have an easier time, and from some parents, those parents who lack interest in or knowledge of the education of their own children and those who are interested only in the education of their own children and not that of any other children.
But the problems cannot be solved by sweeping them under the carpet of dead-end jobs and spurious arrangements for part-time schools. The answer lies in the schools and with our giving them the support to do the job. I urge the House to reject the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business).
The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 179.

Division No. 63.]

AYES

[4.08 p.m.

Aitken, Jonathan

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

Newton, Tony (Braintree)

Ancram, M.

Freud, Clement

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Awdry, Daniel

Fry, Peter

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Pardoe, John

Banks, Robert

Goodhew, Victor

Pattie, Geoffrey

Berry, Hon. Anthony

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Biffen, John

Gray, Hamish

Prior, Rt. Hn. James

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Redmond, Robert

Bowden, Andrew(Brighton, Kemptown)

Hall, Sir John

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't' gd' ns' re)

Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

Hampson, Dr. Keith

Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

Hawkins, Paul

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Heyhoe, Barney

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)

Buck, Antony

Hunt, John

Sims, Roger

Burden, F. A.

James, David

Skeet, T. H. H.

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Spence, John

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Stanbrook, Ivor

Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

Lawrence, Ivan

Taylor, Edward M. (Gigow, C'cart)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Cormack, Patrick

Le Marchant, Spencer

Trotter, Neville

Costain, A. P.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

Tyler, Paul

Crawshaw, Richard

McCrindle, R. A.

Waddington, David

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Macfarlane, Neil

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. James

MacGregor, John

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Wall, Patrick

Dixon, Piers

Mather, Carol

Wiggin, Jerry

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Mawby, Ray

Winterton, Nicholas

Drayson, Burnaby

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn)

Mills, Peter

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Fidler, Michael

Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

Mr. David Steel and

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mudd, David

Dr. Michael Winstanley.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Duffy, A. E. P.

Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)

Allaun, Frank

Dunn, James A.

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Armstrong, Ernest

Dunnett, Jack

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Edge, Geoff

Judd, Frank

Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)

Kaufman, Gerald

Bates, Alf

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

Kelley, Richard

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Ellis, Tom

Knox, David

Booth, Albert

English, Michael

Lambie, David

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Evans, Fred

Lamond, James

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Latham, Arthur(City of W'minster P'ton)

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Evans, John (Newton)

Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)

Bradley, Tom

Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk&G th)

Lee, John

Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

Faulds, Andrew

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Lipton, Marcus

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lomas, Kenneth

Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich)

Flannery, Martin

Loyden, Eddie

Campbell, Ian

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

Cant, R. B.

Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

McCartney, Hugh

Carmichael, Neil

Forrester, John

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

McNamara, Kevin

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Madden, M. O. F.

Churchill, W. S.

George, Bruce

Magee, Bryan

Clemitson, Ivor

Gilbert, Dr. John

Mahon, Simon

Cocks, Michael

Ginsburg, David

Marks, Kenneth

Cohen, Stanley

Graham, Ted

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Coleman, Donald

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

Grant, John (Islington, C.)

Millan, Bruce

Conlan, Bernard

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

Milne, Edward

Cox, Thomas

Hamling, William

Moonman, Eric

Cronin, John

Hardy, Peter

Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

Cryer, G. R.

Harper, Joseph

O'Halloran, Michael

Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Ovenden, John

Dalyell, Tam

Hattersley, Roy

Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)

Davidson, Arthur

Hatton, Frank

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

Horam, John

Pavitt, Laurie

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Perry, Ernest G

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

Hunter, Adam

Prescott, John

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I, EdgeHI)

Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

Dempsey, James

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Richardson, Miss Jo

Doig, Peter

Jessel, Toby

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Dormand, J. D.

John, Brynmor

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Roderick, Caerwyn E.

Snape, Peter

Wellbeloved, James

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Spriggs, Leslie

Whitehead, Phillip

Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)

Whitlock, William

Rooker, J. W.

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Roper, John

Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Tierney, Sydney

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Rowlands, Edward

Tinn, James

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Sandelson, Neville

Tomlinson, John

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)

Sedgemore, Bryan

Torney, Tom

Wise, Mrs. Audrey

Selby, Harry

Townsend, C. D.

Woodall, Alec

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Tuck, Raphael

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

Urwin, T. W.

Young, David (Bolton, E.)

Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N.E.)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

Sillars, James

Viggers, Peter

Silverman, Julius

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Skinner, Dennis

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell and

Small, William

Weltzman, David

Mr. Arnold Shaw.

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [11TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
  DEFENCE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

  DEFENCE
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) may I tell the House that I have the names of about 30 right hon. and hon. Members who want to speak in this debate. With reasonable co-operation from Front and back bench speakers I shall be able to call most of them.
  4.17 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Any person who has occupied the position of Secretary of State for the Environment or Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and has, therefore, seen the need for considerable expenditure in those spheres obviously joins hon. Members on all sides in deploring the necessity to spend a substantial amount upon the defence of the country. There is no Minister who has ever occupied a position in a major spending Department outside defence who cannot see many more possibilities of increasing expenditure for the good of the country and therefore, regrets the amount spent on defence.
  I hope that the House will agree that, although, alas, the money devoted to defence cannot be devoted to objectives which would be immediately more beneficial to the quality of life, it is vital that we maintain the secure defence of this country above all else.
  One of the tragedies is that all Labour Governments in recent times have commenced their terms of office with a major review of defence and not a review to decide needs and, therefore, to decide what is required for a sensible defence policy. It has always been a review aimed at reducing defence expenditure irrespective of needs. The Secretary of State frequently refers to the need to reduce defence expenditure as a result of
  232
  a static economy. But anybody who has studied Labour Party policy development in this field will recognise that the requirement substantially to reduce defence expenditure would have been a requirement of the Labour Party irrespective of the condition of the economy, because the requirement of the Labour Party is positively to shift expenditure from defence to other, doubtless worthy, objectives irrespective of the economic position. If that is not so, we shall welcome a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence that, should the economic position of the country, in his view and that of the Government, improve, this would enoble them to increase defence expenditure in the future to the degree to which they have cut it, to their regret, at the present time.
  But I do not believe that that is the position. If one studies for example, the previous Labour Party conference debate on this issue, in which there was a clear-cut demand for a reduction of £1,000 million in defence expenditure, one sees that the arguments in that debate and the reasoning of that conference was not the economic necessity to do so but a belief that there was a genuine wastage of expenditure on defence purposes and that defence expenditure should be substantially slashed.
  After the Labour Party conference, 113 Labour Members of Parliament signed a motion urging a reduction of more than £1,000 million—indeed, giving a specific figure by which they wished our defence expenditure to be reduced, £1,083 million. The disturbing fact about that motion is that no fewer than 26 Cabinet Ministers in the present Government were signatories to it. Presumably, if the present Secretary of State feels that it is not his task to meet those wishes, there might be opportunities for back benchers to fill some of the vacant posts.
  Next we had the Foreign Secretary in the election campaign reducing that figure to £500 million. More recently, we have had the Secretary of Defence referring to "several hundred million". It was understandable, when one or two of his colleagues pressed him today on what IT meant by "several hundred million pounds", that he in no way defined the term but, I thought rather frighteningly, started to accept the percentage-of-GNP

  233
  argument which, if he meant to reduce expenditure to the average level of all the European powers, would reduce it by more than the £1,000 million required by the motion put down by members of his party.
  The Secretary for Defence could obtain quite a substantial drop in his budget by dealing with payments for education, the health services and other social services in the Armed Forces in a way very different from the way in which they have been dealt with in the past. There are arguments both for and against doing so, and perhaps as much as "several hundred million pounds"—the amount he mentioned—could be obtained by that type of transfer to the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Social Security. Obviously, if such a measure were to be taken the House would wish to consider all its implications. But it is sad that when people talk of the total defence budget they include in the figure the considerable expenditure on education and hospital services which would not normally be included in similar figures for other operations in Government activities.
  If the transfer or reduction of several hundred million pounds is achieved in that way no harm will be done to the defence of the country. We are, of course, concerned that the cuts which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned will not be made in such a way as to diminish and damage the security of our country. He seemed at Question Time this afternoon to argue that months of delay in completing the review are not in themselves damaging. We on this side of the House consider that the delay is very damaging. It causes uncertainty and a great deal of concern and dismay. It is bad for the morale of the Armed Forces. It is bad for investment and planning in those industries from which we shall have to procure equipment in the future and bad for the potential of the exports of British defence equipment, because many countries abroad will be wondering whether equipment which they purchase will, as a result of the cuts, go out of production.
  The four-months delay which is to take place—the Secretary for Defence is implying that the White Paper review will not be completed until the autumn—is therefore a matter of very real concern. I
  234
  suggested this afternoon that the right hon. Gentleman would decide his views in principle by the end of July or the beginning of August and then would be consulting our allies upon them. Certainly one would like to know at the earliest opportunity what his views are, fully understanding that, having expressed his views perhaps at the end of July or the beginning of August, those views would be subject to any international consultations he then wished to pursue. Otherwise. I think we shall have a situation in which he will have reached certain conclusions subject to those consultations, those conclusions certainly will leak at various discussions, including talks abroad, and through August and September there will be considerable, unnecessary uncertainty as to the Government's views on this subject.
  When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the autumn, I wonder whether autumn will be a little late this year and whether, if there are to be substantial cuts, in fact the announcement that there are to be such cuts will be made after any General Election. There will be many aircraft firms and naval dockyards very interested in the conclusions of the review.
  What disturbed us was, first of all, the remarks this afternoon implying that the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the case for substantial cuts in our commitment to NATO, to some extent implying that a figure of around £1,000 million was not out of the question. A cut of such an amount would mean a cut of between 25 and 30 per cent. of our defence expenditure—and 90 per cent. of our defence expenditure is already connected with our activities in NATO. Such a reduction would mean a very substantial cut in our contribution to NATO.
  If the objective of the right hon. Gentleman's review is to measure the needs of defence at the present time and to see that this country meets its responsibilities in this field, I do not see that he can be very complacent about cutting our contribution to NATO at this time. Indeed, I recall his first speech to the House in the last debate on defence. Hon. Members, certainly on this side of the House, were very impressed by the second half of that speech, in which he outlined with some emphasis what he considered to be the very real potential danger, and his recognition of the considerable build-up

  235
  by the Soviet Union of their armed forces over recent years. That speech, certainly the last half of it, made us feel rather more satisfied that he would not be a party to making substantial cuts in our contribution to NATO.
  I hope that those who advocate very substantial cuts in our defence expenditure will recognise the degree to which the forces of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries have been built up over recent years. It is a frightening story. I wonder how far some hon. Members opposite who advocate massive cuts in our defence expenditure are satisfied in their own minds about the objectives and purposes of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries in building up their forces to such a magnitude.
  Over the last few years 200,000 more men have been recruited to the already very substantial armed services of the Soviet Union. Year after year there are increases in weapons such as cruise missile submarines. In the last four years they have added 16 more army divisions and 500 more aircraft. When one looks at the relative forces deployed in northern and central Europe between the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries, there cannot be any complacency about the need to keep NATO strong.
  For every division of NATO there are now nearly three divisions of the Warsaw Pact countries. The Warsaw Pact countries have 50 per cent. more men under arms. They have nearly three times as many tanks and nearly double the number of aircraft. When I look at the way in which the Soviet Union has been pouring money into research and development, at an increasing rate of 10 per cent. a year, and then see close at home minor incidents such as a Soviet trawler coming close to our rigs in the North Sea, and taking photographs, against all safety-at-sea regulations, I do not understand how in all these circumstances any hon. Member can be complacent about the need for Britain and the NATO Powers to remain strongly armed. The Labour Party has been well aware of these facts during its period in opposition. It has now been over four months in government and I should have thought that in reality, although he may be unwilling to tell us today—I hope that he will not be—the
  236
  Secretary of State must have come to some major and important conclusions after that time.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: This is not the first time that the Opposition Front Bench has put forward the threat of Soviet forces, the existence of which I like no more than does the right hon. Gentleman. But he must be aware that the American forces have not been exactly unchanged either but have been increasing their technique and strength. Indeed, the American Navy is twice the size of the navies of the Warsaw Pact. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman asks what is the purpose of the Russian build-up. I should have thought that it was for the same purpose as the American build-up. Both sides argue, "Our forces are purely to defend ourselves against the other side". They are both making the same mistake and the Secretary of State is prepared to take the same dangerous road, which may land the world in disaster.
  Mr. Walker: I do not believe that there is any comparison between a group of democratically-elected Governments deciding to remain secure and a decision by a Government which is anything but democratically elected. Examples such as Czechoslovakia are, I hope, a constant reminder to us all. I am shocked that any hon. Member who has witnessed the growing disparity between the Warsaw Pact countries' power and that of NATO should be other than concerned.
  I hope also that the hon. Member will notice with some concern the manner in which, during the talks now taking place in Vienna, the Soviet Union objective has been in no way to obtain parity between the two sides. Its intention has been to maintain the disparities which are to its advantage—hardly typical of a nation which desperately wishes to obtain some parity and quick reductions.
  The first major decision that the Government have to make concerns the retention of the nuclear deterrent. We approved of the decision of the Government to proceed with the recent test in Nevada, although we found slightly strange the reason given by the Prime Minister—that it was a decision not to retain the deterrent but to keep the option open. One would have presumed that,

  237
  with the defence review going on, the option could have been kept open without having the test at that moment and that, in a couple of months, if it were decided to proceed with the deterrent, the test could have taken place then.
  Whatever the reason, we think that the decision was right. It was, of course, the decision of the previous Government to have a test, but there has been plenty of time for this Government to review it. We are pleased that, having reviewed it, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, and presumably the Cabinet approved of the decision. We admired to some extent the way in which the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Social Services, who in the past have held different views on this topic, have remained members of a Cabinet which decided to hold this test and that on this occasion they have put country before party. In fairness to the Government, they have a mandate to do this. In their manifesto they said nothing about reducing the British nuclear deterrent force.
  Does the Secretary of State now have information whether the test was successful? If it were not, and further testing is required, will he assure the House that further tests will take place should they be necessary?
  Mr. John Lee: What is the right hon. Gentleman's criterion for a "successful" test?
  Mr. Walker: I presume that when the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State approved this test, they had particular objectives in mind and agreed that it was necessary, so that the deterrent could be retained in an up-to-date and useful form, that the test should take place. Otherwise, they would not have approved it. The Prime Minister himself told the House that the results of the test were not then known. I am asking whether they are yet known, whether, in view of the purposes of the test, which the Prime Minister approved, it was successful and whether any further tests will take place.
  There was an implication in the Prime Minister's statement that one of the reasons that they were able to take this sensible and rational decision was that the Labour Party Conference had not passed with a two-thirds majority a
  238
  demand that we should scrap our nuclear weapons. Since then, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Boardman), I think, has written to the Prime Minister asking for an assurance that this would not mean that a future Labour Party Conference resolution which had a two-thirds majority would influence our defence policy in this way.
  I am afraid that the Prime Minister has responded by refusing to reply, saying that the question was hypothetical and not giving that assurance. But the country would like to know that a basic decision on retaining the most effective deterrent weapon we possess will not be taken upon the basis of a two-thirds majority at a Labour Party Conference, with the block votes having the effect they have.
  On this side of the House, we should appreciate some information, because the tests have taken place and it is obvious that the Government will have taken their decision whether to continue with a nuclear deterrent. In terms of our relationships with our allies in NATO and throughout the world, it is important that they make this clear as soon as possible.
  I was encouraged this afternoon by the various pronouncements on the MRCA. This aircraft is vital to the RAF and to NATO. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that a major point is that if, on a basis of improving international collaboration, one made a decision that caused ill-feeling, that could be detrimental to the considerable savings which could be achieved by greater rationalisation of the procurement programmes throughout NATO and Europe generally.
  It would be disastrous if the Government decided to scrap this aircraft. When the Secretary of State referred to the Germans supporting this approach with the same enthusiasm as he had, we were encouraged that at least on that issue the right hon. Gentleman has seemingly come to the decision—the right decision—to keep that aircraft.
  Another sphere in which there is considerable uncertainty in the country, certainly in particular parts of the country—this will be of particular interest to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, the hon. Member for

  239
  Portsmouth, North (Mr. Judd)—is the future of the dockyards. He will understand that when his post in the last Labour Government was held by a Plymouth Member, there was some contentment in Plymouth that things might be all right for Plymouth even if they were bad for the Portsmouth dockyard. Now that a Portsmouth Member holds this post, he will understand that there is considerable concern in Plymouth that if any dockyard goes it will not be Portsmouth but is likely to be Plymouth.
  Throughout, there has been considerable concern in Chatham, which has not had a Labour Navy Minister either in previous Governments or this one, that its dockyard might be selected if there are to be substantial cuts. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is active in his representation of Chatham's needs.
  I hope that the Secretary of State recognises—I know that the Under-Secretary will have recognised from his constituents—the real anxiety and concern in all these dockyards during the months in which the Government have talked about cutting hundreds of millions of pounds from our defence expenditure. The sooner these fears are removed the better. In view of the massive increase in Soviet sea might and particularly the threats at sea which are taking place, some assurance should be given.
  On our general strategy at sea, could the Secretary of State say something about the present position of the Simonstown base? There is genuine uncertainty here. A Government spokesman in another place implied that, due to this Government's attitude to certain happenings in South Africa, we were renegotiating the agreement. The South African Government have implied that, due to their concern about some activities of this Government, they are, reviewing the agreement. The House would like to know who is reviewing the agreement, if anyone. What is the object of the review, if one is taking place? The Opposition consider the protection of the route round the Cape to be of increasing, and not diminishing, importance, and we believe that Simonstown is essential to the proper defence of that route.
  240
  In the terms of our sea strategy, we should be interested to hear how the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun)—if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—explains the massive increase in the activities of the Soviet Union in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. The Soviet Union now has naval forces in the Indian Ocean three times greater than those of the United States. Recently considerable additional submarine forces have been attached to the Soviet fleet in the Indian Ocean and a new 45,000-ton aircraft carrier has been sent there. With the opening of the Suez Canal, the Black Sea will be much closer in navigational terms to the Indian Ocean. The protection of trade routes is a real problem for the western world. We must recognise that in any future confrontation—which we all pray will never happen—if there is no adequate defence of the vital strategic routes used for bringing our basic raw materials and energy supplies our whole security will be swiftly undermined.
  That brings me to the question of overseas bases. Once again, there is uncertainty whilst the review is being undertaken. Has the Secretary of State reached a conclusion about the vital base in Cyprus? Cyprus is vital to our air communications and to surveillance of the Mediterranean. It is important in terms of our relationship with Iran, and it makes a vital contribution to the United Nations peacekeeping force there. These alone would be good and sufficient reasons for keeping our Cyprus base. Although this is not of itself a reason for keeping a force in Cyprus, I think the Secretary of State will agree that in terms of recruitment to the Armed Services the existence of the Cyprus base has proved to be of considerable importance.
  Judging by the pronouncements made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the importance of maintaining the independence of Hong Kong, a decision on Hong Kong has already been made. Anyone who knows the problems in Hong Kong would consider it inconceivable that a garrison should not remain there, especially in view of the importance of maintaining internal security in Hong Kong. May we have an assurance that the Government have no intention of dismantling the Gurkha Brigade?

  241
  I presume that talks have taken place with the Prime Minister of Singapore, and we should like to know the result of them. Did the Prime Minister of Singapore request any withdrawal of forces? If not, I hope that the Secretary of State, in considering the base, will take into account its importance for communications and its considerable commercial value to Singapore in the years ahead. Singapore has become an immense centre of commercial activity which offers great opportunities for this country. In that context, I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the relatively small amount we spend on maintaining our forces there.
  It is the duty of any Secretary of State for Defence to review defence expenditure for the purpose of making useful savings. One sphere in which my hon. Friends and I consider savings can be made is in making far swifter progress towards European rationalisation of weapon production. NATO Powers produce a wide range of products. For example, there are 13 competing projects for anti-tank missiles, 36 fire control radar systems, 40 producers of heavy naval guns and 23 different types of aircraft. This type of diversity of project, involving as it does diversity of research resources is a waste both for us and for our allies. Any progress that the Secretary of State can make there will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
  I come now to the men in the Armed Services. We are, naturally, pleased that the forces recently received a pay award which was back-dated to 1st April, but they will be anxious to know the Government's attitude on their future. I well remember, at the time of the miners' dispute, that the right hon. Gentleman—perfectly understandably, as he represents a mining constituency—was eloquent upon the question of differentials and relativities between miners and those in other occupations, and he particularly stressed the danger of mining as an occupation. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the Armed Forces, what will be his approach to pay in the Armed Services during a period in which we are suffering from severe inflation?
  We all pay tribute to the manner in which the Armed Services carried out their incredibly difficult and dangerous task in Northern Ireland. In considering
  242
  the pay and conditions of men in the Armed Services who are serving in Northern Ireland compared with those in other occupations which are far less hazardous and arduous, one can understand that there may be a feeling of anxiety in the Armed Services. Many workers are protected from inflation by threshold agreements. If inflation continues as it has done over the last three months, what will be the Government's attitude to future pay awards, and will the general principle of threshold agreements be extended to the Services?
  Will the Secretary of State consider carefully, if he has not already done so, whether a new initiative can be taken to provide housing for Service men at the time they are demobilised? We all know from constituency experience that many men who have served their country well for many years discover when they are on the point of being demobilised that it is quite impossible to obtain accommodation. Having been parted from his Army accommodation, a demobilised Service man has to wait sometimes 12 or 18 months before accommodation can be provided because of the system of allocation applied by local authorities.
  Here is an opportunity for a unique initiative. We have just created 300 new district authorities with responsibility for housing. If the Secretary of State could arrange with the local authorities for Service men's names to be added to the waiting list some time before they are demobilised, they could be housed immediately on demobilisation, and this would remove a great deal of the personal anxiety and unnecessary hardship which results from the system operated by local authorities.
  In the first four months in which the right hon. Gentleman has occupied his present position he has made several speeches which have made us feel that he understands the potential dangers to the country. He has made a decision on the nuclear test which we welcome, because it shows that he recognises the importance of this deterrent weapon. He has, however—I am sure without wishing to do so—caused an immense amount of anxiety that his review is being undertaken not on the basis of the future security of the country but on the basis of the necessity to satisfy a section of his

  243
  party which wants £1,000 million to be cut from our defence expenditure irrespective of the country's defence needs.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that his review is an objective one which will take into account the security of our nation and not the motions carried or views expressed by any political party or any group in a political party. At a time when, potentially, we could in future be confronted with real international dangers throughout the world it is vital that this country should be able to make its fullest contribution to the security of the Western world.
  4.50 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): First, may I congratulate the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) on becoming Shadow Secretary of State for Defence. He presented to the House a very good and responsible picture of the defence problems which face me, as Secretary of State, and, indeed, the nation.
  The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that he felt that one of the priorities should be to maintain the secure defence of this country. I do not disagree that that will be our goal. But the right hon. Gentleman knows that, because of economic pressures, had the Conservatives won the General Election a Conservative Government would have been bound to take the same path as that which we are traversing at the moment. The Conservative Government indicated as much by cutting back £250 million defence expenditure in 1973 alone—and the economic circumstances, especially the impact of the escalation of oil costs, had net then hit the nation. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not shirk some responsibility for our having to examine the whole of the nation's defence expenditure.
  The right hon. Gentleman then entered into some interesting aspects of the defence budget. I agree that it would be a good thing if the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security were to accept as part of their budgets the fact that the defence budget has to bear a large share of the cost of educating schoolchildren and nursing patients. The defence budget undoubtedly bears that
  244
  burden and it is borne by no other Department. It would have been a good move if the right hon. Gentleman, when in government, had pioneered some of these ideas. As the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Gentleman was in a fine position to do so.
  There are occasions when we would like to have a certain piece of equipment for our Services—for example, an aircraft, submarine or special project which might be too expensive. But what better could happen than that other navies, armies or air forces could say to us, "We will buy your piece of equipment if you are prepared to buy it yourselves". On that understanding—in other words that exports were in prospect and jobs and trade were available—then the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had the finest opportunity when in office to take just that line. My Department would regard that course most sympathetically in considering how best, on the basis of exports, jobs and trade, it might be prepared to lessen the defence burden.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The Secretary of State warms my heart. Is he telling the House that he will do a better job than my mob did over the Navy Harrier, for example?
  Mr. Mason: Would it not have been a good thing if the Conservative Party, supported by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, had made a decision on the maritime Harrier? But they did not. All the Navy says about that piece of equipment is that it would be an added operational capability, but the Conservative Government refused to take a decision.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: But is not the difference between the Labour administration and the Conservative administrations the fact that the Labour Government now have orders or potential orders—I refer to Iran, Spain, the United States and India—for the Sea Harrier, if only the Government recognise the ability of the aircraft and order it for the Royal Navy?
  Mr. Mason: There is the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of orders. The Navy says that it would have been welcome, but it is in any case just an added operational capability.
  I return to the point I was making to the right hon. Member for Worcester,

  245
  namely, that if there is a prospect of large orders abroad for this aircraft, is it not worth developing so that our Navy could have that added operational capability—but who will pay for it? It would be a good thing occasionally if Departments and Governments did not take the very strong posture of resisting giving anything to defence which might be to the benefit of jobs, trade, industry and exports—in other words, if they were prepared to unfreeze. However, I throw that suggestion into the debate as something about which we can all think. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have that matter in his mind today, although not four months ago when his colleagues were in office.
  The question of housing for Service men is certainly under study. I shall ask my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate, to deal with that matter and also the point which was made about Cyprus and other overseas places.
  I am flattered that the Opposition have chosen to debate defence only seven weeks after the last occasion, although I am not so naïve as to be misled as to why this has come about. My Department and I are always prepared to listen to constructive proposals. Nobody has a monopoly of such proposals and in that way we welcome this debate.
  I should like to tell the House what has happened since our last defence debate. I have had meetings with the United States' Secretary of Defence, Mr. Schlesinger, and the West German Defence Minister, Mr. Leber. I have also attended my first round of NATO ministerial meetings, the Nuclear Planning Group in Bergen, and immediately afterwards in Brussels the Eurogroup of Defence Ministers and NATO's Defence Planning Committee. I have seen the Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malta on their recent visits to the United Kingdom and the ambassadors of a number of our allies and friends have called on me in London. These have all been opportunities for me to judge at first hand the importance attached by our allies to our present contributions to collective defence and to deepen my understanding of the collective security problems which we face.
  My meetings with NATO colleagues have also enabled me to stress the importance given by the Government to our
  246
  NATO commitments and of our awareness of the difficult times that lie ahead for the Alliance as a whole in the pursuit now intensified in a range of negotiations, of means of relaxing tension between East and West while at the same time keeping up our defences. I have also encountered wide recognition of the economic problems facing Britain and the bearing which these must have on the size of our defence effort.
  My meetings with fellow defence Ministers in NATO have brought home to me how many problems we have in common. I should like to be permitted to philosophise a little at this stage because it is interesting to see how the defence Ministers of Western Europe, in our open societies in Western democracy, have to consider defence matters much more seriously than do the countries of Eastern Europe.
  In Western European countries we see a generation rising to positions of power—a generation to whom the last war is only a distant memory, if they remember it at all. As conflict and war in which we were involved recede into the mists of time, young people are not so moved to be fully appreciative of collective security and defence. Many of them even regard the apparatus of military alliances as a legacy of the cold war which no longer has any justification. Secondly, defence Ministers all face escalating costs of manpower and equipment, now rising faster than rates of economic growth and of inflation, because of the constantly increasing complexity of modern weapons.
  Thirdly, those countries which have opted for professional as opposed to conscript forces have to bear on their defence budgets an even heavier burden of individual manpower costs. The Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries depend to the extent of 70 per cent. upon conscription. In NATO—excluding ourselves, Luxembourg, Canada and the United States, who are moving over to an all-volunteer force—62 per cent. of ground forces are conscripts. Consequently it is much cheaper individually to support them. We have to pay, and are prepared to pay, for professionalism.
  Defence Ministers of the Western democracies are confronted with pressure groups among the opposition in their

  247
  own parties—I am not immune to that—and in the public at large. Contrast that with the peaceful life of a defence minister in a totalitarian state.
  Mr. Carol Mather (Esher): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a dividend for countries which have to raise their armed forces by conscription because it involves the ordinary citizen? It is difficult to put across the needs of defence in this country because we have a professional army which is separate from the people. We face this problem probably more than other countries with different systems.
  Mr. Mason: I did not follow the point that the hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to make. Certainly countries which conscript their forces have an interplay between their communities and forces. However, it cannot be said that that does not take place in this country. Because this is a small, densely populated island there is interplay all the time. I am proud of our professional force. The British Army of the Rhine playing its part in NATO is the most professionally trained and highly efficient unit in the whole of the NATO Alliance. We pay for professionalism and in that respect it pays off.
  In varying degrees my colleagues are all subject to economic pressures—balance of payments problems, particularly the escalation of oil costs, demands for the diversion of resources away from defence to other outlets, including economic growth and investments, and to other areas of public expenditure and cutbacks in public spending as a whole.
  Even if in this uncongenial climate they manage to get their defence budgets together, they must look foward to the close scrutiny of their proposals by their Parliaments. Since 1971 my Ministry has presented to the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of this House no fewer than 140 memoranda and very many supplementary letters. There have been about 360 appearances by Ministry of Defence witnesses—Ministers and officials—before the Committee, at West-minister and in Commands and Defence Establishments at home and abroad. That is quite an effort by any "open society" standards.
  248
  I would not like the House to gain the impression that I spent my time in NATO in mutual commiseration with my colleagues. The greater part of our time was spent in constructive discussions about how to overcome the problems of maintaining adequate defences in conditions of general financial stringency. But we cannot ignore the present tendencies in the Western European democracies to rape their defence Ministers and their budgets whilst the Soviet and the Warsaw Pact Ministers enjoy exclusive virginity.
  From my talks in Europe, I brought back with me two main impressions. The first of these was that there was a need for a major new effort in collaborative procurement. I was pleased that the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to highlight this matter in his speech. We have seen in the past far too many cases of the needless development of rival projects by the members of the Alliance. I hope that through the Eurogroup of European Defence Ministers and in other ways we shall make substantial progress towards improving this situation.
  One way of using resources more efficiently is to collaborate on procurement. This would be facilitated by greater harmonisaton of tactical concepts, and it should lead to greater standardisation with its direct military advantages and the scope it should offer for economy in supporting logistics. The Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries—based on Soviet training and equipment and consequential standardisation and interoperability—are well ahead of NATO in this respect.
  My second impression was that it will take continuing Ministerial effort, because the political will is needed, to overcome the obstacles in the way of increased cooperation. It calls for the will in all the NATO countries to overcome military reserve and caution which tends to opt for its own particular brand of arms. I feel that the Eurogroup is a successful going concern and we are determined to keep up its momentum. This is particularly true of armaments collaboration where we have identified the problems involved.
  Through the Eurogroup I think that we have found one of the keys to greater defence collaboration in Europe, though it will take determined political will and

  249
  a readiness by all member countries to give and take in order to open the door.
  While it might be argued that at least in the development phase collaborative projects cost more in total, we avoid duplication, share the cost among the participating nations and, in the longer term, build up the European research and development base, lessen dependence on outside sources and, in the end, promote standardisation of equipment and greater military efficiency. It is of the first importance, therefore, that we increase substantially the extent and depth of European collaboration.
  At the last meeting of the Eurogroup, I opened a substantive discussion on these issues and posed the following questions. First, I asked whether we could reach an agreed Eurogroup view on broad areas of equipment—those areas include the future main battle tank, helicopters, field guns, rifles and ammunition—in which we should encourage European capabilities for development and production and, if so, how we can also involve the French.
  Secondly, I asked whether we could agree tactical concepts sufficiently far in advance to ensure that collaboration was undertaken before national viewpoints were frozen and entrenched positions taken up.
  Lastly, I asked whether all the European members of the Alliance, in the interests of their own defence industrial development, could agree on the need to devise practical means of rationalisation, on co-ordinating their policy on the extent of European procurement, and on the extent to which they should buy American. The past point is particularly important.
  I accept that the strength of the Alliance depends in large measure on American equipment and technology, and it clearly makes neither military nor economic sense for the Europeans to cut themselves off from these. We in Europe have neither the financial nor the technological resources to be completely self-sufficient. There will always be cases in which it will be sensible to adopt United States designs either by direct purchase or by manufacture under licence. But on the other hand, we must convince the United States that healthy European defence industries are essential if the
  250
  European members of the Alliance are to play their proper part within it. I expressed the hope that it could be recognised that there must be types of equipment where all the Allies, including the Americans, need to buy European. I hope, therefore, that we shall see the United States buying more European equipment.
  These are questions that we shall be pursuing in the Eurogroup and in further Alliance-wide discussions. So much then for my report on Europe and NATO.
  You will remember that when I last spoke to the House I gave a pledge that the morale and well-being of the Services would be my prime concern. I announced then the immediate introduction of a range of measures designed to improve the lot of those serving in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister subsequently announced the Government's decisions on the Report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
  In reaching these decisions we had to take into account the constraints of the Pay Code, but we felt able to go a little further in some respects. A particular feature, and one that I know was widely accepted by the whole House, was the introduction of an extra special payment of £3·50 per week for those serving in Northern Ireland. This was in addition to the increase in the "X"-factor, which is designed to take account of the balance of advantages and disadvantages in Service compared with civilian life, from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. for men and from 1 per cent. to 5 per cent. for women, who, incidentally, will receive equal pay with men next year.
  This, taken together with the earlier package of improvements, demonstrates very clearly the Government's concern for those who are performing such a crucial task—the vast majority separated from their wives and families and living and working, uncomplainingly, in arduous and uncomfortable conditions. We shall continue to do all we can.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about thresholds. Yes, all ranks will be eligible for the threshold payments as well. I hope that the new rates of pay will help to boost recruitment into the three Services. We have made no secret of the fact that recruiting has recently not been as good as we should have

  251
  liked, but the House will be glad to learn that there are signs that Service recruiting is beginning to pick up again. This is encouraging and I am hopeful that the trend will be sustained.
  Since our last debate the Services have continued to acquit themselves with the greatest credit in the difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland. All of us are in some danger of forgetting just how difficult these circumstances are and what conditions our troops in Northern Ireland have to face. The bombings and the shootings, by their very repetition, tend to have a diminishing impact on the people of this country. Events that used to attract banner headlines and to be given lead coverage on the television screen are now treated as run-of-the-mill, as part of the normal way of life. It is quite unacceptable that this level of violence should persist in a part of the United Kingdom, and I once again emphasise that our Armed Forces will continue to play their part in striving to maintain law and order in the Province so long as their presence is required.
  So far our Armed Forces have coped magnificently, and I know tha they will continue to do so. Since the beginning of the year 681 persons have been arrested and charged with terrorist offences; over 800 weapons, almost 98,000 rounds of ammunition and over 14 tons of explosive have been seized. Those arrested have included many dangerous wanted men, particularly in Belfast.
  We have never pretended that this will be an easy, let alone a swift, task; but the Government are determined to bring home to all those of evil intent that their methods will not succeed, and that our aim remains to bring about a situation where ordinary people in Northern Ireland can live their lives without fear, and where the maintenance of law and order is once again the responsibility of the police, backed by the community as a whole.
  Mr. Lee: I do not wish in any way to diminish what my right hon. Friend has said regarding the Army's achievements, which he itemised in some detail, but will he tell the House when he considers that the military operation will have been successfully completed in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Mason: That will be only when we have been able to establish a larger force in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and been able to build up the Ulster Defence Regiment so that between them they can help to maintain law and order and relative peace. When those conditions are achieved the forces will, hopefully, be able to say that they have done a good job and withdrawal might be considered—
  Mr. Lee: But when?
  Mr. Mason: No date can be put on that.
  I make no apology for not yet being in a position to inform the House about the outcome of our defence review. As I said on 13th May, we are engaged in the most comprehensive examination of our future defence rôle and commitments ever mounted in peace time. It is really a deep and thorough study of the best way of meeting our essential defence needs.
  Already the preliminary views of some of our partners have been sought. My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the end of May visited the capitals of the other countries involved in the five-Power defence arrangements. He went to listen to their views, not to put cut-and-dried proposals to them. His report, together with the results of consultations which we shall be having with our other allies at the appropriate time, will be taken fully into account before final decisions are taken.
  Mr. Antony Buck: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is very important for the Services to end the present uncertainty which the Services feel, but this is to be somewhat prolonged because of the period which will be taken to consult the Allies. Would the right hon. Gentleman take up the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and publish something now, perhaps a Green Paper rather than a White Paper, so that we know of the position, and can be consulted?
  Mr. Mason: I have taken that point on board. I do not agree that this matter affects the morale in the forces. I think that the forces have accepted that it is

  253
  worth while having a comprehensive review instead of suffering periodic short-term cuts. However, I shall consider what has been said in this regard and if the review starts to slip I will consider whether it is necessary to say anything further before the House rises for the recess.
  I have previously explained to the House the background to the review—on the one hand, the economic situation which the Government inherited on resuming office and, on the other, the continuing and growing threat posed to Western security by the massive military might of the Soviet Union and its allies. However, I must do that again today, to bring the position up to date. It may give joy and succour to the more narrow-minded Opposition Members, while causing concern and upset in the minds of some of my hon. Friends, but it is essential for the House, for Parliament and for the nation for the Secretary of State for Defence to let the House know how he sees the threat, especially when we are considering how best we can reduce defence expenditure. Therefore, we must all the time have in the forefront of our minds the stark realities of our economic inheritance, which have become even clearer to the nation since we last debated defence. They have further reinforced the need, in the interests of Britain's economic well-being, to reduce the planned level of our defence expenditure. The Labour Party in its manifesto pledged to do this by several hundred million pounds a year over a period. I must stress to the House that that pledge will be honoured.
  Our aim will be to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, the level of forces needed to assure Britain's essential security and to maintain the credibility of our contribution to collective defence, and, on the other, the maximum release of resources from defence to industries which directly boost our exports and economic growth.
  Mr. Stanley Newens rose—
  Mr. Mason: I shall come in a moment to what I believe my hon. Friend has in mind.
  In drawing attention to the threat I am not making a political assessment about the actions which the Warsaw Pact might take in the years ahead, nor
  254
  do I wish to denigrate in any way the importance of the negotiations on security matters now taking place. There is, as the House well knows, a sensitive backcloth against which our own defence review is being considered. There is the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe at Geneva, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between the United States and the Soviet Union and the multi-lateral talks on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions in Vienna. Everyone who takes an active interest in defence knows that the British Government are playing a full and active part in both the CSCE and MBFR negotiations, and the United States keeps in close consultation with its allies on SALT. We are also trying, in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva, to make further progress on a variety of disarmament questions. That was the committee that pioneered the non-proliferation treaty.
  The Government also give their full support to the tireless efforts of President Nixon and his Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger, to promote the cause of peace and greater understanding between nations.
  Therefore, a lot is going on, and many negotiators and nations are genuinely trying to exercise détente. However, I must warn the House that we must be on our guard against becoming too starry-eyed about all those negotiations. In all of them the going is tough, concessions and agreement from the other side have to be hard won and quick results are seldom obtainable. The Western negotiators must be constantly aware at the conference table of the realities of the situation.
  I repeat one or two sentences which I have previously uttered in order to lead to what is probably the nuclear parity between us and the West. In Central Europe the Warsaw Pact has 20 per cent. more soldiers than NATO; 30 to 40 per cent. more soldiers in fighting units; two and-a-half times the number of tanks; and twice as many guns and aircraft.
  The build-up of the Soviet fleet at sea is now well known. The Soviet Union is fast emerging as a maritime super-Power with a large modern ocean-going fleet of cruisers, destroyers and aircraft, some 350 operational submarines—at least 100 nuclear-powered—and a force of

  255
  over 1,000 naval aircraft. The threat posed to NATO by this massive Soviet capability at sea is obvious. In the Eastern Atlantic, for example—an area of special concern to Britain—NATO's ready maritime forces are already heavily outnumbered. In 1962—to give merely one example—there were only 10 major Soviet warships deployed away from the Soviet Union at any one time, worldwide. In 1973 that figure had reached 100–10 times as many in 10 years—and this notwithstanding the Soviet Union's small dependence on the sea as a trading route.
  Overall, the Warsaw Pact countries are modernising and replacing their weapons and equipment at a much faster rate than NATO. The Soviet Union, with a gross national product approximately half that of the United States, produces a military effort which is just about the same. The obvious corollary is the much smaller spending in other sectors of the economy. The Soviet Government adopt a policy of self-denial and a lower standard of material prosperity which would be unacceptable in the West. The Soviet defence industries are, by and large, technically more advanced and better managed than those contributing to the remainder of the economy, and are correspondingly more cost-effective.
  By Western standards this is a sacrifice of some magnitude, made over many years. If nothing else, it points to the reliance which the Russians place on military strength. This point is worth bearing in mind when one is considering the potential threat to British and Western interests in terms of force levels, quality of equipment, production rates, and research and development.
  Naval construction, as well, continues at a high rate. Nuclear ballistic missile and attack submarines, missile cruisers, destroyers and, now, an aircraft carrier are among the ships under construction in the Soviet Union. There is now a capacity for as many as 12 ballistic missile submarines to be under construction at any one time.
  The Soviet aircraft industry is second in importance to that of the United States at present, but it is continuing to expand, with the emphasis on the production of military aircraft. The Soviet industry is now building at least 700 fighters a year,
  256
  including some very advanced types such as the Foxbat interceptor and the variable geometry fighter, the Flogger, which compares with our MRCA. Flogger entered service in 1971 and several hundred have been produced. In addition, the Russians now have a new advanced supersonic strategic swing-wing bomber, called Backfire, for which there is at present no equivalent in production in the West.
  It is also interesting to note that one-third of defence spending in the Soviet Union goes into research and development. Because of this, I warn the House that there is on its way a new generation of sophisticated advanced weaponry coming from the Soviet Union. As a particular example, the tactical air forces of the Soviet Union are now undergoing a significant modernisation programme, and this is presumably to overcome the longstanding qualitative advantage held by some NATO tactical air forces in the ground attack rôle. The Soviet Union already has major quantitative and some qualitative advantages in the air-superiority role. The Mig 25 Foxbat all-weather interceptor, capable of Mach 3 and carrying a new air-to-air missile, has recently been introduced to enhance this capability.
  In the strategic arms field we watch as Russia proceeds with development of four new types of inter-continental ballistic missiles, multiple re-entry vehicles, super-hardened silos within her borders and the Delta class submarines carrying the new 4,200 nautical-mile missile which, with this range, can strike the United States and all parts of Western Europe without the submarines leaving home waters.
  The increased strength of both the nuclear and conventional forces of Russia and her Warsaw Pact allies, backed by the massive Soviet industrial endeavour that I have just described, make it all the more necessary for NATO as a whole to sustain a credible deterrent policy. And deterrence must be valid against the whole range of possible threats, on land, at sea and in the air. It must include an ability to deter the use of military force as a political instrument. NATO, therefore, has no alternative but to maintain a range of options which must include nuclear weapons as well as strong conventional forces. Neither constitutes a credible deterrent

  257
  on its own. Each supplements and buttresses the other.
  Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the British Government are prepared to support the development of a new, second generation of nuclear missiles? This is one of the things that the Labour Party spoke about in its manifesto.
  Mr. Mason: I shall be coming to that matter in a little more detail. I can tell my hon. Friend, however, that the whole of our nuclear capability is now being subjected to the defence review. When the review is complete, all of the nuclear capabilities—not just conventional capabilities—will be subjected to debates in the House.
  The United States provides the main strategic deterrents for the West and the great bulk of the tactical nuclear weapons available to NATO. But we have thought it right, in the interests of the Alliance, that this nuclear responsibility should not be carried by the United States alone, Britain, accordingly, makes a contribution of nuclear weapons to NATO, in support of the current strategy of the Alliance and in the interests of common defence. The whole of our nuclear capability—unlike that of the French—is committed to NATO. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded the House on 24th June, if NATO should collapse—if there should be no NATO—we should have to take our own decisions, and we should be able to do so. But so long as NATO exists, these weapons will be committed to the Alliance; and, whilst so committed, all our weapons remain subject to political control through Alliance consultation procedures and could in no circumstances he used without the consent of British Ministers.
  As the Prime Minister explained, the arrangements for a test necessary to maintain the option of preserving the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent were initiated by the previous Government, and we allowed the test to go ahead. The experiment was conducted underground and fully in accordance with our treaty obligations. It was also fully in accordance with the policy of the previous Labour Government and with the policy in the Labour Party manifesto, based on multilateral disarmament, and
  258
  did not involve any breach of our party programme as laid down in successive party conferences over the last three years.
  As the Prime Minister reaffirmed, expenditure on Britain's nuclear forces is under scrutiny as part of our all-embracing defence review. But, as shown in the last Defence White Paper, the annual cost of maintaining the Polaris force amounted to £39 million. That is a little over 1 per cent. of defence expenditure.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: Now that we have arrived at the point of discussing the nuclear test, will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point that has been made to him? If our nuclear weapons are to be subject to a defence review and if we are looking at them seriously in the process of that review, why was the test not postponed until the review had been completed? Why was it necessary to go ahead prior to the review?
  Mr. Mason: It was because the arrangements made under the previous administration were advanced. The agreement had been reached for the test. The slot into the Nevada chamber had been agreed. If we had decided positively not to go ahead, we would have closed one of the options open to the Government. Therefore, we thought it right to go ahead as planned. When the review is complete the House can determine to what extent it is necessary to do more about nuclear weapons.
  However, I do not think that there is a case for singling out the nuclear side for rushed or arbitrary decisions. Our test was designed to keep all our nuclear options open while the review is in progress. In considering this aspect of our capabilities, we also have to bear in mind the considerations in NATO strategy which I have already outlined.
  Let me give some further facts about nuclear testing which I hope will help to put our test into proper perspective. Since August 1963, when the Partial Test Ban Treaty came into force, until the end of 1973, the Russians have carried out underground tests which run into three figures. The rate of testing in 1974 is much the same. Over the same period, the United States Government have

  259
  announced that they conducted 265 underground tests. In the same period the French announced nine underground tests and have conducted 34 tests in the atmosphere. The Chinese have conducted 15 tests in the atmosphere and one underground. The United Kingdom, in the period from August 1963 to date—nearly 11 years—has conducted only four nuclear device tests, all of them, underground. Two were in 1964—the second of these was a failure—one in 1965, and the recent one a few weeks ago. Our latest nuclear test breached no nuclear treaty and broke no manifesto pledge.
  The Prime Minister has already stated that the practice is that until the evaluation of the results of tests are complete no statement is made in the House. It is not the general practice of other countries to advertise tests in advance. The results of our recent test have not yet been fully evaluated, but the indications are that it was successful, and it was well below any likely threshold agreement for underground nuclear tests. I can now emphasise—and re-assure all those who feel concerned—that no further British tests are due to take place in the near future, and certainly not before the defence review is completed, and a report made to the House. All will be considered in the review—and there will be ample opportunity for debate before decisions are taken.
  I would have thought that the whole House would recognise that succeeding British Governments have tried, by backing the Partial Test Ban Treaty and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to stop nuclear arms proliferation. This is our desire and our earnest aim, but as everyone knows it is proving difficult. Meanwhile, it is the duty of all of us who have over the years become nuclear powers, and are constantly being reminded of the horror of this generation of weaponry, to endeavour to work much harder toward the goal of total abolition of these weapons by multilateral and international agreement. In that connection I sincerely hope that President Nixon and Mr. Breshnev will produce an agreement this week that will take us another step towards that worthwhile and internationally-required objective.
  5.34 p.m.
  Miss Janet Fookes: It was with some trepidation that I prepared to take part in my first defence debate. My trepidation was increased by the fact that I do not pretend to any expertise in the subject. That trepidation began to vanish, however, when I felt increasing sympathy for the position of the Secretary of State for Defence. It seems that he is being ground between an upper and a nether millstone. On the one hand, there is the party commitment to a reduction of expenditure of several hundred million pounds, with certain elements of the right hon. Gentleman's party demanding far more, and on the other hand is his realistic assessment of the growing power of the Warsaw Pact and the horrifying catalogue of increased strength of the Soviet Union and its satellites.
  The logical conclusion to be drawn from the right hon. Gentleman's speech is not that we need to cut expenditure but that, on the contrary, our defences need strengthening. I believe that defence is of the first importance and it cannot be regarded, as I fear some Labour Members regard it, as some kind of optional extra which can be discarded at will in favour of some other more desirable objective or means of spending money. I have been strengthened in my resolve on that point by the Secretary of State's speech. Servicemen have told me in Plymouth that our defence is an insurance policy and that we should not begrudge paying the premium; that we shall only get the kind of defence we are prepared to pay for.
  The main threat to our security comes from the Soviet Union. That has been made quite clear by the Secretary of State, but I noticed earlier today that some of his hon. Friends had doubts about that. The great difference between Russia and other repressive régimes—I noticed mutterings about Chile and Greece—is that it is infinitely larger and more powerful. That is one practical difference. Secondly, the Soviet Union is activated by a Communist philosophy which seeks, as best it can, world domination. That is one major difference between the Soviet Union and the other regimes. We see the truth of that in its activities. I have seen no signs of

  261
  Russia's drawing back from East European countries. On the contrary, whenever one of those countries has moved towards independence it has been ruthlessly snuffed out. Russia's treatment of its own nations is no source of comfort. One has only to see the revelations of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the treatment of the Panovs, the Jews, the Christians and any dissidents within the regime to see what style and type of Government it is.
  Furthermore, Russia seems anxious to infiltrate. It will infiltrate into the African countries. We have heard from the Secretary of State about its infiltration into the various seas. We know, for example, that it is building up in the Indian Ocean, and I have seen figures which suggest that it is likely that it spent about 8,000 ship-days there, in contrast with the Royal Navy's 1,000 ship-days in the year up to last April. We know that the Russian Navy is bristling in the Mediterranean and, worse still from our point of view, the Russian presence is increasingly obvious off our shores. The Secretary of State did not deal at length with the most recent example, where a ship—a trawler, so called—sailed very close to our oil rigs. As we develop our offshore installations our vulnerability will ever and ever increase. We must therefore make absolutely certain that we have a sufficiently strong Royal Navy to defend ourselves against what is very much a national rather than an international interest. I do not see how we can expect our NATO allies to put that at the forefront of their work. It is something that we must do for ourselves.
  I am not happy, either, about the presence of Russian fishing trawlers bristling with equipment. They seem to move around our shores far too easily for my taste. The Secretary of State will recall that I asked whether he would forbid them to use the Millbay Docks, and at the time he made bland remarks saying that he felt they were no danger to our security. I would have thought this latest incident near the oil rigs would cause him to pause for thought. We know that the Russian crews are interchangeable between Russia's trawlers and its navy. There is no distinction between Russia's merchant service and its naval service. This also gives me cause for concern. It is clear that we need to
  262
  strengthen our Navy in this respect rather than weaken it.
  The Russians will also make mischief in small ways. For example, I recently went over the survey ship "Hecate" when she was in Plymouth. I was told of the important work done by those on the ship. As I indicated at Question Time today, it necessitates the ship's going along straight paths—not deviating—in order to carry out the survey work. That means that other ships in the vicinity have to get out of the way. I gather that although most ships are very good about that the Russians will often, apparently deliberately, not get out of the way. It is a small point, but it is indicative of their state of mind.
  I am naturally concerned about the impact on my constituency of any defence cuts, but if I felt that there was a good case for cutting defence expenditure I would not simply argue against it on employment grounds. However, we have real cause to keep our Navy strong, added to which is the possible impact of a cut in the Navy on a dockyard such as that in Plymouth. The effect would be alarming. There are 12,000 people directly employed in the dockyard, which means that, with their families, a vast number of people are directly dependent on it.
  There are also the members of the defence police. Presumably, if there were a shrinking of the dockyard, there would also be a shrinking of the defence police.
  The amount of money paid out in wages and salaries is very high. One must consider the effect of any reduction. I asked for the information in recent Written Questions and was given the following figures: wages and salaries of civilian employees in the dockyard amount to just under £30,500,000 a year. In addition, wages of £620,000 a year are paid to the defence police. The impact of any cut in those sums would be terrifying. It would completely disorient the economy of Plymouth and the area around it.
  We have been given assurances that it the cuts were made there would be redeployment. That is very important, but I should like to quote the Secretary of

  263
  State's own words on this question. He said on 24th April:
  "Cuts in defence expenditure sound simple enough. The after-effects are much more daunting. You can have a good night out on the prospects of the morrow, but if tomorrow's realisation reveals you are unemployed you won't then be so keen. This is the reality of massive defence cuts—job losses. As these get under way the Ministers for Industry will have a new dimension added to their portfolio and that is finding alternative work for the unemployed of the defence industries—as well as for cancelled defence export orders."
  I fully subscribe to those words.
  It is all very well to suggest that redeployment will be possible, but one looks to those areas where for other reasons the major industries have been in decline, and one notices that despite all the help that has been given to them their unemployment figures are still higher than in other parts of the country. That does not give much cause for optimism, especially at a time of economic difficulties. Indeed, the Secretary of State kept emphasising our economic difficulties as a reason for making defence cuts. How, then, does he propose that we should get all this new industry going at a time of what looks like increasing depression? I am extremely alarmed about this aspect. I only hope that the Secretary of State will resist the blandishments of his Left Wing, who want him to make massive cuts.
  I noticed with interest the argument in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that because the Conservative Government had made a cut of £250 million they were bound to go further down the same road. I see no logic in that argument. I believe the contrary to be true—that, those cuts having been made, there is now less room for manoeuvre than there was before. Therefore, I trust that when we finally have the defence review it will not be the alarming thing that we fear.
  I also very much question the Secretary of State's assumption that the situation is not causing concern and loss of morale in the Armed Forces. I do not know to whom the right hon. Gentleman speaks. They are obviously not the same people as I speak to. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that there is continuing concern about the effect. Let us hope that the Secretary of State will remember the old adage that the shoe should fit the horse, and not the horse the shoe.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. James Boyden: I had not intended to be particularly controversial, but I must refute the implication of what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) said about Russian trawlers, and what the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who opened for the Opposition, said about Russians ships. Would the hon. Lady sink the Russian trawlers?
  Miss Fookes: May I suggest that we do not go from one extreme to the other?
  Mr. Boyden: That is precisely what the Opposition are doing. They are taking the view that we are in a state of war—that Russian ships are a menace wherever they are, and that the logic of that is to sink them.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has built up a picture of Soviet might. Certainly their aircraft and their military forces on land look very daunting to us. But what do our fleets look like to them? As a rapporteur for WEU, I had an interview about two years ago with the Commander-in-Chief of the Sixth Fleet, who assured me—this was borne out by a leading member of the former Labour Government, now Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the Sixth Fleet could dispose of all the Russian missile ships and helicopter carriers in a matter of minutes rather than hours. Whether or not that is absolutely true, that is how the situation looks to the Russians from the naval point of view.
  I would correct the right hon. Gentleman on aircraft carriers. The Russians have none. They have helicopter carriers with very limited range, and one aircraft carrier being built. We, the NATO forces, have very considerable aircraft carriers. I do not state this as a particularly important item in the balance of power, except to say, God help us if we do not get détente! It does not serve the purposes of détente to exaggerate the particular aspect of development that is going on in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Because both sides are doing it.
  Mr. Boyden: We must get détente. We must bargain one thing for the other. We must bargain the military side—the land side—with the naval side. Why on earth

  265
  should not the Russians sail the Indian Ocean?
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It does not assist détente to exaggerate the Soviet presence; equally it does not assist to minimise it by kicking it under the carpet and pretending that it does not exist.
  Mr. Boyden: There may have been some exaggeration on the part of my right hon. Friend, but there has been little attempt to put the matter in balance so that we can get round the table and achieve agreement.
  I now turn to less controversial matters. I consider it my duty as Chairman of the Expenditure Committee to refer to the contributions that the Expenditure Committee and, particularly, the Defence Committee have made, and I hope will make, to better-informed discussion in the House and better ministerial action. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Defence Committee has made a very successful visit to Gibraltar in the past few days which we hope will lead to the Minister of State taking some action.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Eye will explain the situation. I shall merely say that the Expenditure Committee visited Gibraltar 18 months ago and drew attention to the extremely unsatisfactory state of the building of married quarters. Despite the 360 papers and the many witnesses from the Ministry of Defence, nothing very much has happened. However, the Defence Committee was in Gibraltar last week, and yesterday the hon. and gallant Member for Eye and myself saw the Minister of State, and it is to be hoped that some action will now result. I leave it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain the matter in detail. The visit to Gibraltar of the Defence Committee is a small but important example of how the Expenditure Committee can have influence, and how it can encourage the Ministry of Defence to take action. Of course, the Committee always seeks to assure witnesses that it is not just looking for cuts but for the best sort of expenditure. Sometimes increased expenditure or punctual expenditure is more effective than, or as effective as, cuts.
  I shall concentrate on a subject that the Defence Committee has spent some time
  266
  considering—with not very satisfactory results—and on which I have been making speeches for some time again without satisfactory results. I refer to economies in training which could be achieved painlessly either by one Service training for another or by integrated training where there could be a joint pool of effort. On the whole, the Services prefer to have one Service doing something for the other Services, but both methods of dealing with training need to be energetically considered by Ministers.
  Training is an extremely large part of the defence budget. Indeed, it has been going up. In 1972–73 the amount spent on training was £308 million. It represented over 10 per cent. of the defence budget. There was an increase of 2 per cent. since the first days when I was at the Ministry of Defence. There are considerable economies to be made. I suggest that some economies might be made from following up what the Defence Committee has been probing into.
  I come to the nub of my case. A few days ago the committee went over this subject with the directors of training for the Services. I was surprised to find that in this context there are four Services—the fourth Service being the Royal Marines. Each Service has its own separate training and each is very resistant to ideas of mutuality, a common front, integration or one-Service training, call it what one will.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did not ask him to do so, but as he has given way I shall proceed. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Royal Marines and at least one of the other Services have not been integrated throughout their long lives?
  Mr. Boyden: I can only say that when the witnesses appeared in front of the Defence Committee to give evidence the Royal Marines appeared as a separate entity and gave a good account of its separate training.
  The major point is that there must be waste and overlapping and considerable scope for economy. I do not say this in a destructive way. I shall offer some constructive suggestions on how steps could be taken which would enable economies to be made and a better form of training to be developed.

