Sitting of 1 April 1976

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
(By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
(By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Exchange Rate
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with communications between the Treasury and the Bank of England with regard to responding to exchange fluctuations.
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his present policy with regard to the parity of sterling.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): I confirm that I am well satisfied with communications between the Treasury and the Bank on these
    1550
    matters. As to exchange rate policy, I refer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend to the account given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 11th March.
    Mr. Renton: I appreciate the difficulty of managing a floating currency, but will the Chancellor assure the House that it is being done without unnecessary strain either on our own foreign exchange reserves or on the co-operative arrangements with other central banks?
    Mr. Healey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's question. Our policy is governed, and will continue to be governed, in line with the letter of application to the International Monetary Fund and our pledges under the Rambouillet accord, and the IMF guidelines agreed in Jamaica for countering erratic fluctuations in the exchange market. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as we have acted in accordance with these rules the loss to our reserves has been very much less than that of certain other countries whose currencies have been under pressure in recent months.
    Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend convince his fellow Finance Ministers abroad that it will never be possible in the foreseeable future to maintain a system of fixed exchange rates between a number of trading economies? If he can convince them of that we shall avoid a great deal of trouble and nonsense.
    Mr. Healey: As I think my right hon. Friend knows, I have made this point repeatedly at the International Monetary Fund and to my colleagues in the European Council of Finance Ministers. I have a feeling that after recent events there is much more agreement with the line that I have been taking than there was perhaps a month ago.
    Mr. David Howell: After the last depreciation, a few weeks ago, the Chancellor denied firmly that the Bank of England had been selling sterling on a falling market, but in view of the evidence that the market would have supported the pound at $1·9385, the apparent pressures that continued after that level was reached and the general doubts about their origin, does not the Chancellor owe us a slightly fuller explanation of what went on?
    Mr. Healey: I certainly do not. The hon. Gentleman should know that it has never been the practice of Chancellors of the Exchequer to comment on details of intervention policy. I can tell the House that there has never been any criticism in any international body, including the last meeting of the European Finance Ministers, of the way in which monetary authorities in Britain have handled pressure on the pound in recent months.
    Mr. Powell: What reasons has the Chancellor for thinking that the fluctuations of the exchange rate are less severe with the intervention of the Bank of England than they would have been without it?
    Mr. Healey: The evidence of experience over the past year.

    Inflation
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the current rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Healey: The retail price index rose by 22·9 per cent. over the 12 months to February, the sixth successive month in which the year-on-year rate of inflation has fallen. The annual rate of increase, excluding seasonal food, in the six months to February, was 13·3 per cent. This represents substantial progress towards the target of single figures by the end of the year. But I shall not be satisfied until inflation is reduced to a level at least no higher than that of our competitors.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is still very high. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the recent handling of the difficulties of sterling will to some extent undermine his problems when dealing with the trade union leaders in the next round of the incomes policy? Does he accept that a widening of the depreciation of sterling by about 4 per cent. against the other major currencies reduces real disposable income by about £800 million? Does that mean that any possible £800 million worth of tax cuts in the Budget next week have already been cancelled out and
    1552
    cannot become part of the incomes policy that my right hon. Friend is trying to arrange?
    Mr. Healey: I think that my hon. Friend will understand, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said a moment ago, that in a world of floating exchange rates it is inevitable that such rates over a period will reflect comparative inflation rates in various countries. The recent fall in the international value of the pound sterling reflects excessive inflation in our own system over the past 12 to 18 months, but inflation is now being reduced very rapidly, thanks to the £6 pay limit.
    My hon. Friend will be aware of the argument in the recent National Institute Review that a depreciation of 5 per cent. would lead to an increase of 200,000 jobs by the end of next year. I am sure that that consequence, at least, is one which my hon. Friend would welcome.
    Mr. Watt: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he will not get inflation under control until we have a basic change in economic policy? Does he not realise that until we stop importing food which we could provide from our own land and resources this country will never get back on its feet?
    Mr. Healey: The House knows that there was a fundamental change in our policy, introduced as a result of the initiative of the TUC in July. That has already led to a dramatic fall in our rate of inflation. I cannot see how controlling inflation will be assisted if we buy more expensive food at home, rather than cheaper food from abroad, though I recognise that for balance of payments' reasons it is important to maximise the output of home-grown food.
    Mr. Canavan: Bearing in mind that the Scottish conference of the Labour Party condemned the Treasury's counter-inflation policy, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when the City and the CBI start twisting his arm for even more wage restraint and less price restraint, he will tell them where to get off, in his own inimitable language?
    Mr. Healey: I am glad to see that my hon. Friend is none the worse for the amenities that we recently exchanged. If I feel it necessary to tell anybody to get

    1553
    off anything, I shall make it clear that that is my view.
    Sir G. Howe: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind and ram home more than he has so far the fact that if the downward floating of sterling is, as he says, an inevitable consequence of a higher rate of inflation in this country, there can be no escape from a fall in real living standards if our economic policies are to prosper? If we are not to lose whatever advantage there may be from the downward float, will he underline that fact and appreciate that his policies for getting inflation under control will come increasingly under threat and into danger if he fails to recognise the need to embark on public expenditure cuts now, because otherwise he will find it extremely difficult to maintain a policy to control inflation?
    Mr. Healey: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing quite discrete issues. Certainly the advantages of competitivity, which derive from a lowering of the external value of the currency, will be lost if the consequent increase in inflationary pressures lead to an increase in wage costs at home. Whether, in the situation in which Britain now finds itself, depreciation may lead to an overall fall in real disposable income is an entirely different question.
    Mr. Speaker: Before calling the next Question, I urge hon. Members to ask supplementary questions and not to argue a case.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress made towards his target of reducing the rate of inflation to single figures before the end of 1976.
    Mr. Healey: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Mr. Hamilton: I assume that my right hon. Friend was not using obscene language. Will he say whether or not he has the assent of the trade unions to the next phase of the incomes policy? Will he have it by Tuesday, and will he be announcing it in the Budget? Did he not say a few months ago that his Budget
    1554
    judgment would depend on whether he secured that kind of agreement?
    Mr. Healey: It is not appropriate for the TUC at this stage of the current wage round to reach a final conclusion on the policy for the next wage round, which begins on 1st August next. However, I have been in continual contact with leaders of the TUC and I shall be framing my Budget in the light of what I know of their intentions.

    Capital Outflows
    Mr. Les Huckfieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about capital outflows from Great Britain in 1975; and how this compares with previous years.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): The measurement of capital flows is very complex. The statistics record the effect of net capital flows. In 1975, net capital inflows, including unidentified flows, are provisionally estimated at £610 million. This compares with net inflows of £3,160 million in 1974 and £1,111 million in 1973. Details were released to the Press on 8th March and will be published on 2nd April in the Central Statistical Office's "Economic Trends", a copy of which will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Huckfield: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the outflow situation is very serious? For example, does he realise that in 1973 the total direct outward investment from this country, excluding oil, was 120 per cent. greater than in 1972, more than the total fixed investment by nationalised industries in that year, and more than half the private investment by companies in the United Kingdom? Is it not time that the Treasury seriously examined its whole policy on outflows and inflows?
    Mr. Barnett: If my hon. Friend examines the figures, he will find that direct investment overseas is largely represented by profits retained locally—ploughed-back profits—which are subject to very strict exchange control.
    Mr. Farr: Will the right hon. Gentleman recheck his figures, because, in every respect, his answer related to inflows while the original Question related only to outflows?
    Mr. Barnett: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman, but he may not have caught my whole answer. I said this is a very complex area, and all the records are for net flows. I was therefore giving the net flows, which happens to be net inflows.
    Mr. Hooley: What action is my right hon. Friend taking to stop the outflow of capital to South Africa?
    Mr. Barnett: If my hon. Friend cares to table a Question on that matter, I shall deal with it.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his best estimate of the public expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product during the calendar year 1975.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Provisionally, 59 per cent.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the provisional figure is, if anything, on the low side, and that for the coming year it is likely to be higher? Is he further aware that it is for this reason and no other that it would be highly irresponsible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce any net reductions in taxation in his Budget?
    Mr. Barnett: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will note the hon. Member's advice.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Home Secretary, who says that if the percentage goes over 60 there are dangers for a pluralist democracy?
    Mr. Barnett: I do not necessarily agree with that statement. Both Norway and Sweden, which are excellent social democracies, have higher levels, although they also have very much higher levels of GDP, which I hope we shall be able to obtain if we continue to pursue our present policies, with my hon. Friend's support.
    Mr. Gow: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that during the past three years public expenditure has increased by 20 per cent. while output has increased by 2 per cent.? What forecast does he make for the next three years, assuming he will still be in office?
    Mr. Barnett: I am surprised the hon. Member asks that question. We put this information in the White Paper and told him precisely what it was. I have no doubt that this Government will be in office over the next three years and, indeed, very much longer, and that our position will improve considerably.
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to revise the present public expenditure White Paper in the next six months.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: As explained in paragraph 33 of the White Paper, we shall be ready to modify and adapt our plans as the general course of the economy and the most important needs of the community require.
    Mr. Latham: Would it not be reasonable to re-examine and redraft, as a matter of urgency, a document on which the Government were unable to command a majority in the House?
    Mr. Barnett: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: After the pressures of the Budget are over, would Treasury Ministers consider an addendum to the White Paper to reflect, in the light of yesterday's defence debate, the cost of a separate Scottish army, Scottish air force and tartan navy?
    Mr. Barnett: I know of my hon. Friend's considerable interest in this matter. I do not see that it would be necessary to issue an addendum to the White Paper to deal with these questions, but if he cares to table a specific Question I shall be glad to see whether we can give him the appropriate answer.
    Mrs. Bain: When revising his attitude to public expenditure, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very strong representations from various parts of the community about educational expenditure, particularly in Scotland, where we have to bear 39 per cent. of these cuts? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it will be necessary for Scotland to expand education in order to train people to take up the positions that we shall have in an independent Scotland?
    Mr. Barnett: I hear a lot on these matters from my hon. Friends and I

    1557
    tend to take more notice of their views than of the hon. Lady's. If she looks at the total public expenditure per head in Scotland, she will see that it is considerably more than in the United Kingdom as a whole.

    Tax Structure
    Mr. Cryerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the present tax structure
    Mr. Joel Barnett: My right hon. Friend has already introduced a number of improvements in the tax structure, and the process will continue.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the redistributive element in the tax structure is far from perfect and that wealthy people could still make a considerable further contribution? Does he accept that other Western European countries, including those in the EEC, have a much higher rate of tax? Does he agree that it is time a wealth tax was introduced, so that the process which he and I want to see—the redistribution of wealth in favour of working people and their families—is carried forward with increasing momentum?
    Mr. Barnett: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says, but in recent years the combination of inflation, the incomes policy and direct taxation has had a considerable redistributive effect, the details of which will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend in his Budget Statement on Tuesday.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the Government's policy on VAT is a direct incentive to black market activities in the purchase of galvanised eye straining bolts, paraffin lamps and portable tools? Will he make sure that his right hon. Friend does something about it next year, otherwise I shall continue to draw the attention of the House to the anomalies of VAT?
    Mr. Barnett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also bear in mind who introduced VAT. My right hon. Friend will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mrs. Millie Miller: When looking at the tax structure, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that taxation was specifically excluded from consideration
    1558
    under the Sex Discrimination Act, which means that all women, not only widows, suffer serious injustices from taxation, as do people of either sex who are trying single-handed to bring up families?
    Mr. Barnett: I think my hon. Friend will know that we are indeed aware of the problems in relation to widows, and particularly single-parent families. We have done a great deal for them already, I am sure that my right hon. Friend in introducing his Budget on Tuesday, will have taken note of all that my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Bulmer: Will the Chief Secretary tell the House whether the Government anticipated the effect of 25 per cent. VAT on employment—which in my constituency has been disastrous—and, if not, why not?
    Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend took all these matters into account, and will be doing so when he introduces his Budget on Tuesday.
    Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend said that the various measures taken by the Government on inflation had a considerable effect on the redistribution of wealth. Will he explain what he means?
    Mr. Barnett: If my hon. Friend was listening, as I am sure he was, he may have noted that I was referring not to wealth but to the redistribution of income. If he looks at the figures he will find, as I do, that the combination of inflation, incomes policies, and the failure of successive Governments to revalorise personal allowances as much as they would have liked, has had a substantial redistributive effect.

    Companies (London Headquarters)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of companies which have recently moved their headquarters from London to the Continent for tax reasons.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Derail Davies): Treasury consent is not given where a move is planned for tax reasons. So far in 1976 three moves by companies to the Continent have been approved on commercial grounds.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is it not very disturbing? Is it not because of the vindictive

    1559
    tax rates in the higher income brackets introduced by the Chancellor? Should not we give an incentive to foreign companies to come and work in this country instead of driving them away?
    Mr. Davies: I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman refers when he says that it is very disturbing. In fact, the figures are quite low and there is strict control on the movement of company headquarters from this country. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about high tax rates.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a fair number of companies are also leaving London because of the growing crippling burden of local rates?
    Mr. Davies: That is another question entirely. We exercise strict control on income tax and exchange control.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Does the hon. Gentleman know how many companies are moving their headquarters from London to the development areas as a result of his policies?
    Mr. Davies: That is another question. Our development policies have produced some equalisation in wealth of productive capacity between London and other areas. That is a proper policy to adopt in a country in which there has been a considerable concentration of wealth in London and the South-East.
    Mr. David Howell: Does the Minister support the view expressed by the Chancellor in the Wall Street Journal of 2nd March this year that the levels and burdens of taxation have no effect on economic growth and performance in this country?
    Mr. Davies: The levels and burdens of taxation are not the only factor. Levels of taxation impinge on all ranges of income. People at the lower as well as at the higher end of the scale suffer from the high burden of taxation.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Is it not true to say that many commercial and industrial undertakings in the City of London are deliberately withholding payment of
    1560
    rates, appealing against them and so avoiding payment for up to three years?

    Family and Child Tax Allowances
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for a two-child family the combined value of family allowance and child tax allowance for a standard rate taxpayer as a percentage of the average industrial take-home earnings for the years 1968 to 1976.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: With permission, I will circulate the full information in the Official Report. Although there has been some fluctuation, the combined value of the family allowance and child tax allowance as a percentage of average industrial take-home earnings has declined slightly from 10·6 per cent. in 1968–69 to 8·7 per cent. in 1975–76.
    Mr. Bottomley: Will the Government recognise that this is at the heart of the whole problem of incentive to work, and that a person on average earnings with two children is only £12 a week better off than if he were not working?
    Mr. Davies: We have recognised that. As I said, there has been some reduction in the real value of these allowances. In framing taxation policy that is one factor of which we have to take account.
    Mrs. Hayman: In view of that reply, will the Minister undertake to raise family allowances in the Budget?
    Mr. Davies: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will note my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Sir George Young: Does the Minister accept that over the past 10 years there has been a shift of the burden of taxation away from families without children to those with children? Does he intend to reverse that shift in the forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. Davies: The figures that I mentioned show that there has been some shift and that the real value of the child allowance has fallen. I accept that there has been some shift of the burden from people without children to people with children.
    Following is the information:
    Assuming that the children are not over 11, the figures are as follows:

    Year

    Combined value of FAM and CT As as % of average industrial take-home earnings

    1968–69

    …

    …

    10·6

    1969–70

    …

    …

    9·9

    1970–71

    …

    …

    9·1

    1971–72

    …

    …

    10·2

    1972–73

    …

    …

    8·8

    1973–74

    …

    …

    7·9

    1974–75

    …

    …

    7·8

    1975–76

    …

    …

    8·7

    1. Take-home earnings are the annual equivalent of the average earnings—less tax and National Insurance contributions—of full-time male manual workers aged 21 and over in manufacturing and certain other industries at October of each year. The National Insurance contributions relate to an adult male worker not "contracted out" of the Graduated Pension Scheme, and include graduated contributions.
    2. The calculations take account of the family allowance deduction for income tax

    Investment Income
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to re-integrate the investment income of children with that of their parents.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.
    Mr. Price: I accept that, but is my hon. Friend aware that this excellent Socialist redistributive measure was introduced seven years ago by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will the Minister remind his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in his forthcoming Budget he will not wish to appear to be any less Socialist than his predecessor was in 1969?
    Mr. Davies: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is well aware of my hon. Friend's views on this matter.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his right hon. Friend is still committed to this measure? On several occasions the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that he is committed to it but has put forward technical reasons, such as the length of the Finance Bill, why he cannot incorporate it. Is he still in favour of it?
    Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend says, a number of technical matters have to be considered. I assure him that everything he says will be taken into account.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Does not the Minister wish to encourage savings? Are not the Socialist measures that the Government introduce one way of preventing real saving?
    Mr. Davies: Of course, we want to encourage savings. Most of these measures are tax avoidance, measures which have nothing to do with saving. They are an attempt to shift income from wealthy parents to children with lower tax rates.

    Overseas Debts (Capital Repayment)
    Mr. Rostasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional burden of capital repayments on current overseas indebtedness, and extra annual interest charges, which will result from the recent devaluation of sterling.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: The total outstanding foreign currency borrowing by Her Majesty's Government and the public sector converted at Exchange rates in force on 4th March was equivalent to £7·8 billion, against £8·1 billion using exchange rates at the close on 23rd March. Much of the borrowing is on floating interest rate terms and the servicing cost cannot be predicted exactly. But, at current interest rates, and using exchange rates in force on 4th and 23rd March, the annual cost of servicing outstanding borrowing would be equivalent to about £450 million and £470 million, respectively.
    Mr. Rost: When and how will the Chancellor repay these crippling debts with which the nation has been lumbered by his policies?
    Mr. Barnett: He will not be helped by that kind of supplementary question. He will be helped by the policies that we are pursuing, which will ensure that the debts will be reduced. We shall get the economy into balance by continuing the economic policies that we have been pursuing over the past two years—and which we shall pursue for many years to come.
    Mr. Trotter: Will the Chief Secretary tell us the reasons for the significant further fall in the value of the pound? Does he put any credence on the view that it might be due to the possibility of the Secretary of State for Employment's becoming the next Prime Minister?
    Mr. Barnett: I suppose the answer to that is "Oh, really". The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the reason for the depreciation is that our rate of inflation is higher than is the rate of inflation in other countries. Present policies are bringing down substantially that rate of inflation.
    Mr. Nott: Will the Chief Secretary explain what he meant when he said a moment ago that our overseas debts will be reduced? At the moment, the exchange rate is falling and overseas debts are increasing. How will they be reduced, short of repaying them earlier?
    Mr. Barnett: One way is by a higher rate of growth of GDP and a lower proportion of GDP being taken for public expenditure.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Adleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will pay an official visit to Lymington for the purpose of assessing the effect of 25 per cent. VAT on the boatbuilding industry.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Lymington.
    Mr. Adley: As the price of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's spiteful leer at my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), when announcing a rate of 25 per cent. VAT on boat building, is being paid by my constituents in terms of lost jobs, and notwithstanding the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer lost his deposit last Thursday, will he now reverse this damaging decision, the sole aim of which appears to have been to appease the left-wing of his party?
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, exaggerates and overstates his case.
    Mr. Adley: No, I do not.
    Mr. Davies: We have accepted that 25 per cent. VAT could have had some effect on employment, but the main effect on the boatbuilding industry and other industries has been the recession, in this country and world-wide. It has not been the 25 per cent. rate of VAT.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I dissociate myself from the rather silly remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), but will the Minister nevertheless have another look at the employment position arising directly from the 25 per cent. rate of VAT on boatbuilding? I do not think that it is quite as good as the Minister thinks it is.
    Mr. Davies: As we have said on other occasions, we are monitoring the effect of VAT on various industries, and the results will be taken into account in my right hon. Friend's Budget.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware that five miles from Lymington is my constituency—the Isle of Wight—where 8·2 per cent of the people are unemployed, and where a reduction in VAT at this moment would be of great assistance to the boatbuilding industry?
    Mr. Davies: Yes.
    Dr. Bray: Is my hon. Friend aware that the boatbuilding industry has considerably increased its exports in recent months as a result of the fall in the home market? Will he examine the situation to see whether it is possible to find further measures to help it with exports, because, for the relatively small volume concerned, export credits are not as easily available as for much larger contracts?
    Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is quite right. There has been an increase in exports, and exports do not suffer from the 25 per cent. rate of VAT. The best way to help the exports of boats and other products is by containing our domestic inflation.
    Sir David Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only a question of lost jobs and lost exports but of the loss of hardly-acquired skills, which are not easily replaced? Will he bear that in mind in his future thoughts about the rate of VAT for boat building?
    Mr. Davies: I was not aware that there was a question of loss of exports. Indeed,

    1565
    exports have improved. As I mentioned, a 25 per cent. rate of VAT might have had some effect on employment, but the main effect has been the recession.
    Sir G. Howe: Will the Minister take as many opportunities as are now left to him before the Budget to drive home to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the folly of ever having moved on to a multi-rate VAT system? Will he make it plain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is not only in the boatbuilding industry that jobs are being lost, but that trade and industry throughout the country have been greatly disturbed by this, and that thousands of jobs are being cast away by the reckless spate and unnecessary change of taxes? Will the Minister tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get back to a single rate as soon as possible?
    Mr. Davies: I do not accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about the folly of multi-rate systems. The Common Market countries which have this tax—it was introduced here by a Conservative Government—do not seem to have suffered particularly as a result.
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the system of Treasury control over expenditure by Government Departments; and what measures he proposes to ensure the application of cost-effective techniques.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: We are committed to a number of measures for better control of expenditure, and we are constantly seeking ways of ensuring cost-effectiveness.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Chief Secretary look at the answer that the Minister for the Civil Service gave me last night, in which he stated that there are 200 computers in use in Departments? As most of these have been introduced since 1964 for the sake of saving manpower, how is it that Civil Service non-industrial manpower has gone up by 30 per cent. in the last 12 years? As this, surely, shows a degree of overmanning that is quite unacceptable, what is to be done about it to show an example to the rest of Britain?
    Mr. Barnett: As the right hon. Gentleman will have seen from the White Paper. steps are being taken to
    1566
    reduce the size of the Civil Service. I am glad of the right hon. Gentleman's support.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the Chief Secretary aware that in the Health Service, as the number of beds occupied has decreased so the number of administrative staff has increased, according to the Government's own White Paper? What will the Chief Secretary do about the growth of the bureaucracy? It will take over the whole of our life unless he does something about it soon.
    Mr. Barnett: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware—he is always ready to criticise his own side—the reorganisation of the Health Service was largely the responsibility of a Conservative Government.

    International Monetary Fund
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the Director of the International Monetary Fund.
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends to attend a meeting of the IMF.
    Mr. Healey: There are no arrangements for me to meet Dr. Witteveen at the moment, though he is always welcome here. The next meeting of the IMF Board of Governors is the annual meeting, planned to take place in October.
    Mr. Hooley: When my right hon. Friend meets the Director of the IMF, will be impress on him the great contribution that the IMF could make towards solving the present world recession problems by increasing special drawing rights for the benefit of developing countries, accelerating the sale of gold to provide them with extra purchasing power, and also expanding the compensatory financing scheme? This would have an impact not only on the developing countries but on our own economy.
    Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be aware that the IMF Interim Committee took decisions in all these fields, under strong urging from myself, at the meeting in Jamaica in January.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the IMF that he will

    1567
    very shortly have to rely on the good will of a Scottish Government in regard to Scottish oil revenues, in trying to keep English currency at a reasonably healthy level?
    Mr. Healey: I always believe, like Dr. Witteveen, in confining my remarks to fact and not to fancy.
    Mr. Hordern: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say how much of the reecnt IMF loan has been drawn down by the Government, and what remains of the loan? Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer anything to change in, or add to, his latest letter to the Director of the International Monetary Fund?
    Mr. Healey: On the first question, the only drawing under the application I made last year has been the drawing of the special oil facility. The first tranche is completely untouched. I have no intention of changing anything I said in my letter of application.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the International Monetary Fund in no way controls the will or desire of the British Labour Government to apply selective import controls if they so choose? Bearing that in mind, does he not agree that this is an economic technique that the Government must consider if British manufacturing industry is to recover?
    Mr. Healey: I have always made it clear that the Government are prepared to consider selective import controls on the conditions agreed by the Labour Party conference—that they should not lead to retaliation or introduce a risk of an international trade war, from which the poorest countries would suffer most. My hon. Friend will remember that we introduced two such controls in the package of measures just before Christmas.
    Mr. Nott: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether there are any additional facilities available to us from the IMF at the present time, and, if so, whether any of these facilities can be drawn without conditions?
    Mr. Healey: We have a standby for SDR 700 million, which is equivalent to about £420 million. I have the right to draw under the letter of application which I tendered in December, but I
    1568
    have not yet drawn and I have no intention of drawing at present. Our further drawing rights, under the present extension of credit quotas to 45 per cent., will increase our total drawing rights by SDR 3,360 million.
    Mr. Dalyell: On the question of a separate Scottish currency, will my right hon. Friend lose no opportunity of repeating the case so ably set out in my constituency by the Paymaster-General that that would mean a more serious employment situation in Scotland?
    Mr. Healey: I am always happy to oblige my hon. Friend, particularly in this regard.

    Savings
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now prepared to extend the facility of "inflation-proofed" national saving.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: The Government have no plans to extend the indexed savings schemes which were introduced as a modest experiment in mid-1975.
    Mr. Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that during a period when wages and salaries are being diminished in real terms it would be a demonstration of confidence in the anti-inflation policy if he introduced and extended such a scheme?
    Mr. Barnett: There is a problem with indexed savings schemes in relation to the whole interest structure. We must see how these modest schemes are working before we consider anything further.
    Mr. McCrindle: Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to suggest to the private savings media about how they can possibly compete against inflation-proofed national savings? Would it not be better for the Government to concentrate on reducing inflation rather than extending the inflation-proofed savings scheme?
    Mr. Barnett: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that we are concentrating on reducing the rate of inflation, and he will no doubt be as pleased as we are at the substantial reduction that we have achieved. Private savings have increased considerably. As I indicated, one of the reasons why we did not have a much bigger indexed savings scheme

    1569
    was precisely that we do not want to hurt the rest of the savings movement.

    Tobacco Duty
    Sir George Youngasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has recently received from Action on Smoking and Health concerning the relationship between the tax on tobacco and its consumption.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary met a deputation, including the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on 11th March. It represented that the price of tobacco is a major determinant of changes in consumption and advocated that the tax on cigarettes should be substantially increased so as to discourage young people from starting to smoke them and to encourage existing smokers to adopt safer smoking habits.
    Sir G. Young: Is the Minister prepared to use the fiscal weapons at his disposal in order to reduce the consumption of tobacco in this country?
    Mr. Davies: The points made by the deputation are most important and are being studied. I am not entirely convinced that fiscal policy is always the right way to protect the public as the hon. Member would wish.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does the £50 million spent by the tobacco companies in promoting sales, particularly sales to young persons, qualify for tax relief?
    Mr. Davies: Any sums spent by a company for promoting its sales, of tobacco or otherwise, are usually treated as a business expense if they are wholly and exclusively incurred.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the Government put up the duty on tobacco and raised tax allowances to balance, it would have a relatively adverse effect upon the retail price index. Will the Minister therefore give some thought to preventing that effect percolating through the rest of the economy?
    Mr. Davies: If indirect taxes generally are increased, that has an effect on the retail price index.

    Voluntary Savings Movement
    Mr. Steenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the social
    1570
    objectives of the voluntary savings movement.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: The National Savings committees see the social objectives as the teaching and inculcation of good money management and a sense of personal financial responsibility.
    Mr. Steen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is total hypocrisy to invite people to save and then to make their money meaningless 10 years later?
    Mr. Barnett: I admire the hon. Member's management of that supplementary question. I am sure that he will agree that the best way to encourage savings of all kinds is to ensure that the rate of inflation is brought down—and that is what the Chancellor is doing.

    GOVERNMENT POLICIES
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the progress being made in implementing the policies set out in the Queen's Speech.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is attending a meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg today and tomorrow and, in his absence, I have been asked to reply.
    Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Lawson: I am sorry that the Prime Minister cannot be with us today, if only to wave the pound goodbye. Is the Lord President aware how sad it is that someone who began as a tour de force should have ended up forced to tour?
    Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman asked what progress we were making in implementing the policies set out in the Queen's Speech. Of the Bills mentioned there, four have already received the Royal Assent, 13 are before Parliament—some having made substantial progress—and the remaining Bills are due to be introduced slowly—I am sorry, I should have said "shortly".
    Mr. Bidwell: The Queen's Speech referred to improving the common agricultural policy. What progress has been made in that direction?
    Mr. Short: Perhaps I may explain that I meant to say that the Bills would be

    1571
    introduced quickly—very quickly, and certainly before Easter.
    On my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will be raising this matter in the European Council in Luxembourg today and tomorrow.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evans: On devolution, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the significant improvements that have been suggested by the Labour Party at least on the Scottish part of the measures, and that no such improvements are suggested for Wales in spite of pressure from the Welsh TUC? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Wales will not long tolerate a status inferior to that of Scotland?
    Mr. Short: We have received hundreds of submissions from a great many bodies throughout the country, including an excellent one from the Welsh TUC. We shall take all these into account before publishing the Bill.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Scottish Labour Party conference may have made some suggestions for what it regards as improvements, but that it is totally opposed to any separation from the United Kingdom; and that it is as keen and dedicated to remain part of the United Kingdom as are the rest of us.
    Mr. Short: I am glad that my hon. Friend saw some light on the way to Damascus last weekend. He will also have seen the excellent statement by the TUC—not the Scottish TUC but the United Kingdom TUC—published last week on devolution, warmly supporting the Government's proposals.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Since the Labour Party in Scotland has made some improvements on the right hon. Gentleman's original package, since that package concerns one of the important promises in the Queen's Speech, and since all the starters in the race for the leadership of the Labour Party have been converted to devolution in the last two weeks, will the right hon. Gentleman bring the Bill forward as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Short: The draft Bill will be published as early as possible. Let me repeat: we have received hundreds of submissions, some of great length. We
    1572
    are trying to digest all these. We shall publish the Bill when we have looked at all the submissions.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman referred to "the Bill" and "the draft Bill". Does that mean that the decision has been taken and that the idea of having separate Bills for Scotland and Wales has now been abandoned? If that is so, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many people will think that that is a very bad decision indeed?
    Mr. Short: We have not yet taken a decision on this matter. I gave an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman when he raised this matter in debate, and a number of other hon. Members have raised it. I think that a group of Members is coming to see me next week about this issue. Certainly we shall consider all the representations that we have had before we decide.

    ROYAL COMMISSIONS
    Mr. Steenasked the Prime Minister whether he considers advice from public officials when making recommendations about the suitability of appointing individuals to Royal Commissions.
    Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
    Yes, Sir. Official advice is always available to my right hon. Friend in the exercise of his official functions.
    Mr. Steen: Does the Leader of the House know whether the Prime Minister is aware that many of those serving on Royal Commissions and public bodies are either octogenarians or Civil Service favourites? Will he please advise the Prime Minister to see that a greater cross-section of the community is involved in these public bodies, particularly minority groups, such as women, blacks, the physically handicapped, and young people, and in this way to enhance his effigy at Madame Tussauds?
    Mr. Short: I rather suspected that the hon. Gentleman would raise the question of age, so I had some research done on this matter. Of the last 66 appointments to seven new bodies, the average age was 52, and the ages of the chairmen averaged 59·6 years. On the point about extending the area, the hon. Gentleman will

    1573
    know that the Prime Minister has taken a number of steps recently——
    Mr. Adley: He has resigned.
    Mr. Short: I agree. His resignation will considerably broaden and improve the quality of people available to serve on public bodies.
    On the second part of the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen), he will know that the Prime Minister has recently created the Public Appointments Unit, which has been instructed to publish in the first half of this year a directory of paid appointments made by Ministers. Also, there is great scope for advertising some of the executive posts. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed the recent advertisement for a Director General of Fair Trading. Changes are taking place in these matters.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Will my right hon. Friend urge the Prime Minister, in his last few days of office, to get on with the appointment of the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Legal Professions, as he promised he would? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a need to appoint a really distinguished layman to get a grip of the monopolistic practices of the legal professions, and that the sooner we get on with it the sooner we can do something about them?
    Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agrees that the Chairman should be a distinguished layman and not a lawyer. In the case of this Royal Commission, neither the Chairman nor any of the members has been appointed so far. In the case of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, the Chairman has been appointed, but not the members. In the case of the Royal Commission on Gambling, both the Chairman and the members have been appointed, and I think that it has now started work.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: When the Lord President says that the average age of members of Royal Commissions is 52, is he giving a weighted average, or is it, as I suspect, that some are 104 and others are down to something near to zero?
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Although I cannot yet declare an interest, what is wrong with octogenarians?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): They are too old.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Too old for What? Will my right hon. Friend the Lord President inform the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) of what the great Bacon once said, namely, that extreme youth and discretion are ill-assorted companions?
    Mr. Short: My hon. Friend asked what was wrong with octogenarians, as such. The answer is "Nothing—except that they are octogenarians." He answered the second part of his question himself.

    TRADES UNION CONGRESS
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC.
    Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon, Friend gave to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 16th March, Sir.
    Mr. Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Prime Minister that when he next meets the TUC he pursues the question of industrial planning agreements? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is increasing concern among trade unionists at shop floor level about the apparent failure to implement any such agreement to date? Will he advise the House whether there are any major problems in this area?
    Mr. Short: There are no major problems. The National Enterprise Board is getting to work. It has already been announced that planning agreements are to be drawn up with British Leyland and Chrysler, and the Government are engaged in formal discussions with a number of other leading companies about the prospects of introducing planning agreements into key sectors of manufacturing industry. Certainly this work is going on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry hopes to

    1575
    make an announcement on this matter shortly.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is there any danger that if the Prime Minister is overcome, on the one hand, by the desire to meet the TUC again, or, on the other, by disapproval of the result of the election for his successor, he may not resign after all?
    Mr. Short: The person appointed to succeed my right hon. Friend will have the full support of the present Prime Minister and all his colleagues, without exception.
    Mr. Mike Noble: When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will be explain that the reason that its members will be unable to hear the Budget broadcast is the reluctance of the Leader of the Opposition, who is afraid to appear in public without the support of her script writers and public relations officers? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the decision not to broadcast the Budget Statement, in the interests of democracy and open government?
    Mr. Short: No, Sir, I would not put it just like that. I said in the House last week or the previous week that if there were a demand for this we would have discussions through the usual channels. We had such discussions. I also received representations from a number of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, against having the Budget broadcast. In view of the discussions that we had and all the representations I received, I felt that I should not put a motion before the House ahead of the general motion on the permanent broadcasting of Parliament's proceedings.
    Mr. Aitken: Since this Question has now touched on matters of freedom of speech, will the Leader of the House please ask the TUC why it has supported the national executive of the National Union of Journalists, despite criticism by the Secretary of State for Employment, in the NUJ's attempts to pressurise news sources in Barnsley to deny access to news for the members of the smaller journalists' union, the Institute of Journalists?
    Mr. Short: Without accepting anything that the hon. Gentleman has said, I am
    1576
    sure that it does not arise out of this Question.
    Mr. Ashton: When the new Prime Minister meets the TUC, would it not be a good idea for him to initiate a system of trouble-shooters for the next round of pay talks? Is it not crazy that during a strike at British Leyland, because of a pay anomaly affecting a handful of men, there is no body set up to examine the matter quickly and to bring the strike swiftly to an end?
    Mr. Short: As my hon. Friend knows, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is involved in the dispute at present. It would be unwise for me or for any of us to pursue the matter now.

    EXPENDITURE
    Mr. Gowasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the coordination between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers in implementing the Government's White Paper on Public Expenditure.
    Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
    Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Gow: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to give the House a rather more imaginative reply? Is it not the case that if there is to be a recovery in the wealth-creating sector of British industry, which Britain's interest requires, there need to be substantial cuts in public expenditure in the coming year?
    Mr. Short: We reject that suggestion entirely. When the economy is running below capacity, such a suggestion would result in further unemployment. We have made our proposals in regard to public expenditure to create an improvement in investment and in exports when the economy begins its upturn.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend explain how, following any cuts in public expenditure, the resulting resources will be transferred to British manufacturing industry? Is it not the duty of a Labour Government to take action in this sphere, rather than leave the matter to the vagaries of private enterprise by

    1577
    allocating that money to property companies or fringe banks, or sending it to South Africa?
    Mr. Short: The matter will not be left to the people my hon. Friend mentioned. No doubt private enterprise will play a considerable part. We shall ensure that not too great a share of resources will be absorbed by public authorities, and I am sure that there will be an opportunity greatly to increase our exports.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Lord President agree that the House refused to accept the Government's proposals on Government expenditure?
    Mr. Short: The following day the House passed a motion of confidence. Perhaps I could also remind the right hon. Lady that the Government of which she was a member were rejected. The Conservative Party received 1 million fewer votes than did the Labour Party in the election only 18 months ago, and 43 fewer seats than the Labour Party won in that election.
    Mrs. Thatcher: But the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my supplementary question. I repeat that the House rejected the Government's White Paper on Government expenditure.
    Mr. Short: As a matter of strict fact, it did not do so; it rejected the alternative put forward by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition. But the vote of confidence the next day was a vote of confidence in Government policies.
    Mr. Canavan: Many of us deplore certain aspects of the Government's expenditure cuts, but will my right hon. Friend point out to the SNP the significance of a parliamentary Answer given to me recently by the Secretary of State for Scotland, that in education the percentage to be borne by Scotland will be much less than our percentage of the United Kingdom population? In view of this nonsense, does not the figure of 39 per cent. that is being bandied about by Members of the Scottish National Party indicate that either their arithmetic is of the same abysmal standard as their politics or else they are telling lies?
    Mr. Short: I hope that my hon. Friend will do some more research and attack
    1578
    all the silly figures put out by the SNP about Scotland at the present time.
    Mrs. Bain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures put forward by the SNP in its analysis of the public expenditure cuts have been supported by a major teachers union in Scotland, and does he appreciate that SNP Members, along with the teachers, are totally opposed to public expenditure cuts in Scottish education?
    Mr. Short: I have a little experience of teachers unions. I would not say that they were right just because they are teachers unions.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Mr. Neave (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any statement to make on the deaths of four British soldiers in County Armagh in the last 36 hours.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): Yesterday, three soldiers of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Scots were killed when a land mine exploded under their Land Rover. They were on a patrol near Belleek between Newry and Newtownhamilton to counter sectarian crimes in the area. A fourth soldier was injured. The occupants of a second Army vehicle were uninjured. In addition, on Tuesday a soldier of the 3rd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was killed when a booby-trap device exploded in an Orange Hall near Craigavon.
    I know that the House will wish to join with me when I express my deepest sympathy to the relations of those soldiers. I am also sure that the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland from both communities will be appalled by this atrocity. These soldiers were carrying out their duty to protect citizens of the United Kingdom and to preserve both communities in Northern Ireland. We mourn with their families.
    The Provisional IRA has admitted responsibility for yesterday's cowardly atrocity. As my right hon. Friend made clear to the House last week, the Government will not be deterred from exercising their responsibilities in Northern Ireland and will keep the Army there as long as

    1579
    necessary. We shall not succumb to such pressure.
    Mr. Neave: I join with the Minister in his expression of sorrow at the deaths of these young soldiers. Should we not also pay tribute to the fine record of the 1st Battalion the Royal Scots in the past few weeks under Lt.-Col. Davies, especially as we hoped that there would be some improvement in the situation in South Armagh during that period? Is it correct to say that no fewer than 42 Regular soldiers have been killed in South Armagh since February 1971? What steps are the Government now taking to prevent the mining of roads in this area and to strengthen military intelligence to prevent terrorism?
    Mr. Orme: I join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to the Royal Scots for the work they have carried out in the area. It is true that that number of soldiers have been killed in the period to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I must point out that the security forces have achieved considerable successes. It is the Army's job to apprehend and bring to trial people who carry out acts of violence. The Army will not stop at any measure and the Government will not deter it in its endeavours to that end.
    A number of cases involving the mining of roads have occurred recently, and the security forces are aware of the situation. Indeed, helicopter patrols are used in trying to detect this type of mining. It must be said that yesterday's incident, which led to the death of three soldiers, could easily have involved three or four civilians travelling along that road, irrespective of their religion or the community from which they came.
    Mr. McCusker: Will the Minister of State accept that my colleagues and I wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy to the relatives of the deceased men? Will he also note that we wish to record our admiration and gratitude to all the members of the security forces in Northern Ireland, particularly to the Royal Scots, for the difficult and dangerous job they have undertaken in South Armagh in the past three months? Is the Minister aware that this incident underlines the fallacy of believing that the war in my constituency can
    1580
    be won overnight? Therefore, will he insist that the Government should press ahead with the measures announced by the Prime Minister in January, including, if necessary, reinforcement of the SAS?
    Mr. Orme: I note the hon. Gentleman's expressions of sympathy. The endeavours of the Army will continue. Members of the Army are present in the area in sufficient force at the present time and are taking every step to apprehend the people who are responsible.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), and I wish to express our condolences to relatives who are our constituents?
    Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, and I appreciate his feelings and those of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. I am sure that the House will take note of that.
    Several Hon. Members——
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that we must now leave that topic. We must now take the Business Statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Leader of the House please state the business of the House up to the Easter Recess?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business will be as follows:
MONDAY 5TH APRIL—Supply [16th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the fishing industry, on a motion for the Adjournment.
Resumed debate on EEC Documents R/3113/73 and R/1150/75 on lead pollution.
TUESDAY 6TH APRIL —My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement.
EEC Documents R/622 and 606 on policy guidelines for 1976 will be relevant.
At 7 o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
Motion relating to pension schemes and regulations.
WEDNESDAY 7TH APRIL and THURSDAY 8TH APRIL—Continuation of the Budget debate.
At the end on Wednesday, motion relating to the Medicines (Fees) Regulations.
FRIDAY 9TH APRIL—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 12TH APRIL—Conclusion of Budget debate.
Debate on EEC Documents R/451/76 and R/ 452 /76 on proteins.
TUESDAY 13TH APRIL—Supply [17th Allotted Day]: Debate on the Eleventh Report from the Expenditure Committee in Session 1974–75 on the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, House of Commons Paper No. 534, and any Special Report thereon.
WEDNESDAY 14TH APRIL—Subject to progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon and adjourn at 5 p.m. until Monday 26th April.
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House about the possibility of two statements? If the serious situation at British Leyland persists, may we have a statement tomorrow from the Secretary of State for Employment before things get worse next week? May we also have a statement on Monday on the results of the meeting of the European Council of Ministers?
Mr. Short: I will convey what the right hon. Lady has said about British Leyland to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. On her second question, I will see that a statement is made next week.
Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the debate on the EEC document on proteins—which means skimmed milk—will take place on the basis of the motions on the Order Paper, including the Opposition amendment, which the Government have said they will accept?
Mr. Short: It might be better to try to find an agreed motion which will take in the amendment as well.
Mr. Pym: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for arranging the debate on the two documents on Monday. Will he persuade the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement early next week about the confusion that has arisen over the disposal of skimmed milk powder? Since 15th March compounders have been required to make deposits on protein, and they have done so, but they are unable to redeem them because there is no skimmed milk powder for them to use. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no compounders have been licensed yet to denature skimmed milk powder and, as far as I am aware, no inspectors have been appointed? It would be helpful to have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture on Monday or Tuesday.
Mr. Short: I shall tell my right hon. Friend what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The major confusion in the matter was created initially by the right hon. Gentleman. I made the position clear in the House but the right hon. Gentleman did not retract what he said on the BBC. I wish he had done so. That would have cleared up most of the confusion.
Mrs. Renée Short: We welcome the opportunity of a debate on the Expenditure Committee's Report on the Children and Young Persons Act. Is there likely to be a ministerial reply before the debate? My right hon. Friend wrote to me on 11th March and said that the reply would be presented to Ministers shortly and that it was hoped that it would be published in a few days' time. Will it not be difficult to debate this matter unless we know the attitude of the Ministers involved?
Mr. Edward Short: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall do my best to see that the reply is made available, but I cannot guarantee it. The subject for debate was selected by the Expenditure Committee.
Mr. Powell: On what day does the Leader of the House expect to move the motion for the Adjournment for the recess?
Mr. Short: I hope to do that on Tuesday week.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend consider examining the frequency

1583
with which various Departments come up for Questions? It is anomalous that Wales should come up every three weeks whereas Industry and Employment come up every four or five weeks. Does my right hon. Friend remember that on Monday of this week there were only 12 Welsh Questions on the Order Paper?
Mr. Short: We are constantly looking at the matter and trying to improve the position. If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Members wish to make representations about Questions, I shall look at them.
Mr. Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment rate in certain parts of London is higher than in Clydeside, Tyneside or Teesside? As the recession has hit certain parts of London more seriously than other parts of the country, is it not time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the capital city?
Mr. Short: There is no time for such a debate in the House in the next two weeks. I offered a debate next week in the Regional Committee to allow all hon. Members from London to take part. I understand that they have decided that they do not want that. But I shall try to find time for a London debate in the House before the Summer Recess.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that whilst other Departments are as important as Wales none is more important?
Sir Frederic Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman will not need reminding about the new, appalling fall in the value of sterling, which has now gone below $1·9 for the first time. Does that not emphasise the need for a statement to be made at the earliest possible opportunity and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to wait for the weekend to make it? An early statement might arrest the fall, which could get worse over the weekend if nothing is said.
Mr. Short: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take that view into account.
Mr. Faulds: Is it not time for a debate on the problems of Southern Rhodesia, which is ultimately a British responsibility?
Mr. Short: I was asked about that last week. I agree on its importance. The Government will keep the House informed. If the need and opportunity for a debate arise, I shall arrange one.
Mr. Eyre: On 22nd March the Secretary of State for Industry promised that he would soon make a statement on the problems of unemployment and the future of industry and commerce in the West Midlands. Can the Leader of the House confirm that a statement will be made next week?
Mr. Short: I shall have to inquire about that. There is to be an Adjournment debate next week on the West Midlands, although I know that that is a limited opportunity.
Mr. Canavan: If there is any ministerial statement next week, will the Leader of the House arrange for advance copies of it to be given to all Back Benchers? Some of us are getting fed up with seeing some hon. Members, even in minority factions, reading advance copies while we have to wait for the words of wisdom to drop from the Minister's mouth.
Mr. Short: It has always been the custom that the Opposition Front Bench receives a copy of any statement a few minutes before it is made. The wider question was raised some time ago, and it is something which the Procedure Committee can examine.
Mr. Charles Morrison: What contingency plans are there for the business next Tuesday? The new Prime Minister, of course, will not see the contents of the Budget until Monday. He may not like it. He may not like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he may even not like the Leader of the House.
Mr. Short: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken all those contingencies into account.
Mr. Les Huckfield: Will my right hon. Friend say when the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to introduce his consultative document on transport policy?
Mr. Short: I cannot give my hon. Friend a date, but it will be very, very shortly.
Mr. Hal Miller: Does the Leader of the House recall the Prime Minister's commitment to the House on 21st April last year, in his statement on the Ryder Report on British Leyland, that the company's operating programmes and its progress would be submitted to the House with the comments of the National Enterprise Board, so that the House could take a decision on the matter before the next tranche of money was given to the company? Can the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for that to be done before the recess?
Mr. Short: I cannot do that. It will be made in due course and will cover the first few months of the operation of the Board.
Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider the possibility of a statement about the unfortunate position of Alan Grimshaw, sacked by the National Coal Board arising out of his evidence to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries? Especially as two Select Committees seem to be at variance on the matter, is there not a need for a wide-ranging public inquiry into the whole buying practice of the Board, extending particularly over that period when Lord Robens was at its head?
Mr. Short: No, Sir. I do not agree. The House will recall that on my motion Mr. Grimshaw's case was referred to the Select Committee on Privileges.
Mr. Skinner: The Committees are at variance.
Mr. Short: They are not. There is no conflict between the two. The earlier Select Committee recommended that the matter should be considered by the Select Committee on Privileges. It has been considered by that Committee, which has made its Report to the House. There is nothing more I can do about the matter.
Mrs. Bain: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether copies of the dummy devolution Bill will be available to hon. Members before the Easter Recess, in view of his earlier promises that we should have an early debate on devolution after the recess?
Mr. Short: A dummy Bill will not be laid—I say "Bill" again, but let me repeat that we have not decided on the other issues—before the Easter Recess, but I hope that it will not be too long delayed.
Mr. Pavitt: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services had expected that the Bill to phase out pay beds would have its Second Reading before Easter, but that has not proved possible. Will the Bill be published before Easter? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any arrangement made by Lord Goodman is subject to whatever we in this House decide on that Bill?
Mr. Short: I do not think I need give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asked in his second question. The Bill will be introduced before Easter, but it will not have its Second Reading before Easter.
Mr. Madel: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that after the referendum campaign just over a year ago he said that he hoped that this year of parliamentary work would be a lighter Session? How can the Government get all the proposed legislation through and start the Summer Recess at a reasonable date, as they promised last year in view of the help we gave them on the Referendum Bill and campaign?
Mr. Short: I am sure that if I have the hon. Gentleman's good will and that of all his colleagues and my colleagues we shall rise at a reasonable date for the Summer Recess.
Mr. Frank Allaun: When will the report of the inquiry into the supply by Aviation (Jersey) Limited of Centurion parts to the South African Government be published? There is clearly something very fishy in this business. Will it not heighten suspicion if the report is not issued, or if it is issued during the recess when we cannot debate it in the House?
Mr. Short: That is a question which my hon. Friend must address to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On what day before Easter will the right hon. Gentleman announce the setting up of the sessional Select Committee on Procedure,

1587
bearing in mind that a few replies earlier he said that a matter should go to that Committee, which does not yet exist?
Mr. Short: We have collected three items, not very substantial, to go to a sessional Select Committee. I hope to set it up at the same time as the Select Committee on the reform of Parliament, in the very near future—I hope this week. But many hon. Members, almost all, are heavily involved in Committees. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too many."] Not as many as in 1972. But I hope that the work will be lighter after the Easter Recess.
Mr. Terry Walker: Will my right hon. Friend give some consideration to a debate on the future of the Concorde aircraft, as discussions have taken place between our Government and the French Government and there are rumours that we are trying to draw another foreign Power into the deal? May that be considered as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Short: I cannot offer any time for a debate on Concorde. My hon. Friend will have seen the statement issued by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry after his recent discussions. I have nothing to add to that. In view of the pressure to rise at a reasonable date in the summer, I can offer no time for a debate on a subject of this kind.
Mr. Cope: Will the right hon. Gentleman or his successor arrange a debate on the Steering Committee on Marine Pilotage, which does not have the unanimous support of all the bodies responsible for setting it up?
Mr. Short: Not next week.
Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend correct an ambiguity in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short)? The Expenditure Committee chose the subject for the debate on Tuesday week, but not the date. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the debate should be on a motion by the Committee to approve its Report, rather than on a weak, one-line-Whip "take note" motion? It is probably my omission, but I do not recall my right hon. Friend stating the date of the debate on the motion that the House should adjourn a week on Wednesday.
Mr. Short: There is a great deal to be said for a weak, one-line-Whip type of debate in the week in question.
Mr. English: On a Tuesday?
Mr. Short: The week before Easter, yes. I replied to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on the question of the debate on the motion that the House should adjourn for the Easter Recess. I said that it would be on the Tuesday.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) mean that both right hon. Gentlemen who are still in the ballot for the premiership have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement and have both approved it?
Mr. Short: There is complete unanimity in the Government on everything.
Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in rejecting the recommendation of the previous Select Committee on the procedure for dealing with EEC documents on 3rd November last, the Government spokesman agreed that in the near future the Government would lay another amendment which would give effect to the wishes of the House? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that amendment has not been laid? As there is concern throughout the House on the subject of how we handle this vital matter, why have we had to wait five months?
Mr. Short: I do not think that there is great concern throughout the House about the matter. I think that there is great appreciation throughout the House that in the past two years we have built up from scratch the machinery that we now have. When this Government came into office there was no machinery for scrutinising documents from the EEC. The outstanding point concerns something which is very difficult and costly. I am having research done on the matter, and I hope to make an announcement about it very shortly.
Mr. Tim Renton: In view of the Lord President's witty remark that there is complete unanimity in his Government, will he ask the new Prime Minister to

1589
make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity, first, on whether import controls are or are not the policy of the Government and, secondly, on whether he will dismiss Cabinet Ministers who publicly dissent from Government policy?
Mr. Short: I think that the hon. Gentleman or another hon. Member has a Question on the Order Paper on that matter, and the answer will appear in Hansard.
Mr. Hooley: May I press my right hon. Friend on the importance of a considered reply to the very important Report on the Children and Young Persons Act, which we are to debate a week on Tuesday? Is it not somewhat discourteous to the House that we should have the debate in the absence of any considered statement by the Minister concerned?
Mr. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) that it would be a much more useful debate if we had the Government's reply. I shall do my best to see that we have it before the debate. I think that the House should have it before then.
Mr. Michael Latham: Can the Secretary of State for the Environment make a statement next week on what the Government will do to restore the improvement grant programme, which has collapsed and is now running at under half the level it achieved under the Conservative Government?
Mr. Short: Without accepting the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question is based, I advise him to put it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Accepting my right hon. Friend's reluctance to have a debate at present on the Concorde situation, may I ask him nevertheless to take into account the fact that a number of redundancies are threatened in the aircraft industry and that it is most important that we have an early debate on civil aviation?
Mr. Short: I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. We have a number of subjects lined up for general debates. We shall have to see how much time we have. I have already said this afternoon that it is very important that we should try to rise at a reasonable date for the Summer Recess.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DEFENCE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [31st March]:
  That this House, recognising the need to provide adequately for the nation's security, welcomes the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1976 (Command Paper No. 6432): and, being aware of the economic factors which have led to cuts in all sectors of public spending, notes with approval that the defence cuts envisaged will fall on support services rather than on front-line forces, thereby maintaining the British contribution to NATO, the security and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and peace in Northern Ireland.—[Mr. Mason.]
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'recognising that the previous year's defence cuts reduced the defences of the United Kingdom to "absolute bedrock" and being aware of the continued growth of Soviet military strength and of the increasingly unfavourable military balance between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, condemns the Government's proposals to reduce the United Kingdom's defences for the third time in a year '.—[Mr. Ian Gilmour.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that yesterday you promised to give consideration to the complaint that an amendment tabled by nearly 100 hon. Members would not be voted on during this debate. You said that the odds were a million to one against my request being granted. I am now asking you whether the odds have shortened a little in my favour.
  Do you think it fair, Mr. Speaker, that nearly half of the majority party in the House, at variance with both Front Benches, should be denied having their deeply-held views placed before the House and voted on?
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to say that the odds have not shortened. I have given further consideration to the hon. Gentleman's request. I must obey the rules of order. As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is not for me to enter into discussion on the fairness or otherwise
  1592
  of the calling of amendments. I abide by the rules of the House. They are my protection. They are also the protection of the House itself.
  There are 40 right hon. and hon. Members who have indicated their wish to catch my eye during this debate. Clearly, a large number will be disappointed, because it will be impossible to get them all into the debate. I must tell the House that long speeches yesterday prevented at least five hon. Members from being called. Between them, five right hon and hon. Members took over 100 minutes of Back-Bench time. Those who are called to speak today should remember their colleagues who also have a point of view which they wish to present.
  Finally, like my predecessors, I request hon. Members not to come to the Chair to press their claims or to find out when they are likely to be called. I am trying to be scrupulously fair in the selection of Members to speak, bearing in mind, among other things, those who have not spoken for some time solely because they have failed to catch my eye in preceding debates.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: Further to that point of order and your reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford. East (Mr. Allaun), Mr. Speaker. We understand the dilemma in which you find yourself, but I wonder whether you can understand the dilemma in which we find ourselves. If it is impossible to call the amendment in question, is there no other way in which we can effectively make our point?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to abide by the rules of the House. I will ensure as far as lies within my power that every point of view is fairly heard within the debate, but I can do no more.
  4.02 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Brynmor John): The Private Notice Question which has just been before the House provides a sombre background to today's debate. The deaths of three Royal Scots in South Armagh, following the death of one soldier in Craigavon earlier this week, bring home to all of us what defence really means and what serving one's country means at a time when there is trouble in part of the United Kingdom. It also illustrates to us the sacrifices which

  1593
  the Army and its personnel are making in bringing peace and order to Northern Ireland. All who are about to take part in the defence debate would wish to add, following what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has said, our sympathy to the bereaved relatives.
  By the publication of last year's defence review in detailed form and by the equally comprehensive Defence Estimates this year, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done a great deal to stimulate the debate on the subject of defence which has been carried on in the country since our accession to office. A subject which had, by comparison at any rate, been curiously neglected, a subject involving larger public expenditure, has at last received the attention it deserves both inside and outside the House.
  I had intended to start my comments by referring to the way in which the attitude of the Opposition towards defence expenditure had changed in the last year. However, my time scale was too long. It now seems to change, if last night's debate was anything to go by, from day to day. As hon. Members will remember, the Opposition divided the House last year not only on the defence review, but on the single Service Estimates, presumably on the ground that the cuts had gone too far. I say "presumably" because even then the Opposition were a lot stronger on sentiment than on specifics. I forecast to the House then that whatever synthetic indignation they displayed they would, if ever we were unlucky enough to have a Tory Government again, not seek to reverse those cuts.
  It appeared to me that my words were amply borne out even in advance of that unlucky event when the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) seemed to accept, on behalf of herself and her right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), the defence review but to object to any further cuts. But the reactions of the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench seems to have put that into question. It is important that the country should have clear what Conservative defence policy is, even though it may change from day to day. Let me set out my evidence for believing there had been a change.
  1594
  On 23rd February 1976 the right hon. Lady appeared on a "Panorama" programme and was interviewed by Mr. Robin Day. That programme was seen by many people. During the course of it she was asked about defence and defence expenditure. It was put to her that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had said that since she and her party did not approve of the planned reduction in defence expenditure, that would mean that she would be adding that amount back to Budget expenditure. She denied this and said that what she had said was that we could not take the extra £110 million pounds over and above the defence review proposals. She went on to say that the Conservative Party would not want further cuts beyond those already announced in defence expenditure. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that the defence review measures had by that time been made known almost a year before.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) rose——
  Mr. John: If I may finish, I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member who has the floor decides if he is giving way and when.
  Mr. John: I do not deny that the hon. Gentleman is right to intervene. I question the timing. If he will wait and show a little more of his accustomed patience, he will perhaps be satisfied on this point.
  Mr. Day then put to the right hon. Lady that it would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to say that if she came to power in the immediate future she would cancel the projected cuts over the next nine or 10 years. She said—with what authority I do not know—that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham had already made that clear, but that what the right hon. Lady did not like was the extra £110 million or the further cuts—that is, the expenditure review.
  I must ask the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)—perhaps this is his cue to intervene in a sentence or two—whether that is what the right hon. Lady says and whether it represents Conservative Party policy, or whether she is still arguing about the defence review. Would the Conservatives restore the reductions in public expenditure reductions, or is what

  1595
  we are arguing about the more limited cuts of today? I believe that the country has a right to know on this very important point.
  Mr. Onslow: After that rather ponderous construction on the flimsiest of foundations, the hon. Gentleman will understand the situation better if I put it to him that the interview from which he does not—and so carefully does not—quote verbatim took place in conditions different from those which he has just sought to reconstruct and much more like those at the time I sought to interrupt him. If he believes that in those conditions statements which suit his point of view can be made and twisted to bear the meaning he now seeks to put on them, I shall gladly provide him with the text of what my right hon. Friend said, as reported in The Times, which corresponds precisely with what my right hon. Friend said. Can we now get on with something more important?
  Mr. John: I realise that the hon. Gentleman wishes not only to assist all Members of the House but to determine what is and what is not important in this debate. But the people of the country have to listen to the words of the right hon. Lady and to make a judgment upon those words. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that what the right hon. Lady said in the "Panorama" programme on 23rd February last, an extract from the transcript of which I have before me, is not and never has been Conservative Party policy, I shall accept it, but that calls into question what was said on that occasion.
  Mr. Onslow Mr. Onslow rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way. He has the Floor.
  Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman will be able to address the House, and I shall listen to him with as much patience and as few interruptions as he would me.
  Mr. Onslow Mr. Onslow rose——
  Mr. John: No, I will not give way. I think that disposes of the matter.
  Mr. Onslow Mr. Onslow rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting rather disorderly. This time will only
  1596
  serve to cut out another hon. Member's speech. If the Minister——
  Mr. Onslow Mr. Onslow rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules well enough.
  Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it will be within your recollection that the Minister asked a highly provocative and poorly-based question, which he now seeks to ride away from. The hon. Gentleman has carefully quoted something not verbatim. He now seeks to invite me to waste time in my speech on a matter about which I have already informed him.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. No one knows that better than the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. John: As the hon. Gentleman is to make a speech after me—if he ever stops interjecting for long enough—he will have an opportunity to answer that question. As for the hon. Gentleman saying that clarification of the Conservative Party's defence policy is a waste of the time of the House, I think that he shows scant knowledge of this country's priorities.
  As I said, that was the position last year, and the Opposition have declared their intention of dividing the House again. The country should be told that this is no more than the same stage-dressing as they indulged in last year.
  The reason for this change of front is quite clear. When I suggested last year that part of a country's will and ability to defend itself was dependent upon the social and economic health of that country, as well as its military hardware, I evoked responses from Opposition hon. Members which ranged from hostility to near hysteria in the case of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), who unfortunately is not present at the moment. That proposition is now tacitly accepted by the Conservative Front Bench, as it was and would be in practice when they formed the Government. That is openly accepted by the Conservative Bow Group in its pamphlet "A Chancellor's Primer" when it says:
  "In the long run military security depends upon the possession of a sound economic base and that should be the prime consideration."

  1597
  I think that we should regard the principle of the interdependence of social and economic health and defence as settled and direct ourselves in this debate to how the details have been worked out by the Government and how they have dealt with the areas of concern. I believe that it is necessary to steer a course between underestimating the need for defence, with its stated belief that we could go further in defence cuts, and over-estimation of that need.
  Those who have called for further defence cuts have been fairly prominent in the debate both last year and this year. Yet I cannot conceal a feeling of disappointment at my hon. Friend's contribution. To deny that one is a pacifist or a tool of the Kremlin, which I readily accept, and to couple it with arithmetical arguments for cuts is not a complete defence policy. We need to be told where and how the cuts would be made.
  We have had this in part by the singling out of the MRCA and the ASW cruisers. In this the Bow Group and the Tribune Group have been in coalition, if my hon. Friends will forgive the expression. But no one can possibly argue that cuts of this magnitude and in such central equipments can be made while leaving the structure and aims of the Forces untouched. What we need to know now, given the amounts which would be lopped off by the coalition, is what Forces we would be left with and how our defence would be organised. The answers to these questions are of crucial importance, and until they are received we are bound to remain disappointed.
  I would say to my hon. Friends—indeed, to all hon. Members—that we are at one with them in viewing détente as a desirable object. I believe that this Government have worked hard for it. We trust that it will succeed, but in the meantime we would be foolish to ignore the military developments in the Warsaw Pact.
  I must counsel against the wave of comment which seems to delight in taking a deliberately black view of the defence scene. Often the military balance is distorted, or sometimes old facts are trotted out as new developments. In most cases those who do so do it because of a genuine concern for our safety, but
  1598
  in my view it is dangerous to overemphasise, for two reasons.
  First, it may provoke the reaction that, if the balance is so adverse and the situation is so gloomy, there is no point in trying to defend. Secondly, it may discourage the country when, 30 years after the close of the Second World War and nearly 20 years after the Suez tragedy, the wonder is not how little we spend on defence but how much and how essential our people regard defence to be. There has never been a comparable period in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when, in peace, spending has been kept to such a comparatively high level and defence spending has not slumped immediately on the cessation of hostilities.
  However, I cannot be as charitable to some of the merchants of doom who have participated in the public debate. A tendency has recently grown up to regard the West as irredeemable. It has sprung up in the wake of the recent comments of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Whilst placing on record our admiration for that man's courage, I must emphatically record that I agree neither with his social analysis nor with the defence conclusions which flow from it. If that is so, I must take even stronger exception to the utterances of the motley school of columnists, editors and peers which has sprung up in this country dedicated to propagating his pessimism. They exhibit a sort of Solzhenitsyn syndrome in which all is worst in the worst of all possible worlds.
  The reasons for my views I have given earlier, but I wish also to query the methods used by them. For example, on Monday 13 th March 1976, on the front page of The Times, we read an article by a "Special correspondent". One wonders, first, who he was and why Henry Stanhope, the very reputable defence correspondent of that paper, was not involved. Its first two paragraphs read:
  "Defence officials in Washington are expressing concern at the conclusions of a NATO study on the feasibility of a surprise attack on Western Europe. A report, prepared by a senior officer of NATO's armed forces and now circulating within the alliance, reaches the startling conclusion that the Warsaw Pact is capable of delivering a successful attack on Western Europe using only conventional forces and that the surprise and speed of the operation would make it impossible to use the tactical nuclear weapons which are an

  1599
  integral part of NATO's 'flexible response strategy."
  The noble Lord Chalfont, in an article on an inside page, takes up the same theme. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham chose, prematurely I believe, to associate himself with this broadside, as did the ritual Early-Day Motion from a number of Conservative Members.
  Two points from the article are undeniable. The first is that the author, or authors, of the two contributions in The Times implied that it was an official NATO study and that it was a contemporaneous study. On 25th March, in a much smaller piece in The Times, the truth was revealed. It was the work of a Belgian general for a doctorate at Brussels University, not a NATO study at all. Secondly, it was written six years ago describing the position in NATO four to six years before that.
  This must have discomposed even the most hawkish anti-Russians, but not the noble Lord. He had the freedom of The Times columns on 29th March to reply but again described it as a NATO report. It is not and never has been a NATO report and, since he has obviously seen the paper, he must know that it is not. His piece is dressed up as an attack on complacency. It has the opposite effect, and he is too experienced and expensive a journalist not to know the effect which the use of tenses and titles would have.
  In my view the noble Lord does a great disservice to NATO in undervaluing the strength of that organisation and its care in calculating the likelihood of surprise attack. He does an equal disservice to international relations, because the Government's assessment contained in paragraph 25 of Chapter I of the White Paper as to both the evidence of intention and the likelihood of success of any such attack is a responsible and considered verdict, very like the judgments which the Conservative Party put forward when in Government.
  I have argued that there must be a wide measure of agreement that defence has to be sensitive to the wider needs of the economy, but equally within defence we must be zealous in ensuring that reductions which are necessary are made without
  1600
  damage to the front line. On the expenditure review this is what we have done, and the cuts, where they occur, have been in the support area rather than in the front line. There is no inconsistency in that course and saying that a first-class support organisation is vital for the efficiency of the front line. As right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in these defence debates over the years know, there is no such thing as a perfect solution in this field. The teeth-to-tail ratio is an enduring subject of consideration and debate.
  Its relationship is governed by two factors. The first is the volume of work to be undertaken. In the RAF, for example, the cutting of the Transport Force and the other measures of the defence review diminished the aircraft repair and servicing task in the RAF by some 35 per cent.
  Secondly, in order to get maximum economy we must use existing capital facilities as intensively as possible so as to get the best use out of them. This is why, regretfully, in all three Services our search for economies has led to our announcing closures of stations, depots and workshops, or announcing our proposals to do so. Let none of my hon. Friends imagine that these closures are painless or "phoney". They are painful and extremely regrettable, Nevertheless I think it is right that this course be taken. In the current climate we could only keep open all our existing stations by under-utilisation of each, and this would be to the detriment of our frontline effort.
  Where one Service has no need for a station, however, it is also right that other Services have the opportunity to take it over. That is why I am so glad that of the 12 stations closed by the defence review so many were taken over by the other Services, avoiding the need for them to engage in massive capital expenditure to improve their facilities.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred yesterday to the decision to press ahead with production of the MRCA. He emphasised that this aircraft is vital for the future not only of the RAF if it is to remain a modern, well-equipped force but also of the British aerospace industry. I think that these points bear repetition.

  1601
  It is not enough to say "The MRCA is too expensive and should be abandoned", because other questions then arise. Do we also give up any attempt to defend our skies against hostile intruders? Do we forgo the capability of striking back if necessary? Or do we shop around for an aircraft, or a number of different aircraft; do we buy "off the peg" at the expense of hundreds of millions of pounds in foreign exchange and the loss of thousands of jobs?
  Most of the controversy has attached to the air defence variant of the MRCA. It is our firm belief, arrived at after a great deal of study and consideration, that the air defence variant will meet our requirements to counter the threat and that it will do so more economically than any other aircraft. A brief look at the alternatives proves the point. The F14 is more expensive and would rely on the very costly Phoenix missile system for its effectiveness. The F15 is at least as costly as the ADV and, as a single-seater aircraft, less effective, we believe, in the interception of enemy aircraft around the United Kingdom and over the Eastern Atlantic.
  The Fl6 is, of course, cheaper, but it is wholly unsuitable for taking over the air defence tasks we would require it to meet. The Phantom is a good aircraft but it is by now getting elderly and in the period in which we wish a replacement it would be getting very elderly indeed. We do not have enough of them and no more aircraft are being produced by the factory. Nor does the Phantom have the same capability in radar, avionics or field performance as the MRCA.
  Finally—here I come back to a point emphasised by my right hon. Friend—if the MRCA were to be abandoned we should also be throwing away 30,000 jobs and destroying a large part of the British aerospace industry.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) asked yesterday to be reassured about the air-to-air capability of the ADV. I am pleased to be able to give him such a reassurance. The weapons system will include an advanced long-range air intercept radar together with both medium-and short-range air-to-air missiles and a gun.
  1602
  A spin-off over the merits of the MRCA has widened into a debate over the air defence of the United Kingdom. We defend ourselves here as elsewhere as part of an alliance. It was in recognition of this fact that we deployed the great bulk of our resources within the NATO area.
  A previous Conservative Administration in the 1950s decided that the days of manned interceptor aircraft were drawing to a close and, therefore, the number of air defence squadrons was run down to the point where they almost disappeared. Subsequent Governments realised that the flexibility of the manned interceptor was irreplaceable, but nevertheless air defence remained a low priority until this Government have undertaken the task, slowly admittedly, of improving the capability. We have now completed the transfer of the Phantoms to the air defence rôle, which greatly improves our capability in that the Phantoms have better radar, a much greater weapons load and longer range and endurance. And, with the future of the air defence variant of the MRCA assured, we can look forward to a continued strengthening of the sharp end of air defence.
  In addition, with the deployment of Bloodhound missiles and Rapiers at locations along the East Coast and the provision of new radars which have tracking and data-handling equipment, we are providing a very significantly improved capability for air defence. I believe that this will be supplemented when the decision on airborne early warning aircraft is taken.
  I have read in today's New Scientist an article to the effect that the Soviet Foxbat aircraft make regular overflights of this country. I made it clear in answer to a Question on Monday that we are satisfied that there have been no such intrusions in the last 12 months, and I am quite confident that any such intrusions would have been identified by our air defence system. As an example of the inaccuracy of that article, I must refute absolutely the statement that two RAF aircraft were shot down whilst engaged on spying missions over the Soviet Union in the 1960s.
  Another of the subjects which have generated much interest, which was

  1603
  referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) yesterday, is the question of standardisation. As the hon. and gallant Member for Eye says, this is a matter which everybody agrees to in principle, and everybody believes that the penalty imposed by operating a multiplicity of different equipments is severe and that the better value for money we can get by standardisation is desirable.
  My right hon. Friend, as the hon. and gallant Member recognised, played a very energetic part in his year as Chairman of Eurogroup in pursuing this aim. But I warn hon. Members who may be contributing on this basis to the debate today that there are severe difficulties to be overcome. The unconscious tendency is to think that standardisation will always be on the basis of one's own equipment. Therefore, when equipment is chosen which does not favour national industry, there are squeals about that particular choice.
  Let us be clear that the way ahead is difficult and there will come in the near future one of those conflicts which will cause such a problem. I think it would be fair to the House if I quoted the sort of divergent advice which my right hon. Friend is getting on the subject of the AWACS which has a possible AEW capability. This is from two articles in The Times of 12th and 26th February. The first, on the 12th, reads:
  "If Roy Mason decides to crown his year as chairman of Eurogroup by ordering AWACS for Nato in the cause of 'standardisation', he will have done more damage to our defence industries than the Luftwaffe ever achieved."
  The second one, on the 26th, reads:
  "The Labour Government may be tempted to flirt with an AEW Nimrod. But, were Mr. Mason to ditch AWACS in favour of a British system—that exists on paper only—the consequences for the Alliance would be most serious."
  Both those writers, who give directly opposite views, are Members of this House. The first is the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) and the second is the hon. Member for Alder-shot (Mr. Critchley), and both are members of the Conservative Party.
  The studies on this subject will be complete and the decision taken on this equipment later this year. But this simply
  1604
  underlines the difficulty which my right hon. Friend will have in pleasing everyone, especially every Tory, on this subject.
  Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to me as being the author of the first article, which indeed I am. Does he not agree that it is quite healthy to have debates in public on matters of defence equipment procurement? What is more, as the hon. Gentleman has just referred to AWACS, does he think that an aircraft costing £30 million a time is a project that we can consider when we have a system of our own under development?
  Mr. John: I agree that it is healthy to have a debate in public on defence. What I am not so clear about is why, when it is within the Conservative Party, it is a proper, gentlemanly difference of opinion but when it is in the Labour Party it is a matter for the utmost derision. It is a matter involving differences within and between the parties, and that is healthy. To answer the hon. Gentleman's second point, that is precisely the reason for the studies and for the decision to be taken later this year. When it comes, the hon. Gentleman will realise how much care has gone into the studies.
  Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy referred to the interdependence of our forces and how co-operation between them had reached very high levels. I believe that interdependence rather than integration is the key to the development of our forces in the future.
  It would be remiss of me if on this occasion I did not pay tribute, first, to the successful Belize operation, which must have reassured many people that we can mount a long-range operation at short notice should the need arise, and, secondly, to the demeanour and coolness of the Royal Navy in the very difficult situation which exists off Iceland. Speaking as Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, I know that my Service is proud to be associated with the Royal Navy in this episode and is full of admiration for the work that it does in the protection of our trawlers.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman referred to the successful operation in taking forces to

  1605
  Belize. Does he still think that an operation of that sort would be possible with the reduced transport fleet proposed in the White Paper?
  Mr. John: The proposed transport fleet was stated in the defence review and not necessarily in this White Paper. But, yes, I believe that it is possible.
  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long it would take to assemble helicopters, if we do not keep the big freighters, to get forces out to a place like Belize, which in that case took somethting under a day? If we did not keep our big freighters, we would not be able to do it in under three days.
  Mr. John: We are retaining a very significant freighter capacity still in the transport force, and we are satisfied that we could meet this kind of challenge in the future.
  I want now to say a word or two about morale and welfare in the Forces——
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. John: No. In view of Mr. Speaker's injunction, I am anxious not to give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am glad that the Minister has made that point. A large number of hon. Members wish to speak. If we have too many interventions in speeches, obviously a number of contributions will be cut out.
  Mr. John: I was about to refer to recruitment. Last year was a very successful one for Service recruitment. I am the first to acknowledge that the economic climate played a part in recruiting, but we are very happy about the quality of the young people who are coming forward, and we believe that their quality will greatly enhance our capability in the future to keep up the high standards maintained by the present generation in the Armed Forces. When we are discussing adverse numerical balances between alliances, we must aim for the superior quality, motivation and training of our Service men to offset numbers.
  We are determined wherever we can to add to the welfare improvements such
  1606
  as the television service in Germany, improvements to the assisted house purchase scheme and extra leave which we have introduced. We are also determined to carry on with such worthwhile improvements as our tribute to those who make sacrifices on behalf of us all.
  Despite all the injunctions from the Chair about the brevity of speeches, I realise that I have already transgressed on the patience and time of the House, and I am anxious to conclude my remarks as soon as possible. However, I feel that I ought perhaps to give way briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun).
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I might point out to the Opposition that so far there has not been a single question to my hon. Friend from the Government Benches. Before my hon. Friend concludes on these interesting but detailed matters, will he give a straight answer to a straight question on the major issue? Will there be a further early review of arms spending aimed at bringing it down to the lower level of GNP of the other European NATO Governments?
  Mr. John: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State initiated the defence review for precisely that reason, and it is phased over the next decade to bring about that sort of alignment. As I have said already, there is always a balance between the military and the social and economic health of a country. Further than that, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to go.
  These matters are always reviewed constantly, as are all economic matters, in the light of the economic health of the country. However, my hon. Friend must realise that we cannot assure our safety without cost. It is a very expensive business, but we believe it to be necessary for the country.
  To sum up, the price of preparedness is the interference with people's lives in the process of training such as, for example, those affected by low flying. To those who serve us it means a mobile life, periods of separation and, in some cases, even the loss of their lives.
  This Government are not and never will be complacent about defence. Its importance as a subject demands and ensures that. We must, however, beware the extremes and strike the right economic

  1607
  and military balance in the conditions of the time. It is because the White Paper does that and gives Britain the chance of economic expansion while preserving her security that I commend it to the House.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I think that my task is quite simple. It is to be brief where the Minister was lengthy, to be brisk about it, and perhaps to be even blunter than he was.
  The only part of the hon. Gentleman's speech which I endorse is what he said about the latest tragic incidents in Ulster. For the rest, his comments on Mr. Solzhenitsyn struck me as a tissue of trivialities, and his attempts to create a smoke screen round his own uncertainty about what my right hon. Friend said or did not say on the "Panorama" programme I shall treat with the contempt that they deserve, because there is no doubt about where the Conservative Party stands on defence—and stands united, which is more than I can say for Government supporters.
  I come at once to the Labour Government's White Paper. Yesterday, the Secretary of State was very anxious to claim it as his own—indeed, to claim the debate as his own. He was in a very possessive mood, not to say a Napoleonic one, so much so that he prompted the thought in my mind that his term of command of our defence affairs had been most noted for what might be described as the retreat from Moscow.
  This year, there was no claim on the right hon. Gentleman's part to support from the Chiefs of Staff, which was scarcely surprising in view of the deserved reprimand that he received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) for his attempt to enlist the Chiefs of Staff in his own aid in his last defence White Paper. Nor, indeed, is it likely he would make such a claim now, in view of some of the comments which our most senior officers and civil servants in the defence field have been making about the state of the nation's defences. The kindest thing one has heard said recently about Government defence policy in Whitehall was how much worse it might have been. And, indeed, how much worse it may yet be.
  1608
  The Secretary of State was not particularly keen yesterday to claim allies for himself in the Cabinet in his struggle on behalf of the Forces of the Crown. On his left, an uncertain number of flowers bloom. We were told there would be about 100 but the Table Office tells me there are still no more than 85. In the Lobbies tonight it will be a case of "Where have all the Left-wing gone? Voting for Michael every one."
  The fact is that the pretended merits of the defence White Paper were most effectively demolished yesterday, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour). There is still a bit of mopping up to be done and I will set about it as quickly as I can.
  One of the extraordinary omissions from the hon. Gentleman's speech, and indeed the defence White Paper, was any mention whatsoever of the matter of German offset costs. The right hon. Gentleman did not even mention that the agreement expired yesterday. Are we not to be told about it at all today? Is there to be any announcement about what the Government intend to do to try to get a new agreement? Is some serious attention to be paid to this matter? I hope that the Minister who will be winding up the debate will turn his attention to this and not share his right hon. Friend's apparent complacency.
  Complacency is a feature of the White Paper in other respects as well, particularly about the training standards of our Forces and about the capability we possess in reserves and reinforcements. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for the number of opportunities they have given me during the year to see for myself exactly what is happening to the Forces on the ground. I can vouch for the fact that in the Navy there is growing concern about the way in which limited sea time and the demands of the cod war are cutting into the training which should be done for NATO duties. In relation to the Army, we all know the effect Ulster is having on virtually every arm except the signals. The basic skills of the armoured units, the artillery and even the infantry, which are all essential to NATO tasks, are inevitably being eroded by the continuing commitments of peacekeeping in Ulster.

  1609
  The RAF has been hit by restrictions on flying hours and it is bound to be hit by unserviceability because of spares shortages. There is a genuine worry—I hope the Under-Secretary will take it seriously—that two or three recent, and tragically fatal, crashes may have been caused, indirectly if not directly, by the resultant pressure on training sorties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look most seriously into that situation, and that when we come to the RAF debate, he will categorically assure us that he is satisfied this is not so.
  We shall return to all these matters and to the question of reserves and reinforcements in the debates on the individual Services. In the meantime I believe that there is a case for reconsidering the adequacy of our reserves and our ability to call upon them when we need them. This is perhaps more extreme in our case than with some of our Allies who have regular training exercises involving the recall of reservists. As I was able to see for myself last year, the Americans have their Reforger programme, which represents a considerable, yet routine, reinforcement of the capability of their forces in Germany. I hope that there is no danger of our falling into a trap whereby we are prevented in time of threatening emergency from carrying out a partial mobilisation because that might in itself escalate tension.
  The next point on the defence White Paper is the question of cuts in support. The Secretary of State was very anxious to tell us yesterday that he always knew there was more room for such cuts. The Under-Secretary who wound up last night actually claimed someone had said that last year. I am bound to say I have not found it easy to discover who that was, or what he said. Indeed, such facts as I have been able to find suggest that the opposite was true. Certainly in last year's defence White Paper in Chapter 1, paragraph 65, we are told:
  "Future manpower needs have been calculated against the commitments to be met under our revised defence policy and the new force structures required to discharge them."
  We are told also in paragraph 69, about civilian employees:
  "We estimate that the number of civilians employed in support of the forces in the United Kingdom will eventually be reduced by about 15,000, largely by normal wastage."
  1610
  There was no suggestion there that another 10,000 civilians were waiting in the wings to be declared redundant. There was no suggestion, even as an olive branch to the Left, that there might be scope for further cuts if they would just be patient. Very much the same tone ran through the whole review—that it had been thorough-going, complete and exhaustive, and that there was absolutely no room for a further reduction.
  But in this year's White Paper we see one commitment clearly spelled out, and it is, for the first time, to cut a further 10,000 civilians. This has been presented, of course, in a way that severely underestimates the likely extent of redundancies, and I suspect virtually all of these employees will in fact have to be declared redundant in the end. The White Paper also carefully obscures the effect these cuts in support must have upon the efficiency and performance of the Forces. The fact is that there must be consequent cuts in front line performance. We were reminded again yesterday that in military terms the tail exists to support the teeth, and that if we cut the tail we must erode the efficiency of the teeth.
  There must also be a serious effect on research and development, especially in the long term, and no one should underestimate the damage this will do to our chances of recovering the ground we shall lose in the technological race.
  I come next to the matter of defence sales, to which there is a reference in Chapter III, paragraph 34 of the defence White Paper. This is not a particularly informative reference nor a very long one. It simply says:
  "Overseas sales of defence equipment cover a wide range of items produced by industry and by the ROFs, with the Defence Sales Organisation providing support, assistance and advice. These sales continue to make a valuable contribution to the national balance of payments and are expected to reach £700 million in 1976–77."
  Then there is two-thirds of a blank page underneath. There was room for a bit more, and the House may agree that there is room for greater frankness. I do not believe that everything in the defence sales garden is lovely. If it is, I have not been given any evidence about it yet. Maybe the Minister will rectify this when he comes to wind up the debate tonight.
  When the Secretary of State talks about standardisation, he is right to warn us

  1611
  against expecting any miracles or any great break-through. He is right to remind us, if we needed reminding, what standardisation around someone else's equipment can mean. That has been the chief experience of our defence Forces under his Government. And yesterday the Secretary of State implied that we shall soon have standardisation on HOT and TOW in the anti-tank field. We also hear that a decision on AWACS is to be made in the spring; at least it says so in the defence White Paper. Is that still the case?
  What now about this great memorandum of understanding with the Americans in which the Secretary of State used to take such pride? If hon. Gentlemen are rash enough to ask questions about this, I am afraid they are likely to get non-answers. I myself tried on the 23rd of last month to ask whether the Secretary of State would list the items of British defence equipment which had been ordered or considered by the Americans since this memorandum was drawn up. I was referred back to an Answer given to my hon. Friend for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) in November last year, which said:
  "It has been the practice of successive Governments not to reveal details of possible arms sales".—[Official Report, 25th November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 113–14.]
  I do not know how much longer the House will be content with a situation where the Government use the practice of not revealing possible arms sales to enable them to refuse to admit that none has been achieved. Nor does the Secretary of State appear to have taken aboard the importance of persuading the American Government actually to induce their defence contractors to allow British manufacturers to enter into the competition for tenders in defence contracts. This is something which needs much more urgent attention and a great deal more reference in next year's White Paper than it has received in this.
  What happens meanwhile? As we know, the sales seem to be going very much our competitor's way. Twelve months ago there was great confidence among British manufacturers about what they would achieve, in the Middle East for instance. But, most of the sales concluded
  1612
  and announced in the last twelve months seem to have gone to our competitors—French, American and so on. This applies even to countries to which the Government's political restrictions do not extend—and there are enough of the other sort. It makes sad reading to see the sales achieved by our competitors in countries with which this Government refuse to allow British manufacturers to trade.
  Therefore, particularly on the aerospace side, industry's efficiency is hamstrung by the Government's nationalisation legislation. No doubt more of my hon. Friends would be here now to make that point if it were not for the fact that the Standing Committee considering the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is still dragging on upstairs.
  The manufacturers are left in a decision vacuum; the customers lose interest and confidence and go elsewhere. So decisions on critical orders and critical collaborative projects are being taken now or will shortly be taken and these are going increasingly against this country's industry. There may not be many prospective sales left after the end of this year on which to keep up our military aerospace exports at today's level. The industry's exports were worth £800 million across the exchanges in 1975, but what will they be in 1980? And without the military side, how can the civil side hope to prosper?
  Let us not forget that, although it would have been a scandal if the MRCA had not been ordered, there are as yet and in prospect no potential export deals to be gained from the MRCA order, because the deal is so set up that no cash passes across the exchanges between the present collaborators in the project.
  I want to return now to the threat we face. The Secretary of State told us yesterday that NATO was vigilant, watching the Russians as keenly as the Russians were watching us. His message no doubt to Mr. Brezhnev was "Little Brother is watching you." The more information that we as a country can have about what the Russians are doing, the more we must welcome it.
  I welcome in particular one thing which the Secretary of State said yesterday—that he would arrange for his successor to publish a more informative

  1613
  document for the general public this coming year. I suggest that in so doing he might also consider the possibility of getting the Army and the RAF to run the same kind of admirable presentation teams as the Navy already has.
  But the public should know what they have to watch and why so far as the Warsaw Pact countries are concerned. Anyone who has read the West German defence White Paper will probably agree that the political context of NATO's defence effort and needs is set out much more clearly, concisely and directly there than it is in our Government's White Paper. When we see what the German document has to say about the Communist defence motive, and when we study, as it is open to us to do, what the Russians themselves say to their armed forces—for instance, in the messages on Army and Navy Day a few weeks ago—it ceases to be necessary to remind ourselves that we are dealing with a militaristic society whose values, standards and motives are quite different from our own.
  But there is one question which the Secretary of State might have tried to answer yesterday. That is, how long he thinks the Warsaw Pact countries can keep up their enormous effort in arms expenditure? He stressed how great the costs were, telling us that they had hitherto been grossly miscalculated—underestimated by 50 per cent. or more.
  What he did not say was how long he thought the Russians themselves would be prepared to pay the price and subject their people to those pressures and what he supposed might happen if the sheer inertia of the Soviet military machine were to roll Russia's leaders onwards on a course which led inevitably to military confrontation. The Under-Secretary might have read and re-read in the Solzhenitsyn interview what that very perceptive and qualified observer had to say about the momentum of the Soviet rearmament programme.
  We must all agree that if there is an arms race—the signs are that there is—it is the Russians who have been setting the pace for the past 10 years. That being so, it is fair for people in this country to ask one important question and to expect it to be answered. If the Russian armed forces are the greatest present
  1614
  and foreseeable danger to world peace, how should the West react? It is doubtful whether there will be any time for strategy in any future world war. I doubt whether the distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons would have any relevance if that awful event were to come about.
  Therefore, perhaps we need to look again at the triad, and to reconsider it in terms of one of its three supports being nuclear deterrence, another conventional deterrence and the third political and economic deterrence. If we do this, we must also realise that we have to aim to control events at all three levels, always hoping that we never have to move from the political and economic level.
  Certainly the Secretary of State was right yesterday to stress the political threat facing the West and to tell us that 1976 must be a year of test for the Soviet Union. To state the thing in those terms does not mean returning to the cold war, but it requires recognition that military balance is not the hinge upon which it all turns.
  Even when we declare the importance of the military parity and even when we on this side say that we recognise the need to spend more on defence and to strengthen our defences in consultation with our Allies as circumstances dictate, that does not make us warmongers. The hon. Member for Salford. East (Mr. Allaun) tried to suggest yesterday that he and his hon. Friends had some monopoly of dislike for war. Let me disillusion him. There can be no hon. Member who wants war to break out again. No thinking person anywhere wants that. But we have to recognise that our chances of avoiding it depend upon the determination with which we resist the forces which make war likely. As we need to put more effort into defence, so we need to show more determination in diplomacy.
  Tonight the Government may have the doubtful satisfaction of winning the vote. No doubt if the Liberals are here, they will be in the Government Lobby. However, I believe—if I am right I welcome the fact—that the United Ulster Unionist Council MPs are more likely to be against the Government. It is clear from the speeches which some of them made on the Consolidated Fund Bill that they recognise that they cannot

  1615
  opt out of decisions about the defence of the United Kingdom.
  The Tribune Group, of course, will be for the Secretary of State—not because he has convinced them, but because they believe that they are within sight of the heights of political power. They believe that they can carry the spirit of their miserable little amendment into the Cabinet room and into the policy of the next Prime Minister and his Government.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member does not really mean that.
  Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member seems to find that thought amazing, but I do not doubt that the country will weigh the determination of his hon. Friends to carry their expression of view into the Lobby tonight against the struggle for power in which the Labour Party still persists in plunging itself and the country.
  We condemn the Government and their wretched White Paper. We do not expect to see them have the chance to produce another, and for that at least this country and its Allies can be truly grateful.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. E. Femyhough: The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has condemned the White Paper. He pretended that we are doing something that has never been done by a Tory Government, something that has been done only when a Labour Government have been in power.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I reminded the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) yesterday, that in 1951 a Tory Government took over from a Labour Government. On 5th March 1952 Sir Winston Churchill, the Leader of the Tory Government, said:
  "I should, however, be misleading the House if I led it to suppose that the delay which has taken place is due only to a shortfall in earnings by contractors for various reasons. We have pursued a definite policy of giving a somewhat higher measure of priority to materials needed for exports. The grave financial crisis under which we are labouring supplies more than sufficient explanation for this decision. We depend upon exports to purchase the imports of food and raw materials without which we can neither re-arm nor live as solvent economic society".—[Official Report, 5th March 1952; Vol. 497. c. 433.]
  1616
  Sir Winston Churchill made it clear in March 1952 that he was reducing the rearmament programme introduced by the previous Labour Government. That was sound economic sense.
  No nation can be militarily strong if it is economically weak. The Government are determined substantially to increase exports. They are determined to get rid of the balance-of-payments problems. Without some cut in defence expenditure it would be very difficult, as it was for the 1951 Tory Government, to accomplish the Government's aim—namely, to overcome the balance-of-payment problem and to get into a sound financial situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not a pioneer; he is merely following the example of probably the most respected person ever to be associated with the Conservative Party.
  I listened to most of yesterday's speeches. It seems that the world is divided into angels and devils.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The goodies and the baddies.
  Mr. Fernyhough: We are always the angels. Yesterday we heard once more about the Berlin Wall. It was said to be an atrocity. We heard about Hungary, and it was an atrocity. We heard about Czechoslovakia, and that was an atrocity. But nobody said anything about the British intervention in Suez. That was equally an atrocity. Nobody said anything about our landing troops in Iran. Nobody said anything about the Americans invading Dominica. Nobody said anything about the Americans in Vietnam.
  Portugal was discussed at some length by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). He seemed to think that the situation in Angola arose only last November. In fact, the struggle in Angola continued for 12 years. Angola had pleaded with the West for help but it received none. Therefore, Angola turned to other sources, and it was given what it wanted.
  We should have re-examined the position. Angola was determined to get the necessary weapons to free itself. It was determined to get its freedom but the West was not prepared to help it get the weapons that were wanted. When it turned to another source, we should not have cried over spilt milk.