  267
  First, there is not adequate drive in the Ministry of Defence. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to apply his mind to that. I am sure that if he does so he will get quite quick results. Secondly, within the Ministry of Defence the machinery for the co-ordination which I have suggested does not exist. The Defene Committee saw a major-general from the central staff which co-ordinates training. When asked how much time he devoted to the effort of getting common training he had to confess that it was very limited.
  I have no criticism of the heads of training in the different Services. They are devoted to their jobs but their attitude—and quite rightly—is to maintain the morale of those being trained, to produce the most efficient training system and not to look to their colleagues to see whether they can collaborate, merge and lose portions of their training sections.
  There must be some central focus in the Ministry of Defence. There must be some important person—for example, a major-general or an air vice-marshal—with a supporting staff, perhaps appointed temporarily for a year or 18 months, to consider the problem from the point of view that I have been putting to the House and to ascertain where amalgamations and economies can be made. The directors of training took the view that if they undertook the task themselves they would undermine recruiting, but training recruits is only a small part of training. A large amount of training relates, for example, to conversion to different trades, promotion and refreshers There are hundreds of courses.
  The second provision that is required to support a central co-ordinator is a survey of those parts of training courses that could be satisfactorily approached from a common point of view. The Engineering Training Board has a successful record of working out modules of training for a whole range of apprenticeships and industrial training. There is probably that sort of expertise within the Ministry of Defence. I suspect that education directorates have staff that could cope with such matters. Be that as it may, people must be found who
  268
  can analyse a training course, take out certain bits and pieces and put the whole thing together so that the matters to which I have referred can be transposed and studied.
  There are a great variety of training matters which are common—for example, cooks, drivers, clerks, some forms of gunnery, accounting and nursing. The Jarrett Committee considered the medical service of the Armed Forces and made some recommendations about various aspects of training. Those recommendations are being dealt with very slowly by the Ministry of Defence. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to take the dust off the Jarrett Report.
  There needs to be a technical analysis of the length of courses, the cost per student, the contents of the syllabuses and a thorough review of all the elements that make up the courses. In addition, there needs to be central direction in conjunction with the Service directors of training. I am not trying to suggest an imposed solution; the Services work much better when they are consulted and when they come to an agreement. Very often they are reluctant to take the sort of steps that I am suggesting, but when they start they come to a mutually agreed conclusion. If there is a force in the centre and if that force is conducting discussions in the way that I suggest, I am sure that there will be ample scope for considerable savings.
  In the process, there could be two by-products, which strengthen my argument. One is that some of the procedures themselves will need looking at. In clerical processes throughout the three Services, for example, there must be room for greater simplification and more coming together. In rationalising the clerical processes, economies could be made in needs for training.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been pushing very hard in the Eurogroup of NATO for collaborative efforts on the production of arms and, incidentally, for getting even simple matters like linkages of petrol flows into aircraft, common rearming facilities on NATO airfields, and so on, the need for which would not arise if we started from scratch. If my right hon. Friend applied the same energy to training, he would

  269
  make some startling economies. However, he will make substantial ones which will be useful and will strengthen the operational efficiency of the services if he remembers that the bigger the tail—and there is no doubt that training is a large tail—the less scope there is on the operational side. It will also simplify a part of the Ministry of Defence, which in itself would be useful. So not only from the point of view of the money but also from that of operational effectiveness and the by-products coming from it, I commend to my right hon. Friend this practically uncontroversial subject.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Debates like this always seem to show that the bulk of hon. Members are committed to two contradictory positions. First, they are anxious to see this country have the most effective defence system that it can. Second, they wish to pay as little for it as possible.
  It is equally true that it is very difficult for Parliament to exercise any really effective control over defence expenditure and defence policy. I do not say that as a criticism of the excellent work of the Defence Committee. However, this is an area where it is difficult to exercise political influence over the Executive.
  In the brief time at my disposal I want first to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State, engaged as he is in the defence review, the basic Liberal position on defence. Thereafter, I shall dwell upon two elements within that position.
  The basis of our defence policy must be détente. I think that that is agreed in all parts of the House. The Secretary of State dealt with it very effectively. Although it is true that the Soviet threat seems extremely remote, and although it has probably diminished to the point where the likelihood of any Soviet military attack upon the West is most unlikely, nevertheless the importance of NATO as a means of safeguarding our freedom and, paradoxically, as a means of creating a realistic basis for disengagement, disarmament and détente cannot be exaggerated.
  In a sense, although we get defence on the cheap from NATO—certainly more cheaply than if we attempted to do it all by ourselves—that does not detract from
  270
  further arguments about procurement, and I shall return to that subject later.
  Secondly, we must complete the phased withdrawal of British forces from the Middle East and South-East Asia, although there are not many forces left there, and replace them with technical and training assistance.
  Thirdly, we do not think that the realistic future for Britain is to maintain bases throughout the world, although we believe that we should maintain a mobile strategic reserve to enable us both to offer assistance to our friends as necessary and to play our part in what I hope will be an increasing function of the United Nations, namely, its peace-keeping rôle. There is no doubt that we must do that.
  Fourthly, we believe, that Polaris should be phased out and that we should not embark upon a further generation of strategic nuclear weapons. I shall return to that in a moment.
  Fifthly, we believe that, within NATO, we should work towards the creation of a non-nuclear European defence community as part of the general process of the development of some kind of West European entity, whatever form it may take. We recognise that the development of such a posture is possible only in the context of the American nuclear guarantee. But, as the Secretary of State said, the opportunities in Europe for improved co-ordination of conventional capacities in terms of control and procurement are considerable.
  Sixthly, it is clear that all this very necessary effort must be undertaken against the background of sustained political pressure to pursue disarmament, which means pressing hard in the SALT negotiations, in Geneva and so on. It also mean developing an attitude, a ew, a considered opinion on selling weapons, especially to countries where there are unstable political conditions. It may be that this is part of the defence review. As we know, Britain is the leading salesman of weapons in Europe. I wonder whether we should be proud of that. If we are interested in sustaining stable, conditions throughout the world, we must look at that carefully.
  I now wish to comment a little more fully on two of the matters which I have

  271
  itemised. The first is the nuclear deterrent and the second is weapon procurement in Europe.
  The Liberal policy on nuclear weapons is clear. We see no future for British strategic nuclear weapons. As a country, we misguidedly spent a great deal of money on Polaris. I am not proposing that we tow it out into the Atlantic and sink it. The Secretary of State pointed out that the cost of operating Polaris is very small. But we say that when Polaris becomes obsolescent, it should be phased out, and no attempt should be made to spend more money seeking to improve it and prolong its life. Certainly we should not contemplate turning to the next generation of missiles which will be necessary if we are to sustain any kind of race with the Soviet Union and the United States.
  The purpose of the recent test puzzles me greatly. In his charming fashion, the Secretary of State made it clear that it was in line with practically all the Ten Commandants and that really no one could criticise it in any way. It seemed to me that there were some political contradictions, and that it was especially contridictory to protest to the French and the Indians about what they did only to go ahead and do it ourselves. I do not deny what the Secretary of State said about the number of tests undertaken by the Soviet Union and China—they are to be condemned—but that argument in itself is no defence of the action approved by the Secretary of State.
  I come, then, to the practical question. If the Secretary of State argues that the test was undertaken to keep the options open, to my mind it implies that the Government regard the maintenance of our independent nuclear deterrent as a practical alternative option which could be pursued. It is that which I question. I do not think that it is. I do not believe that our nuclear contribution to NATO is relevant. What is relevant in NATO is our conventional capacity.
  Both Front Bench spokesmen referred to the need to rationalise weapon procurement in Europe—a matter for which the Liberal Party has been pressing for a number of years. This represents a realistic area for reducing rising expenditure. We kid ourselves if we talk about
  272
  reducing total expenditure in an inflationary situation. It also makes, for me at least, absolute political sense if the Community is to evolve into any kind of effective political union.
  Progress so far in the area of weapon procurement has been very slow. It was in some ways surprising that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on defence dwelt some time on this. We have just had four years or so of Conservative government when not much advance was made in this field. The Minister is very much seized with this question. What does the Minister think the Eurogroup has achieved so far? Does he agree that it will not have much success unless it receives general directives from some kind of joint governmental authority in Europe, for example the Defence Ministers? What is the view held by the French? That is again crucial. The French have been opposed to the concept for long enough. Has M. Giscard-d'Estaing made up his mind whether he will commit himself to WEU, as has been the view before, and reject any Eurogroup solution? If that will be the French view, what are the Government proposing to do in such a situation?
  There are many things one could speak about in this debate, but many Members wish to speak. I therefore conclude by wishing the Minister well in his defence review, which I hope will be proceeded with expeditiously and decisively.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). He made some points which surprised me. He suggested that the recent test in Nevada of the British nuclear weapon was comparable with those of India and France. The important distinction is that that test was held underground and completely in conformity with the Partial Test Ban Treaty. The other tests, held in the atmosphere, were obviously harmful to some extent and contrary to the Partial Test Ban Treaty. The important thing about this test, which has caused so much real heat, is that it is purely a test to maintain the efficiency of our nuclear deterrent.
  I understand the viewpoint of hon. Gentlemen who consider it important to

  273
  dispense with nuclear weapons. That is a point of view I do not share. I sympathise with it.
  I do not share the point of view of the hon. Gentleman who thinks that there is some purpose in having inefficient nuclear weapons, because then one has the worst of all worlds. One still has the nuclear weapons but they are inefficient. One is surely wasting money. The Government are behaving with admirable good sense in holding the nuclear test.
  One of the points made by the hon. Member for Inverness was that all the proposals of the Liberal Party for getting rid of nuclear weapons are made within the context of the United States nuclear umbrella, which presumably is intended to cover Europe. Is there a credible United States nuclear umbrella covering Europe? Can one visualise the United States using its nuclear weapons and inviting a massive attack against its own cities on account of some aggression on the part of the Soviet Union towards Europe? It is highly improbable. Can one visualise the United States using its nuclear weapons in reply to some nuclear threat or nuclear aggression on the part of the Soviet Union? That is hardly probable. That would invite massive retaliation against their own cities. I would have thought that in terms of retaining a nuclear deterrent as a counter to some form of nuclear blackmail by the Soviet Union, Europe must stand alone. One cannot expect United States help in that situation.
  Britain has a particular responsibility with regard to nuclear tests and nuclear weapons because the United Kingdom is the strongest nuclear Power after the United States and the Soviet Union. Admittedly our nuclear power is very small. We are one of the two nuclear Powers in Europe, and we are by far the stronger. We have a special responsibility to decide what we shall do about our nuclear weapons.
  The Secretary of State for Defence made his usual gracious and well-informed speech. He drove home the point that we must keep our options open. There is nought to be gained by destroying some of our options. Nuclear weapons are an insurance against a total divergence between the United States and Europe. Such weapons have the effect
  274
  of increasing our influence at the conference table in any attempts to reduce the scope of nuclear weapons, to reduce their proliferation, and to reduce the threshold of tests. I would have thought they formed at least a bargaining counter.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: If it is the case that we are keeping this horrible thing in order to obtain a place at a conference table where disarmament is negotiated, why is it that we are not represented at the SALT talks? Why are we not a party to those talks?
  Mr. Cronin: The hon. Gentleman is being simplistic in his attitude. We are represented through the usual diplomatic channels.
  I appreciate the point of view expressed by some of my hon. Friends. We are unanimous in agreeing that these are horrible weapons. We would all like to see them got rid of.
  What would we gain by complete unilateral abstention from the possession of nuclear weapons? Surely if there is one system of nuclear weapons in the world which is least dangerous to the interest of the United Kingdom it must be the nuclear weapons owned by this country. On those arguments I would have thought a strong case existed for at least temporarily retaining our nuclear capability.
  I turn to the question of the defence review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said he was thinking in terms of reductions of hundreds of millions of pounds in the defence review. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) drew attention to the Labour Party conference, when a motion was discussed to the effect that defence expenditure would be cut by £1,000 million.
  It is interesting, in that context, that the last Conservative Government fell in with the wishes of that Labour Party Conference motion and cut defence expenditure by a quarter of that sum—£250 million. It is interesting to find that the last Conservative Government was to some extent carrying out the wishes of a large proportion of the Labour Party Conference membership. Perhaps they are unduly concerned about the future.
  I am anxious that any cuts in defence expenditure which my right hon. Friend

  275
  has in mind should not jeopardise the security of this country, which is most unlikely to accede to that. It should be put to the Secretary of State that this fear exists in people's minds. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is under severe pressure. That pressure is natural and understandable. There is a strong pacifist tradition in the Labour Party. Very strong feelings exist about reducing defence expenditure.
  I am seriously worried about the situation with regard to our only possible adversaries—the Warsaw Pact forces. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members about the enormous increase in Soviet expenditure upon missiles and upon its navy in the Indian Ocean and such places. I am much more concerned about the situation in Central Europe. The defence of Europe is the defence of Britain. There is no question that if Europe were overrun by Soviet forces it would be the end of Britain as a free country. We should go down like a ninepin, following the rest.
  I have particularly in mind here a few figures published by the International Institute of Strategic Studies. In Central Europe the NATO countries have eight armoured divisions, while the Warsaw Pact countries have a total of 26, deployed opposite ours. Why is that? If the Warsaw Pact countries are really worried about their own defence, do they need 26 armoured divisions as opposed to our eight?
  Mr. Newens: Will my hon. Friend say what he thinks is the reason for this? Will he say whether he thinks the Soviet forces are building up in preparation for an armed attack?
  Mr. Cronin: I cannot give the reason why Soviet forces are building up their armour in this extraordinary manner. The Secretary of State for Defence and the Government must be prepared for all eventualities. It would be most unwise to assume that the Soviet forces have these overwhelming numbers for the purpose of training them or for other reasons not relevant to future aggression.
  In Central Europe, NATO has 6,755 main battle tanks; the Warsaw Pact forces have 13,800. NATO forces have
  276
  1,720 tactical aircraft; the Warsaw Pact forces have 2,770. We must bear in mind that the Warsaw Pact forces deployed in Central Europe can be overwhelmingly reinforced from Soviet territory. The picture is of the NATO forces in Central Europe being faced by overwhelmingly superior forces in terms of numbers, equipment and sophistication of weaponry.
  In those circumstances it would be unwise to think of any reduction in the strength of NATO forces. At present, such forces are largely dependent upon contributions from the United States. I do not know what the figures are, but I would have thought that the contribution of the United States must be 70 per cent. at least. Can we rely on United States forces always being available to Europe? We know that relations between the United States have been strained recently by the Middle East war.
  We know that there is constant Congressional pressure on the President to cut down forces in Europe. We know, too, that the United States has a chronic balance of payments problem, like ourselves, which could be greatly alleviated by cutting down in Europe. President Nixon has spoken strongly in favour of keeping American forces in Europe. But does one really regard President Nixon as a strong political figure? This seems to be doubtful. What would be the situation in NATO if there was a substantial withdrawal of United States forces?
  Under these circumstances it is important that Europe should combine to the maximum extent for its defence. It would be most undesirable for there to be any weakening of NATO forces. Any large defence cuts would have that effect. I ask the House to consider the effect of such cuts. A large proportion of British defence expenditure goes on salaries and wages for the Armed Forces. They total 361,500 people, and with their families must come to about 1 million people. They must be very much concerned in these cuts. If we look at the defence budget, of £3,365 million a year, we see the extent to which British industry is involved in defence cuts of a substantial nature.
  I suggest that there is a danger of serious unemployment if such cuts were

  277
  carried out to any large extent. The Secretary of State pointed out that there could be substantial economies. There is obviously room for transferring some of the medical and educational services to the appropriate Departments. There is also considerable room for ensuring that the Department of Trade carries some of the costs of defence projects which have a large export potential.
  Something which the Secretary of State did not mention and which might interest some of my hon. Friends is the question of the nationalisation of armament firms. I would have thought that there was a strong case for taking into public ownership a substantial number of these firms. The profits which accrued could certainly be used to offset defence expenditure to some extent. I am not suggesting that there should be interference in the running of these firms. If the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) would listen to me before he laughed he might agree with what I have to say.
  There is a strong case for buying a lot of the equity of these firms. There is no reason why the Defence Department should not hold equity in such firms, just as any private individual may hold it. The Secretary of State talked about the greater harmonisation of NATO and of tactical concepts, and of greater standardisation. This would also bring about considerable economies, for which there is certainly room. There is no room for enormous defence cuts, such as have been suggested at the last Labour Party conference without jeopardising the security of this country.
  My right hon. Friend is a firm and courageous person. He needs no prompting from me. He must realise that the first consideration of any Government must be the security of the people of the country. There is no way out of this. I am sure he will fulfill the trust which reposes in him to the maximum of his ability.
  6.28 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I hope that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) will forgive me if I do not take up a point which he made at the beginning of his speech. I will refer to it later.
  After one of these defence debates a few years ago the Political Correspondent
  278
  of the Daily Telegraph, reporting the debate, said that the Tory defence experts, while an amiable lot, were not exactly the "light cavalry of debate".!
  Speaking from, I hope, the amiable section of these benches, I would start by saying that I believe we heard extremely refreshing speeches from both Front Benches today. Certainly the Secretary of State seems to understand reality. But I must admit that personally I am very sorry for him, because he surely is in the cross-fire. I thought he made an extremely interesting point about the philosophy of his job—that we have a duty to inform the electorate about the threat that faces us, as well as just to listen to the electorate. This is true in all democracies and possibly we as parliamentarians fall down on it. We seem to be not sufficiently ready to inform our constituents about the very unpleasant realities of the present defence situation. The Secretary of State, however, cannot be accused of failing to do that job today in his most robust speech.
  I do not complain about the Government having a defence review. These come every so often and I have seen a great many—from both sides of the footlights! But my bamboo wireless tells me that as far as the Services are concerned, this Defence Review is virtually complete: they have said all they have to say. It is now for the Government to announce their decisions. I would assure the right hon. Gentleman, who smiles, that my bamboo wireless is not entirely switched off yet.
  Many hon. Members have spoken this afternoon of the massive ambiguities which still remain about what the Government intend to do on defence following the defence review. I would make to the Secretary of State the point that military people are accustomed to firm decisions, clear orders and straight dealing. Obscurantist political policies are resented and despised by the forces. I agree with my hon. and fair Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) that the present massive threat of cuts and the uncertainty over them cannot fail to affect the morale of the Armed Forces because, as the Secretary of State for Defence said, these men are professionals and they want to know that they are going to have the tools for the job, the necessary equipment to do

  279
  their extremely professional—a job to which we all pay tribute.
  Clearly, the shilly-shallying about arms exports dismays forces personnel, because they see that this shilly-shallying may deprive them of the opportunities to get the equipment which they need, and which they know they need, to do their job properly. If the Government will make up their mind and say, "Right: we are going to export this material", whether or not they like the ideologies of the countries seeking to place orders, that would be enormously helpful to our forces.
  When one puts the telescope to one's eye the wrong way round, as to some extent one has to do after one has been for some years out of the forces, one begins to see personnel and strategic problems still clearly but equipment problems less clearly, especially in this very technical age. Therefore, I shall refer very briefly to a few personnel and strategic problems.
  First and foremost is the pay of the troops. To sum it up, the pay of the troops has fallen grotesquely behind the industrial level. If one compares what a miner gets in Durham, if he stays there and goes on being a miner, with what his brother would get if, for instance, he went into the Durham Light Infantry, one must say that the forces are not being fairly treated. I do not think my own Government have been blameless on this. There has been a forces pay review, but in my estimation its award falls very far short of what the forces deserve. I am bound to admit that the forces are not agitating for more. It is quite remarkable, I feel, that they do not do so. I do not want to say anything, now or ever, which would detract from or spoil the morale of the forces in any way. But we as parliamentarians, and particularly hon. Gentlement on the Front Bench opposite, who are always on about social justice, special cases and so on, must look at this again as a special case. If they do so with unclouded eyes they will see that the forces are not now getting a square deal on pay.
  A great flourish was made about a 50p-a-day extra allowance for troops serving in Northern Ireland. How much work can one get out of a cleaning woman in London for 50p? How long will she work for that amount? Less than an
  280
  hour. I do not know how much overtime a miner will work for 50p but some of the troops in Northern Ireland are working over 100 hours a week and sometimes as many as 112 or even 120 hours a week and we in this House have a very great responsibility to see that they are properly and adequately paid at a time of enormously spiralling wage increases.
  To be fair to him, the Secretary of State in a speech on 29th March said:
  "My first consideration will be the wellbeing and morale of the Armed Forces. This means among other things they must not feel they are being unfairly treated on the question of their pay."
  Is the Secretary of State in agreement? I hope he will take this point on board and do something extra and additional on this, and will not fall back on the formula, "We have just had a pay review."
  I was very glad to hear the Secretary of State say that recruitment is turning up a bit, but I feel that the Government tend to be a little complacent about a continuing shortfall. One of the suggestions I would put to him is that he should look again at a suggestion which my own Minister turned down, the recruitment of 15-year-olds for the forces. A great deal could be done here—and this links with the Private Member's Bill from the Liberal benches today. If boys could go into the forces at 15, certainly for the Royal Navy and to a large extent the Army as they have in the past, everybody should be pleased. The boys would get a good career and would not have to stay an extra year in school, which many of them do not want to do. The Secretary of State for Education and Science would not have to pay for them and would not have them disrupting the classes as they may if they are tough boys who want to get out of school to do something active. The forces would get a source of recruitment, and if they cannot put their thumb-print on the minds of those boys at that impressionable age, they will never do so. No one could say that we would be dooming young men to a life in the forces before they knew what they were taking on, because under the Donaldson scheme, if they did not like it in the Services, they could get out at 18.
  A second point linked with recruiting which I should like to put to the Secretary of State arises from the case of

  281
  Corporal Foxford of the Royal Hampshire Regiment. I am delighted to say that he has now been acquitted on appeal, as the Secretary of State will know, of the charge against him. I was not able to refer to this while the case was sub judice. I will not go into details. But here was a very young corporal on patrol on what amounted to active service conditions. He then found himself under trial in a civil court for an incident arising from that patrol. For all that Corporal Foxford knew, the judge sitting in a wig trying him might never have heard a shot fired in his life, though I am not saying that the judge in this case had not done so.
  There is in the Army a feeling that incidents arising from active service conditions should be tried by a military tribunal of some kind—a court martial, perhaps—why not?—open to the public, perfectly open, just as any other court of justice is open. At least the military men involved would feel that they were being tried by military people who understood what it is to be shot at. This is important in the context of Northern Ireland, where instant decisions of life and death have to be taken by young and relatively inexperienced men. This is different from past wars in which experienced brigadiers and naval captains took the decisions. This is a "corporals' war". My constituent was only 20 years old.
  Mr. Mason: I praise the hon. and gallant Gentleman's initiative in using this opportunity to raise the case of Corporal Foxford. I had it on my conscience, as no doubt did the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and everybody who understood the case probably felt the same way. I am very pleased and happy for his family and for the lad himself that in the end he was acquitted. He has gone back to his unit now and he has got rid of the whole weight of that burden from his mind and shoulders. That is a good thing. I appreciate the second point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised, about the possibility of a military tribunal. I certainly have that well in mind and I hope that Lord Gardiner's Committee will be able to take this on board and help us in due course.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am very grateful for what the Secretary of State said. He has taken the point, too,
  282
  that this young man was under threat of trial for a long time.
  Linked with recruiting is the question of Service pensions. In Service life, continuity in a regiment for one family often runs like a golden thread through our military history. The fathers and uncles of the young men whom we are seeking to recruit must feel that they have a square deal from a Service in which they have spent so much of their lives. The older Service pensioners in particular, and especially their widows, feel that they are falling very much behind because of inflation.
  Surveillance of the trade routes is a matter on which I begin to disagree with the hon. Member for Loughborough. He thought that the important point was that central Europe should be defended, that if we were short of money we should concentrate on what mattered most. But the other point of view is that if he or I—or, more probably, some of his colleagues!—were in the Kremlin, we would not decide to go left, right, left, right, into the plains of Europe, knowing that we would start World War Three. We should, instead, look for where the West was weakest and we would see that by graduated pressure we could exert a stranglehold on the trade routes, especially the oil trade routes around the Cape.
  Mr. Cronin: I take the point. I merely suggested the importance of central Europe. I did not intend to diminish the importance of guarding the trade routes.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am obliged. The surveillance of trade routes is a much-neglected issue and is linked with the whole trauma in the Labour Party about the east of Suez question; with the essential Simonstown Agreement; and with Diego Garcia, which it is grotesque to represent as a possible offensive base. Diego Garcia could be used only for surveillance and would be useless as an offensive base. It is surveillance of our trade routes to prevent war—I emphasise "prevent"—rather than to fight it that I am on about.
  To bring the trade route business up to date, the Secretary of State did not give a satisfactory answer to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) about the oil rigs. It is all very well to say that this is being considered, but the threat to the

  283
  oil rigs has been represented in the House for some time, and the Secretary of State should give a more satisfactory answer, about what he intends to do. Potentially hostile ships on blatant intelligence activities are endangering the rigs and something must be done.
  I would put it to the Secretary of State who seems in a receptive frame of mind today, that the naval Harrier is absolutely fundamental in our effective surveilance of the trade routes. It is God's gift to naval aviation. An hon. Member asked who would pay for it. The exports would pay for all the R and D involved. We should have an enormous export potential, to the great good of our country both militarily and industrially.
  Finally, so much in defence matters is stimulated by what the public are thinking about it, and I believe that the public have an uneasy feeling that there is not adequate home defence. The reserves at home are inadequate. The best assistance that the Armed Forces could have in this respect is a vigorous recruiting drive for the police—not for the Forces themselves at all. I have left this point to the last in case it was out of order, for I know that it is basically a Home Office matter, but will the Minister undertake to speak to the Home Secretary about the police, whose numbers are down and whose pay is as inadequate as that of the Forces? In the home defence rôle we want a massive increase in police manpower.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House that many right hon. and hon. Members still wish to speak in this important debate? It would be helpful if speeches could be kept reasonably short.
  6.47 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: It will hardly surprise the House to learn that I disagree with almost everything said by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). I wish to show that this summer the danger of a nuclear war has grown alarmingly; that the fatal weapons are about to spread; and that the best way in which Britain can prevent it is to set an example to other Governments who are considering making atom bombs.
  284
  The alternative is to take part in the nuclear arms race, which sooner or later will lead to the final disaster—the extinction of mankind. In any case, we cannot possibly keep up with America and Russia. Nor can we prevent nuclear missiles, if fired, from landing on our crowded island. Far from being starry-eyed idealists, those who are for reducing conventional and nuclear weapons are the real realists.
  Mankind's chance of avoiding a nuclear war worsened in several ways in the last month. India's atomic explosion, on the palpably weak excuse that it was for non-military purposes, has encouraged, I hope not irretrievably, the proliferation of atom and hydrogen bombs beyond the five existing nuclear powers. This has clearly increased the danger of war by accident. It also means that sooner or later such weapons will fall into the hands of a dictator who is prepared to use them even if he knows that it means suicide. Hitler was willing to commit suicide in the bunkers of Berlin and would have brought Germany and the world down in ruins if he and other Governments had possessed the bomb.
  Equally serious is the American provision of nuclear resources, allegedly for civil ends, to Egypt and Israel. I am referring to the nuclear reactors. There will be a tremendous temptation both for Arabs and for Israelis to divert those developments secretly to the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The mutual distrust is so great that each country will justify its action by saying, "If we do not, they will."
  America's defence for this provision is that her nuclear aid in the Middle East will be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency—a weak safeguard, unfortunately; it may be circumvented. Nor should it be forgotten that India had previously given to Canada an undertaking about the use to which nuclear aid would be put.
  Hydrogen bomb tests in the atmosphere by China and France not only increase the fall-out of strontium 90 throughout the world, they also accelerate the nuclear arms race. Ten other countries are already capable of making a bomb fairly quickly, and that could be a serious threat to the lives of our children and grandchildren.

  285
  Coming nearer home, at the Ottawa Conference encouragement has been given to France under its new President to rejoin NATO. Some of us suspect that behind this persuasion is the objective of creating the Anglo-French nuclear force advocated by Lord Carrington and others. If this were agreed to, the West German generals would insist on having a finger on the nuclear trigger, and that is what Russia with her 20 million war dead would never accept. It would mean the end of our hopes for East-West détente and peace.
  Britain has held an underground nuclear test explosion in Nevada and is spending £100 million on "improving the Polaris missiles. That could not have been done at a worst time. America and Russia may shortly sign an agreement to stop underground test explosions and our action will not improve those prospects.
  The nuclear bomb is a suicide weapon. Once fired, by design or accident, our people will be wiped out in instant retaliation. There is a terrible danger of the weapons spreading to more and more countries. The British Government should, by her example, give a lead in ending this lunacy by ending all nuclear bases on British soil or in British waters, and by ending all nuclear test explosions in future.
  There is also a moral issue involved. Would any hon. Member be prepared to press the button which he knew would lead instantly to the death of millions of men, women and children in another country? Further, would any hon. Member be prepared to press that button if he knew that there would be retaliation and the incineration of millions of our men, women and children? Few decent men would be prepared to do that. If we are not prepared to do it ourselves, we have no right to instruct a Service man to do it for us.
  At Question Time this afternoon reference was made to the accident to the Polaris submarine in the Clyde. 'Chat same submarine, HMS "Renown", under a different captain—and I am not blaming him—was previously involved in an accident in the Clyde. Because of an electronic mistake the submarine surfaced under a coaster with which it collided. Can we be confident that one day by a
  286
  similar electronic accident the wrong button will not be pressed, launching a missile and the third world war? It is not an impossibility.
  "Labour's Programme 1973" was carried without dissent at the party conference—there was no question of a two to one majority. As a member of the National Executive Committee, the Prime Minister took part in drafting it. It reads:
  "The Conservative Government seems to be thinking in terms of maintaining Britain's independent nuclear forces and moving into a new generation of strategic weapons. Labour has already renounced this course."
  Yet defence experts seem to be united in believing that Britain's recent test explosion in Nevada was not just to see that the existing bombs had not "gone stale", but was to develop the capacity of the existing Polaris missiles and warheads. We have had no denial of that. Surely, that is conflict with the Labour Party programme. Will the Minister who is to wind up give an assurance that the test was not for a new generation of weapons?
  Similar vital debates on arms spending are also taking place inside the Governments in Washington and Moscow. There is a struggle between the hawks, who can never have enough weapons, and the doves, who would prefer to spend the money on raising the standard of living of the people. The hawks, such as Marshal Grechko and Mr. Schlesinger, help one another. Acceleration of the arms race by one side encourages those who are pressing for it on the other. I hope that the British Labour Government will come down firmly on the side of the doves.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Amery: The concluding words of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) struck me as being particularly significant and apposite. He said that there is a question of degree of emphasis in every Government as to how much they should devote to defence. No one would disagree with that proposition. It must depend upon the circumstances. Where I disagree most emphatically with the hon. Gentleman is in drawing the distinction which he sought to draw between nuclear and other weapons.
  Nomenclature has played its part. There was a time when we talked about

  287
  conventional weapons and nuclear weapons; but, as the hon. Gentleman said, the know-how is now spread so widely throughout the world that there is likely to be a considerable proliferation of nuclear weapons. For us to take a "holier than thou" attitude towards Pandit Nehru's daughter is to take a dinosaur approach in the modern world. The conventional nuclear line is now blurred.
  If the hon. Gentleman will think about it carefully and rationally, he will accept that if there is a proliferation of nuclear weapons the best chance we have of protecting our people against the risk of incineration is by having the ability to deter attack by offering to give as good as we get.
  The line taken by the hon. Gentleman corresponded to the old slogan, "Better red than dead", but we should not forget that those who have fought and won the battle of freedom have usually campaigned under the banner, "Death or Liberty".
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The right hon. Gentleman said that we must have these weapons and stronger forces to deter attack. Is not that the argument put forward by the gentlemen inside the Kremlin? The same argument takes place there. If the right hon. Gentleman read Victor Zorza in The Guardian this morning he will see that precisely this argument is taking place in the Kremlin and the Pentagon.
  Mr. Amery: I have no doubt it is. I said that I did not disagree with the hon. Gentleman that there could be an argument as to the amount of energy devoted to defence by any given country. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman at the point when he seeks to draw what I regard as an artificial line between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons.
  I thought that the attack by the hon. Member for Salford, East on his own Government on the question of nuclear tests was ill-advised. In the modern world, where the United States, Russia, China, France. Britain and now India and possibly other countries are involved in nuclear matters, there will be a mix of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. This may be disagreeable but we have to face
  288
  that situation. If we are to protect our own people, deterrence now becomes just as essential—as a policeman is still, alas essential in our own society.
  Mr. Lee: The implication of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks seems to be that we should abandon the idea of stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to second and third-class Powers. Is that what he means?
  Mr. Amery: It is a fair point. Let us hope that we can prevent proliferation, but I do not think that we in this country, with the relatively small weight we now carry in international affairs, would be justified in sacrificing our ability to defend British people in the hope that our moral example will persuade other people not to embark on a course on which they are likely to embark anyway. The hon. Gentleman raised other points of a more practical and strategic character, with which I should like to deal a little later in my remarks.
  But first, I should like to say how glad I am to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—whose experience in economic and financial matters we all recognise and whose personal energies I have personally experienced, having had meetings with him at 9 o'clock in the morning over a period of 2½ years in the Department of the Environment—now devoting his energies to the most important task which any Conservative, I should say any British public figure can take on. I refer to his shadow responsibilities in defence matters. I very much welcome his appearance at the Dispatch Box in that most important rôle.
  I should also like to say how greatly I admired the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence, both for its realism and for the abundance of information he gave the House. I hope that these even-handed tributes will not embarrass either my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester or the Secretary of State. It is extremely unlikely that I shall have much to do with the distribution of portfolios in a government of national unity, if and when it comes.
  I understand that my right hon. Friend took the Secretary of State to task for the delay in bringing forward a defence review. Having returned recently from

  289
  Teheran, I know that there is consider able anxiety that orders for the through deck cruiser and the Harrier could be jeopardised by any delay. Nevertheless, I ventured to make the point at Question Time that I would rather see indecision than wrong decisions, and in my view the decisions we have had so far have been wrong. I refer, for example, to the decisions about the sale of arms to Chile and South Africa.
  I hope that ideological consideration will lead the Government to review the long established policy of British Governments about the sale of arms to Portugal, bearing in mind the importance of the Cape Verde Islands to our own communications. In talking about indecisions—wrong decisions—I shall refrain from taking an attitude of "I told you so"—I think I am justified in drawing attention to the sad consequences that flowed from the hurried cancellation of the TSR2 and the P11/54. The TSR2 would have been in service before 1970 and would have been able to do almost everything the MRCA is able to do, and I suspect it would have sold like hot cakes. The P11/54, which was a super some version of the Harrier, would no doubt have been in operation by 1972 at the latest and would have been able to do almost everything that the super Harrier could have done. Some say we are likely now to contract out of Concorde.
  I hesitated to intervene in this debate, but since the lifetime of this Parliament may not be long I shall say one or two further things on this topic of defence. Lord Wigg used to refer to Lord Haldane's statement that we must start from first principles. I think it will be generally accepted that one does not have to be a Marxist to realise that defence and foreign policy are the other side of economic and financial policy. The object of defence is to maintain the security of our territory and our interests. Where Britain is concerned, our interests and territory are more closely connected than perhaps in most countries, because 50 per cent. of our people earn their living either by working up raw materials imported from abroad or by producing goods to sell abroad.
  We can now see this point to be true more clearly today than at any time in the past. In the past I often talked about
  290
  the importance of defending our oil interests in the Gulf and people used to say, "It is so far away, why should the military be involved?" But I think the whole House is agreed today that our Armed Forces should be concerned in defending our interests in the North Sea, although they are not strictly within the British Isles. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester probed the Secretary of State on how those interests should be defended. If it is right to defend the livelihood of our people in respect of oil coming from the North Sea, I suspect that it is also right with regard to other essential raw materials, including oil from the Gulf.
  Here, I should like to say a word or two about Oman and Muscat and perhaps express a hope or two. A total of seven hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Salford, East, recently signed a letter calling for the withdrawal of British military advisers and personnel from Oman. Oman is the key to the Gulf, both in its geographical position and the number of Omanis who work in the Gulf. If Oman were to fall into hostile hands, I suspect that the whole of the Gulf would be in some danger—perhaps in imminent peril. The rebellion in Dhofar is not a national insurrection but is an invasion dominated from outside by Communist forces in Aden. It has been kept at bay, largely thanks to the efforts of British and Iranian advisers.
  The Sultanate of Oman is trying to bring the country out of its mediaeval situation, thanks to its oil revenues. I hope that the Government will not be influenced by the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Salford, East and his co-signatories of the letter to which I have referred.
  Mr. Newens: Perhaps I may intervene since I am a signatory to the letter to which reference has been made. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that in the case of Oman we are defending democracy, or does he agree that for many years British influence was devoted to defending and upholding a mediaeval despotism which is absolutely abhorrent to Members on both sides of the House?
  Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman should study the situation a little more carefully before he seeks to pronounce so definitely on the subject. The present

  291
  Sultanate of Oman is now going forward progressively, thanks to the revenues from oil, with the building of hospitals, schools and other developments. The forces which are attacking the present Sultanate of Oman comprise the most barbarous dictatorial elements in the whole of South Arabia. They have killed political prisoners, imprisoned political opponents, suppressed the Press completely and also reduced the trade union movement, such as it is, to an arm of Government. In euphemistic terms it is called a people's democracy, but it is about as agreeable as Albania or Latvia at this time. Compared with them, the Sultanate of Oman is a liberal country. I can say that from personal experience.
  The British forces in the Gulf are there not only to defend democracy, but to defend British interests, which are the interests of our democracy represented in this House.
  It is important for us to maintain our commitment in Cyprus, because of the contribution that we can not only make to CENTO, which has an indirect effect on the Gulf, again because of our alliance with Iran, but also because of its relevance to peace-keeping in the context of the Arab-Israeli problem. The United Nations force which is now interposed between the Israelis and the Egyptians in Sinai was drawn from Cyprus and still relies on it.
  By the same token, I do not think that we should ignore the claims of South-East Asia. Mr. Lee Kwan Yew has been here recently. I have not been privy to his conversations with the Government. However, I understand from what he has said in public that he would like us to stay somewhat longer in Singapore. He believes that, given time, he and his neighbours could constitute an effective defence force, but that the withdrawal of British forces now would be a stab in the back to the hopes that he has of building stability.
  South-East Asia is tranquilised to some extent—though only relatively considering the situation in Vietnam—thanks to the preoccupation of China with her own development and for the time being having no expansionist aspirations.
  Would it not be a good thing if, by a small expenditure in South-East Asia
  292
  —in Oman there is none—we were able to contribute to the building of stability in an area in which this country has important interests which contribute to the maintenance of our prosperity and free society?
  I pay tribute to what the Secretary of State for Defence said about the build-up of the Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean. The Soviet forces have been exercising in the area by sea, by air and, in Somalia, by land. The trade routes round the Cape are of great significance to us. Their defence is a matter on which we ought to be co-operating with our American friends. Indeed, I think that we should lead them to assume greater responsibilities in the Indian Ocean than hitherto.
  This is not without importance to our European commitment. As Europe grows towards greater unity—I think that it will—so its wealth will increase, and it will become more dependent on raw materials and markets overseas. Therefore, Europe has a great interest in the stability of the whole area round the Indian Ocean.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) that, important as the Indian Ocean, the Gulf and South-East Asia are, the key to our security from attack as distinct from our security from siege and starvation lies on the continent of Europe. It would be wrong to think that the preoccupation of many hon. Members on both sides of the House with that idea is a legacy of the cold war.
  I do not want to waste the time of the House in speculation. We cannot claim to know what Soviet intentions are. Sir Winston Churchill called them a riddle wrapped up in an enigma. However, we know what their dispositions are. We know that their forces in Central Europe have been steadily increasing, as the Secretary of State explained, right up to the present and that at the same time they have increased their forces on the Chinese border without taking a single unit away from the West.
  I am not suggesting that they are proposing to attack us tomorrow. However, we would be naïve not to conclude that they want to keep open the option of using force, or the threat of force, at a later time if it suits them. Keeping open

  293
  the option is something with which the Labour Party should be familiar and it is perhaps a point that Mr. Brezhnev and the Prime Minister have in common.
  Looking at the dispostion of Soviet forces in Central Europe, we must conclude that they are far stronger than anything that is needed to deter attack. Indeed, they are far stronger than anything that is needed to subjugate the satellites against the kind of revolt that they faced in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Therefore, they must be there for some serious purpose. That serious purpose could only be to keep open the option of using force.
  Our defence against this Soviet preponderance and power in Central Europe is, to say the least, uncertain. So far as it exists, it rests on the following propositions. We must face the fact that, as the hon. Member for Loughborough openly said and I agree, the American strategic deterrent is not the shield that it was for the defence of bits of Western Europe. The Americans are not likely to endanger their homeland by protecting this or that country or province in Western Europe. The defence of Western Europe rests upon the combination of American tactical nuclear power and of our conventional forces, 80 per cent. of which are European. The certainty that that tactical nuclear power would be used—
  Mr. Cronin: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is placing too much reliance on American tactical nuclear weapons. Heavily industrialised and populated countries, such as Germany, would suffer from tactical nuclear weapons more than the mainly agricultural countries of Eastern Europe.
  Mr. Amery: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The distinction between tactical and nuclear is not so much one of megaton or kiloton of delivery as where it is dropped. As long as it is not dropped on the territory of one of the two super-Powers it remains tactical. That is the realistic definition and that is where the distinction lies. The fact that there are American tactical nuclear weapons and six American divisions involved makes it likely that, if there were an attack, those tactical nuclear weapons would be used.
  294
  We have the assurance of President Nixon that the Americans will maintain their forces in Europe as long as the Europeans continue to make the necessary effort. I believe that that is an assurance on which we can count. There is also a great deal in the French logic that the Americans will keep their forces in Europe because it is in their interests to do so.
  Yet, during our time in office, we had repeated warnings from the American administration that, unless we did this or that, the pressure of American public opinion could lead to a withdrawal of American troops. The American Opposition to the present administration have also said that publicly time and again. I hope that it is not true and that it will not happen. But it is the responsiblity of Governments to prepare for the worst. We dare not ignore these warnings, because in modern times defence takes a long time to organise. We ought to be thinking now—I want to take the debate a little wider than the Secretary of State did—of the ways in which Europeans should prepare to organise Europe's defence.
  The Secretary of State produced an argument about volunteer forces being more expensive than conscription but I am not sure that that is true. My experience at the War Office in time of conscription suggests that it is the other way round, and one of the reasons we abolished conscription was that we thought it more expensive. But however that argument may lie, it is perfectly within the power of the European countries of the Atlantic Alliance to provide another six divisions if the American divisions were to be, unfortunately, withdrawn. It is perfectly within our power to develop the necessary tactical nuclear defence systems, hopefully in co-operation with America, but in France and Britain we have the know-how for most of this and most of the capital expenditure required has already been expended.
  There is no great technical problem here but there are what the hon. Member for Salford, East drew attention to—great political problems. There is the problem of Germany. It is a sensitive problem. Germany is in a special position because it is divided and because of Berlin. But I draw a different conclusion from that of the hon. Member

  295
  for Salford, East. If I am not mistaken he was a signatory to a letter in The Times this morning attacking the more pro-European approach that we have had from the Government in the past few weeks. However, it is only if progress is made towards Europe and a genuine European union that Germany's neighbours to the East will be persuaded that the German danger is no longer the old danger that they have feared and that perhaps they still fear today. So if it is the German problem which worries the hon. Gentleman, as indeed it worries many people in Eastern Europe, and perhaps some in Western Europe, then it is by progress to European defence and political unification that the danger can best be exorcised.
  We cannot have second-class allies in the Alliance and therefore the swifter we move towards European defence and political unification, the easier it will be to assuage the fears of those who are afraid of the consequences of nuclear European defence in European hands.
  There is also the all-important problem of France's rôle in this matter. There has been much talk in the Press and elsewhere about the asperity of M. Jobert, when Foreign Minister, in his verbal duels with Dr. Kissinger. But M. Jobert made three important speeches suggesting that France should play a more positive and European rôle in defence and none of those speeches received an answer from any of the other eight members of the European Community. I hope that the new French Government carry still further the ideas which M. Jobert put forward and that we all do all we can to press on with the movement towards European union. From this point of view "renegotiation" is only a method of delaying progresss just as "reviewing" has been a method of delaying progress.
  Some people fear that to plan European defence is to ensure a withdrawal of the Americans. I do not agree at all. The Americans want to see a valid partner in Europe. Looking ahead, we ought to extend the Atlantic Alliance to become a global alliance between Europe and the United States as a basis for genuine détente.
  We shall judge the Secretary of State by his defence review when it comes, but like many of my right hon. and hon.
  296
  Friends I was much encouraged by his speech. It seemed to suggest that there is still a consensus in the House on the basic requirements of national security.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: It might seem strange but I am bound to say that I agreed with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) in the latter minutes of his speech. I have for a long time been a pro-European. I believe that we must co-operate with the Germans and the French, and the rest of them in Western Europe, and ultimately in the East of Europe as well, in defence no less than in other matters.
  However, as I listened to the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I got the impression—I might have been wrong—that he was opposed to any cuts whatsoever, on the basis that the threat from the Soviet Union is too great, too blatant and too obvious, and that we simply cannot ignore it and lower our defences anywhere in the world—East of Suez, in Singapore or in the Gulf. I felt a bit alarmed when the right hon. Gentleman said that we needed forces in the Gulf to protect our oil. I am not aware that it has been all that well protected. The Arabs can do what they like. If we sent all the British forces we could muster from all over the world to the Middle East the Arabs could, or perhaps could not, deprive us of our oil—
  Mr. Amery: I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to misinterpret or misunderstand me. I was not suggesting the return of British forces to the Gulf. I was criticising a letter signed by a number of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends calling for withdrawal of military advisers now in Oman. That is a different story.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has cleared that up. We must understand that the presence of military forces does not itself protect the presence of any British economic interests.
  The origin of the debate is in some ways to be deplored. It was a juvenile exercise by the Opposition to exploit the well-known and well-publicised differences inside the Labour Party on defence matters. I am not ashamed of those differences, and I would not attempt to hide them. We in the Labour Party are

  297
  not ashamed of the emotions and anxieties which arise when we discuss defence matters. I am perhaps unique in that I started the war as a conscientious objector and ended up by having His Majesty's Commission—and that in a nutshell, is a dilemma which many of my hon. Friends, and I suspect my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench face.
  We are inspired by a mixture of pacifism and, if I dare use the word, Christianity. We do not believe that in the modern world we can solve questions between nations by the use of mere force, but it may be—as in the case of Ulster—that until a solution is found the Army or Armed Forces, has to hold the ring. That is how I see the Armed Forces of this country.
  There has always been, and I hope there always will be, in my party a pacifist idealism which has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). He believes passionately and sincerely that if we unilaterally renounce our nuclear weapon it will set an example to the rest of the world and that Mr. Brezhnev will say, "Britain has set an example and we must do the same." That is a supremely naïve argument which I cannot accept. We are living in a far-from-idealistic world, and it is a world in which neither the Russians nor the Americans respect weakness.
  The question is what contribution can we in Britain make to the Western defence system? It could be argued that if we withdraw the nuclear bases from Britain and stop completely our nuclear contribution to NATO it would make no difference at all. That may be the case-in fact I think it is the case that the Americans and the Russians separately, and still more so collectively, have a massive overkill in terms of nuclear weapons. Each could separately destroy the whole world, and from that basis it may be argued that there is no point in our going even a small way along the nuclear road.
  I cannot, however, see the morality of that situation, or of saying that in order to save £X million for the British taxpayer we should get rid of our independent British deterrent, albeit it is associated and linked with NATO, and rely, presumably—because the Labour Party is still committed to NATO—and increasingly on the American weapon. Shall
  298
  we say, "We wash our hands of it but, please, Mr. Nixon"—it will not be Mr. Nixon, but whoever occupies the White House—" we ask you on our behalf to blast Russia off the face of the earth"? That is not a posture I should like to adopt. Moreover, it would make us even more dependent on the Americans for our foreign policy as well as our defence policy if we got into that situation.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received, for his speech opening the debate, a brief from his civil servants. An identical brief would have been supplied to a Tory Minister. I do not say that with any criticism of my right hon. Friend, but his brief was based on a realistic assessment of the situation in the world as it is and not as we would wish it to be. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves what the likely possibilities of military development will be in the foreseeable future.
  We also have to look at this matter in terms of what we can afford. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) talked about increasing public expenditure on the Navy. Other hon. Members have talked about increasing expenditure. The right wing of the Tory Party has been calling for reduced public expenditure. If hon. Members are asking for increased public expenditure on defence, the onus is on them to say where they would cut expenditure in other fields to take account of that.
  I want to devote my few remarks to the question of the nuclear test. I suspect that the debate originated with the furore in the Labour Party over the Press leak—for that is what it was. It was forced out of the Government that we had engaged in a nuclear test a few weeks ago. The Prime Minister argued that it did not offend against any of our treaty obligations, or infringe upon the Labour Party manifesto, and that, anyway, it was an underground test—all of which, to some extent, was true.
  The partial test ban treaty of 1963 sought to ban all tests, except underground tests where the danger of fall-out is nil. Similarly, the non-proliferation treaty of 1968 was designed to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons, by whatever means. As it happened, only three of the then five nuclear States signed that treaty, but 90 or so non-nuclear States

  299
  signed it. The 1968 treaty sought to prevent the spread of nuclear explosive technology. It admitted of no distinction between nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes or for military purposes, and it allowed for access by non-nuclear states to benefits arising from nuclear technology. All along, therefore, under successive Governments, Britain has sought to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons.
  We have exploded the bomb in Nevada presumably to make credible the weapon that we have already within the aegis of NATO. None of my hon. Friends has said that we should get out of NATO, nor does the Labour Party say that in our election manifesto. Our manifesto said that we should disband NATO if there were also a disbandment of the Warsaw Pact—in other words, we should not be unilateral. The Labour Party has never taken a unilateral posture in this respect as a party.
  We protested against the atmospheric tests by the French and the Chinese and the underground tests by India. This was all consistent with our anxiety to maintain and extend the partial test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty of 1968, which was not signed by and has not been signed by India.
  I think that the view that I take is shared by most members of the Labour Party. We must strive, first, to fashion our defence expenditure to our economic situation—an extremely dangerous situation. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) is now one of the protagonists of a Government of national unity—whatever that means. He is so precisely because of an extremely critical economic situation. That situation being so, we cannot refrain from looking at all forms of public expenditure, not excluding defence. That is what the Secretary of State is engaged in doing. We want international progress in disarmament. In Russia, America, Britain and the rest of Europe, and now obviously India, the overstretching of resources in defence and military matters is jeopardising national economic futures.
  If we are to have peace through a balance of terror—that is what we have and have had since 1945—and if peace can be obtained only through that, frightening though it may be, that is infi
  300
  nitely less horrific than the prospect of temptation being dangled before a would-be aggressor by the collective weakness of the West. That is the critical point. That is where the Labour Party stands. I hope that the whole House can unite on that principle.
  7.38 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) referred to a visit to Gibraltar last week by the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a very accepted chairman of the Expenditure Committee. We were very glad about that, as he was a very valuable member of the sub-committee. In his new capacity he accompanied us to Gibraltar.
  This was primarily a naval visit, but we took the opportunity last Wednesday morning to look at what had happened in the docks since we were there 18 months ago and what had happened to what is called the Europa scheme for building extra married quarters. I am sorry to have to tell the House that we found that the condition of married quarters on this visit was worse than it was 18 months ago. The reason is that the first part of the Europa scheme has not yet been started. Rents have risen in Gibraltar for the private accommodation which we hire, and that has become scarcer. Only a week before our visit 18 houses, which were on a month's contract, had been withdrawn from the Services.
  Why has not the Europa No. 1 scheme been started'? As I understand the situation, there seems to be no blame to be attached to one particular section. There were difficulties about obtaining contractors and getting out tenders. I understand, however, that a tender has been approved but that no starting time has been fixed. This situation is so serious for our Services in Gibraltar that the Governor told me that he had sent a specific cable to the Ministry of Defence in London. The Army has done everything possible to prepare the site for these new houses, building a new road, an underpass and so on. We could not understand why, since the contract had the approval of the Ministry of Defence, it was being held up. I suspect that the delay has been caused by the Treasury.

  301
  I suspect also that the delay is connected with the building of the new NAAFI which will cost about £400,000, but which is vitally necessary. Nevertheless, that could be taken out of contract for the moment and left to be sorted out in 10 or 12 weeks' time.
  It is vital that these quarters should be built. Single Service men in Gibraltar are far better off than married Service men. Their quarters are less crowded than they used to be, with perhaps three men to a room instead of five or six. The situation in married quarters is deplorable. I hope that the Minister of State will give me an assurance about the starting date for the scheme and that the scheme has been accepted.
  We would do well to bear in mind the conditions in which our Service men live in Gibraltar, cut off completely from Spain as they are by a wire fence. These people live in a small enclosure and it is like being on a tiny island. It takes about half a day to get to Tangiers and perhaps a whole day to get some part of Spain. There is no slipping out to a cinema for our men. They are confined to the areas of the Rock.
  This is one of the few stations where naval personnel can have their wives out with them, but many naval personnel are having to wait more than a year before their families join them. I am sure that the House wishes our Service men to be housed in the best conditions possible. I am sure I speak for the whole Committee in saying that wherever we have visited, whether Cyprus, Germany or anywhere else, we have never seen worse conditions. I am sure that hon. Members could find no worse conditions of shortage in their own constituencies.
  We owe it to the Services to get these houses built. The scheme provides housing for about 30 officers and 101 other ranks, but I warn the House that even when the houses are built we shall be 400 married quarters short. Of course, there is always the Europa No. 2 scheme, but the first scheme is at least a start. If the houses are built it will give our people increased hope and improve their morale. If the scheme does not go ahead it will be depressing for them. With the current rate of inflation if the contract is left for six months it will cost us a great deal more, and we may even have difficulty in getting a contractor to take it on.
  302
  As an old Territorial I was pleased to hear that detachments of the TA were going out and helping to level the site as part of their training. The men were glad to go out. There is good will everywhere over the scheme. We want the Minister of State to secure full consent from the Treasury. This is not an issue of party politics. The scheme would have advantages even if in the future we vacated the Rock. It is to be built out on Europa Point away from the densely populated parts of Gibraltar, and no doubt the Gibraltarians would gratefully accept the houses from us, but that is looking a long way ahead.
  Our visit was basically a naval visit. We went aboard HMS "Blake", which is a cruiser, and we saw a helicopter exercise in searching out submarines. The exercise was well done, but I came to the conclusion that HMS "Blake" was an old ship. It has been recommissioned and has good modern equipment on an old hull, but it is an inconvenient vessel. It is expensive to run both in terms of manpower and in finance, and if ever I needed to be converted in favour of the through-deck cruiser to replace "Blake" that visit was enough to convert me. Perhaps that is why the Navy invited the Committee out. The House must see that we get value for money in our defence spending and that we save money by seeing that manpower is not used wastefully. When the time comes it will be appropriate to replace this vessel.
  In opening the debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) drew attention to Press reports about changes in the defence budget. He suggested that perhaps we should take all the hospitals and education out of that budget. Our Committee has advocated that course to previous Secretaries of State, and we have been turned down. It was pleasing to hear that the matter is being considered now. My right hon. Friend suggested this might save hundreds of millions of pounds, but I doubt whether it will save more than £100 million.
  The Secretary of State paid tribute to the large number of men on active service and in the Ministry of Defence who have given evidence before various commissions. Many of those people have appeared before our Committee, and we

  303
  are grateful for their help. We are grateful, too. for the help we have received on visits to various establishments abroad and in Britain. When people are on their home ground they are more outspoken than when they appear to give evidence in a Committee room upstairs.
  I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State said about rationalisation and standardisation. I believe that every Secretary of State has tried to achieve this over the years, but with disappointing results. If, with his robust spirit, the right hon. Gentleman can carry it through with our allies in NATO, he will be doing a magnificent job for the defence of the West. My hon. Friends and I wish him the best of luck in all that he is doing to achieve rationalisation of weaponry. It is a very difficult job.
  I totally disagree with what the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), the sole Liberal representative present today, said about being unable to support a nuclear Polaris submarine programme. He seemed to think that it was very expensive. The Secretary of State told us what it cost. I believe that the nuclear submarine with Polaris missiles has been one of the cheapest weapons for safeguarding this country we have ever had. I profoundly disagree with the Liberal view that it should be phased out.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Liberals will have a different policy tomorrow.
  Sir H. Harrison: The hon. Gentleman may be right. Anyway, I did not agree with the policy enunciated by the hon. Member for Inverness today. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the policy he is carrying out. I hope that the Minister of State will give the House a satisfactory answer on Europa Point tonight, or very soon.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. John Lee: I shall not take up what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison). Except for his last remarks, what he said was uncontroversial and helpful, and most hon. Members will have agreed with him.
  There has been a depressing unreality about the rest of the debate. I want to illustrate that in two ways. I have
  304
  listened to all the speeches in the debate and, with about two exceptions, to all the speeches in the other defence debates we have had this Session. In all that time there has been only one speech—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Mallalieu)—which referred not to a potential danger from any foreign Power, a matter which has obsessed hon. Members on both sides of the House in this debate, but to the question of internal subversion.
  It is extraordinary that we can spend thousands of millions of pounds on what is called defence yet could not cope with a situation of internal subversion if it arose. I am not saying a word about the merits or demerits of the various forces at work in the world. I sympathise with the aims of some of them. But it is extraordinary that in a world which has nuclear Powers the United States Ambassador to the Sudan can be murdered and his country can do nothing about it. Aircraft can be hijacked all over the world, and the countries concerned stand helplessly by. People can be held hostage, hijacked or kidnapped in one way or another, and the military forces can do nothing about it. Not all the nuclear weapons in the world have the slightest relevance to that present military situation.
  I am not suggesting for a moment that it would be morally right, anyway, but nobody could use nuclear weapons to stop Irish or Arab terrorists or any other group of people. The nature of warfare is changing so much that the weapons upon which we have been spending so much of our money over the past 25 years are totally inapplicable to it.
  The second feature of the unreality was the rather cautious way in which hon. Member after hon. Member referred, no doubt quite accurately, to the disparity between the military forces possessed by the NATO Alliance and the greater military forces possessed by the Warsaw Pact. When anybody tried to cost what it would need to bring them into balance, every hon. Member who supports the defence policy shied away from that question. The reason is obvious: it would involve so enormous an increase in military expenditure as to enfeeble the economy of every country that subscribes to NATO, without the guarantee that,

  305
  in the end, there would be an adequate form of defence.
  The fact is that, like it or not, in terms of world nuclear strategy or a tactical nuclear situation, this country is as indefensible now as Denmark was in 1940, when faced with the Nazi blitzkrieg. We might just as well face that fact.
  That does not mean that there is nothing we can do. I wish to make myself perfectly clear. I am not a pacifist, and, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), I never have been. I have advocated on the Floor of the House in defence debates before now a system of flying commandos, with the ability to go into other countries in retaliation in a military situation, to kidnap and kill military and political leaders of other nations. One could not be more unpacifist than that. At least it is a military policy that would not cost very much, and it has some bearing on reality. It cannot be said to be more morally reprehensible than the kind of military strategy that envisages the possibility that we would indulge in nuclear action that everyone knows would result in the total annihilation of this country, possibly in only a matter of hours, and perhaps less.
  Mr. David Walder: We live in the deterrence world. It is not necessary to match the massive armaments of other nuclear Powers in order to deter them from attack upon us.
  Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman derives a certain amount of comfort from that. But the trouble is that the nuclear bluff—for that is what he means—has already been twice exposed to be a bluff, in 1956 over Hungary and in 1968 over Czechoslovakia. It is true that in 1956 the British Prime Minister of the day went mad and sent his gun boats to Suez instead of his tanks to Budapest. But in 1968 there was a casus belli if ever there was one. I do not accept the NATO concept, but the hon. Gentleman does, and my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and Fife, Central obviously do. We have already been found out. Everyone knows that we would never dare use nuclear weapons.
  It might be argued as a countervailing argument that the Governments of Imre
  306
  Nagy and Dubcek were not the kind of sleazy banana-republic Governments that the United States Government and most British Governments regard as being Western democracy, but were Communist countries trying to become democratic, and therefore still stank in the nostrils of the Pentagon. That argument does not destroy the fact that in each case there was an act of aggression which, if NATO stood for anything realistic, would have resulted in a nuclear situation. Therefore, we must accept—and the Russians know this perfectly well—that NATO strategy, as well as nuclear weapon strategy, is as dead as the dodo. In his long speech my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred, amongst other things, to consultations with our NATO allies. Does that include the Turks and the Greeks? If so, which of them? It cannot involve both, because they are at loggerheads. Unhappily, the long-standing hostility between those two countries is not getting better. With the growing rivalry about the distribution of the Aegean under-sea rights, that rivalry is likely to be exacerbated.
  If at any time anything happens to Archbishop Makarios—and there have been several attempts to see that something does happen to him—we may suddenly find two of our NATO allies at war with each other. That situation would be rather similar to that which faced the German High Command in the last war, when it had to keep the Hungarians and the Romanians at different parts of the Eastern Front for fear that they would be fighting each other instead of fighting the common enemy, which in that case was the Russians.
  In the situation which I have postulated would it be the Turks who would be jettisoned, with their Middle East land frontiers, or would the Greeks be jettisoned, with their NATO base in Cyprus, which excites so many Conservative hon. Members who are so concerned with the Russian Fleet?
  It is rather odd that within the context of a NATO defence policy there has not been a word of encouragement by either Front Bench spokesman for the new Portuguese Government. For several hundred years we have had the Portuguese as our oldest ally, and our least effective, to judge by their performance in both world wars. Now that the

  307
  Portuguese have something like a reputable Government I would have thought that the Secretary of State would have had the grace to say something about their having a supportive rôle in the free world. Are we to understand that now Portugal has become a free country it no longer qualifies to be regarded as part of what is often regarded as the free world in defence mythology?
  The oddest thing about the world military situation is probably the factor about which we shall never be called upon to show concern. It is obvious that a dangerous situation for the locality will arise when Mao Tse-tung departs from the scene. Will that be the occasion when the Russians decide to take over China? Obviously the Chinese are apprehensive. That is certainly not something to which we can make any contribution.
  It is more likely that the enormous expenditure upon naval armaments in which the Russians have indulged over the past few years is at least as likely to be relevant to the Far East situation vis-à-vis the Chinese as it is to our problems. We can never be sure, of course, about the outcome of such situations.
  It is extraordinary that a Labour Government who face what we have been told ad infinitum and ad nauseam is the gravest economic peacetime crisis should wish to continue adding gratuitously to their difficulties by spending hundreds of millions of pounds on weapons which we cannot use. I can understand Conservative hon. Members doing so. It is understandable, if disreputable, that they should wish a Labour Government to enfeeble themselves unnecessarily. What is so extraordinary and totally inexcusable is that some of my hon. Friends should connive in assisting in that absurd charade. I am sorry, in a way, that this is not a debate that will end in a Division. I have no confidence in defence policy. I can assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that if the defence review is not a drastic measure resulting in substantial savings there will be one hell of a row, and I shall be in the middle of it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I remind the House that my predecessor in the Chair asked for short speeches. I realise that no speech seems as long to the hon. Mem
  308
  ber who delivers it as it does to those hon. Members who are waiting to speak, but it will be a good thing if everyone is brief.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Luce: For some three-quarters of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Mr. Lee) I was confused about precisely what he was advocating for the defence world. Only at the end of his speech did the implication of his words suggest that he believed that we should disband all our nuclear defence in the Western world, if not our conventional forces as well. He seems to have learned nothing from the lessons of centuries of history. He does not seem to appreciate the stark reality of the need for a balance of power. Human nature does not change overnight, as some people like to think. If the Secretary of State were to follow the policies of the hon. Member for Handsworth we would not even have a free democratic Chamber in which to carry out this sort of debate.
  The heartening principal features of this debate have been the robust speeches of the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). The debate has taken place at a critical time. There is strong pressure from the left-wing of the Labour Party to cut our defence expenditure by nothing less than a third. That pressure conies when Europe remembers the 25th anniversary of NATO. In a way that is sad when NATO is in a high state of disarray and when the Secretary of State has described the growing Soviet naval penetration.
  We need to be on our guard. One of the lessons we all should have learned from the 1930s is the need for politicians not to try to hide or run away from defence. We should warn the public when we feel that our defences are inadequate or when they are being weakened. It seems unbelievable that we have fought two world wars and that we should still have not learned those lessons. The young generation need to be constantly reminded, first, of what the previous generations did for us in two world wars and, secondly, that human nature and the behaviour of countries has not changed and that it does

  309
  not change just like that. For those reasons we must be on our guard.
  It is no good discussing all the matters that most hon. Members wish to discuss—for example, the reform of education and the health services—unless we have adequate defence. A commandant of a Soviet academy in the 1930s once said that the rôle of the Red Army was to stand ready to shake the tree when the rotten fruit was ripe to fall. That rotten fruit to which he referred was partly the democracies of the Western world. He believed that those democracies would decline and fall of their own volition and, consequential upon that, he felt that with the decline and fall of those democracies their defences would weaken and disappear. Our task is to ensure that that fruit does not start to rot.
  One of the great dangers today is that we have disunity in Europe. With severe inflation in the Western world, we have a real challenge to our democratic fabric in all the countries of the West, and in military terms we have seen many figures thrown about in the debate today about the growing and grave disparity between the relative strengths of the Warsaw Pact Powers and of the NATO Powers.
  We know that the Warsaw Pact Powers have 20 per cent. more troops than the NATO Powers. We know that there is a 2½ to 1 balance in favour of the Warsaw Pact in terms of battle tanks. We know that it has a 2 to 1 preponderance in terms of tactical aircraft and field guns—
  Mr. Lee: Noting that—and the hon. Gentleman is not the first to refer to it—how much more does he think should be spent to redress that balance?
  Mr. Luce: We are really discussing whether defence expenditure should be reduced even further, and I am suggesting that the evidence from those figures is that it would be disastrous if we were to prune our defence expenditure any further.
  In addition to that, we have one really serious problem to which little reference has been made in the debate so far. It is the danger that the United States will begin to withdraw still further its defence support in Western Europe. I recall last summer talking to one or two senators in Washington who said that if there was a vote on the commitment of Congress to
  310
  Europe, they would vote for a cut of at least 50 per cent. in that commitment. It is against that background that we have to consider the situation.
  The Secretary of State described vividly the danger of Soviet naval penetration of all the oceans of the world and the way in which the Soviet Union is spreading its tentacles ready to strangle our trade routes from the North Atlantic to the South Atlantic, from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, and to the Far East. What is more, with the possible opening of the Suez Canal this year, the distance from the Black Sea to the Indian Ocean, which is an important route for the Soviet Navy, will be shortened by no less than 11,000 miles. This will make a substantial difference to the strength of the Soviet Navy in the Red Sea and in the Indian Ocean.
  We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) about the growing Soviet strength in the Indian Ocean. She gave figures of 2,000 ship days in 1968, and 8,000 ship days in 1974. In this connection I quote the words of Marshall Grechco who said to the Russian Navy, "Get to sea, and stay there". That is precisely what has happened.
  It is against this background that we need to examine our defence posture, accepting that with our modified political rôle in the world we must also have a modified defence rôle. There are only three courses of action open to us: to cut manpower, to cut our equipment, or to cut our commitments. The three are interrelated, and I submit that to do one or any of the three would be very dangerous.
  In earlier debates, it has been argued by a number of hon. Members that our expenditure on defence should be commensurate with our gross national product. That is a perfectly legitimate argument and one that we should consider and in my view rebut. About 5½ per cent. of our GNP is taken up in defence, whereas the average for the other NATO powers is a little over 4 per cent. The proportion of the gross national products of Germany and France taken up in defence is also a little over 4 per cent. However, in absolute terms the size of the German and French forces is a good deal larger than ours. The reason is

  311
  that their gross national products are a good deal larger than our own. It cannot be argued that, because our NATO allies devote a smaller proportion of their gross national products to defence, we should cut our own defence expenditure. Our objective must be to increase our wealth at the same speed as other European powers seem able to do. Only then can we consider the prospect of reducing the proportion of our GNP which is spent on defence.
  I turn, then, to our commitments. I think that most hon. Members will agree that NATO is the keystone if we are to retain a flexible response and, therefore, a high level of conventional strength. We should not forget the military strength of the Russians. They have about 30 divisions in Europe, and within only a few days they could mobilise another 70 divisions of reserves. This is an enormous strength.
  As for the Mediterranean, I have no doubt that pressure is building up for pulling out of Cyprus, Malta and possibly even Gibraltar. Our commitment in the Mediterranean costs us about £60 million, and it is a commitment to NATO. I remind hon. Members that that sum is roughly equivalent to the bread subsidy which the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection introduced two or three months ago. It is peanuts in terms of our defence contribution, and it is commitments of this kind that we have to consider seriously.
  Then, as regards the Indian Ocean, I am prepared to listen to any convincing argument about the need to pull out of Singapore. If Lee Kuan Yew says that he no longer feels it necessary for Britain to contribute forces to Singapore and he makes out a case that he has strengthened his nation and his forces to such an extent that a British contribution is no longer necessary, we ought to consider it seriously. I believe that Lee Kuan Yew has said the very opposite. Looking at the Far East, I believe that we should consider a gradual phasing down of our strength in proportion to the growth in the strength of our allies in that part of the world.
  Turning to the Gulf, there is no doubt that Iran is playing a growing rôle in the Gulf and in the Indian Ocean generally.
  312
  In the Far East, Singapore and Malaysia are doing the same.
  Our last commitment is to Ireland. I was pleased to head the tribute which the Secretary of State paid to our soldiers in Northern Ireland. The situation there eats like cancer into the body of our nation. Irrespective of political arguments—and there is no value in rehearsing them in this debate—we need to remind ourselves that the stability of Ireland, north and south, is a matter of profound British interest. We owe a great deal to our forces for their contribution towards stability in the north.
  Looking at all these commitments, it is clear that there is very little room for manoeuvre, especially when we take into account the rôle of the military in aid of the civil power. We see troops surrounding Heathrow Airport. We see reports of the alleged presence of a Russian trawler near an oil rig off Scotland. It is becoming more and more probable that the military will have to play an increasing rôle in coming to the aid of the civil power.
  If our commitments are more or less correct, then our Services must have the equipment to back them, if they are to fulfil their rôle. If, for example, the through-deck cruiser is essential to enable the Navy to fulfil its commitments, then we must have those through-deck cruisers. If, similarly, the maritime Harrier is essential for the Navy to fulfil its rôle, then we must have the maritime Harrier. If the MRCA is essential to enable the RAF to fulfil its rôle, then we must have the MRCA. There is virtually no room for manoeuvre. One would welcome as much pruning and rationalisation in the procurement of arms as is possible. We should go on seeking ways in which we can cut down our defence expenditure.
  We should congratulate most warmly the Government on not giving ground to the left-wing pressure on nuclear tests. The nuclear contribution represents only 1 per cent. of our total defence budget. It does not seem unreasonable after nine years without tests to hold one at Nevada in order to maintain the credibility of our nuclear deterrent.
  I condemn the Government for creating a high degree of uncertainty in the field of defence, at a time when we need

  313
  to make it certain that we are anxious to maintain a strong defence force, and for their policy of putting in jeopardy certain defence orders and the stopping of the export of arms which puts in jeopardy the jobs of people in this country, which contribute to the wealth of this nation.
  We cannot afford to forget that in our rôle as part of NATO we should deter aggression and maintain freedom. We must be ready all the time to counter Soviet naval penetration. Only on that basis can we sensibly talk about pursuing détente on a multi-lateral basis through the MBFR talks, the conference on security and co-operation, and the discussions about the non-proliferation of nuclear tests.
  If we value our freedom then we have to maintain adequate defence forces. With that in mind I hope the Secretary of State, after he has published his White Paper, will ensure that Parliament has every opportunity to debate the subject very fully.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Lee Williams: It is inevitable at this time of night that some of the speeches should become a little repetitive. I am not being disrespectful about the contribution made just now by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce). In line with your appeal from the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall cut out from my speech points that have been adequately touched upon by previous speakers and try to bring in some fresh material in the hope that hon. Members may be prepared to follow suit.
  Following the December 1970 meeting of the Ministers of the Atlantic Council a statement called "AD 70" was produced by NATO. As a result of that, the Euro-Group reviewed the progress of the European Defence Improvements Programme. It was agreed to increase by 1 billion dollars the expenditure on improvements in the current programme and to institute a further 1 billion dollar-a-year programme a year later. We have now reached the middle of this year, having survived an energy crisis, but with the members of the Alliance still prepared to talk in terms of defence improvements. I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether he could answer this question when he winds up the
  314
  debate: can he report to the House the progress made in this direction?
  Inevitably the background to this debate has been the fear of large American withdrawals from Europe, and indeed concern about the Nixon nuclear arrangements. That was reflected in the rather good answer I received at Question Time about the strategy of which some Americans are now talking in terms of counter-force as opposed to counter-city strategy. My right hon. Friend gave an answer to the effect that he felt that the European element of the Alliance and its interests were not being overlooked. I was grateful for that reassurance. Nevertheless all those factors add up to crisis proportions.
  This clearly heightens the interest, and indeed the importance, of the conference on mutual balanced force reductions. The negotiations, as expected, have proved protracted and exceedingly difficult. So far there has been little movement towards finding common ground between the two sides. The main difference is that the Warsaw Pact countries insist on retaining the status quo with existing force ratios and disparities in Central Europe, whereas NATO seeks to improve security and stability in Europe by entertaining an outcome of balance and equality. It is unlikely that there will be any break-through during the current session of these talks, which I understand will end during the middle of this month. One can perhaps be cautiously optimistic that a satisfactory result will be achieved.
  I should like to turn to Britain's contribution in the field of defence procurement. This is an exceedingly important area. I should like to say to my right hon. Friend that he has the benefit of the excellent work done by his predecessor who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer and who, when he was Defence Secretary, worked out a system of project control which would prevent the taxpayers suffering the losses experienced in the past.
  Much valuable experience was gained concerning the development of complex weapons systems. The experience gained with the TSR 2, in particular, will be relevant in the development of the multi-role combat aircraft, which is being developed obviously on a multi-national basis.

  315
  This time last year the House of Commons Expenditure Committee published a report whose thesis implies the acceptance of Britain's nuclear status and its maintenance essentially unimpaired. It is questionable to assume that the present Polaris force was large enough strategically to maintain a credible second strike deterrent posture. We have the four Polaris submarines in service. This represents a disquietingly small force.
  The latest round of nuclear tests in Nevada were aimed at keeping the weapons system operative and to save Britain the expense of succeeding generations of weapons. Some of my hon. Friends are to debate these matters in Committee tomorrow. What they have to accept is that if it proves impossible to extend the life of the present Polaris force we might be faced with having to take the awkward decision of going for the succeeding generation of nuclear weapons if we are to remain within the context of the nuclear deterrent. If my hon. Friends look at that as a proposition, they will discover that it would be infinitely more costly.
  I see the testing of our nuclear devices in Nevada as an attempt to extend the life of the Polaris submarine force into the 1980s. In present circumstances I do not advocate a fifth Polaris submarine. I call for greater realism on this nuclear question. The Russians have about 750 medium-range missiles targeted on about 75 major cities in Europe. We must dissuade the Russians from temptation and we can do that only by a massive deterrent force. As a famous French general said—and it was not General de Gaulle—the essence of deterrence is uncertainty. Deterrence depends on the threat to use the unthinkable and unusable weapons. Defence, on the other hand, relies on the use of usable weapons.
  A weapons system that cannot conceivably be used does not deter. NATO, with a policy of deterrence, hoping that it would never be challenged, would have no real defence at all. On no account do I underestimate the gravity of my words. In my view, to keep the nuclear deterrent viable it may become necessary for NATO to consider more clearly the rôle of tactical nuclear weapons. I do not underestimate the
  316
  gravity of ever using these weapons, particularly in the European theatre.
  We are now faced with some hard decisions in this area of nuclear deterrence. In the end the only hope is that the conferences on mutual balanced force reductions and European security will succeed. Ultimately that is the great hope. It would be an exceedingly costly mistake if my hon. Friends lost their nerve now. We are now moving into a much more dynamic situation in which there are the possibilities of success provided that we see this business through. After 25 years of keeping the peace this is no time to throw in the sponge.
  I very much support the line taken by my right hon. Friend in a robust and brilliant speech. It was a read tour de force and it was honestly stated. There is more understanding on these benches and in the constituency Labour parties on this subject than is generally supposed. Everyone knows that we live in an exceedingly dangerous world.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Cow: I must first declare an interest in that I am still a member of the T & AVR and expect to become a soldier again for a fortnight next month. In the defence debate on 13th May the Secretary of State said that the current defence review would be the most comprehensive examination of our future defence rôle and of our commitments ever mounted in peacetime. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was no reason why that should not be done and that it was about time it was undertaken.
  I have no quarrel with that nor do I disagree with the proposition that defence spending must be related to our national resources. This point was conceded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), as Chancellor, when on 17th December 1973 he announced substantial cuts in public expenditure, including a cut of £178 million in the current year. But where perhaps I can differ from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that I believe that the first duty of any Government is to defend the territorial integrity of these Islands—and I doubt very much whether it is possible to make any further reductions in defence spending which are consistent with that duty. It would be wrong

  317
  to regard the reduction of £178 million announced by my right hon. Friend last December as being a precedent for further cuts. Indeed, I would draw the opposite conclusion and say that just because my right hon. Friend announced those cuts last December, there cannot be room for further cuts and indeed there is less room.
  We need as a nation to concentrate our defence on the land mass of North-West Europe and the sea routes which link North-West Europe to the rest of the world. It is because I believe that we need to concentrate our own defence in Western Europe that I particularly regret the commitment in the manifesto of the Labour Party dealing with the American Polaris bases. It said:
  "We will seek to remove all the American Polaris bases from Great Britain".
  I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate tonight he will tell the House that the Government have had second thoughts about implementing that undertaking, because I do not see how the removal of American Polaris bases from the United Kingdom can in any way strengthen our capacity to defend ourselves or contribute to the security of Western Europe.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would not consider that to many people who live right beside it the Polaris base is not an object of defence but a way of making us Target No. 1? It is an American nuclear device, and it may suit America, but it certainly does not suit the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Gow: The hon. Lady is entitled to her point of view but I very much doubt whether the hon. Lady is speaking for a majority of the people of Scotland when she makes claims of that kind.
  Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman will find out.
  Mr. Gow: To the extent that this country maintains forces outside Europe it means inevitably that the strength of our forces within Europe is weakened. Therefore, with that in mind we might look at the commitments which this country has at present outside Europe. I certainly support the need for Britain to maintain very limited troops in Hong Kong, primarily in aid of the civil power there. But so far as Singapore, Cyprus
  318
  and Malta are concerned, I for my part would accept the argument that it would be right to reduce our commitments there if there were a corresponding strengthening of our commitment to the NATO Alliance.
  As for Gibraltar, clearly as long as that remains a Colony it is essential that we maintain limited forces there, again in support of a civil power, and it is relevant within the NATO Alliance to assert that a substantial part of the responsibility for the defence of the Mediterranean area ought to rest with those members of NATO which are, in fact, Mediterranean powers and have a sea frontier there, namely, Italy and France.
  There is one other matter with which I hope the Minister will deal in his reply tonight. Between 1972 and 1973 the number in the T & AVR rose from 56,000 to 59,000. Between 1973 and the present year the figure fell from 59,000 to 54,000. The prospect that we shall need our reserve forces is more serious today than at any time in the last 20 years. I hope that the Minister will say what his policy is, even in the interim, towards our reserve forces, pending the publication of the White Paper promised for the autumn.
  I want to say something about the rôle of the Army in Ulster, and particularly to try to give the reasons, which have not been stated sufficiently vigorously in the House, that the Army should remain there. I take as my text the speech of the Secretary of State at Newcastle-under-Lyme on 24th April, in which he said:
  "Pressure is mounting on the mainland to pull out the troops."
  I believe that his diagnosis was right. What was wrong is that he did not go on explicitly to assert the overwhelming reasons that the Army must remain.
  There are four reasons. First, those who in Ulster have abandoned the ballot box and resorted to bullet and bomb must not be allowed to succeed. Second, the people of Belfast and Derry are just as entitled as the people of Eastbourne, Barnsley, Salford or Fife to the protection of the police and ultimately of the Army. Third, the rule of law is under attack not just in this country but elsewhere, and nowhere is it more overtly challenged than in the Six Counties of

  319
  Ulster. If we are to reflect the determination of our Government and people to uphold the rule of law, the Army must remain in Ulster.
  Last, we need to consider the effect on those most closely involved if the Army were withdrawn from Ulster. We can imagine the effect that it would have on the overwhelming majority of the 1½ million of the Queen's subjects who live there. They look to the Army for protection and their looking to the Army for protection has received a magnificent response from the Army. But we need to consider also the result of withdrawal on the men of violence. It is not a bad guide when deciding future policy to think how one's potential enemies would react. Nothing would give greater encouragement to the extremists and men of violence on both sides than the withdrawal of British forces.
  When the Government are considering the preparation of their White Paper, I hope that they will remember that it is their over-riding duty to secure the defence of these islands. If that needs to be done by a reduction of some commitments in the island bases I have mentioned, that is something which I would support, provided that there was a corresponding strengthening of NATO and of our forces in Western Europe.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): If the next speaker and those who follow are reasonably brief, there might be time for another three or four speakers before the winding-up speeches.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: There seems to have been some doubt among previous speakers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about your definition of "reasonably brief", but I shall try to follow your suggestion as best I can. May I say, as someone who has sat here since 4 p.m., how delightful it is to be able to inflict a further speech on some of those who have tormented me in that time?
  I propose to confine my remarks to the nuclear test announced last week, I make no excuse for returning to the topic because it is the first test that Britain has carried out in the past decade—or at least, the first which has been leaked to
  320
  us by the Daily Express. As such, it must have significant implications for our nuclear policy. It is a matter for regret that there has been no debate on the test itself.
  Other hon. Members have discussed whether the test was in line with my party's policy. I do not propose to go over that ground again because I have never found debates which turn on the interpretation of sacred texts to be very illuminating. But however much it is reconciled with our party policy, it is clearly in conflict with many United Nations resolutions. I will refer only to Resolution No. 2934, passed in November 1973. The resolution:
  "Calls on all nuclear weapon states to suspend nuclear weapon tests in all environments."
  That resolution was passed, only four nations voting against it, and 105 nations voting for it, including the United Kingdom. It is difficult to acquit us of the charge of hypocrisy when we voted for that resolution knowing full well that we intended to break it. That charge of hypocrisy must rest heavily on the Opposition Front Bench, whose representative voted for the resolution at the time when the Government were embarking on developments which led to the test.
  Why did we have the test? Some of my colleagues seem to think that it is necessary to test an atomb bomb to find out whether it still works. It is not. A test is made only to carry out a development of the bomb. I ask my Front Bench colleagues, what was the development which was tested recently?
  That development must be a matter for speculation, because we have been given no information. There has been informed speculation, which has not been denied, that the development is associated with the fitting of multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles for the Polaris missile. If so, it is dishonest of the Government to pretend otherwise. The MIRV-ing of a warhead marks a qualitative change in policy so radical that it implies a new nuclear policy, which means a new escalation in the arms race and leads us one step nearer to the inevitability of nuclear war.
  The whole point of MIRV-ing a warhead is to achieve pinpoint accuracy. Pinpoint accuracy is not needed if the missile is aimed at whole cities, which

  321
  is where one aims missiles if one wants to achieve a deterrent against attack. MIRV-ing has a point only if the missile is aimed at enemy missiles before those missiles are fired. A MIRV warhead is a first-strike and not a second-strike weapon. It does not improve our deterrent capacity; in fact, it achieves less deterrence, because it is useless after the enemy has fired his weapons.
  The effect of such a weapon on world tension is enormous. In any crisis either side will know that the opposing side has a weapon of crippling power, and that will put colossal pressure on both sides to be the side to fire first. That is not just the view of a few Left-wing eccentrics. It is shared by the Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Frank Barnaby, who has described it as "highly dangerous". Ian Smart, the Deputy Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies, said:
  "the effect has been to resurrect some of the fears of 15 years ago that the balance of terror could become dangerously delicate."
  The Pentagon may have been embarrassed in the last two years to find that events had pushed it to the left of the American Presidency, but it is still not a crypto-Communist organisation. Three years ago it was said by the Pentagon:
  "The United States should not develop a weapons system whose deployment could reasonably be construed by the Soviet Union as having a first-strike capacity."
  In the three years since then America has gone far down the road towards MIRV-ing its weapons. It has not just produced MIRV; it has retargeted as well. It is most disturbing that we should appear to be going along with that policy on the coat-tails of the Americans.
  A first-strike capacity for the British deterrent makes sense only in the context of American strategy. It is nonsense to imagine that we could ever have a first-strike weapon which could cripple the Russians. If we are developing a first-strike weapon it is as a limb of American policy.
  Last year the Expenditure Committee looked closely at our nuclear weapons and came to the conclusion that we had a highly effective system. On the nuclear weapon programme, the Committee said:
  "On the limited information available to us we recommend that the Government should maintain the existing Polaris fleet and not
  322
  increase its numbers or MIRV the missiles and should certainly not convert it to Poseidon."
  Some development is obviously taking place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be right to reject the advice given to him by that Expenditure Committee. He may have reasons for so doing, and he may possess better information. But if that is the case, then the House of Commons should be told. We have not had the statement which should have been made before the test went off, and we are entitled to an answer at the end of the debate.
  I have dealt with this point in some depth and have tried to explain that the development which the test represents can be rejected even within the context of nuclear strategy. I would not wish it to be thought that I accept that strategy. I reject the whole concept. So long as we keep a nuclear deterrent, we shall constantly face new technological developments, which will always appear as a logical extension to the last development. Those developments will always appear to be convincing if they are accepted as being necessary to maintain the credibility of a nuclear deterrent.
  I wish briefly to examine the limited effect of the test on the international community. One of the saddest things about the present situation is that the test was announced just before the Nixon-Kosygin talks. A major concern of those talks is to try to achieve a further test-ban treaty. It has long been apparent that the two major Powers are backing away from a comprehensive test ban treaty and nudging towards a threshold test-ban treaty. This is in line with the hypocrisy which marked all previous attempts to achieve a test ban. We know that when the major Powers agreed an atmospheric ban in 1963 they did so because they did not want to carry out further atmospheric tests. They can get adequate information from underground tests—and, indeed, the number of tests has increased since the 1963 agreement.
  Now MIRV weapons have greater accuracy and therefore require smaller warheads. It is impossible to carry out such tests within a smaller threshold. It saddens me to see the Labour Front Bench both last Monday and today taking advantage of this organised hypocrisy by saying that our test was below this threshold. Of course it

  323
  was, since no advanced nuclear Power need exceed it. The present immediate effect of the British test is that the Nixon-Kosygin talks are to be carried on against a background that the United Kingdom, accepts the threshold principle—indeed is eager to accept it to legitimise nuclear tests. We have thrown away whatever moral pressure we may have exerted on those talks towards a more effective and comprehensive treaty.
  The old unilateral case for disarmament did not rest on the argument that we should disarm for its own sake, but on the basis that by so doing we would set a moral example and give a lead which might be followed by other countries. That case has now been restored to the centre of the political arena by the new development. If we set our face against MIRV missiles and refuse to carry out any tests, it is possible that this will have an effect on major Powers and also on other Powers now indulging in dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is only a possibility, but the alternative of a nuclear holocaust is so terrifying that I believe it is just possible enough to be worth trying.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I should like to take the opportunity of making one specific point which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) when he opened the debate. The Seebohm Report on naval warfare points out two major difficulties suffered by naval families. The first is separation—and it is difficult to do anything about that—and the second is housing, about which it is possible to do something.
  Housing is a major cause for concern in all the Services. The situation throughout a man's service is one problem, but I want to deal with the problem of the Service family when the husband leaves the Service.
  Some Service men may have bought houses whilst they were in the Services, but it is not easy for them to do so in a peripatetic existence. A large number of Service men leaving the Services will wish, indeed will need, to have council accommodation, but they will not have the period of residence in the area in
  324
  which they wish to have a council house to back up their claim for council accommodation.
  The attitudes of councils vary. In this connection I am obliged to my hon. neighbour—I might almost call him my hon. Friend—the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy who has been in correspondence with and given me some useful information.
  The situation is as follows:
  "the Department of the Environment, in consultation with the Ministry of Defence, can and does advise local authorities on the allocation policies they ought to operate for ex-Service men and a circular, issued in 1965, commends the principle that an application from a Service man 'should be considered exclusively on the basis of his housing needs, without any regard whatsoever for the length of his residence in the locality'."
  Local councils have difficult and, indeed, distressing decisions to make on the relevant priorities in housing allocation. But I urge that a sailor, soldier or airman, the very nature of whose work takes him away from the locality, should not suffer by his non-residence in the local authority area of his choice.
  What currently happens under the present regulations? A Service man ends his service career and seeks council accommodation. But such is the interpretation placed upon the regulations by many local authorities that the Service man cannot obtain council accommodation unless he first receives an eviction order from his local council which will show that he has a housing need. Surely there must be a more dignified way to end a service career and to achieve the transition to civilian life.
  I should like to quote one example. It is not particularly extreme, but it is a typical example which came in a letter to me this morning. The gentleman concerned is a senior non-commissioned officer who has been decorated. He lived in council accommodation in Gosport for seven years after his marriage until he joined the Services. Since leaving council accommodation in Gosport he has consistently, since 1958, sought to retain his status on the council housing list. He has now been informed by the council as follows:
  "your length of residence in Gosport (other than married quarters) is insufficient within the terms of my committee's policy."