  1617
  The hon. Member for Woking said that he wanted Britain to keep up with the technological race. What kind of race is it? The Americans boast that they have a 30-times overkill capacity. The Russians boast that they have a 20-times overkill capacity. They are saying that they have the nuclear power to destroy every man, woman and child 30 times over or 20 times over. I have never known such nonsense. The world can be blown up only once.
  If it is believed that there is no danger of the world being blown up, I ask those who take that view to listen to the following quotation:
  "If we have not reached an agreement well before 1977, then I believe you will see an explosion of technology and an explosion of numbers at the end of which we will be lucky if we have the present stability, in which it will be impossible to describe what strategic superiority means. And one of the questions which we have to ask ourselves as a country is: what in the name of God is strategic superiority? What is the significance of it, politically, militarily, operationally, at these levels of numbers? What do you do with it?…We will be living in a world which will be extraordinarily complex, in which opportunities for nuclear warfare exist that were unimaginable 15 years ago or at the beginning of the nuclear age…".
  Those were the words of the American Secretary of State in Moscow. I am quoting from a book that was written by a British diplomat, Robin Edmonds, who served in Moscow. He ends his book with the following:
  "And yonder all before us lies
  Deserts of vast eternity."
  That is why I do not want to be in the great strategic race. Neither the politicians nor the generals have a right to use weapons which would destroy the world. This world was not given to this generation alone. Generations not yet born have a right to inherit it.
  If ever the great military machines such as the hon. Member for Woking would like to build up lead to the confrontation about which he spoke, there will not be any victors; there will be only the vanquished. There will be no winners; there will be only losers. There will not be life; there will be only death.
  5.8 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that we all listened with attention to the brief speech that the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) addressed to the House. His
  1618
  words were very reminiscent of the speeches that were made when the Alder-maston marches took place.
  I am sure that the House will agree that our defence depends on two factors. The first is credibility and the second is effectiveness. Having heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Jarrow, and when we see that the Secretary of State for Employment, one of the right hon. Gentleman's companions on the Alder-maston marches, is perhaps about to achieve the highest possible office in the Government, we can only wonder where the credibility of the Government's defence policy can lie. That is a major factor that is having an effect on sterling as well as on the views of those outside the House, such as Marshal Grechko and some of the commanders in Western Europe.
  I turn to the factor of effectiveness. I sympathise with the Secretary of State for Defence, as he is living in an environment which, to say the least of it, is hostile. It is hostile economically and, as far as he is concerned, hostile politcally when 80 of his hon. Friends can sign a motion on defence showing that they are not behind or even beside him, but rather beside themselves. The problem is that there is no credibility in the Government's defence programme, even though the sums involved are enormous, and there is no indication of any great effectiveness.
  Effectiveness can only be proved or disproved when one has been defeated in a war, but the Government have made two great errors. There has been a benign neglect of central direction of defence from the Cabinet committee over which the Prime Minister must preside, and one sees such wild contradictions that we have to wonder whether there has been a proper direction of overall strategy by the Government.
  For instance, the Minister boasted of having strengthened the northern flank of NATO, but, by actions for which Britain was at least partly responsible, two extreme flanks of NATO are in total chaos—Cyprus and Iceland. The Iceland confrontation is something which the next Government must cease as soon as possible. It is the greatest disastrous contribution we could make to NATO. This area is the key to our defence of the West.

  1619
  I have not spoken in a defence debate since I raised the subject of the virtual destruction of the basis of the Territorial Army by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Secretary of State for Defence. There are problems which the present Ministry seems totally unable to resolve. Among them are the military tactics being employed by our Armed Forces on the land in Europe. There must be urgent consideration of whether the tactical nuclear weapon is an effective weapon which must not lead to ultimate escalation at an early stage.
  Whatever we may think of Mr. Solzhenitsyn and the noble Lord to whom the Minister referred in such disparaging terms, one thing is clear. The major option of the Russian defence forces at present is a long war. This is where the Government Front Bench could be deceiving the nation. What matters if one is engaged in a long war is military stocks and reserves, and in this area many of the Government's figures are suspect. Nothing could be more disastrous than that, faced with what the Russians regard as their chief option—a long war—we should have a war programme based on a 30-day or 60-day war. The nation needs reassurance on this point and I hope that the Minister will provide it tonight.
  At present, this country has reserves of 166,000 men, 60,000 of whom, according to the plans, will leave this country on the outbreak of hostilities to reinforce BAOR. The reserves of the United States for the defence of the homeland total 1·5 million. The reserves for the defence of Germany total 1 million and for the defence of France, 700,000. We shall have fewer than 100,000 persons to deal with the sort of troubles that might arise and the threats and attacks that could be launched by the Warsaw Pact countries.
  This is not a new problem. It is a fact on which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and I have been warning successive Governments for the last 10 years. It was clearly predictable once National Service had been abolished in the early 1960s. We have to rebuild some form of reserve army soon if we are to regard ourselves as in any way being defended. This is the
  1620
  most important message one can give the House.
  I question whether the Ministry is sufficiently powerful in forecasting our military commitments, or whether it is still riven by inter-Services rivalry which can result in priorities being given to the wrong sphere and adjustments being made in the wrong direction. The extremely difficult decision of what to do with the main battle tank must be taken very soon. Since the Yom Kippur war, it is extremely doubtful whether the main battle tank is still master of the battlefield.
  It may be we shall have to invest far more in precision weapons of destruction which are cheaper and infinitely more effective. Yet the White Paper says that we are now contemplating plans for a new battle tank in conjunction with the German armed forces. This sort of decision can only be taken by a more centralised and efficient Ministry.
  It is noticeable that however much the number of men in the field has fallen, the number of top civil servants from under-secretary down to the third level is almost exactly the same as it was six years ago. The structure is still too powerful in defence of individual Services, arms and instruments.
  I disagree with the Minister's view that the situation is not serious. It is serious and deteriorating. When Sir Winston Churchill started disarmament, the situation was improving throughout the world. Who today can talk about peace being indivisible? Even detente is being fractured. Everywhere violence is growing, and peace has been lost somewhere on the Bogside or in Beirut.
  The House knows and people outside the House know that the danger to this country is growing, and that is precisely why we need a strong Chief of Defence Staff, whom I think we shall soon have. We need a strong permanent undersecretary of the Department. Above all, we need a change of Government. Only through a strong Prime Minister and a strong Secretary of State for Defence can the military problems that face this country be solved.
  5.21 p.m.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I start from the simple proposition that it is the duty of every Government to provide a defence capability

  1621
  adequate for the country's needs. Never again must we return to the situation of pre-1939. At that time a Conservative Government, who were not helped much by the Opposition, allowed our defences to run down, and in 1939 we went into a war with inadequate material, insufficient men and inadequate weapons. I am sure that all future historians will say that if Hitler in 1941 had turned on us instead of the East, we probably should not have been having this debate today. At that time we had no effective defence.
  In co-operation with our Allies—we cannot do it alone—our duty as a nation is to do everything possible to meet any potential threat. We have to ask ourselves whether there is a potential threat. Some of my hon. Friends think that there is not, but we then have to ask why the Russians are building so many submarines and surface warships. Are they for defensive purposes? If they are, what are the Russians defending and from which potential aggressor? It might be said that they are afraid of China, but if that is so, will someone explain to me why most of those naval forces are concentrated in the Baltic, the Atlantic and the Mediterranean?
  I wish that some of my colleagues who constantly put down motions criticising British defence expenditure would once or twice in their lives put down a motion criticising Soviet defence expenditure. I read carefully in Hansard the speech made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). I told my hon. Friend that I intended to refer to him. His speech contained no word of criticism of Soviet defence expenditure.
  On the other hand, we must recognise that we no longer have the economic strength to be a world-wide imperial Power. Some Conservative Members still seem to be living in the past. I read the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) who said what I have just said but went on to suggest that we should become militarily involved in Southern Africa—I am not sure on which side. The worst possible defence policy is one which contains commitments which exceed our capabilities. We do not have the capability to deal with world-wide
  1622
  affairs or, for that matter, with Southern Africa.
  Mr. Julian Amery: I would not have interrupted the hon. Gentleman had he not referred to me. I stressed yesterday that, if there were to be any intervention, it should be on a collective NATO or European basis. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at what I said, he will find that is so.
  Mr. Mitchell: I accept that entirely, but I do not agree that there should be any collective interference by the West in Southern Africa, because it would weaken the general Western defence capabilities.
  We are right to concentrate our defence capability inside NATO. I hope that the Government will not be diverted into long discussions about a separate European defence policy. Discussions on those lines are continually held in the European Parliament and other European bodies, but to my mind they are unrealistic.
  We must concentrate our efforts inside NATO. Over the years the NATO Alliance has been strongly criticised by some of my hon. Friends. I often wonder why. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is 31 years since the end of the last war. During that time, apart from Russian aggression in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the dispute between Greece and Turkey about Cyprus, we have had peace in Europe. I defy anyone here to point to another period of 31 years in our history when we had peace in Europe. That peace has been largely due to the existence of the NATO Alliance. We dare not and must not jeopardise its continuation.
  I should place more credence upon the Opposition amendment if, at the same time as Opposition Members called for increases in defence expenditure, they did not go round the country making weekend speeches calling for massive cuts in public expenditure. Shadow Ministers criticise the Government in the House for not spending enough money on, say, defence, education, health, or housing, while at the same time Opposition Members make wonderful speeches in the country calling for cuts in public expenditure. It is a hypocritical attitude.
  Further, the Opposition call for massive cuts in taxation. Defence, education.

  1623
  health, housing and everything else have to be paid for and, unless we can increase our national product rapidly, we shall have to pay for all those services out of taxation.
  Some of my Labour colleagues put down an amendment which has not been selected. It questions whether there have been any real cuts in defence expenditure. As in housing, education and so on, there are reductions in projected defence expenditure, but those who find themselves out of a job as a result of reductions in defence expenditure will find that those cuts are very real.
  I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East complained that the previous defence review, instead of reducing the number of jobs by 5,000, increased it by 7,000. It is remarkable, at a time of high unemployment, that anyone should appear to be calling for additional unemployment.
  Mr. Tom Litterick: Nonsense.
  Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend. Some of my colleagues seem to be asking for more men to be put out of work. In Southampton there are 5,000 men directly or indirectly employed on defence projects. I thank the Minister for placing an order for the Type 42 destroyer with Vosper Thorneycroft. But for that there would have been many redundancies by the end of the year, and I hope that the Minister will later in the year place a further order. If my right hon. Friend took the advice of hon. Members who signed that amendment there would not be any Type 42 destroyers, and hundreds of my constituents would be out of work. That applies equally throughout the rest of the country.
  I should like to live in a world in which we did not need to spend money on defence. I have spent my life in education, and I rejoiced on the day when education expenditure exceeded defence expenditure. I obviously prefer money to be spent on building schools, hospitals and so on, but, sadly, we do not live in an ideal world.
  I want my children to have the best possible education the State can provide, and I am prepared to pay for it through the taxation system. I also want my children to grow up and live in a free
  1624
  and democratic society. I believe that we must be prepared to defend that society and, if necessary, to make sacrifices to do so.
  I shall support the Government in the Lobby tonight because I do not believe that the reductions they have made in defence expenditure seriously reduce our defence capability. I issue a word of warning: enough is enough. Any further major reduction in defence expenditure would seriously jeopardise our capability to defend our free and democratic society, and that I would not support.
  5 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) made some of the remarks in the opening speech sound very like those of the pre-war appeasers, whom he rightly condemned, from whichever side of the House they then came. The Secretary of State in opening the debate yesterday made it plain that the defence cuts, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, are real. As confirmed by the Under-Secretary of State in winding up last night, they are very largely in support forces. They are partly due to the reductions in front line troops in the 1975 review.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) made it very plain that it was not the tail that was being cut but, as it were, the backbone, the stomach, the heart and the lungs of our defence capability—everything, in other words, that enables the animal not only to fight, but to go on fighting, and to go on long enough in NATO terms and in NATO slang to enable NATO to move from a former trip-wire philosophy to that of deterrence by capability for flexible response.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) added a new dimension when he suggested that NATO should be thinking of the capacity to continue fighting conventionally in a long war and cast doubt in those circumstances on the effectiveness of the tactical nuclear deterrent. He pointed out that our reserves were dangerously low for that purpose.
  Our contribution to NATO depends on our overall defence contribution, and it seems odd, having weakened our non-NATO contribution, further to weaken

  1625
  what we are doing through NATO itself. I do not think it is any good right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite making a mock of those who give warnings on the grounds that they are exaggerating a situation which it is claimed no longer exists. I should like to quote a remark made by Mr. Gromyko in September 1975 when he said
  "the actions of the Warsaw Pact are having a major influence in shaping the situation not only in Europe but far beyond Europe."
  That is, I think, the situation we all have to face, and while it may be right to keep our main effort for Central Europe, the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel, I am worried by the limitations that this imposes on NATO itself.
  The Under-Secretary of State pointed out yesterday that we had thus concentrated our main effort. He added, in reference to the Royal Navy in the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic, that
  "the Royal Navy still retains the ability to deploy its forces, together with those of our Allies, wherever our interests might be at stake."
  By "our" I assume he meant British.
  I should like the Minister of State to confirm that ability and to tell us that it is not in any way affected by the abandonment of "Bulwark", by the conversion of "Hermes" to anti-submarine warfare, by the fact that the ASW "Invincible" class is at risk any distance from land, with only the Harrier as air cover. Will he confirm that this capability is still on after the "Ark Royal' has been abandoned and we have no further strike carrier?
  The whole philosophy underlying the Government's defence policy might have been written as a satire by Lewis Carroll. It is a sort of "Looking Glass" philosophy. The Russians advance into the Indian Ocean and we abandon Singapore and Gan. The Lebanon is in a turmoil and we weaken our effort in Cyprus and in the sovereign bases. Central and Southern Africa is penetrated by an armed invasion from Soviet satellites and clients, and the Government rejoice that we are abandoning Simonstown.
  I think that this attitude stems from a point of view which I am not sure that the Member for Itchen shares, but which was expressed by the Under-Secretary last night when he said
  1626
  "Defence has to take its place in the battle for relative priorities."—[Official Report, 31st March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 1430–2.]
  That is true up to a point, but only up to a point, because the first duty of Her Majesty's Government must be the defence of the realm, the safety and security of the people in it, and our ability, uninterrupted, to import food and raw materials. This is true despite our economic weakness—in fact, it may be even more true because of our economic weakness.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and my night hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) made very plain just how dependent is the United Kingdom on raw materials which are available only from Southern Africa. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham pointed out that 80 per cent. of the NATO oil and 70 per cent. of its strategic raw materials came via the west coast of Africa. The same dependence applies not only to the United Kingdom, but to Europe.
  But now it is the Soviet forces and Soviet allies which dominate these seas from bases in East and West Africa, and which have enough command of the sea generally to interrupt trade. I think it is true that the failure of the West to react to Soviet aggression in Angola makes it all the more urgent to resist further Soviet imperialism and fill the gap which has been left by Britain's withdrawal from her non-NATO commitments.
  I do not suggest that this should be done by Britain alone. We should work with our European friends, particularly France, with the United States and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham pointed out, with Australia, owing to her particular interest—not for the purpose of pursuing any unwise or wrong objective, but simply to secure the raw materials without which we cannot live. I hope that some reassurance will be given to the House about this subject in the winding-up speech.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Mallalieu) suggested that all defence policy was largely a matter of guesswork, and he suggested that the Government ought to make the guess and to listen to its advisers. I hope that the Government will not make the mistake of failing to listen to those who are in a

  1627
  position of sufficient power to make their will come true. After all, Hitler told us in "Mein Kamf" exactly what he would do, and we might have done a great deal better to pay more attention to what he said.
  Last September Mr. Gromyko said that "the forces of peace and progress"—that is double-talk for the Soviet armed forces—now had "a visibly increased preponderance" and might be in a position to
  "lay down the direction of international politics."
  Our reactions to this statement should be to consider in Europe, within the context of the Community, a united foreign policy. I think that this implies having some sort of European defence policy within the NATO context. The concept of a European foreign policy seems to carry with it the need to think in European rather than merely national terms in the context of NATO.
  That is why I would hope that we will consider within Europe, including France, the view put by my right hon. Friend, that perhaps a tactical nuclear deterrent is no longer a valid NATO concept. We should also consider within the Community, including France, whether we ought to have a European nuclear deterrent.
  I am sorry that in his last Question Time the Prime Minister was so strongly opposed to the whole idea of any European nuclear deterrent and referred in emotive terms to German fingers on the trigger. If Germany wants a nuclear deterrent of its own, no one can stop it. and I prefer to have a European deterrent than to see any single country escalate the nuclear race. I also prefer a European nuclear capability to having the whole concept of the deterrent become through conventional weakness so incredible that the Germans would be tempted to make some sort of arrangement with the Soviet Union, as Finland has done.
  It is ridiculous that the EEC cannot itself defend its vital interests. Separately we may be feeble, but together we are strong. All we need is the political will. The first thing that we Conservatives demand from the Government is that Britain should show itself willing to build
  1628
  up its reserves and, in the light of the forces we must maintain in this country, to do at once little things like strengthening the Gutersloh air base to take wide-bodied jets, to look at the naval building programme which has fallen so disastrously behind, and to try to resolve a little more quickly some of the problems of standardisation which are extremely difficult.
  Then I should like to see a British-led European Community approach to our Allies and to the Commonwealth with four objectives. The first would be to resist Soviet aggression now wherever and whenever it may come. We have seen in the past the results of letting things go too far. We saw domination by the Nazis of the Rhineland, of the Sudetenland, of Czechoslovakia, Austria and then Poland. Now we have seen the Soviet Union taking over by force in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, helping its allies in Vietnam, and using its clients to invade Angola.
  Are we to wait until Yugoslavia, too, is at risk, because this is not a matter of ideology. I am not talking about the Communist threat. I am talking about the threat of Soviet imperialism, because that is the only threat which the free and peaceful world faces today. There is no other.
  Secondly, we should be discussing methods of preventing the Soviet Union from rescuing its allies and clients from the mistakes and failures of their own aggression. Thirdly, we should be discussing changes in aid and trade policies where they might damage our interests, whether they apply to the Warsaw Pact countries or the Third World, including Mozambique. Fourthly, we should reconsider the subsidising of Soviet incompetence by food, including grain, and by economic aid and cheap credit. We should rather consider exploiting Soviet difficulties, both economic and military.
  To react like this may require us to rearm and to provide arms for our Allies and those who are willing to help us, including South Africa. So be it. That does not conflict with detente as it is understood by the Soviets themselves. Detente has not prevented them from rearming, and so long as the cold war continues on their side, as it does—often hotted up every now and then—it is up to us to keep our defences strong to

  1629
  avoid the sort of possible disasters which have been suggested in the debate.
  I am not depressed by the dangers because I think that we have the capability, the skill, the industry, the workpeople, and, if we can marshal it, the will to maintain our defences and, if necessary, to make sacrifices for our freedom. We need a lead from the Government. The right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) made a brief intervention. I had great sympathy with what he said, because it made sense. But what he said implied that none of this was worth while, that it was better to surrender. I do not agree with that, but it is a policy which could be justified logically. What cannot be justified is wasting money on weakness.
  Britain is not a great Power, but it does not need to be. We need enough military strength to make our diplomatic skill usable and enough political will to make it credible. Alas, there is nothing in the White Paper or the Government's speeches to show any real understanding of the dangers that confront us, or any clear will on their part to face those dangers. They seem to be concerned rather to lull the British people into a false sense of security. I hope that by our speeches and our votes in this House we can at least bring home to those we represent the truth which the Government have so far tried to conceal
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I do not intend to pursue the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) around the globe in his extensive coverage of world affairs. I must take up his point, however, about movement towards a European nuclear deterrent. He said that he would prefer to have a European nuclear deterrent than to have another independent nuclear Power within Europe. I can see the case for making that choice if the choice has to be made. However, I would much prefer to see Europe without nuclear weapons.
  The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has just left the Chamber, which is a pity because I wanted to tell him that I agreed with a lot of what he said. He said that it was spurious to distinguish between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, and I agree. The only reason why the super-Powers are able to
  1630
  call certain nuclear weapons tactical is that those weapons will not land in the heartland of the super-Powers: they will come down on countries outside Russia and America. However, as far as concerns Europeans, those who are to receive these tactical nuclear weapons dropped on us, the effect will be strategic even if they are called tactical weapons. Many of these tactical weapons are of much greater explosive force than the bombs dropped on Japan in the Second World War.
  I and other hon. Members on the Government side of the House were rather distressed when reading the White Paper to see in paragraph 27 that it is NATO's strategy,
  "if deterrence fails, to meet aggression with a a defence tailored to the situation, selecting a suitable level of response from a wide range of options."
  The language of that sentence is rather opaque, but I hope we are not meant to take that as an endorsement of the Schlesinger doctrine of flexible nuclear options, which many of us find pernicious in that it is aimed to justify overkill capacity and can only bring nuclear war nearer by making it more easy to contemplate by giving it a credible strategy.
  In the bulk of my remarks I want to take up a point raised today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who referred to the current spate of articles in the Western Press concerning the imminence of a Russian invasion of superior might. As Professor Galbraith put it in is letter to The Times recently,
  "Today the Elbe; tomorrow, Nantucket."
  The culmination of these articles, their apotheosis, came in an article by Lord Chalfont in The Times three weeks ago. based upon a report by a brigadier in the Belgian Army who has never held high NATO command and whose report was made in the form of a private paper on a "worst case" analysis. It is an indication of the extent of mass hysteria in the media and in our society that an article based on such a private report, which is 10 years old, should get coverage on the feature page in the middle of The Times almost as great as the obituary of Sir Winston Churchill 11 years ago and as great as almost any article that has appeared since then.
  That article is only one of many and I accept that those on the Government side

  1631
  of the House who do not accept that there is a case for increasing military expenditure any further have a heavy duty to examine what has been said in these articles and, if we find it unconvincing, to explain why we find the arguments unconvincing.
  I wish to concentrate on that matter, but before doing so I should like to take up the comments made by the hon. Member for Woking. I quite accept his strictures on the Soviet Union. I certainly accept that the size of military forces there is too large for any conceivable rational purpose. The most benign interpretation that one can put on the size of those forces is that those who run that repressive, autocratic, authoritarian régime find it convenient to militarise that society and keep the system of universal conscription which reduces dissidence and protest. This may give us some reassurance that those forces may not be aimed at the invasion of the West, but it is not a reassurance that will give much comfort to those of us with a commitment to democracy, because it is based on an entire negation of democracy.
  I do not expect to see disarmament achieved through international negotiation. I believe that it is a fallacy to imagine that if one brings together those who are at the top of the pyramid of military-industrial-political machines these people will then agree to dismantle the pyramid on which they arose.
  For instance, I would mention the progress at the Vienna talks. This is the eighth White Paper in eight years that has referred to the progress of talks on mutual and balanced force reductions there. The talks have been going on for only three years, but the five White Papers that preceded them covered the preparations for the talks. We have failed to see one concrete result of these talks. I would ask those hon. Members who believe in disarmament only through multilateral negotiation to give us some evidence that it ever has succeeded or will succeed in the foreseeable future.
  If we are to have progress towards disarmament and the reduction of armed confrontation, it will be achieved much more through the internal domestic debate between those who wish to adopt a lower defence profile and those who wish to maintain a high posture of
  1632
  armed confrontation. To those of us who accept that analysis, the most distressing feature in the current international situation is just how weak opposition in the Soviet Union is to the military regime and just how brutally it is repressed by that same machine.
  I want to turn to the allegations which have been made not that that military machine still exists but that its weight, power and might has been augmented in the last five years. I referred last week to the annual paper, "The Military Balance", published by the IISS, an independent, impartial organisation, and as authoritative as any non-governmental organisation can be. I find it striking that between 1971 and 1975—which is the latest issue of "The Military Balance"—the number of troops available to the Warsaw Pact in North and Central Europe—which are the areas in which we agree that NATO is weakest—actually dropped by 65,000. In the same five-year period, the most recent period for which we have figures, the number of troops available to NATO rose by 45,000. Thus, in so far as there has been a shift in the number of troops in those two areas, it has been a shift in favour of NATO.
  If hon. Members doubt my deduction from that publication, they may wish to refer to "Problems of Communism", a publication of the United States Information Department—to which the Tribune Group does not subscribe. In the September-October issue, hon. Members will find an article by Laurence Caldwell—again, an accepted international expert—who produces a similar table for the last seven-year period. The table shows a very slight reduction in the number of Warsaw Pact forces in Central and Northern Europe.
  If we go back to such primary sources as there are, we find that there is no clear evidence of a build-up. However, if one is selective and takes particular areas and weapons, one can produce a different picture. The defence review that we are now considering achieves that outstandingly successfully with the naval balance by confining its graph to the Eastern Atlantic, which contains the major Soviet base and 50 per cent. of the Soviet navy. It is hardly surprising that, if one takes a sector which contains half of the Soviet

  1633
  navy, one discovers that it has a preponderance in that part of the world. There would be no point in denying that the Soviet navy has modernised at a rapid rate over the past 10 years, but there is no point in exaggerating the extent of the build-up.
  I take the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in the debate yesterday. He made the allegation that between 1964 and 1974 the Soviet navy produced 249 new major combat ships. I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not with us today, but when he reads Hansard tomorrow he may wish to consult "The Military Balance" for the current year, which contains a table in an annex which provides the figures for the 10 years 1965 to 1974. In those years the number of ships produced for the Soviet navy was not 249. It was, in fact, 84. In the same 10-year period the NATO countries produced 151 major combat vessels.
  The right hon. Member for Farnham is quite right to ask why the Warsaw Pact wants 84 new combat vessels, but someone in the Kremlin, in Warsaw or in East Berlin is also asking why NATO wants 151 major combat vessels. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to go into the Library at the end of the debate and obtain the annual defence posture statement by the American Defence Department, the statement made by Donald Rumsfeld to Congress only in January this year. On pages 155 and 156 of the document he will find the following quotation:
  "Soviet naval peacetime presence increased sharply in the late 1960s but now appears to have stabilised at a level below that of the overall U.S. presence; however, in certain areas such as the Mediterranean the Soviet Union continues to deploy more forces than the United States. When the peacetime fleets of allies on both sides are tallied, it is clear that the U.S. and its allies deploy naval forces in peacetime which are superior to those deployed by the Soviet Union and its allies."
  That is a quotation from a man who has access to the best intelligence sources in the West. It does not bear out the allegation that the Soviet navy is now in command of most of the world seas.
  What I fear is that if both sides adopt a "worst case" analysis of the other side's strength we shall be locked in a
  1634
  spiralling arms race from which we shall not be able to escape. Let me illustrate how this happens. If we look at the figures of NATO's military strength, they exclude the figures of the French military forces. The reason is that France participates in the political organisation of NATO, but has withdrawn its forces from the military command. In examining the situation, it is sensible for us to leave out those French forces from the balance. However, equally any Soviet general contemplating invasion of the West would assume that French forces would be available in those circumstances to assist NATO forces. Conversely, the Warsaw Pact States since 1969 have divided their forces into two contingents, one for territorial defence and another for the Warsaw Pact command. For all I know, Warsaw Pact commanders may look at the forces available to them in the same way as NATO commanders leave out of consideration the French forces—in other words, Warsaw Pact commanders may leave out of account those forces intended for the territorial defence of satellite countries.
  Thus, by taking a selective view of their own forces and the forces of an enemy, commanders of both sides are able with sincerity to say to the politicians of both sides that their own forces are inferior, the forces of the other side are superior and, therefore, they must have further military expenditure to bridge the gap. That is what has happened in the past five years.
  It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said yesterday, that the Soviet military expenditure is increasing. It is also true that military expenditure in Western countries has increased. The hon. Member for Woking referred to the Germans' "White Book" which he found useful. I accept that it gives more information to their House than does our own annual publication. However, one table omitted by the hon. Gentleman shows that German military expenditure has increased by 64 per cent. in five years. Similarly, the Italian military budget has increased by 22 per cent. in recent years, and the United States military procurement budget has increased by a staggering 30 per cent. in one year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), who

  1635
  has now left the Chamber, spoke tellingly of the experience of the Second World War, of the country being almost unprepared in a period of appeasement which failed. I address my remarks to my hon. Friend in his absence in a tone of humility because my generation did not live through that period. If I had lived through that period my impression of events would have been more vivid and I might have reached different conclusions. But my hon. Friend must not let the lessons of the Second World War blind him to the lessons of the First World War. In that conflict two world blocs in Europe were locked in armed conflict—not because either side had a political motive or, indeed, a rational diplomatic objective, but because both sides had for so long pursued a competitive arms race that armed conflict became an inevitable product of that race.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Woking that we are locked in an East-West arms race. The spectre that haunts me is the prospect that, despite the moves to diplomatic detente, despite the growing trade that exists between the two blocs, we shall find ourselves involved in a final military conflict because we have continued a competitive arms race without seeking to escape from it.
  Against that background, I must give grudging congratulations to the Government Front Bench in that its members have not participated in the world lunacy of increasing defence expenditure. Nevertheless, they have not gone far enough. They have not reduced the burden of defence expenditure on public expenditure or industrial strength.
  I have time to make only one illustration. I find it significant that we in Britain spend more on research and development on military manufacture than do France and Germany, our two major competitors. At the same time we spend less on research and development in civilian manufactured goods than does France or Germany. It may be that there is no connection and that, even if we were to spend less on military research and development, our investment in civilian research and development would be just as miserable. Surely, however, if we were to reduce the amount of industrial production given over to arms work, we should free skilled
  1636
  resources and investment in research and development. By freeing expensive plant and machinery we could try to make up the leeway lost to our competitors.
  If there is a threat to our democratic institutions, I believe that it is not an external but an internal threat. If we fail to solve our economic and industrial problems and to arrest our decline in world export markets in the past decade, this House will be lucky to survive as a democratic institution into the next decade. By maintaining the present large proportion of our industry devoted to armaments we make it that much more difficult to solve these problems of industrial decay. I very much fear that that failure poses the greater threat to our democratic institutions.
  6.8 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) will forgive me if I do not take up his arguments. I am on a somewhat different tack this afternoon.
  The White Paper is a false prospectus. It makes the case very vividly about ever-increasing Soviet bloc military strength and then deduces that it is time for us to cut our military strength. The Government motto seems to be "No defence please, we're British". I agree with the White Paper when it says in paragraph 26:
  "The Russians may, however, be tempted to apply other forms of pressure designed, in particular, to influence the political and economic policies of Western European nations".
  The main point I wish to make is that it is at sea, outside the NATO area, that those "other forms of pressure" can most easily be applied. This can come about because the Soviet Union now has a world-wide oceanic navy. It could harass or interrupt merchant shipping, whether British or the shipping of any Western nation, step by step, without any overt act of war and with minimum risk of escalation—certainly with less risk of escalation than any other form of pressure that could be brought to bear.
  It is on the flanks of NATO that the danger is greatest. Yet on the northern flank a civilian car ferry has been brought in for use in a NATO amphibious exercise to contribute to the British lift. This has become known in Service circles

  1637
  as the "Mason-Marsh cut-price cruises". In war this sort of expedient is often necessary, but as a serious long-term contribution to NATO planning such a Heath-Robinson lash-up is deplorable.
  On the southern flank, in the Mediterranean, the relative Soviet strength is increasing all the time. Inevitably, there will be a difficult scenario in that part of the world when President Tito of Yugoslavia leaves the scene. Cyprus is our only remaining effective base there. I understand that no fixed-wing aircraft remain in Cyprus. There are no Nimrods and, therefore, there is no effective surveillance of the Mediterranean. Nimrods could fly the length of the Mediterranean in a few hours, as the Minister knows.
  Mr. John: Malta is in the Mediterranean.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am talking about Cyprus.
  Mr. John: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there was no effective surveillance of the Mediterranean. I was pointing out that the Malta base is still open.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I hope that that will continue to be the case. Will the Minister therefore continue this exchange by assuring the House that surveillance by Nimrods in the Mediterranean will continue whether from Cyprus or from Malta? I am ready to give way to him if he will give that assurance.
  Mr. John: The Malta base will close in 1979 at the end of the present agreement, which was negotiated with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Government.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I have made my point, and the Minister has reinforced the need for surveillance to continue so that we know what our potential enemies are doing in the Mediterranean.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Bearing in mind the recent statement by the Foreign Secretary that there is no intention of leaving sovereign base areas in Cyprus, can the Minister assure us that when Malta is closed down we will keep the sovereign bases in Cyprus and Nimrods can operate from there?
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I do not know whether the Minister has anything to say about that.
  Mr. Bernard Conlan: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain how that would contribute to the defence of the United Kingdom.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) was a member of the Expenditure Committee which in its unanimous Third Report said of Akrotiri airfield:
  "It is indeed a matter for concern that the airfield, formerly the busiest in the RAF, will henceforth be open for only a few hours a day."
  The strategic reality is that NATO has another flank which is even more vulnerable—the Cape route and the Indian Ocean. In the years since 1964 the policies of the Labour Party have dismantled British maritime power to vanishing point. British merchant shipping is now totally devoid of any protection at all, except in the North Atlantic, and even there the number of escorts is insufficient. The White Paper says smugly:
  "By the end of March, the withdrawal from Gan, Mauritius, and Singapore will be complete."
  I am pleased to see that the Minister of State has come back into the Chamber, because I want to ask him some specific questions. Who is to take over Gan, and what will happen to the facilities, the runways and all the installations on which a great deal of money has been spent in recent years? What is to stop the Soviets walking in the day after we walk out? Are there any arrangements to alert the Government if they do walk in, or are we going to slink away from it? What is happening to the medical team which has been so helpful in looking after the inhabitants of the neighbouring island? Are they to be withdrawn with the rest of the garrison?
  How will alternative communication facilities be provided for those in Mauritius? I imagine that they will go to Diego Garcia, but there is no mention of Diego Garcia in the White Paper.
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): The hon. and gallant Gentleman should read the White Paper more carefully.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I have read it carefully. The index says that there is a reference to Diego Garcia in Chapter 2, paragraph 56, but not a word about Diego Garcia appears in that paragraph. Why are the Government being so coy? I shall "stand easy" while we wait for the Minister.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: You are right, so carry on.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not said a word.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Your silence is golden, Mr. Speaker, and so is the Minister's.
  Singapore is the hub of the eastern hemisphere, not only for defence purposes but as the key to the vast markets of Asia. Only the British Labour Party wishes us to scuttle away from it.
  Perhaps the Minister, now that he has examined the White Paper, will agree that there is no reference to Diego Garcia in it. He can therefore now listen to some of my other questions. I want particularly to ask him what has happened to our commitment to SEATO. What has happened to the five-Power pact in Singapore? What about the Australian and New Zealand view of our withdrawal from Singapore? Have they been consulted? They were, after all, our partners.
  Mr. Rodgers: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but it took me a long time to find the correct reference. It is in Chapter 1, paragraph 56. If the index of the White Paper is found to be inadequate or in error, we shall correct it for the second edition.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am glad that the Minister is now happy. He will now be able to pay attention to answering my questions about what has happened to our commitment to SEATO, the five-Power pact and the views of Australia and New Zealand. What reply has been given to the offer by Mr. Malcolm Fraser of facilities at Cockburn Sound for the Royal Navy?
  I turn to the Cape route. The Simons-town agreement was entirely to our advantage and it cost us nothing. I can only hope that the South African Government will, in the long run, be generous enough to overlook the insult of our unilateral abrogation and continue to
  1640
  make available to us the information from their highly efficient command and control maritime headquarters at Silver-mine. Those who have visited it understand that it is of paramount importance, both in peace and war, to the West as a whole.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said yesterday, what is happening in South Africa has changed the whole dimension of the strategic problem that confronts the West. The Government should point out to the newly independent nations of Black Africa that their own future freedom depends upon the security of the trade routes in the seas on both sides of Africa.
  I end my speech by referring to hydrography which is a subject which has been debated recently in the House and in the Lords. A resurvey of the vast areas of the oceans all over the world is urgently required, to meet the needs not only of the super-tankers and giant ore carriers with greater draught than previous generations of ships but of oil rigs, both for delivery of the rigs and for their use in exploration.
  The Royal Navy hydrographers have a world-wide reputation for skill and accuracy. The Government should use that reputation to build up the hydro-graphic service as an export, contracting it out to other companies and foreign countries if necessary. The White Paper says, at page 46, that:
  "the defence budget cannot continue to finance the survey fleet beyond the level needed to meet the Royal Navy's own requirements."
  That view is far too restrictive. I suggest that the service be transferred to the Trade and Industry Vote. It should be used as a valuable asset in our export drive but still be run by the Royal Navy.
  The job of the forces nowadays is to prevent war and not to wage it. The threat to peace is world-wide. My concern is that our defence policy is much too inward-looking. One thing is certain, and always has been; that the British cannot make a living sitting at home and taking in one another's washing.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Colin Jackson: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) will not expect

  1641
  me to join him in his oceanographie survey.
  I always find defence debates difficult, because on the one side there are vast distances and on the other side depth is often not obtained. I wish to be brief, and therefore I shall take only two subjects. One is the background topic of exactly why a Communist threat to our defences has come about. There has been a lot of hot air about the subject from the Opposition Benches.
  One of the reasons why Communism is powerful in Southern Africa today has been the abominable conduct of the Portuguese political régime in Mozambique and Angola. One of the reasons why there is a Communist Government in Saigon today is the colonial stupidity of the French and the hamfistedness of the Americans. The areas where we have fortunately managed to contain Communism are those where there has been a thoughtful colonial régime with a long period of training of the people.
  In Europe we face the fact that the Soviet Union is the last imperialist Power. One needs only to go to Peking to hear that opinion endorsed. The Soviet Union has to maintain a large army in Europe to keep the Czechs down, to keep the Poles under control and to keep the Hungarians from doing again what they did in 1956. It is the massive weight of Soviet imperialism that is the real danger to the Warsaw Pact.
  Coming to details of the defence review, I shall confine myself to the Mediterranean. I was interested in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks about the Mediterranean, which will be a difficult and unpredictable area in the next 12 months. He referred to the time when the ruler of Yugoslavia will depart. There is an interesting sub-plot there, because the Albanians are the strongest allies of the Chinese and they will have different views on what should happen in Yugoslavia.
  I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman has noticed that the Soviet navy is now being forced out of Alexandria. Which way will it move? It has new friendships and relationships with Libya. One must ask whether Soviet power could logistically move along the Mediterranean coast. If it does, it will come dangerously
  1642
  close to Malta, where we have friends and a British community.
  The whole Mediterranean is in a state of flux. Although a limitation must be put on our forces, the European members of NATO will need to be much more alert to the dangers in the Mediterranean, particularly now that the passage of our ships through the Indian Ocean has recommenced.
  We are seeing a change of Government in Madrid. We must all welcome the move towards a more liberal situation in Spain, but we must also notice that comments have been made that there will still be hostility towards Gibraltar. The House has responsibility for the defence of Gibraltar, and we must be careful to give no indication that we might be starting an early slide out. That would have the worst possible effect on the ultimate development of good relations between Gibraltar and Spain and on Spain's eventual incorporation within the European family.
  The position of the Soviet fleet as it is pushed out of Egypt is important. The question of new political relations, verging on defence relations, between the Arab nations and Europe will be part of our defence consideration in the years to come.
  I have often thought that the Russian and American fleets in the Mediterranean were giant obstructions to peace rather than contributions to peace. We are entering a new era, with the Arab world and the Europeans coming together not for hostility but to preserve the area in safety.
  I should like to ask a few questions about Cyprus. The area has not been in the news much lately, except for what we have heard of the tragedies of the refugees on both sides. I have had some knowledge of the territory for 20 years or so. I hope that we may be told about housing for our Services in Episkopi and Dhekelia. Are any of our families still outside the zones? I asked last year whether there was some danger, because it had been suggested that some of the properties might have been looted. What problems are we having with our elements in the United Nations peace-keeping force? We have not heard much about that recently.