  325
  The gentleman concerned wrote to me saying:
  "At one stage I was informed that I would be considered once I was given notice to vacate a married quarter. It was pointed out that the Army did not give notice to vacate a quarter, but that Queen's Regulations for the Army stated that occupants of married quarters are required to vacate on or before the date of posting or discharge. I asked the council if they were suggesting I should go before a civil court for an eviction order to be made against me—this question was not answered."
  This case is not unusual. It must be wrong for a Service man to be given no housing priority by some councils. I do not wish this case to be held up as an extreme example, nor do I wish my local authority in Gosport to be taken as an extreme case of a council which is adopting a wrong attitude. I am not suggesting that it is. I am attempting to show that the situation is such that councils can exercise discretion in this way and that I feel it is wrong.
  I should like a change in the rules generally. I ask the Government to arrange forthwith a reinforced circular, as mentioned in the Under-Secretary's letter to me, to councils to disregard residence qualifications for those who have been serving in the Armed Forces.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. John Smith: I should like to mention two matters which have concerned hon. Members in the debate. One is the defence review and the other is the recent nuclear test.
  Regarding the defence review, we have heard, by and large, a difference of opinion between hon. Gentlemen opposite, who do not agree with any cuts in or adjustment of our defence responsibilities, and hon. Members on this side of the House who suggest that we should cut our defence cloth to meet our current economic situation. I think the latter proposition must be indisputable. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) said that instead of cutting our defence responsibilities to the proportion of gross national products which other countries in Western Europe adopt, we ought to create more wealth, but there is little prospect in any country in Western Europe, let alone in ours, of creating more wealth in the next two or three years. It would be intolerable to make reductions of expenditure in social ser
  326
  vices without seriously considering whether we can have some economies in defence.
  There are the hawks who think that no cuts should be made and the doves who want to make cuts for the sake of cuts. I do not know what species of bird is halfway between a hawk and a dove, but I fancy the posture of that bird. We have to take our defence responsibilities seriously, but, on the other hand, we must have regard for our economic situation. That is the approach on which the Government have embarked, and they are right to make a long-term sensible survey of the matter rather than short-term, piecemeal cuts which disrupt programmes and upset defence policy.
  I refer to the question of nuclear tests. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) advanced a number of arguments against the recent tests. He argued on the basis of a speculation which he developed and then attempted to demolish. I do not know whether the nuclear test is an attempt to make the Polaris missile into a MIRV and whether it is a test or a development. My hon. Friend was very much attracted to the possibility that it was a matter of turning it into a MIRV, but I rather suspect that he would object if it were merely a testing device because in the closing part of his speech he advanced the argument of unilateral disarmament that has exercised us on this side of the House for a long time. But the experience of international life argues very much against that. I do not believe that nuclear disarmament by Britain would enhance our security or lead others to follow suit. I do not believe that the Russians or Americans would disarm, except by mutual agreement, and it is clear that the Chinese will not disarm in the present situation, and there is not much chance of France being likely to disarm following our example.
  Whatever the arguments about the timing of the recent test, it is clear that there were differences between that test and those carried out by India, France and China. I understand the objection to a nuclear test which centres on pollution of the atmosphere. I particularly appreciate that tests by France, especially in the area in which they are carried out, can cause a hazard to neighbouring

  327
  countries, particularly Commonwealth countries. We were right to protest against atmospheric tests. It is to be regretted that France is not a party to the treaty prohibiting atmospheric tests.
  China has also been a great offender in this regard and the matter is grave so far as India is concerned, because it involves a spread of nuclear weapons. But I do not believe that the Indian Government would move one way or the other if Britain went in for unilateral nuclear disarmament. There is no evidence that unilateral nuclear disarmament by this country would affect the policies of other countries. If there were such evidence many people would no doubt march to Aldermaston, or to its modern equivalent.
  However, if we have nuclear weapons, and they are part of our defence system, they must be kept in working order. There is not much point in having them if we do not test them, develop them and keep them in a credible state of readiness. We would have the worst of both worlds if we did not test them and keep them in a state of readiness. If we did not do that it would be better to give them up altogether. It would be a hopeless situation to have nuclear weapons but not to test them. I would not, in those circumstances, criticise the Government over our recent nuclear test.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: War has been with mankind from the beginning of recorded history and will probably be with us when hon. Members now sitting in the House are safely dead and no longer worried about war. Yet to me there is something terribly obscene about spending so much of the time and effort of every nation in teaching young men to kill other young men or to burn their women and children to a crisp, whoever "they" happen to be at that particular time.
  Coming from Northern Ireland, I think that I can speak for many people there who have seen a modem form of war—guerrilla war—for five years. This is the second period of my life in which I have seen that type of war in my Province. In the first part of it, I served as a member of the Ulster Special Constabulary against the guerrilla forces. I think that I can speak with authority
  328
  about how the guerrilla works and operates in a modern Western society, how guerrillas manage to mingle with the population, and how, as the Communists say, they become fish in the water.
  While the time that I can take up in the debate is short, I want to suggest that the only reasonable way to deal with fish in water is to put other fish into the same water to try to poison it against those who already occupy it. This means that a guerrilla war can be won only by the local people. It cannot be won, as the Americans discovered in Vietnam and as the British Army has found out in many parts of the world, by outside forces. Outside forces are always resented, and a military force is resented more than most.
  A guerrilla force can be defeated only by a police force or a gendarmerie that is locally based, or by a "home guard", which lives among the general population, can see the situation at first hand and can mingle with the terrorists daily. The terrorist, after all, does not walk around with the word "terrorist" blazoned across his back. The whole security and strength of the terrorist is to remain unknown within the population.
  It is very wrong to consider that the irregular is a coward, for he is not. He is a fanatic. Many of them know no fear, because they have a cause in which they believe, for which they are prepared to die and for which many of them have died. They can be defeated only by a similar body of men who mingle with the population day by day and who fight the guerrillas day by day, wherever they may be found.
  There is much more that I should like to say, but time passes on. I am glad to have had this opportunity to comment on the situation as I have seen it on the ground, and as a politician. The only reason that will keep a guerrilla force fighting is hope—hope of ultimate victory. When that hope is destroyed, that force will wither and die, because its support in the community will go, and when that support goes the guerrilla will follow it swiftly and surely.
  There is always a rôle for the major forces of the Crown in any such situation, but I believe that they should be

  329
  primarily concerned with the defence of the frontiers, on land, on sea and in the air, to stop the flow of weapons and to stop those who come in from outside; to try to seal within the boundaries of any nation, or any area of that nation, those who would commit murder and destruction.
  We shall see more of irregular war across the world, possibly even in our own countries. As time passes there will always be divisions which can and will be exploited by evil men for their own purposes. I ask hon. Members to keep their eyes open in their constituencies and, indeed, everywhere they go, for the first evidence of murder and subversion, because one should always be extremely suspicious of those who create reasons for civil disorder against the liberties that we enjoy.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. William van Straubenzee: I am well aware that a large number of my hon. Friends would very much have liked to speak, and I hope that it has not passed unnoticed that the Minister of State and I have both most willingly accepted a shorter period in which to conclude, so that more hon. Members could speak in this extremely important debate. The debate has totally justified the choice of subject by the Opposition for a Supply Day.
  In its first objective the debate seems to have failed somewhat. In spite of the penetrating, questioning and roving speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), which has been widely acclaimed on both sides of the House, there still hangs over our discussions an uncertainty which we had hoped would be resolved. We had hoped it might have been possible for the Secretary of State to use this occasion to clear up some of the doubts which arise in such a wide range of our defence policy. Unfortunately, he felt unable to assist us with information about the wide-ranging inquiry that he is conducting at the moment.
  We remain uncertain about the future, but there were encouraging signs. It was encouraging that the Secretary of State agreed to examine the idea put forward by my right hon. Friend of a Green Paper in advance of the White Paper in the event that his timetable should slip,
  330
  but if he believes that there is no uncertainty and doubt in the Services, let him, for example, speak to those who are engaged in the difficult task of attracting young men of the right calibre into Sandhurst, Cranwell and Dartmouth. Let him talk to those who are in active contact with recruits into the commissioned ranks—although the non-commissioned recruits are equally important—and he will find uncertainties in the Services which are damaging morale.
  We also had the penetrating evidence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) from his recent visit to Teheran, which showed, if we had not realised it already, what the uncertainty was bringing in its train.
  It is inevitable, in a debate like this, that the discussion will range very widely. I want to begin on a lower plane and take up a very interesting point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce). He felt that there had been insufficient discussion in our debate, and generally, of the problems which arise from bringing the Armed Forces to the aid of the civil powers in England, Scotland and Wales. In recent days we have had a very good illustration of the sort of problems which can arise and which may arise on our doorstep.
  Troops have been deployed for a second time in and around London Airport. That happened because distinguished persons were arriving. We welcome the distinguished Prime Minister of Israel, for example. I am bound to say, in parenthesis, that I wish he had been coming to something more useful than a meeting of the Socialist International, but I suppose there will always be supporters of lost causes, and we hope he had an agreeable weekend. He is a distinguished and welcome visitor to this country, and I hope and think that he had useful talks.
  My point is that one needs only to be a reader of newspapers to appreciate that the SAM missile, with its ease of transportation and terrifying effect upon an aircraft, poses grave problems for the civil power in this country, as elsewhere. Therefore I ask whether, in the deployment of troops in Great Britain—not even in Northern Ireland—they are subject to the same yellow card procedure—to use the shorthand—with which we are familiar in Northern Ireland? I say

  331
  "with which we are familiar", for I think that the House knows that I served for 17 months in Northern Ireland and have some small knowledge of the military operation over there. If the troops are not subject to that procedure, is it not necessary for their protection that we should outline most carefully and clearly the terms upon which they should intervene, if it should ever be necessary?
  I suspect that other hon. Members were right to make the point that at a time when we are talking about great strategic problems this new form of warfare is something with which we shall have to live uncomfortably for far longer than we may have supposed. If this is one of the new forms of warfare—if there is going to be a form of banditry of that nature—it is necessary that we should learn from the mistakes we have made and draw upon the experience which, unhappily, we have in Northern Ireland, where we have been through almost precisely the same kind of problem.
  In the past—I emphasise "in the past"—there was a division of command between the military force and the police force. One of the reasons for retaining the Royal Ulster Constabulary under Westminster control is to try to make sure that that does not happen again. But the merest thought shows us that with a variegated police command, as we have in this country, the problem of co-ordination between the military and the police forces is much more difficult than it is on the other side of the water.
  That can be illustrated very well by thinking of the situation at London Airport. I know that the House is considering changes in the police organisation there. The airport is situated in the Thames Valley area of another police force. The RAF is concerned, in part, with the Army, and therefore the problems of command in a situation which could be one of great difficulty, totally novel to us in this country, require close study.
  With my second question we again draw upon past experience. All this has been put right in Northern Ireland, but in the past it was not possible, there, to communicate between the police and the Army. Is it possible for the Army and
  332
  the police to communicate quickly here? I am not now talking about the bamboo wireless with which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) entertained us earlier. My hon. and gallant Friend has explained why, being on duty elsewhere, he cannot be here for the concluding speeches.
  The question I am asking is: are the Army and police literally on net? I do not want to be given any details; no one requests that these things be made public. But the public generally should be assured that in the new era into which we have moved in which the Government clearly had to anticipate a shoot-out at London airport, for the safety of individuals and the clear direction of soldiers the chain of command and the methods of communication should be as good and as clear as human beings can make them.
  We come straight up against the problem which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester has particularly been associated with and in respect of which the Secretary of State made an interesting intervention in my hon. and gallant Friend's speech. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend and other of my hon. Friends have been deeply concerned—if I may put it in shorthand—that soldiers on active service conditions in Northern Ireland should be subject to civil law. I had to carry through the House the Bill that was concerned with such matters. I can only say in reply that I am sure it is right for Lord Gardiner's Committee to examine the situation. I think that the Secretary of State must accept, if he is to make such a change in the law in Northern Ireland, that he may well find himself saddled with a similar change over here in Great Britain.
  There could be a situation in which soldiers on duty at London Airport would be subject to some of the same pressures and stresses. We can all visualise a situation in which it would be necessary for there to be disciplinary procedures. The Secretary of State may find that if he wants to adopt the idea of a court-martial—I gather from his intervention that that is how his mind is working—he may have to introduce the same approach for the whole of the

  333
  United Kingdom and not only for Northern Ireland.
  I have argued this problem and discussed it in sweaty barrack-room after sweaty barrack-room late at night in Belfast, Derry and elsewhere. I have generally found the British troops, to whom I pay, with everyone else in the House, the warmest of tributes, to have the understanding that in a civilised world and a civilised country it is a strength and not a weakness to ensure that we operate our forces within the civil law of the country and do not attempt to introduce for our Armed Forces a law that is different from that which applies to others. I know that these matters can be argued in two ways, and I know that there is a lot of deep feeling in the Army. I respect the Secretary of State for fighting in the Army's corner, but the situation is not quite as easy as it may appear, and it may well have ramifications much wider than just Northern Ireland.
  In the Northern Ireland context we talk frequently of the work of the Army. We are right to talk and praise its work, but let us remember the work of the Royal Air Force in Northern Ireland. It does gallant work under great pressure in moving people to and fro. No Minister could conceivably run the Northern Ireland Office—as well I know—without its support. Let us also remember the work of the Royal Air Force Regiment. It goes about its work quietly and in an unassuming fashion. I gather that it is one of the bodies that the Secretary of State has in mind for one of his possible economies. So be it. We shall consider those matters in detail when the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House.
  I do not propose to describe the rôle that the Royal Air Force Regiment plays in Northern Ireland. It is sufficient to say that in modern warfare, when there may be a need to establish an air force base swiftly and to support and protect it, the work carried out by the regiment is of the greatest importance.
  Equally, I hope that the Minister of State will feel able to say a word about the Royal Military Police operation in Northern Ireland. A matter that I had not appreciated is that civilian policemen in this country have a great respect for the expertise of the Royal Military Police. There is anxiety—the hon. Member for
  334
  Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will know this as well as anyone else—lest it is intended that the Royal Military Police should take over entirely from the RUC. That was rejected totally by the previous Government. I have every reason to suppose that that will also be rejected by the present Government, but it may be that the Royal Military Police should be represented.
  Finally, in Northern Ireland terms I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will occasionally examine the source of the propaganda to which they are subjected when it comes to allegations of brutality, and the rest, against our military forces in the Province. Like every other set of young, well-trained, fit and vigorous young men, they are liable to make mistakes. But, taken in the round, I do not believe that there is any other force of men in the world which would have shown the forbearance that they have.
  As sufficient time has passed for me to be able to talk of it, I recall my own experience with one battalion of the Parachute Regiment in the Ardoyne—not exactly a savoury area of Belfast—when, initially, there was so much criticism of those troops. I found these young men very resentful of the idea that they were boors, uncivilised, and the rest. When their tour of duty ended, I was the recipient of requests from the minority community and from priests of that community that they should have their tour extended because they had brought peace to that part of Belfast, and it was peace that mattered to people. One of the reasons that there was peace was that many of the evil men were in Long Kesh.
  When I hear hon. Members talking about Long Kesh as if it were a concentration camp I sometimes wish that they would go to talk to ordinary people, Protestant and Catholic, in Belfast, Derry and elsewhere, to find out how they feel now that men of evil intent are safely locked away in that place.
  That is the internal rôle. Equally, we find it abroad. We find it in Hong Kong. I was hoping that the Ministers would have resolved the uncertainties of their White Paper at least in respect of Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary has come

  335
  very close to doing so. Do the Government not appreciate the extent to which our words are read and listened to in that vibrant and pulsating colony? Do they not appreciate how our military intentions have their effect commercially in that astonishing colony?
  I take a paternal interest in Hong Kong because it was my forebear who carved from the mainland and just took that part which we own as freehold. I have always been sad that he did not take a small stake as personal van Straubenzee property. If he had done so, I should be sunning myself in the Bahamas today.
  We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion of the effect of the uncertainties about our overseas bases. We have the uncertainty in Oman. We heard from my right hon. Friend the question overhanging us about what advice Mr. Lee Kuan Yew gave in terms of Singapore. Again, it is not possible to visit Singapore without coming rapidly to understand the interlocking rôle of our commercial interests and our defence interests.
  Then we had an impressive contribution backed by massive experience from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) about Gibraltar. He raised one question which the Minister must answer about the married quarter situation there. In Gibraltar we have yet another delightful place with a very effective military presence, which we hope will be maintained.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) was right to ask about the uncertainty overhanging the dockyards. At Question Time today, the Secretary of State seemed to suggest that Rosyth was safe. But that still leaves questions hanging over Plymouth and its 12,000 employees, for which my hon. Friend has been fighting, and Chatham and Portsmouth.
  We shall hope and think that all proper decisions will be made in these cases. But there is uncertainty. One of the features of the speech of the Secretary of State which caught the imagination of the House was his passage on the standardisation of equipment, his report on the Eurogroup and his wish to increase the extent and depth of co
  336
  operation. I ask the Minister, if he should touch on this matter, what is his report of the attitude of the new French Government to all this? My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion made a very important intervention here, drawing attention to the recent speeches of M. Joubert. We all know the past, in relation to the French, in military matters. I do not think much is gained by going over it. What, in fact, does the Minister now find? Can he report to the House an increasing interest and an increasing wish to co-operate in military matters? Certainly that would be very welcome indeed to all sides of the House.
  There was then a curious intervention about the problems of our own offshore installations and their protection. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), whom I generally follow with great interest, and who has service with the Ministry of Defence behind him, made a curious intervention when he sought to suggest that if one was seeking to protect one's oil rigs and offshore installations one must move instantly to the principle and to the proposition that one would sink the trawlers that came immediately nearby. That was not the concept we adopted when we had problems in protecting our trawlers in Icelandic waters.
  We did not instantly move from the harassment of the trawlers on the one hand to sinking Icelandic boats on the other. In an ultimate situation of confrontation, such, I suppose, might be the case. But what has happened during recent weeks? This is surely very important. At a time when the economic strategy of successive Governments will clearly be based, in part at least, upon our self-sufficiency in oil, we have begun to appreciate—or the amateur like myself has begun to appreciate—that the installations upon which we depend are themselves vulnerable to surveillance and attack and we should naturally expect precautions to be taken.
  I want also, perhaps not in sequence, to speak in support and to express the hope that the Minister will find it possible to say something about a very human matter, which I know touches the hearts of those on both sides of the House, about housing for Servicemen when they are on the point of retirement. My right hon. Friend raised that

  337
  matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), in an impressive speech, with his great constituency experience, reinforced that. We all understand the great housing difficulties facing local authorities, but we are at a new chapter, a new beginning, in terms of local government reorganisation. This entitles us to raise the question anew. I hope it will have a response of some kind from the Minister when he comes to reply.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman has not been present from the beginning of the debate. He has no right to interrupt.
  Last, I shall say something about the retention of the nuclear deterrent. I thought the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) was very impressive indeed, in an earlier speech, when he made the point that so many of his own party appeared to want to have the nuclear weapon yet not carry out the tests to keep it credible.
  I understand the deeply felt feelings of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). It is not for me to lecture him on moral matters—least of all, me—but I put it to him like this: to me, at any rate, what is offensive morally is the aggressive use of force. That is the offence. All that he is talking about—and it is a fearful thing—is the scale of the force. He would fear its aggressive use.
  The hon. Member posed the question whether any hon. Member would say that he would press the button if necessary. I put the question to him in a different way. Does he consider that it would be within the duty of any Minister entrusted with the fearful responsibility of the defence of this nation publicly to go on record and say that in no circumstances would he press the button in defence of the British people? That decision is hideous and fearful, but so is force. A mere fist can be fearful. We are talking about another scale and dimension of force which is part of the defence of our nation and which it is entrusted to the Government to care for.
  We have heard today an impressive and sombre speech from the Secretary of State, bringing us sharply up against the
  338
  realities of the balance of power. He leaves overhanging so much of our defences and uncertainty which it will be our continuing duty to resolve.
  9.36 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): This debate has turned out rather better than I, for one, had hoped. Last week the Opposition clearly saw this as an opportunity for mischief-making. As this was the first speech of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in a defence debate, I rather looked forward to the experience of being gently mauled by a paper tiger. On the contrary, he purred his way through most of his speech.
  His hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) described it variously as roving and penetrating. I would prefer to call it roving. It was none the less good for that. We had a speech from the hon. Member for Wokingham which, when not sober, was sepulchral. But I make no complaints about either speech. Both were valuable contributions to what I think has been a thoughtful debate.
  The hon. Member for Wokingham made some pertinent remarks about recent events at Heathrow. He drew on his experience in Northern Ireland. I think that the whole House respects what he tried to do there. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) raised the wider question of military aid for the civil power. I do not think that I can reply to detailed points this evening. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Home Secretary was particularly responsible for events at Heathrow. I will write to him on any particular matter he has mentioned. I am sure that the Home Secretary would welcome, as I do, discussions on these important matters.
  I join in the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Wokingham to the Service units in Northern Ireland. Others have joined in this tribute during the debate. The hon. Member asked whether there was any intention that the Royal Military Police would take over entirely from the RUC. I can confirm that there is no intention whatsoever that this should happen.
  Of course there are differences of opinion on this side of the House about aspects of defence policy. The hon.

  339
  Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) referred to the upper and nether millstones. I think she will recognise that neither my right hon. Friend nor I have felt ground down today. If there are differences on this side of the House they mirror differences of opinion on the Conservative side, too.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said that he was not ashamed of emotions being aroused by some defence issues on this side of the House. That is my view, too. It is also true that while some Tory Members appear to want more spending rather than less, those who were responsible for the policy of the previous Government will recognise that from time to time it is right to want less spending rather than more.
  In other words, if there are differences of opinion and differences of emphasis on this side, there are on the other side of the House doveish hawks and hawkish doves. In all these matters it is a question of balance, of maintaining an adequate defence. That is the purpose of the defence review. It was very well spelled out by my right hon. Friend today, as it was in the debate we had seven weeks ago.
  Our object certainly is to reduce expenditure but certainly not to do so irrespective of the needs of the country. The hon. Member for Wokingham ended by saying there was uncertainty. I agree with him. It is inevitable. We cannot have a defence review without uncertainty, but, equally, if the defence review had been brief its consequences and outcome would not have related to the real needs of this country over the coming years. That it should be lengthy is inevitable if at the same time we want it done well.
  In my speech on 13th May I mentioned the successive stages of the defence review. I should like to make one further comment on it. I then said that we were beginning to match the resources likely to be available to the commitments that we shall choose to continue and that this was a complex process involving the examination of various options in terms of both future forecasts for the growth of GNP and alternative proportions that might be devoted to defence. But I can add that it also
  340
  requires the closest examination of the capability that will be necessary to fulfil those commitments when we have placed them in order of priority.
  There is no simple answer here and no single outcome. It is not sufficient to decide on savings that affect the three Services on the basis of equal misery, a basis familiar to hon. Gentlemen on both sides, although, as the House can guess, this is instinctively the easier course. In due course we shall have what seems to be the optimum solution and the process of full consultation with our partners and allies will get under way. May I add, as the House knows and as my right hon. Friend mentioned this afternoon, that we thought it right to consult our partners in the five-power defence arrangements at a particularly early stage. Accordingly, just after the last debate, I visited Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Wellington and Canberra, meeting the Prime Ministers and Defence Ministers in each of the four capitals.
  The House will understand that it would be wrong for me to spell out the details of what were confidential discussions, but I have in mind the remarks of, among others, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). I can say that it had been assumed in advance that I was to bring news of decisions to all intents and purposes already made, and there was a warm response to the discovery that this was simply not the case. All four Governments have made it clear publicly that they would prefer us to remain, if only with a reduced presence and for a shortish period of time. But the process of consultation was welcomed for itself, especially as Commonwealth Governments were involved, and there was complete understanding of the scope and necessity for the review. We can count on much good will, and we on our part will take full and sympathetic account of all that was said to me. There will, of course, be further consultations before any decisions are made.
  While I am talking of consultations, the right hon. Gentleman referred, in passing, to Simonstown. As the House knows, we are continuing a review of our policy towards South Africa and we shall take careful note of all relevant considerations in the review, including the value we

  341
  derive from and the obligations we incur under the Simonstown Agreement. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the South African Government were themselves to review Simonstown. I can only reply, as he will understand, that this is a matter for the South African Government.
  I could not deal with all points raised this evening even if I were to gallop through the time between now and 10 o'clock. But I want to deal with a number, and I will start with a question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) about the married-quarter project at Europa Point, Gibraltar, because this illustrates very clearly one of the problems that has been raised during the course of the defence debate.
  I have not denied, any more than my right hon. Friend has denied, that difficult decisions arise, even in the interim period. We are faced with deciding the course of action to follow on projects which are already under way but have some distance to go to completion, and the future of which could be affected by the outcome of the defence review. Since, as we have said, nothing is excluded from the review and, in particular all our overseas commitments are being examined, the number of projects in this category is large.
  The principle that we have followed with current projects is that we should take no decision which would close any options that should properly be left open until the review is concluded. On the works programme, we have been concerned not to let new contracts where there was any possibility of nugatory expenditure.
  At the same time, we have been disposed, wherever improvements to conditions of service were involved, to lean in the direction of allowing projects to continue, or indeed to start, if at all possible, since we attach the highest importance to such improvements. We have, for example, decided that building a new school in Cyprus should continue, and we are going ahead with a NAAFI shop and cinema complex in Belize, where our troops do not enjoy much in the way of amenity, as hon. Members who have been there will know.
  342
  As for Gibraltar, I am aware of the difficult housing situation there, and I know of the visit of the sub-committee 18 months ago and again recently. Our forces have appreciated the continuing interest in and sympathy for their problems by the Select Committee. I am glad to say that we have decided that the project for 105 other ranks' married quarters and 31 officers' married quarters, known as Europa 1, should go ahead now. I hope that the contract will be let in the next few days and that work will shortly begin. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Eye that there must be no further delay.
  The right hon. Member for Worcester mentioned the difficulties of Service men in finding suitable housing, particularly council housing, when they are discharged, and suggested that the time was ripe for an initiative. We are in fact very conscious of this problem and we are currently considering with the Department of the Environment—I have been in touch with the Minister for Housing and Construction—revising and reissuing the circular of advice to local authorities on how we suggest they should deal with the particular problems of Service men.
  The authorities have problems of their own, as we know. There is insufficient housing for rent, for reasons which we also know. But one of the proposals which we shall be considering is that local authorities should allow Service men to put their names on a housing list at any time during their service and that if, before they conclude their service, their names reach the top, they should then be frozen in that position. This is something on which we hope to be able to make progress.
  I cannot deny, as some hon. Members have said, that uncertainty can arise in the dockyards, but it would be irresponsible for any hon. Member to increase that uncertainty or to play upon the reasonable anxieties of those involved. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy has visited the three English dockyards and will soon visit Rosyth. Representing, as he has for eight years, part of Portsmouth, he has practical experience of the problems of the dockyards, which I know he is using to great effect in discharging his responsibilities to the workers in all four yards.

  343
  In all his visits, my hon. Friend has made it plain that the yards as a whole are fully loaded with naval work. But supposing—just supposing—that there was ever a reduction in defence work—a lot of work is out on contract which could be taken into the yards—an examination is already in hand on an interdepartmental basis into alternative work which could absorb the human and capital resources thus released.
  I listened very carefully indeed to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) said about joint training and I am looking forward to the Report of the Select Committee. Some of the things he said came fresh to me. I undertake to look personally into this and to see whether in this area also there is a new initiative which we could usefully take, since we are anxious to make savings, particularly when they can be achieved with no loss of effectiveness.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) spoke about pay comparisons and pensions. These matters are of general concern to the House, and I shall endeavour to answer his questions and help the House at an appropriate time. Both he and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake raised the question of the security of oil and gas installations off our shores. They were prompted by the incident of 25th June, when a Russian trawler came within 30 feet of a gas production platform. I share their concern, as we all must. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has drawn the attention of the Soviet authorities to this incident and sought assurances that similar incidents will not happen again.
  Responsibility for offshore installations rests with their owners, the police, other civil authorities and the armed forces. Measures for protecting them which may involve the armed Services are kept under very close review in the Departments that have statutory and other responsibilities. Protection from external attack is being studied both as part of our national defence plans and within NATO. I appreciate the concern which has been expressed, I share it and I assure the House that there is no lack of urgency in our examination of these important matters.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to make a statement to the House when conclusions have been drawn? There was a general impression originally that the police tended to have a great deal of responsibility here, whereas there is no rôle they can play in defending these installations.
  Mr. Rodgers: Yes, certainly I give that undertaking. There will be a statement at the appropriate time. If there is any uncertainty, we will do our best to relieve it beforehand.
  I turn now to the nuclear test, which is the occasion for today's debate. In doing so I apologise for having to leave unanswered some questions which were asked by right hon. and hon. Members. We shall take note of them and act upon them or write, as necessary.
  We all know that the Opposition's motive last week when they were contemplating today was to exploit the genuine anxiety shown by hon. Members on the Government benches at the film; of the Prime Minister's announcement of 24th June. What to them may have seemed good clean fun, all in a day's work, with an election in the offing is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central said, juvenile. It is far better to try to understand the misgivings about the test than to play upon sincere differences of opinion.
  Mr. Viggers: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is entirely fair and proper for the Opposition to probe the Government's intentions on this matter?
  Mr. Rodgers: I do not dispute that. The motive for choosing this debate at this time, as revealed by the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Worcester and the hon. Member for Wokingham, falls a little short of what the hon. Gentleman suggests was the serious purpose of the occasion. I should be worried if there were no anxieties in the House about the test. I find it a great deal easier to share the hesitations of some of my hon. Friends than to share the assumption that sophisticated nuclear capability, like business success, is the touchstone of achievement and the outward and visible measure of status. It is not.

  345
  Nuclear capability is ugly and horrific and we should recognise it as such. But, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said again today, the recent test in Nevada was fully consistent with our adherence to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 and the non-proliferation treaty of 1970.
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), we are not committed to a new course. The test does not close any option or pre-empt those decisions on the nuclear programme which must be taken as part of the examination of all aspects of our total capability during the defence review. I ask my hon. Friends to recognise that this is so, whatever views they may take about the proper long-term future of the nuclear deterrent.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: But that does not answer the question whether the test was connected with a new generation of strategic weapons. If it was, it was contrary to the programme of the Labour Party which was carried unanimously at its conference, not just by two to one, and was a contravention of it.
  Mr. Rodgers: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear—and I thought that I was helping my hon. Friend—the test does not commit us to a new course. No decision will be taken until the issues have been debated in the House. I would have thought that that assurance might be helpful to my hon. Friend.
  I would refer to the thoughtful remarks made on this topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and I personally would welcome more discussion of these questions. What surprises me is that the excellent 12th Report of the Expenditure Committee, published less than a year ago, has not received more attention in the House. The sub-committee referred to their interest in
  "stimulating informed parliamentary and public debate",
  and produced a clear statement of the background to policy decisions about the future of Britain's nuclear deterrent. The sub-committee also published a paper from the International Institute of
  346
  Strategic Studies and took evidence from the then Secretary of State for Defence.
  However, the House has not found time to debate that report, and indeed the hon. and gallant Member for Eye, who was the chairman of that sub-committee, was the only speaker to refer significantly to it in the general debate on defence held in the House last December, and similarly, in the defence debate only seven weeks ago, the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) made brief references to the nuclear programme.
  I have never been, and am not now, a unilateral disarmer, either in the nuclear or conventional field. I cannot see that throwing away the means to Britain's defence would either increase the chance of peace or stem the tide of the arms race. I say this not because I believe there is the threat to this country of a war either by design or accident in the foreseeable future. The issue is much more complex and subtle. It may be that the West can co-exist peacefully with the Soviet Union and its allies for many years and that the wish to do so is felt strongly on both sides. But we must look ahead to ensure that the balance is never upset in such a way as to enable those who do not share our values to dictate the terms of their relationship with us.
  This is one of the problems of defence planning. As the time scale for the development of sophisticated weapons lengthens, we are obliged to relate decisions made today to the conditions and relationships which we anticipate in 10, 15 or 20 years' time. There are risks in underestimating the possible threat to our security as there are risks of over-providing against it, given the legitimate claims on the nation's resources. We shall aim to get the balance right while playing our fullest part in seeking to achieve such international agreement as will allow arms expenditure world wide to be diverted to peaceful and constructive purposes.
  Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Juries Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

JURIES BILL [LORDS]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

EUROPEAN SECONDARY LEGISLATION
Ordered,
That Mr. Ian MacArthur be discharge from the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation and that Mr. Iain Sproat be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

EUROPEAN SECONDARY LEGISLATION
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE
10.2 p.m.
Mr. James Sillars: I should like first, in opening this short Adjournment debate, to welcome to the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure that he will not be embarrassed if I say that a number of us wondered why it took him so long to get there. We are delighted to see him there this evening.
On 2nd April, through a Written Question, I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and
348
Food to make a statement on the policy that the United Kingdom will pursue at the World Food Conference which is to be held in Rome in November.
In his reply my right hon. Friend mentioned the problems facing the conference, but did not provide many clues to the policy that we shall put before the conference. I am hoping that this short debate will help to fill some of the gaps in our understanding of the Government's position.
We cannot expect a comprehensive reply from my hon. Friend because this is only a 30-minute debate, but I hope that he will spell out the broad objectives of our policy and tell us about some of the specific proposals that the Government will put before the conference.
Before leaving this point I should like to make two suggestions. The first is that my hon. Friend's Ministry should consider holding a seminar on the World Food Conference. Recently the Foreign and Commonwealth Office held a seminar prior to our delegation leaving for the Law of the Sea Conference. I understand that that was of great benefit to all concerned. I think that it would be worth while for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to hold a seminar on the World Food Conference.
My second suggestion is more properly directed to the Leader of the House, who is not here this evening, so I put it to my hon. Friend. I hope that it will be possible for at least one parliamentary day to be set aside for consideration of United Kingdom policy in relation to this conference. I would have thought it important for the Minister and his official team to have Parliament's endorsement of his policy before going to Rome.
The conference and world food supplies are matters of supreme importance, and that is by no means an exaggeration. In normal times the world food position would be clearly recognised as the greatest problem we face at present, and the greatest single threat to what remained of peace. But we do not live in normal times, and all of us are having difficulty in coping with the crises thrown up by a world in the process of profound economic and political change.
Against the background of a steady power shift from the industrialised countries to the rest of the world—a process

349
still in the early stages; the possible collapse of the international monetary system; the probable collapse of some nations State economies in the West; unprecedented rates of inflation, and an increasing tempo of violence and the employment of new techniques of violence—world food supplies appear as just one more in a long train of disturbing problems now facing mankind.
It is the basis of my argument that, while acknowledging the need to find solutions to all the other difficulties presently before the world community, we need to give the greatest priority to matching world food supplies to world needs. There is no question but that in this world of change there are no swift solutions to the whole range of problems we face and that we shall face for many more years of instability and strain on our political system and institution as a new world order emerges to replace that formed immediately after 1945.
The years ahead are going to be very difficult ones to live with and live through, but a lot of tension and explosive content could be eliminated from world affairs if we property tackle the question of world food supplies and achieve a world food policy.
As the world goes through this period of significant change and disturbance, politicians and Governments should seek to identify those areas of human affairs which pose the main threat to relations between nations and peoples. Identification should be followed by real efforts to establish agreed world policies which meet the needs of all. That is one way to ease strain in international relations, and I immediately acknowledge that it is much easier said than done. I do not envy any Government Minister his rôle in this situation.
World food supplies already play a key rôle in world affairs, and I would argue that if the new world order is to emerge in world affairs, and I would argue that if the new world order is to emerge with the minimum of casualties in both political and human terms, we must now reach an agreed and workable world food policy. If the World Food Conference leads to such a policy it will guarantee no more than the world having a fair chance to avoid increasing conflict because there are many other pitfalls before us. But if the conference fails, that
350
failure will directly contribute to a future of the most harrowing and dangerous years experience by the world community in modern times.
That sounds a pessimistic or, indeed, a cataclysmic note, but again I say that it is no exaggeration. The facts speak for themselves. The Voluntary Committee on Overseas Aid and Development has presented some of the facts to hon. Members through its newsletter, "Action for Development". It has pointed out that hundreds of millions of the world's population are undernourished; that population growth is adding 75 million to 80 million more people each year—a rate of 200,000 each day; that within the next 25 years our present numbers of four billion will be nearly seven billion; and that they will all need to be fed.
The Secretary General of the United Nations informed the recent Special Session of the General Assembly that never in recent decades have world food reserves been so frighteningly low.
On 1st May this year my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food contributed his own words of warning. Addressing the Financial Times conference on world food supplies he said:
"Today there is a very real concern that over the coming years food supplies will not be sufficient to feed adequately the increasing world population."
He also quoted the reminder from Ernest Bevin that
"You can never build peace out of hunger."
On 3rd June The Guardian carried a news item about the preparatory report of the United Nations World Food Conference organisation. The headline introduction was
"700 million face malnutrition by 1985."
The article stated that if present population and production trends continue, the world's developing nations will find themselves short of 85 million tons of cereals a year. In its final comment in that article, The Guardian recorded the United Nations as stressing that only a major adjustment of production and stockholding policies would permit world agriculture to fill this need.
The fact that the World Food Conference is being held at all indicates the gravity of the problem that we face. At present, millions of people cannot get

351
enough to eat, and this army of the hungry will grow in numbers. If the world's nations do not produce a world policy on food production and supply, they will have to rely on luck if we are to avoid the worst.
If the present system of production and supply is to continue, we need to guarantee several years of bumper harvests to rebuild stocks and to meet the demand from millions of additional mouths. I am reminded here of the words of the Scottish poet, Robert Burns, that
"Nae man can tether time nor tide."
That is an eloquent way of reminding us that man's power in comparison with that of nature is a very puny thing indeed. To guarantee good harvests is beyond our ability. But the need for bumper harvests in certain limited areas of the world—that is what we are talking about—is only as great as our present production and supply system is inadequate. We could overcome harvest setbacks if our system of production and supply were radically improved throughout the world.
In addition to this problem of the inadequacy of the present system, we have to reckon with a new and welcome political phenomenon—that the days are gone when the poor of the world simply sat down and conveniently died in order that the industrial countries could buy in the giant share of the world's harvest, and harvest aids such as fertiliser. There are signs that the poor of the earth, driven by hunger, will fight for their share of what is available, or will find people who, so shocked and horrified at the gross injustice of millions starving while others feast, will fight on their behalf. All of us should remember the words of Lord Boyd Orr:
"Hunger is the greatest of all politicians."
It is one thing to state the nature of the crisis that we face, and to speculate on possible consequences, but it is quite another thing to find the correct solutions. I readily acknowledge the problems which face all the delegates to the World Food Conference. However, we are fortunate in that the conference will not be breaking new ground or blazing an unknown trail. The world has travelled this way before—immediately after 1945—but unfortunately the statesmen of that day—including, it must be said, the Labour
352
Government of that day—failed to grasp the opportunity then offered by those such as Lord Boyd Orr. It is not a chauvinistic spirit that moves me to introduce Lord Boyd Orr into the debate. The contribution made by him to the world community is a standing example that one can be an enormously patriotic Scotsman and yet an internationalist at the same time. I hope that my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies will bear that factor in mind.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the history of the post-1945 period—the birth of the FAO, the Boyd Orr appointment as first Director-General, his campaign for a world food policy, and the sad failure of that campaign. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the FAO proposals at the time of Lord Boyd Orr's leadership of that body. Lord Boyd Orr set them out in a pamphlet called "Food—the Foundation of World Unity", printed in 1948. They are worth placing on the record again, and I quote from the pamphlet:
"Having done what it could for the postwar crisis, FAO put forward proposals for a permanent world food board with three main objectives. First, a rapid increase of production especially in underdeveloped countries; to provide food for the increasing population of the world. Second, a world reserve of food to meet any threatened famine owing to a failure of harvest, such as occurred in Europe in 1947. Third, to stabilise prices in the international market at levels fair to producers and consumers, so that countries would be assured of their supply at a level rate and farmers would be assured that if they went out for full production there would be a market for what they produce."
Those proposals came from a man blessed with wisdom. Nothing that has happened in the last quarter of a century has reduced the relevance of that policy.
There is no doubt that Lord Boyd Orr was ahead of his time and world practice in his day could not match his vision and understanding of what was required. Perhaps the world is now about to catch up with him, but only just in time. The Boyd Orr policy would be a good starting point for our Government and for the conference because his policy has the merit of realism. Lord Boyd Orr did not live in a dream world in which he paid no attention to economic reality. He was by no means a do-gooder who did not understand the real world in which we live. He saw the need for a system

353
and a controlling organisation which would prevent rapid expansion of agricultural output which would thus create economic chaos. He recognised the necessity of making agricultural effort and world economics serve each other, not cancel each other out.
I believe that the world food crisis can be tackled only if we adopt something like the Boyd Orr plan. We need a world food board capable of mobilising and allocating resources and boosting production where that is most needed, and which is capable also of stockholding against lean years and stockholding as an aid to stabilising the agricultural element of the world economy. I could go on and develop my argument in favour of the Boyd Orr plan, but one of the principal reasons for seeking a debate is to hear what the Government have to say, and I shall therefore draw my remarks to a close to give my hon. Friend an opportunity to speak.
The Boyd Orr plan would ensure that the world's agricultural resources would be brought into full production through a steady expansion of output by bringing the needs of producers and consumers nearer to each other. That expansion of output would produce stability in a world desperately in need of some stability, but above all that extra food would feed the hungry.
10.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I must begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) for his opening remarks. He has presented the House with the opportunity to look at the agenda before the World Food Conference and the chance that that provides for all nations. I commend him sincerely on the approach he took in presenting his case and we shall study his remarks with some care because what he said will make an important contribution to our work at the conference.
We face the challenge of ensuring that production of world food is adequate and, of course, the challenge of making sure that there is a much fairer distribution of it. I cannot think of a more important subject with which to deal at this Dispatch Box especially in my first few days in office. For that, of course, I am
354
grateful to my hon. Friend. In agriculture we have the largest industry in Britain, one which is ever-changing in its techniques. With a combination of science and technology, and with the skill of the farmers and farm workers, it has produced the biggest rise in productivity of any industry over the years.
Tonight we are concerned with the ways in which Britain can provide the initiative and leadership which will help the developing countries to provide a much fuller life for all their peoples. I was pleased that my hon. Friend referred to the work of Sir John Boyd Orr, as he was then, the former Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, in his address to the Royal Society of Arts in London in July 1948. Having studied that speech and the comments afterwards, one recognises his contribution over the years, which has set the standards that must be considered even today in deciding the basic principles on which we should work, when a quarter of the world's population has barely enough on which to live.
The background of the conference is of some importance. We need to consider it to decide what our policy should be. The World Food Conference, to be held in Rome from 5th to 16th November, will be a ministerial conference. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be leading the United Kingdom delegation.
The conference proposals from both developing and developed countries reflect world-wide concern at the short supplies and high prices of many foodstuffs. This has been particularly noticeable in this country. The sudden development of short supply situations for several products—notably cereals—was due to a coincidence of harvest failures in many countries due to bad weather. But there were longer-term factors in the situation also, and issues of greater importance—and difficulty—than unusually large seasonal fluctuations in yields for a range of crops.
This is recognised in the United Nations General Assembly resolution authorising the conference, which refers to
"… specific action to resolve the world food problem within the broader context of development and international co-operation."

355
The resolution puts as the major issue the situation in developing countries. But the conference will in addition deal with security of world food supplies and with problems of supplies of inputs, particularly fertilisers. My hon. Friends will recall the resolution from Sri Lanka and New Zealand in this connection.
The conference will also give some consideration to trade.
In considering my right hon. Friend's attitude, we should briefly examine the agenda to see the issues that will come before the conference. First, there will be an assessment of the world food situation, based on the reports of the Secretary-General to the conference and the preparatory committee. Then there will be the national and international programmes of action to be considered. These include measures for increasing food production in developing countries within the wider framework of development policies and programmes for improving the consumption pattern in all countries and ensuring adequate availability of food in developing countries, particularly to the vulnerable groups; the strengthening of world food security through measures including a better early warning and food information system; more effective national and international stockholding policies—I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to them; and measures to improve arrangements for emergency relief and food aid.
Most important of all, the conference will close with consideration of the arrangements for follow-up action, including appropriate international machinery and recommendations and resolutions of the conference. Without the follow-up the conference has no real purpose, except to draw attention to a matter of grave importance.
I do not think that there is any need to stress the importance the United Kingdom attaches to the topics of the conference. It is in our interests as food importers that adequate supplies should be regularly available on world markets. It is in all countries' interests—ours no less than others—that world food production and distribution should be improved to eliminate hunger and malnutrition. These are continuing problems which we and other countries face.
356
I now turn to consider what the conference can do. We would stress that the conference will be dealing with practical problems. We want it to contribute to practical solutions requiring cooperative international action. We hope that developing and developed countries, importers and exporters, will work together. That has not always been assured. Of course, we appreciate the problems that are involved. We realise that countries have different interests in some aspects of world food supplies. There are major problems, notably production and the adequacy of supplies, and on such matters co-operation is essential and, I think, possible.
On all the main topics before the conference there is work in progress both in international organisations and nationally. We are aware of the many organisations which are involved in these immense problems. There is the enormous problem of co-ordination of effort so as to avoid overlap and to ensure that there are no gaps. We must consider food production in developing countries in the light of the technical assistance and financial aid that is provided bilaterally and multilaterally. The complex difficulties of an agricultural, economic and social nature and the difficulties of increasing production and improving distribution are receiving a great deal of attention.
The security of world food supplies is being treated as we know by the FAO of the United Nations on the basis of proposals made by its Director-General. The shortages of supplies of fertilisers and pesticides has been raised in the Economic and Social Committee of the United Nations by a Sri Lanka-New Zealand resolution. That is a matter that is also under review.
The FAO Fertiliser Commission is meeting in Rome this week and will, we hope, provide the factual background that all countries agree is essential before helpful action can be devised. Trade issues, and particularly improved access for developing countries' exports, are currently being dealt with in the GATT and the UNCTAD contexts and nationally in generalised schemes of preferences.
The rôle of the World Food Conference must be to help this range of continuing

357
work and to supplement it where necessary. The Government see the contribution of the conference in those terms and they are taking a full part in preparatory meetings at which ways forward are being sought.
What action do we want the conference to take? First, with regard to improved food production in developing countries, we hope for an agreed concentration of attention by donors of development aid and by the developing countries themselves on the rural sector. That emphasis in third world development will be achieved only if the developing countries accept it and if their objectives and plans are selected accordingly. That is most important as aid can be given only in a form in which it will be acceptable to those who need to receive it. I well recall a few years ago attending an IPU conference in India and feeling out of place in an environment in which there were women and children lying around on the road and living in the most appalling circumstances. It is essential that those of us who have the means to help such people should know how help can be given in a way which will be acceptable to those who need it so greatly.
We need to make increased efforts to improve marketing arrangements, including storage, in developing countries and to improve distribution. This, of course, depends largely on the decisions that are taken by the developing countries themselves. The problem of world food supplies involves not only overall adequacy for any country but also the level of nutrition in different parts of the country, different economic or social classes and the vulnerable groups, particularly children and nursing mothers. The Government hope increased attention will be given in development planning to these important matters.
The need for financial assistance to developing countries has been altered by the recent large increases in many product prices, notably oil. These are factors to be considered. Some of the most populous developing countries will have even less foreign exchange to pay for food and other imports. At the same time many traditional donors, including the United Kingdom, face large foreign exchange deficits as a result of increased oil prices.
358
The conference will also consider world food security. As I have said, that is being dealt with by the FAO. It may also need later to be passed to an even wider forum. The proposals need further technical consideration within that organisation.
To summarise the matters which my right hon. Friend will have in mind for the conference, we look to the conference to produce, above all, a renewed concentration of effort to improve production, distribution and consumption patterns in the developing countries. This must be undertaken by both developed and developing countries, working together. We look to the conference to support the FAO proposals to improve world security, and we think it important that Russia and China take part in these arrangements. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be sorry that, so far, China has not taken part in the preparations for the conference.
We also want the conference to support international arrangements to help deal with the shortage of fertilisers and some other inputs. In these ways, the conference can take some practical steps towards overcoming the problems which the world faces in trying to feed its people adequately.
Having said that, I do not think that anyone will doubt that the greatest contribution that the developed countries can make is the more rapid production of home-produced food so as to reduce food imports and thereby help the balance of payments position and their economic independence.
To be in the position to give food is desirable, but there are preferable forms of aid. We must stimulate food production in developing countries through capital aid and technical assistance, the latter being important because people must be trained to use the technical aids and machinery which we may provide.
Most of all, we all need to examine the national priorities of spending to see what further resources can be devoted to the task which we are considering. In the defence debate, some of us will have had ideas about priorities and ways in which, by raising the living standards in various parts of the world, we could help to reduce the tensions which cause the

359
developed countries to spend more and more on defence and to be less able to help those who need it.
I end with a quotation from a speech by Sir John Boyd Orr, as he then was, in 1948. He said:
"The problem facing mankind to-day is—can we make this machine work? Have we got the resources? Have we got the scientific knowledge to carry through the great plan? Yes. We can to-day perform the miracle of the loaves and fishes; we can make the desert bloom and yield grain for bread; we can grow fruit within the Arctic Circle; modern technology in industry can produce goods in abundance. If half the effort being spent on making tanks, guns, aeroplanes and
360
atomic bombs were diverted to producing the primary necessities of life the last of poverty in the world would be eliminated in the lifetime of our children."
This is the challenge of the two debates today—the first debate on defence, and—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock 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 twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Nuclear Submarine Construction
  Nuclear Submarine Construction
  Review
  Review
  North Africa (Famine Relief)
  North Africa (Famine Relief)
  Personnel vis-à-vis Equipment
  Personnel vis-à-vis Equipment
  Home Guard
  Home Guard
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve
  Suez Canal Clearance
  Suez Canal Clearance
  Harrier Aircraft
  Harrier Aircraft
  Civilian Aid (Overseas Countries)
  Civilian Aid (Overseas Countries)
  Mr. Malcolm Cousins
  Mr. Malcolm Cousins
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Flixborough Explosion Victims
  Flixborough Explosion Victims
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Clinical Nurse Teachers
  Clinical Nurse Teachers
  Radiographers
  Radiographers
  Student Grant
  Student Grant
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Hospital Porters
  Hospital Porters
  Hospital Doctors (Pay)
  Hospital Doctors (Pay)
  Disabled Persons (Hardship Allowance)
  Disabled Persons (Hardship Allowance)
  Doctors (Lists of Patients)
  Doctors (Lists of Patients)
  Pensions (Over 80s)
  Pensions (Over 80s)
  Doctors (Health Centres)
  Doctors (Health Centres)
  Patient-Doctor Ratio
  Patient-Doctor Ratio
  Medical Physics Technicians (Pay)
  Medical Physics Technicians (Pay)
  Benefits (Scotland)
  Benefits (Scotland)
  Whooping Cough Vaccination
  Whooping Cough Vaccination
  Deferred Retirement
  Deferred Retirement
  Pensioners (Postage Stamps)
  Pensioners (Postage Stamps)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Family Allowance (EEC Countries)
  Family Allowance (EEC Countries)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  One-Parent Families (Finer Report)
  One-Parent Families (Finer Report)
  Mental Health Research
  Mental Health Research
  National Insurance Contributions (Students)
  National Insurance Contributions (Students)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Teachers)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Teachers)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Open University
  Open University
  School Building Programme (Staffordshire)
  School Building Programme (Staffordshire)
  Parental Wishes
  Parental Wishes
  School Governors and Managers (Appointment)
  School Governors and Managers (Appointment)
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Sacred Heart School, Redcar
  Sacred Heart School, Redcar
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Gipsy Children
  Gipsy Children
  School Roofs (Safety)
  School Roofs (Safety)
  Work Experience Schemes
  Work Experience Schemes
  Careers (Publications)
  Careers (Publications)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Simonstown Agreement
  Simonstown Agreement
  NATO Summit Meeting
  NATO Summit Meeting
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  GOVERNMENT POLICY
  GOVERNMENT POLICY
  NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS
  NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS
  EUROPEAN POLICY
  EUROPEAN POLICY
  NEW ZEALAND
  NEW ZEALAND
  SOCIAL CONTRACT
  SOCIAL CONTRACT
  INDUSTRIAL POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  INDUSTRIAL POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  IMMIGRANTS
  IMMIGRANTS
  INFLATION (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  INFLATION (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  INDUSTRIAL PROSPECTS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  INDUSTRIAL PROSPECTS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  REFERENDA
  REFERENDA
  PREMIER CHOU EN-LAI
  PREMIER CHOU EN-LAI
  STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IN PUBLIC LIFE
  STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IN PUBLIC LIFE
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk
  Milk
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Fish
  Fish
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Animals (Export for Slaughter)
  Animals (Export for Slaughter)
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Home-Produced Foodstuffs
  Home-Produced Foodstuffs
  Beef Cattle (Slaughter Premium)
  Beef Cattle (Slaughter Premium)
  LEGAL AID (PLANNING INQUIRIES)
  LEGAL AID (PLANNING INQUIRIES)
EMPLOYMENT
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Tourist Industry (Cornwall)
  Tourist Industry (Cornwall)
  Unfair Dismissal Cases
  Unfair Dismissal Cases
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Handicapped Persons (EEC Decision)
  Handicapped Persons (EEC Decision)
  Migrant Workers (EEC Decision)
  Migrant Workers (EEC Decision)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Distributive Trades
  Distributive Trades
  Employed Persons
  Employed Persons
ENERGY
  North Sea Oil (Fishing Limitations)
  North Sea Oil (Fishing Limitations)
  Coal Reserves (Scotland)
  Coal Reserves (Scotland)
  Coal Miners' Pay
  Coal Miners' Pay
  Gas Bills
  Gas Bills
  Coal Mining (Output Per Manshift)
  Coal Mining (Output Per Manshift)
ENVIRONMENT
  Centre Point
  Centre Point
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Rate Support Grant (Dorset)
  Rate Support Grant (Dorset)
  A520
  A520
  Cost Yardstick
  Cost Yardstick
  Council Housing Modernisation (Borrowing Consent)
  Council Housing Modernisation (Borrowing Consent)
  Land Acquisition
  Land Acquisition
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Members' Correspondence)
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Members' Correspondence)
  Local Government Costs
  Local Government Costs
  Capital Expenditure (Leasing Arrangements)
  Capital Expenditure (Leasing Arrangements)
  Vehicle Noise Testing
  Vehicle Noise Testing
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Driving Test Centre, Sheldon
  Driving Test Centre, Sheldon
  Property Services Agency (Firm Price Contracts)
  Property Services Agency (Firm Price Contracts)
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  A53
  A53
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  East Anglian and South Western Regions (Strategic Plans)
  East Anglian and South Western Regions (Strategic Plans)
  Pop Concerts (Hyde Park)
  Pop Concerts (Hyde Park)
  High Cost Areas (Aid)
  High Cost Areas (Aid)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Indictable Crimes (Children)
  Indictable Crimes (Children)
  Post Modems
  Post Modems
  Public Meetings (Advertisements)
  Public Meetings (Advertisements)
  Arab Yemeni Detainees
  Arab Yemeni Detainees
  Illegal Immigrants' Amnesty (Applications)
  Illegal Immigrants' Amnesty (Applications)
INDUSTRY
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering
  Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering
  Zip Fasteners (Japanese Manufacturers)
  Zip Fasteners (Japanese Manufacturers)
  Government Aid
  Government Aid
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Court Line Ltd.
  Court Line Ltd.
  International Computers Ltd.
  International Computers Ltd.
  Footwear
  Footwear
  Merseyside (Redesignation)
  Merseyside (Redesignation)
  Special Development Areas
  Special Development Areas
  Triumph Motor Cycles
  Triumph Motor Cycles
  North Sea Oil and Gas (Steel Needs)
  North Sea Oil and Gas (Steel Needs)
  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Child Allowances
  Child Allowances
  Income Tax (Travel-to-Work Relief)
  Income Tax (Travel-to-Work Relief)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Special Drawing Rights (Developing Countries)
  Special Drawing Rights (Developing Countries)
  Tax Arrears (Remission)
  Tax Arrears (Remission)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Maps and Charts
  Maps and Charts
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Boutiques
  Boutiques
TRADE
  Companies (Insolvencies)
  Companies (Insolvencies)
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
SCOTLAND
  Mineral Survey
  Mineral Survey
  Community Councils
  Community Councils
  Fish
  Fish
  Police
  Police
  Council Housing Modernisation (Borrowing Consent)
  Council Housing Modernisation (Borrowing Consent)
  Stirling Link Roads (Costs)
  Stirling Link Roads (Costs)
  Sewerage (Dollar and Lower Mains)
  Sewerage (Dollar and Lower Mains)
  House Demolitions
  House Demolitions

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 Morris—Took the Oath

MOTORWAYS: DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy with regard to fixing directional signs on the approach roads to motorways, and whether there is a prescribed radius from the entrances for the fixing of those signs.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the policy of the Department of the Environment and their advice to local highway authorities is that routes leading to motorways should be well signed and that the signing may start 10 miles or more from a motorway.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his informative Answer. Is he aware that, while that is good advice, local highway authorities are not uniform in their observance of it? Is he also aware that it would be greatly for the convenience of individual drivers, both private and freight, if this practice were made uniform? It would also be very greatly for the benefit of road traffic generally if there were uniformity in the fixing of directional signs to motorways at all intersections within a 10-mile radius of motorway junctions, in order to ensure a smooth flow of traffic on to the motorways. Will the noble Lord he good enough to use his influence in asking local highway authorities to implement this advice 100 per cent.?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, as the House appreciates, that local authorities being highway authorities have con-
146
siderable discretion in this field. The advice given by the Department is consistent and is the same to all local authorities, although I appreciate that practice varies considerably. I would tell the noble Lord that I have pursued this matter, and I am satisfied that the Department is already doing a very great deal to persuade local authorities to fall into line with the advice that they are given. I certainly give the noble Lord the assurance which he requested in the last part of his remarks.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Automobile Association is extremely helpful in this regard? I have several times notified them of signs which I think are badly placed and which tend to misinform one, and they have always taken up these matters with the local authority.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am not answerable for the A.A. and I think I ought not to try to hide behind them. The noble Lord's original Question referred to the practice of local authorities and the advice and policy of the Department of the Environment, and I think I have replied fairly fully to it.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend urge upon local authorities that directional signs should never be erected without clearly giving mileages?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am advised that this is the practice wherever possible, and where the local authority is agreeable to doing it. But, certainly, I take note of the point raised by my noble friend and will see whether anything can be done.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us when it is not possible to state the distance from a signpost to a motorway? Surely these are not moving signposts.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Earl that information.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is it not advisable to bring to the notice of the regional engineers, who are responsible for highway development, the observations of the noble Lord who asked the original Question, and leave it to those people to give directions to the highway authorities?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what my noble friend has said.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord one step further? Is he aware—as I am sure he is—that the motorways are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and that enormous sums of public money are spent in constructing them, so that it is in the general interest that they should be used as much as possible? Does he think it possible that the Department of the Environment might extend their responsibility a little further into the field of the local highway authorities in order to get these directional signs adequately fixed within a 10-mile radius?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think they might, but I believe that at the present juncture they do not have the power.

HOUSING SITES: RELEASE OF LAND
2.41 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: 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 are satisfied with the speed at which unused and surplus lands owned by Government Departments and nationalised industries in London are being released to appropriate authorities for housing development.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the procedure for the release of redundant land in London owned by Government Departments gives the housing authorities and the Housing Corporation the right to make bids for such land which are given the same priority as bids by other Government Departments. Time must therefore be allowed for consultation, hut it is normally possible to allocate it within about two months of the initial declaration of redundancy, and I do not think this can be speeded up any more. Disposal of land owned by other public
148
authorities is a matter for these authorities, but I am sure that they bear in mind the need for speed in dealing with each individual case.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him two supplementary questions? First, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that sufficient progress is being made on the Report of the public inquiry into the Greater London Development plan, and in particular the proposals made for the speeding up of overspill programmes? May I put the first part of my supplementary and ask the second in a moment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think that the best answer that I can give is that the Government are never satisfied with the rate of progress being made; they always wish it could be speedier.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that not particularly illuminating reply—and I apologise for not having given him notice of my supplementary—may I ask him whether he is able to throw a little light on the negotiations that are taking place with regard to the redevelopment of London's dockland? In particular, is he content with the rate at which those negotiations are proceeding?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate would care to put down a specific Question on that point, I shall do my best to answer it. Alternatively, I shall write to him giving details.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend which Church lands have been released for housing slum dwellers?
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Order!
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, are the Government aware that the Church Commissioners will be able to supply the noble Baroness with a very long documented letter?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think the right reverend Prelate would do well to write to the noble Baroness.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Baroness will be pleased to have that as quickly as possible?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although large areas are handled with some fair efficiency under the present arrangements, small areas of odd and unusual shapes in various positions, particularly those owned by public organisations such as the railways, are not in fact handled very well by the present arrangements as there does not appear to be enough imagination used in the matter? Thus, a great many useful areas of land, especially in small and vital positions in towns, are not well handled, and something more should be done about it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Department of the Environment is contivally exercising pressure with regard to this matter.

TERRORISM AND INTERNATIONAL ACTION
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the continuing escalation of terrorism and of threats made by Arab terrorists resulting in prisoners convicted of crimes of violence being released in consequence of those threats, they will take steps to get representatives of the affected nations together with the object of taking concerted action to deal with this serious problem.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, recent experience at the United Nations and in the International Civil Aviation Organisation has shown that the international community is not yet prepared to take the firm collective action necessary for the effective combatting of inter-
150
national terrorism. Her Majesty's Government will continue to do all they can to stimulate joint practical countermeasures; the calling of an international meeting at the moment would, regrettably, seem unlikely to lead to fruitful action.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in view of the lowest depths of depravity to which the arch-criminals have now resorted by stating that they are planning to kill children, schoolchildren, and they have already exercised that particular and terrible threat by killing 22 children in a school at Maalot is it not important that we should take up this matter with those civilised peoples—I and everybody in your Lordships' House realise the difficulty at the United Nations—who are affected, so that they may get together and deaf with the position? May I ask my noble friend one other question: in view of the fact that A1 Fatah has associated itself with the latest attack on women and children at Nahariya is it not possible for us to close their offices here so depriving them of the opportunity of throwing out smokescreens, and also to consider closing the offices of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, who are involved in all these matters?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, apart from doing everything that we can at international conferences to speed up and improve counter-measures against terrorism of every kind from whatever quarter it emanates, we also seek every possible bilateral opportunity of making our views very firmly known. I can assure my noble friend that we have done this in regard to the cases and details that he has mentioned. As to the position of Al Fatah and its office, this is a matter that my Department and others would need to consider very carefully in the light of what my noble friend has just said.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, in this serious matter affecting human lives is not the best deterrent to this form of terrorism the securing of reliable information prior to an offence taking place? Are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that they can and do obtain such information?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, of course one could not give a perfectionist answer to such a question,

151
but I appreciate what the noble Lord has in mind. We feel that we have very substantial access to the information of which he speaks. I would not wish to go into detail, and I would not wish to overstate the assurance, but I think that in so far as these matters can be dealt with they are being dealt with at least as efficiently by this country as by any other.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I put this further question to my noble friend: Is it not possible to do something to bring pressure on those countries that harbour those who, having been convicted of crimes, have been released from prison? It is not possible for us to do something about those organisations in this country that are deliberately helping them?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend refers to the possibility of exerting pressure, as he calls it, on those countries that harbour these miscreants. The United Kingdom delegation to the Extraordinary Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation held in Rome last August, in fact very strongly pressed for measures of this kind, regrettably without success because those taking part were not unanimously in favour of such action. For such action to be effective it must substantially result from a consensus of view of all those taking part in such a conference.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, first, would the noble Lord agree that the Palestine terrorists are the descendants of Irgun Zvai Leumi, the Stern gang and Haganah? Secondly, would he agree that the most important and correct way of getting rid of this very unattractive problem is for there to be more sensitivity on the part of the Government of Israel towards the Palestinian problem?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would hesitate to agree to any apportionment of blame in a situation which continues to be extremely sensitive, but is not unhopeful in relation to the initiatives taken so successfully by Dr. Kissinger in the Middle East. We would be better advised to address ourselves to the possibility of adding to the disengagement agreements broader agreements resting on Resolutions 242 and 238, to
152
both of which both sides in this unhappy situation have expressed agreement.

NATIONAL LIFESAVING CAMPAIGN
2.52 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that only 10 per cent. of swimmers in Great Britain learn how to save life and in view of this and the fact that accidental deaths by drowning are more than 700 annually, whether they will identify themselves actively with this year's National Lifesaving Campaign, which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Royal Life Saving Society have organised; and whether they will provide adequate grants for training purposes in respect of lifesaving.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, the Government support this campaign and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office spoke at its launching. The Home Office has prepared supporting publicity. The Royal Life Saving Society and the Surf Life Saving Association receive annual grants from the Sports Council, and local authorities generally have power to assist the water safety activities of voluntary organisations.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, as this is a matter of immediate importance may I ask whether, through the various media, he will speed up the Government's action so that Ministers who speak at various functions—for example, at the opening of swimming pools and so on—definitely express their concern about so many people indulging in water sports when they are themselves not able to save their own lives, even if they swim, and certainly are not able to save the lives of other people? Thus we should emphasise that they should be trained for such a purpose wherever and whenever it is possible.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, the Government take a serious view of this campaign. They are supporting it by making posters available to the organisers of the campaign. A short film has also been made available. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on May 7 that he was setting up a Working Party on Water Safety Measures. In fact, this Working Party will sit for the first time this month.

BUSINESS
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I thought it might be helpful to the House if I informed your Lordships today that there will be no Friday Sitting this week as had been previously supposed.

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to give effect to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

NATIONAL PARKS
2.56 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE rose to call attention to the need to review policy in National Parks and in other areas of landscape conservation and scientific interest; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to start by offering warmest thanks on behalf of noble Lords in all parts of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his colleagues on the Committee which reviewed National Parks policies. This Report is the main subject of our debate this afternoon.
The Report on the whole has been warmly welcomed both by the public
154
authorities concerned and by the voluntary amenity and conservation societies. A great deal of discussion has already taken place outside Parliament and it seemed to me appropriate that we in this House should have the opportunity to consider the Report this month because requests have been made that comments and suggestions, and maybe criticisms of the Report, should be submitted before the end of July. Frankly, I wish that more noble Lords had felt able to take part in the debate, but, of course, the day of the debate, which should have been to-morrow, was changed to meet the convenience of some of our Scottish colleagues. Scottish business had been put down for to-day. Her Majesty is holding a Garden Party in Holyrood House and, out of consideration for Scottish noble Lords, it was agreed that the business might be changed. But it has, I know, inconvenienced several noble Lords who would have taken part, and naturally one very much regrets that.
However, I am happy that my noble friend Lord Castle has chosen this occasion on which to make his maiden speech. He and his wife, at least, in earlier days, were notable walkers in what is now National Park territory, in company with the late Hugh Dalton to whom, with Lewis Silkin, we owed the first legislation on National Parks—the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. We should not forget the debt we owe them. My strong Welsh interests and the fact that my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will be speaking for the Government in the debate will lead me to take most of my illustrations from the Principality of Wales where three of the 10 National Parks are to be found, as well as a significant number of National Nature Reserves and sites of special scientific interest.
In fact, noble Lords may not know that about one-fifth of the total land area of Wales is within designated National Parks. Other noble Lords will speak from their own experience in England and perhaps on this occasion we will miss the Scots less than we would otherwise do because Scotland has no National Parks. The first principles in this matter are the same for all of us. The need for the review, which is embodied in this readable and well-produced document, arose for two reasons. The

155
outstanding reason was the difficulty experienced in the 25 years since National Parks legislation was enacted and the difficulty experienced in practice in reconciling the two conflicting aims of National Parks, the first being the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the second being the enjoyment of that beauty by the general public.
The time had also come to examine the structure of the National Park administration and the financial report that has been received following the legislation in 1949 and 1968, and also in relation to the re-organisation of Local Government which took place this year. I think that most noble Lords who have read the Report will agree that perhaps the most important paragraphs in it are paragraph 15 in Chapter 2 and paragraphs 10 and 11 in Chapter 8. With your Lordships' permission I will read from those paragraphs because I think they set out this dilemma in clear terms. In Chapter 2, paragraph 15, the Committee says:
"The first purpose of National Parks…—the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty—seems to us to remain entirely valid and appropriate. The second purpose—the promotion of public enjoyment—however, needs to be re-interpreted and qualified because it is now evident that excessive or unsuitable use may destroy the very qualities which attract people to the Parks."
Then, in italics for emphasis, the Committee say:
"We have no doubt that where the conflict between the two purposes, which has always been inherent, becomes acute, the first one must prevail in order that the beauty and ecological qualities of the National Parks may be maintained".
When they examine this conflict of interest in further detail in Chapter 8, paragraph 10, (and I make no apology for quoting this because I think it is such a very important statement), the Committee say:
"Because of these increasing pressures and because deterioration is so hard to reverse we believe that the statutory purposes of the parks should be restated".
They go on to say:
"We see no reason to amend the first one, preservation and enhancement of natural beauty, though 'conservation' might now be considered more appropriate than 'preservation and enchancement', while 'natural beauty' is an odd term for landscapes that have been
156
so much modified by man … that term is, however, well established and is understood to embrace both scenic beauty and wild life."
They go on in the next paragraph to say:
"It is the second purpose … that needs qualification";
and they repeat:
"We recommend that the statute be amended to make it clear that their enjoyment by the public shall be in such manner and by such means as will leave their natural beauty unimpaired for the enjoyment of this and future generations".
There the dilemma, the conflict of interest, is very clearly stated.
In discussions in which I have taken part it has been suggested that possibly the absolute requirement to leave unimpaired natural beauty is not entirely practical, but one might adopt the concept that,
"Enjoyment by the public shall be in such a manner and by such means as will not cause deterioration of the environment beyond its annual ability to recover."
This precept would set the acceptable limit to wear and tear caused by human pressure on the living environment, although, of course, it does not cover geological damage or man-made works. We want to know this afternoon where the Government stand on this principle. It is important to know, and if noble Lords doubt it I would refer them to the Report by the distinguished diplomat Sir Robert Scott, who was appointed the inspector for the Inquiry into the A.66 road scheme through the Lake District. Sir Robert complained bitterly that he had no precise instructions in this matter, that he was not informed as to the relative importance to be attached to amenity considerations. He said that definitions of environmental value were imprecise and unsupported by firm Government policy. So it will be seen that the attitude of Government is of real consequence in such situations.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Baronness allow me to interrupt her? Would she not agree that in that Inquiry the Government were entirely on the side of the vandals?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I will leave the noble Lord, whose name is on the list, to make his own speech, because I was not dealing with the merits of the decision which was reached; although I

157
should be disposed to agree with the noble Lord. The point I was endeavouring to make was that unless there is some Government reaction to the recommendation of the Sandford Committee, then in future inquiries the same difficulty will arise. One therefore asks oneself: can one now, in the light of the recommendations of the Sandford Committee, expect, if not an absolutely firm attitude, at least a firmer attitude on the part of Government?
My Lords, of course I recognise, as did the Committee, that these questions are far from simple. The conflict is not just between man and the natural environment: it is also between the differing interests of those who come into an area and those who live there, who earn their bread and bring up their families there. Moreover, I believe that this conflict is nowhere more acutely felt than in the Snowdonia National Park, for the area of which my noble friend was Parliamentary representative for very many years and where, to the other stresses, is added that of the divisions caused by language. Within this general problem of conflict of interest there is, perhaps, the particular relationship with those who own or farm the land.
The Committee are perfectly frank about this. In paragraph 5.45, for example, they say quite plainly—and I quote:
"Public access "—
that is, to the National Parks—
"brings no gain to farmers and landowners";
and I am afraid that some Welsh farmers referred to in that chapter appear, perhaps, excessively inhospitable. But this defensiveness against the intruder from without expressed itself in the strongest form last year, so far as Wales is concerned, when due to the opposition to the proposed designation of a new National Park, the Cambrian Mountains Park, it was turned down by the then Secretary of State for Wales without so much as a public inquiry. Even the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, of which I have the honour to be President, was against this scheme on the grounds that designation as a National Park would encourage visitors in increasing hordes, and that this would inevitably change the whole character of the area—in their view, for the worse.
158
My Lords, I have mentioned these Welsh examples because I think they express in the most graphic form the very real conflicts which arise within this conception of Parks which, unlike their American counterparts, are neither nationally owned or nationally administered. I agree with the Report that to change the name, "National Park", even though in some respects it appears to be a misnomer, would not help to change the behaviour of that small minority who really abuse the facilities of the Parks. But I believe that what is important is to act in such a way as to improve the relationship with the local people who live and work in the Park areas, and to make them feel fairly treated when, at the same time, one is asking them to receive many thousands of their fellow citizens into their midst.
I believe that the positive suggestions in the Report go a long way to make this possible. In particular, I very strongly support the proposals in Chapter Eighteen for management agreements. At present, legislative power is lacking to conclude such agreements, which would be positive as well as negative in character, and would be binding upon successors in title. We have, of course, special planning controls in the areas of National Parks, but for the most part planning controls are negative, and I believe the Committee were absolutely right in saying that, by themselves, they are not enough and more is needed. If I may quote from paragraph 10 of Chapter Eighteen, it says:
"The basic features of a management agreement would be that the owner would give a written undertaking to manage the land in accordance with a detailed plan, which might include both restraints and positive requirements. The authority would agree to make payments to the owner in recognition of any restraint on the productive use of the land and of the additional cost of any positive actions he takes in the public interest under the agreement".
Without such agreements. I do not believe that we shall get the best out of our Parks in the years of increasing pressure which lie ahead.
I understand, following the opinion of the Committee, that legislation would be needed, but there is one area where such a policy could be tried out now; namely, in Snowdonia itself, where an extensive area was taken into public ownership in 1968 when the Vaynol estate came on to

159
the market and my right honourable friend Mr. Callaghan, who was at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, provided the funds with which to purchase a considerable proportion of the estate. A pledge was given at that time that in due course the land would be sold back to those former tenants of the estate who wished to buy their holdings, but subject to agreement on conditions.
The main condition was of course access, for which, incidentally, the Countryside Commission already has powers of compulsion, including compulsory purchase if need be. However, as I understand that no sales have yet been completed in this area even after this considerable lapse of time, can we be assured by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts that none will be completed without the kind of agreement proposed under the management agreement passage in the Report to which I have just referred? Alternatively, as landowner, the Secretary of State for Wales could, I suggest, in lieu of sale offer very favourable tenancy agreements which could take fully into account the kind of provisions mentioned in the passage which I read. He would not need to wait for legislation, but could act now as a good landlord and, in such circumstances and in the present state of agriculture, such a proposal might have its attractions.
It seems to me that, having taken the dramatic step of buying a large area in the very heart of Snowdonia with the opportunity of comprehensive management of one of the most hard pressed mountain areas in the whole country, one should not let it go without making the most of it. Otherwise, it will have been a rather pointless exercise. I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to enlighten us, particularly as I was able to give him notice that I would wish to raise this matter.
I shall now turn to matters of more general interest, though I have also given notice that I have two further Welsh problems on my list: namely, the staffing position in the Brecon Beacons Park and the protection of the Pembrokeshire coast. However, I will deal with those in their due place. First of all, I should like to touch on the question of finance. Although it is twenty-five years since
160
the Act establishing National Parks was put on the Statute Book, all of us who are interested in them know only too well that resources have never been adequate, let alone generous. Consequently, we all very much welcomed the Sandford Report's recommendation of a much increased national contribution. The "lion's share", as it was put, was to come from central sources in recognition not only of national interest, but of the fact that, for the most part, those using the Parks do not live there and do not pay local rates. This undertaking, although it did not go quite as far as the Countryside Commission would have wished, has been met, but there are some extremely disturbing aspects of what has been happening since.
I think that a number of noble Lords who are interested in the National Parks will have seen the much-quoted article in The Times of April 27 by Malcolm MacEwen, himself a member of a Park Authority. He pointed out that, as a result of receiving extra money from the Exchequer for National Park purposes, certain local authorities with Park responsibilities are regarding this additional contribution not as the basis of flesh expenditure on the needs of the Parks, but as a subvention in relief of rates. There is the further problem where capital expenditure is involved that, as I understand it, a Park Authority cannot go out-with the agreed capital pool which has been allotted to the authority concerned. In other words, even if it had the money, if its capital project was not in the programme which had been approved, the Park authority could not spend the money for the purposes which it would regard as important. This has, as I understand it, occurred in the Snowdonia National Park, because the Gwynedd Authority is already very fully committed. It may also have occurred elsewhere.
So one has very grave apprehensions that unless these two conditions are dealt with the gesture which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his colleagues managed to obtain from the Treasury may be far less valuable than it at first appeared. I am very well aware that at the present time the reorganisation of local government has made for difficulties, and that the new structure of the Park Authority administration itself must have time to settle down, so that one should

161
not jump to hurried conclusions. Nevertheless, one cannot but be disturbed at the attitude of certain authorities nor fail to be apprehensive that, if money is not devoted to Park purposes, the Treasury will in due course turn round and say, "You have not really been spending very much. Therefore you do not need very much", and that the Government's contribution, if not actually cut, will not be increased as might well be necessary.
I think, also, that the attitude of certain local authorities—and I do not wish to particularise on this point, though those who know the Parks will, I imagine, know which ones I mean—is somewhat disturbing. This is very important, because of the past history of the matter. There have been discussions for many years about the best administrative structure for the National Parks. As we all know, the Peak Park, in Derbyshire, has its own board with full powers of action and the right to precept. This means that this year it will both take the extra grant from the Treasury and continue its precepting, so that its expenditure on the Park will be nearly double what it was last year. The Lake District Park also has a board, which is not quite as powerful as that of the Peak, but everywhere else the Parks are administered by an authority which is dominated by the county council concerned—at last, one is happy to think, by single county councils instead of joint committees, with the one exception of the Brecon Beacons, which still has multiple responsibility.
Sir Jack Longland, in his report to the Countryside Commission which preceded the Sandford Committee, and Lord Redcliffe-Maud in his Report on Local Government, both recommended the Peak pattern of a quasi-independent board for all National Parks. This suggestion was not accepted and I do not quarrel with that, but the corollary is that, if county councils wish to retain their position at the end of the five-year review period recommended in the Sandford Report, they must be seen to be taking their full share of interest in the needs of the Parks. In cash terms, this means sustaining their share of expenditure. Meanwhile, they will also be judged by the quality of the management plan for each Park which is due to be presented not later than 1977. These plans will be awaited with very keen interest.
162
At long last, we have in each park a National Park officer whose sole job is the good management of the Park. Hitherto, this has been the part-time concern of some other county official. I am sure that we all welcome this very much indeed. Here, if I may once again be domestically Welsh, I draw attention to the position of the Brecon Beacons Park, where the officer appointed as the National Park officer is on a lower scale of salary than applies to any other Park in the country. I am well aware, as a resident of the new county of Powys, that we have been obliged to pay less than any other county in the Kingdom on account of our sparse population, and that one cannot make an exception for the Park officer. But I earnestly hope that this whole position can be urgently rectified by the Government adopting a more intelligent formula for Powys salaries in general, which at present I regard as a disgrace, and this would solve the problem of the financially inferior position of the Powys National Park officer.
Now I should like to turn to some of the few but important controversial aspects of the Report: First, the one on which the Committee was perhaps most sharply divided, the proposal for the designation of national heritage areas within the parks. The case for and the case against such designation is spelt out in detail and very clearly in Chapters 20 and 21. In all the discussions which I have attended since the Report appeared I have heard strong exception taken to the name "national heritage area". The reason for this is that even among those who support the idea there is apprehension that if one labels an area as being of especial value and interest it will inevitably draw people to it, and what should be preserved as a wilderness or a place of lonely enjoyment will become a "honey pot"—to use the current jargon. So I think the name should go. We seem to be incapable of designating something as special and then leaving it alone. The furthest one could go would be to use a low-key bureaucratic term—if one has to have any term at all—such as "special management area", which would have no emotive overtones for tourists or visitors.
But there are doubts about the concept itself, quite apart from the name, and a fairly widespread view that to single out

163
certain areas would diminish the attention paid to the rest of the Park. I do not share that view. I believe that there are some areas which merit extra and special care. But there are genuine differences in this argument between those people whose opinions one respects. That being so, the statesmanlike thing to do is to support the proposal in paragraph 20.21 that the Countryside Commission should be encouraged to experiment in one or two selected places to see how such a special management scheme could work. Only then could one reach a fair and considered judgment.
Another area of controversy, which I believe one or two noble Lords wish to speak about particularly, is forestry. Again, I have found among the amenity and conservation societies with whom I work complete agreement that afforestation of bare land, as described in Chapter 10, should be brought under planning control—incidentally, both within and without National Parks. But there is much less certainty about other operations though some support for control over felling and re-planting. We should be glad to know the Government's reactions, because nothing can change a landscape so much as forestry, which includes both public and private enterprise. It is quite true that it requires expertise as well as aesthetic judgment and one must keep a balance, but when one sees what has happened to some most cherished landscapes one cannot but question present procedures.
Needless to say, there is no unanimity on another controversial proposal, that of the proposed power of compulsory purchase of land as set out in paragraph 18.16. Even those who accept the logic of the argument that in addition to the compulsory powers which already exist—and they are considerable—one should be able to acquire land for the main purpose for which a Park exists, namely, the preservation and enhancement' of natural beauty, most of us would prefer to proceed by voluntary agreement. Ideologically, sitting as I do on these Benches, I personally am in favour of the public ownership of land, but I recognise what passions it arouses, and not least in rural Wales. I should much like to see, therefore, funds available, as suggested by Mr. John Cousins, for purchase, at any rate
164
by agreement. If there is no Land Fund on which one can draw, a Park authority or the Countryside Commission cannot act quickly if the opportunity arises. If one hesitates about overall compulsory purchase powers one then is surely obliged to provide adequate means for proceeding by agreement. I regard this action as one of the very important matters arising out of this Report.
I have mentioned management schemes with particular reference to agriculture. There is another kind of management which matters very much namely, that of areas of ecological and scientific interest. Here one must recognise that Park Authorities cannot expect to have the full range of knowledge at their command, even if they appoint an ecologist to their staff. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, in its very well-argued note on the Report, put this very plainly. They said:
"Only an organisation with a national view of conservation problems and needs and the experience which comes from it can be properly competent to fill the role."
The chosen instrument is, of course, to hand in the Nature Conservancy Council. In most areas it is already in very close contact with the Park administration, but has it enough resources to do the job? Without scientific backing one cannot judge how far and in what way an environment may be at risk. The Nature Conservancy Council is at present under great pressure in some areas to undertake special work in relation to the possible exploitation of oil or natural gas. Such exploitation will bring gain to our economy and conservation work elsewhere must not be allowed to suffer any deprivation on that account.
This of course applies equally to work in National Nature Reserves and areas of special scientific interest whether in a National Park or not. So I hope again that we may have an assurance that the Nature Conservancy Council will be given the resources to carry out the kind of work in the National Parks, without which, as I said, we cannot really judge whether the environment is at risk, and if it is, how to deal with it.
I had given notice to my noble friend that I hoped to touch on one aspect of conservation which did not come within the remit of Lord Sandford's Committee, namely, the growing interest in the

165
marine environment. I do not just mean by that any threat there may be from oil or gas developments. We have so far no marine National Parks and they would be very much more difficult to manage than areas on land. I am aware that a report issued a couple of years ago under the auspices of the Natural Environment Research Council concluded that such enterprises were not needed. But since then in certain areas, and I refer particularly to the Pembrokeshire coast, we have seen a growing threat by groups of skin-divers who descend and sometimes ravage. I am not speaking of commercial poaching of molluses or crustacea, though I know that occurs, nor am I speaking about those who disturb ancient wrecks; but I am speaking of the denuding of the inshore seabed of natural features. I believe that situation merits further study and I should be very glad to hear of any steps which may perhaps be in prospect so that we can, for once, get in in time before too much damage is done.
My Lords, there are many other matters arising out of this valuable Report on which I should like to touch—in particular perhaps transport and traffic management in Parks, on which so much else depends—but time does not permit. I should like to have said something about the country parks, one of the best things to come out of the 1968 legislation; and I was very glad to learn that some 130 country parks have been established by the local authorities which can act as buffer zones, so to speak, drawing off large numbers of people and thereby, of course, protecting the National Parks from too great pressure. Again I am worried about the present financial arrangement with local authorities. Until now the progress has been good, but with the new financial scheme it is much less certain that local authorities in the future will use resources for country parks. I only hope that my fears in this direction are ill-founded.
Finally, there is the question of whether further National Parks ought to be designated and whether, if they were, such designation would do more good than harm. There are various candidates—some have been looked at in the past, like the Norfolk Broads and the New
166
Forest there are parts of Essex and parts of Dorset including the Poole-Purbeck coastline which might well be considered. My own belief is that if the main proposals in the Sandford Report are carried out, and provided proper finance is made available for warden services (including the organisation of volunteer wardens and for all the other matters for which money is needed), then good would ensue if further designations were made and this would enable us to hand on our trust to future generations without shame.
My Lords, public consciousness of the value of our national heritage is growing, especially among the young. I hope that noble Lords will have noticed, from the quite remarkable figures in Table 9 on page 51 of the Report, the phenomenal growth in membership during the past few decades in the voluntary recreational and conservation bodies in this country. This by itself is surely conclusive evidence of the increasing interest and concern which is being shown by the public. We must not fail this or future generations, and I believe that with co-operation all round between the public, statutory bodies and private persons and associations we shall not do so. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am glad to be the first to thank the noble Baroness, Lady White, for giving us this opportunity to debate National Parks and for introducing the debate with such a splendid speech. My gratitude is tempered with two reflections: the first is the wording of her Motion which, on the face of it, would indicate that she thought that Lord Sandford and all his colleagues had done nothing of note or worth over the last two years, but I am glad to hear from her speech that on the whole she approves of what we have been up to. The second reflection is that in the course of conducting this review I always had the benefit of the Minister of State for Wales, my right hand and co-chairman, Dr. Margaret Davies, one of the most experienced Countryside Commissioners, also from Wales, and Mr. Bill Siberry from the Welsh Office. I find myself engineered into a position where I stand here single-handed inside a Welsh pincer movement.

167
Nevertheless, I hope I can acquit myself satisfactorily among all these Welsh examples. I think it is taking a slightly exaggerated view of Welsh nationalism to field a spokesman from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but nevertheless we all look forward to what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has to say, I, too, welcome the presence in this debate of the spouse of a former Transport Minister; I attach great significance to that and look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Castle, has to say.
Before going any further, I should like to record my tribute (and add it to that of the noble Baroness, Lady White) towards the founding fathers of the movement which led to the creation of the British National Parks 20 to 25 years ago, and particularly to the vision, not only of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and others whom the noble Baroness mentioned, but also to Sir Arthur Hobhouse, Mr. John Dyer and others. Their vision has resulted in a higher proportion of land—something like 9 per cent. compared with 1 per cent. in America—being designated as National Parks in a country which is more densely populated than most. There are two factors which together pose a greater challenge in the administration of the Parks than is faced by any other country which has National Parks. The people who have administered the Parks up to this moment have met that challenge short of staff, starved of funds and operating in a fragmentary framework, and I believe that my colleagues on my Committee would want to join with me in recording on this first Parliamentary occasion our appreciation of what has nevertheless been achieved. I should like to go on and give my best wishes to the new regime, those with statutory responsibility for inaugurating this new regime, and in that connection, to welcome to this debate my noble friend Lord Ridley who, as many noble Lords will know, has been appointed by the Association of County Councils to chair the Committee which they have set up to guide and assist the county councils who have responsibility for National Parks. We look forward to what he has to say in that capacity as well as what he has to say in has capacity as chairman of county councils which have Parks.
May I, before passing on to more substantive matters, take this opportunity
168
of thanking my colleagues on the Committee which conducted this review with me. I should like in that connection to record with our thanks the value which we derived from the local consultations which we carried out. As our Report says, we had meetings with all 10 National Park Authorities; we had three meetings in each of the 10 Parks with those who owned and were primary users of the land, with those representing the various amenity bodies and with those representing district councils—30 more meetings. In addition to that, we had over 20 further meetings to which the general public were invited to come and give us the benefit of their views. That amounts to 60 separate local consultations. That was an arduous undertaking, but I mention it and stress it because I hope that the value which we found—and indeed we found the greatest value in doing that—will encourage other National Park Authorities to carry on. Our impression—particularly of the public meetings—was that this kind of thing has not on the whole been done before. I regard it as an indispensable item in the satisfactory running of the Parks and I hope it will be continued. After all, as the noble Baroness has reminded us, there are a great many potentially explosive and conflicting interests in the Parks and this constant consultation is one effective way of helping to resolve them.
My Lords, may I add a little to what the noble Baroness has already said by way of reminder as to the context of this Report? It was commissioned by my right honourable friend, Mr. Peter Walker, then Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment in which I served, because he realised that after 20 years or so it was time to take another look. The National Parks had come of age; their youth and puberty had been a turbulent and unsatisfactory time from many points of view, and certainly great changes had taken place in the social structure of this country. Notably (and we have gone into this in some detail), we now have a greater population with more leisure time (and this is something that we went into a few weeks ago), more money to spend other than on essentials, more cars to move around in, more motorways to move around on and

169
a more highly developed taste for "getting away from it all" in the towns and out into the country: so there was certainly a need to look at the matter again.
In addition to that, local government reform provided the chance to make a number of changes—a chance which had to be taken before our Report was published. As the noble Baroness said, the chance was taken to do four things: first, to introduce a new administrative pattern which put an end to the fragmented responsibilities between two or more committees which operated in several of the Parks, to their very great disadvantage; to put an end to the administration of Parks by officers who were doing it on a part-time basis (because we now have National Park officers and their own staff in each Park, so that everyone has the benefit of the Peak Park in that respect); to put an end to the uncoordinated management of the land and water space in the Parks, with each land-or water-owning authority going its own way regardless of the purpose of the Parks—and in place of that we have a statutory requirement to devise a National Parks plan to pull it all together. Fourthly, the opportunity was taken in the course of local government reform to put an end to topsy-turvy financed mainly by local rates. Specific reminded us, the National Parks were mainly financed by local rates. Specific items were grant-aided, but the vitally important aspect of administrative costs were not grant aided at all. All that has been put right by the Local Government Act 1972.
I should like to take this opportunity to express my personal pleasure that all this has been implemented, especially the financial provisions about which I gave very firm personal pledges, first on behalf of Mr. Peter Walker and then on behalf of Mr. Geoffrey Rippon; and it has fallen to Mr. Anthony Crosland to implement them. I am naturally delighted that all three gentlemen have not only fulfilled those pledges but fulfilled them handsomely. However, I must say that I very much share the considerable misgivings expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady White, as to the reaction since then of the local authorities. I hope very much to hear both from my noble friend Lord Ridley, speaking on behalf of the county councils, and from the noble Lord, Lord
170
Garnsworthy, speaking on behalf of the Government, that they are watching the situation and have formed firm ideas as to what to do if no improvement is in sight; because I very much agree with the noble Baroness that this is not in the least what was intended—in other words, this treating of the contribution from the Exchequer as a relief of the rates. What is needed is to get extra finance into the National Parks, and everybody will have to think very carefully about the basis on which they agree to these arrangements if an improvement to that situation is not in sight soon.
Still dealing with the context of this Report—and I must apologise for doing so at length—I should like to stress how unique and distinctive are the English and Welsh National Parks. They are not empty wildernesses as they are in so many other countries. A quarter of a million people live in them; 17 trunk roads run across them (and not just the A.66!), and they are used for extraction of minerals, the production of food, the conservation of water and the training of four Armed Services as well as housing the quarter of a million people to whom I have just referred. So they are very different, and much more difficult, places to administer.
As well as continuing the planning policies which have marked the first twenty years, we need to embark on a giant feat of co-operation between the established primary users and owners of the land and the water in the Parks, and to strive for a comprehensive partnership in their management, as the noble Baroness said. The management will be for a multiplicity of purposes, including recreation, and I hope that our Report provides a basis and a framework for knitting together the variety of policies now coming forward. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships what they are. The new national forestry policy cannot be much further delayed. We know it will give more emphasis to recreation and amenity, and I hope that our Report shows reasonably clearly how we think the new policy can be adapted to the Parks. The new Water Act which we have just enacted lays fresh and new importance upon making full use of water space for amenity. And what a splendid challenge is now presented both to the water authorities and the forestry authorities by the concept of Kielder Water. This is a mag-

171
nificent water space for recreation, set in what I believe is the largest man-made forest in Europe.
Two committees, one under Mr. Stevens and the other under Sir Ralph Verney, will before long produce recommendations which will need to be specially implemented in the National Parks in respect of mineral extraction. We have the benefit of what was said by the Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, on how the Defence use of land can be reconciled with other uses. It is interesting to see from his Report that on the whole wild life prefers troops rather than tourists. I believe we are at a stage when landowners—this came out during our debate on the use of leisure—and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are showing interest and imagination in providing for recreational uses on private land in the countryside. Farmers, I know, are taking a great deal of interest in the upland management schemes in the Lake District and other Parks as an indication of what will he involved for them in entering into management agreement.
I hope during this debate to hear something about the reaction of the highway authorities to all this. We devoted a fairly lengthy and detailed chapter to this business. I think most of your Lordships will agree that what we see in the latest motorways reflects a growing sensitivity by highway engineers to the environment and in particular to the rural environment. I would hope the influence of the Landscape Advisory Committee, which has considerable responsibility for that, will begin to make its influence felt among the local authorities and right down to the grass roots and the authorities who are responsible for the design and improvement of roads.
The National Park Plan provides a framework for knitting all these strands together. To implement it we shall need more qualified staff, more highly trained and skilled in countryside recreation, to devise and excute appropriate policies, and I am glad that the Countryside Commission have that matter firmly in hand. We shall also be relying very greatly on the front line troops in all this—and I am glad that the noble Baroness mentioned them—the National Park and Countryside Rangers, sometimes also called Wardens,
172
their part-time assistants and volunteer auxiliaries. These, it seems to me, are needed not only for the management of estates for recreational purposes but, more importantly, for their role in personally mediating the needs of the visitors of the National Parks to the natives who live there and mediating the interests of the natives to the visitors. It is this work done on a personal basis which, as much as anything, leads to the smooth running and enjoyment of the Parks.
I come to the implementation of these policies over the next generation, the second strand of our review. Looking forward twenty years on it seems to me there will be four points of advance: first, conservation. The noble Baroness has stressed the fact that we have concluded that this purpose must be given primacy so that the National Parks, whatever else happens to them, are passed on to the next generation not only unimpaired but enhanced. This means that we must keep up our guard and extend the scope and strength over the whole range of planning policies and development control. Further measures of planning control over farm buildings, road improvements, afforestation of bare land and other things are all in the Report. That is one point of advance.
The second point is management. Here we want more and better of something we have seen little of so far, more intensive use of both land and water in the Parks for a multiplicity of purposes. Some purposes will have to be gradually phased out. I do not believe there is any part in the Parks for low flying aircraft, motor cycle scrambles, water skiing or noisy sports of that kind. But some of them are there and their reduction and removal will have to be handled sensitively. Thirdly, and as was stressed in our Report and in Lord Cobham's Report on leisure, we must go in a big way for alternative attractions elsewhere—girdles of green containing country parks around our great big cities—so that people who want a few hours out picnicking with the children do not have to trek for miles along M.6 to find it.
Fourthly—and this has not been mentioned yet, but I hope it will be mentioned by others who take part in the debate—advances on the front of education, and by that I mean not just more

173
exhortation, "Shut the gate!", "Do not light fires!", and things like that, though they are needed; not just more information in the form of guides and maps, though they are needed too; not even more field studies, though they are of value, but they are confined to the academic level. What I am thinking of is the kind of teaching that begins very early on in school life and goes to the heart.
Let me end by giving an illustration of what I mean, because I think it is important. I am glad to choose an example from Wales in honour of the noble Baroness. The approach in the school that I have in mind (and I am indebted to the Schools Council for this) was to visit and collect, with the help of parents, both natural and historical objects that could be touched, seen and felt, and to encourage the children to look at them, touch them, respect them and relate them to the environment around and beyond their school. This is what the teacher in that school had to say at the end of the first project on these lines:
"The enthusiasm of the children was infectious—more and more parents asked what the children were doing. I emphasised that the results they could see arranged around the walls of the school had all resulted from the children's own local research and exploration in their own locality. All the skills of reading, writing and arithmetic had been used in completing the project. The children had in fact realised the need to be able to read, to do their research and exploration."
The teacher went on—and this is the key phrase:
"In looking back we hope that perhaps our children will, as they grow, become more aware of their heritage and do their part to preserve it by guarding the treasures around them."
Thus speaks a teacher of six to seven year olds in Elliott Town Infants School in industrial Monmouthshire, which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady White, will know.
I believe that those directly responsible for our National Parks over the next generation, whatever else they may do in the way of providing alternative attractions, better management policies, tougher development control, will also need to look to and encourage allies like that infants' teacher.
3.55 p.m.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is nice to be back on home ground for a change and to join the
174
noble Baroness, Lady White, in discussing Snowdonia rather than Samarkand in this your Lordships' House. We must all be very grateful to the noble Baroness for initiating this extremely useful and timely debate and for the excellent speech with which she launched the discussion. I should like to pay special respects to the admirable speech that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who was mainly responsible for this very fine Report which is the main document which sustains our discussion this afternoon. I thought that his speech was one of great discernment and balance, reminding us that the preservation and improvement of the countryside must rest upon participation by those who live in these parts with those who wish to visit these parts, and that both points of view are constantly kept in mind as we evolve a workable policy.
My Lords, it is less than three weeks since we were debating the Reports of the Select Committee on Sport and Leisure. Today we are discussing those areas of supreme landscape beauty which are to very many people synonymous with the very concepts of leisure and recreation. In one sense therefore this debate and the one we had on June 13 are complementary; for there is little point in providing recreational facilities in places which have become so tedious or unattractive that no one wants to visit them. In another way, however, this debate stands on its own. For, as my noble friend Lady White has pointed out, the increasing pressures on our National Parks and on other designated areas, and the problems which those pressures create, are enormous, and they need to be considered separately from the general question of providing leisure opportunities.
Before dealing with issues arising on the Report of the Committee appointed to review National Park policies, and dealing with particular points raised by my noble friend, I think it would be helpful to say a little about certain important changes in National Park administration, planning and finance which have come into effect since that Committee reported. As many noble Lords will know, each of our ten National Parks is now administered by a single board or committee, with a National Park officer of senior status.

175
Each of these boards and Committees hag a statutory duty to prepare and publish within three years a National Park Plan, formulating its policy for the management of the Park and the exercise of its functions. Each National Park Authority will therefore need to examine its Park as a whole, consider what problems and stresses exist and decide how these can best be solved. Guidance on this has been given in joint circulars by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office. The most recent of these covers very useful comprehensive advice prepared by the Countryside Commission on the preparation of the National Park Plan for each Park. Although the new Park Authorities have been in office for only three months, the Government are confident that these plans, which have to be brought up to date every five years, as the noble Baroness reminded us, will go a long way towards the achievement of purposeful future planning and management of the Parks in the interests of all concerned. That is the new administrative arrangement.
To turn to financial arrangements, the noble Baroness has raised a fundamental question in her remarks about the adequacy of Exchequer aid for National Parks and how this is spent. We are aware that some doubt exists at present about the Government's views on the total of resources to be committed to this, and in particular about the contribution expected of local government, and that this is currently causing problems in the preparation of forward estimates of National Park expenditure. I am therefore glad to have this opportunity of clarifying the Government's views. As your Lordships will know, the Exchequer grants paid towards expenditure incurred on particular projects in National Parks were superseded from April 1 this year by entirely new arrangements. These new arrangements provide for a special grant, supplementary to the new rate support grant, to be paid to county councils with responsibility for National Parks. This new grant is not related to expenditure already incurred. The amount of grant for each financial year is calculated on the basis of forward estimates by National Park Authorities of expenditure in that year.
176
In hard cash terms, grants under the previous arrangement amounting in total to about £400,000 annually have been replaced in 1974–75, that is the current financial year, by a grant totalling more than three times as much; namely, £1,433,000. This sum represents 75 per cent. of the expenditure considered appropriate for the purpose. So in the current financial year, £1,433,000 is paid to the authorities concerned as representing three-quarters of the total expenditure which their forward programmes for the year showed to be their figure when this matter was discussed. This increased provision is a recognition of the contribution which enjoyment of the National Parks makes to the life of the nation. It is specifically designed to allow more real resources to be devoted to securing the purposes for which the Parks have been designated without imposing an undue burden on the local ratepayer.
In the recent past, local authorities have contributed from their general resources about £800,000 of annual expenditure on the Parks. However, considerable advances in management and in the provision of facilities have to be sought in the National Parks in order to preserve their special attractions and at the same time ensure that these can be enjoyed to the fullest extent.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, because it is an important matter, will the noble Lord forgive me if I ask him to make quite clear what he said about this grant? Did he say that 75 per cent. of local authorities' total estimates would be paid by the Government?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords. The sum of £1,433,000, which it has been decided to pay from the Exchequer to Park authorities, will represent 75 per cent. of the total expenditure on Park purposes, leaving 25 per cent. of the total expenditure projected by the authorities to be met by local authorities. If we reckon that the total forward estimate for this year as put forward by the local authorities for this purpose was some £1,900,000, £1,433,000, that is 75 per cent., represents the contribution of the Exchequer. The remainder is to be found by the local authorities—that is to say, something over £400,000, which is 25 per cent. of the whole. I hope that that helps the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, it does not quite answer my question but I will not labour the point now.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if the noble Viscount still feels he does not understand how this works I shall be most willing to have another try. I hope the point is perfectly clear to his noble friends.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, the point was this: in the future, if the local authorities jointly make an estimate of so much, will the Government pay 75 per cent. of that estimate? I am speaking about the future and not the current financial year.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it will be an agreed figure. We have taken the Exchequer proportion of 75 per cent., quite rightly I think, from the figure which the previous Administration thought right. We, too, think this is right—75 per cent. from Central Government, 25 per cent. from local resources. While I could not make a firm, dogmatic prognostication, I should imagine that this is about right for future years as well as for the present financial year.
If I may proceed, local government expenditures on National Parks are, however, not immune from the restraints on the growth of local government expenditure as a whole, and indeed from time to time critical examination and pruning in this matter, as in all others, may well be found necessary. As I have explained, there has been a very generous increase for 1974–75, continuing the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said was his intention. This very generous increase represents, as I have said, a sum of which 75 per cent. of the estimated expenditure considered appropriate to National Parks comes from central resources. On the assumption that county councils will meet at least the balance of that expenditure, 25 per cent., the objective of a rising level of expenditure can be regarded as met in the present year.
The noble Baroness and, I believe, the noble Lord who followed her, expressed concern lest some local authorities, at least, should regard this special grant as being in some way a subvention towards rates resources generally, and
178
asked what safeguards existed against this practice. There are of course a number. Park authorities have been told very firmly that they are expected to devote these grants to park purposes and indeed to contribute at least to the extent of 25 per cent. of the whole from their own resources. In addition, we have the Countryside Commission which have a presidial authority by Statute over what happens throughout the countryside, not only in the National Parks but in the countryside generally. I have no doubt that the Countryside Commission in England and in Wales—and my noble friend Lady White is a member—and bodies such as the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, of which she is President—
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, if I may correct my noble friend, I am not a member of the Countryside Commission. I wish I were.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is a very great pity. I am almost inclined to suggest that, even if it needed legislation, this matter should be put right. But certainly my noble friend is President of the formidable body known as C.P.R.W.—the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. I am sure that that body, together with the Countryside Commission and the newly appointed, full-time, reasonably well paid and high-powered National Park officers, and, again, the Department of the Environment and its appropriate officers, not to say the appropriate officers of the Welsh Office, will be keeping a reasonably wary eye on how local authorities are dealing with these fairly considerable grants in aid and on policy in the National Parks. The sanctions are there. In any case, at the end of the first year we shall be looking at how this has worked. I should like to express confidence in local authorities that they will recognise that this is a special grant, designed for the special purpose of helping them to make appropriate provision for the preservation and improvement of the Parks within their care. It is a very long stop indeed to imagine that local authorities will ignore or, indeed, go against the firmly stated intentions of this special grant.
My Lords, I apologise for dealing with this matter in such detail, but as I have

179
said it is a fundamental matter. I very much hope that this statement of Government views will be of help to those in county councils and National Park Authorities who are at present engaged in providing estimates of expenditure for 1975–76 on the basis of the forms of return sent out last month by the Department of the Environment.
The noble Baroness has given full recognition to the major review on National Park policies carried out by the Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Her Majesty's Government warmly welcome the Report of the Committee, the "Sandford Committee" as it is popularly and rightly known, which was published in April. On behalf of the Government, I should like to say how appreciative we are of the wide-ranging inquiries and detailed consideration undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his Committee, of the enthusiasm with which they clearly approached their heavy task and the thoroughness with which they completed it. The decisions to be taken on the many issues that the Report has raised are of such far-reaching consequence for the future that we are concerned to give them the most careful thought and to have full consultation with those who are knowledgeable on countryside matters.
There are a number of points upon which the noble Baroness quite rightly sought assurance from the Government, and my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy who will be winding up this debate will be able to give assurances upon certain points. However, your Lordships will appreciate that the Government must put out this excellent Report for comment to the widest possible range of people and organisations, including this House. This debate is part of the consultation. Everything which is said here to-day most certainly will be scrutinised and considered with extreme care by the Government when it comes to collating the views upon various parts of the Report which reach them by the end of this month. As a first step, we have invited all the National Park Authorities and about 40 interested bodies to let us have their comments by July 31. The Government will aim to reach conclusions in the light of these comments and then, in consulta-
180
tion with the Countryside Commission, as soon as possible thereafter publish their considered proposals.
As noble Lords will be aware, the main central Government agency for assisting and co-ordinating local authority and private initiative in matters of landscape conservation, the provision of facilities and securing greater public access is the Countryside Commission. Under the Local Government Act 1974 the Commission can now make grants and loans to any person, including a local authority, who is carrying out any project which is conducive to the purposes of countryside legislation. These wide powers should make it possible for the Commission to play an even more active part in helping to solve the kind of problems to which my noble friend has referred.
One of the recurring problems to which the Sandford Committee gave considerable thought is the scale of developments which should be permitted in National Parks and other sensitive areas. That is why we shall be particularly interested to see the reactions which we receive to the suggestion that there should he designated national heritage areas within each National Park where all forms of development would need the approval of Parliament. The Committee itself was not at one on this particular suggestion. As the Committee points out in its Report, that is no reason why the proposals should not be canvassed as widely as possible. Indeed, we look forward to receiving and considering a wide range of views upon this suggestion.
Of course, this problem of obtrusive development is by no means confined to the Parks. It is common to all the designated areas to which the noble Baroness refers in her Motion. The problem, which applies not only to the National Parks but to areas of outstanding natural beauty and to areas outside all designation, is that we are not dealing in the countryside with a series of "green museums" but with places where large numbers of people live and work—places rich not only in natural resources but also in human history, in recollection, in nostalgia. In many cases there are places which are close to major conurbations. Therefore there is continual trafficking between such conurbations and these beautiful areas for the purpose of daily