  1643
  On television the other night I saw the refugees arriving in Cyprus from the Lebanon. One is also aware of the refugee problem in Cyprus itself.
  I have pressed on previous occasions that we should enlarge the United Nations content in the sovereign base areas with the agreement of all the parties concerned. Much humanitarian work could be done. Excellent, urgently-needed hospital facilities are available in Dhekelia. What thought has been given to their use? There are constantly tragedies around the world, and nobody is ready to deal with them. The sovereign base areas, which have excellent facilities and are stable, could be of assistance.
  To sum up, we must look not only at Communism but at what causes it—dissatisfaction, hunger and white racialist superiority. In limited areas such as the Mediterranean things are moving fast. There are some interesting changes there. I should like both the Soviet and the American fleets out of the area, but we must be ready to do what we can within our limited facilities to help keep the peace in the area.
  6.29 p.m.
  Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I hope that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) will forgive me if I do not discuss with him in detail his thoughtful and penetrating analysis of the spread of Communism. Today we are concerned with one particular aspect of its spread—that of defence.
  I accept that a large part of the Soviet forces are required to hold down vast areas of the satellite States in Europe, but I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can equate that with the large and rapid build-up of the Soviet navy, particularly its nuclear submarines, which could not be used for that purpose.
  I listened to almost the whole of yesterday's debate and during it I noticed, particularly from the winding-up speech by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, that the difficulty in which the Government find themselves is not over defence but how to placate their own left wing and to paper over the ever-widening cracks in the Labour Party. What also emerged is how the balance between the various
  1644
  factions in that party is changing. It is clear from the number who signed the second amendment and the support being given to contenders in another matter that half of the Parliamentary Labour Party are wedded to disarmament, regardless of the risks. I ask those hon. Members to consider what would happen if our defence fell and we lost our sovereignty.
  Suppose that we spent the whole of our defence budget on the Welfare State, and suppose that the Warsaw Pact countries moved in—because they are the only people who could possibly want to do so. Do those hon. Members imagine for one minute that we should be allowed to keep the standards of housing, hospitals, education, health and welfare services that we have achieved? Of course not. Our standards would come down to theirs, and we all know that those standards fall very far below even our present standards. All we would achieve in that case would be disaster.
  It was said yesterday that the public were beginning to wake up and to question our defence capability, and doubtless the electors will express their concern at the General Election, whether it comes in June, October or later. However, I welcome the Minister's forthright warning on the risks involved in a reduction of our defences. I also welcome his forthright-ness in spelling out in such detail the repercussions on employment from the reductions proposed. I am appalled at the glib complacency of the Government. The figures and diagrams on page 67 of the White Paper underline the dangers and the deficiencies. Instead of strengthening our forces, however, we steadily weaken them. The Government, and at least half of the Labour Party, react only by sticking their heads ever deeper in the sand. The hon. Member for Edinburgh. Central (Mr. Cook) pointed out that other NATO countries were increasing their defences while we were cutting ours. This is a case of "Look at our Willie, he is the only one in step."
  Much play was made yesterday of the proportion of our gross national products being spent on defence. The table on page 85 of the White Paper clearly shows one fault in this reasoning: that our productivity per head is abysmally low; and, as one hon. Gentleman so properly pointed out, defence spending cannot

  1645
  possibly be geared to any arbitrary yardstick. It must be geared to our responsibility. No other NATO country has the problems of Ulster, of the cod war or of North Sea oil that we have. No other country is so dependent on international trade and shipping. No other NATO country is so vitally interested in keeping open, and keeping free, the sea lanes of the world.
  Yet the Government get more and more isolationist and are putting all their eggs into the NATO basket—and this at the very time when Russia is maintaining a considerable naval force in the Indian Ocean and we are withdrawing from Gan, Mauritius and Singapore. What surer way could there be to lose the confidence of our friends in those areas? There has been such a run-down of our forces that, according to today's Doily Telegraph, the minor problem, in military terms, of the cod war has forced us to cancel naval exercises in the Indian Ocean. But whilst the commitments to protect shipping remain and the threat grows, we cut our forces. Germany, with some 30 operational submarines in 1939. very nearly brought us to our knees. The Russians have over 300 and are building one new nuclear submarine every five weeks.
  Mr. Litterick: On his last point, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Germans fought the Battle of the Atlantic with 30 submarines?
  Mr. Pink: I said that the Germans started in 1939 with 30 operational submarines. Of course they built more. I am saying that today Russia has 300 submarines—in round figures 10 times as many—which they could start operating today. We, on the other hand, are reducing not only our fleet but our vital Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft. It is time to realise that although our naval standards are very high, and while our modern frigates may pack more punch than a pre-war battleship, a ship can be in only one place at one time; and however high the standards they cannot always, in every sense, make up for lack of numbers.
  Hon. Members have referred to our new commitment to protect our North Sea oil. I presume that the five Island class offshore patrol vessels are for this purpose. I wonder whether we could
  1646
  have some particulars of these ships—their size, tonnage, speed, endurance, complement and armament—and know whether they are to be manned by the Royal Navy or, as I suggested last year, by civilians. I was interested, too, in the proposition posed by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) that Polaris submarines might have to be removed from the Clyde. Can the Minister assure me that if this should occur those Polaris submarines will be stationed at Portsmouth and maintained by Portsmouth Dockyard? In conclusion, I condemn the Government for their smug complacency and for putting the defences of this country at risk.
  6.38 p.m.
  Miss Jo Richardson: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) will forgive me if I do not immediately follow his argument, because I should like to go back to the very interesting and thoughtful analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who unfortunately has left the Chamber for a few moments, on the reasons for the build-up of Soviet forces, an analysis with which I absolutely agree. It is probably true that that build-up is based on a combination of fear—unnecessary fear, we would hope—a desire to occupy their own people in a way of which nobody in this country would approve, and to blind them to what others can do and want to do.
  What worries me about the speeches of some Opposition Members, for example the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), is that they seem to be over-sabre rattling, if I may put it that way. Such speeches can prove dangerous because they alarm people outside and produce a clamour, as it were, for a return to a cold war situation which itself can contribute towards the starting up of a conflict. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central remarked, the arms race itself and the constant fear by one side that the other has a greater build-up of arms can itself possibly result in setting off a conflict.
  I am very worried, as are a number of my hon. Friends on this side, that the Defence Estimates have not shown what I consider to be more realistic cuts and have not reduced our arms spending to a

  1647
  greater extent, because it seems to me, and I know that it seems to many people in the Labour movement outside this House, to be not reaching our election commitment that we would reduce our contribution to the level of that of other NATO Governments. We are spending money on defence which ought to be spent on urgent social needs.
  It seems extraordinary that within the space of a week or two weeks we should discuss defence expenditure and elderly people dying of hypothermia because they cannot afford to pay their gas or electricity bills and these facilities are cut off. We are also plagued by constituents who are caught in the poverty trap. We are worried about the general level of the minimum wage and the fact that people cannot manage on it. We are worried about the large-scale unemployment from which we are suffering. We are worried because we do not have enough schools to provide a decent education for all our children and we are losing talent that way. We are always on about the lack of a forward-looking National Health Service, which at the moment suffers from a lack of money. I could go on endlessly pointing to areas in the social programme where more money is needed to keep up the present standards.
  There seems little point in contributing vastly to a NATO defence system which invites attack on Britain. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh. We are a small island in the middle of and in partnership with a number of other countries. I am not a militarist. I am not a military strategist. [An HON. MEMBER: "Obviously."] Obviously. 3ut let us consider the matter from this point of view. I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen seriously. Britain is a small country which is part, and only part, of a total defence system. We are in isolation, being an island.
  Mr. Litterick: We are a sitting duck.
  Miss Richardson: My hon. Friend, as usual, has the right words for it. We are a sitting duck. If I were the chap in the Soviet Union with his finger on the button, I should say to myself "Let us get rid of Great Britain. It will be short, sharp and quick. It will then be out of the way, and we shall have only the rest
  1648
  to deal with." That is how it seems to me. That is why I say that our possession of nuclear weapons and our involvement with our NATO partners in this defence system invites attack rather than defence against attack. I believe that our vast contribution to NATO is unwarranted when it is at the expense of the comfort and warmth of elderly people, of men and women who are out of work and of people who are badly housed. The contribution is not worth the sacrifice which we have to make.
  I accept that an enormous cut in our defence bill would not overnight solve all our social needs. It would be ridiculous to expect the effect to show right away. However, if we made a much larger cut it would enable us to take a more realistic view of the resultant prospects for industrial expansion and of the chances of a better standard of living.
  Some hon. Members have made much about workers' fears regarding unemployment as a result of arms cuts. We all recognise that fear. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, in his winding-up speech last night—I was not present to hear his speech, but I have read it with great care—said that those who advocate large-scale job losses:
  "should always have positive, detailed and convincing plans for the constructive redeployment of the human resources involved."—[Official Report, 31st March 1976; Vol. 908. c. 1431.]
  I accept that.
  I should like the Minister to tell me whether he and his Department, or other Departments, have made an attempt to have a meaningful discussion with workers in some of the arms industries who themselves are making attempts to consider what alternative plans could be made. Sophisticated proposals which have been made should not be tossed off merely because they come from people on the shop floor. Such proposals ought to be taken seriously. I should like to know whether any of those plans have been discussed with or separately from the people who have drawn them up. My guess, regretfully, is that no meaningful discussions have taken place.
  Mr. Conlan: Last week I met some shop stewards from a factory in my constituency which manufactures highly sophisticated radar equipment. They

  1649
  were condemning the Labour Government for forbidding them from exporting their products to South Africa. How does one answer that kind of criticism by workers who want to export their products to South Africa?
  Miss Richardson: Their feeling is based purely on fear of losing their jobs. Not every factory has plans worked out on the shop floor for turning to more peaceful production. However, I should be prepared to bet anything that, if those workers had the chance of exporting to some country—not South Africa—products for peaceful use, they would prefer to do that to what they are doing at present. We must consider this situation seriously and try to work it out with the workers concerned. I admire those who have already considered alternative proposals. After all, the people on the shop floor know their machines and what those machines could be used for.
  My view on defence and on our membership of NATO is probably not shared by more than a handful of my colleagues, even in the Tribune Group. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) last night said that he started with a handful of supporters on this matter and ended up with over 100. I hope that we shall do the same on the question of NATO. I believe that we should be in a far stronger position in the long run if we announced that we were eventually to withdraw from NATO altogether and were to consider what forces we needed in order to act independently. We should follow the role of Sweden and other countries. That is the role for Britain in future. If we announced our withdrawal from NATO and took advantage of the sophisticated thinking about which I have just been talking in terms of turning our production from arms to peacful products, we would have a chance of getting somewhere.
  Furthermore, contrary to what most Opposition Members think, this perhaps startling approach would cut through the proliferation of committees and talks which leave ordinary people in a daze about where we are in world moves towards disarmament. Britain is a party to SALT, to test-ban agreements and to discussion of nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear weapon-free zones, mutual force
  1650
  reductions and loads of other proposals. Where has it all got us? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said, very often one can believe that the people who are involved in those talks are the wrong people to be discussing the question of disarmament because they have an inbuilt resistance to bringing down the edifice which they have built up.
  Our rôle ought to be to ensure that the follow-up to Helsinki should be to try to effect the setting up of a replacement for NATO and the Warsaw Pact—which in my opinion are six of one and half a dozen of the other—to which all European Governments could belong, so as to build up a genuine understanding, because under the present system we cannot be independent and we cannot make our voice heard. We trail, as always, behind the United States.
  Two hon. Gentlemen this evening have mentioned Cyprus in different contexts. I want to mention Cyprus, but in a third context. The United Kingdom is a signatory to guarantees over Cyprus. What now is to be our attitude to the new Turkish-American defence agreement, which may well ensure that the formerly independent island of Cyprus, where Greeks and Turks lived peaceably side by side, may not get the chance, because of this new arms agreement, to return to its independence? Are we to be able to object or must we, because of our partnership in NATO, take lying down what the United States does and, therefore, retreat from our obligations to Cyprus?
  I repeat that I would have preferred a much greater cut in our defence spending and a much greater positive step towards independent thinking of our defence policy and in our foreign policy. I hope that we shall go on and gather strength on this side and that eventually our own Front Bench will come to see the sense of what we are saying.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: In his consultative paper of 1972 on the future of Northern Ireland my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) defined "three major concerns" of the

  1651
  British Government in that tortured Province. The third was
  "that Northern Ireland should not offer a base for any external threat to the security of the United Kingdom".
  The hon. Lady the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) wants cuts and more cuts and she wants our withdrawal from NATO at a time when Soviet naval striking forces infest the coasts of Northern Europe and threaten our communications with North America, and one presumed object of those Soviet warships is the neutralisation of the sea-borne nuclear deterrent of the United States.
  Shall we one day see Soviet warships in Lough Foyle? Only, I think, if the sort of doctrine the hon. Lady advocates were to prevail or if the "troops out" movement were to succeed in its squalid agitation and the Government were to weaken and surrender to anarchy what have again become what Churchill described as
  "the sentinel towers of the Western Approaches."
  The Under-Secretary paid tribute to the young soldiers recently fallen in County Armagh and Craigavon, and no words can do justice to the professional skill, patient constancy and chivalrous restraint of the Regular soldiers, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Marines in Northern Ireland. Nor should we forget to acknowledge the vigilance of Her Majesty's ships and aircraft in the Ulster seas and skies.
  On this side of the House we have repeatedly pledged support to the Government for all-out war on all terrorists whatever cause or colour they use to hide their criminal and sometimes highly profitable activities. At the same time, the Opposition have the duty to criticise what they have considered at times to be a flabby political direction of operations. There is legally no state of war and one understands that excessive military response to terrorist challenge can estrange those we seek to liberate from the reign of terror, whether in South Armagh or the housing estates of Belfast and Londonderry. Subtlety must march with strength. But after many tours of the Province, the latest just concluded, I regret that I am still looking for evidence of a comprehensive operational plan.
  1652
  It does not appear that victory is being organised in Northern Ireland with the same continuity, co-ordination and drive that eventually prevailed in, for example, Malaya under Templar. Northern Ireland is not a colony; it is part of the homeland, so one would have expected an assault upon lawful authority and civilised society there to have been met with clearer and firmer political direction.
  This war—and I am using the word loosely—is an intelligence war. It has been said that a conventional war is a war in which one is concerned to fight the enemy, but in this sort of war one is concerned to find the enemy.
  Subtract the phrase-mongering and sabre-rattling of the Prime Minister and one must acclaim his decision to dispatch the SAS to the "special emergency area" of South Armagh. Someone down there said to me that he had never seen the SAS. That is just as well, but to judge by Republican leaflets I have seen distributed around Bessbrook and Cross-maglen the SAS is held in healthy respect. Particularly in the border area, a permanent intelligence base is all-important.
  But I wonder—and I do not expect an answer on the Floor of the House—how intimate is the partnership of all the intelligence gatherers, the military, the CID and the Special Branch. If there is, as I believe, a case for a permanent intelligence base, is there perhaps a case also for a more permanent structure of operational command?
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary has police functions, functions which are distinct from security work, although it is also involved in security work. But I find it surprising that in a given police division and brigade area there are no combined operations rooms for the security forces as a whole. The criticism is often heard in Northern Ireland that the population, including sections from whom one expects leadership in times of trouble, is insufficiently involved in the defence of Ulster.
  I wish that the defence White Paper had said more about the Ulster Defence Regiment. It merits more publicity; it should be better known. It has an admirable magazine called Defence but the media are slow to present in human terms the public spirit and sheer cold courage of the men and women who sacrifice their

  1653
  leisure and sometimes their lives, and I would make particular mention of the Roman Catholic members, who stand up to very special intimidation.
  We on this side renew our long-standing proposal, which we have been making for years now, for a full-time company in each UDR battalion. It is often suggested that more of the officers seconded from the Regular Army to the UDR should have Northern Ireland experience. Whether or not it is right to exclude the Irish Guards and Irish regiments of the line from Service in Northern Ireland, officers from such units may well be suitable for secondment to the UDR. I also wonder whether we could have any figures showing how many Ulster territorials have availed themselves of the option of serving with the UDR, although it is understood that Territorial units in Northern Ireland cannot be used for security duties.
  Is the Ministry of Defence satisfied with the number of troops in Northern Ireland? The statistics for January and February indicate no lessening of the various forms of political and criminal violence. Then one is forced to ask the question which has been asked already—where are the reserves? That is one of the grounds on which we condemn the defence White Paper.
  It is a poor compliment to our soldiers to dismiss the Provisional IRA as merely a Mafia of psychopaths, criminals and hooligans. The Provos are one of the most experienced terrorist groups in the world. They make sophisticated use for their propaganda of our pliant sensation-seeking media. Yet their defeat is inevitable now that Dublin has determined to destroy them, always provided that we in Britain will it. The attitude of Sir Robert Mark to the Balcombe Street gang was correct. He said that they were going nowhere. Other revolutionary guerrillas have prevailed where they have enjoyed or extorted the support or acquiescence of a mass population. But the IRA is today utterly rejected in every poll and election on both sides of the Irish border.
  What, however, gives hope from time to time to the violent and tempts the law-abiding to despair are such manifestations of weakness as the purposeless parleys
  1654
  with the political wings of para-military organisations——
  Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I find it very difficult to discover its relevance to the subject of this debate—namely, the White Paper "Statement on the Defence Estimates".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I think that we must allow the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) to develop his argument in his own way.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: I was devoting my few remarks, which I am about to conclude, to the only theatre in which Her Majesty's Forces are fighting. That surely is relevant to this debate. It is the only theatre in which members of Her Majesty's Forces are laying down their lives, and it is highly relevant.
  There is no room for negotiation between those who stand for the Union and those who demand capitulation. Any ministerial equivocation can only damage morale and destroy confidence in Northern Ireland. It is resented in Dublin, where people understand such matters. It is an affront to the nation and to the men in the Services who make such sacrifices on our behalf.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce George: The Secretary of State for Defence has an unenviable task. He faces an Opposition who maintain vehemently that this Government's actions are endangering national defence and jeopardising the Alliance. Behind him, there are those who claim that what the Government are doing is in flagrant breach of the manifesto, and they are diverting scarce resources away from more deserving areas and that, far from cutting expenditure, they are increasing it. But if pressures inside this House are intense, I suspect that the pressures to which my right hon. Friend is exposed outside are infinitely greater.
  The level of defence expenditure in this country, as in any other country, appears to be a function of the perception of the extent and form of the external threat. There are some who see the threat and over-react. There are others who under-react. The Government have the task of

  1655
  striking a balance and of asking themselves at what level expenditure should be pitched in the national and international circumstances prevailing at that time.
  If the Government gauge too high and we have "too much defence", there will be a waste of resources and society will suffer an unnecessary loss of living standards. If they gauge too low, the consequences can be disastrous.
  It is probable that we have now reached a level where any further substantial cuts would be injurious to our Alliance. Politically, we have our defence expenditure as low as we can get away with in terms of our international obligations. But, arguably, the level of expenditure is too high to be sustained by our present economy. For that reason, a political and an economic judgment has to be made and a balance has to be struck.
  In a democracy, taxpayers do not want to keep on spending large sums of money on armed forces unless they can perceive a threat, and the fact is that, despite the efforts of certain people, Europeans patently do not feel threatened.
  These have been good years, despite occasional dangers and flare-ups throughout the world. If one contrasts the time now with the days of the cold war, these have been years of relative peace. When we live in times of inflation and industrial stagnation, internal considerations are paramount and people see far more value to be gained from spending scarce resources on health and welfare. Top priority is not given to defence by many people. In those circumstances, if we are not to increase expenditure I hope that we can get better value for money. I think that the White Paper is a step in this direction.
  The military and certain politicians in the free world—and in the unfree world—have a vested interest in magnifying the threat posed by their opponents. Any militarist seeking money will ensure that the public feel that the enemy they face is 25 ft. high. If we live in circumstances where there is no obvious and real threat, one has to be erected.
  There is cause for concern, and in a lucid way my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained yesterday what
  1656
  these dangers to the Western Alliance were. Those who howl and cry that very soon we shall have Admiral Gorshkov arriving up the Thames have to ask themselves whether what they are going is not counter-productive. They may be helping to create an inferiority complex which can be far more damaging, and that is what has been happening.
  There must be a public debate, and I welcome it. But this debate must take place in a rational arena and not in a hysterical one. We should not be stampeded and terrified into vast armaments programmes, and neither should we be stampeded into abandoning what defence we have at the moment.
  Many fears have been raised. Perhaps Lord Chalfont epitomised them in a recent article in The Times with a diagram indicating a rather modern version of the Schlieffen plan, with arrows centering on the heart of Europe from the East. His argument is that the Western Alliance is so weak that it is becoming more and more attractive to Soviet planners to think about piercing these defences and destroying our military capabilities.
  I believe, further, that there are many people who fear that the Government are letting down our Western Allies. We are told of the enormous threat posed by the Warsaw Pact with its economic and military strength, and time and time again we are told about the weakness of the NATO Alliance. We must try to strip away from the debate the propaganda and the value judgments.
  A number of sophisticated arguments have been advanced indicating that the threat is not as considerable as some Opposition Members make out. On the other hand, I do not wish to give the impression that I, like the Government, regard the present situation with any complacency.
  NATO is not about to be struck a mortal blow. I refer to a recent article in a journal called NATO Review by the Defence Correspondent of the Economist, James Meacham. Neither the Economist nor the NATO Review is regarded as a subversive piece of literature. Mr. Meacham's article, published October 1975, was headed
  "Weakness of the central front but not a case for major surgery".

  1657
  He said:
  "NATO today could probably fight the Warsaw Pact to a standstill in a conventional war in Central Europe. Its forces are large enough, although not as large as they should be; its equipment is better, although not as good as it should be for the money that is spent on it; and its disposition is at least adequate, if not ideal…Although the Warsaw Pact's numerical superiority is clear, it is by no means overwhelming. If it should succeed in concentrating a superior force, say 3 or 4 to 1, in a small area, it could very likely achieve breakthrough. But presumably NATO commanders would be doing something to redress the balance. NATO's equipment is, by and large, a lot better than the Warsaw Pact's."
  We do not need to match the Soviets soldier for soldier or tank for tank. We are already operating within a defensive situation and do not, therefore, require parity of forces.
  The article is far from complacent and its conclusion points to the fact that, if we over-emphasise the weakness, or the perceived weakness, of the central front, it
  "Will cause despair and an even greater reliance on nuclear weapons instead of encouraging improvements along the front that would make the Alliance's conventional forces into a major deterrent."
  One can go to another source, namely James Schlesinger, the Secretary for Defence, in the annual Defence Department report published last year, again an objective analysis, in which he says:
  "As matters now stand NATO has the capability and the resources to attain a more equal balance with the Pact even though it deploys a smaller number of divisions and certain serious vulnerabilities that we are working to correct."
  When he looks at the naval situation, he says—bearing in mind some hon. Members' fears of the Soviet naval buildup:
  "…if our naval modernisation programmes are approved by the Congress, I am reasonably confident that the United States, together with its allies, will remain able to defend the essential sea lanes in the Atlantic and Pacific, project power ashore under a wide range of circumstances, continue a strong deployed naval presence, and maintain the necessary maritime balance with the Soviet Union and its clients."
  There are other examples indicating that the situation is not as horrific as some hon. Members maintain. I should like to quote, as has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), another unbiased journal The Military Balance, published by the Institute of Strategic Studies. It emphasises the point I am making. If
  1658
  we are deficient in terms of front-line forces, I hardly think that there will be a sudden attack without warning as a result of NATO's spy network or an air reconnaissance. Clearly warning will be given, known as "political warning time", and any deficiency there may be can easily be remedied by a deployment of reserve forces.
  The book talks about differences in ground formation, manpower, reinforcements and equipment, but these are not insurmountable. It says:
  "First, the overall balance is such as to make military aggression appear unattractive. The defences are of such a size and quality that any attempt to breach them would require major attack. The consequences for an attacker would be incalculable, and the risks, including that of nuclear escalation, must impose caution.…NATO has emphasised quality, particularly in equipment and training, to offset numbers".
  Clearly there are numerous instances which could have been cited which indicate that the Western defence system is adequate to meet the demands placed upon it. Indeed there are difficulties, but nevertheless it is obvious that the West is not badly overmatched. There is no reason to assume that the analysis of Lord Chalfont about Soviet forces piercing their way into Europe is a realistic scenario.
  One must recognise that the Soviet forces are being built up, as, indeed, are Western forces, but one must not be panicked. Let us look at this from the other side of the coin. We are used to referring in this House to the strength of the Warsaw Pact, but we spend less time looking at its weaknesses. The Warsaw Pact countries and the Soviet citizens will probably be looking less at NATO's weaknesses than at its strengths, and, indeed, it is a formidable strength despite the differences between members of the Alliance, despite the different historical traditions and despite the fact that over the last centuries we have been fighting each other. Despite internal problems, the Alliance has held together and, indeed, America has had no need to invade Western Europe as the Soviet Union had to invade Hungary and Czechoslovakia to maintain the alliance's unity.
  Despite the strains placed upon it, there has been no major war and the Alliance has held secure. Many argue the need for increased conventional forces and,

  1659
  quite clearly, the larger the conventional forces the slower will be the escalation. Conversely, the smaller the conventional forces the quicker might be the climb to a form of mass annihilation.
  I believe that there is a third way of looking at the current situation. That is that the Western Alliance is a powerful alliance possessing numerous destructive capabilities and the power to destroy an enemy, real or imagined, time and time again. I believe we should not assume that the Warsaw Pact is insuperable and that the Western Alliance is crumbling and that, therefore, we need to inject vast additional resources to prop up the system and maintain parity. I believe that the strength of the Western Alliance is considerable. One must bear this constantly in mind and not appear defeatist or alarmist.
  I remember travelling to Berlin by aircraft, looking out and seeing the low land and saying how easy it was for Napoleon to go from France into Russia. Quite clearly, the Soviet Union throughout its history feels threatened not by the West alone but by China. What if Ronald Reagan becomes President? What if, God forbid, the Leader of the Opposition is the next Prime Minister? What if the Christian Democrats come to power in West Germany? There are other circumstances which might force the Russians to realise that they need to maintain parity.
  Let us not forget—it appears to have been forgotten in this debate—about détente. Just because Gerald Ford decides to drop the word does not mean that we should forget what progress has been made. The alternative to détente is a return to the cold war. There has been progress. There has been no major confrontation between the NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact. Let us not forget about the progress which has taken place in the SALT negotiations, the MBFR negotiations and the negotiations at the Helsinki Conference. There is a much better chance of a reduction in forces now that we have reached a situation of equilibrium.
  The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said in a lecture to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies:
  1660
  "We have taken it more or less for granted for years that the military balance of power would certainly be to the advantage of the West".
  We have in the past had an enormous superiority. The Russians, for their own reason, wish to close that gap. There is no God-given reason why we should expect to maintain this great military superiority over the Soviet Union. I believe that we have now reached a position of parity. We now have an opportunity to start force reductions, which is much better in this situation from a position of strength than from a position of inferiority.
  In conclusion, I look forward to the day when the NATO Alliance and the Warsaw Pact will be rendered superfluous. I regret that in the immediate future this is likely to be an impossible dream, and until that dawn arises I hope that the efforts of our Government in maintaining our defence and in maintaining their Alliance with NATO, upon which our futures depend, will continue. It is only, regrettably, as a result of military alliances and parity between them that we are likely to see the general folly of our ways and bring about a reduction of forces and disarmament which can bring nothing but benefit to ordinary working people.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: I am very grateful for having caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having sat through the debate yesterday when many were chosen but few were called. I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument too closely, save to say that many hon. Members, probably on both sides, tend to make the mistake in defence debates of looking entirely at the numbers game instead of considering the composition and the mix of the Soviet Union's forces. I would refer him in this context to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) about the production of Soviet submarines and similar naval vessels.
  The White Paper identifies the threat as correctly as its predecessor did a year ago. The Government still stoutly maintain that they are keeping up their contribution to NATO. The rhetoric may still be there, but it seems to be diverging

  1661
  from reality. The White Paper says on page 9:
  "It is, therefore, NATO's strategy, if deterrence fails, to meet aggression with a defence tailored to the situation, selecting a suitable level of response from a wide range of options to restore the territorial and maritime integrity of the Alliance. The knowledge that NATO has a realistic strategy of this kind is itself an important element in deterrence."
  I hope that the Russians find that as convincing as some of us find it unconvincing.
  The Under-Secretary today spent a good deal of time demolishing the credibility of the article produced by a Belgian brigadier, on which a piece appeared in The Times. It is true that that paper was written some years ago and was meant as a treatise for an intellectual group. But what the Minister did not mention is that the German General Johannes Steinhoff, not some years ago but in the past few weeks, produced a book substantially confirming that diagnosis.
  The significance of General Steinhoff's book, which has been serialised in Die Welt, is not so much that it confirms the speed and depth of a possible Soviet thrust but rather that it asks what NATO will do to meet the challenge. He says that if NATO wants to reduce the nuclear risk,
  "…they must be ready to fight a long conventional war, and provide the necessary numbers of well-trained and equipped ready troops stationed close to the frontier, together with adequate reserves. If, for economy reasons, they are not prepared to do this, they must accept that the only alternative is to be ready to make early use of nuclear weapons—with all the necessary arrangements for rapid and unanimous decisions."
  What he is saying is that, at the moment, we are doing neither.
  In these days of economic difficulties, any White Paper obviously has a lot to do with expenditure. Every hon. Member who wants to see any defence expenditure at all wants to see the best possible value for the money we spend. On this point I should have no problem with the rationalisation of defence research establishments set out in the White Paper. Some of them have become rather over-established in recent years.
  On the question of major force improvements, I note with interest that the Army is likely to receive in the forthcoming year an armoured bridge-laying
  1662
  and recovery vehicle based on the Chieftain tank. Anyone who takes an interest in the findings of the Public Accounts Committee might care to read the cautionary history of the Chieftain tank engine and the bulldozer kit attached to the Chieftain tank, which took eight years to get into service. The engine had to be designed to fit the hole left for it after the hull had been constructed out of phase with the engine itself. If that kind of thing is to go on, the Russians have nothing to fear.
  One notices also that we are reducing our number of mine counter-measure vessels at the very time when the Russians are increasing their mine-laying capacity. Several people who are expert in these matters feel that the Soviet Union in future hostilities may try to bottle up our forces in various ports. It would seem to be foolish to be reducing our mine counter-measure forces at this stage, therefore.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) spoke about the memorandum of understanding. The Minister of State will know the interest that I take in equipment matters. As equipment is more than a third of the budget, we should make some reference to it in this debate. I understand that the memorandum of understanding which was signed last September following the Harpoon purchase has identified 13 projects in Britain and a further 37 in the rest of Europe, but that this list has not yet been made known to British industrialists.
  Will that list be circulated, particularly since the Secretary of State supports the NATO Industrialist Advisory Group, which has recently set up a body parallel to the European Programme Group, which, as the White Paper says, has been established in Rome on 1st and 2nd February this year? The Government must accept the importance of, and put still greater emphasis on, European industrial co-operation. We shall not be able to do so if we allow the United States to make a series of separate bilateral memoranda of understanding under which they can then play off one European nation against another. That can have unfortunate consequences.
  My hon. Friends will be relieved to know that I shall not detain them too

  1663
  long by launching into a great treatise on standardisation, because we all know that the case has been made and accepted in most quarters. But it is another thing if we are to be the nation which makes a series of empty gestures in favour of specific items of standardisation ahead of any specified agreement with our European partners. Above all, it would be nothing short of deplorable for any Government to enter any purchase agreement without adequate reciprocal purchases being agreed at the time that the purchase is made.
  I still feel that I have to accuse this Government of absurd naivety in cancelling the British under-sea guided weapon before they entered negotiations to buy the United States Sub-Harpoon weapon. The offset arrangements mentioned on that occasion and many times since tend to include such things as the Harrier project, which have a curious habit of turning up again and again when the United States wishes to give examples of its readiness to buy from the United Kingdom. At the time of the Harpoon agreement the Minister of State, I think, gave the news to the House that the Franco-German Milan anti-tank missile had been purchased.
  I was very glad that the Secretary of State, who, I am glad to see, has joined us again, included in the Milan agreement the phrase, "if the terms are right". Does he still think that the terms are right in view of the subsequent escalation of the price from the French?
  We had an exchange earlier today on the AWACS, but in the interests of time I shall not go over it again. I am totally unconvinced that this system will be worth the huge amount that we shall be called upon to pay, particularly when the Germans are reluctant to enter this programme and we are developing our own programme.
  Any defence review will necessarily be largely involved with matters of detail. When we pass from the broad strategy we come to a series of detailed matters. I shall briefly refer to a few of the details.
  In page 50 of the White Paper we read of the new offshore patrol vessels that are on order. By no means am I the first person to point to offshore
  1664
  protection as being a vital matter for the future. It is vital for our oil rigs, and it is also vital if we are to take out 200-mile zones. I am concerned that we may have ordered vessels that are not fast enough to do the job. I am concerned about whether they are carrying the proper sort of equipment.
  Is the Minister of State able to assure the House that the protection vessels will be quick enough for patrolling and policing work and offshore protection? Will they have helicopter-carrying capacity? Lighter vessels are now under development that carry helicopters. The Minister of State does not need me to tell him that a helicopter with a missile-carrying capacity on a very fast small boat would be a potent defence measure for offshore facilities.
  In page 46 we read about the Hydrography Service. It seems that the Government cannot continue to finance the survey fleet beyond the immediate requirements of the Royal Navy. There is an important point of principle which is linked, although not in a geographical sense, with the provision of the Gurkha brigade in Brunei. If a foreign Power is prepared to pay for one of our Services I very much hope that we shall maintain it and receive the money.
  I thought that yesterday the Secretary of State made a rather misleading remark—I am sure that he did not do so deliberately—about the TAVR. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of 250,000 reservists who are to be drawn upon for essential tasks. That is the sort of remark that is guaranteed to bring a warm glow of comfort to those outside the Chamber. In a period of rapidly changing technological skills. I wonder how well trained those people can be. Probably many of them have not been in uniform for some considerable time. The figure to which the right hon. Gentleman refers needs examining.
  In the TAVR there are what are known as sponsor units. I am not certain about the origin of the word "sponsor". The units consist of those who are employed on specialised logistic works. The House may not be aware that the establishment of officers on 1st April 1975 was 1,267 and that the strength was 1,104. The establishment of other ranks was 9,490 and the strength was 5,730.

  1665
  I hope that the Government will give the necessary encouragement to recruiting up to full strength the skilled and essential people to operate in the sponsored units. They are the people who will have to go at short notice to BAOR in the event of an outbreak of hostilities, whether or not the atack is a surprise attack. Clearly, we should not have long to reinforce the front line.
  There is now a need for a long period of consolidation and stability that will give the opportunity for the defence forces to increase their efficiency and moral.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. John Carson: I hope that the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) will forgive me if I do not take up his observations.
  I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. Proportionately, Northern Ireland has suffered more from the closing of maintenance establishments than any other area of the United Kingdom. However, I do not wish to debate that issue as my hon. Friends and I have already expressed our views in a previous debate. Northern Ireland has lost over 2,000 skilled jobs.
  I find it hard to reconcile the views of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) about the redundancies that have resulted from the closures with his decision to join 82 hon. Members in an amendment that demands even greater defence cuts. I hope that the people and the trade union movement of Northern Ireland can understand his actions. I find it extremely difficult to accept them.
  Although we shall be unable to support the Government motion because of the effect of the Governmen's policy in Northern Ireland, we give an extremely warm welcome to its concluding remarks—namely:
  "thereby maintaining the British contribution to NATO, the security and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom"
  and, most important of all,
  "and peace in Northern Ireland."
  It is seldom that the Government make a statement that we so fully support and endorse.
  I condemn the murders of the three soldiers in Northern Ireland last night. I express my deep sympathy for the
  1666
  families who have been bereaved, and I offer them my prayers. As for the fourth soldier who was so seriously injured, we wish and pray for a speedy recovery.
  I remind the House that the vice-president of the Provisional IRA, Mrs. Maire Drumm, is just as guilty of the murders of the three British soldiers in South Armagh as the man who laid the landmine. Mrs. Drumm, a woman who calls herself a mother, has the blood on her hands of the sons of mothers and the fathers of young children.
  I dissociate myself from the members of political groups, irrespective of which part of the community they come from, who question the integrity and ability of the soldiers serving in Northern Ireland. I congratulate them and pay tribute to the tremendous task that they carry out. I congratulate all the security forces now operating in Northern Ireland.
  I shall concentrate a few remarks on the Ulster Defence Regiment. I am delighted to see that the Government have paid tribute to the regiment in Chapter IV, paragraph 4. The paragraph reads:
  "The part-time Ulster Defence Regiment continues to play a full and active part in operations in Northern Ireland and has had an encouraging number of successes in recent months.…The Regiment will remain a vital part of the Security Forces in Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future."
  I thank the Government for the compliment that they have paid to the regiment.
  Recently I was rather saddened by a reply that was made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to a question about the Ulster Defence Regiment. I know that the right hon. Gentleman did not really mean what he said.
  The Secretary of State said in February:
  "The GOC has the right to deploy his forces where he wills, but it would be wrong to deploy the UDR in some Catholic areas, because of the sectarian break-down of the UDR That is no criticism of the UDR."—[Official Report, 19th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 1471.]
  Unfortunately, some people in Northern Ireland, including members of the UDR, got the impression that he was implying that the regiment was a sectarian force. I do not believe for one second that he meant to refer to it in that way and I should like the record to be put straight so that the people of Northern Ireland may realise the UDR is not a sectarian force.

  1667
  I pay tribute to those members of the minority who have joined the regiment. I urge others to join if they want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom and to help achieve justice, peace and stability for all.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said in a very able speech, as usual, last month:
  "The whole operation has to be seen less as a military operation than as a police operation, and increasingly the UDR and the Army must be part of a strategy which is a police strategy because it is based upon tapping those resources and using those tactics which are essentially police resources and police tactics."—[Official Report, 25th March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 702.]
  I appeal to the Minister to consider attaching a full-time company of the UDR to every battalion in Northern Ireland.
  Northern Ireland is a small Principality of only 1½ million people, but it is a large area and I do not have to tell hon. Members about the length of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic and the difficulty security forces have, with the numbers at their disposal, to guard the border and be in every other part of Northern Ireland as well. The establishment of full-time companies of the UDR would strengthen the hard-worked security forces and the RUC. When serious rioting or other emergencies occurred, these full-time companies would be able to assist in the operations of the security forces.
  Most important of all, it is essential to have a full-time company of the UDR in the border areas where much of the terrorist activity is now taking place.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Litterick: I regret that the Statement on the Defence Estimates, instead of reducing the current arms bill, in fact increases it, that it abandons Labour's election commitment to reduce the proportion of the gross national product devoted to arms to the level of the other European NATO Governments, and that it diverts money and resources which are urgently needed for housing, health social services and the re-equipment of industry.
  The Secretary of State advised us yesterday that he was saving £470 million on projected expenditure this year. If the public were inclined to read his
  1668
  remarks or listen to his remarks carelessly, they might have overlooked the word "projected". He was talking about future planned increases in armaments expenditure and not absolute reductions in defence expenditure.
  At the risk of boring the House a little more, I must quote from the expenditure estimates we debated only two weeks ago. In the table 4(1) on page 132 of the Statement we are told that armaments expenditure for 1974–75 was £5,151 million, that for 1975–76 it would be £5,403 million, for 1976–77 £5,492 million, for 1977–78 £5,535 million, for 1978–79 £5,559 million and for 1979–80 £5,627 million. These figures are all stated in common terms so they are directly comparable. They represent a continually increasing level of defence expenditure for the rest of the decade—no cuts.
  This is disappointing. At least the Government are not planning to increase defence expenditure by very much, but this is a long way from saying they are cutting defence expenditure; they are not.
  The basis of our policy was the average proportion of GNP being spent by other members of NATO in Western Europe on defence. This figure will not be achieved by the end of the decade.
  Hon. Members will have noticed that the tendency is for our GNP not to increase, but to contract. The apparent stability of our defence expenditure in absolute terms actually represents an increasing proportion of GNP. I said in the last defence debate that this would happen and it has come to pass.
  My constituents, many of whom live in blighted, run-down areas and who have been waiting for years for many different kinds of social expenditure to alleviate the conditions in which they live, in places like Stirchley and Bournbrook in Selly Oak will derive no pleasure from these Estimates because they are being asked to sustain a wholly unrealistic burden of armaments expenditure while enduring unprecedented cuts in social expenditure. They will also note that the Conservative Party advocates further cuts in social expenditure and further increases in defence expenditure. They know there is a trade-off going on in inflation and unemployment and in arms expenditure

  1669
  and social expenditure. They are quite capable of making the right kind of judgment. They know what armaments are for: they are for killing people and destroying their houses. They know that social expenditure is for schools, houses, roads, social security and so on.
  Like many of my hon. Friends, hundreds of thousands of people within the Labour Party and millions who voted for the Labour Government, I was looking for a significant reduction in absolute terms in armaments expenditure. It is not good enough for the Government to plead in self-defence that we are unrealistic. That commitment was explicitly entered into by the Labour Party. It does not matter how my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench wrap it up: the commitment framed in terms of the gross national product relationship is not being met.
  The Government say in their defence that the cuts which we demand would cause unemployment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) said, other voices outside the House are replying to that argument. I commend to my right hon. Friends the propositions put forward by the workers of Lucas Aerospace who have worked out an armaments substitute production strategy in which workers use their sophisticated skills to produce useful articles which do not threaten anyone, thus maintaining work and sensible economic activity in place of a destructive, wasteful and wholly inflationary economic activity.
  Unfortunately, in spite of the widespread use of the current cant word "participation", no one wants to listen to embarrassing policy statements such as those which have emerged from the workers of Lucas Aerospace, because the paranoia which underlies our arms strategy might be challenged by the voice of sanity, peace and hope for the rest of humanity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) dealt a blow to the basically irrational fears of the "boom-boom" politicians who are strong on the Opposition Benches. They are happy only when they know that more guns are being made and more soldiers are being placed at the ready to frighten someone else and thus their irrational fears will be justified. My
  1670
  hon. Friend offered facts from impeccable sources. He said that references to the colossal, monolithic, frightening, overwhelming superiority of the arms held by the Russians were not true. I would like to add my small mite of fact by quoting the persuasive authority of General George S. Brown, the chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently said:
  "in Northern, Central and Southern Europe national ground forces were for NATO 1·78 million and for the Warsaw Pact countries 1·62 million."
  That statement, made by a senior American military authority, runs counter to the panic-mongering speeches made by speaker after speaker on the Opposition Benches.
  To his credit, the Secretary of State is convinced that no one in official circles really believes that the Russians are imminently coming. So many years after the war it is of some comfort that someone in official life is not prepared to be wholly panicked out of his wits.
  Mr. Hamish Watt: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that we can draw some comfort from the fact that the Russians are short of food and that any nation that cannot feed itself must think twice before going to war with anyone?
  Mr. Litterick: I find it difficult to draw comfort from the fact that anyone is short of food. That an hon. Member can derive comfort from such a fact is bleakly disappointing.
  The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) said that the significance of the battle tank in modern warfare was declining rapidly and that the lesson of the Yom Kippur war was that the tank was on the way out. I agree with him. The American experience in Vietnam also suggests that the infantryman has come back into his own. That war taught the Americans the modern infantryman's capability to withstand a colossal onslaught by advanced technology and to come up shooting at the end. The Vietnam war was won by the infantry. A country which relies on battle tanks as its main weapon is relying on obsolete technology and is doing what States and military establishments so often do—planning for the last war That is invariably a mistake.