181
work, and highway authorities must have regard to that kind of consideration.
Our aim, and it is not an easy one, must be to marry the interests of amenity and utility. That is why I welcome so much the tone and balance of the noble Lord's speech. As the noble Lord put it, it is a matter of partnership—partnership not only between local and central Government in the way which I have described, but also between the populations of these beautiful areas, populations who live in these areas by their hundreds of thousands, and the many more hundreds of thousands who visit these areas for perhaps a day or two or a week or two every year. There must be partnership between them. There must be a minimum of imposition on either side and the maximum of co-operation.
The Government arc indeed conscious of the need, by means of this partnership, to protect these areas for the contribution that they can make to our national heritage and our recreational needs. Having regard, as I have said, to the fact that very many people in many of these Parks continue to live and work there, these areas cannot, in the nature of things, as my noble friend pointed out, remain completely free from all development.
My noble friend referred specifically to problems which have arisen in two Welsh Parks—Snowdonia and the Pembrokeshire Coast. In the case of Snowdonia, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales accepts that there has been delay in making access agreements and over the transfer of the Vaynol Estate to the sitting tenants. I find that I taxed the then Secretary of State about this point in another place, and on what was positively my last appearance on the legitimate stage of the other place this was the theme of my contribution. I asked what progress had been made in honouring the pledge—because it is a pledge, dating back to 1967—that these holdings will be made available for purchase by those who occupy and farm them. I am glad to inform your Lordships that negotiations in respect of six of the holdings are now at an advanced stage, and that the transfers should be finalised by the end of this year. The remainder—I think, some 16—will be completed as soon as possible thereafter, probably early next year.
182
My noble friend asked whether these transfers of ownership would be made conditional on the completion of proper access agreements. I can assure her that no sales will be concluded by Her Majesty's Government unless the prospective purchaser undertakes to enter into an access agreement with either the local planning authority or the Nature Conservancy Council. In fact, the six examples which I gave as being practically ready for completion before the end of this year have resulted from the fact that access agreements have been drafted successfully and accepted by both parties. This would, of course, apply to the others which remain to be completed.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves Snowdonia, he will of course appreciate that one could have obtained access agreements under existing legislation without going through the process of buying the estate. Am I to understand that any other provisions are likely to be made on the management side as recommended in the Sandford Report? Although I entirely agree that access agreements are the most important matter, they could have been obtained without going through this exercise and what one would like to see is some scheme of comprehensive management for this part of Snowdonia.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there are two views as to how a workable and acceptable scheme of management can be imposed on Snowdonia. I think the way we are going about it is right namely to make these holdings available to these farmers, according to the pledge of 1967, like the others outside the bounds of the National Park which form part of the Vaynol estate, to give them the opportunity to purchase, and in so doing to put right the question of access. Having done that, as these holdings all lie within the boundaries of the National Park, the National Park Committee as well as the County Planning Committee and the Countryside Commission will surely have a good deal to suggest and to bring forward for agreement in regard to how this area is managed. It is always well to consider the local circumstances and the local feeling, before one drafts what may on paper be a very viable system of management. In this case I am sure,

183
as one who lives in this area, that this is the way to go about it, so that we do, in fact, have a National Park in Snowdonia.
May I now turn to the Pembrokeshire coast, a couple of hundred miles to the South, with problems which are possibly less abrasive although quite as deep-seated as in Snowdonia, because the main problem here is that caused by the activities of skin divers. The Nature Conservancy Council is carrying out surveys of the seabed around the island of Skomer, which is itself a national nature reserve. These will provide data on the marine flora and fauna against which the effects of the activities of the skin divers can be assessed, and discussions are taking place on the legal problems of establishing marine nature reserves, which is another valuable point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White. At the moment, there is no such thing. We have what one might call coastal reserves, but a marine nature reserve would involve a new dimension of conservation which we think is not covered by extant legislation. In any case, the question of whether legislation is required to protect these areas can best be considered when the information, now in process of procurement, is to hand.
The Government recognise that the establishment of nature reserves is an important way of safeguarding some of the unique areas of our national heritage, and Supplementary Estimates submitted today seek Parliamentary approval to increase the Nature Conservancy Council's grant by half a million pounds to enable it to acquire new reserves. I should also mention that a major work of reference, to be called Nature Conservation Review, is being prepared for publication early in 1976. This will identify all the land in Britain, that is of importance to nature conservation, and will bring together extensive data about the nation's wild life and habitats. We think it should be a valuable guide for all concerned with the planning and management of land.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord before he leaves the Nature Conservancy Council? My impression is that this is very good news, because it almost more than
184
doubles the resources of the Nature Conservancy Council. Am I right in thinking that?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, without confirming the point I would not be able to agree that it more than doubles the total resources of the Nature Conservancy Council. If the noble Lord is right, the half a million pounds adds considerably to that part' of its resources which notionally have been addressed to the securing of new reserves. In fact, the half a million pounds is deemed to be an addition to help in that part of the Council's work: namely to purchase new land. I will check on that point and no doubt my noble friend will confirm the figures. But I confirm that the increase of half a million pounds in the Council's grant will enable it to acquire new reserves.
I have so far been able to refer briefly to only a few aspects of the work of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council in their closely related fields of activity. The Government rely heavily on the detailed administrative and advisory work on the countryside and on nature conservation carried out by those two Government agencies. The Countryside Commission, which was originally the National Parks Commission, has been able to bring its expertise to bear on important matters of countryside conservation and enjoyment for a quarter of a century. The designation of National Parks is one of their statutory responsibilities, and they have the duty of advising on matters concerning the administration and management of the Parks. The Nature Conservancy Council, which is on a rather different footing, has been in operation in its present form only since last November, but it is already getting fully to grips with the many problems of nature conservation calling for urgent attention. I am glad to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the devotion, energy and skill which both bodies bring to the exercise of the key responsibility entrusted to them.
My Lords, I hope I have said enough to convince your Lordships that the Government have very much at heart the needs of the sensitive areas of the country and intend, as far as lies within their power, to find remedies for the problems arising. The Government are giving the

185
most careful thought to the formulation of wise policies for the future. We are very conscious that if these policies are not well devised and acceptable, beauty and amenity may be lost that can never be regained.
As far as National Parks are concerned, I have tried to explain that we shall inform ourselves fully of the views of all concerned before taking decisions on the recommendations of the Sandford Report. As I have said, the debate to-day is therefore most timely, and we must all be very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for giving us this opportunity of learning the views of the House on these matters. I can assure your Lordships that my noble friend, Lord Garnsworthy, whose knowledge of local government and expertise in this sphere are well known to us all, when he winds up will endeavour to deal with any outstanding points that arise during the discussion. I can also assure your Lordships that we shall listen with the keenest interest to all the views expressed here and, indeed, those put forward throughout the country in the next few weeks, on the basis of which we shall take the decisions as a Government, in consensus with all those concerned with this great and important work, for which the noble Baroness asked in her admirable speech.
4.35 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady White, made a most distinguished speech which was so knowledgeable and ranged so wide that I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, thought that she was a member of the Countryside Commission. Out of ignorance good can come, and I hope therefore he will press the suggestion that the noble Baroness should be made a member. Personally, I can think of no better person to be so. With the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I was a little surprised at the wording of the Motion of the noble Baroness, because I thought it meant we were not going to talk about the Sandford Report at all, so I left my own Motion about the Sandford Report on the Order Paper, where it has been since Easter. However, as we have in fact been talking about the Sandford Report, I can now take my Motion off, because it is about the Sandford Report that I propose to talk.
186
The noble Baroness, Lady White, reminded us of the welcome there has been from the amenity and from conservation societies. Indeed, well there might be, because the Report endorses what a great many of us who have been working in that field have been saying for so long. I should like to say how pleased I am that the work of the Committee was done with such great care. When the Sandford Committee began, I believe they thought that they would get through the work quickly and that there might not be a great deal to do. It became apparent that a great deal needed to be done and the Committee set about the task with energy and determination, and put a great deal of thought into it. They consulted everyone in the local communities in great detail. This has gone down very well with all the people who live and work in National Parks. I am sure it has done a great deal to de-fuse what occasionally has been an explosive issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, told US.
My Lords, one might say that this Report is almost an official report in so far as sitting on the Committee were two ex-Ministers, two senior ex-civil servants, and three members of the Countryside Commission, including the Director. This membership lent the Committee a status, which leaves us in no doubt that what they say is something to which we should listen with the greatest attention. Lastly, may I pay tribute to the Secretary of this Committee. The Sandford Report is extremely readable, well-written and lucid. This does not apply to all reports, but this one was a model of its kind. Of course, the Government will consider very carefully all the opinions put forward, but I hope they will not be too long in considering them because it is important that we should try to implement as much of the Report as we can, and as soon as possible. A great deal of it can be implemented without legislation if Park Authorities have the mind to do so. A great deal of it is a change of emphasis, a change of policy, and does not require new legislation. Some of the changes do need legislation, but I will touch on that later.
With regard to what can be done at once, I am a little afraid that one of the most important things, that which falls in the area of management agreements, will

187
not get far, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, in his explanation of the finances. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I cannot make out whether what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, is saying pleases me or not, because I did not grasp it. I shall read his speech again and try to find out what the Government mean.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, began by telling us that this Report is about the conflict of people versus places, and how we can reconcile these two things. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned this, too. There are limits to the number of people who can get into a room. This applies just as much to the open air as it does to four walls. One gets to the point where one has to try to prevent so many people getting on to the ground and seriously damaging it. For the first time we have a clear statement that, in the last resort, conservation must have primacy over public enjoyment and recreation. I am sure that is right. It must not be watered down in any way. It sets the tone for management of the land. If we do not manage the land with that ultimate object in view, there will be nothing for people to enjoy anyway.
What is said in the Report with regard to revising the Statute is important. The Statute must be revised to make it clear beyond all possible doubt that public enjoyment must be managed in such a way that it does not destroy what the public comes to enjoy. The conflict here is probably greatest with regard to roads and traffic. Chapter 15, which deals with this, is absolutely crucial. I am not sure whether the noble Lord said he thought it the most important matter. I think it is nearly the most important. Urgent action by the Government, by local authorities and Park Authorities is necessary if we are to overcome this problem. For a start, I think we might well look at our national roads programme to find out whether, in the light of the Sandford Report, we could not revise it. With regard to minor roads, I am certain that the key powers must be put into the hands of the Park Authorities. I am certain also that hierarchical road planning must be put into Park plans. I should like to see the Government experiment expanded and extended. The last
188
attempt to do that has failed—this was in Cumberland—because of local pressure against it.
When we first started talking about pedestrian precincts, there was tremendous opposition from, among others, tradesmen in towns who thought they would be ruined. One had sympathy with this thought, but when the pedestrian precincts came about no one was ruined, everyone did very much better, and everyone was very pleased with them. However, it takes some time before a new idea like that is accepted. This is true of the system of making certain roads in National Parks usable only by certain classes of traffic. There is opposition to it at the moment, but I believe we can overcome that.
Lastly, I think that there is one point which wants looking at. Anybody doing any kind of construction work is always in difficulty about keeping their labour force together. The roadmakers are among those who find this most difficult. The pressure to keep their staff and to go on building roads is a very powerful lobby which wants looking at. All these things can be done at once and require no legislation whatsoever.
It was said also that our system of National Parks is a kind of compromise quite unlike anything that exists in any other National Parks. That compromise is under great strain. The conflict between those who make their livelihood from the land and those who come to enjoy themselves is becoming acute. I believe that the management agreement is the way in which we must look at this matter and try to put it right. I have argued this point before in your Lordships' House and I will repeat it again. In the past land has earned its living from agriculture or forestry or cognate uses.
To-day many people who live in towns, and they are 95 per cent. of us, wish to go and enjoy themselves in the country. If a large number of people go to enjoy themselves in the country obviously there cannot be agriculture (shall we say?) at full cock; to some extent it must take second place, or, at any rate, it must defer to public pressures. However, given these public pressures, the public enjoyment, like anything else (like conservation), has to be paid for, and it would be quite unreasonable that it should be paid for by the occupier of

189
the land. I believe the management agreement is the first step towards making some kind of balancing rent. We have the idea already with the access agreement. If you have an access agreement you can have an arrangement whereby you are paid, the analogy I use is a sporting rent; in so far as you keep more grouse and fewer sheep the grouse help to pay for the sheep. I think public disportation must come into the field of paying something towards a balancing rent in respect of the agriculture that it diminishes.
The management agreement would help to do this in two ways. Where, for instance, you do not want too great an improvement, in inverted commas, where you do not want ploughing up of moor land, or more fencing or the more buildings that more fencing engenders, then you enter into a management agreement; the occupier agrees to farm in a certain way and, in so far as his living is diminished by that, a rent is paid out of the public purse. I am glad that this idea is meeting with increasing respect from all quarters and is mentioned in the Report. But I think it will need a great deal more money than the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, suggests, and I suspect that the noble Lord is not quite clear what this is all about; it is a new idea for him, as it is for a good many others.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has quite grasped the implications of this greatly increased grant. Perhaps I may spell it out simply to him. Last year the grant was some £400,000 from Central Government to local authorities engaged in Park purposes. This year it is £1,400,000. That £1,400,000 represents 75 per cent. of the expenditure which local authorities engaged in Park purposes have told us they will engage in this year. As to how much of this greatly increased grant may be devoted to managerial compensation purposes, such as the one the noble Lord mentioned, it is impossible to say. Many would feel that any scheme whereby management involves development which ought to be compensated should be subject to a financially separate examination from the kind of Brant which I described.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I accept that point, and what I said, in fact, was
190
that on the lines of the grant the noble Lord has explained that I did not think we would get very far at all with the idea of management agreements. The national heritage idea, the national heritage area, is something by way of movement towards the management agreement system. It is a very good idea, but I agree with almost everybody else I have spoken to, that the name is no good. Differentials already exist in National Park planning, all the way from honeypots to S.S.I.s. I think different management is wanted here rather than different planning tiers. Now that it is necessary, as I think, for management agreements to come in to preserve and conserve, and as this will cost a great deal of money, I welcome the suggestion in the Sandford Report that this burden must be born by the State. I endorse what the noble Lord says, that, in fact, legislation for powers and money is necessary. But I also have the same kind of apprehensions about this name as I think the noble Baroness had. I think you must not have the formal accolade of designation. It will bring many people there just when you want to try to discourage them. I fear that this may happen whatever kind of low-key name you give it; whether it is a formal accolade or whether it is a low-key civil service kind of grade it will still become known that this is something special that must be visited and looked at.
That is why, although I like the idea. I want to keep it on the basis of the management agreement and the access agreement, and not talk about special areas at all. I believe it can be done perfectly well in other ways if the powers and the money are forthcoming. What could be done right away is that the Park authorities and the Countryside Commission could identify, without naming, the kind of areas we want to cope with, those of sufficient size, not tiny areas but those of such a size as are worth doing at all. Any kind of designation should he a planning designation rather than a public designation.
There were one or two controversial points which I was not sure whether I should mention. They have been mentioned and I will add to them. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who I see in his place today, knows that I belong to the school that feels that afforestation must come under planning development control. There is an area of difficulty

191
here as to how far, if you have planning control over afforestation, you must also have control over the techniques and business of forestry. I believe that you need not have that at all, although I know that some of my friends in the amenity movement think that you should try to control it from top to bottom. I do not go with that. I think it is major change of land use which must come under planning control.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I wonder whether he would tell us, in his enthusiasm for planning control of forestry, if the present regulation in National Parks provides for a voluntary agreement? Would he indicate any cases in which the voluntary agreement has not been fulfilled?
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, this is not a debate about the problems of the Forestry Commission. I only mentioned it, and I said that I was in some doubt as to whether to bring it up at all. I think I would bore your Lordships if I went into detail. I have discussed this matter with the noble Lord. I have written a letter to The Times; I do not know whether it will be printed. The next time we debate forestry I will try to answer the noble Lord. There is one other point about forestry that I want to make. The Forestry Commission is trying to make more amenity attractions within the forest. This is very welcome and very good. But people must not run away with the idea (that this of itself makes large scale afforestation a good thing. It does not, because the amenities would have been far more pleasant without the forest.
The average length of speech up to now has been 32 minutes which, if I may say so, is too long, and I am already running out of time, but I have been interrupted twice. I am sorry that this Report did not come before the Local Government Act 1972, because I believe that the control decisions that were to come under that Act were not the best. However, we have also debated that at length. I am sorry that the Sandford Report did not come out before some of our road decisions were reached, but I hope that there might yet be time for some of them to be reviewed.
192
It is urgent to do now what we can. There are half a dozen things that I believe could be done at once in addition to what I have already mentioned. I think that the development control policy overall (not only over forestry but over everything) must be reviewed. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I would say that I have always belonged to that school of thought (though my trade union does not) which thinks that agricultural buildings should also be under control.
As I mentioned before, there is a good deal of scope for more public transport. I think that the Countryside Commission and the National Park Authorities might now do something towards a really serious and full survey of small woodlands. When I say "small woodlands", I mean down to one acre or less. I hope that there will be money forthcoming for the warden service, and I hope that something will be done to give it a career structure. At the moment we are possibly taking too much for granted of the goodwill of people who run the service for very little. I should like to see a proper training scheme through which people could be encouraged into the service, and where they could move into other aspects of planning afterwards. I think that it is important to build up the estate maintenance teams, to repair the wear and tear to hedges, stone walls, gates, and everything that inevitably gets damaged even when the public behave as all country lovers should. This would go a long way towards making it acceptable to people living and working in the country. I think that in the National Parks the footpath functions should be taken over by the Park Authorities.
For me this has been a most interesting debate, and I am looking forward with interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Castle. I hope that this debate will have been of some value to the Government and to Ministers. I hope that it will also be of value to the Park Authorities, and to the Committee of which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is to be chairman. I commend to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, who is going to wind up for us, the various things that have been said—not so far from the Government Front Bench, because I am not sure that I understood what was said from the Government

193
Front Bench—by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford; and I hope that the noble Lord will pay attention to what I have said as well.
4.53 p.m.
LORD CASTLE: My Lords, I fear that some of your Lordships may think that this is a somewhat premature and presumptive intervention, as I have been in your Lordships' House for only a few days. However, I assure you that I am impelled to make my first assay in this House because your famed tolerance and forbearance has been so apparent to me in those debates that I have sat in on, and secondly because, examining my Order Paper, I find that between now and the Recess this is perhaps the only debate on which I could be noncontroversial.
I am conscious of the fact that I speak in a Chamber full of experts and specialists upon every conceivable subject. I have only the same kind of expertise that the housewife has upon the retail price index; I am a consumer of National Parks. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, so graciously remarked, I was in with that egregious, exceptional person, Hugh Dalton, later Lord Dalton, in claiming for ourselves, the public of England, access to the beauty spots. I served, as it were, in the p.b.i. of that ragged army of eight who, after a succession of Labour conferences, blazed what is now known as the Pennine Way. One of my treasured memories is to think of Hugh Dalton's whispered confidences reverberating around the silence of the manifold and ricochetting across the rocks of Edale. With him of course at that time was my noble friend Lord Burntwood, and great people like Tom Stevenson, a man who was, you might say, born with Fell boots on his feet.
I welcome the possibility of speaking today because on the day of my Introduction we had that remarkable debate, almost a teach-in, on our stately homes and art possessions. The two subjects and the two debates are complementary to me. Last week our heroes were the Vanbrughs, the Wrens, the Inigo Jones's, the Gainsboroughs, the Lawrences, and artists of that kind; today the scenario may be the same but our heroes are
194
nature itself and our rude forefathers who shaped the very countryside that we love so much.
I believe that there was some comment, perhaps not unjustified, on the absence of speeches in agreement with the noble Mover of last week's Motion from this side of the House. I think that our lack of numbers was made good by the remarkably able, convincing, and committed speech of my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge. I should like to take my colleagues and my noble friends on this side of the House with me when I say that there is thorough agreement from this side at what was being aimed at in the discussion last week, and no erosion of those lovely homes or art galleries will be made if I and most of my colleagues have our way. You can count on us to be with you. I hope that I shall also carry your Lordships with me when I suggest that the problem today is not quite the same as it was last week.
To-day we are not discussing the wealth tax. Fears were expressed during that debate that some Governments might think of taking those possessions away from their present owners to pay their instalment of the wealth tax. We on this side of the House do not want that to happen. It is not quite the same thing with our landscapes, fields and hills. It would be churlish of a future Chancellor of the Exchequer to refuse a few luscious fields or an odd peak or two in payment of an instalment of wealth tax. I hope that that thought does not frighten any of your Lordships because many of you are really committed to the conception of the National Trust knowing the munificent and magnificent work that it does in the public interest through its public ownership of those manors.
But of course I would wish to comment, as have earlier speakers, on that splendid Report which has so enlightened this debate, because of the thoroughness of its inquiry and the number of recommendations that it makes—what has been called the "Sandford Report." We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his Committee for having given us such a great digest of the problem facing us. If I may put it in different words from those used earlier, we are facing a new demand by the industrial

195
workers of this country for some of the delights which were denied to the previous generation. They have become mobile. The much abused motor car, their education and their leisure has meant that the success of the National Parks in their 25 years has become phenomenal, and all of us should delight in that fact.
The problem, however, is that the demand for solitude has outpaced the supply. It is with that problem, it seems to me, that the Report so admirably deals in many respects. The danger is that the most seductive parts of our countryside are going to become the victims of their own beauty, a fate, if I may say so, not unknown to seductresses in both fiction and biography.
The Report advocates many remedies, or at least starts a number of hares, to many of which reference has been made. Some of the recommendations in the Report, it will be realised, do not represent unanimous approval. There is particularly the one linked to that rather sententious title, "National Heritage Areas." They are, by the definition of the Report, to be areas of the,
"Highest environmental quality, needing special care and attention."
"The more gregarious type of visitor"—the Report's words, not mine—will not be welcomed. They are going to be the inner sanctum for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. There will be no facilities for car parks, refreshments, rubbish bins and "loos". Your Lordships are warned. It is suggested that cars, except those of residents, should be banned. These are fairly wide powers for the Park Authority to exercise.
I expect most Members of the House have spent some time wrestling with yourselves as to whether these proposals are the best or whether the objections which are voiced in the following chapter are well based. This weekend I read both of those chapters twice. I had no rambling companion to discuss the matter with, but in the end I came down on the side of these areas. I thought to myself that age and infirmity do claim a tremendous amount—and rightly so—of all legislators, and of your Lordships, consideration and time. But the young and energetic, the adventurous and the enterprising, also have a claim on your attention and on the national finances.
196
My Lords, I see these national heritage areas as being designed particularly for those, and if at this great age I may speak for them I should welcome the opportunity, were I younger or more energetic, of using them.
This is the first time I have had the privilege—which I treasure—of addressing your Lordships. May I conclude by encapsulating a piece of advice which might form the text of the educational system which was suggested earlier, the kind of education which is needed—let us admit it—for the person who is used only to the back streets of his town. I am told that at the entrance of an American park the advice given to visitors is:
"Take nothing but pictures; leave nothing but footprints; kill nothing but time".
I think we could very well adopt that slogan in at least the inner areas of our National Parks.
5.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF BRADFORD: My Lords, I know that your Lordships will wish me to start by offering your Lordships' congratulations to the noble Lord. Lord Castle, not only for opening his score so early in his innings but also for making such an excellent speech. It is a great pleasure to do so. The noble Lord spoke from the heart, with great feeling and from great experience. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to hear much more from him in the future. In fact, I hope it would not be too audacious of me to suggest that with further experience of your Lordships' House the noble Lord may even succeed in out-shining in oratory at least, his distinguished partner in life. I should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady White, for so felicitously opening this important debate, and also to thank my noble friend Lord Sandford for the really admirable Report which he and his excellent Committee have assembled. If I may criticise a few of the points in it, I hope that the noble Lord will realise any such criticisms are intended to be entirely constructive because I am as enthusiastic as anybody about the Countryside Commission, the National Parks and the work that they do.
In view of the importance of the Forestry Commision in the National Parks, I think it is unfortunate that we

197
cannot hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—more, that is, than the intervention that he was able to make recently—because there is probably nobody who has more experience of the work of the Forestry Commission. He has been not only an outstanding chairman of the Forestry Commission but also a really doughty champion of forestry as a whole. Under his leadership the Forestry Commission have gained so much more stature, especially with their recent changes of policy; and I know that the noble Lord realises as well as anyone that trees and forestry are not only a renewable raw material resource of vast national importance but also a vital constituent part of our environment and landscape.
Your Lordships may well wonder what qualifications I have to tend criticism and advice on this subject. The answer can only be that it is mainly my own experience over the last 28 years in allied fields, and particularly in areas of great landscape value; and also perhaps the presidency, chairmanship and membership of various organisations connected with land use, land ownership, farming, forestry and allied subjects. Not long after the last war I was fortunate enough to inherit two large agricultural properties, inevitably somewhat run-down and with the woodlands ravaged by wartime fellings; and also a mature Capability Browne landscape of open parkland and ornamental woodlands. I was convinced early on that integrated land use (even if possibly I did not call it by that name at that time) must be the key to reconstruction, and that good ecological practice should supply the guidelines. I was concerned also with the apparent conflict between commercial and amenity forestry, between conifers and broad-leaved trees, between mono-culture and mixtures.
I believed then and I believe now that, with give and take, there is no need for such conflict. Comparison is often made between mature broad-leaved trees and broad-leaved stands, and young coniferous plantations, with their inevitable uniformity. In other countries conifers have general acceptance, especially, I think, in the National Parks; and I would instance here Switzerland, the United States and Canada, where they are immensely admired
198
for their grandeur and their contribution to the scene. Where our early coniferous plantations have grown up and approached maturity, they seem to have gained general acceptance. The Forestry Commission have opened scenic forest drives and scenic routes through coniferous forests, and these have become immensely popular, as have nature and forest trails, also mainly through conifer woods. On a recent tour, too, my Lords, as a member of the National Committee for England, I went through a great deal of the large Border forests in the Kielder area, where the contribution of the entirely coniferous planting to the scene is quite apparent. I understand that so much are the trees there now appreciated that there is a very real concern that they may eventually have to be felled, and in fact there is quite a tendency to form a local conifer protection society.
It was borne in on me long ago that what the great British public dislikes is change. People are conservative (with a small "c") in outlook, if not always in politics. Many tend to regard the landscape as a kind of static backcloth or a permanent, unchanging tribute to Capability Browne. But, my Lords, the landscape is a living, dynamic and ever-changing setting for our lives and activities. Even trees cannot stand for ever. I came to believe, therefore, that what people really disliked was sudden change—the impact of a large clear-felled area, with its scene of desolation and devastation, followed by its blanket replanting. I could not understand why such a system was considered de rigueur in this country, whereas on the Continent there was a long tradition of uneven-aged selection forestry. I determined to try to evolve a system which would be suited to this country, especially the hillier areas, and I carried out some early experiments in Shropshire.
Some 15 years ago I was fortunate enough to acquire a large forestry area in the Tamar and Tavy Valleys in Devon and Cornwall, largely to save it from likely destruction. This is an area of steep valley sides, with high rainfall, much risk of erosion, heavy weed growth, late spring frost danger, and so on. Most of the area has now been converted to continuous-cover, multi-storey mixed forestry, with resulting advantages, I believe, not only in production but also to the land-

199
scape and to wildlife. I do not think this is the place for me to go into too much detail, but I consider that such a system could well be suitable for some National Parks. Shortly after the war I was also fortunate to acquire a property in a beautiful part of the Scottish Highlands. There all the woodlands had been cut down, not leaving a tree standing, and with a small rundown hill farm. I determined to lay out the lowland part of the estate to the best advantage for the interaction of farming, forestry and landscaping. I now have there about 1,200 acres of thriving woodlands and a farm run on organic lines with 150 breeding cows. They are beef cows, and, of course, that makes me very interested in the debate on the Unstarred Question which is shortly to follow, especially as I have another beef farm in Australia. In my view, this made a vast improvement in what was already a beautiful but bare landscape.
I have also been carrying out experiments in the last 25 years in organic and biological husbandry in Shropshire and Staffordshire; and I have always held that agricultural practice took a wrong turn in following the beckoning finger of the scientists and chemists and in abandoning long-tried traditional practices—and I believe that many farmers and agricultural practitioners now hold the same view. I now have a 1,300-acre farm run entirely on organic and biological principles; and I believe that there may possibly be some scope for that within the National Parks, too. I must apologise, my Lords, for this rather long preamble, and for so much use of the first-person singular, but I believe it is necessary to show the possibility of avoiding the visual shock of clear-felling which I believe is the main objection to much of current forestry practice, and also to show that there are alternative ways to co-operate with Nature to achieve the best results.
I would turn now to specific points that I should like to make on the Report. I shall try to be as brief as possible. I think it is perhaps a pity that so little prominence has been given in the Report to Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, especially in Chapter 6 because in fact it appears merely in a footnote to page 25 of the Report. This section of the Countryside Act 1968 imposes on
200
Ministers, on the Countryside Commission, on the National Environment Research Council and on local authorities the duty to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of rural areas. I suggest that this section is of far greater importance than has been made apparent in that part of the Report.
There is considerable mention in the Report of ecology and ecological practice and the noble Baroness, Lady White, has referred to the dilemma of the conflicting aims of the National Parks. I suggest that possibly ecology and ecological practice might provide the main guidelines for decisions on some of these conflicts, as well as the practice of conservation. There is no reference in the Report to the economic need for afforestation and for productive woodland man agement. The need for this has increased dramatically since the Committee carried out its work and it is mainly the uplands which can supply this. There is also considerable mention of bare grazing grounds in the National Parks and I suggest here that these bare grazing grounds are of recent origin and are mainly manmade. Within recent history, a great part of these areas was covered with natural forests, mainly of birch and pine, and I believe that "England's mountains green" were in ancient times mainly forest covered. So, the so-called afforestation is in many cases just bringing back the original tree cover.
I believe, too, that there is less mention than there should be of recreation in forests. There are many advantages in recreation in a forest setting, whether the forest be hardwood or coniferous, and the Forestry Commission have given excellent examples of the possibilities and are doing very good work on these lines. I believe, too, that there is not sufficient recognition in the Report of the fact that forestry practice has moved with the times. Plantations from the early pit-prop era—if I may call it that—which was itself the result of Government policy, are so often compared with mature hardwoods. The Forestry Commission have for some time now employed a very distinguished landscape consultant and I am sure that they would be the first to agree that mistakes were made in the early years but that the opportunity is being taken in every case to make up for those mistakes.

201
I should like now to turn to the question of the voluntary agreements in the National Parks. There are now agreements in operation in all National Parks except the Yorkshire Dales and an agreement in Northumberland was signed recently. I think that this is significant in itself and shows the value which is generally attached to these voluntary agreements. I understand from the Forestry Commission—
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him? I do not think that that is quite correct. The Lake District, the North Yorkshire Moors and the Peak District do not rely upon the voluntary agreements at all.
TILE EARL OF BRADFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information but I think that, in the cases where a voluntary agreement proper is not in operation, there is at least something very similar in the form of consultation and voluntary arrangements of some kind. I think one can call it a very similar animal to the voluntary agreement. I understand that there is no case known to the Forestry Commission where a voluntary agreement has been broken by the forestry interests, but I think it would be true to say that many of the critics—who are inclined to be rather vociferous—seem to consider that agreements have not worked if afforestation has not been stopped completely. The object of the agreements is of course control, and I maintain that that has been attained and that there is great local pride in making the agreements work. All evidence—if not necessarily opinion—points to them working well wherever there is a will to make them work.
I should like now to turn for a few moments to what I consider the rather contentious proposal for planning control on afforestation. If, as I maintain, the voluntary agreements do work, I suggest that such control is not necessary. The recommendation seems to stem from the assumption that the pattern of upland planting in the 1950s and early 1960s is being continued into the '70s. This I do not believe to be the case and present-day forestry is ecologically based and has full regard for proper land use and landscape requirement. I am told—and I think that this is significant—that the Countryside Commission for Scotland do not support
202
this recommendation for planning control and are concerned that the present level of planting should continue or even expand. The Scottish Commission are also strong supporters of the National Forest parks, which are mainly in Scotland, where there are no National Parks, and which are created against a predominantly evergreen and therefore coniferous forest background.
We British foresters have been waitine for some time for a forest policy declaration from the Government. The last Government issued a statement in October. 1973, after the main part of this Report had been written. It is referred to in a footnote on page 65. If the present Government accept the principles then enunciated, their implementation, coupled with existing legislation and consultative practice would, I believe, give a degree of control over forestry both in the National Parks and elsewhere which should be acceptable to all interests. This recommendation for planning control really appears to have been based on the pattern of planting in the uplands of 25 years ago.
Recent planting by the Forestry Commission, investment companies or private owners has full regard for the landscape and amenity considerations, whereas one would agree that in the '50s many crimes against the landscape were committed, largely because of the need to grow pit props. I believe, too, that this recommendation is largely in contradiction with the contents of Chapter 18, which provided for consultation and co-operation in every field.
There is also a minority recommendation that all silvicultural operations should be subject to planning control but this was not accepted by sufficient members of the Committee, including Lord Sandford. This would so affect forest management as to lead to direct control of silviculture under the provisions of the Countryside Act, but I believe that silviculture by committee is totally impracticable. If accepted, this recommendation would, I believe, also challenge the integrity of the Forestry Commission and of private owners of woodland in carrying out all the consultation procedures and directives concerning the amenity aspects of forestry.
Timber, my Lords, is a crop, although one which occupies the ground for a

203
very long time. I think it is arguable that ploughing heather ground and reseeding is just as much of an intrusion upon the landscape. The Report refers to the good control attained under dedication, but there is very little difference between dedicated and other woodlands so far as felling and replanting are concerned. In all cases, control is exercised by the Forestry Commission, who are, after all, the acknowledged experts, and they consult the planning authorities whenever and wherever necessary. There is a section on broadleaved and small woodlands, and the suggestion that the purchase and management of a proportion of these by Park authorities should be achieved. I can only agree that this would seem to be a very good thing, and it has already been done in some Parks. It should help to demonstrate the cost of the skilled management required. The main solution for the remainder would seem to be adequate grant aid.
But the problem of growing hardwoods in the National Parks is one of ecology as well as one of finance. It is misleading to equate, as is implied in the Report, the New Forest with National Parks in the uplands where it will often be the case that conifers being suited to the site will give greater grandeur to the scene than unthrifty hardwoods. Experienced foresters could not accept the assumption which permeates this Report, as well as the thinking of some planning officers and others, that the growing of conifers is necessarily damaging to the landscape in either the uplands or the lowlands of Britain. How both conifers and hardwoods are managed is important, but the landscape benefits from the presence of trees and woods and forestry, especially of the sylviculture and management take local factors of soil, climate and topography into consideration.
The final paragraph of Chapter 10 is also to be welcomed. This envisages consultation with private owners. This is surely desirable and much more likely to be useful and productive than the possibly dead hand of planning control. Consultation and co-operation should, I believe, be the keynote. Negotiations with woodland owners regarding the conservation of the character of their woodlands in the National Parks is cer-
204
tain to be a great deal more productive than control by restrictive legislation under the planning Acts.
5.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, perhaps I might presume to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Castle, on his magnificent maiden speech. I am sure that all of your Lordships enjoyed it as much as I did. We can only wish that his powerful voice will still be heard as much on the empty spaces of the Pennine Way as on the empty Benches on the Government side this afternoon. As we have discussed some of the founder members of the Park movement. I should also like to say how nice it is that Mrs. Dower, widow of John Dower who was one of the founders of the National Park movement, should be able to listen to our debate today. The next thing I must do is thank the noble Baroness, Lady White, for introducing this debate and for the excellent speech which she made at the start of the proceedings. Last but not least, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his colleagues on the most excellent Report which they have produced? I think I am right in saying that it is the most readable report that the Stationery Office has ever published. The noble Lord deserves congratulations for that alone. But also he has now, for the first time, put the word, "loo" into official documents, which means that it is no longer likely to be acceptable outside official circles. I may be wrong in this, but he has broken new ground and may go down in history in some respects at least.
The most important conclusion which the Report reached is that there is a basic conflict between conservation, agriculture, and tourism. This is the conflict which has arisen as the National Parks have developed and as their use has grown. The Report makes it abundantly clear, as your Lordships all know, that conservation must take precedence in this triangular conflict and it is right that this should be so. We must not forget that we have only 10 National Parks in this country—seven in England and three in Wales—and there are 58 million people in this island, so that the number of people per Park is quite substantial. Indeed, it is no mean achievement that the National Parks as a whole, and the movement for country parks as well, have so

205
far been able to absorb all the people who wanted to visit them. It is not a bad thing to be able to say that the system has worked and that people have been able to visit these Parks in such numbers and will continue, one hopes, to do so. But of course this visiting is confined to a very short season, mostly the summer months.
If your Lordships will turn to photograph No. 1 of Little Langdale on a Bank Holiday, it is perhaps indicative. I myself travelled that road in April and never saw more than one other car. That is the measure of the problem. While I am on the subject of photographs, we should perhaps congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. In the acknowledgements for the photographs at the beginning, the Report in its thoroughness informs us that a Mr. Berry charges £3 for the reproduction of these photographs. I hope that the noble Lord will let me know whether he got his £3 for allowing this excellent photograph to be reproduced.
One must next look at the eternal conflict between agriculture and conservation. It is never possible to do more than see that this conflict does not get worse. There has been a lot of talk this afternoon about the management agreements and, of course, this is an excellent concept which we must all without argument try to foster. But one must sound one note of warning. It could be a very expensive bill to the Park authorities if they were involved on any substantial scale in this management agreement on agriculture. Most people think that the bracken in autumn is a lovely colour, is part of our national landscape and therefore should be preserved because of its beauty. The same can be said of heather at other times of the year.
If we are to prevent farmers on a large scale from improving the grazing of heather or to eradicate bracken which is agriculturaly quite sterile, and which will very soon be easily possible, then we shall let ourselves in for a very big annual commitment. Every farmer will be justified in thinking, "If I do not spray this bracken for the next ten years, then the State or local authority will pay me so much per annum not to do so." This may be a big open-ended cheque. The future lies not only in looking at this matter experimentally and seeing how
206
we can get something done to the more important parts of a Park, but in realising that we cannot do it on any large scale at the moment. We cannot afford it. The future presure on the Parks must be taken much more by country parks and other similar places, which are also part of the report, and I hope that this can be done.
I would venture to suggest, perhaps unkindly as our noble Scottish colleagues are no longer here today, that Scotland could take off a great deal more of the pressure from the National Parks of England and Wales. It has marvellous scenery, and I hope Scotland will not be far behind England and Wales in setting up proper National Parks on the basis that we have in England. I may be wrong, but I think I am right in thinking that Scotland is the only country in Europe without National Parks. If the noble Scottish Lords descend on me tomorrow when they come back from Edinburgh I will stand corrected on that: but I think I am right.
We have the important realisation in this Report that the existence of the demand to visit the Parks does not automatically carry with it the right that that demand should be met. If we go to the theatre and find it is full up we realise that we cannot get in. We also realise if we go to the theatre that we have to pay substantially for a ticket. But if we go to a National Park it is supposed to be free, and quite rightly so. But one must recognise that this free access to everywhere is no longer always a possibility in every Park, on every day. The experiment with the traffic-free valleys has been referred to. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was not quite correct. There are other valleys where this has been done, because it is the motorcar which is damaging our National Parks and not so much the human being. This is the line we shall have to take for further progress.
I should now like to turn to the administration of National Parks, which has been raised more than once this afternoon. We all fought this battle in our various directions during the 1972 Local Government Act debates, and in a way I am sorry that it has to be raised again today. It seems to me that local authorities are so eminently suitable as organisers of National Parks and other

207
recreational facilities, partly because of their local involvement, but also—perhaps more importantly—because of their electoral responsibilities and sensitivity to the electors who very often live in the Parks and use them. I do not see where the argument comes from. A board such as the Peak and the Lake District have is superior. But I have never seen any argument to convince me that there is a case for turning all these Parks into machines run by boards like the Lake District one. I can find only one argument that seems to hold some water; that is, that in the past these boards have spent more money than the Parks administered by county councils in other parts of the country.
Is this really a good argument? Is it right to say that if you spend more money you will get a better pat on the back? Is this not one of the better ways of getting Government and local authority expenditure out of control, which we really do not want at the moment. Is it not better to try to find out, not what authorities have spent in the past but what are the needs, and try to get finance available for the needs which we know exist? I do not feel that it is either right or proper to make a judgment of the administration of a Park merely on the historic sums of money that have been spent. Who, in any case, is to say under what criterion we should judge the amount of money being spent? Is it per visitor per day? In that case, no one knows the figures. Is it per inhabitant of the Park? If so, the Lake District spends one-sixth of the sum which Northumberland spends on its Parks. Or is the acreage to be the criterion, in which case the figures bear no relation whatsoever to one another.
The administration is now settled and I hope that anything that may be said to-day will not mean to the minds of local authorities that it might all be changed. It has just been set up and I think it is going very well. The first important point on which I would ask the Government to give their views is this. I should like to know whether or not they agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that a review of the system should be carried out in five years' time. I think that is too short a time. I believe I am right in saying that all the county councils in-
208
volved feel that the time should be at least seven years. After all, we do not expect to get the National Park plans, with all the consultations which are necessary, agreed one way or another in under three years, and to give only a further two years before threatening to put the whole system back into the melting pot seems to me to be wrong. The period of at least seven years to give people time to see where they are and not be threatened with another reorganisation, is preferable.
The idea of a National Park plan is, of course, a very good one and I welcome it. I hope, in pleading our personal views of the National Parks, that a new review of boundaries will be carried out as soon as possible. Since the boundaries were set up, a great many anomalies have arisen and it would be convenient to everybody if we were able to change the boundaries in some directions, inwards or outwards. But I do not wish to waste any more of your Lordships' time on that point this afternoon.
Next is the matter of finance and, in his absence, I have already apologised for interrupting the Government spokesman on this subject. I am still not clear what will happen and I do not believe that the county authorities are quite clear yet. But I suspect it will not be too long before we are told that 75 per cent. of an approved estimate will be found by the Government. There is still ambiguity on this matter which I trust will be cleared up. It is, of course, right that 75 per cent. should be paid by central Government. It represents a contribution which urban visitors to these Parks can make, a way in which through their taxes they can contribute to solving this problem.
I do not think it is fair to say, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, that certain National Park authorities seem to be using their grants towards the relief of rates in general. I should like her to substantiate this allegation, because I do not think it is justified. There may have been an occasional case or two when, in the estimate stages, some Parks were not at all sure what the system would be. If necessary, the Government will have to bear responsibility. I do not think it has happened, in practice, and I am pretty sure that it will not happen in future. The County Councils Association would not

209
wish to see it happen, and it is most unlikely that it ever has happened. However, perhaps the point is not worth further discussion.
I am slightly distressed, because it appears that the test of a Park's performance is likely to be the indication of what is needed, rather than some attempts being made to assess the needs of Parks as a whole or individually. If we are to have a sort of competition between the National Park authorities to see who can spend the most, so that at such annual conferences as there may be some authorities are publicly praised for spending more than their neighbours, that will not be right. We have to assess the need, try to make a realistic long-term programme of what is needed, and get it done as quickly as possible. I do not like the idea of competition on this basis. The Parks authorities must know what they are likely to get over a period, and it is no good saying that the amount of money they will have to spend might be changed next year, which will make it impossible to plan ahead.
The Government have to keep control over local authority expenditure, and never more so than to-day, in the circumstances in which the country finds itself. But they must be prepared not only to provide the 75 per cent. grant, but also to make allocations for loan sanction so that local authorities have an availability of capital funds from which to borrow in order to do these tasks. At the moment, however ambitious the plans of local authorities with regard to their Parks and boundaries, it is not possible to get locally determined finance in the capital sector; and, again, if we are to be judged on the failure to provide nonexistent resources it will be wrong. Local authorities must have the finance and resources made available to them in order to borrow the money to pay their share, as many of the projects are capital ones.
The national interest demands that we spend much more money on National Parks. I am certain that local authorities throughout England and Wales are very much aware of their responsibilities, and will do all they can to carry them out. I have no fears whatever on that score. I think the national interest also shows that local government expenditure must be drastically reduced in the coming year or two, and we must realise that it
210
may not be possible for local authorities with National Parks to do all that they wish. Local authorities are getting tired of being urged to do more and more of this and that, and then being denied the resources to do it. It really is not right.
I hope that I might, rather in defence of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, move briefly to the forestry angle which has been so ably spoken about by my noble friend, Lord Bradford. I am one who welcomed very much the proposal that planning permission be given for a fair amount of afforestation to be brought into use. This is something which in the North of England at least has been needed for a very long time, and although the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, might say that the voluntary agreement now covers this matter I think the damage was done long before the voluntary agreement came into being. It has always seemed to me absurd that the Forestry Commission have to apply for planning permission to put up a small garage behind one of their worker's cottages and yet they did not need planning permission or any other permission to cover many thousands of acres of hillside with alien coniferous trees. This seems to me to be a nonsense which I trust the Government will very soon put right. We are not really talking about afforestation all over the country, merely in National Parks, but I suggest large scale afforestation rather than small shelter belts and so forth.
My Lords, I apologise for speaking for so long on this subject but I hope that the country realises that local authorities are most anxious to do what is needed. The new Administration needs time to be proved and to get down to work, and I trust that the points which the debate has raised will be useful to the Government in coming to a conclusion on the excellent Report which we have all so much enjoyed reading.
5.49 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I feel it an honour to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, in this debate. I differ from much that he said, but I recognise his experience and his authority on this subject. With one item in his speech I was particularly interested, and that was when he suggested that new methods of dealing with the problems of heather and bracken on high

211
lands might make a contribution to a solution of our agricultural problem. I intend to refer to that later in my speech. I do not wish to be discourteous to him, but if he can bear to listen to my earlier remarks I shall be referring later to what he said.
I should like to join with others of your Lordships in thanking my noble friend Lady White for having initiated this debate. She made a most impressive speech—not merely analysing the proceedings and recommendations of the Sandford Report, but giving informed criticism and constructive suggestions. Her speech has received from this House what it deserved—that is, serious consideration—and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to look at it and at the proposals which she made. Also, I have great pleasure in paying tribute to the speech of my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Castle. It is the custom in this House, as a matter of courtesy, to pay tribute to maiden speeches. I think that on this occasion I am reflecting the opinion of all Members of your Lordships' House when I say that we have rarely heard a maiden speech of the quality which the noble Lord, Lord Castle, delivered today. We look forward to his future contributions to our debates with the certainty that they will be of great value.
Throughout this debate most of the speeches have been concerned with details of the administration of the National Parks, I do not propose to repeat them, particularly since the noble Lord, Lord Henley, expressed many of the points which I had in mind. But this fact enables me to deal with what seem to me to be the basic principles. The acceptance of the idea of National Parks means that Parliament has endorsed the right of the people to control the development of our landscape. National Parks have now been in operation for a quarter of a century, but never has this principle of the right of the community to control the land and its beauty been more important that it is at the present moment. The debate which we are now having is extraordinarily relevant, because of the great danger that the scenery of our country may be destroyed by industrial development, particularly by the exploitation of
212
oil resources in the North Sea which threaten the beauty of Scotland.
The National Parks have represented a contribution towards securing a balance between the value of the beauty of our country and its economic needs. They have been supplemented by the National Trust and, indeed, by the Commissions which in Scotland are now considering what should happen to these threatened spots. I think all of us should recognise that there must be some limitation to the claims of industrial development when beauty is involved. If, for example, a flow of oil were suddenly to occur under one of our Gothic cathedrals—perhaps the supreme illustration of the ability of man to achieve beauty—none of us would say that the need for oil was greater than the beauty of that cathedral. We have recently had a bomb explosion in the neighbourhood of Westminster Hall. But, again, no one would say that if oil were found beneath its stones the claim of that oil would be greater than the beauty of that Hall, which, in my view, is the finest in the whole of Europe.
If we recognise this limitation in the case of what man has done in the embodiment of beauty, ought we not also to recognise it in the beauty of nature? My noble friends the right reverend Prelates would say that the wonders of nature are a garden of God. Even those of us who are Humanists reverence that beauty—a heritage of centuries of nature with its seas and shores, its cliffs and hills, its valleys and lakes, trees and flowers, a heritage which is ours to pass on to future generations. That heritage is now threatened by the industrial expansion which is taking place. At this moment one of the most crucial issues we have to face is the balancing of our recognition of the beauty of our land with the urgency of economic needs.
Incidentally, I do not take the view that industrial expansion necessarily means the violation of beauty. I was deeply impressed, for example, on going into a nuclear power station in Bombay in India, by its beauty—not merely by its white cleanliness, but by the outline of the new electronic developments taking place. There is a power station in this country which has similar beauty in its outline and which is no affront to the

213
environment in which it exists. I have seen in Asia and Africa great irrigation dams, such as the Volta project in Ghana harmonising with great rocky cliffs and a great dam in India with water overflowing the mountains. They added to the beauty of nature. When we are considering these problems, we should bring into consultation some of the young architects and civil engineers of to-day, descendants of Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, who would contribute to a harmonising of industrial development and of natural beauty.
At present we have some Commissions which are considering the effect of the oil discoveries in the North Sea on the beauty spots in Scotland. I want to suggest to Her Majesty's Government—and I hope a note will be taken of my remarks in the absence of the Minister—that the Department of the Environment should establish a Working Committee which should have terms of reference beyond those of the present Commissions. The Working Committee should include representatives of those responsible for the administration of the National Parks and the National Trust, as well as scientific agriculturalists, architects and engineers who would be able to survey this whole problem of industrialisation and natural beauty. Its terms of reference should include consideration of whether the ugliness which results from industrial development in the production of greater energy might be avoided in other directions. If we spent as much in research on the power of energy which lies in the rays of the sun, in the movement of the tides, in water in the rivers and even in air and the winds, as we are now spending upon oil production from the North Sea, I believe we could find energy resources which would be just as powerful and which would not involve the destruction of our countryside, as our present methods do.
Secondly, in the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who referred to this subject, I want to emphasise the importance of the new experiments which are being made in grass culture, turning moors and hills now covered with heather and bracken into fertile land. He referred to the cost of this. I suggest that, thinking in terms of industry and nature, a deep investigation of this new experiment, which may change the whole
214
production of agriculture, should be considered by the Working Committee which I have proposed. Thirdly, I suggest that the Working Committee should make a survey to designate natural reserves which may be saved from desecration by industrial ugliness.
I want to say a few words on that. My noble friend Lady White referred in her opening speech to the suggestion that Purbeck Island in Dorset should be designated a National Park. That area includes the indescribably beautiful Tyne-ham Valley which has been under Army control ever since the last War. The Nugent Commission has recommended that the Army occupation should end and I hope that recommendation will be accepted. But the problem then arises as to what will happen to the area. I am not claiming that within Purbeck Island and the Tyneham Valley we have the highest expressions of beauty in this land, but I am claiming that there is nowhere else in the United Kingdom where there is such a harmony of all the beauty that is there: that seafront, those marvellous cliffs, those flowing hills, that mystic Egdon Heath of Thomas Hardy. That heath unhappily has already been desecrated by industrial development, a clay pit a quarter of a mile in extent, 80ft. in depth. The whole area should be made a natural reserve; it should be made a National Park. It should be under the National Trust so that its beauty may be maintained for ever.
It is not only its beauty, but its ecological value which is important. On the cliffs one sees strains of sands of different colours. I have seen that before only in a very limited area on the Isle of Wight. The ecological value will be known to all geologists. There is also the archaeological value. On Thomas Hardy's Egdon Heath there are burial grounds of before the time of the Roman invasion; unfortunately, some of them have been destroyed by artillery engagement during the Army occupation. I am not asking this House to take special action about that area; many other areas in Britain deserve the same consideration. What I am asking is that, as a result of this debate about National Parks and the necessity of maintaining the beauty of our country—of Scotland. Wales and England—this England !—we should find a solution by which the loveliness of our

215
countryside may be saved from destruction by the ugliness of industrial development.
6.10 p.m.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Report of the National Park Committee and offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and to the members of the Committee for the great trouble they took to obtain all the views of the people who are interested, because the result is that there is a great deal of good sense in the Report. Use by the public of the Parks must be either regardless of, or else in sympathy with, those who live there: and only the second provides a foundation of success. Therefore, perhaps the most important factor is that of agreements. The Report does well to suggest that voluntary agreements—and they must be totally voluntary—should be reached with landlords in the Park for providing access, footpaths and other amenities. However, the Authority must be prepared to tailor their agreements to fit the requirements of any individual and his particular circumstance, such as sheep farming, sporting, nesting seasons; and, by meeting the individual owners and their livelihoods, agreements are that much more likely to be reached. It is however counter-productive to talk about compulsorily purchasing land, as did the noble Baroness who opened the debate, as this just makes occupiers fearful of giving any access in case it is the thin end of the wedge. On the other hand, I would support her view that authorities should be provided with adequate funds so that they can buy on the open market any land which may be up for sale for making into access areas.
Planning control is suggested for forestry on bare land. Surely, there is a great difference between the plantation of 50 or fewer acres, planted for some good reason, and the area of 10,000 acres which covers hill and dale continuously and which might be a matter for planning control. Let it be fully realised that, while the 10,000 acres may get many objectors to planting, once it has grown up and provided a well-known landscape for visitors there will be an equal, if not a greater, outcry when it comes to cutting it down. A good example of that is sited near Scarborough
216
where the Forestry Commission have enormous acreages of timber, and they attract far more visitors and provide a far more satisfactory day out than does the surrounding open bare land. Therefore, there is little point in the first place in making it subject to planning control. It is certainly wrong to insist on control of the felling of blocks, as forestry must continue its cycle of grow and fell in order for the area to look alive, and for the investment, management and employment to be justified and maintained. As there is much prejudice for and against softwood plantations, it is inappropriate to give the decision of forestry to a planning committee rather than to the owner who lives on the land. It would be useless for a planning committee to insist on the status quo or, having admired the beeches on the Cotswolds, to insist on beeches on the moorland sites, as certainly would tend to happen.
Trees are essentially a crop, as was recognised by the various members of the review committee, and to regard them otherwise would be a temptation to try to produce an unnatural scene. Only certain species are suitable for certain land. Landscapes, like architecture, must progress. No one wants to see everlasting copies of "Ye Oldie architecture ", nor, for that matter, even of Georgian architecture. Buildings must change and modernise and the eye becomes accustomed to new shapes. So must land change to meet modern needs. We see similarly the fight against the removal of hedgerows. Yet only a hundred years ago, or perhaps two hundred, there was an outcry when they were all planted. The compromise would be for the Forestry Commission to control forestry in the Parks, and for the Forestry Commission to have regard in doing so to visual amenity. But even this would be unnecessary bureaucracy and just cause much paper-work and wasted time for no good result. After all, almost all foresters are very alive to the appearance and amenity value of their forests, and private forestry. A good example of this is in Dumfriesshire, where the Economic Forestry Group of Private Owners have planted large acreages having great regard to wildlife and amenity, and the whole scene is vastly improved and more interesting without any compulsory planning at all.