  1671
  The Secretary of State informs us that one of the areas of massive superiority of NATO forces is in anti-tank weaponry. I am much encouraged by that. Our superiority over the Russians in antitank weaponry is in the ratio of two to one. That makes sense. I only wish that we would contemplate reducing our tank forces quickly, because they are so vulnerable to well-equipped infantrymen.
  I am informed that the Russians' commitment to armour is more than double ours. The NATO armour is about 6,000 units and the Russians' is about 15,000 units. By the standard of cavalry generals, who are so devoted to tanks, these 15,000 units are obsolete. The former Head of Defence Intelligence, General Daniel Graham, for example, talking about the standard Russian battle tank, the T-62, says:
  "The T-62 is really a T-54 tank [first manufactured in 1948] that has been modified a little here and a little there.…It has the same engine in it that the Soviets had in their tanks in World War II. There are some drawbacks to that. It isn't a powerful enough engine. Our tank does outrange their tank. I have been in a T-62 and it has a very cramped turret, and you have to be a left-handed midget because you have to load the darn thing from the wrong side of the breech. And you have to be about my size. If they run out of left-handed midgets in the Soviet Union, they are going to be in big trouble with the T-62."
  That does not sound like the colossal tank army that is to grind across Europe crushing everything before it. I cannot imagine all those little left-handed midgets making lightning thrusts across Europe.
  I am sure that the Russians tell their people that their tanks are marvellous and invincible. That is the rhetoric of this kind of lunacy. It is commonly used and it goes like this: "Your tanks, your equipment, your bolts, are the biggest and the best and they will frighten the hell out of everybody else." They frighten the hell out of me. But generals, military people, get seized with a strange conviction about their weapons, as if they were talking about their sexual equipment: they just have to be believed by everybody else; what they have is bound to frighten everybody else.
  If we look at it in terms of cost effectiveness, a big tank against a well-armed infantryman, there is no comparison—
  1672
  none at all. A well-armed infantryman can be equipped with a deadly anti-tank weapon costing less than £20,000 and can easily, without being seen by his victim, the tank, kill it with one shot. That is the nature of modern technology. It has rendered obsolete yet another Leviathan. If we push our luck with tanks, we shall be trundling into war with useless scrap iron which will be a sitting target for every well-trained infantryman who cannot be got at by the monster.
  The danger to peace is heightened with every incremental increase in arms expenditure, because every increase in arms expenditure has to be justified in rhetorical terms. It is always justified in terms of what the other person is supposed to be doing. We always, unfortunately, find out too late what the other person is doing and not doing.
  We should not mislead ourselves. The debate so far, with one or two exceptions, has not been well-informed. It has been a debate in which we have sought to comfort one another in our illusions and our ignorance. Worst of all, we have sought to indulge a kind of chauvinism which I thought we had outlived many years ago.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that time moves on.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Hastings: Many of us will welcome the unstinted enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) for the infantry. As an ex-infantry officer, I really must tell the hon. Member that. But I must also disillusion him on one point. He said that anyone with any military experience or interest became persuaded that whatever equipment he had—and particularly tanks—was the finest in the world. I remember only too well how, in the early tank battles in the Western Desert, I thanked my lucky stars that I was not in a British tank, because our lads died by the hundred. Our equipment was infinitely inferior to that of the Germans, because we had neglected rearmament for so many years before.
  That said, I found it a little difficult to understand that the hon. Member and the rest of us live in the same world. Perhaps it is best to leave the hon. Member's speech at that.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) is here because of my hon. Friend's military service.
  Mr. Hastings: The hon. Member for Selly Oak will understand if I do not follow his remarks too far. He says that there have been no cuts. Even if he is unable to accept the figures produced in the White Paper, he may have accepted that there is something behind the statements about depots closing, jobs lost and 40,000 people leaving the defence forces. However, he sees it another way and feels that the rest of us do not trust our fellow man, otherwise we should not be so bothered about defence. I wonder how the Hungarians and the Czechs would have felt about that a few years ago.
  I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's peroration yesterday, and there was a good deal in what he said at the end of his speech. Ithink that all of us on this side would tend to agree with it, but how he squares those words with what is in the White Paper is beyond my comprehension.
  I do not know whether the Secretary of State or the other Defence Ministers have come across the admirably practical logic of the military appreciation. It starts by defining the objective. It then deals with the factors affecting the attainment of the objective, including the assessment of the threat, and it finishes up with a plan. I shall apply this litmus of logic to the White Paper.
  The first section should, it seems to me. set the theme. It should certainly state the objective. Instead, paragraphs 1 to 16 are a sort of dissertation on détente—nothing else. If it is anything at all, this first section is pure political speculation and no more. It does not belong in any White Paper on defence.
  It seems to me that, if it says anything, it says two things. The first is that defence is a mean of détente. But, as we all know, defence is armed strength, and what is needed is for the House to assess the threat and decide whether the armed strength to be provided by the Government is adequate or not.
  The second thing that it seems to be saying is not to the House of Commons at all but to the Tribunites and that half of the Labour Party. It seems to run like this: "The Government are doing
  1674
  all they can to disarm, but if we cannot wholly ignore the tactless tendency of our Russion friends to do the opposite, please understand our difficulty and come along and vote tonight."
  If any détente is needed in this debate, I should have thought that it was between the two halves of the Labour Party. If there were a little more of it, we should not have to be asked to accept the ludicrous stuff in the White Paper.
  I should like to give some examples of what I mean. On page 2, in paragraph 4, the Government are talking of the alleged agreement to notify major manoeuvres. It says that the Final Act of the CSCE contained measures which
  "derive from a firm political decision on the part of all the governments who participated in the CSCE",
  yet two paragraphs later we read that
  "Most NATO countries and a fair proportion of neutral and non-aligned States accepted the invitation; but the States of the Warsaw Pact did not."
  Over the page we come to the next of the exercises, the mutual and balanced force reductions. We read in paragraph 7 that
  "It is noteworthy that, in their speeches at the conclusion of the CSCE in Helsinki, all European leaders stressed that the next need was for progress in MBFR."
  It might imply that some progress was made. The White Paper goes on to say in paragraph 8 that
  "The participating States are seeking undiminished security at a lower level of forces in Central Europe. But this objective will not be achieved without a more even ilitary balance between the two sides than exists at present."
  Yet in paragraph 10 we learn that
  "Throughout the negotiations the Warsaw Pact countries have resisted any approach which would have the effect of correcting the imbalance in conventional forces in Central Europe."
  If this is "progress," we seem to be talking a different language. It is meaningless. If it were not so desperately serious, it would be hilarious. Therefore, we begin not with a statement of objective at all but with a total confusion about objectives.
  The White Paper proceeds then to the assessment of the military threat, which I suspect was made by staff officers rather than by Socialist dialecticians, and it is frightening.

  1675
  I do not want to deal with this in detail—it has been mentioned a great deal already in the debate—but I put one question to the Secretary of State. We are told that there is no sign of imminent attack in Europe. Is this vast and expensive array, therefore, just for the sake of sabre-rattling? It might be possible to construct an argument on those lines.
  It is not mentioned in the White Paper, but I understand that the Soviet spending on civil defence is over $1,000 million a year. That is not necessary for sabre-rattling. That is only there as an earnest of absolute intent to survive in actual war. Of course, we have abandoned our civil defence altogether. But what sort of interpretation do the Government place on this figure?
  Surely the Secretary of State realises that a vast military establishment like this imports its own psychological momentum. The Soviet generals may be cautious people. I am inclined to think they are, but if they see an imbalance tending to increase in their favour the temptation in the end could become irresistible.
  To pass, therefore, to the conclusion of the White Paper, we get first the confusion about objectives, then the assessment. Then there is the conclusion—or, if one likes, the plan—in this exercise in non-logic. It is to make a few adjustments here and there, and to continue to disarm beyond what we were told yesterday was the safety limit, and to do so principally by cutting the supply base. Do not the Government realise that in modern war the system of supply is doubly important because of the extent of mobility and increased fire power? Have they learnt nothing from the Yom Kippur war and the experience of the Israelis? Have they had no reports about what happened there? If they have, they have ignored them.
  According to my analysis, therefore, we have in the White Paper no objective. We have a devastating assessment of growing Soviet might, backed up by Marshal Grechko, who thinks that it ought to grow faster and further. We conclude that the best thing to do is to continue to disarm. That is what this White Paper is all about. I do not think that the Secretary of State will get many marks on the basis of that or pass the staff college. He will not deter or frighten
  1676
  anyone very much, except, perhaps, by the cautious statement in chapter 7, where, in a short paragraph, it says that it is proposed to reinforce the bird control units on a number of RAF ah fields. So the birds had better watch out, if no one else does.
  I want to deal with one more aspect, and that is to explain why I believe that the whole approach to defence as defined in the White Paper, which is common to the free world and not restricted to Britain, is inadequate, unimaginative and dangerous. It ignores two factors of immense importance in the Soviet attack. The first was so well illustrated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) only yesterday when he referred to Mr. Brezhnev as having said quite clearly that détente does not preclude support for so-called liberation movements anywhere in the world.
  In plain English, that means that, having secured the central front by the illusion of detente, the Soviet Union will be free to secure its imperial designs by military operations anywhere in the world. The latest apppallingly dangerous example of that is in Angola, so near the source of so many of the metals and raw materials for the entire Western world. There is not one word in the White Paper about this. The name Angola is not even mentioned. Yesterday the Secretary of State was congratulating himself before us all on giving up every vestigial hold left to us anywhere in the world from which, with our Allies, we might have done something to contain or deter.
  One other passage in the White Paper illustrates the second lacuna that I wish to draw to the attention of the House. It is in Chapter 1 dealing with the Warsaw Pact where it states:
  "many Eastern commentators have restated their views of détente, as being strictly limited to achieving better inter-State relations, and have reminded the West that the relaxation of international tension by no means eliminates the struggle of ideas."
  What is this struggle of ideas? So far as I am concerned, these people do not have an idea worth offering. The miserable existence they have created for all those under their yoke is the proof of that. What they have, however, is the most formidable subversive machine the world has ever seen. Relentlessly by day and by

  1677
  night, through this massive intricate apparatus of subversion, by betrayal, by what they call disinformation—that is a translation from the Russian—by blackmail and by worse, their agents are at work, and this country is a prime target for this activity.
  Their resources are many time greater than all the security forces, including the CIA, deployed by the West as a whole. There is the notorious KGB. There is the GRU, which is the military intelligence system. There is the International Department of Soviet Trade Union Organizations working on exactly the same thing. Then there are the satellite intelligence services all under KGB control. In particular, the most menacing are the Czechs, the East Germans, the Hungarians and the Cubans. All this information is readily available to anyone who takes an interest in it. Finally there are the indigenous Communist Parties in all the target countries, together with their friends.
  This, then, is the "struggle of ideas," a ruthless attempt to destroy the economies and the morale of the free nations, and so far it has been remarkably successful. On any possible interpretation of what they profess to believe, of what they only say and do, the Soviet Union and its Communist allies are at war with us now and have been for a long time. But there are two arms to the Soviet attack. There is the massive military build-up which we have been debating and discussing. The second arm is the subversive attack which we ignore completely or, at least, in the context of defence. We should not do so.
  That said, however, there is no need for us to despair. Free man is resilient. We are the ones with the ideas, not they. The weaknesses of a free society are many and evident, but the vulnerability of a closed tyranny also exists and can prove as deadly as Achilles' heel. But if we are to resist, if our ideas are to prevail, we must realise what we are up against and we must take adequate counter-measures. Above all, we must have the will to survive. To that end the White Paper and the words of the Secretary of State yesterday make no contribution whatsoever. They only go to prove that in the hands of this schizophrenic Socialist Government the destiny
  1678
  of this country and our very freedom are at permanent risk.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: One of the recurring themes in the debate, both inside the House and outside, over past months has been talk of the growth of the military capabilities of the Warsaw Pact countries. It featured in the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). That particular argument is held to justify not merely the present fantastic level of military expenditure but ever-increasing amounts.
  It is difficult at times to believe that hon. Members who advocate increasing defence expenditure have fully grasped the economic implications of what they are suggesting. If their ideas were put into practice, either global public expenditure would rise to an all-time peak—and they say that present levels are threatening the economic viability of this country—or it would mean such Draconian cuts in housing, health, public transport and welfare as virtually to wreck whole areas of our way of life. The effects of that would be disastrous in many ways which Conservative Members cannot possibly have thought out.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) argued yesterday, the contention that defence expenditure is being substantially cut does not stand up. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) quoted the White Paper on Public Expenditure. I want to refer to the figure shown on page 31 for the year 1976–77. That figure is £4,566 million at 1975 prices. In 1977–78 it will be £4,548 million. That is £18 million less. That is a reduction of less than½ per cent. In 1978–79 we have a further reduction of £18 million, and the figure remains the same in 1979–80. The reduction is less than 1 per cent. during the period from now till 1979–80. In other words, even if the projections are right, the cuts will be quite minimal. If this is the result of the most far-reaching defence review that has ever been carried out and of subsequent cuts, all we can say is that it is a good job that we did not have a mere superficial review.
  We can fairly say that the policy that the Government are pursuing is to maintain defence costs at a constant level and

  1679
  that this policy does not include making real cuts at all. I therefore support very strongly the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East and in my name and the names of others of my hon. Friends. I hope that the Conservative Opposition will make it quite clear in the country where they would make the cuts in the social services that would be necessary to carry out the increased expenditure that they are proposing.
  The argument that the West is falling behind the Warsaw Pact countries, on which the Conservative case for additional expenditure is based, is in many respects, untenable as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) pointed out. I deplore the present level of Soviet expenditure on arms as much as I deplore that of the West, but it must be taken into account that conventional weaponry and armies, to which Opposition Members have devoted most of their speeches, constitute only part of the military strength which could be deployed in a conflict. Both military alliances also rely on strategic nuclear weapons. In this field the United States and the West remain both numerically and qualitatively way ahead.
  Mr. John Stokes: Thank God.
  Mr. Newens: The total targetable warheads are variously estimated. For the United States the estimates vary between 6,122 and 8,586, and for the USSR the estimates vary between 3,269 and 4,240. On any interpretation the United States is clearly way ahead. The fact that the estimates vary arises because the authorities differ in methods of counting, but there can be no doubt about the superiority of the United States in this respect.
  That has been confirmed in the speech which no less a person than Dr. Henry Kissinger made at Dallas as recently as 22nd March this year. According to The Times of the following day, Dr. Kissinger stated that:
  "American strategic missiles, for instance, were superior to the larger Soviet ones in reliability, accuracy, diversity and sophistication."
  He went on to say:
  "We possess far larger numbers of warheads—8,500 to their 2,500."
  1680
  This represents a larger disparity than that which I have mentioned, which is based upon all the authorities which publish material on this matter.
  It is possible that there was a degree of exaggeration in Dr. Kissinger's statement. It is clear that he was making it in the light of Mr. Reagan's presidential aspirations. However, the fact that there is this clear lead in strategic nuclear weaponry makes it absolutely nonsensical for any country to call for more expenditure on nuclear arms.
  I am by no means satisfied with the statements that have been made by my right hon. Friend about the expenditure that we are now devoting to maintaining a nuclear deterrent. I believe that the House should be told what the figures are and whether it is true that we are spending a further £400 million. If we are, it is an absolute disgrace. I am quite sure that the people of this country who are forced to put up with cuts in their standard of living because of unemployment and cuts in public expenditure would revolt against it very strongly indeed.
  Mr. Stokes: Absolute rubbish.
  Mr. Newens: That is a matter of opinion. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tests that on some of the people within his own constituency who live in the poorer houses there and finds out whether they would be prepared to make the sort of contribution to which he would give his support.
  If the West has superiority in nuclear weaponry, this is obviously a stimulus for the Warsaw Pact, on the crazy logic—which is argued here—to maintain a lead in the conventional field. The arguments advanced to justify the concept of flexible response by the West apply equally strongly when looked at from the Soviet point of view. We should recognise that clearly.
  Dr. Kissinger said in his Dallas speech that the United States Administration would not be deflected from present policies by
  "contrived and incredible scenarios, by inflated versions of Soviet strength or by irresponsible attacks on SALT."
  Those of us on these Benches who demand real cuts in expenditure on armaments do not intend to be pushed

  1681
  away from the stand that we have taken and which is set out in our amendment. Those of us who have signed the amendment are totally dissatisfied with the failure of the Government to make effective reductions in military expenditure. It is extremely repugnant to us that the motion should talk in terms of welcoming the Statement. However, the logic of events will eventually drive my right hon. and hon. Friends to recognise that we cannot afford the present levels of expenditure, and perhaps we are now at a unique time when some reconsideration of this issue ought to be undertaken.
  The defence policy advanced from both Front Benches, in the view of those of us who stand by the amendment, is totally out of date. Our objectives still include the defence of interests which have nothing to do with the real interests of our people or of the peoples of the world. On numerous occasions I have criticised the British involvement in Oman. The fact that we have helped to prolong the life of the Sultan's regime in that country and have suppressed a national liberation movement is neither right nor in our long-term interests.
  I fervently look forward to a time when we shall make a complete overhaul of British defence policy and achieve savings of much greater magnitude.
  I warn my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government. We are not prepared in the long run to accept what has been done to date. We are determined to carry on a struggle for real cuts. Over a number of years the number of hon. Members who demand such cuts has grown. We believe that it will continue to grow. The logic of our arguments will eventually carry the day and we shall carry on the struggle until defence expenditure is cut to a realistic level, and certainly far below the levels now proposed by the Government.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall not take up the arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). I begin by saying how much I support the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), who emphasised that the defence of the realm must be the first priority of any Government. The first duty of the Government, whatever
  1682
  its political colour, is to guarantee the security of the State against external aggression.
  Whether we like it or not, and whether or not hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side accept the situation, the vast military resources of the Warsaw Pact countries continue to pose a potential threat of the gravest nature to Western security. This military power must be seen not only in terms of its ability to wage war but as a means of reinforcing political pressure and of advancing the policies of the Eastern bloc without having to resort to open hostilities.
  The Warsaw Pact countries have been steadily increasing the proportion of their national resources devoted to defence. The Pact's armed forces continue to grow in both size and strength, far beyond what is needed for purely defensive measures and garrison duties. Soviet strategic nuclear forces now almost match those of the United States in numbers, while the Warsaw Pact's land and air forces deployed in central Europe substantially outnumber those of NATO.
  The Soviet Union has emerged as a maritime super-Power. It has developed a large, modern, well-equipped fleet of cruisers, destroyers and escorts, over 1,000 naval aircraft and some 320 operational submarines, of which 120 are nuclear-powered. Two aircraft carriers are under construction. The Warsaw Pact's building rate for nuclear-powered submarines is now twice that of NATO. The numbers of Warsaw Pact and NATO surface ships are broadly similar, but allied surface vessels include a very much higher proportion of older ships carrying substantially fewer offensive or defensive missile systems. One nuclear submarine is completed by the Soviets every five or six weeks.
  Numerical comparisons disguise the full extent of the imbalance between the Soviet submarine fleet, which is now increasingly nuclear-powered, and the capability of NATO's anti-submarine forces. The major Soviet threat at sea, therefore, comes more from the very large submarine force and from the Soviet Union's substantial building programme, which is improving the quality and average age of the Soviet fleet compared with those of the Alliance. The maritime balance has shifted and is continuing

  1683
  to shift markedly in favour of the Warsaw Pact. That is the trend as we debate the Defence Estimates.
  In the Eastern Atlantic area, NATO's mainly British maritime forces at immediate readiness for forward defence are already heavily outnumbered. I am not talking about a distant menace. Elements of the Soviet fleet skulk off the Cornish coast and patrol the Channel and the Atlantic. That clearly is undeniable. Deployed as they are, Soviet forces represent a powerful instrument of war. Their increasing capabilities must be measured not only in terms of military potential but also as a possible means of reinforcing political pressure without recourse to open hostilities. The contribution of the hon. Lady the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) indicates how successful they have been in her case.
  The strategic forces of the West are the ultimate deterrent against strategic nuclear attack. In a period of strategic parity, however, they do not constitute a credible deterrent against lower levels of aggression. For this purpose, the West and the NATO Alliance must also deploy credible numbers of conventional and tactical nuclear forces. How right was my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) to press his case so forcibly for a realistic level of conventional and tactical nuclear forces. He made his point with great emotion, but I believe that the point is understood throughout the country.
  Despite all this, however, we find that British defence expenditure in the last six years has remained static. Taking inflation into account in real terms we are now spending less on defence than we did in 1969. With this massive threat to our free society on our doorstep in the Atlantic—and I value our freedom and the sort of society that we have in the West—this year we spent less on defence than we did on health, education, and social security. No doubt this will be welcomed by Labour Members below the Gangway. For every pound spent on defence, we shall spend £2 on the Department of Health and Social Security. At the risk of our freedom, with the Soviet Union virtually rattling on our front door, we prefer to put in jeopardy our freedom. That is the sad situation.
  1684
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) was right to raise the matter of civil defence. We have no civil defence in this country. It is extraordinary that the Soviet Union has allocated more than £300 million for civil defence within its own boundaries. There is one rule for them and another for us. They are prepared to plan, but we are not. We delude ourselves and think that a few worthless signatures from the Soviet Union on the same piece of paper as the signatures of President Ford of the United States or of the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary enable us to ignore the growing future Soviet threat.
  I shall elaborate on comparisons between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces so that we and the public are fully aware of the real picture and the background to the present fanatical quest for détente. Taking the military balance of ready forces in Central Europe, for every 100 NATO soldiers there are 130 Warsaw Pact soldiers; for every 100 NATO soldiers serving in a fighting unit, there are 140 Warsaw Pact soldiers; for every 100 NATO tanks, there are 270 Warsaw Pact tanks; for every 100 NATO field guns, there are 250 Warsaw Pact field guns; for every 100 NATO tactical aircraft, there are 230 Warsaw Pact aircraft. If that shows parity, if that shows balance, all I can say is that hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side are living in one world, cloud-cuckoo land, and that we on this side of the House at least, perhaps with some members of the Government, are living in the real world.
  Let us also consider the balance of forces in the Eastern Atlantic. It is a horrifying picture. For every 10 NATO surface ships, there are 20 Warsaw Pact ships; for every 10 NATO submarines, there are 17 Warsaw Pact submarines; and for every 10 NATO combat aircraft, there are 15 Warsaw Pact aircraft. These figures are in the White Paper which is the subject of the debate.
  It is against that background that the Government—and I condemn them for their policies—are prepared to countenance the folly of détente and place at risk the remainder of the ever-declining free world. Such a Government can never have learnt the lesson of Munich and appeasement. Such a Government

  1685
  are almost as dangerous to the continuing existence of the free world as the Soviets themselves. Détente is a charade.
  In the 1930s our great country slept while Churchill warned. Politicians then closed their ears to him. Are we going to make the same mistake today? Last year's Helsinki Conference on security is the Munich of the free world.
  Détente sounds a fine word, but throughout this decade of détente the armed forces of the Soviet Union have increased, are increasing and show no signs of diminishing. We have a responsibility, and the Government have a responsibility, to defend the nation. They stand condemned for failing to do so.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: After that little bit of sabre-rattling, we can rest assured that my right hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate will tell the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends exactly what our position is.
  I do not pretend to be an expert on these matters. Having listened to nearly all the speeches today, I suppose that it is easy to jibe at the principle of détente. What détente means is that we are trying, as we must, to live together with people who operate different political and social systems from our own.
  The figures that the hon. Gentleman and others have quoted of the relative military strength of the Communist world and the West are probably true. I know that they are in the White Paper, but that does not mean that they are true. I have seen many things in many White Papers that are not true, and there are more ways of brainwashing Members of Parliament than producing White Papers.
  The House of Commons as a whole is probably the worst instrument, or at any rate not the best, for investigating in depth the problems that we are now trying to face in a two-day debate. It would be interesting to cost the various proposals put forward from the Opposition Benches in the past two days. I stopped making notes on those proposals in mid-afternoon yesterday, but more were made today, and I took down a few of them.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) asked for more ships and aircraft. He was not clear what kind
  1686
  of ships or aircraft we should have, but we may be certain that they would cost many hundreds of millions of pounds, if not thousands of millions. The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) wanted a European nuclear deterrent. I do not know what additional costs that would involve. The right hon. Gentleman said that we must resist Soviet aggression now, and he specifically mentioned Angola. He did not spell out exactly what we were supposed to do in Angola. We cannot send additional forces to Northern Ireland, let alone half way round the world to Angola.
  Although I do not think that it has been mentioned in this debate, on other occasions hon. Members have suggested that we send troops to the aid of Ian Smith in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Equipment.
  Mr. Hamilton: Equipment, then, but it must get there somehow. It must be flown or go by sea. There have been many suggestions as to how we might increase expenditure in that regard.
  I say to my hon. Friends who tabled the amendment—they know it, as I know it—that the easiest way to earn applause at any Labour Party or Left-Wing meeting is to call for massive cuts in defence expenditure so that we may build more houses and hospitals, pay higher pensions to widows and old folk, and the rest. Such calls have been made ad nauseam yesterday and today. The thoughts that inspire such speeches, and the support which they engender, are neither ignoble nor unpatriotic, though some of them may be. I acquit most of my hon. Friends of any such ignoble thoughts.
  However, there are wise men and women all over the world who insure themselves against unforeseen contingencies. Most modern countries of whatever political complexion have compulsory social insurance and compulsory military insurace. Nobody can contract out of either in a modern industrialised society and it is right and proper that there should be continuing debate in democracies.
  This kind of debate could not take place in the Soviet Union and we should be thankful that it can here. That, I believe, is worth defending. It is right and proper that continuing debate should go on in democracies as to how comprehensive our

  1687
  insurance—and in this context we are talking of military insurance—should be and how high should be the premiums we pay.
  No nation in the modern world, however rich, can insure itself militarily against all possible contingencies. Still less can any one nation separately contract out of co-operation with other nations with similar concepts of the kind of societies which they seek to preserve and defend. So we have on the one hand the NATO Powers and on the other the Warsaw Pact Powers and I believe that ideally we should all like to see both disappear. But one cannot afford to take unilateral action in this field, and this is where I disagree with some of my hon. Friends.
  There has been, willingly, a tremendous loss of national sovereignty in the pooling of resources on the NATO side and on the Warsaw Pact side. The loss of sovereignty in the military sphere is in many ways greater than the loss of sovereignty that some hon. Members criticise as the price for having joined the Common Market. The great loss of sovereignty in the military field is as important as, if not more important than, the loss of sovereignty in other directions.
  I turn to the aims and purposes of the military expenditure we are discussing. The first is surely to deter potential aggressors, the second to preserve the peace. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) is an idealist who would dearly love to ensure worldwide acceptance of pacificism, but perhaps I misunderstand him.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend does.
  Mr. Hamilton: If that is so, I accept it. I myself was a pacificist and conscientious objector in the early part of the Second World War and I ended up with His Majesty's commission.
  But my hon. Friends are concerned about the size of the bill that we are now being asked to pay. They accept, therefore, that pacificism on an international basis is impracticable. It cannot be achieved either now or in the foreseeable future. The other alternative, suggested I believe by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), was that we contract out completely on a
  1688
  unilateral basis, sheltering presumably under the wing of a mightier military partner, in our case the United States of America.
  It seems to me that that would be an immoral course to take. We would be saying, "We do not want to spend our cash and our resources on nuclear and conventional weapons but we rely on the Americans to defend us from whatever aggressor there might be." That seems to me an immoral posture to adopt. It would make us a parasitic satellite of the United States.
  Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) has been misinterpreted. She implied this only on nuclear armaments, not conventional armaments, which is a completely different question.
  Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend may be right, but that does not alter the principle of the argument. The nuclear element in our defence expenditure represents a very small proportion of the total amount. It seems immoral, irrespective of whether it is conventional or nuclear, to say that we will contract out of that and leave it to our more wealthy and powerful partners. That is immoral and indefensible.
  The third suggestion is to try to recognise our potential aggressor, to ascertain his intentions, and to decide how big a part we can afford to play in meeting any threat which that aggressor may pose. The automatic assumption by the Opposition is that the USSR is the only threat in the world. There is no other, according to the Leader of the Opposition—the Iron Maiden. Her thoughts on these matters are pathetically juvenile and terrifyingly negative. They are designed to appeal more to the retired Colonel Blimps avid the knights of the shires than as a serious contribution to the maintenance of world peace. When the right hon. Lady made her well-publicised speech about Soviet military expenditure, she was saying nothing novel and certainly nothing constructive in this or in any other area about which she has spoken since she put her petticoats round her Tory brood.
  The Tory Party is in favour of massive and immediate cuts in public expenditure, in general, and is equally forceful in

  1689
  pressing for massive and immediate increases in military expenditure. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. They have not spelled out in any detail how they would do it, in which directions they would do it, or anything else. They have tried to make the blood of our people curdle with the fear of the Soviet threat. In terms of sheer military might, that threat undoubtedly exists. I accept that completely. It cannot lightly be ignored or underestimated.
  We must make political judgments here. In my judgment—this matter has not been mentioned in the debate—developments in Africa and our attitude towards them may be a greater threat to world peace than the purely military potential of the Communist bloc. The Conservatives apparently—indeed, officially—appear to be on one side in the struggle for Africa. They are on the side of the white minorities all over Africa—the white Rhodesians and the white South Africans. With few exceptions, virtually all hon. Gentlemen opposite take that view. It is as well to bear that in mind when discussing defence expenditure in this and future debates.
  In this White Paper, as in others, political and economic judgments have been made. No one—least of all me—can say now or ever whether those judgments are right or wrong. In that context, I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. I shall support them, but without any great enthusiasm, because I do not know whether they are right or wrong.
  However, I assume that they have acted in good faith and done their best, within the economic, social and political context in which they work and within our limited resources, to give the people of this country as much military protection as they think is possible in the circumstances.
  That being so, I want to spend the last few minutes of my speech on what is in a way a local, but none the less important, point. There is a chapter in the White Paper on dockyards. This might appear to be a parochial point but I want to refer to the Rosyth Dockyard in particular and the protection of our oil resources in the North Sea.
  Rosyth is an integral part of NATO and its nuclear arsenal. It is the biggest
  1690
  single employer in Fife and when my hon. Friends talk about more massive cuts in military expenditure, I would warn them that if that means the closure of the Rosyth Dockyard, or even a substantial reduction of the labour force, I shall resist them on that score alone. That simply could not be replaced overnight or in a matter of a year or two. I shall give the figures.
  I make a criticism here of the people who have gone home tonight. I asked my right hon. Friend about an hour ago for the figures of the numbers employed in Rosyth Dockyard in each of the last five years and I was informed by somebody from the Ministry of Defence that I could not get them tonight because everybody in the Ministry had gone home. Then I wondered where the hell I could get them. I got them. I found them in the Second Report of the Expenditure Committee. Apparently, no Minister or any of his advisers knew that the figures were here, so they can all go home, because I have got them myself. But this is a serious point and they had no business going home while this kind of debate was going on. They are paid handsomely enough, so why the hell should I have to find the information when they are paid to do it?
  I quote the figures from page 160 of this book. In 1964–65 it was 5,061. In 1974–75, 10 years later, it was 5,874. The projection for 1979–80 is 5,845. That means that in 1964 one worker in every nine in the dockyards was in Rosyth and in 1979–80 one in every six will be in Rosyth. Therefore, it is getting a bigger share of the total work force in all the dockyards than any other dockyard, and that is because it services the Polaris nuclear submarines.
  I come to the speech of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) yesterday. Like mine, his geography is a little awry, but I will quote him. He said:
  "… the Soviet naval defence frontier has expanded as far eastwards as to be on a line joining Iceland and Scotland".
  He added:
  "The effect of the move eastwards of the Soviet naval defence frontier means that the Secretary of State for Defence will have to look carefully at the question of the siting of our Polaris base at Rosyth in the Clyde."

  1691
  The hon. Gentleman will have to attend his geography lessons a little more regularly. He went on:
  "If we accept that it seems reasonable to move the Polaris base from the Clyde to, say, Devonport, it would then also be sensible to refit nuclear submarines at the same place as that in which they are based."—[Official Report, 31st March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 1405.]
  That means that, if the hon. Gentleman and his party get their way, two factors affecting Fife will flow from it. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) is on record as saying that he wants to get every Scottish Member of Parliament out of this place. Then we hear that the Scottish nationalists intend to have their own Scottish navy and that they will have no NATO bases in Scotland at all, even though they will remain members of NATO. That is what the hon. Member for Argyll said yesterday. The nuclear base in Scotland will be moved to Devonport, which will mean the servicing of the submarines being moved to Devonport.
  I have quoted the employment figures. In our Rosyth dockyard there are nearly 6,000 jobs. That means that the Scottish National Party will lose us in Fife at least 6,000 jobs. What is more, if the hon. Gentleman and his party get their complete separation, English Members here will not complain. There will be no Scottish Members here to say "But we want our fair share of defence jobs". On the contrary, we shall see every ruddy job disappear. The Scottish navy could be put in Troon Harbour and the Scottish army and the Scottish air force could both be put in Rosyth. The English Members will say "Good luck to them". Meanwhile, we shall have these thousands of additional jobs in Devonport, in Newcastle, in Portsmouth and in Chatham.
  Mr. Iain MacCormick (Argyll)Mr. Iain MacCormick (Argyll)rose——
  Mr. Hamilton: Yes. I will give way to the Admiral.
  Mr. MacCormick: I have to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not appreciate the basic dishonesty of his party's case on this issue. What I said yesterday was that it was inevitable that this base would have to be moved away from Scotland for strategic reasons. In view of that, does not the hon. Gentleman
  1692
  agree that what he is saying is a smokescreen designed to hide the fact that the only circumstance in which Rosyth Dockyard will offer employment in the future is the situation in which in a self-governing Scotland it will be servicing conventional weapons?
  Mr. Hamilton: What conventional weapons? I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the breakdown of the figures and notes the size of Rosyth. Both he and his leader are on record as wanting a separate Scottish navy.
  Let me quote what he said yesterday. Incidentally, I am wrong in suggesting that he spoke of a Scottish navy. He called it a Scottish coastguard. But he went on to say that it would protect the oil rigs from these hundreds of Soviet submarines. That must put the fear of God into the Soviet Union. No longer can they view these rigs as targets because there will be these Scottish tugboats protecting them. This is the nonsense being peddled around Scotland. I leave the hon. Member for Arygll to his own imagination, because I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion.
  No one on the Government Benches is happy that we have to spend cash and use manpower on defence. In an ideal world, we should all like to get rid of it. But we do not live in an ideal world, and we are not likely to. We have to gear our defence commitments to our capacity to fulfil a rôle in NATO. I do not know that any of my hon. Friends wants us unilaterally to quit NATO, though some of them may——
  Mr. Newens: Yes.
  Mr. Hamilton: If they do, I suspect their motives. If they do not, we must try to get disarmament on a multilateral basis. That is what the Government are striving for. I hope that the Labour Government, or even an alternative Government, will do all they can to defend our values and liberties from any aggressor, whoever it may be.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: I will not enter into the fascinating exchange of the last few minutes. I observe only that, wherever detente may operate, it clearly does not operate in Scotland.

  1693
  To return to the basic issue of the debate and, particularly to the Secretary of State's opening speech, I was struck by the extraordinary contrast between his words and his actions. He gave us a lot of very tough words about the Russian threat. The balance of power, he said, has tilted further against the NATO Powers. Our quality advantage in weaponry has been eroded. The Soviet Union's defence expenditure, he told us, has been greater than we thought. All of these things, he said, absolutely truly, about the growth of the Soviet threat.
  The right hon. Gentleman also emphasised that he was making real cuts in our defence expenditure. He took pride in saying that he was progressively reducing our defence expenditure and that the defence budget in real terms in 1978–79 would be less than it was in 1970–71. These two things do not add up and cannot add up.
  There is no possible way whatever of reconciling the point of view which says that our enemy, or potential enemy, is getting stronger and that which says, therefore we are getting weaker. This is fundamentally the point which the Opposition are making tonight in these votes. We believe that it is totally wrong to put forward these two conflicting points of view. It is no way of conducting the policy of this country in an area vital to the citizens of this country.
  The Secretary of State reminded me of a Latin tag which students of moral philosophy have been asked to comment on; Meliora scio, detereriora sequor." In the absence of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) I will translate. It means roughly "I know what is better, I do what is worse "—[Laughter.] It may or may not be funny but it is relevant. The usual explanation given by students is that it is an expression of human frailty.
  That is probably true, but in this case an additional reason is mat the Minister is in an impossible political position. He knows the extent of the dangers to this country and our Allies. He knows that from the expert advice he receives and from the intelligence available to him. At the same time he knows the political danger of his own Left wing. He knows that from the evidence of his eyesight and his ears and he is trying to reconcile the two. This process of reconciliation
  1694
  does not really further the interests of the British nation.
  The Government motion contains the words:
  "being aware of the economic factors which have led to cuts in all sectors of public spending".
  Those economic factors are largely the failure to control inflation and the gross increase in public expenditure in the early days of the present Government. This is not the time for an economic debate—we shall have plenty of that in the next week or two—but the problem is a stagnant economy and a weak currency. Our Allies will hardly regard as a good excuse for our declining defence effort the fact that we are not doing as well as we could in running our own economy.
  But more significant than that is the reference to
  "cuts in all sectors of public spending".
  Defence, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said, is not just another sector of public spending. It is something totally different. It is fundamental. It is not a question of how much we can afford to spend to enhance life, but how much we need to spend to preserve it. This is determined not by our own choice, but by the extent and power of any potential enemy. Poverty, even if self-inflicted, is no defence against aggression.
  Then the Government motion talks of cuts falling
  "on support services rather than on frontline forces".
  Are support services a luxury? Can armies fight without transport and ammunition? Can a war be sustained—we must consider sustaining our defence and not just operating in the short term—without adequate reserves, replacements and resources? Of course not.
  I thought that the Minister's argument was the most extraordinary I had ever heard—that he can now turn to cutting the less essential because he has already cut the more essential. Now that he has blunted the teeth with his earlier cuts, he can turn his attention to combing the tail. I have seldom heard so palpably stupid an excuse for Government action. A Minister who says that he started by cutting expenditure on front line forces justifies his present cuts by saying that other expenditure does not matter at all. That is the most extraordinary argument

  1695
  that I have ever heard from the Government Front Bench.
  Then the motion refers to
  "maintaining the British contribution to NATO".
  Even if that were true, which it is not, there are two things to say. First, our contribution to NATO has been greatly reduced, particularly the real contribution, in the Mediterranean, on the flanks of NATO. As the Select Committee pointed out, and as last year's White Paper made absolutely clear, there has been an enormous reduction in the British contribution to NATO.
  After all, what matters is not only the forces allocated to NATO, but the total contribution of Britain to the defence of the West. The White Paper said in paragraph 62:
  "the Defence Review decisions involved reductions in the planned numbers of destroyers, frigates, and mine counter-measures vessels…accounted for by the cut in our oversea and Mediterranean commitments".
  What cut has the Soviet Union made in its oversea and Mediterranean commitments in the last few years? Yet this country's commitment to NATO is a total commitment to the total defence of the Western world against possible aggressors.
  The Government motion then refers to
  "maintaining…the security and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom".
  That is a bold claim. How do the Government measure their success? Not in terms of the percentage of GNP spent on defence—that does not impress the Russians much. Not by other spending cuts—that doesn not impress them much, either. What impresses a potential aggressor is solely men and weapons, armour, tanks and aircraft, and the obvious will to use them if, God forbid, the necessity should arise. It is that sort of phrase in the motion which will lead us to vote solidly against it.
  I imagine that the Government are not prepared to accept our amendment. I wonder why not. We refer to the fact that last year's defence cuts
  "reduced the defences of the United Kingdom to 'absolute bedrock'".
  Is that true or not? Certainly, it was the view of the Government's most senior
  1696
  adviser in these matters. Do the Government accept it, or do they not? Did last year's reductions take us down to absolute bedrock?
  Then, the amendment refers to
  "the continued growth of Soviet military strength and the increasingly unfavourable military balance between NATO and the Warsaw Pact".
  Is there anything wrong with that? We take those words from their own White Paper. The figures are there. They were in the Minister's speech, in the excellent passages about the threat to our country.
  The Government cannot object to our amendment on that score because they agree that Soviet power is growing and that the balance is swinging against the NATO Powers. How can they possibly continue with their policy of reducing our defences when, by their own admission, the armed forces of our potential enemy are increasing all the time? That is the fundamental point that we want to make, and our amendment is based solely on what the Government and their representatives have said and on the facts that they have put forward.
  The Government stress the need for mutual and balanced force reductions, and with that I entirely agree. It is right to say that we cannot have a sensible disarmament scheme in Western Europe unless it will lead to a better balance between the Powers. However, the Government are not improving the balance between the forces of East and West; they are increasing the imbalance by reducing Britain's power and Britain's contribution to the West. How can they reconcile that with their view that it is essential to reduce the imbalance between the two sides? All these matters seem to display a total lack of logic in the Government's defence posture.
  I turn to the amendment on the Order Paper which was not selected but to which much reference has been made. It has been signed by more than 80 hon. Members of the Labour Party. That is a formidable roll-call of political support against the Government. I find it difficult to understand much of the thinking behind the amendment. It calls for a reduction in the current arms bill. If there is a reduction in real terms or in money terms, it will be equally bad.

  1697
  The Warsaw Pact countries and our main Allies are now increasing their expenditure on defence. Do we not need defending? If we do need defending do we, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said, rely on others to defend us? Is it the posture of our country to rely on others? Are we prepared to let our Allies build up their strengths while we decrease ours?
  The Tribunite amendment says that the Government are abandoning the policy of reducing the proportion of GNP that is spent on arms to the level of other European countries. I am not sure that that is right. The real facts are that the French and Germans are spending more than us and that their spending is increasing. The point is that their GNP is higher than ours, but because we are poorer than they, do we value freedom less?
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The right hon. Gentleman is no child in these matters. He knows that the criterion that is used in NATO circles is the comparison of GNPs. Why should Britain, which is poorer than Germany or France, devote a higher proportion of its resources to arms spending than the French or the Germans?
  Mr. Maudling: I have already covered that point. The comparisons that the amendment seeks to make are wrong. We believe that the proper measure of defence expenditure is what is necessary for the defence of Britain.
  The amendment claims that arms expenditure has the effect of diverting money and resources from the social services. There are many other candidates for Government money—for example, there is nationalisation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) said yesterday, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Secretary of State for Defence he said that there was not much point in having schools, hospitals, roads and houses if everything was reduced to cinders by aggression.
  I feel that the attitude of the extreme Left towards defence is that they do not want any defence at all. It is rather the attitude of a nervous dog when faced by an aggressive person: the dog rolls on its back hoping that its belly will be scratched instead of its backside kicked.
  1698
  As my right hon. Friend also said, when it comes to saving money, there is no greater waste of money than spending it on defence that does not work.
  It seems that the 80 or so signatories to the Tribunite amendment believe that we should have no defence. How will they be able to vote for the Government proposals?
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way twice. I am bitterly opposed to the real increase in arms spending which this White Paper entails, but the Conservative policy would be to spend more. As it nearly says in the Bible, "We have whipped you with whips, but you would whip us with scorpions".
  Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member and his hon. Friends will vote for a policy that they bitterly oppose. I do not think that that adds to the status of Parliament in the eyes of the public.
  There are two views it is possible to take about Soviet purpose and intent, but only one that it is safe to take—the cautious view. We can say that the Soviets are not expansionists, that they are devoted to Mother Russia and the prosperity of their own people and that their outside activities are designed to weaken potential aggressors. Or we may say, as do the Government in the White Paper:
  "there is no evidence that the Soviet Union and its allies are contemplating a military attack upon the West".
  However, this means only that the Government do not have such evidence. They may be right—I hope that they are—but they may be wrong, and then it would be too late for regrets.
  The Soviet Union has engaged in a vast build-up and world-wide deployment of armaments, especially naval. It would surely be wise to assume that some aggressive intention might be involved in this strange development. On either view of the Soviet intention, it is clear that the Soviets will take every opportunity offered to them to weaken and disrupt the West, whether for defensive or offensive reasons.
  The weaker we get in arms and will, the greater the danger. Men do not start wars unless they expect to win them.
  Si pacem vis bellum para is not a bad rule. If one wants to live in peace, one should make quite clear to everyone else that it is not a good idea to start a war.