217
I should like to support the excellent references to footpaths in Chapter 16, where the rationalisation includes the formation of new footpaths and the closure of old ones which often create great annoyance to the land users and give little or no benefit to the visiting public. The new plastic footpath signs now nailed to gateposts are excellent. They are clearly visible, and are cheap and easily set up. Often these marked paths continue and cross over other paths which are not public and there are no signs to say that they are not public paths, so the walker strays on to a private path. If the Authority set the public off along a public path, they must also set up, "No footpath" signs to keep the walkers to the public way. They must also be prepared to pay for the cost of the maintenance of stiles and bridges and to compensate for loss of value through use by the public; for example, where a field cannot be used for a Buckler herd with a bull for fear of damage to the public by the bull. Also, there is the question of damage by neglect or carelessness or downright vandalism in the case of moors and forests being set on fire by the public and buildings being vandalised and gates left open. As it is impossible to catch the culprit, whether the act is by mistake or malice, the Authority must be prepared to compensate the owner for damage by the public on a public footpath and, if necessary, take out insurance policies to cover claims.
One of the reasons why the public are not welcome on private footpaths is that time and use may then make a footpath public. Therefore, there is need for a new category of paths, clearly marked to indicate that this is a private path, one may walk along it by permission of the owner of the land but without any right to be there, and if one's dog chases sheep or the owner wants to put a bull in the field for a year or two then he may close it for as long as he wishes. If this category were to be introduced, I believe that many new paths would soon be opened and made available to the public.
One matter not mentioned in the Report is low flying Royal Air Force aeroplanes. One recognises, as one must, the necessity of training in low-flying, and the uplands is probably the best place for this. But where these 'planes continue on and fly low over adjacent vil-
218
lages, as they do, it become an intolerable nuisance and a severe danger to riders and drivers of cars taken by surprise. If one complains, one is told that one should take the number of the aircraft, but this is slightly impracticable if one cannot run fast enough to catch up to note the number. One is told that they could come from Germany or any other station, and so responsibility is denied. If the R.A.F. do not know which of their aircraft flew low at a certain time over a certain place, how do they know it was not a Russian aeroplane on a spy mission? It is necessary that where a complaint is lodged, with time and place, the R.A.F. should be able to find out who is the offender, and should be able to ensure that, if the complaint is justified, it does not happen again—and again—and again—as it does. On the other hand, it would be a great pity to deny use of the hills to Defence, because we must have a strong defence, and it would be a great pity to drive them off completely.
It would also be a great pity to drive off the water-skiers and the motor-cyclists as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Both are an awful nuisance, but there is a great demand and one must provide areas where people may carry on these noxious sports and then one can reasonably keep them off the rest of the Parks.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I hope I did not say—and if I did I should like to correct it—that they must not be provided for. Of course they must. What I am saying is they should not be provided for in National Parks.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, the future of the North Yorkshire Moors National Park depends on the survival of sheep farming. It is only if the sheep survive that farmers will continue to burn the heather, and it is only this which produces the moors as we know them with that sheet of colour stretching to the horizons from young heather in August. There is no central record of the losses of sheep and lambs killed on moorland roads, but one association alone in North Yorkshire moors has recorded among its members the death of 500 sheep in 1973. This is an intolerable number and many farmers cannot bear losses of this nature. On Danby West Side in 1962 there were nine flocks. This year there is one. There

219
were six flocks on Danby End in 1962; now there are four. There were 22 flocks at Goathland in 1962: now there are 15. There were five flocks at Westerdale in 1962; now there are two. This pattern is repeated throughout the moorland.
There is no need to stress the devastating social consequence which will follow if moors can no longer carry sheep. Not only will the ecology change beyond recognition so that the moors cease to be the place that we know and love, but the social pattern in the Upland Dales will alter, with the farms amalgamated into units large enough to survive on inland farming. It is essential, therefore, that the authorities should provide and pay for the fencing-off of the sheep from the main roads.
My Lords, I have already welcomed the Report and I hope that much of it will be implemented. If as much care is taken in its implementation to take into account the views of the interested parties as was taken in the preparation of the Report, I think that we may look forward to a period when the occupiers of the Park will be pleased and the public that much more welcomed and accommodated.
6.22 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, at this late stage in the debate I shall try to be very short. If any excuse is necessary for intervening at all, my claim is that I am one of the few survivors of the Select Committee in another place which considered the 1949 Bill and that I have had a continuing interest ever since.
I want to refer principally to one problem, forestry and tourism where weight and numbers are of concern. In fact, these are two problems but I want to bracket them together and claim that the first can help the second. In this country there is a continuing prejudice against forestry, especially against conifers. There is also a rather curious mystique about broad-leaved trees which is frequently not justified and, strange to say, there is all too little interest and appreciation of the beauty of mixed woods in the English countryside and of their value in absorbing tourists.
When we consider this problem, it is relevant to look at Germany—not just their national parks, which are somewhat
220
different from ours, but their countryside generally—and to see how they have coped. The twin of my county of Cumberland in Germany is an area just to the East of the Ruhr, the Rhein Bergischer Kreis, which shows a number of very interesting features It is only one-third the size of Cumberland but it has the same population. Its great difference is that 37 per cent. of its surface area is covered with forest, mostly mixed woods. Much new development is absorbed without any criticism of any kind.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is no longer in his place, because he was talking of the threat of industrial development. In this area, development of various kinds takes place and attracts far less criticism than similar work in this country. Vast numbers of visitors are absorbed every weekend and they are most inconspicuous. They follow the paths otherwise, they rarely penetrate more than 200 yards from the roads. There are ample parking places and arrangements are made for them on the edge of these very large woods.
I am not advocating planting up all our open areas, but I am claiming that there is scope for more planting in many districts, not just for timber production but also in order to absorb visitors happily. Having said that, I would ask the House to beware of the too facile claims for extending planning control which are echoed in this Report. Planning authorities and officials are not unlike many others; they like extending their empires. Admittedly, that is a field which has to be reviewed from time to time, but a lack of forestry knowledge at this present time among planning authorities is something which is frightening. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, is nodding and that confirms that what I have said is true.
Finally, and sadly, I am going to say that we must judge the Department of the Environment not just by its words and its reports, but by its deeds. Admittedly, this Department is often under heavy pressure. The noble Baroness, Lady White, has already referred to an inquiry into proposals for building a certain road through the Lake District which was highly controversial. In explanation, may I say that I never objected to improving this road and that I thought the line was

221
the right line. However, like many others, I was horrified at the scale of works proposed, and not least the Keswick by-pass with its very high viaduct which is now being built.
In the inquiry the Department of the Environment carried the guns. The Countryside Commission, the Lakes Planning Board and the amenity societies lost this day, as they would undoubtedly lose similar battles. But if the will is there, which I doubt, it is still not too late to amend the details of this scheme. The principle is accepted, but I would say that the details ought to be amended in order to mitigate the damage which is being done. Again, I have little doubt that in similar circumstances and under the same pressures the Department of the Environment would win again and something of great beauty to us could be lost each time. This seems to be the very opposite of the purposes for which our National Parks have been set up. Therefore, it is not only industry but the Departments of central Government which must be watched and judged by their deeds.
6.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, this takes me back to my cricketing days when I was batting at No. 11, which seemed to me to be my usual place. Like two No. 11 batsmen, I shall have a fairly brief and, I hope, interesting innings knocking a few halls over the boundary before being caught at deep square leg.
May I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady White, for instigating this most interesting debate and also for the quality of her speech and the interest which she has shown. Also may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his speech. If I may comment on one point, he mentioned the question of educating people about National Parks. I think that he was referring to the next 20 years. A purely practical and sensible way to deal with this is to educate future teachers. It is not so much a question of going round the schools but rather going to the teacher training colleges and universities and teaching those who are coming into teaching themselves about the National Parks so that they in turn will be able to teach children.
May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Castle, on his maiden spech. When he came in I made the score 116 for
222
four—four speakers down and 116 minutes covered—which is not a good position to make your maiden "batting performance". I have great sympathy for the noble Lord. I am sure that he is referred to as "Mrs. Castle's husband". I am "a male chauvinist pig" and I object always to being called "Lady Masham's husband". Therefore, I sympathise with him upon that. I am glad to see the noble Lord in your Lordships' House. May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, upon his Report. I was one of those who gave evidence in front of him, and I should like to thank him for the sympathetic way in which he listened to the evidence. It must have been a most tiring procedure. I am certain that he heard the same arguments over and over again throughout the country, yet he listened with tact and understanding. I am not saying this to him just because he gave me lunch afterwards, but because I know how much the people in my part of the country appreciated the kindness with which he and the Committee listened to people and heard their grumbles and complaints.
Your Lordships are lucky to have the Sandford Report. I speak as a member of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. I was a member of the old North Riding Yorkshire Dales National Parks Committee for 13 years and was on the joint committee which took place with the West Riding. I am now on the new North Yorkshire Dales Committee. I understand from our planning officer that members of our committee have not been able to obtain the Sandford Report. I do not know whether that is because it is out of print, or because all copies have been sold, or perhaps because there have been troubles with the Post Office, but I know that they are worried. A few members who attended the recent National Parks planning conference managed to obtain copies of the Report there, but the bulk of members of our committee have not received it.
I understood from the chairman of our committee that he had received a letter from the Department of the Environment asking him to report back the Committee's observations on this Report by July 20, but the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said in his speech in fact the date is July 31. I am not sure which is the correct date, but whichever

223
it is I wonder whether I could put in a plea for an extension. I do not know whether other National Park Committees are in the same difficulty as we are but this is such an important and vital matter that we should like to ask for time to consider it and I hope it will not be long before we get enough copies of the Report to go round. After all, so much depends on the Sandford Report and it is so full of meat that it is something all of us should consider.
As noble Lords have said, there are numerous things which could be done without legislation and there are various things which need new legislation. Like many noble Lords I welcome the emphasis on conservation and enhancement. We have problems in our National Park with large limestone mines making an awful mess of the Park and we are also having trouble with campers and caravans, and I am sure we should welcome legislation to make our job easier so far as these things are concerned.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, "Give us time": I would echo that. In our National Park—and again I cannot speak for others—we have had immense difficulties over local government reorganisation. We still have not got our chief officers housed in accommodation that we consider desirable for them. Staffing in the Yorkshire Dales and the North Yorkshire Moors is at the moment at 50 per cent. There are not enough planners to go round and we have had immense difficulty in getting suitable planners. We have to submit our plan by April 1, 1977, and because of the difficulties in regard to staff and office accommodation we missed out on this summer. We were hoping to do surveys, make census reports, and that sort of thing. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, expressed confidence in local authorities to do the job; I am sure we shall be able to do it, but do give us time and help us. We have had our difficulties. Many of us are new in these Committees and when we get things like the Sandford Report to study there is a lot on our plate.
I have been very brief; I am aware of the time, and also as a batsman I have a chance of a second innings because I am speaking on the Unstarred Question
224
on the financial situation concerning cattle breeders. Not much has been said about farming in this debate but I am afraid that I take strong exception to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, that farming must take second place in the National Parks.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? I think he has probably misunderstood what I was trying to say. Sometimes there are areas where the pressure of the public is so great that farming will have to take second place, and what I said was that that must be paid for out of the public purse because it would be quite unreasonable if the profitability of farming had to be diminished by access agreement or management agreement. I am most anxious that such payment should not fall upon the occupier.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for saying that. I am sure he will agree that it is farming which has made the National Parks largely what they are—a history of excellent farming over generations—and I hope the Government will help towards the breeding of livestock and will also help the sheep farmers, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Gisborough in his excellent speech which was very much to the point. So I hope that farming policy will be considered very strongly when it comes to dealing with the National Parks.
6.34 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, at the outset may I express apologies on behalf of my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts. He had intended to be here throughout this debate and certainly at its conclusion, but he has been called upon at short notice to fly to the Argentine this evening to represent Her Majesty's Government at the funeral of the late Head of State of that country.
Everyone who has spoken this afternoon has expressed gratitude to my noble friend Lady White, and I certainly join in the expressions of gratitude to her for giving us this opportunity to discuss the problems of our National Parks and other designated areas. The timing is most opportune. When she began, she expressed regret that if the day had been other than to-day there might have been other speakers. I have a feeling that we have

225
lost nothing in quality and I think the shorter list of speakers has perhaps encouraged one or two people to speak for rather longer than they might otherwise have done. I said that the timing was opportune because we have before us the excellent Report of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his Committee, on which the Government are seeking the views of all interested organisations by July 31.
Before I go further, may I say in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that I have taken note of the difficulties that have been experienced in Yorkshire and I will see whether anything can be done about them. Certainly urgent attention will he given to the difficulty he has experienced in securing copies of the Report. I do not know whether it will be possible to extend the date, but clearly if this difficulty has arisen on any scale at all it is a situation that will certainly have to be looked at. But I can assure the House that when the views that we receive from all the organisations are collated, the views which have been expressed in this debate will also be taken fully into account. I am sure that everyone who has spoken, or indeed listened to this debate will appreciate that it is impossible for decisions to be taken on that Report until we have received the views of those whom we are consulting.
As we have heard already, the new National Park Authorities have just taken office and the new grant arrangements have just come into force. Although I do not wish to prejudge the decisions that we shall be taking on the Sandford Report, I have considerable sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that there should be no automatic review of the administrative arrangements in the National Parks every five years. I think he mentioned that seven years might be a better period. The system now in force was the result of a firm agreement between the Countryside Commission and the County Councils Association and it is certainly my own personal view that five years is too short a period for it to prove its worth.
I was glad to see that the Sandford Committee had stressed the importance of recognising the needs and aspirations of those who live and work in the National Parks. If I may say so, this
226
has always been my view of these beautiful areas of countryside. By all means let us provide the facilities for those who wish to enjoy the beauty, for they are indeed a national asset, but at the same time let us also remember that they are areas with their own individual character and history which is reflected in what we see to-day; and their character will surely be better preserved by thriving local communities than by actions which set no store on the life of the area and end by destroying it.
A number of points have been raised and I will do my best, as quickly as I can, to deal with as many as possible. First, may I say that the House obviously greatly enjoyed the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Castle. I, too, congratulate him on a thoughtful, interesting and informed speech. I personally appreciated his reference to Hugh Dalton for I also recall Dr. Dalton's leadership at Labour Party conferences in regard to the appreciation of our national heritage of natural beauty. He did much to stimulate a great many people to join in the task of preserving what was best, and what still remains best, in that national heritage, and in securing its opening up for the enrichment of the lives of our people.
My noble friend Lady White has asked whether the ending of specific grants for countryside projects is likely to have a serious effect on the progress in establishing country parks. We are most anxious that this progress shall be maintained and accelerated. To this end, the Countryside Commission have this year been allocated nearly £500,000 for making grants and loans as a transitional arrangement. My noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts touched on this. The Countryside Commission have recently issued a Memorandum of Guidance, setting out the broad lines of policy they will follow in providing financial assistance to local authorities and other public bodies. This Memorandum states that high priority will be given to assisting the provision of country parks in Green Belts and in buffer areas between centres of population and National Parks. The Commission have observed no decline in the number of proposals coming forward.
My Lords, my noble friend Lady White suggested in quite strong terms in her opening speech that the salary of

227
the Brecon Beacons National Park officer was too low. I do not know that I ought to take up too much time on this point, but I should say right away that the post of National Park officer for the Brecon Beacons was originally advertised at a higher salary, subject to Pay Board approval. But in the event, the Pay Board found the level of salary proposed unacceptably high, and the salary range finally agreed was equivalent to 75 per cent. of the salary received by the Chief Executive of the Powys County Council. I cannot this evening comment on the findings of the Pay Board, but I would say that 60 per cent. of the area of the Park is in Powys, and the National Park officer is a direct employee of the county council. I gather that eight persons were short-listed for the job and six were interviewed. The person appointed has considerable experience of management and conservation in the Brecon Beacons National Park, and in the Welsh countryside generally. I think the House will be reassured to know that the Countryside Commission, who were consulted in accordance with the statutory obligation laid down in the Local Government Act 1972, have no criticism to make of the appointment.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am so sorry to take time over this matter, but it is important in Wales. Of course I have the highest regard for the gentleman ultimately appointed. The fact that he is paid less than any other National Park officer in the country concerns me, but I tried to make it plain in my speech that it is because the general level of salaries in Powys is so low that one cannot pay him a decent salary.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I cannot do anything about the general level of salaries. I understand this young man is very able and I should think he is also probably very ambitious. I should not be at all surprised if he does not feel the call to move on to other areas.
BARONESS WHITE: Exactly.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, it seems to me that it is up to the people locally to do something about that situation. The noble Earl, Lord Bradford, pressed the view that there should be no planning control over afforestation. The arguments he used did not relate to
228
National Parks. The Government are well aware how strongly these opinions are held in the Forestry Service. I can assure the noble Earl that these opinions have been fully taken into account in the discussions that have taken place on forestry policy, and the Government announcement will be made very shortly. I was very touched when the noble Earl spoke of the lovely Tamar and Teign valleys. They are beautiful areas in the West Country, and the noble Earl must be feeling very proud that he has played a part, not only in the preservation but also the improvement of those very delightful spots.
My Lords, may I touch on one or two other financial matters which have been raised by a number of your Lordships. The question of local authority contributions was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. This matter was partly dealt within the speech already made by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts. The answer is that local authorities cannot be forced to spend local resources on National Parks. I am replying here to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Local authorities have been told quite firmly that if they do not spend, this will be taken into account when grants for future years are determined. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, inquired as to how the additional grant of £500,000 was to be made available to the Nature Conservancy Council, compared with the sum already allocated to that Council. I have the feeling that he was probably being a little over generous in his assessment as to what the figure of £500,000 means. The original grant to the Council for 1974–75 was £2·7 million, but it was recognised that this included nothing for the acquisition of land. The additional £500,000 will be used essentially for the acquisition of land for new reserves.
In his speech at the beginning of the the debate, my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts dealt with the immediate problem of the concern as it has been expressed this afternoon. The share of local government in meeting National Park expenditure in the current financial year is, for economic reasons, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, the restraint in the growth of local authority expenditure. It may be helpful if I touched on future expectations that is to say, when

229
the restraint no longer applies. As my noble friend said, considerable advances in management and the provision of facilities in the National Parks are of vital importance both to preserve their special character and to enable them to be enjoyed to the full. I would underline what my noble friend said at the beginning and also the point I have just made. This obviously implies a readiness on the part of the local authorities concerned to increase their own contribution in conformity with the grants paid by Central Government. Before leaving this point, I understand that the Association of County Councils is in direct touch with the Department of the Environment. Correspondence is going on between them. I understand that a further letter will be sent to them tomorrow. If they are not satisfied, and if the noble Lord is not satisfied, perhaps they will let us know and we will pursue the matter to the point where there is no possibility of misunderstanding.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I am sure the Association of County Councils will be glad to hear that.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I felt the House itself would be assured to know that that contact exists. The Department is glad to have this contact, and we hope we shall be able at least to reach complete understanding. I was extremely interested to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who speaks on this subject from a position of such authority. He is entitled to all the tributes which have been paid this afternoon to him and to his Committee. I have a feeling that the work he did as Chairman of this Committee is something of which he will always be proud, as the Sandford Report itself will be quoted for many years, if not decades, to come.
My noble friend Lord Castle touched on his friendship with Hugh Dalton and the influence of Hugh Dalton. I hope noble Lords will not feel that I am wanting to make a purely Party political point, but I would just say that I recall that it was a Labour Government in 1929 which set up the first Committee of Inquiry into National Parks. I personally have been proud that again in 1945 it was a Government that I supported which passed the National Parks Act, and I was proud that in 1968 it was again a
230
Labour Government which enacted the Countryside Act. I am aware of the tremendous support that has been given by the Party opposite in putting these Acts into operation. I fully appreciate the enthusiasm with which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, spoke of the part they have played. I think I have probably said as much as I can on the financial situation this afternoon.
I come now to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He will not expect me to announce decisions as to what the Government have decided; clearly the moment is premature for that. But I would say that listening to him I felt myself in agreement with much that he said, and many of the ideas that he advanced we shall be very pleased indeed to study. I thought his was a very constructive, worth while and very helpful speech indeed.
My noble friend Lord Brockway waxed lyrical, in a way that I envy, about our national heritage. His colourful and imaginative language conjured up pictures of the loveliness of which so much has been said in the debate this afternoon. At the conclusion of his remarks he made a number of suggestions. Each of the suggestions that he has made will be studied very carefully indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, drew attention to the reactions of the public to the changing scene of planned forestry and agricultural development. I thought he made his point extremely well, and it is one that we have to take into account. He touched on the question of hedgerows. All of us at one point were expressing appreciation of the beauty of our hedgerows. There are parts of the country now where they grow so high that it is impossible to see the scenery. I recall taking some of my family down to the West Country and I was telling them about the beautiful views they would be seeing as we were riding along, some of them over Exmoor. At one point my brother-in-law said: "I do not know about the beautiful views. We are seeing a lot of beautful hedges, but I cannot see through them." There is a point, I think, where some notice needs to be taken of the way these hedges are being allowed to run away and to cause what I can only regard as tree tunnels. It may be that something ought to be done about this.

231
I was extremely interested in what the noble Lord had to say about the Yorkshire Moors. I cannot touch on the question of providing fences, but there is a point clearly at which the public need to be educated to an understanding that if they are going to enjoy the beauty that is there, if they are going to enjoy the relative wildness that is there, they need to be extremely careful. I find great attraction in sheep running across the roadway, but of course that is where the danger lies. I think we should lose a very great deal if the sheep were not free as I think on Dartmoor and Exmoor we should lose a very great deal if the animals were fenced in. I put that aspect forward although clearly there is another side to the coin.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, spoke with commendable brevity. What he had to say will lose nothing in point and will be studied no less seriously than what any other Member has said in this Chamber this afternoon. He spoke with feeling, with clarity and with point. If my noble friend Lord Brockway was temporarily absent, and there were one or two references to noble Lords being absent, I think those of us who have sat here the whole afternoon—
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I was not being critical; I was simply a little disappointed.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I was simply making the point, because I wanted to reply to criticisms made elsewhere, that those of us who have sat here all afternoon appreciate that when there is a chance to get out for a couple of minutes it is understandable that some Members do so. But I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Brockway, having learned that he was referred to, if he did not hear what the noble Lord had to say, will read it when Hansard is published.
I think I have taken up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in regard to difficulties in getting the Report. I found what he had to say very lively and quite stimulating. I have spoken for longer than I intended to do. I have tried to meet the main points, as I have seen them, that have been made here this afternoon. I would say, in conclusion, that I feel we are making steady progress. There is much to do and the
232
challenge has been clearly presented here this afternoon. The challenge has been presented indeed in the Report which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his Committee have presented for consideration, by the nation.
My noble friend Lady White ought to be feeling very pleased that the subject of debate this afternoon has drawn from your Lordships contributions of considerable merit. I am positive that the House will return again and again to the subject matter of the debate, and that what has been placed on Record here to-day will serve as something of a yardstick for measuring progress. If there is any point that I have not covered and that any noble Lord would like me to follow up, I shall indeed he glad to do so by way of correspondence.
6.58 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, as I was one of those guilty of making a rather long speech, I shall have to resist the temptation to reply to the debate, much as I should love to do so. There are so many points to which I should like to refer; but I recognise that it would be quite inappropriate since I have some sympathy for the breeders and fatteners of beef cattle who have been waiting patiently for quite some time. I should only like to reiterate the very sincere congratulations offered from all parts of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his colleagues and the appreciative remarks that have been made about the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, who are the chief instruments of policy in this matter in partnership with the Parks Authorities and the local authorities. I was especially glad that my noble friends on the Government Front Bench were able to refer to the additional half a million pound grant for country parks, and the other half a million pounds to the Nature Conservancy Council for the acquisition of new nature reserves. I think both indicate the interest of Her Majesty's Government, even in a time of stringency, in these matters of the countryside.
I echo the very warm congratulations which have already been offered to my noble friend Lord Castle on his most stimulating maiden speech. I cannot refer to all the other speeches that have been made. If I mention the speech of the

233
noble Earl, Lord Bradford, which I particularly enjoyed, it is partly because I have never had the pleasure of hearing him before and I was delighted to do so.
I should like to thank most warmly every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate. I think that it has been a very good debate. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will feel that his labours have been rewarded by the intense interest taken in the Report, and in the subject. I apologise to him, and more particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the wording of my Motion. The trouble was that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, had pre-empted the Motion, but I got the day so I felt that it was important that we should have a chance of discussing this matter. I repeat my very sincere thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PAKISTAN BILL
Brought from the Commons read la, and to be printed.
WORKINGTON HARBOUR BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.

NORTHERN IRELAND (YOUNG PERSONS) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
7.04 p.m.

BEEF PRODUCERS' FINANCES
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD THE EARL OF DUNDONALD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what further measures they propose to take to rectify the increasingly acute financial
234
situation affecting the breeders and fatteners of beef cattle in England, Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland. The noble Earl said: My Lords, since I put down this Unstarred Question the position of the beef breeder and fattener has deteriorated further and is now critical, particularly in the hill farming areas of Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Principality of Wales, and the West Country. The subject matter has repeatedly been given national Press coverage, and every television programme concerning agriculture has stressed the predicament of the breeder. In fact, the Government are well aware of the position.
I listened very carefully to the Minister last Wednesday during the debate on agriculture in another place. I have since read the report of his speech and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland in winding-up the debate. I really do not feel that either of those speeches gave substantial confidence to the industry. The words of the Minister on June 26 at column 1585 of the OFFICIAL REPORT were:
… we are determined to do everything that is necessary to restore confidence to the industry and to regain the momentum of expansion that was lost last winter."
Later in the debate at column 1590 the Minister said:
"I come to the beef situation, the area where our immediate difficulties are greatest. It is, of course, the beef situation which is at the root of most of the current problems. The tone of the beef market sets the pattern for the meat market generally."
I entirely agree with that last statement. The Minister came forward with only one major proposal, which was to give the producers the assurance over a period that their returns would not drop below £18 per live hundredweight for clean cattle. I have already to-day had a word with the Minister and I should be grateful if, in his reply, he could clarify that that figure is, in fact, £18, and not about £18.
The Minister in another place went on to say that it would be necessary to arrange for a countrywide certification of cattle in living and deadweight centres. This would take time but he hoped to have arrangements completed in about a month. I personally, as a breeder in a small way—and I declare an interest—am not fully conversant

235
with the slaughtering end, and I hope that some noble Lords who will kindly be speaking after me will speak with particular reference to this end of the cycle. I have, however, been advised from England in the last two or three days that the economic figure is between £22 and £23 per live hundredweight, and that recent slaughterings have fallen as low as £12 per live hundredweight. Therefore, the Minister's proposals in another place would be partially plugging a leaking hole. When I was in Wales last week on a family matter, which unfortunately prevented me from speaking on the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on Scottish Transport. I had confirmation from very reliable sources that certain hill farmers in Wales have gone bankrupt.
I do not intend to speak in a repetitive manner on points which have already been made in the past, except where I feel that they need re-stating, and I shall try to keep my figures and calculations to a minimum. As a backdrop to my, remarks, I should like to remind your Lordships of the television excerpts shown both before and after Easter, where cattle, including cows in calf, in the West Country were slaughtered because the farmers could not afford to feed them. It is a very sad position, which is hound to affect our future breeding stocks. To make matters worse, the slaughtered animals were in such poor condition as to make them unfit for human consumption. This position has persisted and deteriorated.
As a breeder, I should now like to set out the position as I and some other breeders see it. Farming, as a whole, is by far the largest industry in this country and, as was mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Walston, during the debate on his Motion on agriculture earlier in the year—and the noble Lord has informed me with regret that he is not able to speak on my Question this evening—the total farming output of livestock and livestock products this year is calculated to be in excess of £2,500 million, which is three-and-ahalf times the value of farm crops. However, the products of all farmers are inter-related and if one or more links in the chain become weak or break the consequences can, be severe, not only to the farmer but also to our
236
balance of payments and, naturally, to the housewife.
I should now like to set out some facts and suggestions under certain simple headings. First, there is energy. The present price of fuel is without question a formidable cost incurred by all farmers. I believe that from 1973 the cost of diesel fuel has risen by 250 per cent. and, as all motorists know, the cost of petrol has risen to 50p a gallon plus V.A.T. in the urban areas. In the rural areas it is higher, because of the increased transport costs. Here I wish to emphasise a matter of significance to the farmer. The motorist—and I have no grudge against the weekend motorist—can well say. "With the present price of petrol we will not take the car out this weekend." The farmer cannot do that. Diesel fuel is his lifeblood, for his tractors and for all diesel driven machinery. He cannot cut down on his ploughing, haymaking and harvesting. As the present Government have seen fit to subsidise the price of cheese, milk and other foodstuffs to the housewife, would it be beyond the bounds of possibility for the Government to consider subsidising the farmer for a small part of his diesel fuel consumption?
In the Business of your Lordships' House on Wednesday, June 19, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard was given a comprehensive answer to his Question about freight charges to and from the Isle of Mull, as they affect the farmers. Surely a directive could be given to MacBraynes to level out the position so that a tourist with a car and caravan, occupying the same space on a boat as a cattle float, pays equal fares. At the moment, the differential is approximately 12 to 1. Following that in the debate on the Motion of the noble Viscount. Lord Thurso, my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas drew attention to the high ratio of cars to people in Orkney. This subject may not be appreciated by the urban dweller, but in the Highlands and the remoter areas of Wales and the West Country, and I believe to some extent in Northern Ireland, where distances are great and in many cases farms are remote, a car is a necessity. The cost of transporting fuel to these remote areas further increases the prices which are paid

237
by the motorists in or near the urban areas.
Again, as was pointed out by the same speaker, the cost of lorry transport in particular has increased immensely in the remoter areas. I was glad, however, to note during the same debate that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said:
"The policy now being followed is to pay a subsidy for services to small and remote places where revenue cannot be expected to meet operating costs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19/6/74; col. 934.]
I hope that transport to the Highlands in Scotland and to the remoter areas will fall under this heading so far as farmers are concerned.
I shall now deal with farm machinery. To my personal knowledge, during the last 12 months the cost of new machinery, spares and all akin matters, has risen by between 15 and 20 per cent. These costs have to be borne by the farmer if he is to keep up-to-date and stay in business. Fertilisers have risen immensely. I am advised that by next year they will have risen again by a further 50 per cent. Electricity costs, as we all know, have increased and, although marginal savings can be made by farmers, crushers and dryers have to be driven and I cannot see a method by which these costs can be alleviated.
I now wish to turn to the sore subject of cattle feedstuffs and prices. Until the mechanical cow is perfected, as mentioned in an earlier debate, we cannot do without feedstuffs in the winter. The cost of hay, for those who could not make enough of their own, rose in the Western Highlands from about £20 per ton in the autumn of 1972 to £50 per ton, both delivered, during the autumn and winter of 1973. The total cost of cattle cake, of feeding a cow, increased by £40 per cow last winter. The latest figures I have from the West Country yesterday are that hay, bailed, can be bought now—provided you can afford to pay for it—at £40 a ton. That is an appalling figure for any farmer who has to make such a purchase.
In the Western Highlands, if I may revert to Scotland for a moment, we cannot afford to carry through the winter all our weaned calves. We rely on fair to good prices in the autumn sales. During the autumn sales of 1973 we obtained good prices after a fair two
238
years and a poor three years. Prices for good weaned calves were about £90 to £100, then the bottom fell completely out of the market due to partially increased costs but largely due to the soaring costs of feedingstuffs which the purchasers of the store cattle just could not afford to pay. This spring, for those who sold weaned calves, the lucky ones got between £30 to £40 and the grass was just starting to grow. The fatteners could still not afford to pay and the bottom is still right out of the market. In fact, I have heard figures from England which are even worse than those I have mentioned to-day.
My Lords, to digress from costs and foodstuffs for a moment, as breeders we are naturally grateful for the additional subsidy of £10 per calf which we are to receive this year, as confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on May 1. In another place last week the Minister talked of £10 a head. I should be grateful, because some of us are not clear about this, to know whether the £10 a head mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture last week is an additional £10 or whether it is the same £10 which we had confirmed on May 1? Returning to the subject of feedstuffs I have read carefully the speeches made on the Unstarred Question of my noble friend Lord Onslow and I cannot find encouragement from any source that the prices will fall this year.
Later, I will mention briefly the E.E.C., although I find it a thoroughly confusing subject so far as agriculture is concerned. But irrespective of what the Council of Ministers say, or do not say, in Brussels, I see no alternative but for the Government to increase the figure of £18 per live cwt. to something between £22 to £23 per live cwt. There must be a further cash injection; and on that point I shall be very glad to hear the views of other noble Lords who are following me in this debate.
Now a word about subsidies. Generally speaking, and particularly in the remoter areas—in the Principality of Wales; in the West Country, where beef is bred; and in the Highlands of Scotland—we cannot change the use of our land. We cannot grow wheat and barley; we cannot change rocks. Our climate, with its heavier rainfall and with soil of a more acid nature, is suitable only for beef, sheep and, to a limited extent,

239
dairy herds. Two of the few ways in which we can improve our land is by drainage and by slagging and liming. The matter of the lime subsidy was raised by my noble friend Lord Sandys in the debate on May 1; and I am very glad to learn, as stated by the Minister in the other place last week, that the lime subsidy, which I understand costs a total of £5 million a year, is going to be continued.
Now the E.E.C. I have here a document, emanating from Brussels, dated January 23, 1964, entitled Council Directive on Mountain and Hill Fanning and Farming in Less Favoured Areas. It has innumerable references; and I was advised that, by the time it had been processed by the linguists and lawyers, it was available in this country some considerable time later. The language is very flowery. I do not intend to quote from it other than to say, in plain English, that individual Governments can help the hill farmer. There is one rather entertaining annexure which converts bovine, ovine and capri-animals into livestock units. Goats, incidentally, are 0.15 of a livestock unit.
Reverting now to beef, in May the N.F.U. made the position very clear to the Government and, in particular, to Members of the other place who represent urban areas, so that they are acquainted with the acute position and with the Government policy then pertaining to the E.E.C. The British taxpayer is still providing finance to provide a fair return to farmers elsewhere in the Community, whose costs are more or less the same as ours, and those farmers are in turn dumping their beef on the United Kingdom market. The quality of the dumped beef, recently from Germany, in the main, is poorer, and the butchers do not want it. But when beef of a poorer quality is dumped at the bottom end of the scale, it also has an aggravating effect on the top end of the scale. My Lords, what further help are the Government going to give us?
7.23 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Dundonald has done a very great service in introducing this subject to-night by way of an Unstarred Question. He has explained
240
the plight in which beef farmers and cattle breeders find themselves; and he has explained how, in some cases, the bottom has fallen right out of the market. I believe this to be a vitally important subject, and the Question is quite simple: what further measures do the Government intend to take
to rectify the increasingly acute financial situation affecting the breeders and fatteners of beef cattle … "?
Those words are well chosen because they are factual The Question is pertinent, and I suggest that the premise upon which it is based is entirely correct. The facts are that beef cattle farmers are losing money As my noble friend has said, their costs have risen, they are still rising, and they will continue to rise at an unprecedented rate. The returns for their product are wholly inadequate. They have got lower, and they have been getting lower; and, my Lords, confidence in the future, both short and long term, has been shattered.
The question is simply: what are the Government going to do about it? The industry is in a mess; and the farming community look to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for some kind of help and encouragement in his reply this evening. Because he is the spokesman for the Ministry of Agriculture I do not underestimate the value of the noble Lord's speech this evening. When things go wrong, one tends to find any peg upon which to hang one's hat. One blames the Minister, one blames the Government, one blames the European Community: one blames anyone, of course, other than oneself. Those who have in fact suffered most are those who bought their store cattle when prices were high some 18 months ago; but, of course, if you are in the game of fattening then you have to have the bulls with which to play irrespective, relatively, of what price the bulls are. But I wish to be entirely fair over this. I do not blame the Government for all this mess. Nor do I blame the previous Government. I certainly have criticisms of the Government on the way in which they have reacted to this mess: and I have also expectations of the Government, which I shall explain.
My Lords, what we are seeing now in the beef cattle markets is not peculiar to us nor is it peculiar to the E.E.C. It is a world-wide phenomenon, and it

241
is shared by other countries, whether they be inside the E.E.C or outside it. It is also shared by America. It may be slightly encouraging to think we are not alone in this, but the fact that we are not alone is itself rather frightening. What it means is not that the Government are powerless to do anything but that the Government should do something. But, of course, the trouble is that, being a world-wide phenomenon, what action the Government take will possibly have less of an effect than it would otherwise have had if the problem had been one peculiar to us. All over the world the price of feedingstuffs has gone through the roof. This is really the nub of the problem. In fact, if you get down to the absolute basics of it, it is inflation. This is what has caused the problem from the point of view of feedingstuffs, from the point of view of prices going roaring up and then inflation in all commodities has been such that people have just found that they have not got the money to pay the correct price, and so we have had consumer resistance.
It seems almost unbelievable that only seventeen months ago the price of beef cattle was so high that everyone foreshadowed a permanent shortage of beef in the world, and that the previous Minister of Agriculture actually had to set up a Commission to find out why beef prices were so high and whether there was any undue profiteering on the way. Now we find, frankly, disaster. Prices of fat cattle and of store cattle have plummeted from a high of about £22 down to the figure which my noble friend quoted—and it is a chance figure—of £12. They have gone from £22 to £12 per hundredweight.
My Lords, this is not peculiar to us. Exactly two weeks ago I was in the United States, in Washington, and was trying to find out a little about the American agricultural problems. I arrived at a time when there was an almighty row going on—a political row and an agricultural row. This was simply because beef cattle farmers there were losing money hand over fist. Fifteen months ago their problem was the same as ours. They were then making money, and now they are losing money. I had the privilege to meet Senator Talmadge, who is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and also Congressman Poage, who is the Chair-
242
man of the Congressional Committee on Agriculture. What these two gentlemen and others said in relation to beef cattle producers in the States might well have been said by any Member of Parliament or any Member of your Lordships' House with regard to cattle affairs in this country.
If I may, I should like to quote some of the remarks which Senator Talmadge made to the United States Senate on this very problem, because I believe them to be so vivid and because they so wholly reflect the situation here that, although his speech was delivered to a different audience in a different country, the message to us is vital. What he said on the day before I saw him was:
"I rise with a sense of urgency to-day to say it is not an impending crisis—it is an economic disaster. It must be quickly alleviated or the impact will spread throughout the economy. It is not just a question of farm profits or cows or pigs or chickens, but rather this is a human disaster. Already, we know of at least one man who committed suicide when he saw his life's work disappearing before him. Another man who called a Senator's office began crying when he related that his nine-year-old daughter couldn't understand why they had to sell their farm and home. These are occurrences that remind us that human beings are behind the monthly statistics. They are also fearfully reminiscent of the Depression. The spreading peril is evident in the closing of several small rural banks as their borrowers—livestock producers—failed. This signals the beginning of the total breakdown of the community. The demise of livestock producers is not entirely of their own making. Business failure is a normal risk in our free enterprise economy, but the harsh realities of the market has been made more savage by ill-advised governmental intervention and institutional relationships that have prevented normal adjustment while permitting ever-widening farm-retail price spreads.
… Producers borrowed increasing amounts of money but at ever higher rates of interest. They passed up high slaughter prices in retaining heifers to assure the expanded future supply our Nation's people wanted and deserved. Their efforts, however, only met with repeated market disruptions in 1973, sky-rocketing feed costs—due to subsidised exports—and, finally, market imperfections that have prevented movement of meat to consumers at a price reflective of the farm price. Last week fed cattle prices were 25 per cent. below a year ago. This has broken the feeder calf market, where prices have plummeted in the past five months. Hog prices had fallen to half what they were a year ago. Egg and broiler prices were down about 25 per cent…. Consumers want and deserve stable supplies of meat at fair and reasonable prices. Producers want to supply it, but unless they can maintain economic viability neither objective can be achieved."

243
So, my Lords, that is what happens in America and, in a curious way, it is very reflective of what happens here. When I was there, the situation was so bad that a Congressional Hearing on beef cattle was called by Congressman Poage to hear and discuss the plight of beef cattle farmers and, so important was it, that even the Speaker of the House of Representatives was called to give evidence. This is a most unusual occurrence and I was privileged to hear it. What he said was:
"The final factor to consider in this disruption of our agricultural economy is the cash situation of our producers and feeders. Cattle feeders require large amounts of capital to operate. Through normal banking channels, cattlemen obtain mortgages on their cattle, their land and everything else they own. If cash is not available then the whole system grinds to a halt. One manager of a federal land bank in Oklahoma reported to me that of 1,100 loans he has outstanding. 200 are in immediate jeopardy of default. Our small town banks, dependent upon loans to farmers, are faced with unknown numbers of defaulting borrowers, all to the detriment of our rural areas. What is the effect of this? In the narrowest sense, as costs continue to increase and prices continue to fall, the farmer's cash flow is disrupted. As his cash sapply dries up, debts begin to accumulate. He must refinance his loans. Having neither cash nor equity, the farmer is faced with bankruptcy or liquidation."
He then goes on to say,
"You cannot divorce the cattlemen from the rest of the economy. It is like a row of falling dominoes. First one segment falls, then another, and another, ad infinitum. This domino effect reaches to the outer limit of the economy. Our small town business man is hurt because the farmer's income is reduced, the bank is hurt because of defaults, agriculture-related industries are hurt because the farmer, no longer in business, does not purchase products. As the dominoes fall, one by one, an additional segment of the economy is devastated. Finally, we reach the same result as before—bankruptcy or financial liquidation for many segments of agriculture in the entire economy."
My Lords, that was what the Speaker of the House of Representatives had to say. Your Lordships may feel that has nothing to do with what is happening here. I believe that it has. I believe that it is indicative of what is happening and what may well happen here. I ventured to quote those words not only to show what is happening in another country, but also to show that we are not alone in this problem, and that is the more frightening because we are not alone. I wished to show what is the case
244
there and what may well be the case here. I hope that the Government will realise that this could well have far more far-reaching effects than merely upon the price of cattle.
At a time when agriculture requires—as it will require this year—an extra 30 per cent. of capital to finance its own organisation in order to stand still, and at a time when upon that increase of capital farmers will have to pay 15 per cent. interest rates, it is difficult to see how we are to achieve the expansion which the Minister of Agriculture quite rightly wants. I recognise the problem to be very real and not to be easy of solution. My worry is that possibly the Minister is not sufficiently aware how serious this is and how very far-reaching it could be and I do ask the noble Lord to take this matter most seriously.
My Lords, I have said that I do not criticise the Minister for this situation, but I am bound to criticise him for the way in which he has reacted to it. I believe that he should be criticised for wholly removing the intervention system in March. We all know its limitations and its drawbacks, and I am as one with the Minister when he says that beef is for eating and not for freezing. Of course, he is quite right, but I believe it to have been irresponsible and highly damaging to have removed at the wave of a hand the support system which beef farmers had and to have replaced it with nothing at all. One cannot simply say (as the Minister did, and he repeated it the other day on television), "I do not like intervention," then proceed to remove a support system for an industry in toto and then be surprised when everything goes down the plughole—prices, confidence and all. I remember as a schoolboy getting a certain churlish pleasure out of seeing people stand on carpets whereupon one bent down and pulled the carpet quickly enough and the person as sure as night follows day fell on his hack, much to the applause of everybody. Of course one sees exactly the same thing happening in agriculture.
If one removes the support system upon which an industry depends all of a sudden and overnight, it is not surprising that the industry collapses. Not only did the Minister remove the principle of intervention but in March when the E.E.C. put up its guide price by 12 per

245
cent. the Minister raised our guide price by only 6·3 per cent., while the intervention price is 7 per cent. below the guide price. I could understand him doing that if he intended to use intervention but did not want the guide price to be so high so that intervention would not bite so early; however, I cannot understand why he did that if he had no intention of using intervention, because it merely made larger the difference between the United Kingdom guide price and the European Community guide price, and it is this difference upon which the Transitional Compensatory Amounts are based. The Transitional Compensatory Amounts are the subsidies which are paid by F.E.O.G.A. to Common Market countries to enable their food to come into this country at competitive prices, so, when the difference between these two figures was raised by the Ministers' action in March from £3·80 to £5·16, the Common Market farmers automatically received a bigger subsidy on food which they sent to this country. He has therefore willingly permitted Continental beef to come in with an increased subsidy on it—a subsidy from F.E.O.G.A. to which, of course, we as a country contribute 25 per cent. of the funds. Mercifully he has now realised his mistake by putting up the guide price to £1925 and so lowering the subsidy by 3p per lb. But the point is that this kind of thing has knocked hard at confidence.
When one looks at what has happened in Northern Ireland one also feels concern, because, in March, Eire took the increase in the European guide price of 12 per cent. which it was allowed, and also the transitional step of 5 per cent., so that their guide prices were increased by 17 per cent. That is in Southern Ireland. But under our Minister's agreement Northern Ireland allowed only the United Kingdom increase of 6·3 per cent. In order, therefore, to stop steers from being shipped across the Border, the Minister announced an extra £1·76 extra cash for fat steers which were sold in Northern Ireland. For a 10 cwt. animal this would amount to something like £18 per beast. The rest of the United Kingdom had an additional calf subsidy of £l0—only about half as much.
But as from yesterday the Minister has removed the £1·76 from fat cattle in Northern Ireland and replaced it with
246
an additional £10 calf subsidy. Why has this been done? The subsidy amounts to less than half what it replaces. The subsidy does not go on the end to the fat cattle seller; it goes to the calf owner. It therefore goes to a different person. That has yet further shattered an already depressed market. I ask the noble Lord why the Government did this and how they intend to restore confidence. At the moment, Eire is buying its beef into intervention. My understanding is that all the cold stores in Eire are full. My understanding is also that Northern Ireland has said that it will not provide cold storage for intervention beef from Southern Ireland. I ask the noble Lord this question: is the Intervention Board permitting beef bought into intervention in Southern Ireland to be stored in cold stores in the United Kingdom?
In all this beef problem confidence is vital. I do not blame the Minister for the general conditions, which I acknowledge are extremely difficult, but I criticise him for some of the things which he has done and for some which he has not done. Confidence is vital, because if there is no confidence there will be real cause for concern in two years' time, because there will be no beef cattle for sale. If the noble Lord thinks I am unfair about the Minister's actions causing a lack of confidence, let me also tell him that they can create confidence, too.
I was surprised, when talking to an auctioneer in Norwich on Saturday morning, to be told that he expected prices to be up for fat cattle on Saturday. In fact, he proved to be quite right and prices for various grades of steer increased between £1·30 per cwt. and £1·90 per cwt. Why was this? Of course there were a number of reasons, but one was the increase in the guide price which the Minister recently announced, and the announcement last week of a base price of £18. That created a little confidence. But if that created confidence, so also can confidence be destroyed.
I am surprised that what the Minister said last week created as much confidence as it did, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to explain and amplify what the Minister said at column 1593, which was:
"I have instructed my officials to be in a state of readiness to undertake the necessary

247
certification procedures for whatever arrangements arc decided upon. I know this is what my friends in the union want. We need to be in a position to give producers the assurance over a period that their returns will not drop below about f18 per live cwt for clean quality cattle. That is the right way to deal with the problem of short-term oversupply."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons,26/6/74.]
He did not say that there would be a base price of £18 per cwt. He said that there would be a base of "about" £18. That could mean £17·50. But this was to he a base only over a period, so that for a period it might go up to £18·50 and then might drop to £16·50. I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to clarify this point, because people have taken the Minister's Statement as meaning that there will be a base of £18 for fat cattle. That is not what the Minister has said. If it is what he intends, then I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to clarify it.
My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us why, if this is to be done, it is not possible to do it almost straight away? As I understand, and I may be wrong about this, there are already people who can carry out certification at abattoirs. There are meat inspection officers who carry out the inspection of meat to certify that it is fit for human consumption, and my understanding is that it is those people who have been used for certifying the beef for payment in the past. Is this so? If those people are there, can they not be used for certification? And how will the rate of £18 be achieved? Will it be £18 or "about" £18? Will it he done by a fiat-rate slaughter premium, or by a variable slaughter premium, or by both, or by a deficiency payment? How will this base rate be achieved? Will this be done with the agreement of the E.E.C., or even without it? And if it is the Minister's intention to achieve it without the agreement of the E.E.C.—if that is not available—then what is to stop him from doing it now? I also ask the noble Lord when he thinks that this base rate will be started.
These are vital questions, my Lords, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi could help the beef industry this evening by giving some amplification. I ask him these questions because I believe them to be important. I know that if he could help to support the beef industry
248
which is in a mess, he would wish to take the opportunity to do so. I make one final remark; that is, that the despair of the beef industry can be exemplified by the fact that in the area of Norfolk in which I live there are some fairly low-lying grasslands which are called marshes. Two years ago these used to be let for grazing for £10 to £15 an acre. This year they have let for £35 to £40 an acre, simply because farmers have not dared to sell their cattle and are prepared to pay anything for grass in order to hang on to them in the hope that conditions will get better. This is a serious state, and I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to throw some light upon it this evening.
7.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, for allowing me to attach to his original Question the words, "and Northern Ireland" because when the Question was originally placed on the Order Paper it referred only to the rest of Great Britain. It is unfortunate that we in Northern Ireland have our Parliament suspended, and so far as I am concerned this is the forum from which I must spell out the case for Northern Ireland. If I speak with special reference to that area, I feel justified in that other noble Lords are equally speaking with great knowledge about their own particular areas. I am a very small beef producer, especially small compared with the large-scale farmers in the rest of the United Kingdom. I speak for a constituency which is represented in another place which has a great many farmers, and an enormous proportion of the 40,000 farmers who are in Northern Ireland are directly involved in beef production.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that there were two matters which were important: first, the question of confidence; secondly, what are the Government going to do to establish confidence. I look forward very much to hearing the reply from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, which I hope will be as definite as he can possibly make it, because the confidence that was established by the announcement last week, which I very much welcomed, is a transitional confidence if it cannot be followed up by hard facts which clearly spell out what the future for the beef producer

249
is going to be. I feel that there exists a great deal of uncertainty—certainly in my part of the country. We feel that the removal of the £1·76 subsidy, which was given on slaughtered animals in meat plants, is a breach of confidence. We were given to understand when it was put on early this year that it was likely to continue for 12 months. This is a further matter which gives rise to lack of confidence.
When the Minister says that the premium to be paid will be "about £18", every farmer translates that according to his own personal wish and experience. My noble friend Lord Ferrers asked how this is going to be operated. Is it going to vary between £16 and £25? If it is indeed a flat rate of £18—the figure given by the Meat and Livestock Commission of Great Britain which has been accepted as factual—then the correct price for beef produced in 1974 at about 9½ cwt. is £22·47 per cwt. If the Government are going to take a flat rate of £18 they are in fact saying that someone down the line, producing beef from birth to finish, is going to have a guaranteed loss of £20.
We in Northern Ireland have a land frontier which presents different problems from those existing anywhere else, and I sometimes feel that this is not taken sufficiently into consideration. When there is a surplus in any part of Great Britain the differential in the price which we get on the periphery, on the outside of the market, widens. When there is a shortage of meat the price we get is closely equivalent to the price in the rest of the United Kingdom. To-day, when I checked it up, the price in the market here is over £18 per cwt.; in Northern Ireland it is £16·50. We always suffer because we are on the outside of the market, with transport between us. The question which I should like to ask the Minister is: when we went into the E.E.C. it was accepted that Northern Ireland should have a separate calculation to arrive at a guide price and an intervention price. It is very important indeed that this £18 (if that is the figure) should be operated on a separate calculation just as the intervention price and the guide price are operated, otherwise we will be getting £16·50 while the rest of the United Kingdom is getting £18.
250
The next problem is this: with the land frontier in the South and the Southern Irish intervention price operating, our animals will in fact be sold into the factories in the South and our factories will go on short time or will close altogether because the intervention price is still above the £18 which operates. If the £18 is not a fluctuating rate according to summer or winter, there is no hope of preventing cattle from the North of Ireland going into the South. There can be times when the intervention price in the South of Ireland will be higher than the seasonal price, and that again will have to be a calculated position. If we take past experience of a fluctuating price running up to, say, £24 per cwt. in the winter and coming down to £18 per cwt. in the summer, then the intervention price which exists in Southern Ireland will draw cattle into the South.
These are problems which I believe are created by the abolition of the use of intervention. I believe that the failure to continue to use intervention buying as a floor price has created problems which are going to be very hard to overcome, and the point is whether in trying to overcome them we create more problems. The Northern Ireland calculation for the intervention price is made on dead meat in the factory and the Great Britain price is based on the auction price. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that we will be separately calculated in Northern Ireland.
The next question raised by my noble friend concerned the fact that at present 75 per cent. of the meat being sold in the Republic is going into intervention. Where is this going? When you are in a surplus position in the United Kingdom even a small amount of not such good beef, or a small amount of extra beef coming into the area, has a magnifying effect on the price of beef in this country. While I know that the Government are committed to supplying meat to the consumer as cheaply as possible, in the end it is the farmers who have to produce that meat, and unless they have confidence in the future the future for the consumer will be black.
The next question concerns the immediate implementation of this scheme. The actual amount of £18—whether it is

251
a fluctuating amount or whether it is graduated during the year—does not matter provided the certification is put into effect at once. I do not know the details of the position in the rest of Great Britain, but I can speak with authority in saying that because in Northern Ireland we have headage payments for sheep and cattle, the officers who apply certification throughout the whole trade exist, so there is no possible excuse for not applying certification to-day even if the rate to be applied to those cattle is not decided until after the meeting of Ministers in the E.E.C. If this is not done what will happen? Farmers will hold back cattle, factories will close, there will be unemployment and there will be a further increase in the surplus; there will be further buying of intervention in the Irish Republic. Therefore, whatever the premium may be, the announcement of certification must be made at once.
I do not want to keen noble Lords any longer but I should like to mention one other matter. My noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned monetary compensation. The United Kingdom Government are providing 33 per cent. for subsidising beef and other foodstuffs to come into this country. This is a problem. It worries me to read about the "green pound", which means that the compensatory amount may be increased in the next few weeks by about 15 per cent. In point of fact we might get a further distortion of our market with the subsidising of our European partners by another 15 per cent. to induce them to send beef here. We might get to the point when, because of the devaluation of the pound, we are not only paying the Members of the Common Market but countries outside the Common Market, to come in and take our money from us and take our markets.
We are in a position of surplus. It may be that because of the oil crisis and other crises the consumer has changed the amount of money he spends on food as opposed to petrol, but the facts of the matter are that we appear to be in a world crisis and farmers are entitled to know what the Government intend to do in the long run. There is a surplus and it is not an easy job for the E.E.C. or the Government to say that we will ship
252
the surpluses out for these four areas which are in intervention. Where do we ship them to? Because there is a surplus, who has enough money to buy them even at the lowest possible price? I would ask the Government to say quite straightforwardly what can be done to help. We were encouraged by all Parties to produce more beef, so we must ask: have the farmers overdone it? If so, where does the future lie? I feel very strongly that the future of the consumer cannot be bought at the expense of the farmer, because if it is the consumer will suffer in the end: in two years there will be no beef.
8.1 p.m.
LORD LLOYD or KILGERRAN: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, for having introduced this most important subject on the plight of cattle breeders in the United Kingdom. Before the debate started, I had the privilege of speaking to the noble Earl. I have listened to the figures which he so lucidly set out in his introduction, and should like to endorse them. In the light of the circumstances, I hope to be brief, simple and perhaps not too blunt in speaking about the desperate plight of Welsh farmers and cattle breeders at the present time.
The Welsh cattle breeding industry is facing its worst financial crisis since the war. Hundreds of small farmers are facing bankruptcy. Hundreds of them who bought cattle in the autumn and kept them during the winter when the grass came rather late so that they had to introduce expensive feedingstuffs, are losing somewhere between £30 and £40 per head for cattle—if they can sell them. These are small farmers, family farmers. They arc not Texan farmers: these farmers in Wales have no large capital resources. They now have crippling liquidity problems and, what is worse, they have little confidence in the future of their industry.
A bank manager in Cercdigion told me ten days ago about his customers who were facing bankruptcy and of the farmers who wanted to sell up their farms and get out while they could. A solicitor in the same area told me that last year his firm was engaged in selling, or trying to sell, eight farms, whereas now the

253
number is 80. What is more, in rural parts of Wales there is a growing view that perhaps the Labour Party is adopting a deliberate and heartless policy of squeezing the Welsh family farmer from the industry. I hope this view is not true and that we shall get a repudiation of it this evening, because I am sure that noble Lords opposite will agree with me that to stimulate the family life of the Welsh farmer is what is required, rather than to attempt, either through a deliberate policy or through inaction, to eradicate it.
When an industry is in this desperate plight, every bit of help is welcomed. Therefore I should like to congratulate the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture on the stand he has recently taken in E.E.C. negotiations on the Common Agricultural Policy. We on these Benches agree generally with the long-term package deal proposed to the E.E.C. by the Government, but this will not operate until at least next April. Therefore, above all we want the Government to act quickly now in relation to the Welsh industry and to deal with it sympathetically so that confidence may be restored to the small Welsh farmer.
I should like, if I may, to mention a few figures in order to place the Welsh industry in perspective in relation to the United Kingdom industry. I do not propose at this late hour to bandy figures, but I think it is necessary to understand the position of the Welsh industry in relation to that of the United Kingdom. Wales produces 36 per cent. by value of the total milk production of the United Kingdom. Wales produces 50 per cent. by value of the total likestock production of the United Kingdom. As the industry deteriorates, Wales will suffer to a greater extent than other parts of the United Kingdom. Agriculture is a major employer in rural Wales and nearly 60,000 people derive at least part of their livelihood from this industry.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord?
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I will gladly stand down.
TIIE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to clarify the statement that 50 per cent. of livestock
254
is produced in Wales because, with the greatest respect, I think that figure must be challengeable.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I was just going on to say that I extracted those figures from a debate on agriculture in another place. My noble friend Lord Onslow will find those figures quoted in Hansard and I understand that so far they have not been challenged in another place, although they have been challenged here tonight. I am glad to disclose some of the sources of my information. The figures are from reports by the Farmers' Union of Wales on the state of the farming industry. Another source is the Department of Agricultural Economics in the University college of Wales in Aberystwyth, which is an independent and objective source of information. I will gladly give the noble Earl those figures at any time in order to substantiate what I have quoted.
The position in Wales can be rectified fairly simply by the Government. It is a matter, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, largely of restoring confidence so that there can be a fairly quick return to profitability in the near future—or a hope promoted among these Welsh farmers that there will be a return to profitability in the near future. In my view, the most important factor in restoring confidence would be for the Government to introduce firmer guarantees of prices than those which exist at present in relation to fat-stock of all kinds, perhaps with the level of prices linked to feedingstuff prices. This would stimulate demand in store stock which Wales produces, and would indirectly benefit both livestock rearers and milk producers.
In conclusion, may I make three positive suggestions to the Government so far as Wales is concerned. In the first place, the confidence of the Welsh farmer could be restored if the Government were to bring in a temporary guaranteed price for beef, with a deficiency payment to be paid by the State so that the housewife would have the full benefit of the cheaper price of beef at the present time. Secondly—and this may seem to your Lordships to be a small matter, but it is an important one to the small Welsh farmer—the Government should advance the payment of the hill cow subsidy, the beef subsidy and the calf and sheep subsidies so as to alleviate to some extent

255
the desperate cash-flow problems now facing many hundreds of Welsh livestock farmers. Lastly—and this is a matter to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred—they should increase the present rate of calf subsidies. I should be glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, of the present position in relation to calf subsidies, which was a matter also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, earlier.
These are three simple suggestions. If adopted, they would bring vital confidence to the Welsh family farmer. And, if I may be politically controversial once again, there is the impression in Wales that this Government will give anything to the industrial unions but very little to the farming community. But in my opinion the Government could rectify the position by introducing this temporary guarantee which would replace the intervention price of the Common Market. The Welsh cattle breeder industry is capable of immediate improvement by a sympathetic Government, which can dispel uncertainty and introduce more confidence to the Welsh farmer by the three suggestions that I have presumed to put forward.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I, as a matter of elucidation, ask him whether he is suggesting these remedies for Welsh farmers only, or for farmers throughout the United Kingdom?
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I would not presume to talk about anything but Welsh farming, about which I know something. I know very little about United Kingdom farming, apart from that in Wales, and therefore I would leave matters relating to territories outside Wales to those more experienced than I am.
8.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I also add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, for asking this Unstarred Question and giving us all a chance to speak on this matter, which is dear to all of us. When I first went into farming, I was told that there were three ways to go "broke"—you could take up women, which was the pleasantest way; you could take up drink, which was the quickest way; or you could go into beef
256
cattle which was the easiest way. Unfortunately, I did not heed that advice. I went into both breeding and fattening beef cattle, so I must declare an interest on both points. But this is not a laughing matter; it is affecting everyone in the beef industry. I must take up a point which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, raised, when he said that he could not attach any blame to this Government or the last one. My goodness! my Lords, successive Governments have been encouraging us to go into beef. Some Government somewhere must take some of the blame for the present situation.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I clarify that point? I did not say one could not attribute any blame. I said I did not attribute blame to the Government for this mess.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I make it clear from these Benches that we blame the Conservative Government and the Labour Government.
LORD HOY: You would blame anybody but yourselves.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I have been encouraged by subsidies over the years to go into beef cattle, and a lot of other people have, too. The fattener gets hit very hard, not only because of the feedingstuffs, and the high capital cost of his buildings and plant. There is also the question of wages—which nobody has yet touched on—and the most iniquitous factor of all, the threshold agreement. You have to pay this out to your farm men if they are getting the basic agricultural wage, if they are getting £30, £35 or £40 a week. If you do not pay it to all of them, you do not—as I think the famous expression goes—"preserve the differential". On the whole, farmers do not tend to grumble about what they pay their men. I have never grumbled and most of my friends have not. They thoroughly appreciate the work that the agricultural workers do, and are very glad to see them. This is the first time that I have heard farmers grumbling and grudging the men what they are getting.
The wretched employer has just as much to pay for the steep rise in the cost of living as does the employee, and he also has to do it when he is losing money

257
hand over foot. This, as we say in Yorkshire, is "Plain bloody daft ". Not only does the wretched fatstock farmer have to do this, but also from August 5 the graduated insurance contribution is going up, as also are the costs of National Health insurance stamps for the employer; whereas the employee, who by then will be even better off than he is now, is going to pay less. All I can say is, "Lucky employee!" These are the problems which hit the fattener.
The breeders do not have the same problems; they do not tend to be such high employers of labour. But they tend, like the hill farmers of Wales, to be living on something of a shoestring. I can speak about the northern hill farmers whom I consider to be the salt of the earth. I certainly do not intend any discourtesy to those from Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. The older man who has been in the business for a long time is not hit so badly. He has had his troubles before, and no doubt has some reserves to fall back on in hard times, and perhaps he will be able to get through. This is really worrying the younger man. He often has a young family with a more expensive living to keep up, and has probably had to borrow money from the bank to get him into agriculture. He is having really hard times; he has nothing to fall back on. Surely this is the person whom we want to encourage in the agricultural industry—the keen young man who wants to get on in farming—and this is the person who is being hit most. I do not know what is to happen to him over the coming winter. The noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, mentioned hay at £40 a ton. In our part of the world last week before the rain came, it was about £35 a ton collected from the field. Even at that price he will find it hard to get through the coming winter.
We have heard much this evening about the guaranteed price of £18 per ton. I was very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough—
VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH: £8 a cwt!
THE EARL OF SWINTON: £18 a cwt.! I am more grateful still to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, for correcting me. People last year were selling beef at £20 a cwt. and were still losing
258
money on that. The sum of £18 does not seem very much. The noble Viscount said that something over £22 a cwt. is now the cost. At £18 they will be even more out of pocket. It is not only the short-term position hitting the farmers which worries me; it is also the long-term. Several noble Lords have said that there will not be much beef in two or three years' time. Even worse is the effect that it is having on the land generally. If farmers do not have the money they are held back and the land does not get the treatment it needs. It takes a lot of caring for and needs a lot put back into it. If it gets into a bad state, it can be many years before it gets back to the condition it should be in. My Lords, what will Her Majesty's Government do about the situation?
8.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I must certainly thank the noble Earl. Lord Dundonald, for allowing us to discuss yet again the problems of farming and the beef industry, in particular. I say, "yet again" because we have discussed it frequently in the past month or two, both here and in another place. But it seems to me to be so desperately serious, as practically every noble Lord who has spoken has said, that it is worth discussing yet again.
As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said we have to realise that there is a worldwide glut of beef. In the beef States of the United States, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said the position is very similar to ours. Japan's imports have fallen as a result of her deteriorating balance of payments situation and, consequently, there is a drying up of one source of the market for beef. In Argentina their competence has increased compared with the chronic state that they have been in in recent years. We all know that there is a beef glut in Europe. The reason why I am venturing to repeat this fact is that it has not yet been brought out that agricultural prices react extremely sharply to very small movements in demand. We have had a fairly large increase in the production of beef, encouraged by everybody. The demand seems to have slackened off for one reason or another and, consequently, the price reaction has been much worse.
We ought to say, certainly from these Benches, that the agricultural community

259
was not 100 per cent. happy before the last General Election. This was brought out very well by my noble friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley in an Unstarred Question on the dairy industry last December. There were rumblings of discontent, and this is not just a one Party issue. One must also say that Mr. Peart has far from improved the situation. I say this knowing he has the interests of the agricultural community at heart. But one has the impression that he is not capable of getting the message through to his Cabinet colleagues. The cost of food has been covered both to-day and earlier and, again, all I should like to do is emphasise it.
I should like to ask the Minister to underline again what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, whether this £18 per live cwt. will be a flat premium. When is it to start? If it is not to be a flat premium, will this be the January/February—in other words, high—part of the curve price, thus producing a summer price of about £16·50 per cwt., or will it be a summer price producing possibly £20 per cwt.? These are vital questions. What happens if the European Economic Commission turns down Mr. Peart's proposals and requests? Does he act unilaterally and so badly hinder the Government's renegotiation proceedings in Brussels'? These are questions I sincerely hope the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, can answer for us.
We must think very hard about not only the privileged farmers—and privileged farmers must include myself, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald; we have access to your Lordships' House and we can see Ministers. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said, the farmers we must worry about more are the small farmers. These people do not have grain harvests to cushion them against a falling beef market. These people in the hill areas and the underdeveloped areas take up a much bigger percentage of the population than do the barley and wheat farmers of the southern and eastern counties. They play a far more important part in the social life of those counties, and keep the countryside of some of our most beautiful parts of the world in good order. These people must be worried about.
260
Moreover, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, we must worry about the agricultural labourer. The agricultural labourer cannot be paid the wage he deserves, and in my view he deserves a very high wage. We must attract into the industry people of the best kind, and appropriate wages cannot be paid unless we are making decent profits. By "decent profits" I do not mean "Centre Point" profits; I mean profits which provide a reasonable standard of living for ourselves and our children, and good money, good housing and good conditions for our employees. I would illustrates what I mean by "a good agricultural employee". He is the kind of man who has an evening party to attend on a Sunday. He is in his bath when his employer rings up and says that 50 head of cattle have escaped. This does happen, my Lords, frequently, unfortunately. The employee gets out of his bath. He is late for his social engagement and he keeps his wife waiting, but he goes willingly to help and put those cattle back. He is furthermore a good mechanic and also the kind of man who has constructive, useful and intelligent ideas. A man of that kind is somebody we have to pay well, out of reasonable profits. Will a lack of confidence in the industry stop us from making reasonable profits and make us unable to attract men of that kind? This to me is very worrying.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has raised practically every single point I wanted to raise myself, and I have almost had to start again from scratch. Admittedly he had the help of an American Senator, which I did not. But I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, can answer the questions raised by your Lordships in this debate, and that he can get through to his Cabinet superiors and his Ministerial colleagues that, in the long run, the interest of the consumer and the interest of the farmer are completely identical.
8.25 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I also must thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, for raising this Question this evening, for it is a question of the utmost importance to the whole of the agricultural community and not only to the beef breeding section. That is so, although undoubtedly the beef breeding section is one in which our greatest difficulties are foreseeable because

261
it has the highest capital outlay. As we have heard this evening, heavy losses are being sustained. May I relate just one instance of a neighbour of mine, a small farmer, who had some cattle which he had to sell because he needed the money? To break even he needed to sell them at about £120 each, but in fact he sold them at £75. It is losses of that kind which have been occurring constantly. Probably he paid too much money for these cattle, and the unhappy position which the industry is in now is aggravated by the high cost of calves and store cattle last autumn. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, the need for expansion is constantly, or has been constantly, impressed upon us, and the beef herds over the past year or so have been rapidly expanding. It was reasonable to expect that the market would remain firm.
Farmers arc gamblers; they are gamblers always, and the odds generally seem stacked against them. However, we cannot grope continually and blindly from one crisis to the next. I think that the Government's intention of dealing with this matter and raising the calf subsidy a further £10—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will clarify this matter this evening—must undoubtedly he welcomed, for this will help dairy farmers as well as beef producers, for they derive a considerable income from the sale of calves apart from the sale of milk. It will also, I am sure, help to diminish the heavy number of calf slaughterings which are taking place now—and if this is allowed to continue it must inevitably seriously jeopardise future beef supplies.
The Minister's assurance that the return for beef cattle will not fall below £18, as we hope, is also most welcome—this is the price per live cwt. for quality and clean cattle. Again, I hope the noble Lord will be able to clarify the position as to when it is to he implemented. However, a base (if one might call it that) of £18 is surely not enough with the ever-escalating costs with which we have to contend. The figure of £18 per live cwt. cannot possibly show a profitable return on investment. Nevertheless, as I say, it gives us a base upon which to work. Over the past month or so I have been in various markets watching fat cattle sold. It seemed to me that the auctioneers were taking their commission and probably
262
making a small profit; they were covering overheads and were quite happy, although, of course, if prices had been higher they would have been doing better. Wholesalers were buying these cattle. They were taking them away and they were being slaughtered. They were being kept for perhaps a week and sold to the butchers. Again, overheads were being covered and a profit was being made. Butchers were buying them, taking them back to their shops and selling to the consumer, again making a profit.
In all those transactions the only person who was not making a profit was the farmer who had kept the animal for anything up to 18 months or two years and who had had all the worry, anxiety and cost of keeping it. He was the only person who was losing money. It seems to me that there must be something wrong with a system which allows this to happen. Of course, it is not always so. As your Lordships know, farmers have not always lost money on beef cattle, but we cannot continue with high returns and low returns. It is impossible to live to-day on yesterday's profits because they have gone; they have been used up in the working of the farm. If it is impossible to do that, it is even more impossible to live tomorrow on to-day's losses. I am sure that production can be sustained only by the assurance of continuity of a reasonable return.
When the noble Lord, Lord Walston, spoke in the agricultural debate in your Lordships' House a couple of months ago, he urged the Government to consider the setting up of an overall meat marketing board. I endorse wholeheartedly his suggestion. It could put some semblance of order into the question of marketing and some stability into the regulation of supplies. The industry can provide the beef which we need, but only if the return is commensurate with the costs involved. It cannot operate on a cost-minus basis. I hope that the Government will be able to set up a committee to study in depth the possibility of a meat marketing board. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, would probably make an admirable chairman. Something must be done to restore long-term confidence. As the noble Lord said, it is not an insuperable administrative problem and I believe that it could bring some order into meat marketing.
8.32 p.m.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I am not sure whether I want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, for raising this subject. Maybe I would have been happier—I am sure that noble Lords on the Benches opposite would have been happier—if I had remained at home and worked out the losses which I am making on my beef cattle. There I must declare an interest, in that I have been beef farming for 20 years. Indeed, it is for this reason that I am here to-night, because I want to try to explain to your Lordships how my fellow farmers and I feel and react to the present crisis. I hope that your Lordships will realise that the questions which I shall ask are ones that I ask as a beef farmer. I want to know the answers to these questions; preferably I wanted to know them by yesterday because time has run out. I hope to put the questions to the noble Lord without bias or spite and if I get worked up I apologise to your Lordships; it will be because I believe that agriculture is the most important industry. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will not mind my having written to warn him of some of the questions which I might raise to-night. Fortunately, a lot of those questions have been raised already by noble Lords. Therefore I shall cut them out, because I am sure that the noble Lord will answer them.
One point which I want to raise is that last Friday, June 28, after the Statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, the butchers' trade was still trying to talk the price down. They were suggesting that the Minister did not mean £18 a cwt. to apply as soon as possible. When the noble Lord replies, can he please give a strong recommendation to beef producers not to sell below this price, or not to sell very much below this price, despite the slight ambiguity of the Statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on Wednesday? I was offered only 27p a lb. on Friday for prime quality 9 and 10 cwt. bullocks. That is 17p, give or take a bit accordingly to how they kill out. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has told your Lordships already—he has told me, too—not to talk the trade down. But I wonder whether he would be prepared to take the advice of a former Minister of Agriculture who once said that if you want to get anything over
264
to farmers you must tell them that you are going to tell them, tell them, and tell them that you have told them. It was the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who made that remark. It is quite an important point and sometimes it takes a long time to get through to us.
One other point which I should like to put to the noble Lord is that there is a feeling that the Government are not entirely in touch with farmers. I believe that Banbury is the largest market in Europe. It is only an hour or so away and it is even closer to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I know that the directors and farmers of that market would more than welcome Ministers and noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite going there to see for themselves what is the position. Indeed, I think that they may instil some confidence in the trade and in farmers. I personally should be more than happy to supply a gang of large, beef-eating farmers to act as escorts if they feel frightened about coming to Banbury alone.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive my interruption, but as I am the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard that would be very suitable!
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, that will be all right, then! To come to a more serious aspect, we are all waiting for the Government to make a decision on the O'Brien Report. I do not know whether the noble Lord can say when that decision is likely to be made. I am still at a loss to know whether calf slaughtering has fallen since the £10 increase in subsidy which was announced the other day. I accept entirely the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture regarding the business decisions taken by beef farmers last autumn—that is, that we bought too high. I agree that I bought too high and that a lot of us bought too high. We are to blame. So is my own Party to blame and so is the Party opposite. I think that we are a nice, happy gang together! I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will not haul me over the coals for having said that we are all in it together.
There is one other point which I feel I may be tackled about by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It is a little bedside reading which I am always asking

265
the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to do. Last Saturday I read in The Economist the statement that we are going to make a lot of money out of beef. All I can say is that I think their figures are about as accurate as the statement made in The Economist about three months ago, that the average 100 acre, poorly equipped farmer was making £10,000 a year profit. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not commend that bit of reading to me.
Although it is a difficult question, if it is possible I should like to know what is the average gross mark-up between the farm gate price of beef and the housewife. I accept that yesterday the butchers lowered their prices. In particular, I noticed that Dewhurst had brought their prices down quite considerably—which, of course, we welcome. Will the noble Lord confirm whether I am right—it may be that I am wrong—that a 10 cwt. beast in the United Kingdom makes about £170 to £180, whereas a similar beast in France or Germany makes over £300 and can be imported into this country? Indeed I have been told that this week prime quality, fresh Charolais beef was imported into England at between 23p and 27p a lb.
My Lords, I apologise for mixing up the hundred weights and the pounds, but I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to translate that as easily as I cannot. This is due basically to compensatory payments and export restitutions. We should like this to be made quite clear because people often think that we are inefficient. But I do not think that we are so inefficient. Another question which I should like to ask the noble Lord is how it is that the Minister of Agriculture can state that we have a surplus of beef? In a written reply to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, on June 13, I read that last year we imported about £190 million worth of beef. My Lords, I am sure that this beef could be produced by this country. Have we forgotten about the balance of payments—or has the balance of payments got so had, like my overdraft, that one does not open the letters when they come? Another point which I should like to raise is that the Meat and Livestock Commission have a scheme for meat promotion which has the blessing of the National Farmers' Union, and I should like to know whether the Government will give it their blessing
266
because we should like to see it pushed ahead. Will the Government consider—I am sure they will not—in these days of inflation some form of threshold agreement for livestock end prices? I must now bring in my perennial. Will the Government consider reintroducing the fencing grant, which is of vital importance to beef producers? It now costs something like £70 an acre to fence a field, even if the fields are 20 or 30 acres, and I feel that a grant might also solve the problem of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in regard to his employee's party, because the cattle would not get out.
I shall now conclude, my Lords, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give satisfactory answers to the questions that I and other noble Lords have asked. I feel that it would be uncharitable of me not to say that I welcome the Statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on June 26, regarding the minimum price and the lime subsidy. I hope the noble Lord will not accuse me of looking a gift horse in the mouth, when I say that early announcement of the retention of the lime subsidy would have prevented over-liming which can cause severe nutritional disorders such as hypermagnesaemia.
Also, the position of the stock rearer is grim. For my hay I was offered £50 a ton the other day. To keep a beast through the winter will cost somewhere around £75. If the end price of a 9 cwt. bullock is £180, all that the farmer will be able to offer in the autumn will be £105. You cannot rear a 9 cwt. bullock for £105, let alone a 5 cwt. suckle calf. They come off the Welsh hills for considerably less. I think their position is very severe, and I am a suckle calf rearer although I fatten my stock in Wales. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said about the calf subsidy and the fattening—and I also farm in Wales—I am afraid I do not agree with him in this regard. It would be better to put an end price which would cause less disruption over the whole beef cycle of selling from rearer to fattener. The position of a beef farmer, despite the recent efforts of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is still very serious. We need better end prices and we need stability of prices, not just today and next year but for quite a long time to come. I wish the Minister the

267
best of success in Brussels in the negotiations this month to achieve that stability.
But although beef production is one of the main cornerstones of British farming there is, to my mind, one more serious aspect of this problem. Farmers, are moderate, law-abiding people led by moderate, law-abiding men. I think we are possibly led by the best people in the National Farmers' Union. If the Government do not listen to our leaders in the Union, those leaders will in turn have difficulty with their rank and file members, and I am sorry to say that they are having such difficulty. Therefore we shall move to further cases of extremism by individual groups of farmers. One can see that in the Press to-day. I am glad to say that the Government are beginning to listen to our leaders, but if we do not see this happening farmers will move further either to Right or Left, and I mind not which. I am sorry to say that we have lost faith in Government—and I do not lay the blame for this entirely on the Benches opposite I think I must blame my Party, too—and it will take a lot to get our confidence back. You have done too little, too late, and you will now have to work very hard to get back our confidence.
8.45 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not put my name down for this debate but I have only just come back to London, having been in Scotland for some time. I liked the last speech. I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, that I enjoyed his speech, right up to his concluding sentences. Indeed, I never think one makes very much of a case by threatening action of an extreme character. I find it a little difficult to understand that apparently it is all right if the farming community does it, but it is quite wrong if any other industry does it. All I will say to the noble Lord is just to be a little careful about this because I do not think it brings any respect to any industry, whether it be the farming industry or any other, to adopt these extra-mural tactics.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lorl for giving way. I am sorry if the noble Lord took my final remarks in that manner. I hoped to put them as quietly
268
as I could. There is a danger. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has said, but I think he has misinterpreted my remarks.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I will not reproach the noble Lord on that point, except to say that there is a danger because when one thinks of it this Government have been in office for about three months and in that time we have had demonstrations in Whitehall and cattle have been paraded in the streets. I wonder who is arranging these demonstrations. I think I do not need to say that I have always had a very warm side for the agricultural industry. Indeed, for six years I served it to the best of my ability, and I agree with the argument that if we are to have an agricultural industry it must, like any other industry, have assurances, but it must be economic. Sometimes one thinks in terms of criticism of Government. I do not say that of this Government because obviously in three months they cannot have done all the desperate things of which noble Lords opposite have been accusing them to-night. Indeed I would say to them that we must find a reason for it. I heard the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, say that one of the great on costs of this industry and one thing that was causing difficulty was the threshold agreement. I say to the noble Earl with due respect that that cannot be pinned on the door of this Government: it was their predecessor which in fact produced the agreement.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I never for a moment pinned it on the Government opposite. It was a damned stupid thing to do, and I think all Governments can be damned stupid a lot of the time—and, my God! they are too.
LORD HOY: My Lords, the noble Earl may try to get out of it in that way, but all I am saying is that he did not make it clear which Government were responsible. I am reminding the House that that agreement was introduced by our predecessors and we have to accept it. I do not want to argue this all night, but when I hear a plea for fencing (with which I agree) I can remember that debate a few months ago when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, announced certain cuts in the fencing grants. I raised the matter and I did not find a single supporter among the Members who were then

269
occupying the Benches on this side of the House—not a single one. So while I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderly, was saying to-night, I can only wish that he had said it when the Statement was being made by the Government of that day.
In agriculture we have to consider the situation that confronts us. There is no doubt at all that we are in great difficulty, not only in this country but all over the world. Indeed, consider Europe, where they are not only producing meat but are then putting it into cold storage so that the consumer cannot purchase it. This is one of the problems we are up against. I raised the matter many months ago in another respect because we were then faced with the awful problem of butter production inside the agricultural industry. Then we were producing so much butter that they had more in stock in the cold storages of Europe than we had coal in Britain. Consequently, we had to get rid of it at very cheap prices and sell it to Russia and other countries. This is the position we have got into, and this is the position we have got to get out of.
I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that I think one can talk this industry down. I have had a fairly long connection with the Welsh farming industry. The noble Lord said that the one thing he did not want to do was to introduce figures to bamboozle people, but he did produce figures. Apparently he was out for a walk one day when he met a banker and the next day he met a solicitor, and one was going bankrupt and the other was selling farms. The noble Lord said that eight were then up for sale, but that the next week the number had gone up to 80. What he did not tell us was how many were sold. Farms can be bought only if someone wants to sell.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, would like to have privately the names and addresses of the two persons I spoke to, I will give them to him. But I said that the solicitor to whom I spoke last year in Ceredigion, in the High Street of a little town called Lampeter, had eight farms for sale at that time on his books. At the present time his firm has 80 farms for sale. So far I understood the solicitor to whom I spoke, there
270
was no question of any of those farms having been sold at the present time.
LORD HOY: My Lords, all I wanted was the figures. All I wanted to know was how many farms had been sold.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, the position is this. The noble Lord has again misunderstood me. A year ago there were eight farms for sale, and now nearly 80 farms are for sale, so the question of whether they have been sold did not arise when I was speaking in the High Street of Lampeter to this solicitor.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I did not misunderstand the noble Lord one bit. All I am saying is that when he produced figures of the farms for sale, he is entitled to say how many were sold, because this is an economic argument. He does not do the agricultural industry any good by producing figures of this kind. One of our troubles today in connection with prices is a very simple one. I was glad that two Members of your Lordships' House admitted it, the noble Lords, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and Lord Wise, who said that during a sale some time ago they were paying prices that were much too high. Both noble Lords admitted that they were paying prices that were much too high. They were paying them because they thought that at the end of the day the end price would he considerably more than it was so there was a misjudgment in their business management. Many people do it, in either the agricultural or in any other industry. It can be done. But in the debate this evening there was a breath of honesty from those two noble Lords. All these things bring difficulties.
My Lords, I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, was reticent, in introducing the debate, in really acknowledging what the Minister said last week, because here was a Minister attempting to take steps to correct a position, not that he had created, but a position into which the agricultural industry had got because of decisions made before he arrived. This is what we are thinking about. I do not want to bandy it about in a political way—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS Oh!
LORD HOY: No, my Lords, nothing of the kind. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd

271
of Kilgerran, never uttered a single word in praise of what the Minister of Agriculture did last week.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I did praise the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture for the steps he had taken on June 18 in standing up against the other E.E.C. Ministers in relation to Common Agricultural Policy. I praised him for that act.
LORD HOY: My Lords, yes, but I am talking about the debate tonight, and about prices. It is difficult for me to agree with the noble Lord on this, because if there is one Party which wanted to be in the E.E.C., despite the C.A.P., it was the Party he represents. So what the present Minister has to do is to meet this new situation. All I hope is that, as a result of this debate, the agricultural industry and my noble friend will understand it all the better. The industry is in difficulties, of course; no one pretends it is not. We must find solutions to these problems. We do not get it done by criticising one side or another. One can go on doing this endlessly. We must consider the problem that confronts the agricultural industry tonight. I have tried to point out who created these problems. It is unfair to blame my right honourable friend for them when he had no responsibility for them, but he has inherited these problems.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has made the best speech for getting interruptions. Would he admit that his right honourable friend Mr. Peart did withdraw the bottom from the market? I think many of us on this side of the House made the point that we were not 100 per cent. happy with our own side when in Government. When Mr. Peart did this he hit confidence very hard indeed.
LORD HOY: My Lords, this argument can always be made politically. All I am saying is, and the noble Earl and I are good friends, that the Minister has, at least, given the industry a basis, a guarantee, that it has not had for a considerable time. No one will deny that.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said that he did not want to be Party political, but he is not having a bad go at it! What is the guarantee which he says his right honourable friend has given the beef industry and which it has not had before?
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Earl should ask me. I do not sit on the Front Bench. He does. The noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, had better hold his argument for a while, because about six noble Lords asked my noble friend what the guarantee is. He is the Minister, and it will not matter what my opinion is. If they are really interested, they will want to know what the opinion of the Government is. All I am saying is that they had better wait a little. I will not keep them for many more seconds, except to say that all of us want Britain to have a successful agricultural industry. We saw the difficulties even at the time of entry into the E.E.C. In three months, this Government have had to face up to a considerable number of difficulties. They have produced a Statement which was made last week and which, indeed, has been welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and I think by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, as well. These noble Lords have gone out of their way to welcome it. They do not claim it as a solution, but they do say it is a considerable step in the right direction. As a consequence, they have asked my noble friend the answer to certain questions appertaining to the Statement made last week. All I am saying to my noble friend is that like noble Lords in all parts of the House, I hope he can provide the answers. Let us all understand what the Government are doing, what steps they have taken, and what they think the consequences will be for the agricultural industry.
8.58 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, for raising this matter. It is an important matter and, as every noble Lord who has spoken has said, there are no grounds for complacency. As my noble friend Lord Hoy said, I hope that during my speech I may do something to reassure your Lordships There is one thing I should like to say

273
at the outset, which is to deny (as, indeed, I was invited to deny) the allegation of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that the Labour Party is engaged in some kind of Machiavellian plot to squeeze the small Welsh farmer out of existence. I do not really believe that the noble Lord meant that at all, but I thought I would get it out of the way at the beginning.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said that this Government had been in Office for a few months only, but my right honourable friend the Minister has already taken some considerable action, which I shall describe in more detail in a moment. It is right to say, as noble Lords have said during the debate, that the problems facing beef producers have been highlighted by the falling market prices over the past two or three weeks, and they do give cause for concern; there is no doubt about that, both because of the importance of the industry itself and because of the reactions which a weak beef market can cause in livestock markets generally.
There are a number of reasons for the present difficulties, but there can be no doubt that the rapid expansion of production coupled with increased production costs are the main causes. As my noble friend said, each of these factors had its roots in a period many months before the present Government took Office. We can all understand 'why the industry was tempted by the very high prices early last year to build up their herds, even though this meant paying very expensively for young animals; but in retrospect it can be seen how unfortunate it was that production should have been built up in this way in a period of rapid and substantial rises in production costs, particularly of winter feeds. Producers expected market prices to rise this year, but this of course did not happen and losses have. I regret to say, undoubtedly taken place. Now we have a situation in which consumers cannot or are not prepared to pay the sort of prices needed to offset producers' costs in the context of a beef market which has weakened because of exanding supplies, a somewhat Gilbertian situation.
274
This, then, was our inheritance in March. Nothing had been done to guard against the foreseeable effects. I am not trying to make a Party point here, because I know the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was not making Party points in his speech—it is really too important a matter for that—but the previous Government took away from beef producers the safety net of the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme on the grounds that they could rely on an E.E.C. regime based on the maintenance of prices through intervention purchasing. As your Lordships will know, the new Government took two important policy decisions in their first weeks of Office. The first was to maintain and exercise an option not to apply permanent intervention. The second was to inject about £35 million into the industry, at the point where it was required at that time to prevent a level of calf slaughterings which could have endangered our future food supplies. This was done by increasing the calf subsidy by £10 a head.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, criticised us for our inaction since we came into Office. The decision not to apply permanent intervention in the United Kingdom was taken very soon after this Government were elected. There were complaints from the industry that this took from them any price guarantee. To the extent that this was so, it was because the previous Administration had removed the protection of the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme which had worked so successfully for many years. But it was wrong to say that the market had no protection. It was still supported by the E.E.C. régime on import duties and levies against unduly low priced supplies from third countries, and it remained linked to the Irish and Continental beef markets so that our prices would follow any increase in price in other Member States. In fact, the market prices in the United Kingdom were subsequently well above the price at which intervention would have operated, and fell to the notional intervention level only during the past two or three weeks. There can, therefore, be no complaint that my right honourable friend did not take immediate steps when that situation arose. I have been asked about the size of the calf subsidy. This is an extra calf subsidy of £10 a head which was announced by my right honourable friend on April 11

275
to conic into effect on July 1. Therefore, the total subsidy is now £18·50 a head on steers and £16·50 a head on heifers born after October 31, 1973.
Returning again to the Community, despite the misgivings which we have heard over the last few months, recent experience elsewhere in the Community has provided full justification for the view we took that the intervention system is inefficient as well as undesirable. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Hoy said about this matter, how beef is something to eat and not to put into cold storage. I wonder very much what some future Gibbon would think about a world which stores its beef deteriorating in stores which are now not even large enough to hold it, while the price is too high for even the Western European housewife and the product does not reach the millions of people who are starving in other parts of the world.
More recently the decision was taken to bring forward to July 1 the increase in the United Kingdom guide price to £19·25 a live cwt. This will help to sustain the market in the present difficult situation by affording producers greater protection against imports and providing a closer link with the beef markets elsewhere in the Community. Your Lordships will be aware that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has announced in another place the changes that he hopes to see made to the Community's beef regime. In the Council of Ministers meeting on June 17 and 18 last he laid stress on the need for arrangements by which permanent intervention would be replaced by a system of variable subsidies and production grants. This would undoubtedly help both our producers and consumers. He recognised that such a new system could not be introduced before next April.
Some more immediate action is clearly needed, and last Wednesday the Minister announced his intention to press immediately for direct interim action to be taken in recognition of the need to assure producers that their returns will not drop below about £18 per live cwt. for clean quality cattle. I was asked about this figure, whether £18 could mean that or something slightly less. I regret that I cannot give more than this interim figure,
276
as the final sum will depend on negotiations. We are in the Common Market now. The previous Government put us in. But it depends on negotiations. You cannot blame the present Government for this. It is our firm intention that we should reach agreement on this figure in the future. In view of this, the Minister has instructed his officials to be ready to undertake the necessary certification procedures for whatever arrangements are decided upon.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, nay I ask the noble Lord one question with regard to that? Does one understand from him that the operation of this base figure will be subject to the agreement of the European Community, and that if that agreement is not forthcoming then the Minister will not be able to do it?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; it is subject to agreement. I think that it has been proved in the past, since this Government came into office, that we are rather tough and realistic negotiators, and the figure of £18 is the one we are going for. As a result of this, I am glad to see that market prices have this week improved considerably following the Minister's Statement, and the indications are that we may get back to about £18, which I think is fairly reassuring in view of some of the speeches we have had. The figure had been falling; I accept that. For example, on June 17 it was £17·11, then it went down on June 24 to £17·08, but I believe now—and I was told that this afternoon by the Department—there is every hope that it will be back at £18.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, mentioned Northern Ireland. The Government recognise that they face particular difficulty in the current depressed state of the market, in that their returns are usually substantially lower than in the United Kingdom generally. The recent increase of the United Kingdom guide price will have had the indirect effect of reducing somewhat their level of returns by substituting on July 1—that is yesterday—a calf subsidy increase of £10 a head for the beef marketing scheme payment of £1·76 a live hundredweight paid on slaughter. This payment had been made since April 1 to bring Northern Ireland into line with the higher guide price in the Irish Republic. It is, however, fair to point out that the beef marketing

277
scheme represented an additional return to Northern Ireland producers that was not available to farmers in Great Britain, and that they also receive certain other special producer grants.
We are confident that the steps announced by my right honourable friend on June 26 last, should help to strengthen the beef market throughout the United Kingdom, and indeed the movement of this week's prices, as I have indicated, shows that this is already happening. I trust, therefore, that this will result in a considerable easing of Northern Ireland's problems.
I was asked various questions by noble Lords, some of which I shall try to answer to the best of my ability, and on others I shall write to noble Lords, if I may. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me about the Beef Marketing Board. The Verdon-Smith Report of 1964 came out against the idea of the statutory marketing board, and their alternative proposals led to the establishment of the Meat and Livestock Commission. The practical difficulties seen by the Verdon-Smith Commission at that time against setting up a Marketing Board apply, in our view, equally to-day. I was also asked by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—and I am grateful to him for giving me notice of this—whether we were satisfied that the sum of £18 per live hundredweight, as a base price, is really adequate. An assurance to producers of a return of about that level would represent a more secure basis of guarantee than protection based on intervention, as I said earlier. Moreover, the present national intervention price for clean cattle would be, in the range of about £1826 to £18·62 a live hundredweight. With the benefit of direct producer aids, such as the calf subsidy, itself now worth on average about £17·50 a head, the total returns to beef producers would be well above the intervention level. In these circumstances, I do not think that it can be argued that £18 is an unreasonable figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, asked me a great many questions. Here again I am grateful to him for writing to me about them in advance. It was most courteous of him. He asked how and when the beef slaughter premium will apply. I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, also asked me this question. On June 26 in another place my right
278
honourable friend stated that he will press the Community to take action at once so that producers may be given the assurance I referred to earlier. At this stage, I cannot say what detailed arrangements may be agreed. However, it is our intention that they should apply as soon as possible, athough it will probably take about a month to make the necessary arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, also asked me about the O'Brien Report. The Government will announce their decision on that Report as soon as possible after their consultations with interested parties have been completed.
I was also asked about calf slaughterings. The average weekly level of calf slaughterings, since my right honourable friend made his announcement on March 25 of the proposal to increase the subsidy by £10, declined to a figure of about 5,400. The average for the month before that date was 6,600. Of course, my Lords, I admit that slaughter of cows and calves has increased from the unusually low level of the last two years, but the national herd is much larger. More calves are being produced and there are many older cows in the herd which were retained last year for breeding instead of being culled. Therefore we do not think that the present level of slaughter is unduly high. I am glad to confirm that it is declining still further.
We accept that many producers will be hard pressed to achieve even an economic return on sales at recent low prices, but good profits were made last year. I submit that profitability in the beef industry cannot be judged over a short time. It is, I am sure noble Lords will agree, a longterm business. Nor is it possible to generalise about the economics of an industry which has such a wide range of production systems and conditions.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, asked me about the mark-up between the farm gate and the housewife. My Lords, I do not think one can talk about mark-ups in the meat industry in the same way one talks about bars of soap. There are a great many factors, as noble Lords know, affecting the retail price of a cut of meat in relation to the cost of the whole animal. But the Government have no reason to consider that butchers' returns are excessive.

279
I was also asked about the comparison of fat cattle prices in the United Kingdom compared with France and Germany. For most of this year the average market prices for clean cattle in the United Kingdom have been in the range of £18·30 to £19 per live hundredweight and after two very low weeks prices are this week expected to return towards that level. The noble Lord quoted a distinctly low representative price. In general, average cattle prices in France and Germany appear to be about 40 to 50 per cent. above the United Kingdom in terms of their own currencies. There are many other factors which make it difficult to make a valid direct comparison in price terms.
There was also a question about the imports of cheap beef from the Continent, which was referred to by several noble Lords. I can neither confirm nor deny the matter of these particular consignments of beef, particularly the Charolais type referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. However, I would be surprised if significant quantities of first quality beef were being imported at the prices quoted. Most of the recently increased supplies from Community countries have been of lower quality meat destined for manufacture which has to some extent been replacing much smaller recent imports of frozen beef from other countries. The increase in the United Kingdom guide price, which took effect yesterday, will in any case have the effect of reducing the compensatory amounts on both types of imports and so give our producers greater protection.
The noble Lord also asked me about the Meat and Livestock Commission Promotion Scheme. I think the scheme that he has in mind is that which was the subject of a memorandum sent to the Minister by the President of the National Farmers' Union recently which had been prepared in consultation with a number of other organisations. I hope the noble Lord will allow me to say that it would be wrong for me to indicate in advance anything that the Minister may decide, but I know that this is being carefully considered.
280
The noble Lord also asked me about fencing grants. The decision to end the provision for fencing in the Farm Capital Grants Scheme was taken in 1972 after a comprehensive review of the scheme and a fresh evaluation of priorities. Fencing was one of several items which were thought to have less claim on the sums available than other kinds of work and facilities.
My Lords, I hope I have answered most of the questions asked by noble Lords, and that what I have said will assure the industry that the Government have their problems very much in mind; that what we have done already is a first step and that what we hope to do further, after continued negotiations with the Community, will improve the situation even further so that confidence will return to this great industry.

OLD LONDON ROAD, HYTHE, BURIAL GROUND BILL
Reported with Amendments.
CLERICAL, MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Twelfth Report from the Joint Committee made on certain Statutory Instruments and the following Instruments which require Affirmative Resolution:
County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1974,
Draft Agricultural Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1974,
Draft National Radiological Protection Board (Extension of Functions) Order 1974;
the said Report to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past nine o'clock.