  1699
  The policy of the Soviet Union since Helsinki has been disappointing. Nothing that happened at Helsinki could justify the standing down of a single NATO soldier. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and détente, like peace, should be indivisible.
  Of course we long for the success of detente, as would any sane human being. The only alternative to co-existence is co-destruction, but progress since Helsinki has been disappointing, whether on Basket III, the individual freedom of movement and families, the expansion of Soviet naval power, or the new phenomenon of the incursion by Cuban troops, with political and logistic support from the Soviet Union, into Africa. That is not what we thought the word "détente" meant.
  There is also the continuance of what could be called political aggression. Of course, there is a great range between war and the mere exchange of ideas, but surely it is important to recognise that, in the course of political activities, the Soviet Union is trying to detach from NATO some of our present Allies in order to destroy the current NATO basis of defence. In the detachment of individual countries through political pressure, the Soviet Union may be better than us, but is certainly not invincible.
  The defence of freedom must be total—political, economic and military. In the West we must maintain the will to resist by sustaining belief that the free system is worth defending. The Russians have some advantage in this matter. They erect barriers against ideas which are as strong as tank traps or mine-fields.
  Despite that, I believe that the power of the ideas of freedom of the West will prove the stronger force if we persist. As O'Shaughnessy said:
  "One man with a dream, at pleasure,
  Shall go forth and conquer a crown;
  And three with a new song's measure
  Can trample a kindom down."
  The power of ideas is great, and the power of free men's ideas is greater.
  In the economic field we have an advantage which can be eroded if we lose access to vital raw materials. For the moment we have a strong economic advantage The Russians cannot feed themselves; they need Western technology
  1700
  and they are desperately short of foreign exchange.
  In those circumstances, some Western tactics must seem rather curious to them. For reasons we all understand, America continues to supply the grain the Russians need, so the Russian people feed on the products of capitalism. The West still competes to supply the technology they need, and we in this country press upon them subsidies in the form of cheap credit. Surely we should expect in exchange for this economic assistance some political return from the Soviet Union. If détente means anything, there should be some response.
  To these problems we must not add military weakness, for weakness is danger. That is the fundamental point of defence policy. The balance of power of nuclear weapons provides peace between the great Powers, but can it work for ever? If the Soviet Union would not wish to risk an American nuclear onslaught, could it not calculate that the Americans would not wish to risk a Soviet onslaught to defend their European friends and Allies? That stresses the fundamental importance of maintaining the cohesion of the Atlantic Alliance. Any possible doubt or any wavering in the support of the United States for its European Allies will be the temptation which might bring about the danger we all want to avoid.
  The present imbalance of conventional forces in Western Europe is a grave danger. Reliance on tactical nuclear weapons to redress the imbalance of conventional weapons creates perils. For example, we could not in all circumstances guarantee that the reaction with tactical nuclear weapons would be speedy enough to be effective in response. If it were too slow, where would those weapons fall and how could they be used?
  There is the great danger that a nuclear exchange once begun on a tactical level would spread to a strategic level. I do not believe in fighting a war on the basis of the International Red Cross measuring weapons to see whether a bomb is too large to be allowed.
  Our conclusion must be that the present imbalance in conventional forces between the NATO Powers and the Warsaw Pact Powers is a great danger to the peace of

  1701
  the world and the security and freedom of the West. We must try to reduce it by negotiation in the MBFR talks. That is the right way to go about it. It is disappointing that the Soviet Government have made so little progress. I accept that Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can to make progress in these negotiations, but so far progress has been very slight.
  If the Soviets maintain their position and will accept only reductions which continue the imbalance of forces in Europe in their favour, I cannot see how real progress towards détente can be made. If the imbalance in conventional forces is a danger, we must not increase it but must try to reduce it through negotiation. That is precisely what Her Majesty's Government are doing. The one thing we should not do for the security of this country is to increase the imbalance of forces between the NATO Powers and the Warsaw Pact Powers, and that is the fundamental reason why we condemn the Government tonight.
  I do not know what will happen in the Division Lobbies. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and some of his hon. Friends will happily tread their measure into the Lobby to welcome a policy with which they fundamentally disagree. Perhaps they will, but a Government who rely on support like that are a weak Government. A Government who rely on that unwilling and almost inconsistent support for the defence of Britain are an unworthy Government.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): I have listened with great attention and some pleasure to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). His speeches are usually serious and often ingenious, and have the merit also of being short. I have enjoyed them over the years and learned from them. I am still prepared to be the right hon. Gentleman's pupil, on the basis of his performance tonight, but there was a good deal of the pot calling the kettle black.
  The right hon. Gentleman's period in the Cabinet from 1959 to 1964 was marked by a fall in the percentage of gross national product going to defence. At the same time, his period as Chancellor
  1702
  of the Exchequer ended with a massive balance of payments deficit and a major economic crisis. [Interruption.] I advise right hon. and hon. Members to wait. They may laugh too soon.
  The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnett and other hon. Members will remember the debate on 11th November 1964. By common consent—it was the first Budget debate after the General Election—defence was seen to be among the public expenditure programmes running away wildly. I think that the failure to get value for money in the defence field had by then become a byword. I am reluctant, out of courtesy and generosity, to chide the right hon. Gentleman over events so long ago, but such a mixed record, to put it no higher, does not suggest that he is necessarily best qualified to lecture the House, even in his gentle way, on these matters.
  I should like to add my own word of thanks for the work of the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee I am an unrepentant Parliament man in that the experience of almost eight years of assorted office has strengthened my belief that the Executive always needs watching.
  The task of Ministers in every Department, but particularly in the Ministry of Defence, is to bring scepticism and a political dimension to bear on decisionmaking. I note what the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) said on this point, and I agree with him. The military mind of its nature looks for certainty and a settled course. Ministers must be prepared to challenge the conventional wisdom and to encourage the possibility of doubt. I should like to believe that the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee will proceed in a similar way, perhaps endeavouring to take a longer view—longer even than electoral vagaries allow Governments to do.
  Concerning the Third Report of the Expenditure Committee, I appreciate the kind remarks which refer to my part in the negotiations for a new agreement on Hong Kong—also touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) in his speech yesterday. I am sure that the result was fair to all concerned.
  In the immediate years ahead, Hong Kong will be making an increasing contribution to the cost of the garrison. From

  1703
  1978 to 1979 this will amount to 75 per cent. in an agreement which will run from seven years initially and will be open to further renewal. The sums involved are a useful net contribution towards the defence budget. At the same time—this answers, at least in passing, what a number of hon. Members have mentioned—I am satisfied, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that the remaining garrison will be adequate for its purpose.
  There have been 18 separate Back Bench contributions to the debate, and I wish that I could refer to them all.
  Sir Anthony Royle: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the Far East, will he say something about the Government's plans for the proposed withdrawal of a Gurkha battalion from Brunei, since the Sultan is prepared to pay for this battalion and for the reinforcement of it if that is necessary?
  Mr. Rodgers: I can only say that discussions are continuing on this matter and that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be reporting to the House as soon as possible.
  Among the matters which I cannot deal with at any length today is Northern Ireland. It was referred to by the hon. Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) and for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). There are frequent occasions for discussion of Northern Ireland affairs and I hope that hon. Members will understand if I do not go into them tonight.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) spoke about the threat. Perhaps I can say that even in so far as I disagree with him, as I have done on previous occasions, I preferred the tone of his remarks to the tone adopted, I believe, by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Not only did I listen to my hon. Friend; I have even read his interesting Tribune article. I agree with him that this one area in which the ministerial scepticism to which I have referred should be applied, and I share his view of the dangers of what I think he called the "worst case analysis". However, he has misinterpreted the table on page 60 of the White Paper, and he has made inadequate allowance
  1704
  for the very heavy balance of advantage to the Soviet Union in attack submarines, even though there is rough parity in surface ships. We may wish to return to these figures, and we can do so on a quieter occasion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) made a wide-ranging speech and referred to Cyprus. I can give him the assurances for which he asked, as he asked for them last year, but I shall also write to him.
  The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) asked for an assurance that the Royal Navy would continue to operate world-wide. The answer is "Yes". He also asked about naval capability once "Ark Royal" is phased out. The ship will continue in service for some years ahead, and when she is withdrawn from service her Buccaneers and Phantoms will be taken over by the RAF and used in a maritime role. The "Ark Royal" also makes an important contribution to the ASW capability which the new class of cruisers is designed to continue.
  Several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone, mentioned our Reserve Forces and suggested that they were inadequate for our military tasks. I appreciate that this has been a matter of great interest to the right hon. Gentleman for a number of years. I can only say that we do not take his view. As he knows, we rely first upon our professional forces, but the Reserves have a particularly valuable role to play on the central front of Europe as reinforcements for BAOR, which would approximately double in size by the addition of reserves on mobilisation. I regret if I have been unable to convince the right hon. Gentleman this evening, but this is properly a matter that we should consider on a further occasion. It might even be a matter, like the whole question of the threat, which the Expenditure Committee would choose to examine.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) raised a number of detailed questions on the effects of our withdrawal from the Far East and the Indian Ocean. These decisions were, of course, announced in last year's White Paper and were fully debated at the time. However, I share

  1705
  in particular his interest in Gan, and I hope that I may allow myself just a little sentimental regret, improper though that may be, at its passing. The detailed points that the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned have been under discussion. I realise that they are of concern to him. I shall certainly write to him about them or, if he wishes, give an answer that is more generally available to hon. Members who are interested in them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) returned to the question of the nature of the defence savings. As they made clear, and as the tables in the White Paper and in the Public Expenditupre White Paper emphasise, these are complex matters. Regretfully, I doubt whether I shall find it possible to reach a rapid agreement with them, or with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), on their interpretation. For the moment, I am content to rest on what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday.
  However, let me simply say this, because it is important to repeat it. Reductions in public expenditure have always—in Opposition and in Government—been measured against planned programmes at constant prices. This is a well-established convention applying to all programmes, both civil and military. On this basis, taking together the defence review savings, the additional £110 million reduction last year and the recent public expenditure survey reductions, the defence budget has been reduced by £3,200 million between 1975–76 and 1979–80. Moreover, apart from what I say is a well-established convention about programmes, as a result of the latest round of public expenditure survey reductions, we now find that the defence budget totals are due to fall in absolute terms from 1975–76 levels. On this basis there is a reduction, for good or ill—as right hon. Members of the Opposition might think—of £18 million by 1978–79, which is repeated in the closing year of 1979–80 as the programme remains level during this period.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Does my right hon. Friend admit that there is to be an increase in the current year's spending by 1979–80, according to page 133 of the
  1706
  Public Expenditure White Paper, of £244 million in real terms? Secondly, is it fair to purport to be reducing expenditure as all the newspapers report it—because they use the phrases of the Minister and his right hon. Friend—when the truth that real spending is rising is being concealed from the newspapers?
  Mr. Rodgers: I do not believe that my hon. Friend is being fair when he says that the truth is being concealed from newspapers. He has had his opportunity today and on previous occasions, and so have other of my hon. Friends, to seek to persuade this House and the general public that the figures that I have set before the House are in some way untrue or deceiving.
  I return to what I said. I am satisfied that there will be absolute savings, although they will be small, during the period to which I referred. If my hon. Friend tested his own choice of figures against the figures of my right hon. Friends who have responsibilities in other fields, he would find that they would be saying that there have been heavy cuts in their programmes and that they were no longer able to spend in the years ahead the sums of money that they expected on previous occasions to be spending. This is the language with which we are all familiar. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East has argued in Opposition against cuts in social programmes very much on the basis of cuts against planned intentions.
  I should like to make a reference to the particularly splendid speech made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I think that all those who heard it enjoyed it. It was admirably supplemented this evening by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). We shall try to help my hon. Friends in the way they have asked. I shall watch with interest the argument between them and SNP Members.
  I should like to say a few words about the public attitude to defence—in other words, the attitude of what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) loosely called the taxpayers. Of course there is a horror of war, but for the great majority of people this is not incompatible with maintaining our defences—rather the reverse.

  1707
  I have been looking at the only available survey, which shows that 96 per cent. of the population believe that the Armed Forces are essential, a proportion which has remained remarkably steady for at least the last five years. Even among younger people, whose doubts are understandable, the figure is very much the same, although perhaps the intensity of conviction is somewhat less. We should all like to have defence on the cheap. But the great majority of people feel in their guts that our Armed Forces matter, and they would not willingly vote for a party that was thought to be soft on defence. I hope that my hon. Friends who signed the amendment will bear that point in mind.
  The nub of the matter in this debate—the issue upon which the Opposition are to divide the House—is whether the additional cuts set out in the Public Expenditure White Paper were justified. The outcome of the defence review is broadly accepted on the Opposition Benches. Nobody seriously suggests that a Conservative Government would seek to reverse it. The key figure is the extra £193 million now to be found in 1978–79.
  It is no secret that Defence Ministers would have preferred that cut not to be made. But my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, for Social Services and for the Environment, to name only a few, would have preferred no cut in their programme. The only question was how the money could be found, once the quantum of savings had been agreed by the Cabinet. It is quite unrealistic—and right hon. and hon. Members who have served in the Cabinet know this in their hearts—to have expected defence to escape entirely. That is not the way in which Governments do business. It is not the way of the world. That is not how successive Administrations have behaved, including those in which the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition have served. It is humbug to suggest otherwise.
  The argument goes that if we were down to bedrock last summer, what room was there for cuts? Much has been made of the remarks of the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Carver. I leave aside for the moment the propriety
  1708
  of quoting him in the Opposition's amendment. But what did he say? Indeed, how many Opposition Members have read the whole transcript of his remarks? In practice, those remarks were remarkably cautious. In answer to a question whether there could be any further cut, Sir Michael gave no explicit reply but, instead, referred to our geographical commitment. The real burden of Sir Michael's message was that the touchstone of our defence effort lay in the force levels of our contribution to NATO. In practice, as the House knows, these have not been affected by the further cuts. On the contrary, as paragraphs 44 and 45 of the defence White Paper make clear, we have agreed five measures and offered four more calculated to strengthen NATO. Unlike the Opposition's amendment, I do not call upon the Chief of the Defence Staff in evidence. If the Opposition insist on doing so, they should play it straight.
  Of course, no Chief of Staff can welcome the consequences of defence cuts, but neither can any soldier, sailor or airman, or any civilian employed by the Defence Department. That is not the point. The question is whether the further cut is tolerable. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence described measures in the area of indirect support which will have to be taken to find savings of about £100 million in the key year 1978–79. That leaves about £90 million worth of savings still to be found. We have deliberately not yet identified those in any detail. We are talking about savings which are still two years away. Because of the sheer size and complexity of the programme and its dynamic character, there is bound to be a good deal of change in the intervening period.
  A factor affecting the programme is unresolved international negotiations, which could have direct implications for the defence budget. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) rightly raised the question of Anglo-German offset. As he said, the existing agreement expired yesterday, and we shall, therefore, need a new agreement. The Prime Minister discussed the question with the Federal German Chancellor when he was in this country in February, and they agreed that a solution could and should be found. The House will not expect me to anticipate

  1709
  the content of the arrangements which are still to be made. The House recognises that keeping an Army of 55,000 men in Germany, together with a substantial number of aircraft, is a heavy financial burden. The latest estimated balance of payments costs of our Forces there for 1975–76 is about £400 million. The Federal Republic has helped us to offset those costs in the past and we expect it to do so in the future.
  I must repeat that we are not saying that the official savings are painless—on the contrary, as witness the reaction of our civilian staffs. From the beginning, however, the central importance of NATO was clearly established, not only by Defence Ministers but by the Prime Minister and the whole of the Cabinet. We do not believe that our measures have weakened NATO. I am sure Conservative hon. Members will accept that they do no service to NATO by suggesting otherwise, once the events of today are over.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid a proper tribute to the civilian staffs yesterday. I become irritated by remarks suggesting that our civilian staffs—"civil servants" and "officials" are the pejorative words usually applied—can be lightly discarded after years of efficient and devoted service to successive Administrations. These are difficult times for them, but we hope that close consultation will ease the problems. As often as is possible we shall identify the options well ahead of decisions, so that the views of staff and trade unions can be taken fully into account. I recognise that the need for confidentiality at certain stages raises the question of when, and in what manner, hon. Members should be informed. I ask the House to recognise our management responsibilities towards our civilian staff.
  To return to the heart of the matter, I am satisfied that the cuts announced in the Public Expenditure White Paper are consistent with Britain's commitment to the collective security of the West through NATO. In that sense, I have nothing to withdraw from what I said in the House on 13th May 1974 about the acceptability of defence savings generally or from what I said on my own account on 10th December 1975.
  It would be rash to predict the future. A rashness which is so attractive in others
  1710
  is often dangerous for a politician. No one can say for sure what will happen to our economy. No one can say for sure how current defence programmes will work out. No one can say for sure whether there will be progress in the MBFR talks. I was glad to note that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet hopes that there will be progress.
  While, however, the present cuts are acceptable and the search for economies continues in any well-run Department, I do not see room for further similar cuts in the foreseeable future. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was what the right hon. Gentleman said last year."] For me at least, enough is enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Here I rest with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) in what he said today.
  In the few closing minutes I shall try to define the extent of my agreement and disagreement with my hon. Friends below the Gangway. I agree with them that war is obscene. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East summed it up yesterday when he said that he was opposed to war and militarism on humanitarian grounds. On that basis we are all opposed to war. It is perverse and horrifying that the nations of the world spend to much of their skill in seeking to produce and perfect weapons of mass destruction. It is tragic that even the smallest and poorest of them eagerly seek sophisticated equipment at vast expense.
  But pacifism must define its terms. As a personal commitment, it earns respect What is not acceptable, however, is to fall short of a declaration of pacifism but to advocate a course which subtly leads to unilateral disarmament. This is where the greatest dangers lie: to say that we should constantly save on defence without indicating where we should stop; to advocate the cancellation of weapons systems without showing by what alternative means the need can be met; to deplore the scenario whereby NATO confronts the Warsaw Pact without explaining how it can be changed consistent with stability.
  The shortcomings of the Opposition are of a different kind. They see defence and defence expenditure as inviolate, separate from the prosaic and humdrum problems of every day. They believe that provided the armour is shining bright

  1711
  there is no need to look at the condition of the man inside. Of course, they are aware of the harsh realities of economic life. My right hon. Friend hit the nail on the head yesterday in his intervention drawing attention to their record when in Government. When they are in Opposition, they adopt a totally different stance. I noticed the declaration of Conservative defence policy yesterday contained in three pale sentences quoted from what the Leader of the Opposition had said.
  If a week is a long time in politics, two years speaking from this Bench on defence can feel like a lifetime. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] But, given the hazards of the ballot box, who knows but
  that this experience may now be moving peacefully towards its close? Looking back, however, I am more than ever convinced that it is a central task of Government—of all Governments—to find a means of continuing to ensure the adequate defence of Britain even when the going is rough. The money we spend pays for men and arms, the outward and visible signs of our defence. But the purpose is measured by the fact of this Parliament over which you preside, Mr. Speaker, by the values we cherish, by our right to a vision of what could be better, and by our freedom to realise it.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 309.

  Division No. 104.

  AYES

  [10.0 p m.

  Adley, Robert

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Holland, Philip

  Alison, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hordern, Peter

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Arnold, Tom

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Durant, Tony

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, John

  Banks, Robert

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Bell, Ronald

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Emery, Peter

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Eyre, Reginald

  James, David

  Benyon, W.

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Jessel, Toby

  Biffen, John

  Farr, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Blaker, Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Michael

  Body, Richard

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Forman, Nigel

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fox, Marcus

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brittan, Leon

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Kirk, Sir Peter

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Fry, Peter

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Brotherton, Michael

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Knox, David

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Lamont, Norman

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Lane, David

  Buck, Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Budgen, Nick

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Burden, F. A.

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lawson, Nigel

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gorst, John

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Lloyd, Ian

  Carson, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Loveridge, John

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Luce, Richard

  Channon, Paul

  Gray, Hamish

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  McCrindle, Robert

  Clark, William(Croydon S)

  Grist, Ian

  McCusker, H.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Grylls, Michael

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Clegg, Walter

  Hall, Sir John

  MacGregor, John

  Cockcroft, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Cope, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  McNalr-Wllson, P. (New Forest)

  Cordis, John H.

  Hannam, John

  Madel, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Corrie, John

  Harvle Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Marten, Neil

  Costain, A. P.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Critchley, Julian

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Mather, Carol

  Crouch, David

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maude, Angus

  Crowder, F. P.

  Heseltlne, Michael

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Hicks, Robert

  Mawby, Ray

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Raison, Timothy

  Stanley, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rathbone, Tim

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Stokes, John

  Mills, Peter

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Moate, Roger

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Molyneaux, James

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Tebbit, Norman

  Monro, Hector

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Morgan, Geraint

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Trotter, Neville

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Vlggers, Peter

  Mudd, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Wakeham, John

  Neave, Airey

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Neubert, Michael

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Walters, Dennis

  Newton, Tony

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Normanton, Tom

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wealherill, Bernard

  Nott, John

  Shepherd, Colin

  Wells, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Shersby, Michael

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Silvester, Fred

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Sims, Roger

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Pattle, Geoffrey

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Percival, Ian

  Speed, Keith

  Younger, Hon, George

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Spence, John

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Splcer, Michael (S Worcester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Price, David (Eastlelgh)

  Sproat, lain

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Stainton, Keith

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Concannon, J. D.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Allaun, Frank

  Conlan, Bernard

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Anderson, Donald

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Ford, Ben

  Archer, Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Forrester, John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Ashley, Jack

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Ashton, Joe

  Crawford, Douglas

  Freeson, Reginald

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Freud, Clement

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cronin, John

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, Bob

  George, Bruce

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Ginsburg, David

  Bates, Alf

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Golding, John

  Bean, R. E.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Gould, Bryan

  Bermett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Denzil (LlaNeili)

  Graham, Ted

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Boardman, H.

  Deakins, Eric

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Hardy, Peter

  Bradley, Tom

  Dempsey, James

  Harper, Joseph

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Doig, Peter

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hatton, Frank

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Dunn, James A.

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Buchen, Norman

  Dunnett, Jack

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Buchanan, Richard

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Butler, Mrs Joyce(Wood Green)

  Eadle, Alex

  Hooley, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Edge, Geoff

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Campbell, Ian

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Horam, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Cant, R. B.

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Carmlchael, Neil

  English, Michael

  Huckfield, Les

  Carter, Ray

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Evans, Gwyntor (Carmarthen)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Cartwright, John

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)

  Hunter, Adam

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Coleman, Donald

  Flannery, Martin

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  1714

  1715

  Janner, Greville

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)

  Silverman, Julius

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Molloy, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Moonman, Eric

  Small, William

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Spearing, Nigel

  John, Brynmor

  Moyle, Roland

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Newens, Stanley

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Noble, Mike

  Stoddart, David

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Stott, Roger

  Judd, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

  Strang, Gavin

  Kaufman, Gerald

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Kerr, Russell

  Orbach, Maurice

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Swain, Thomas

  Kinnock Neil

  Ovenden, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Lambie, David

  Owen, Dr David

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Padley, Walter

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Lamond, James

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Park, George

  Thompson, George

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Parker, John

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Lee, John

  Parry, Robert

  Tierney, Sydney

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tinn, James

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Tomlinson, John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pendry, Tom

  Torney, Tom

  Upton, Marcus

  Penhaligon, David

  Tuck, Raphael

  Litterick, Tom

  Perry, Ernest

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wainwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Luard, Evan

  Prescott, John

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

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Price. C. (Lewlsham W)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Price, Wililam (Rugby)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Radice, Giles

  watkins, David

  McCartney, Hugh

  Reid, George

  Watkinos, John

  MacCormick, lain

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Watt, Hamish

  McElhone, Frank

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  weetch Ken

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Weitzman, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Welsh Andrew

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  White,' Frank R. (Bury)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  White, James (Pollok)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Madden, Max

  Rooker, J. W.

  Whitlock, William

  Magee, Bryan

  Roper, John

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Mahon, Simon

  Rose, Paul B.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Marquand, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Selby, Harry

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

  Woodall, Alec

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Woof, Robert

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wrlgglesworth, Ian

  Mendelson, John

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Millan, Bruce

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Mr. J. D. Dormand and

  Miller, Mrs Millie (IIford N)

  Sillars, James

  Mr. Peter Snape.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 257.

  Division No. 105.]

  AYES

  [10.14 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Allaun, Frank

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

  Archer, Peter

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Coleman, Donald

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bradley, Tom

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Ashley, Jack

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Buchan, Norman

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Buchanan, Richard

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce(Wood Green)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Bates, Alf

  Campbell, Ian

  Cronin, John

  Bean, R. E.

  Cant, R. B.

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Cryer, Bob

  Bldwell, Sydney

  Carter, Ray

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cartwright, John

  Daryell, Tarn

  Boardman, H.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Davidson, Arthur

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  John, Brynmor

  Reid, George

  Davies, Denzil (LlaNelli)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Davies, lfor (Gower)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)

  Deakins, Erie

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Judd, Frank

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Kerr, Russell

  Rooker, J. W.

  Dempsey, James

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roper, John

  Dolg, Peter

  Kinnock Neil

  Rose, Paul B.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lamble, David

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamond, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dunnett, Jack

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Eadie, Alex

  Lee, John

  Selby, Harry

  Edge, Geoff

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Elite, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  English, Michael

  Litterick, Tom

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Luard, Evan

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Silverman, Julius

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Small, William

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E

  McCartney, Hugh

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Flannery, Martin

  MacCormick, lain

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McElhone, Frank

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Ford, Ben

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Forrester, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Stoddart, David

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stott, Roger

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Gavin

  Freeson, Reginald

  Magee, Bryan

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Freud, Clement

  Mahon, Simon

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mallalleu, J. P. W.

  Swain, Thomas

  Garrelt, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  George, Bruce

  Marquand, David

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Ginsburg, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Golding, John

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Thompson, George

  Gould, Bryan

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Meacher, Michael

  Tierney, Sydney

  Graham, Ted

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Tinn, James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mendelson, John

  Tomlinson, John

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Torney, Tom

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Millan, Bruce

  Tuck, Raphael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Hardy, Peter

  Molloy, William

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Moonman, Eric

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Ward, Michael

  Hatton, Frank

  Moyle, Roland

  Watkins, David

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Watklnson, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Watt, Hamish

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Newens, Stanley

  Weetch, Ken

  Hooley, Frank

  Noble, Mike

  Weitzman, David

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Oakes, Gordon

  Welsh, Andrew

  Horam, John

  Ogden, Eric

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  O'Halloran, Michael

  White, James (Pollok)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Huckfield, Les

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Whitiock, William

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Ovenden, John

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Owen, Dr David

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Padley, Walter

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Hughes. Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Hunter, Adam

  Park, George

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Parker, John

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Parry, Robert

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Woodall, Alec

  Perry, Ernest

  Pendry, Tom

  Woof, Robert

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Penhaligon, David

  Wrlgglesworth, Ian

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Prescott, John

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Price, C. (Lewlsham W)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Mr. D. Dormand

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. Peter Snape.

  1718

  1719

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Alison, Michael

  Goodhew, Victor

  Moate, Roger

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Monro, Hector

  Arnold, Tom

  Gorst, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Banks, Robert

  Gray, Hamish

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Bell, Ronald

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Benyon, W.

  Hall, Sir John

  Mudd, David

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Neave, Airey

  Biffen, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Michael

  Blaker, Peter

  Hannam, John

  Newton, Tony

  Body, Richard

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Normanton, Tom

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Nott, John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Brittan, Leon

  Hicks, Robert

  Pattle, Geoffrey

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Percival, Ian

  Brotherton, Michael

  Holland, Philip

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hordern, Peter

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Buck, Anthony

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Raison, Timothy

  Budgen, Nick

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hunt, John

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hurd, Douglas

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  James, David

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Channon, Paul

  Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Clark, William(Croydon S)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Clegg, Walter

  Jopling, Michael

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Cockcroft, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Cope, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Cordle, John H.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Salnsbury, Tim

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kimball, Marcus

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Corrie, John

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Costain, A. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Crltchley, Julian

  Kirk, Sir Peter

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Crouch, David

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Knox, David

  Shepherd, Colin

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shersby, Michael

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Lane, David

  Silvester, Fred

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sims, Roger

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Durant, Tony

  Lawson, Nigel

  Speed, Keith

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Spence, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lloyd, Ian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Loveridge, John

  Sproat, lain

  Elliott, Sir William

  Luce, Richard

  Stainton, Keith

  Emery, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Eyre, Reginald

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stanley, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  MacGregor, John

  Stokes, John

  Farr, John

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Fell, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McNalr-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Madel, David

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Marten, Neil

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mates, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Forman, Nigel

  Mather, Carol

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Maude, Angus

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Fox, Marcus

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Trotter, Neville

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Mawby, Ray

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Fry, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Gardner, Edward (S Fyide)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Wakeham, John

  Gilmour. Sir John (East Fife)

  Mills, Peter

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  1720

  1721

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Younger, Hon George

  Walters, Dennis

  Wlggin, Jerry

  Warren, Kenneth

  Winterton, Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr, Spencer Le. Marchant and

  Wells, John

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, recognising the need to provide adequately for the nation's security, welcomes the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1976 (Command Paper No. 6432):
  1722
  and, being aware of the economic factors which have led to cuts in all sectors of public spending, notes with approval that the defence cuts envisaged will fall on support services rather than on front-line forces, thereby maintaining the British contribution to NATO, the security and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and peace in Northern Ireland.

NORTHERN IRELAND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
10.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): I beg to move,
That the Industries Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.
The draft Order has two main purposes. In the first place, it establishes the Northern Ireland Development Agency as the successor to the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation and defines the functions and the powers of the new body. Secondly, it replaces the present Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Industries Development Act of 1966 with a new section which expands the purposes for which selective financial assistance may be given.
As hon. Members may recall, the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation was established in 1972 following the recommendations of the Joint Review Body on economic and social development in Northern Ireland—the Cairn-cross inquiry. It had a statutory life of three years, which was later expanded by a further two years, and its main role was to rescue Northern Ireland companies which, because of the troubled political and security situation, might have had difficulty in raising finance through the normal commercial channels. Within this field the Corporation has tackled many difficult problems, and I would like to express my appreciation of the work which it has done in the past four years.
The decision to establish a new body is not a reflection on the Corporation, but the outcome of the Government's overall industrial strategy as set out in the White Paper "The Regeneration of British Industry", which has already led to the establishment of the National Enterprise Board, and Development Agencies in Scotland and Wales. It is important that Northern Ireland, which has many deep and difficult economic problems, should have available to it a similar type of body. The Development Agency in Northern Ireland has therefore
1724
been fashioned very much on the lines of the Development Agencies in Great Britain.
The Agency will be a much more positive body than the Finance Corporation, with a major role to play in the economic reconstruction of Northern Ireland. I see it setting about this task in two broad ways. In the first place, it will be the agency for setting up State industries, whether on its own or jointly with others, especially in areas of high unemployment where private industry has so far failed to go. In the second place, it will be expected to take positive steps to improve and strengthen existing Northern Ireland firms. It will encourage joint ventures, it will be able to acquire licences and patents and to introduce these to firms tn Northern Ireland, it will search out new products and new processes suitable for introduction into Northern Ireland industry, and it will initiate moves to help in the reconstruction of industries in Northern Ireland.
In this role of improving and strengthening industry, the Agency will also have power to give advice on management, finance and administration, and, most important, marketing. It has been represented to me strongly in my discussions—and there have been full discussions with all interested organisations, and especially with the Northern Ireland Economic Council—that there is a need for a body to assist Northern Ireland companies in the marketing of their products. I believe that this need fits in well with the broad role that I have outlined for the Agency, because successful marketing usually brings with it substantial rewards in terms of trade and employment.
The Agency will be expected to adopt a commercial attitude towards the carrying out of these functions. It will invest in a project only where it believes that there is a reasonable prospect of viability. That is not to say—and I should like to make this quite clear—that the Agency should be over-cautious in its approach to investments. A level of acceptable risk cannot be legislated for and a decision to invest will be a matter for the judgment of the Agency. In reaching such decisions, however, it is right that it

1725
should take into account a wider range of considerations than would apply in the case of a normal business. For example, it may have to wait longer for a return on investment, or locate in areas which might not be the most attractive commercially, as the price for bringing much needed investment and employment to areas of high unemployment.
In rescue cases, where social considerations play a much greater part, it is for the Government to take the decision, for the Government to direct the Agency to act as their agent in implementing those decisions, and for the Government to provide the cash or other assistance that is needed. The Order before the House provides the machinery for doing this. It is important that this side of the Agency's work should be kept quite separate from activities undertaken on its own initiative, and steps will be taken to ensure that this distinction is brought out clearly in the Agency's annual report.
Hon. Members will have noted recently the publication of guidelines for the operation of the National Enterprise Board. These are felt to be necessary in view of the generous scope of the functions and powers given to that body, and the desirability of establishing certain operating rules and practices to ensure proper co-ordination with the Government and fair competition with private industry. The same considerations apply to the Northern Ireland Development Agency, and I have sent draft guidelines to the Economic Council for discussions. These will also be made available to hon. Members, and published.
The main responsibility for promoting new investment from outside Northern Ireland will continue to lie with the Department of Commerce, and I need hardly remind hon. Members of this House of the great success which the Department has had in this field in the past. The distinction between the functions of the Department of Commerce and the new Agency will have to be drawn closely. We do not want them to to overlap or to contradict each other's functions. I have spent a great deal of time examining this question and would welcome the views of hon. Members. It is important to get it right.
1726
The Department's powers derive from Section 1 of the Industries Development Act 1966. That Act was amended in 1971 to give the Department powers to assist in the maintenance of employment. The Order now before the House repeals those early provisions and replaces them with a new Section 1 fashioned much more on the lines of Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972. I am sure the Opposition recognise that Act.
The new Section 1 powers will enable the Department to provide selective financial assistance for a much wider range of purposes, including the reconstruction of industries, and for ensuring the orderly run-down of an industry. The selective financial assistance provisions should be seen as complementing the work of the Agency, since any undertaking in the Agency's control will stand in the same position regarding entitlement to standard or selective financial assistance towards capital expenditure as will a company in the private sector.
I do not wish to encroach on the time available to hon. Members to discuss this Order, and I propose therefore to be brief in reference to its provisions. Part II of the Order establishes the Agency, confers on it certain powers and functions, and makes available to it £50 million. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that, subject to the Order being approved, the important offices of chairman and deputy chairman have been decided. Mr. Kenneth Cork, presently the Chairman of the Finance Corporation, has been appointed Chairman-designate of the Agency, and I am particularly pleased that he has agreed to accept this position. I am appointing two Deputy Chairmen—Mr. Brendan Harkin, currently Vice-Chairman of the Finance Corporation, a member of the Northern Ireland Economic Council and prominent trade unionist, and Mr. Denis Faulkner, a prominent local businessman. Pending the coming into operation of the Agency, these members will constitute an organising committee, so enabling a start to be made in considering a variety of matters related to the operation of the new body.
If the Order gets through the Privy Council and receives Royal Assent by Easter, we hope that the Agency will be in operation by 1st May, though some

1727
of its functions will come into operation almost as soon as the Order is approved by the House.
The provisions in Part III of the legislation replace sections of the Industries Development Act 1966 and the Industrial Investment (General Assistance) Act 1966 respectively. The effect of the new provisions is, broadly, to add further to the powers of the Department of Commerce to provide selective financial assistance to industry, particularly in relation to the objective of maintaining and safeguarding existing employment.
Part IV contains a provision designed to remove any doubt about the ability of the Department to accept the transfer to it of publicy-owned securities, and the Order ends with three schedules dealing with staffing and financing matters.
The new Agency will have a vital role in the reconstruction of the Northern Ireland economy and will, through this Order, be equipped with the powers necessary to do that job. We discussed this last week in the debate on the Northern Ireland economy. Private investment, public investment and public commitment by the Government are essential for the economy, together with assistance to existing firms which wish to extend. I see no conflict there.
Last night I attended a function in Manchester which was organised by the Ulster Office to promote jobs, investment and marketing for Northern Ireland firms. I attended the function as Minister of State with Sir Harry Jones from the Ulster Office. It was the best-attended meeting of industrialists, buyers and people interested in marketing for many years. There were present 330 industrialists from the Greater Lancashire area, which itself suffers from unemployment. I was heartened when the industrialists told me that, despite the difficulties, they would not desert Northern Ireland and regarded the Northern Ireland economy as part of the United Kingdom economy.
I told those industrialists that in the continuation of direct rule the British Government saw themselves as a positive, not a negative, factor in the creation of a thriving economy. In spite of the heavy body blows suffered by the Province recently, I see a turning of the corner. In the two years during which
1728
I have held office as Minister of State I have never heard such expressions of confidence in the future. I went to my own city to advocate the development of industry and marketing in Northern Ireland, and I came back greatly encouraged. That augurs well for the Development Agency, which can play a crucial and vital part in helping to develop the Northern Ireland economy. I wish the Agency well in the tasks ahead and have pleasure in commending the Order to the House for approval.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: I wish to join in the tributes paid by the Minister of State to the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, which was established in 1972. We are pleased to hear of the appointment of Mr. Kenneth Cork, the former Chairman of the Corporation, as Chairman of the new Agency. I was also pleased to hear what the Minister said about the meeting in Manchester. It is good news, which I hope will encourage the people of Northern Ireland.
The Opposition do not oppose the Order, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that we would be fooling ourselves to think that by setting up the Agency we shall solve the economic problems of Northern Ireland. We are glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman thinks the corner has been turned for the economy, and we welcome that, but he will agree that the Government will need the resources as well as an agency. The question occurs to us whether increased intervention will help industry in the Province any more than it has done recently on the mainland.
The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the private sector is essential to the development of industry in Northern Ireland. There may be some doubts in the business world about the functions of the agency. The Paymaster-General, on the Second Reading of the Industry Bill, to which the Agency is related, said that
"Any idea…that Whitehall can manage British industry, that it can take its investment decisions, its marketing decisions, its research and development decisions, would be an illusion."—[Official Report, 18th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1135.]
Very similar language was used by the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in column 181 of the Official Report of 5th June 1972 in the debate

1729
on the Order setting up the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, which I have mentioned.
On the other hand, everyone will recognise the special conditions in Northern Ireland, and, above all, the need to stem the rising tide of unemployment. Naturally, we hope that the promotion of industrial efficiency, described in the Order as one of the functions of the Agency, means encouragement to the private sector. Unless it does, we need not expect improvement in the unemployment figures.
I have already referred to the debate on the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation in June 1972. The object of that Corporation was a special measure designed to deal with the industrial and investment problems brought on by the terrorist situation in Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman said. These problems had been investigated by the Cairncross Committee, which reported that
"the cumulative effect of civil unrest on the Northern Ireland economy justifies its treatment as a special case".
In the private sector the objective of the Corporation has been outlined as being
"to maintain as much as possible the existing economic fabric of the Province against the day when it will be possible to move forward again."
I emphasise those words, because we have to look at the widened powers which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The review body, referring to the NIFC, stated:
"We see little to be gained by inviting the Government to become directly involved on its own account in the founding and running of new industrial enterprises."
It is at this point that I express anxiety about the aims of the Government and their real purpose in terminating the functions of the Finance Corporation under paragraph 14 of the Order, because the Order provides for the Agency to have very much increased powers, much more subject to Government control—for one main reason as it appears to us. The Government want to make industrial policy in Northern Ireland conform to overall United Kingdom policy, and the purpose of reshaping the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation is to bring
1730
it into line with the present policy for the United Kingdom as a whole. I think the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that that is so.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what the relationship will be between the agency and the NEB. This is not clear from the debates that we have had in the House on the Welsh Development Agency and on the Scottish Development Agency.
The Industry Act 1975 removed safeguards from the Conservative Government's Act of 1972, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. One of these safeguards was that the Secretary of State had to be satisfied that assistance could not be given in any way other than by the acquisition of shares. He could not acquire more than 50 per cent. of the equity capital, but the Government were obliged to dispose of these shares as soon as possible—that is, as soon as the firm was viable. Where is that safeguard in the Order?
The current policy of Her Majesty's Government seems to be directed as much towards enlarging Government involvement in industry for its own sake as to dealing with specific economic problems. I agree that Northern Ireland is a special case, and we realise that some of these power will be required, but they need to be examined. Government stakes in industry are much more indefinite than they were in the 1972 Act. In this Order one has only to look at the articles relating to investment and acquisition to see the political purposes of the operation.
How far will the setting up of the Agency help to reduce costs to industry rather than increase them? At present the estimated average capital cost for creating a job in Northern Ireland is £6,265. Will the Agency proposals reduce or increase that? Is there not the possibility of heavy burdens on the taxpayer arising from the activities of the Agency in acquiring, as hon. Members will see if they read the Order, securities, plant, machinery and equipment? That may well be expensive for the taxpayer.
We must not forget that the industry of Northern Ireland is dependent on the overall health of the United Kingdom economy and that Northern Ireland is

1731
dependent especially on the private sector of the economy. On the mainland, the Government suppression of industrial enterprise and profitability in the private sector has some relation to the shortage of investment in Northern Ireland. I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has striven hard to put that right, but the overall policy has had the same effect as in the United Kingdom.
I noticed on the tape tonight that the Patronage Secretary said to the British Leather Federation "There is no future unless private enterprise is given all help to do a first-class job." We entirely agree with him, and we welcome what he has to say.
As to the question of investment, because of the international recession I know that the task of getting investment for Northern Ireland from Germany and the United States has been harder and that the overseas investment boom of the 1950s and 1960s is unlikely to be repeated for some time, although I noticed that the Taioseach, Mr. Cosgrave, has had some success in America with regard to the Republic of Ireland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's efforts will also meet with success.
The problem is a United Kingdom and Northern Ireland one and indigenous industries need to be developed. Will the Agency be concentrating on areas where bodies such as the Local Enterprise Development Unit and Enterprise Ulster operate, and what will be its relationship with these bodies? Will there not be an overlap? Is there not a danger of too many bodies operating in this field? Will not this danger be increased by removing the Department of Commerce representatives from the board of the new Agency?
The House is entitled to know a little about the accountability of the Agency here. This becomes increasingly important under direct rule since the dissolution of the Convention and in view of the role that this House has to play in the scrutiny procedure.
The Agency will to a large extent be under the thumb of the Department, which does not appear to require the consent of Parliament, except, I presume, to increase the loan limit under paragraph 10 of the Order. The head of the
1732
Department has virtual control over the Agency's functions. I should like to hear to what extent he will be accountable to this House, because it is a matter of considerable importance, particularly now that we are debating the future relationship of this House to the problem of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Orme: Perhaps I may make a technical point which will clear up the query about public accountability. The accounts of the Agency will be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The accounting officer of the Department of Commerce will be accountable to the Public Accounts Commitee. So there is adequate public scrutiny of both.
Mr. Neave: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for answering my point. Whenever a new agency of this sort is set up it is right to raise the question of accountability. The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when in Opposition, questioned the extent of powers being given to the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation on the Second Reading of that Bill. He recognised that it was putting great power into the Corporation's hands. We are a little afraid about a virtual carte blanche being handed to the Agency. The guidelines show some recognition of this point and the need for some kind of control over what might be described as a State extension. After all, the Government already have considerable power to involve themselves in the Northern Ireland economy, and it is surprising that they should think the existing powers inadequate.
I should like to know about the position of individual manufacturing firms because I know that the right hon. Gentleman has had a lot to do with that. In a Written Answer to one of my hon. Friends on 13th March 1975 he said that 10 manufacturing firms employing over 8,000 people were State-controlled. Apart from the obvious position of Harland and Wolff with 100 per cent. control, one assumes that the number is now greater. However, we must seek to stimulate local enterprise and initiative, and I should like to know whether the Minister of State has additional figures to those in the Written Answer.

1733
We accept, of course, the special problems here, particularly in view of the terrorist campaign, which justifies special assistance. A deterioration of the economic situation in Northern Ireland might not only cause social hardship but further undermine attempts to restore law and order. Although I have expressed doubts and raised questions, we shall not oppose the Order.
10.58 p.m.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I should like to underline three areas of concern by commenting upon and endeavouring to elicit information about, first, the underlying philosophy which gives rise to the Agency, second, the structure of the Agency and, third, its functions. Perhaps I may be permitted to introduce a prefatory statement that it will come as an immense relief and source of encouragement to the work force at Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers and Harland to know that the influence of the Order will not extend to those concerns.
Very few people will disagree that industry throughout the Kingdom, but certainly in Northern Ireland, from time to time needs a financial boost whether from private capital assets or from interim Government assistance. Few in Ulster, however, would wish to see nationalisation introduced by the back door. If, therefore, the underlying philosophy of the Agency is interim assistance in the hope of future viability, or to maintain employment until a profitable alternative is found, our concern is somewhat reduced. But if it is clear that the direction is ultimate and absolute control of industry, and not temporary involvement, there is much reason for concern when we bear in mind some of the activities of the Finance Corporation, which to some extent was the forerunner of this Agency. It was the impression in the minds of many leading industrialists in Northern Ireland that members of the board who were placed there by the Corporation had the interests of the Corporation at heart more than the future prospects of the company.
No one could reasonably object to Government surveillance when public money is being applied, but much fear will be removed if there is a commitment by the Government to divest themselves
1734
of profitable industries at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: And subsidise the rest.
Mr. Orme: It is not a question of nationalisation for nationalisation's sake. I am concerned about the economy. One may have one's own philosophy about the situation, but all that I am concerned about is creating jobs. Having spent perhaps tens of millions of pounds creating viable industry that the private sector cannot produce, it would be criminal to hand it over to people who at the initial stage were not able to create that industry. We are not going to take from private industry. We are going to provide what private industry cannot provide.
Mr. Bradford: If a firm requires interim financial assistance and the Government provide that, there is no reason for the Government maintaining a holding of equity if the firm can proceed from a point in time as a viable concern. That is the simple point that I have tried to make. There should, therefore, be a clear statement that it is not the intention of the Agency to buy into the profitable companies, as it were, or to try to dominate the life of profitable companies.
This approach of realistic assistance for realistic ventures would create a respect for the new Agency which was not enjoyed by its forerunner. I shall come later to my reasons for stating that. There should be an obligation, as it were, on the Agency always to be solvent, in the sense that its money is used so wisely that it should be able to retrieve the loans as easily as possible. This will require skill, insight and discriminatory judgment. However, all those characteristics will soon emerge when it is established that this House will have to agree to its assessments of situations and that final accountability lies here.
I come, I hope naturally, to the issue of the personnel of the Agency and its structure. My preference is for the minimum rather than the optimum number. However, it is vital that there should be proven industrialists and people of real commercial ability and talent involved, plus, as we would expect, a specialist in the rather hazy world of high finance.

1735
There is little place in Ulster for persons with grandiose titles and qualifications who often cannot really appreciate the peculiar needs of Northern Ireland and are very often not in a position to apply themselves. There has been in the past a remoteness in both thought and action concerning some of the personnel of the forerunner of this Agency.
Mr. Orme: I should like to clear up this point at this stage. The appointments of the nine members, including the chairman and chief executive, who will be on the board—it will be quite a small board—will consist overwhelmingly of Northern Ireland people. They will be representative of industry and with practical experience. They will not be there as standard bearers, whether it be for the trade union movement or the manufacturing or employing side of industry. They will be there because of their ability. It will be much more directed to Northern Ireland than previously. One of the reasons for excluding the Departments of Commerce and Finance at this time is that we felt that these were not jobs for civil servants. I took that decision myself. I have appointed people with practical industrial experience. These are people who can get the job done.
Mr. Bradford: That information will be received warmly and happily in the Province.
I turn to the functions of the Agency. Ulster must cease to be an area of temporary expansion for multinationals and become a base for indigenous industry. Of course, we want to share in the commercial and industrial life of the Kingdom as a whole. It could be argued that the terms of the economic union need to be re-defined so that we can have a greater share in it, but every facet of the United Kingdom industry should be relevant. Even if we did have this total economic parity, it would not avert a contraction in time of recession. The Agency must immediately address itself to the need for indigenous industry.
We welcome the comments which have been made about the marketing advice to be offered to industry. That is needed. Today I spoke to a leading industrialist who was concerned about this operation. Like many of his friends,
1736
he will be encouraged by the Minister's words today.
The Agency must not be guilty of creating unfair competition. The Northern Ireland Finance Corporation did not avoid that trap. Let us take the case of Ben Sherman. I do not want to waste time discussing individual factories, but the fact is that the Corporation voted 500,000 shares at £1·50 each and these were written down at 50p.
The Agency will not work if that type of activity is the order of the day. Not only will it be a drain on resources but it will create problems for similar industries. We must safeguard existing entrepreneurs. Where there is a need for a company to invest and the need for a loan, a lower rate of interest might be considered. The rate of interest payable on loans has been a great problem for some industries in Northern Ireland.
The Agency should be not a drip-feed for dying firms and industry in Northern Ireland but a stimulus which could make successful a company which is ambling. That would be of eternal benefit to Northern Ireland.
11.9 p.m.
Mr. John Watkinson: I welcome the Order. There are three basic factors affecting the Northern Ireland economy—the recession, terrorism and the peripheral status of Northern Ireland in relation to the British economy. The last factor, although it has not been mentioned tonight, was an argument in the Common Market debate. It became known as the "golden triangle" argument in the argument that economic resources economic welfare and economic development tended to concentrate in certain areas. It was said that there was a danger that if Great Britain joined the Common Market the country would have to endure the sort of economic effects that Northern Ireland and Scotland had had to endure.
The Northern Ireland situation is a historic fact. It is not only over the past few years that Northern Ireland has suffered a decline. It has been long term, because of its being on the periphery of the British economy. An hon. Member shakes his head. He may care to consider the Scottish economy in the same light, although admittedly it now has fine prospects because of the oil boom. Because

1737
of the historical decline, I particularly welcome this Government initiative to stimulate and improve industry in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) spoke of fears of creeping nationalisation. He does not need to worry too much in view of the amount the Government have allotted to the Agency, which is only £50 million. By whatever run-down standards one uses, that will not take in a great deal of industry. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State may be able to squeeze a little more money out of the Treasury, because it could be very usefully employed in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the guidelines for funds which could be used by the Agency. He said that the fundamental principle would be that of viability. I wondered whether the same principles would apply in Northern Ireland as apply in this country. I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, which has dealt with the Department of Industry and the criteria whereby aid can be given to industry. It is stated quite clearly in those criteria—but I did not hear it from my right hon. Friend—that there may well be overriding social reasons for providing investment where the Department may not see a viable project.
Mr. Orme: That is quite correct. In those circumstances the Minister would give a directive to the Agency, and would also therefore be responsible for the finance expended. The Minister would take into account the social and political considerations. That would be the decisive factor. It would remove the commercial aspects to which the Agency is now tied.
Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to rates of interest. Under the Industry Act favourable rates of interest may be charged to a firm in this country in given circumstances. I hope that that will apply in Northern Ireland as well, because it is clearly needed there.
I repeat my welcome for the proposal, which I see as a positive attempt by the Government to break into the recessionary spiral in Northern Ireland. We should see it as an attempt to create jobs in Northern
1738
Ireland, and therefore should all give it a good welcome.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Wm, Ross: As the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) referred to me shaking my head, I should point out that traditionally industry arises where its resources exist. The hon. Gentleman made that point when he referred to Scotland's prosperity deriving from the oil which has been found off the Scottish coast. That is an extremely important resource in this day and age.
In general, I welcome the setting up of this Agency for the purposes set out in the Order:

"(a) the development or assistance of the economy;

(b) the promotion of industrial efficiency;

(c) the provision, maintenance or safe guarding of employment."

These are laudable objectives. I welcome them and the intention behind them. However, I am sure that the Minister of State will be among the first to recognise that the Government's intentions, and the success of those intentions, are not necessarily the same thing. We have a saying in Northern Ireland—that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Speaking of Regna in my constituency, the road to liquidation is paved with £3 million. That is not a matter which either I or my constituents welcome.
There are other ways of helping industry. I hope the Minister will consider them. For example, taxation rates in the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making next week could have a great effect on the viability or otherwise of industry in the coming year.
Efforts made by one Department can be undermined by efforts in a different direction made by another Department. Indeed, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West touched on this matter when he referred to the danger of the Department of Commerce and the Agency working at cross-purposes to one another.
I draw particular attention to the example of the Minister of Agriculture's statement today which alters the beef support arrangements for Northern Ireland, leaving it apart from the rest of the United Kingdom and affecting the entire meat industry there.

1739
Looking at page 10, we see that is
"the investment or financial assistance is likely to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of Northern Ireland".
I am tempted to wonder, in view of the announcement made today, what the Agency will be able to do in that kind of situation. The change announced today removes competition and creates a monopoly. Such a monopoly is traditional. However, it means hardship and unemployment in an ever-widening circle. Will the Agency be prepared to step in to help to correct any difficulties which may be caused by the action of another Department? That is an important aspect of the problem for the Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear that up.
We see that plant and machinery are to be made available. The Minister will be aware that the farmers' union is about to launch a new meat plant. Will the Agency help there? Is it prepared to help the industry to stand on its own feet? That would be cheaper than selling meat into intervention, and it is also more socially acceptable.
The Minister mentioned social considerations. Perhaps he will spell out more clearly what those social considerations are. Do they cover the employment of the small hill farmer as well as the factory worker? Many of my constituents are worried about that matter.
Any upset in the pattern of farming and, indeed, of beef support leads to social upsets. There is a great deal of concern about the package announced today. Social upsets in Northern Ireland tend to become dangerous affairs. There is always the danger that irresponsible people will jump on the bandwagon created by the Government's foolishness.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the unfortunate results that the action of one section of the Government can have on the viability of the policy of another section of the Government. We have the problem of action not only by one section of our own Government but by other Governments and by the EEC. I regret that the Minister of Agriculture was unable to see me regarding this problem in the last 10 days. This is a matter which is clearly within his sphere of responsibility. He, and he alone, is the person who deals with EEC
1740
matters. Perhaps this is a matter which could be sorted out in terms of the green pound.
It is further complicated by the border difficulties and the failure of the Southern Government to enforce their laws, rules and regulations. All these matters affecting industrial efficiency do a great deal of harm to employment prospects in Northern Ireland, not only in farming but in the meat industry generally. The Meat Industry Employment Scheme was drawn up to get over this problem on the border. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to say precisely what the Government intend to do about that.
These difficulties all come about because of a failure to treat international boundaries as international boundaries and because of a great failure on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom to see to it that industry in Northern Ireland is protected from the activities of other Governments. The plain truth is that if this Agency is to succeed it must be backed by the Government, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that this matter is looked at very closely by his right hon. and hon. Friends.
11.22 p.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) did not end up with a plea that the Agency should man the border roads. He managed to cover practically everything else in his diatribe against the Government.
I am concerned about the degree of welcome which has been envisaged for the Order. If this is a welcome, I hate to think what a polite refusal would be. But what it really amounts to, of course, is a marked reluctance to say "No", because the Opposition understand the importance and significance of the Order for Northern Ireland.
I regret the statement of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) about Ben Sherman, bearing in mind that 400 jobs were saved by the Government. I am as keen for the jobs to be saved there as the Opposition are for the jobs which have been saved by Government action in Harland and Wolff or in any other industry in Northern Ireland or, for that matter, on the mainland.

1741
I am concerned not only about the obvious problems arising from terrorists in both communities and the effect that they have on unemployment in Northern Ireland. More basically, I am concerned about the unemployment of anyone, about any home without a wage earner and about any family having to live on social security rather than having the dignity of wages coming into the house. Therefore, whether it be Ben Sherman, Harland and Wolff or anywhere else, I apply the same criteria in deciding whether the Government should try to give assistance.
I welcome the appointments of the chairman and the two vice-chairmen which my right hon. Friend announced today. The persons appointed have given considerable service already to Northern Ireland and have done a great deal to try to help the country of the Six Counties to prosper in most difficult circumstances. Their further example of public service is to be welcomed considerably.
However, there are a number of matters which I am concerned about and a number of questions that I should like to ask in welcoming the Order. I think the hon. Member for Londonderry was wrong when he said that the Agency and the Department of Commerce might be working in contrary directions. My right hon. Friend was careful to say that he did not want an overlap, which is not necessarily the same thing. I would like my right hon. Friend to define these fields more clearly and directly, if it is possible. For example, when he talks about licences and patents of goods to be manufactured in Northern Ireland, are they patents and licences from abroad? Will the Agency or the Department of Commerce deal with them? My right hon. Friend said that the Department of Commerce was dealing with all industry coming into the Six Counties. Did he mean on a foreign basis or on a United Kingdom and Northern Ireland basis?
My right hon. Friend, and hon. Members opposite, also spoke of the question of overlapping concerning such things as Enterprise Ulster, the local industry enterprises and similar schemes. Are any of these matters going to be subsumed within the new Agency, or will they remain in existence continuously? It
1742
could be that matters which have grown up in an ad hoc manner could create their own continuity. As we all know, committees can be formed which become self-perpetuating. One may have a plethora of organisations and individuals but often little is achieved. I should like to know what the relationship between these organisations will be. In the past they have been put there to good purpose, or have arisen in times of difficulty. However, with the creation of new agencies, and this new Agency in particular, they might have outrun their useful life.
Another matter of tremendous importance—it has been mentioned from both sides of the House—is that one has to have within Northern Ireland the creation of indigenous industries—a large number of small indigenous industries—rather than one or two large industries. It is most important that the industrial base of the Six Counties should be as wide as possible.
One of the lessons we have learned on this side of the Irish Sea in large towns dependant either on motors or heavy engineering of a particular type or on textiles is that a recession in one of those industries, a change in world demand, or even fashion, can create a tremendous problem. This could be cushioned, and could almost be avoided, if one had a wider industrial base than has existed in the past. Therefore, what I have argued for my own area of Humberside is equally applicable to the Six Counties—the need not only for the eye-catching multinational company but for the small firms which can bring prosperity, skill and technical expertise and create the cushion which is so important.
As in my area, the multinational company can create unemployment overnight. In my area, 2,000 jobs have been lost in that way. That has been repeated in Northern Ireland when multinationals have cut down on their investment and when a large firm in the United Kingdom has decided to close. Some are State-owned, some are private. Politicians and civil servants dangle carrots to get firms to areas which may still be developing their internal economies. Hon. Members opposite did not care for the reference earlier to the "golden triangle", but it is true that in a recession these firms pull back to the centre.

1743
In Northern Ireland, companies from England, France, Germany, Holland, America or Canada will be in exactly that position. We have to create a local base using the local raw material of men and women and their native skills.
Fifty million pounds sounds a lot of money in relation to the £6,000 that it costs to create a job in Northern Ireland. We voted £10 million last week under Section 8 of the Industry Act for a new chemical complex for BP just outside my constituency at Salt End. Altogether it will cost £50 million. But, after all the temporary benefits of that money, in the end only 140 permanent jobs will be created. That is a lot of money for a few jobs. We must be careful that the use of carrots to attract employers to development areas is not abused.
What does the money allocated to Northern Ireland work out at per head? What are the similar sums granted to the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies?
Mr. Orme: This is an important point. We are not talking about a fixed sum of money which must be spent. With Treasury approval, the sum of £50 million could be increased, so long as that could be justified in the existing economic situation. It compares favourably with both the Scottish and the Welsh Development Agencies. My hon. Friend will recognise that the environmental expenditure on Scotland and Wales has no counterpart in Northern Ireland—clearing up the industrial dereliction of the ninteenth century. So in industrial terms Northern Ireland will be no worse off.
11.35 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I want first to make a formal observation about the Order and then two political remarks before coming to the meat of the Order. The formal point is that we have here an Order which is conceived in terms of the 1973 constitution. I shall not labour the point, but we have had a different perspective in the last few weeks from that which we had when we considered previous Orders.
There is an increasing absurdity in legislating for Northern Ireland in terms of the institutions of the 1973 constitution without, as it so happens, the application provisions which translate it all into
1744
reality even being in the Order itself. In order to translate terms such as "Northern Ireland Assembly" and "Head of Department" into what they will mean in practice, one has to look at the relevant provisions of the 1974 Act. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government take this point. I just note that we have to grow out of the period in which we have unrealistic terminology in which we continue to legislate for Northern Ireland.
I come now to my two political points. The Order is clearly closely linked with the Industry Act 1975. As a matter of fact the Industry Act 1975 specifically extends to Northern Ireland, and I shall come to that point later. It would be broadly true to say that by the Order we are constructing an administrative layout in Northern Ireland which is not a mirror image of that created in Great Britain but which corresponds very closely to it. Indeed, some of the articles of the Order are word for word with the provisions of the 1975 Act, and I amused myself for a little time by jotting down the 1975 Act's sections against the Order's corresponding articles.
The 1975 Act, like the organisation it set up, was a Socialist Act of a Socialist Government. It is certainly not the object of my hon. Friends and myself to say that we wish to contract out of the policies of the United Kingdom as a whole, good or bad, Socialist or capitalist. What we want to do is to apply our part in forming that legislation and these policies, criticising them and altering them, as do the representatives of other parts of the Kingdom, but accepting them as they emerge from Parliament altered, amended or developed to apply to Northern Ireland as a whole.
So we want to be integrated into the process of legislation, and I hope that as time goes on we shall play an earlier part than we do now in the formation of United Kingdom legislation which in due course is reflected into Northern Ireland. While, except for the time, one could have a debate tonight on the ideology, I leave that ideology on one side. I accept the ideology as implicit in the framework in which we shall be working, at any rate for some time to come.
My other political observation derives from what the Minister said about his

1745
experience in Manchester, about which he told me personally earlier in the day. Let me say that there was something infectious in the right hon. Gentleman's delight in the experience.
What is instructive about it politically is that it has come just at the time when so many people, including some rather foolish people in Northern Ireland, are seeking to pretend that we are entering a period of increased instability and uncertainty. The reverse is the case. Nothing is for ever. In recent weeks, however, there has been a gain in stability. There has been a gain, humanly speaking, in certainty. I for one was delighted, as was the right hon. Gentleman, to find a quick reaction on the part of business people whose duty it is to detect stability or instability. There was a quick reaction to the change in conditions and prospects for Northern Ireland. That is something that I do not want to see people in Northern Ireland or anywhere else blacking, if I may use a trade union term not quite accurately.
From those political observations I come to the contents of the Order. As I understand the structure—it is quite an interesting one—we have on the one hand parliamentary operations of the Department of Commerce, with its extended powers and scope, and on the other hand we have the Development Agency. If we must use one word to characterise them, I should say that the attitude of the Department is, not surprisingly, departmental, whereas the objective of the Agency is to be managerial.
The functions of the Department are much more direct than those of the Agency. In particular they are directed to the problems of unemployment—namely, the prevention of unemployment and the maintenance and the increase of employment. The instruments which the Department of Commerce uses, although they partly overlap those of the Agency in the provision of capital, include the use of the grant. I might add that the grant is the typical instrument that is used by the Department.
When we turn to the Agency, we find ourselves quite deliberately in a different atmosphere. I noted that the right hon. Gentleman said that we are looking for a commercial attitude. He qualified that
1746
statement somewhat by saying that the Agency, when deliberately operating with Government capital, will not be obliged to apply the same harsh criteria that private capital has to apply so as not to be lost. At any rate, commercial viability is intended to be the touchstone. Investment in one form or another is intended to be the characteristic instrument of the Agency in doing its work. As the right hon. Gentleman and others have realised, the relationship of the boundary line between the two bodies is extremely important. I hope that there will still be time for the right hon. Gentleman to say a little more about that when he replies.
First, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear where the National Enterprise Board, under the 1975 Act, comes into this operation, if it comes into it at all. If the 1975 Act extends to Northern Ireland, presumably the NEB relates to Northern Ireland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain where the NEB comes into the pattern which is established by the Order. I hope that he will deal briefly with some of the overlaps between the Department and the Agency. There are at least two distinctive overlaps. For example, the Department can use the Agency as it is an agent for doing its statutory work.
Finally, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say a little more about the circumstances in which he envisages that the Department will go on acting directly, and the circumstances in which it will transfer to the Agency the actual work of implementing its statutory functions.
In what class of case will the Development Agency be an instrument of choice by the Department for doing its work under the 1966 Act? A second overlap is that the Order gives the Department the right to transfer public property that it holds to the new Agency. Incidentally, on reading the Order it appears that that ceases to be public property in the technical sense when it is transferred to the Agency. I deduce this by marrying Articles 8 and 18 and because of what is said in Article 3(9):
"The Agency shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown…and the Agency's property shall not be regarded as the property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown."
I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate the circumstances in which he

1747
expects the Department to make transfers of property, assets or shares currently in its possession to the Agency.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) was anxious, as am I, about surveillance. Of course, the operations of the Department are under normal surveillance by the Public Accounts Committee and so on and the Agency's operations and accounts will be handled by the Exchequer and the Comptroller and Auditor General, but this is not sufficient. What is being done, the way in which it is being done and the relationship between the Department and the Agency are so important that we should consider a continuing scrutiny of the operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) was right to remind the House that the history of the Agency's predecessors—the Finance Corporation—has not been, to put it mildly, unchequered. We should like more opportunity of continual contact with, and surveillance of, what is done under the Order and within the framework of the Bill. This leads me back to the subject—I know this is King Charles' head, but we must have it—of a continuing committee, unlike anything we have now, to maintain a more intimate and investigatory contact with the proceedings of government and administration in Northern Ireland.
I have tried to abbreviate my remarks to enable the Minister to deal with some of the major points made in the debate.
11.48 p.m.
Mr. Orme: I make no complaint about any of the contributions to the debate. We are short of time, but I shall endeavour to answer as many of the major points as I can. I shall write to hon. Members—the letters can be made public—with replies to other issues raised in the debate.
When I said that I hoped things were improving, I did not mean that the corner had been turned completely. However, I see strands in the economy of Northern Ireland which give me confidence, and that is the basis for our future development.
Many hon. Members have raised the question of the relationship between the
1748
NEB and the Agency. The NEB will operate in Northern Ireland because it covers the whole United Kingdom and there may be instances where planning agreements with large firms may be implemented by the Board. But the Agency will be independent and will operate without needing the approval of the Board. Obviously there will be close liaison, and I see no conflict between the two bodies. A similar situation will exist in respect of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies.
I was asked about the cost of creating jobs in Northern Ireland. It costs a great deal of money to create jobs, but I cannot put a figure on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) referred to the amount of money required for that purpose. Our aim is to create jobs, and the Agency will concentrate on doing that.
Questions were raised about the transfer of property and shares fom the Department of Commerce to NIDA. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) welcomed the fact that neither the shipyard nor Short Bros. and Harland was to be placed under the control of the Agency. They will remain in the Department of Commerce under direct ministerial control, which is a more appropriate arrangement. Where applicable, shares and property will be transferred to the Agency, which will manage them as Government shareholders.
Reference was made to the relationship between LEDU, Enterprise Ulster and the Agency. LEDU is concerned with small firms, Enterprise Ulster with direct labour schemes, and the Agency with manufacturinng industry. I see no conflict there. There might in futurre be closer co-operation between, for example, LEDU and the Agency, but we regard the three organisations as being in separate compartments.
I come to the philosophical point raised by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about the division of powers between the Department of Commerce and NIDA. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister coined the phrase "creative tension" to describe the relationship between the Department of Economic Affairs and the

1749
Treasury. There is bound to be some overlapping, and there will have to be an intelligent approach by the Department of Commerce and NIDA. The Department of Commerce will have responsibility for grants. I am not prepared to hand over that responsibility to NIDA. Arrangements will be made to ensure that when the Agency wishes to help a prospective developer it will be able to present a package which includes provision for grants. The grants will be provided by the Department of Commerce and application for grants will have to be made to the Department of Commerce.
If the Agency wishes to purchase licences and patents from outside Northern Ireland for articles to be manufactured in Northern Ireland, it will be able to do so for the purpose of creating new industry, but investment will still be the responsibility of the Department of Commerce.
Obviously, political points arise in this situation. The right hon. Member for Down, South quoted the 1975 Act. I could quote the 1972 Act. It is of great assistance, certainly in the case of Sections 7 and 8, in protecting employment, not only in Northern Ireland but in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I would not wish to compete with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) in his great expertise in agriculture, but he would, I am sure, be the first to recognise that in a city like Deny he does not represent simply hill fanners. The hon. Member gives the House of Commons the impression that very little else exists. I have seen a lot of houses and industry in Deny, and he might bear that in mind. I take note, however, of his points concerning the meat industry. I have been involved in matters concerning the meat plant. In this sort of
1750
development, where an important industry like agriculture is involved, the Development Agency could examine the possibilities. But obviously it could come into conflict with other Departments.
As to the question of multinationals, how the Government will use the investment and whether there might be abuse, we need all types of investment in Northern Ireland. We have a major company about to develop a plant which will provide many hundreds of jobs in the Londonderry area. I was talking to the chairman of that company a few nights ago. I asked him why the company was able to expand and to continue its operations at a time when we so desperately need jobs. His reply was "We are satisfied with the workpeople of Northern Ireland and also with the type of Government grants and facilities available."
Private industry needs the Government just as much as the Government need a private sector, and the one cannot exist in this type of mixed economy today without the other. While we have that type of development, I say also to the House that we need industries which are indigenous to Northern Ireland itself to take away some of the strains that we have seen with the closure of firms recently, whether publicly—or privately-owned, in Northern Ireland. To develop that growth we need, in my opinion, the development of such an Agency.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings of the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Industries Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SOCIAL SECURITY)
11.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move,
That the Social Security and Family Allowances (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 427), a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd March, be approved.
The Order maintains the principle that there should be exact parity between cash social services in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain. It was made under the "urgent" procedure without a draft having been approved in order to enable the necessary administrative arrangements to proceed step by step with those in Great Britain. These arrangements not only have social security implications for the Department of Health and Social Security but also involve the Inland Revenue in contribution collection procedures which will become operative from the beginning of the next financial year on 6th April.
I now turn to an explanation of the Order. As the House knows, we have power to alter the present school leaving dates, and certain implications arise if those powers are implemented. For example, Article 3(1) relates to the social security scheme. It amends the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 to secure that the earliest date from which anyone can be liable for social security contributions will be his sixteenth birthday rather than his school leaving date, and if he stays beyond his school leaving birthday he will not pay contributions until he leaves school.
Article 3 (2) deals with injury benefits. On the coming into operation of the main provisions of the Child Benefit (Northern Ireland) Order, the qualifying age for injury benefit will become the age of 16. Until then the existing arrangement under which industial injury benefit is not normally payable in respect of a person for whom family allowances are payable is maintained. This article enacts for Northern Ireland the provisions relating to family allowances and social security which are enacted for the rest of the United Kingdom by the Education (School Leaving Dates) Act 1976.
1752
I turn now to Article 4. At present, in order to establish his right to benefit a person out of work due to a strike must prove, first, that he is not participating in, financing or directly interested in the dispute, and, secondly, that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute. Article 4 modifies these requirements by restricting the first to a requirement to prove that he is not participating in or directly interested in the dispute. Thus the financing part is eliminated. The second thing a person had to prove is wholly removed. These repeals have already been enacted for the rest of the United Kingdom by the Employment Protection Act 1975, although they are not yet operative.
The provisions of Article 5 are necessary because payment of family allowances is related to school leaving dates. The powers in that article enable awards of these allowances and related child dependency benefit to remain in payment up to a date roughly coinciding with the end of the summer term in 1976 as at present. Young people will continue to count as children for family allowances and dependency purposes up to their sixteenth birthday at least. Article 6 is supplementary.
I trust that this brief explanation will give the House an adequate outline of the provisions of the Order.
12.2 a.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The House is grateful to the Minister for being brief and helpful. The Opposition in general support measures to bring the law of Northern Ireland into line with that of the rest of the United Kingdom, and we consequently welcome this measure providing for exact parity.
I shall detain the House with only one question on Article 4. The Minister of State said something about the article, which amends part of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975. What precisely is mean by "financing a strike"? Is the reference specifically to strike funds, or is there a wider meaning?
12.3 a.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: The Explanatory Note makes the point that the Order amends the

1753
Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 and repeals in part provisions of that Act and of the Supplementary Benefits &c. Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. The Minister of State has confirmed these points. I notice that the schedule lists a number of additional repeals. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what variations remain, assuming that we pass the Order, between the two parts of the United Kingdom in the sector of government to which the Order refers.
Are we engaged in something of a tidying-up operation, bringing legislation into line to make for smoother practice, with a greater degree of inclusion of Northern Ireland in United Kingdom Bills? That would be much more desirable and vastly preferable to the rather nonsensical procedure which we have experienced in the past four years of producing Bills here, taking them through all stages and then a few months later repeating them in Order in Council form for Northern Ireland alone.
This has been quite a day for Northern Ireland Members. It the earlier debate on defence the Government motion referred to the "territorial integrity" of the United Kingdom. The preceding Order was clearly designed to harmonise arrangements for industrial and financial relationships with the rest of the United Kingdom. This Order goes a long way towards harmonising legislation affecting what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) might permit me to call our Six Counties of the United Kingdom. As such we welcome it.
12.7 a.m.
Mr. William Ross: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) in his reference to the procedures for Northern Ireland legislation. The removal of the words in the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act would not have been necessary if the Act passed for the rest of the United Kingdom had been extended to cover Northern Ireland. In that event Northern Ireland Members would have had a greater incentive to take part in the arguments on that Act on the Floor of the House. When Bills are not extended to cover Northern Ireland, we are placed in a difficult position. We may have the freedom to
1754
speak but we do not feel morally free to do so.
Article 3(2) of the Order refers to children not having attained the compulsory school leaving age. What would happen if a child under 16 years was injured while doing a part-time jot)—say, delivering newspapers or picking potatoes on a farm? What is the possibility of the child receiving injury benefit? Or is only family allowance benefit paid? What is the legal obligation on an employer at that time? How does the employer insure such children? Are they covered by the normal terms of his insurance? Did I understand the Minister to say that a child or a young person aged betwen 16 and 19 would formerly have received family allowance only if he had been injured at work?
Mr. Moyle: I can tell the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that if someone was paying a contribution to a trade union which was involved in a dispute, and if he was also the class of worker involved in the dispute, he might be regarded as helping to finance the dispute. Therefore, that possibility is now being removed so that someone who is not really involved in the dispute, although he may be paying a contribution to a trade union which is paying strike pay to those on strike, and if he is of the same class as those on strike, we will under the Order be able for the first time to obtain unemployment benefit.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) raised a point that we have discussed on one or two occasions during debates on Northern Ireland legislation, and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) also mentioned it—that is, our attitude towards legislation in this House relating to Northern Ireland. We often have a Bill passed in the House relating to the island of Great Britain which specifically excludes Northern Ireland. Therefore, Northern Ireland Members do no feel that they can contribute to the debate. Then, at some subsequent stage, legislation of this sort is introduced applying exactly the same measures to Northern Ireland as have been applied to the island of Great Britain.
Our approach to this matter is basically that we are trying to maintain the integrity of the Northern Ireland statute

1755
book. Under previous constitutional legislation relating to Northern Ireland, a number of subjects have been reserved for legislation by a legislative body situated in Northern Ireland. I do not think we can say in this House, despite the collapse of the Convention, that a situation of that sort will never exist again. If it exists in the future and there is devolved government with a legislative body in Northern Ireland, we feel that its statute book ought to be a whole thing relating to Northern Ireland. It is for that reason that we adopt the principle of parallel legislation.
However, our approach is empirical, and if from time to time we find that it is not possible to legislate for Northern Ireland in this way, with some regret we attach Northern Ireland legislation to a general United Kingdom of Great Britain Bill.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will also recognise that even in the hypothetical event of a resumed legislature in Northern Ireland it would, without a great deal of inconvenience, be able to legislate by reference to United Kingdom statutes, just as in United Kingdom statutes we are having to legislate with reference to Northern Ireland legislation. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's introduction of the notion of empiricism. I would only say that the background against which that empiricism falls to be applied will gradually alter.
Mr. Moyle: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. I think that I have explained the Government's view on this matter. It is a matter for judgment as to where the greatest convenience or inconvenience lies. We have taken the point of view which I have just put forward. That is the explanation, and we have discussed this matter on one or two occasions previously.
My final point is about children under the age of 16 who are injured in the course of a part-time job. Under the new scheme such a person will be ineligible for injury benefit. Whether he has any remedy against his employer in those circumstances depends very much, I imagine, on legal procedures and who exactly was the cause of the industrial injury, whether or
1756
not there was any contributory negligence on the part of the employee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Social Security and Family Allowances (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 427), a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd March, be approved.

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

BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WARFARE
12.14 a.m.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: After two days of general debate on defence, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the threat to this country of biological and of chemical warfare, taking them in that order. I readily concede that it would be possible to choose a more palatable subject at this hour of the morning.
We must recognise the threat posed by bacteria deployed in a variey of quite simple weapon systems. Internationally, we have seen the treaty banning biological warfare, but, unfortunately, treaties can be observed or disregarded. We can fold up the blankets over our heads and sleep soundly, if we choose, but this treaty allows for no on-site inspections and reality has a habit of breaking in when least expected.
One of the most sobering facts is the low cost of this type of warfare. It is not the sophisticated or complicated business that some hon. Members might think. If one has access to a brewery, one is already half-way home in the manufacturing process. It is interesting that Pasteur, who pioneered in this field in the last century, devoted much time to the culture of yeast cells and the role of bacteriology in brewing. We have come a long way since his day in our knowledge of the culture of bacteria, as we have in our knowledge of offensive and defensive measures generally.
It is not difficult to disseminate disease germs from a spray tank. Many of us have witnessed crop spraying from the

1757
air. It is a relatively simple process. Only yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence told us that once or twice a week we are visited by Soviet long-range surveillance aircraft. I have no doubt that they are flying 15 miles up. A single aircraft equipped with spray tanks, making use of prevailing winds, could have a major impact on this densely populated island.
Airborne micro-organisms can be neither seen nor smelt. Delivery by one bomber of 10 tons of a biological agent on an unprotected population will affect an area several hundred times greater than would a 1-megaton nuclear bomb.
There are many varieties of disease which lend themselves to military use. None of them is attractive. Anthrax is an example. Its symptoms can sometimes be taken for a common cold, and may take time to appear. A man way wait for three or four days before he feels ill enough to stop work. There is an anti-anthrax serum, but in the absence of treatment it is almost always fatal.
There is plague, which we used to call the Black Death. It came to England in the 14th century. Some of the villages in my constituency are still not fully recovered from population loss after 600 years. It came back again to London in 1665, when 60,000 people died.
Another choice is cholera. With modern methods of treatment the death rate can be as low as 5 per cent., but untreated it can be 50 per cent. There are also viral encephalitis, which attacks the brain, and yellow fever.
I turn to the subject of chemical warfare. This product of science is an equally Ugly Sister. Many chemical agents, invisible and without smell, would be used in the form of airborne particles. No treaty has been signed, and no international progress has been made towards on-site inspections. We have come a long way since the unsophisticated gas attacks of 1915. Chlorine, which was used then, is as obsolete today as the muzzle-loading cannon. Weapons exist which can produce a lethal concentration over a substantial area within seconds.
The House may reasonably ask why I have chosen to debate this rather macabre subect at this hour of the morning. It is because Britain's research in these fields happens to be concentrated
1758
in my constituency, at Porton. I have known the place for 10 years and more. I meet the scientists at their work and socially. At Porton there is a twin operation—the Micro-biological Research Establishment, or MRE, and the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment, or CDEE.
The MRE is housed in one of the largest brick buildings of modern times. It sits there in the open, in the big, wide country of Salisbury Plain. It was built since the war. A research laboratory which handles infective material must take measures for the safety of those who work there and of the local community. Therefore, rigorous safety rules are enforced there. The whole of the ground floor and first floor is supplied with filtered air, and elaborate precautions exist to prevent the escape of harmful material. The place is spotlessly clean. The floors shine and the atmosphere is that of an efficient hospital.
It is here that the scientists and their assistants work. I regard them as modern successors to Pasteur. They work in small teams. In the nature of things, they are highly qualified and highly specialised. For example, before taking on his present job in 1971 the Director of MRE had a distinguished career in cancer research. His predecessor, whom I know, is currently Dean of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Less than a mile away is the other and larger establishment, CDEE. I guess that it employs about 800 people. Here, too, scientists are at work assessing the threat of chemical warfare, considering the dual problems of detection and protection.
I know that the Minister would agree with me that there is no cause to doubt the Soviet Union's capacity to operate offensively in chemical or bacteriological warfare. A fortnight ago we were told that Warsaw Pact forces could be this side of the Rhine within 48 hours, and that the Russians could throw 27 divisions into the first wave of the attack, followed by 60 more divisions within five or six days.
I accept that earlier today a Minister sought to discount this; but, on the other side of the balance, we have to recognise

1759
that General Steinhoff, who in 1974 was Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, has gone a long way towards supporting that claim.
Less than a fortnight ago—on 22nd March—a former Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces, Northern Europe—General Sir Walter Walker—gave his views to The Times. I quote only two brief sentences:
"With their 'meat-grinder' tactics they will crunch their way forward, regardless of casualties, at a speed of 70 miles a day, supported in depth by airborne troops, armed helicopters, air attack, amphibious attack on the flanks, and chemical attack. Their doctrine regards the tactical use of chemical weapons as a normal form of conventional warfare, and in this field they are better militarily equipped and psychologically prepared than any other country in the world."
Again, this very week, we read the headline
"Germ warfare tuition for children."
It seems that a new law has been passed by the Hungarian Parliament, and military education, including germ warfare training, is to become a compulsory part of school curricula for all children over 12 years of age. The law comes into force on 1st July.
This is the general background against which I raise this subject this morning. The House might think that, in the face of growing danger, our precautions should increase. Since the safety of the realm is the supreme duty of Government, logic would suggest that the work at Porton should be given a new urgency and a greater emphasis. But no; the White Paper on defence tells us of a major review at Porton and of significant economies to follow. I regard Porton as a modest insurance policy—no more, no less. It is there to mitigate disaster and to protect the civil population.
I accept that when a householder is faced with economic difficulties, he must cut back in his spending. Yes; but if he is prudent, the last thing he should cut back in is his fire insurance policy. Porton has sustained stringent economies in recent years. I do not believe that there is spare capacity there today. If a team of scientists is broken up, their work is irrecoverable. I drive past the gate each time I visit my constituency. I have watched the situation there with anxiety.
1760
I raise the subject in no spirit of criticism tonight. Rather, I ask the Minister for reassurance that the essential work at Porton will not be impaired.
12.28 a.m.
The Uuder-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton) for raising this extremely important topic and for the opportunity of expanding on paragraph 87 of the recent defence White Paper.
First, I think it is important to be quite clear about the meaning of this paragraph. It does not say that the threat of chemical and biological warfare has receded or become insignificant, that the protection of our troops is to be reduced, or that research and development at Porton is to cease. It says that the future level of research and development on chemical and biological defence is to be reviewed with the object of making significant economies. It also says that the CDE outstation at Nancekuke, employing under 200 staff, is to be closed.
If the question "what are significant economies?" could be given a precise answer, and if those aspects of research which could be dropped, postponed or put on a care and maintenance footing were known in detail, a review would not be necessary. These matters are not yet known, and much careful consideration is needed, and will be given, before firm conclusions can be drawn. A balance has to be struck between military needs on the one hand and the needs of economy on the other. Another material factor is our contribution to the Alliance in this important area of scientific effort.
I should like to say a few words on one other preparatory point, again to get things in the correct perspective. Research on chemical and biological defence has expanded and contracted in the past in response to the particular conditions of the time, and cannot be exempted from this process today. The biological warfare threat was first seriously studied during the Second World War. The early post-war years saw the founding of the Microbiological Research Establishment in 1947, and its present laboratories were completed in 1951. The level of provision

1761
made in the 'fifties and 'sixties for chemical and biological defence is no longer appropriate in relation to other competing demands for scarce resources.
The decision to review the situation is not a sudden realisation. The process of review and adjustment has in fact been going on for a decade. To pick up the story in 1971, it was then decided that MRE should continue with CDE under Ministry of Defence rather than civil control. MRE has since then, with every encouragement from the Ministry of Defence, increased the proportion of its effort devoted to purely civil needs. About one-third of its effort is on civil projects, on a repayment basis. I hope to give further future encouragement to this and other civil aspects.
The Government believe in supporting all effective measures to remove the threat of biological and chemical warfare. The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 was the result of a British initiative. It came into effect in March 1975, when the three Depositary Powers—the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom—lodged their instruments of ratification.
The Convention requires all States party to it not to possess or acquire biological weapons and to prevent their being developed by non-governmental agencies in territory under their jurisdiction. The latter part of this obligation was fulfilled by the Biological Weapons Act 1974. This country has never possessed biological weapons; nor has it had any intention to acquire them. However, we have always made it clear within the terms of the Convention that, because not all countries are parties to the Convention and because the Convention makes no provision for verification, the Government intend to devote some research effort to detection and protection. This remains our position.
Turning to international controls on chemical warfare, efforts continue in the search for an adequately verifiable ban on chemical weapons. Meanwhile, the only real chemical weapons agreement reached to date is the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925. By this Protocol the parties—which include the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China and France—each undertake not to be the first to use chemical weapons against other parties to the Protocol.
1762
The United Kingdom does not possess an offensive retaliatory chemical weapons capability. It recognises, however, that the threat of chemical warfare exists. Warsaw Pact armies are known to be equipped for chemical warfare and to train in the use of protective devices. Accordingly, the United Kingdom takes extensive military measures of a defensive and protective nature to ensure that our troops are fully effective in a chemical war environment. These include the provision of detectors, protective clothing and protection of vehicles. Indeed, when the current cycle of re-equipment is completed, British forces should be among the best equipped in the world in this respect. Because of this and because of the useful exchanges of information which take place with the United States and other NATO Allies we can contemplate development work being reduced for some years to come. We intend, however, to maintain a level of scientific effort that will make a positive contribution to our Allies.
In speaking of the review of work at MRE I have referred so far only to its defence work. The expansion of MRE's civil programme is a success story. Its facility, recently opened, for investigation of dangerous diseases such as Lassa Fever is the only one of its kind outside the United States. I can assure the House therefore that the future of the unique facilities at MRE and of its highly skilled staff, to whom the hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute and who have made such a valuable contribution to the civil sector in the past, will receive the most deliberate and careful consideration in consultation with all the relevant non-defence interests.
Turning to Nancekuke, I have been asked how it is that a firm decision on Nancekuke has been possible when so much remains to be considered at Porton. The answer lies in the content of the work there. The main activities that we now need to continue are the production of chemicals in experimental quantities for research at Porton and the manufacture of riot control agents. Both of these activities are to be transferred elsewhere, most probably to Porton. In 1973 the Nugent Committee on Defence Lands identified Nancekuke as a "key" area in the Nature Conservation Review and asked that the Ministry of Defence

1763
should keep its need for continued occupancy of the site under examination.
This was confirmed to be the Ministry of Defence position as recently as February this year. The cessation of defence activities on the site is no doubt welcome to the House as a further step in the direction of implementing the Nugent Committee's recommendations. Since I have a personal, across-the-board responsibility for the implementation of the Nugent Committee recommendations, I am pleased to be able to cite this as a further evidence of the Government's commitment to Nugent.
MRE and CDE together employ about 1.200 staff, over 1,000 of whom are at Porton. They are a loyal and dedicated staff, who have built up an enviable reputation throughout the world. They will be fully consulted on proposals and plans to adjust to the levels of capability now justified for defence purposes. Non-mobile staff at Nancekuke will be offered work where possible within reasonable travelling distance, and some will be offered transfers with the work. Assistance with housing at new locations
1764
will be provided where possible. Mobile staff will be offered jobs elsewhere or transferred with their jobs. Some redundancy of non-mobile staff will, I regret to say, inevitably arise, but every effort will be made to contain it and all possible steps will be taken to prevent hardship.
I hope that what I have said tonight demonstrates that MRE and CDE, already having responded very flexibly to the changing post-war needs for biological and chemical defence, must, because of the current need for economy in 1978–79 and onwards, achieve a major adjustment in their response to defence and civil needs. The review that the defence White Paper announced is the means by which this is to be brought about. I am convinced that it will result eventually in arrangements that will take the interests of the staff fully into account and aim to make the best use in the defence and national interest of Porton's expertise and facilities.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.

  CABINET MINISTERS
  CABINET MINISTERS
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  CONCORDE
  CONCORDE
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  PRICE CODE (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  PRICE CODE (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  LEGAL PROFESSION (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  LEGAL PROFESSION (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENTS)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (EMPLOYEES)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (EMPLOYEES)
  KATYN MASSACRE
  KATYN MASSACRE
  NORTHERN IRELAND (TERRORISM)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (TERRORISM)
  LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT (MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS)
  LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT (MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS)
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Stock (Circular)
  Housing Stock (Circular)
  South-West Economic Planning Council
  South-West Economic Planning Council
  School Crossing Patrols
  School Crossing Patrols
  M23 and M25
  M23 and M25
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
  Council Houses (Services)
  Council Houses (Services)
  Carlisle (Lanes District)
  Carlisle (Lanes District)
  Public Service Employees (Housing)
  Public Service Employees (Housing)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  United Nations Environment Programme
  United Nations Environment Programme
  Housing (Fire Precautions)
  Housing (Fire Precautions)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Trees (Royal Parks)
  Trees (Royal Parks)
  Pelican Crossings
  Pelican Crossings
  Rents
  Rents
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  New Palace Yard
  New Palace Yard
  Land Acquisition and Management Schemes
  Land Acquisition and Management Schemes
  Community Land Act (Forms)
  Community Land Act (Forms)
  Transport Police
  Transport Police
  Community Land Act (Leaflet)
  Community Land Act (Leaflet)
  Sewerage (Cost)
  Sewerage (Cost)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Contracts (Small Firms)
  Government Contracts (Small Firms)
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Travelling Expenses
  Travelling Expenses
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Budget Representations
  Budget Representations
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  National Insurance Contributions (Self-Employed Persons)
  National Insurance Contributions (Self-Employed Persons)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Chilean Debt
  Chilean Debt
  Income Tax (F Codes)
  Income Tax (F Codes)
  Taxation (Retirement Pensioners)
  Taxation (Retirement Pensioners)
  Industrial and Provident Societies (Auditors)
  Industrial and Provident Societies (Auditors)
  Agriculture (Capital Taxation)
  Agriculture (Capital Taxation)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Professions (Tax Allowances)
  Professions (Tax Allowances)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Equal Opportunities (Monitoring)
  Equal Opportunities (Monitoring)
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Photocopying Machines
  Photocopying Machines
  Civil Service College (Edinburgh)
  Civil Service College (Edinburgh)
EMPLOYMENT
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Wages
  Wages
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Employment Protection Act
  Employment Protection Act
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Blood Cholesterol (Health Hazards)
  Blood Cholesterol (Health Hazards)
TRADE
  Drugs (Imports)
  Drugs (Imports)
  Exports (Foreign Quotas)
  Exports (Foreign Quotas)
  Japan
  Japan
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Survival at Sea (Training)
  Survival at Sea (Training)
  Companies (Departmental Investigations)
  Companies (Departmental Investigations)
  PAYMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE (MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENT)
  PAYMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE (MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENT)
SCOTLAND
  Pornography
  Pornography
  Peterhead (Communications)
  Peterhead (Communications)
  Health and Social Services (Consultative Document)
  Health and Social Services (Consultative Document)
  Toll Bridge (Rates)
  Toll Bridge (Rates)
  Tay Road and Forth Road Bridges
  Tay Road and Forth Road Bridges
  Agriculture Production
  Agriculture Production
DEFENCE
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Institute for the Study of Conflict
  Institute for the Study of Conflict
  Community Service
  Community Service
  Deaths in Custody
  Deaths in Custody
  School Crossing Patrols
  School Crossing Patrols
  Television (Clwyd)
  Television (Clwyd)
  Prison Staff (Misconduct)
  Prison Staff (Misconduct)
  Prisoners (Letters to Members)
  Prisoners (Letters to Members)
  Prisoners (Complaints)
  Prisoners (Complaints)
  Scientology
  Scientology
  Electorates
  Electorates
  Prisoners (Petitions)
  Prisoners (Petitions)
  Conspiracy
  Conspiracy
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Credit Firms (Licensing)
  Credit Firms (Licensing)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Price Commission (Applications)
  Price Commission (Applications)
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER (MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS)
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER (MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beef (Northern Ireland)
  Beef (Northern Ireland)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Production
  Production
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Direct Rule
  Direct Rule
  Compensation Delay (D. McCume and Son)
  Compensation Delay (D. McCume and Son)
  New Industry
  New Industry
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  National Library
  National Library
  The Arts
  The Arts
  Documents
  Documents
  Cumbria (Capital Expenditure)
  Cumbria (Capital Expenditure)
  Whitehaven (Secondary Reorganisation)
  Whitehaven (Secondary Reorganisation)
ENERGY
  Energy Bill
  Energy Bill
  Price Regulation
  Price Regulation
  Oil Prices
  Oil Prices
  Motor Cars (Fuel Consumption)
  Motor Cars (Fuel Consumption)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Oil Imports
  Oil Imports
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Katyn Massacre
  Katyn Massacre
INDUSTRY
  Accelerated Investment Scheme (Grants)
  Accelerated Investment Scheme (Grants)
  Aerospace Industry
  Aerospace Industry
  Concorde
  Concorde
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  India (Air Communications)
  India (Air Communications)
WALES
  Llangwyfan Hospital
  Llangwyfan Hospital
  Devolution
  Devolution
  Child Health System
  Child Health System

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

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE INQUIRIES
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many inquiries have been held in each of the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 respectively, under Section 70 of the National Health Service Act 1946.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, one such inquiry was held in 1973 and none in 1974 or 1975.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, could the Minister tell me whether the reason why Section 70 has been so sparingly used is that normally when informal inquiries are held under the Department of Health and Social Security, doctors are prepared to come forward and testify and produce any evidence that is required of them? Bearing in mind the circumstances of a recent case in which the doctors and other professionals involved refused to testify, does the Minister not consider that it is essential to invoke the powers of Section 70, as otherwise a precedent will have been created encouraging doctors at all future informal inquiries to refuse to give evidence?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I understand Section 70, before it should be invoked—I am not saying "could" be invoked—the Secretary of State should be satisfied that there has been a major breakdown in the hospital services. The noble Lord referred to inquiries; there were 18 inquiries in 1973 and nine in 1974. But to come back to the matter which I think the noble Lord has in mind, the doctors were given certain advice by the Medical Defence
1284
Union. The House will be interested to know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has given very careful and urgent consideration to this matter and has today instructed officials of her Department to get in touch and have discussions with the Medical Defence Union to see whether there can be some different outcome. I hope that, for very obvious reasons, I shall not be pressed further on this matter.

NHS: STAFF REPRESENTATION
3.8 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 it is their policy to deny groups of staff on the National Health Service representation on joint staff consultative machinery because they have chosen to belong to professional organisations which are nationally recognised negotiating bodies rather than to trades unions.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services, for Scotland and for Wales, support the agreement on joint staff consultation reached by the General Whitley Council for the Health Services for Great Britain which has been promulgated to health authorities. This agreement makes no distinction whatever between staff organisations represented on National Health Service Whitley Councils.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him to make it quite clear, for the sake of the National Health Service in this country, that his reply is either, No, or, Yes?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I thought I had been perfectly clear, my Lords. I said that the agreement made no distinction between staff organisations represented on the National Health Service Whitley Councils. I do not think I could be any clearer than that.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, may I ask him whether he is aware that I always like either, No, or, Yes, because that makes it easier for the many people who are not knowledgeable about the way in which Ministers of all Governments answer Questions? If he would just say, No, or, Yes, that would be much happier for the National Health Service as a whole.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Hear, hear!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is not always possible to answer No, or, Yes, to every Question. If I may call on history, I could ask the noble Baroness whether she has stopped beating her next door neighbour.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I have never beaten my next door neighbour, my Lords.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, do not the greatest number of Government Answers in this House amount to, No, and, Yes?

POST OFFICE SORTING PROCEDURE
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ascertain from the Post Office how long it is expected that sorting by hand will be part of the process of separating second class from first class mail in the London area, and whether any of the existing or proposed mechanical methods for the United Kingdom depend upon identifying the 6½p stamp.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Lovell-Davis): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend, Lord Melchett, who has lost his voice, I am replying to this Question. I have ascertained from the Post Office that their machines are designed to segregate into the first class stream
1286
letters bearing an 8½p stamp or any combination of stamps up to that value. Almost half of the major sorting offices in London are equipped with machines designed to separate the two streams automatically, and the Post Office plan is for a fully mechanised system throughout the country within the next seven or eight years.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for having stepped into the breach at short notice to answer this Question, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will quickly recover from his indisposition. Can the Minister say whether the necessary equipment for mechanical operations is available, and what it is that is delaying the remaining introduction which will cause another six or seven years to elapse? Can he also assure the public that any combination of stamps which adds up to 8½p will be identified by the machinery as first class post? Is the noble Lord aware that this is a matter of very wide interest?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I too, feel a loss of voice coming on. The noble Lord's Question and my reply were concerned with the preliminary placing and sorting operations. Following the lifting of the ban by the Union of Post Office Workers in 1975, the postal mechanisation programme is going ahead. There are now 16 fully mechanised sorting offices in operation throughout the country and, altogether, approximately 40 offices have facilities for mechanical sorting of first and second class letters. I understand that the noble Lord's concern is to be satisfied that the letters of people who put 8½p worth of stamps on an envelope should get first class treatment. I am assured by the Post Office that its equipment can do this. Any system of mechanical separation of first and second class mail must rely on recognition of the 6½p stamp, for the simple reason that that is the current second class rate.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, has the Minister any information about the number of man-hours which it takes to sort first and second class mail and, arising from his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that it would be 7 or 8 years before machines were installed throughout, can he give us

1287
any idea as to how that total will decrease? Alternatively, if he has not the information, could be possibly write and let me have it?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I have not that information. I shall gladly write to my noble friend on the subject.
Lord SWAYTHLING: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that an envelope franked with 8½p by a franking machine will also receive treatment as first class mail, remembering that the value printed by a franking machine is very often not easily decipherable?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, so far as I am aware, the Post Office has adequate means to ensure that a franked 8½p letter will receive first class treatment. However, I shall look into the matter and, if that is not so, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us by how much it will be possible to reduce the price of first class mail once these machines are in general use as a result of the lifting of the Post Office ban?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I can only suggest that, on matters of detail such as that, the noble Lord should write to the Post Office.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. I am in a position to sympathise with him about his voice because I had a tooth extracted earlier today and, although I still have my voice, I fear that I am lisping. May I ask the noble Lord a question about his reply that identification of second class post will depend on identification of the 6½p stamp? I must ask him, if he cannot answer now, whether he will guarantee that a combination of stamps which adds up to 6½p will also be quickly identified? I believe that this question needs to be answered.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, in an effort to be helpful to the noble Lord. I answered his question after consulting the Post Office, whose responsibility this is. I can assure him as regards a matter which he raised the other day that Green Shield stamps will not be accepted. If
1288
he wishes to pursue the matter further, I must ask him to take it up with the Post Office.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord say, with the decline in the number of letters posted and with the introduction of the new machinery, how much money has been saved on the wages bill?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I understand that the Post Office estimates that, in a full year, this could save about £3 million.

MAJOR ACCIDENT WARNING SYSTEM
3.17 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: 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 method of issuing a red warning in the case of a major accident.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is normally the responsibility of the ambulance service to alert appropriate hospitals that a major accident has occurred. The detailed arrangements for taking this action are for local agreement; we are satisfied with the present procedure.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that on numerous occasions which I need not list, such as Flixborough, Staines, and others, where a major accident or incident has taken place, a period of time has often elapsed between the moment when a warning could have been given, and when it was given, as unfortunately happened last Saturday in the tragedy at Olympia, 12 minutes elapsed?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is some dispute with regard to the length of the time involved. My information is that the ambulance service was informed at 16.40 hours that there had been an incident at Olympia. Four ambulances were immediately sent, the first arriving within five minutes of the service having been informed. I do not want

1289
to go through the whole of the circumstances, except to say that the first intimation given to the ambulance service was that there had been an incident in which one lady was suffering from some injury. That is how it was handled. I do not know who is responsible in our public buildings and large centres for giving the initial warning, but an inquiry is being held into this matter. It is usual for an inquiry to be held automatically when there has been a major incident or disaster, and so this is a routine matter. When that inquiry has been held, we should be in a far better position to assess the situation.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I understand that the ambulances left very promptly bat were held up because of the volume of traffic?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness.

EASTER RECESS
3.20 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAMES of HASTOE: My Lords with the leave of the House I will make a Statement about the Easter Recess. Subject, of course, to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House will rise on Wednesday, 14th April, and will return on Tuesday, 27th April. The Sitting on Wednesday, 14th April, will be at 11 o'clock in the morning.

RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BROADCASTING
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed in the Fourth Report from the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Select Committee of five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons as a
1290
Joint Committee to consider the implementation of the Resolutions of both Houses in favour of the establishment of a permanent system of sound broadcasting of their proceedings and to make recommendations;

E. Cathcart,

L. Aberdare,

L. Lloyd of Hampstead,

B. Phillips,

L. Winstanley;

That two be a quorum;
That such a Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the evidence taken before the Joint Committee be printed, but that no copies be delivered out except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee think fit, until further Order;
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SEYCHELLES BILL [H.L.]
The MINISTER of STATE FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill he now read a second time.
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of this Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The essential purpose of this Bill is very simple. It is, in the words of the Preamble, to:
"…make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Seychelles of fully responsible status as a Republic within the Commonwealth."

1291
Before describing the contents of the Bill, I should like to trace briefly the constitutional developments which led up to it. Representative government emerged in Seychelles in 1948 and, in October 1970, an advanced Constitution was introduced. General elections were held under this Constitution in 1970 and in April 1974. The elections in 1974 were contested by the majority Seychelles Democratic Party and the minority Seychelles People's United Party, both on the platform of early independence. Over 80 per cent. of the electorate voted, and very much the greater part of this voted in support of either one or other of the two Parties. Indeed, of the 41,833 votes cast, only 11—not 11 per cent., but only 11 votes—went to the single candidate who opposed independence.
Following this clear mandate for early independence for Seychelles, a Constitutional Conference was held in London in March, 1975. On that occasion the Seychelles political Parties disagreed over some of the essential features of an Independence Constitution. They did, however, agree to form the present coalition Government, which was formed in June last, and which has worked very well indeed. They also agreed to an Interim Constitution providing for internal self-government, which was introduced last October.
To help towards a solution of the matters on which the Parties disagreed, an Electoral Review Commission was appointed under the chairmanship of Tun Tan Siew Sin, the distinguished former Minister of Finance in Malaysia, and its report was fully taken into account when the Constitutional Conference resumed in January. In this conference all 25 Members of the Seychelles House of Assembly took part. The leaders of the two Seychelles political Parties presented joint proposals for an Independence Constitution. These proposals, including one which provided for Seychelles to become a Republic on independence, were, with some minor changes, unanimously adopted by the conference. The report of the conference was published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 6409) and presented to Parliament in February.
The conference also agreed in principle to the return to Seychelles of the Islands of Aldabra, Desroches and Farquhar.
1292
Your Lordships may recall that these islands were, with the agreement of the Seychelles Government, detached from the colony of Seychelles in 1965 to form part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Under an Exchange of Notes with the United States in 1966, we agreed to make the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory available for defence purposes of the two Governments. But subsequently it has become clear that neither Government have plans for the use of the islands for these purposes. Accordingly, tripartite talks between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Seychelles, and the United States, to make the necessary arrangements for the transfer, were held last month. Statutory Instruments, by which the return of the islands will be effected, are now being prepared.
Knowing of your Lordships' interest in these matters, I am glad to be able to tell you that Seychelles is to extend its policy of strict nature conservancy to the islands being returned. In respect of Aldabra, the Seychelles authorities are to maintain close consultation with the Royal Society, who already have a research station on that atoll.
My Lords, the Bill which is now before the House will make provision for Seychelles to attain fully responsible status as a Republic within the Commonwealth on 29th June 1976. It also makes provision for various connected matters. Clause 1 provides that on 29th June 1976, the United Kingdom will cease to have responsibility for the government of Seychelles. Clause 2 provides for the Constitution of Seychelles as a Republic on that day. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with nationality matters. Subject to exceptions in Clause 4, which relate to the retention of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by persons with a close connection with this country and by women married to such persons, Clause 3 provides that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall lose that citizenship if they become citizens of Seychelles. Clause 3 also provides that the section of the British Nationality Act 1948 which governs citizenship by registration on account of marriage to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, shall no longer apply to wives of persons who become in that way citizens of Seychelles.
Clause 5 makes provision for the continuation after independence of laws

1293
operating in respect of Seychelles before independence. Clause 6 provides that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shall dispose of any appeals to Her Majesty in Council which may be pending from any court having jurisdiction for Seychelles provided that leave to appeal has been granted either by the court or by Her Majesty in Council before independence day. Clause 7 and the Schedule deal with consequential modifications of other enactments. Clauses 8 and 9 deal with interpretation and Short Title.
Your Lordships will be aware that we have for many years operated a programme of aid and technical assistance for Seychelles. I am glad to be able to confirm that this will continue. Her Majesty's Government will provide the budgetary support amounting to £1·7 million in total over the first four years of independence; and, in addition to technical assistance, we shall provide capital aid in the first two years of independence amounting to £10 million. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should like to express our confidence that the friendly spirit of the conference in January and the same spirit which animated the talks last month will continue into independence, and that the harmonious relationship—indeed, the affection—between Britain and Seychelles which has existed for more than 160 years will endure. My Lords, Seychelles has already applied for membership of the Commonwealth, and I am glad that it is as fellow members of the Commonwealth that we can look forward to continuing the close ties that exist between the United Kingdom and Seychelles. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
3.32 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to express our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for the clarity and precision which he always uses and which he has again used so effectively this afternoon to explain the Bill on the acquisition of independence by Seychelles. I think the first point that it is of interest to note (and with some jealousy, I may say, by this country) is that the new Constitution is to include
1294
provisions safeguarding the fundamental freedoms and human rights of the peoples of Seychelles. Unlike many of the modem Constitutions, there is also provision to ensure that the citizen will be protected through all the courts of the land. I think this is a new departure, and is very much to be welcomed. Not only will the rights be enshrined in the Constitution, but the individual citizen of the Seychelles will have the right in the courts, extending up to the Supreme Court, to have those rights and freedoms asserted. I think this stands as an example to all new independent territories, and indeed to those territories which speak so much about human rights but consistently violate them.
With regard to the Bill itself, I will not comment in detail because, of course, this will be possible at Committee stage, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the clauses on nationality since they give a certain amount of cause for concern. We have already had many troubles and complex situations in the changeover from British colonial status to independence and it leaves a great deal to be desired, both from the point of view of this country and from that of the individuals concerned, if they do not know or are not sure what nationality they will be on any given date. I do not have to draw your Lordships' attention to the many examples we have had in recent years. So at a later stage, at Committee stage, I should like to raise the difficulties which are evident in Clause 4 as it is at present drafted.
I should also like to draw attention (though I realise that it is no doubt in accordance with the wishes of the people of Seychelles that this provision should accord with their own national law) to the fact that, under Clause 4(5), a woman who is the wife of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies will cease to be such a citizen only if her husband does. This means, presumably, that the wife will have to follow the decision of her husband, and will not be free to choose either to remain a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if her husband becomes a citizen of the Seychelles, or vice versa. This is, of course, a case of legal discrimination so far as this country is concerned, but no doubt this is in accordance with the present situation in the Seychelles and is as the people of the

1295
Seychelles would for the time being wish. I wonder whether the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, could give some indication of how many citizens who are at present citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies will in fact remain so and will not automatically become citizens of the Seychelles. I think it is a very important point that there should be some kind of registration, at the date of independence, of those who are entitled to remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies so that at a later stage people cannot claim that citizenship through failure to register or for some other reason.
With regard to the economy of the Seychelles, for a long time, of course, they have lived on the sale of copra and cinnamon, and we are very pleased to see the great developments that are taking place with regard to tourism. We on this side of the House particularly, I know, are very pleased to hear the generous terms of the Government to the people of Seychelles in order that they may develop their economy. We particularly welcome the announcement of the noble Lord of payment of £10 million over two years. I understand that that particular sum will be a "soft loan" rather than a grant, and presumably it will be tied to identifiable projects. Perhaps the noble Lord would comment on that in his winding-up. But certainly in principle we very much support this sum being given in aid to the people of the Seychelles. Of course, this does not imply that there will not be a considerable amount of private investment being put into the Seychelles to encourage tourism and those other industries which will no doubt develop in the coming years.
I should like to say just a few words about the principle of self-determination, because this is one which has really been behind all the changing over to independence of former dependent territories. It has always been assumed that the peoples of these countries who have been within the British Empire have wished to be apart from it and to gain their independence, but I think that in fairness it should be said that for 12 years prior to 1974 Mr. Mancham's Party had always voted to remain integrated with the United Kingdom. I think that for those of us—and I believe there are many such people
1296
in this country—who still feel that the British colonial system did a great deal for the world and the people in it, it is very refreshing to hear that there are still people in other parts of the world who recognise that to be allied and integrated with the United Kingdom has not been such a disadvantage for their peoples. If I may, I should like to quote a passage from Mr. Mancham's letter to The Times on the 23rd January of this year, when he said:
"Personally, it will be sad for me to see the lowering of the Union Jack for the last time on Seychelles soil".
I think this sentiment should be recorded in the Official Report of your Lordships' proceedings.
Finally, with the achievement of independence by the Seychelles, of course the Seychelles will become a sovereign State and will exert its responsibilities as such in the forum of the United Nations, with an equal vote with the United Kingdom and other major Powers of the world, and I am sure it will exercise this vote responsibly. We shall not, of course, lose touch with it particularly because it will, as I understand it, remain an Associated Territory within the EEC; and naturally we hope it will become a party to the Lomé Convention, which would keep a closer link between us than would otherwise exist. With the noble Lord, we on this side of the House warmly welcome the Seychelles as, I understand, the 36th Member of the British Commonwealth Association. All it remains for me to do on behalf of my noble friends is to express our warmest wishes to Mr. Mancham, who I understand will be the future President; to Mr. René, the future Prime Minister, and to all the people of the Seychelles for a peaceful and prosperous future.
3.39 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to join in wishing the Government and the people of the Seychelles a successful transition to independence on June 29th, and an equally successful future after that date. The Seychelles will be, I believe, the 36th member of the Commonwealth, and I hope that their relations with Britain will continue to be close and cordial. I would endorse, too, what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about our hopes

1297
that the Seychelles may be associated with the European Community through the Lomé Agreement.
The Seychelles comprise of 92 islands and a population of 60,000 people. The return of the three islands to which the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts referred, the three islands detached in 1965 to form part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, will add very considerably to the total area of the new independent State particularly if the 200-mile limit is agreed at the Conference on the Law of the Sea. One of the three islands to which the noble Lord referred, Aldabra, has unique flora and fauna. It is a bird sanctuary and, as the noble Lord said, it has been leased to the Royal Society. I am glad to learn that the protection of the environment is to receive the special attention of the Government of Seychelles.
The electoral problems which had to be solved in setting up the new Constitution are not without interest. The People's Unity Party—which is one of the two Parties, again to which the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, referred, and which are in a coalition at the moment—had a grievance because the seats they secured on the existing basis in the National Assembly did not adequately reflect the share of the vote that they secured. Under the new Constitution eight members will be elected from the present constituencies and 17 by proportional representation from Party lists. This arrangement is similar in principle to the German electoral system which some of your Lordships will recall was mentioned in another context in this House on Monday. I am glad that the British Government felt able to commend a proportional system in this case.
The Seychelles are situated in a strategic area of great importance, the Indian Ocean. I understand they will have no defence forces and that they have set their face against having foreign bases on their territory. That is understandable. I very much hope that they will be able to follow this policy through without entanglement or disasters and that they will be able to maintain a peaceful haven in a troubled world.
3.42 p.m.
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, when, a long time ago, I held the Office
1298
now held by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office were nothing like so thoroughly amalgamated as they are now. I am afraid that I was shamefully ignorant of the history and the geography of the Seychelles until only two or three weeks ago when I went there with my wife on a visit which I think was the most delightful holiday I ever enjoyed anywhere. My only reason for speaking very briefly on this Bill is to express my grateful thanks to all the people whom I met for their kindness and their hospitality and to express the hope that they will enjoy great success when they become independent on 29th June.
The native inhabitants of the Seychelles are very delightful people with a fairly high average standard of education which is largely due to the educational work of the Roman Catholic Church there. A very large number of the islanders can talk fluently all three indigenous languages, French, English and Creole. They are a people who have a great love for their native country. They like interest being taken in them by people from abroad; they like showing off things. They take the greatest pleasure in showing visitors the great palace on the brink of a huge precipice, the palace some 300 feet or 400 feet in sheer height above the sea, where Archbishop Makarios was interned for several years by the British Government.
If you go to see this palace, you will very likely be asked by some guide whether he would be allowed to take you down the long funicular road to the seashore, several hundred feet below, where it is asserted that you may see the remains of 12,00 empty champagne bottles which were hurled over the edge of the precipice—sometimes from a window in the palace but more often from over the balustrade of a terrace in front of it—after their contents had been consumed by the Archbishop and his friends. I am afraid I did not take the trouble to verify the accuracy of this statement; but I hope that while the Archbishop was interned there he was well looked after. Anyway, it is asserted that his chief recreation—he was not allowed to go out very much—consisted in hurling these empty champagne bottles over the balustrade of the terrace and watching them fall 300 feet on to the seashore.

1299
There is only one further thing I want to say. This Bill is, of course, similar in principle to all the other legislation by which we have, over the last 20 years or so given independence to nearly all of our former dependencies and colonies. There are still, I am glad to say, some of them—I think the majority—who have kept and worked the free Constitutions for the protection of individual liberty which we bestowed upon them. But, alas! there are others who have not done so. Some of those whom we most hoped would be strong, developing countries have overthrown the democratic Constitutions which they inherited from us and have established dictatorships, and indeed tyrannies, sometimes of the most bloodthirsty and cruel nature; to that the happiness and condition of the people is not better but worse than it was before.
My Lords, I would beg the people of the Seychelles when they get their independence on 29th June to resolve very firmly and deeply that they will not allow their free Constitution which is provided in this Bill ever to be replaced by a dictatorship. I am afraid that vigilance in any country which is given freedom may be required for this purpose. I hope that the people in the Seychelles will be determined to observe and to perpetuate human freedom, and particularly the Four Freedoms which were so well defined by the late President Roosevelt during the war, but which have so often since been discarded and destroyed by what I am afraid is now a growing number of countries in this world.
3.50 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I warmly welcome this Bill providing the Seychelles with independence within the Commonwealth. As a footnote to what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said, I believe I am right in saying that Archbishop Makarios fell so much in love with Mahé when he was there that he has now purchased a house there. I have known the Seychelles for a number of years, and I have formed a great affection for their warm hearted and friendly people. I have a small interest to declare: in partnership with two English friends and two Seychellois friends, I am the owner of a very small property on the charming
1300
little island of La Digue. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, I have often hoped that some integration might be possible. This is certainly what the Seychelles Government wanted after the 1970 elections. Perhaps, looking back to the experience that Malta had, this was not on, and therefore we have a different arrangement which we can welcome today. Out of the disagreement there was between the two main Parties in 1970 to 1974, something good has arisen in that, in spite of the natural and healthy clash of opinion between the People's United Party, under Mr. Albert Rene, and the Democratic Party, under Mr. Jimmy Mancham, there has been a reconciliation of views, and they have come together to agree on this new Constitution. That is something very much to be welcomed.
There is one particular aspect of the Seychelles to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. That is the ecological aspect which has been touched upon very lightly. I do not know any other part of the world where the people themselves have taken more interest in the natural history of the area in which they live. I see opposite me the President of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge; and I am a past-president. The Seychelles Islands have at least five species of birds which are unknown anywhere else in the whole world. That is remarkable. It is because of that that many people from other parts of the world, particularly from this country, have assisted the leaders in the Seychelles to declare some of these islands as nature reserves. For example, Cousin Island, which is run by the International Committee for Bird Protection, is a wonderful place for bird watching. There is also Aride Island, which the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves is running as a bird reserve.
There is no island in the world which is more interesting than Praslin, and some people take the view that the Vallée de Mai was the original Garden of Eden, which it could well have been. Mention has been made in this short debate about Aldabra Island. Aldabra is a very long way from the main group of the Seychelles Islands. I think there are

1301
85 islands, although the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made it 92. Only a small number of the islands are populated. Aldabra is unique. I was extremely worried when I read in the newspapers that there was the possibility of a hotel being built on it. I believe this report to have been false, and I hope that this is the case. When the noble Lord replies perhaps he can confirm that the arrangements that the Royal Society have made with the right to renew the lease on Aldabra until the year 2005 holds good. I believe talks are going on at this very moment. I have in my hand an extract from the Official Gazette of 20th February headed, "Protection and Preservation of Wild Life, Aldabra Strict Nature Reserve Regulations 1976". It would be encouraging to know that the important work the Royal Society are doing there will be able to continue, and I have every reason to suppose that this is the case. Perhaps, also, when the noble Lord replies he will tell us what is happening to the remainder of the British Indian Ocean territories, now that four islands have been removed. I believe this is a Second Reading point.
I was very pleased indeed to hear that generous financial help will be given to the Seychelles Islands over a considerable period, and there are two particular aspects of the economy of the island which need special attention. Where their economic future is concerned, they have been so dependent, as has been mentioned already, on copra and cinnamon and one or two other minor products such as vanilla and tea, that there is every reason now why they should do their utmost to make the maximum possible use of what little land they have that can be cultivated. They are strange islands. They are mostly granite islands surrounded by coral reefs. Aldabra is an exception, for it is a coral atoll. Because of this, on the little flat plain-lands that one gets on Mahé, Praslin, and La Digue and so on, there is very little soil which can be cultivated, and the maximum possible use must be made of land. I am told that a recent survey by a great expert has shown it is possible to breed cattle, both for beef and milk, and intensive vegetable and fruit production, citrus fruits in particular—they grow wonderful limes there—is another possibility. I hope that this point
1302
will be looked at very carefully. I know it is very much in the minds of the Government of the Seychelles.
Secondly, under the heading of economic aid there is education. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, mentioned this. With great respect, I am not sure he was entirely right after his recent visit to speak in the way he did about the standard of education there. One does meet soma: highly educated people and I am sure they are well able to run their own affairs. There is a thirst for education there; a number of Seychellois come to this country to attend university for higher education. There are no real higher education facilities on the islands. If we were able to provide them with more help regarding teacher training—perhaps we could consider setting up a technical college on the main island—this would be helpful to them in their new status of independence.
I see the Seychelles with an exciting future. The size of the population is probably smaller than the smallest constituency in this country, and with an electorate of something in the region of 25,000 people, the electorate is a lot smaller than the average constituency. We are talking about a group of islands with a small population which in future will be terrifically dependent on tourism. They have this enormous attraction of their unique ecology and the natural history of the islands. It will readily be agreed by noble Lords that the absolute essence of a successful tourist industry is the maintenance of political stability and the ability to gain the confidence of the foreign investor. It seems to me that the leaders of both Parties have shown an extraordinary sensible attitude to this matter and a full appreciation of the questions I have touched on.
The islands are blessed with many advantages; one is a marvellous climate. Temperatures are in the 'eighties most of the year. It is wet from November to February, but for the rest of the year it is a remarkable climate, particularly bearing in mind that they are practically on the Equator. The islands are cooled by the South-East trade winds. So they have many natural advantages. They are lucky in their leadership; they are lucky in the character of their people. Mention has been made of the fact that they are bent on what Mr. Mancham called a

1303
Switzerland-type non-aligned neutrality. This makes a great deal of sense, particularly bearing in mind that they occupy a strategic position which is of obvious importance. I feel sure that the new Government of an independent Seychelles can rely on Britain to give them any help they may ask for towards the end they have in mind, where this Switzerland-type neutrality, which makes good sense, is concerned.
There is no question of our abandoning our friends from whom we happily are not parting either in anger or haste, but after the most careful consideration. They are leaving us of their own free will, grown up and full of confidence in the future. They can be sure that there is a great deal of affection here for the Seychellois people, which I believe is reciprocated. They have one major advantage of which mention has been made; that is, that they have successfully lived together in harmony despite the multiracial community that one finds there. Speaking French and English and a curious Creole-French patois gives them quite a natural advantage there. In conclusion, may I say that I feel the Seychelles might well be called the "Happy Islands": may they be just that, my Lords.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I add a further word of welcome to this Bill. I think this is one of the most curious and interesting developments taking place in the Commonwealth. Seychelles is a very remarkable place for a number of reasons. As has been said, it is extremely attractive—I believe it was General Gordon who called it, "the Garden of Eden". Among the ecology, I feel compelled to mention the "cocoa de mer". Anyone who has seen that has seen something quite different from anything he might have seen anywhere else. Secondly, it is extremely inaccessible. Thirdly, it is of enormous strategic importance. I cannot help feeling that, at some time, the Government of Seychelles will be under enormous pressure for some strategic reason to give facilities to other Powers. I should like our Government to let us know their attitude towards this problem. I see the Bill uses the phrase "fully responsible status". Is not the normal terminology, "an inde-
1304
pendent republic within the Commonwealth"? Is there anything special about the phrase which has been used in the Bill? Is it not just "member of the Commonwealth", as other countries are? As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, it is an associated Member of the EEC. There are many curious terminologies connected with the EEC but, referring to the original meaning of the word, I should not have thought it fell within the "associated" status.
Finally, I should like to ask this: I see that in paragraph 8 of the Schedule reference is made to a withdrawal of whaling industry regulations. Does that mean that our restriction on whaling will no longer apply in respect of ships registered in the Seychelles? If that is the case, then I hope that in the negotiations which follow the Government will press the Seychelles to impose the same kind of regulations as we do in this country. In general terms, I welcome this Bill, although I think it does raise rather specialised problems.
4.2 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am delighted that there should have been this general welcome for the Bill. It is in accordance with the unanimity with which the people of Seychelles themselves have indicated their desires and the way they have gone about preparing their country for the experience of independence in the last few months, during a not very easy transitional period. This brings me to the essential point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. Whatever the phraseology used in the Bill, it means that Seychelles now becomes an independent country within the Commonwealth. The noble Earl also raised one or two questions of detail which I hope he will see fit to raise on the Committee stage, very much as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, indicated she would be doing concerning a number of nationality points. One could go into these matters today but, as the noble Baroness herself suggested, I think it would be more useful to do that at the Committee stage. Of course, we have experience of nationality problems, including access to this country, in other parts of the former Empire, particularly in East Africa. It is perfectly natural and proper to raise the question of whether we may not be creating difficulties for

1305
them and for us, even on a small scale, in a transfer of power and of status of this kind. I am strongly advised that this is not so in the case of the Seychelles, but any problem which might arise is really so small that it does not confront us with any serious difficulty. There will be a further opportunity of looking at this and other nationality points during the Committee stage.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of integration—a point which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. I agree with both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. In more than one case, of this kind in the late 'fifties and the early 'sixties, the question of integration with the United Kingdom was raised. It was not "on" then in any case, and it certainly would not be "on" now, in the middle of the 'seventies. Whatever some of us may have thought in earlier days in certain connections, it did not prove feasible then and certainly would not prove feasible today.
I join with those who have taken the opportunity of saying that the British Colonial system, certainly as administered by the old Colonial Office and by those who served it, did a great deal of good in the countries concerned. I have been in many of those countries myself and have seen and heard from the indigenous population tributes to the efficiency and devotion of the Colonial Service—for instance, the so-called "political service" in the Sudan. There was nothing political about that: the officers concerned were highly intelligent social welfare officers, whose contribution to the progress of the Sudan is celebrated to this day. There are dinners and other occasions when the Sudanese recall, individually and as a group, the services of these excellent officers.
The noble Baroness asked one or two very important questions, apart from those I have mentioned. She asked about the position of Seychelles under the Lomé. Convention. As she said, Seychelles will become a member of the Lomé Convention, and thereby will have associative status and associative relations with the EEC. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, both pointed out that we all hope the Seychelles will follow what their leadership has described as a policy of pacific non-alignment of not allowing their coun-
1306
try to be used by any other country for military purposes, and certainly not for aggressive purposes. We have every confidence that this will be so. Mr. Mancham and M. René have both spoken very strongly along these lines, and indeed those who took part in the conference came away much fortified by the intentions of the new Government in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also referred to the election system—perhaps inevitably, since he spoke from the Liberal Benches, although the concern for electoral processes is not solely and entirely a Liberal concern. I would only say to him that the election system will be as he described. It is one which is acceptable to the Seychelles and one which they say suits them. There are almost as many election systems as there are electors these days, and the people of the Seychelles, we think, have chosen the right system for them.
We listened to a fascinating speech from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who filled this office with great distinction and dedication some years ago. I agree with him that all the more interesting countries have more than one language and also have colourful archbishops. I am not saying that every interesting country necessarily disposes of 12,000 champagne bottles, as he seemed to suggest. But more seriously, we can all agree with him that many of our former dependencies—more of them than is generally realised—have indeed retained the democratic system which was part of the dowry that Britain bestowed upon them, and have maintained, sometimes in very difficult circumstances, a respect for human rights. There is every sign that this new country within the Commonwealth, and presumably as a member of the United Nations, will retain its hold on the democratic virtues and pursue a system of human rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, asked about the administration of the rest of the BIOT. This will, in fact, be administered residually. It is an administration, as we say now. With the detachment of the three islands, there will be a residuum which will, at least in the interim, be administered as the original BIOT was administered. If the noble Lord would like to raise this point in more detail during the Committee

1307
stage, I shall be delighted to give more information about it. There is no difficulty about continuing to administer what is left of the BIOT as it was administered previously.
The noble Lord also raised one or two other very important points; for example, education. I am not sure whether he said that there is no higher education in Seychelles. I can say that there is, although there may not be enough. I believe that there is a teacher-training college which is a higher education institute, and four, if not five, vocational colleges which I suppose may be termed further education establishments. The House may have noticed that I rather stressed our intention to extend to them technical assistance, and it is for this reason, that they may well need help to develop their education, especially at the technical level which brings them into the higher education sphere, that we regard technical assistance in this case as very important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, is of course quite right in thinking that the £10 million capital aid over the first two years is in the form of a soft loan. The budgetary aid of £1·7 million over a period of four years is just that. One hopes that private capital will continue to enter Seychelles. There is great scope to develop indigenous industry there. One is tempted to go into the possibilities which are raised by the imminent agreement about the 200-mile limit, which should of course expand their fisheries and the cognate industry of tourism—already a fairly flourishing industry in the country. All in all, we, like the people of Seychelles, look forward with confidence to the future, and certainly this country will continue to do everything it can to help this new member of the Commonwealth.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
4.14 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the draft Industries Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 22nd March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before the House establishes the Northern Ireland Development Agency in place of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, and extends the powers of the Department of Commerce to provide selective financial assistance to industry under Section 1 of the Industries Development Act 1966. It also enables interest relief grants to be given as an alternative to loans under Section 9 of the Industrial Investment (General Assistance) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 towards schemes for rehousing or modernisation, and enables the transfer of publicly owned securities to the Department of Commerce.
The Northern Ireland Finance Corporation was established in 1972 with a statutory life of three years. Its life has since been extended by two years, and would, but for the provisions of this order, cease on 31st March 1977. The Corporation was established at a time when many reputable and well-based companies in Northern Ireland were feeling the effects of three years of civil disturbance, and were suffering serious liquidity problems. Because of the local situation, normal banking sources were reluctant to make money available, yet many of these companies had good long-term business prospects, and they already enjoyed an important place in the economic life of Northern Ireland. The job of the Corporation was to provide assistance to such companies to help them over this period of difficulty and put them back on to a viable footing.
The Corporation has done useful and important work, but it is now clear that a different and more fundamental approach to Northern Ireland's economic problems is called for. What is needed is a coherent and comprehensive strategy to tackle the underlying problems of industry, rather than ad hoc measures introduced to deal only with specific situations. The achievements of the

1309
Department of Commerce in attracting new investment, and creating new job opportunities in the past 20 years have been notable, but they have not managed to keep pace with the needs of the community. It is also clear that the provision of new job opportunities cannot, in itself, be an answer to the problem though it is a very important factor. It is equally vital to ensure that industry in Northern Ireland, whether local or external in origin, is equipped and geared, both in production and management, to compete in local and world markets. Only strong competitive industry can provide the long-term security of employment which Northern Ireland desperately needs. The task of attracting new investment will remain the prime concern of the Department of Commerce, but that of reconstructing industry and maintaining its strength will be the responsibility of the Development Agency.
In pursuing this role, the Agency will have the powers to become involved in almost every aspect of running a business. It will have the power to establish and own companies as its subsidiaries; it will be able to participate in joint ventures, it will have a role in acquiring and disposing of licences and patents, and it will have a major function in relation to the marketing needs of Northern Ireland industry. It will also have a part to play in the formulation and promulgation of the Government's general plans for the Northern Ireland economy, or any section of it.
In particular, the Agency will have a role in relation to those parts of Northern Ireland where the problem of unemployment has been most intractable. It will be a priority to devote attention to the needs of these areas, and to decide upon and take appropriate steps—including the establishment of State industry—to deal with their problems. The successful operation of the Agency overall will depend to a large extent on its ability to win the confidence and respect of management and unions in Northern Ireland. In this it will be given a good start with a membership which represents all business interests—management, unions and professions—and has a strong local flavour.
Since the overall objective of the Agency will be to improve the structure and efficiency of Northern Ireland industry, it follows that it will be expec-
1310
ted to invest only where it can see a good prospect that this result will be achieved. There will be no question, therefore, of the Agency becoming involved on its own initiative in providing financial assistance to companies whose future survival is in doubt, or which are unlikely to hold out a reasonable prospect of continued profitable operation. The primary responsibility for assistance in these cases will be taken over by the Department of Commerce, and it will exercise the powers provided under Article 7 of the order to direct the Agency as to the amount and form of the assistance to be provided, and the terms and conditions which will attach to it. Such directions will follow consultation with the Agency, and any expenditure arising in respect of them will be recoverable from the Department. This arrangement corresponds to that which will apply in similar circumstances between the Department of Industry and the National Enterprise Board.
In taking decisions about new investment, or joint ventures, the Agency will be expected to give close attention to the likely commercial outcome of a project. It should be satisfied in all cases that a viable operation is likely to result, but this does not mean that it should be unduly conservative in its approach to investment decisions. It will not be expected to lose money, taking its operations as a whole; but neither is it required to seek, as a private investor would, the highest return on its investment in all cases. The Government have to take into account wider considerations for reasons of regional employment or industrial policy and these may lead to a decision to invest where the return is low, or may take a long time to materialise.
With regard to the actual provisions of the order, Part II deals with the establishment, powers and functions of the Development Agency, the giving of directions to it, its financial limit and other ancillary provisions. Part III extends the Department of Commerce's powers to provide selective financial assistance to industry under Section 1 of the Industries Development Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 and under Section 9 of the Industrial Investment (General Assistance) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, and ensures the same facilities relating to a secured rate of grant where Northern Ireland interests

1311
arc covered by planning agreements, as would be the case in Great Britain. Article 18 in Part IV of the legislation removes doubts which have arisen about the ability of the Department to accept publicly owned securities which other Departments or publicly owned bodies may wish to transfer to it. The order concludes with three Schedules dealing with staffing and financial matters of the Agency, and the staff of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation.
The task ahead of the Agency is a sobering one. All too recently we have heard of further setbacks to the economy of Northern Ireland in terms of lost jobs, and it is of crucial importance that new employment should be found as soon as possible in order to prevent the further dissipation of valuable skills and demoralisation which results from prolonged periods of unemployment. The Agency's first priority must be to direct its energy towards the creation of new job opportunities. This it may do through the establishment of State enterprises, or joint ventures, or by encouraging the development of existing local industry. I know that I speak for all noble Lords in wishing the Agency every success with the task with which it is being entrusted. It is faced with a great challenge which will call for determination, courage and imagination if the goals which we seek are to be achieved. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Industries Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 22nd March, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
4.23 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this order will complete the task, set in train by the Industry Act of last year, of legislating for Government intervention in the work of industry and commerce within the United Kingdom. I am afraid to say that contrary to what the noble Lord hoped in his concluding remarks, this is a policy which I do not support, although in all fairness I must recognise that it is not a totally new concept for Northern Ireland. Also, in all fairness, I must make the point that the arrangements for Government assistance to industry and commerce in Northern Ireland have been
1312
of a different nature from those which are set out in this order.
The noble Lord referred to the establishment of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. The solution which the Cairncross Committee reached to try to put right the appalling problems of social unrest and economic disruption in Northern Ireland was to establish the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation with powers to assist firms with liquidity problems, but they had to be firms which had prospects of long-term solvency and development. I should like to extend my congratulations to the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation for all that they have done over the four-year period of their existence, under two different chairmen, to assist industry and promote jobs.
My point is this. The functions of the Agency under this order are much wider than those of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. Certainly I agree with the noble Lord that Northern Ireland needs an Agency which will support investment, encourage development and thereby promote jobs; but in effect this was what the NIFC did. Although after its initial period of existence I have no doubt that the Corporation needed to re-examine its functions, it is hard to see, except on grounds of political belief, why this Agency should have the power, conceived in the Industry Act 1975, to take over and to establish for an indefinite period a financial interest in any industrial or commercial undertaking. Broadly speaking, this was the objective which the noble Lord again repeated when he introduced this order.
Because I have reservations about an Agency of this kind, I should like to ask the noble Lord for some assurances and to put some questions to him. First, I trust that the Agency will be expected to assess with the very greatest care the consequences of the decisions which it is going to take. The purposes for which the Agency's functions are drafted under Article 4 are very widely phrased. If this had been a Bill, certainly I should have wished to put down an Amendment to phrase more precisely the objectives of the Agency.
In case the noble Lord may think that I am saying this simply on political grounds, may I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that yesterday in The

1313
Times there was a report that the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General is investigating the grant of £2·9 million of public funds which has come from the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce and the NIFC to a firm called Regna International, a Norwegian company which was set up in Londonderry to produce electronic cash registers. Even under the existing legislation, quite clearly there were problems with this firm which could not be discerned, and eventually it was not possible to overcome them. Therefore, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Northern Ireland Development Agency is to be given guidelines in the same way as the Secretary of State for Scotland has given guidelines to the Scottish Development Agency.
Towards the end of his remarks I was relieved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, say a few words about the commercial considerations with which this new Agency will have to operate. I trust that those commercial considerations, which are not written into the articles of the order, will be incorporated within guidelines, as has been done in the case of Scotland. If sound commercial decisions are to be taken, it will be necessary for the Agency to be capable of giving financial assistance quickly and to be able to do so after evaluating expertly the quality of the business which is in need of assistance. To do this, under Article 3 one needs to have on the Agency members who hold the confidence of industry and commerce. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord say that the representation will have a very strong local flavour, but may I ask him whether there will be any consultations before the appointments are made?
I referred to the drafting of the purposes for which the Agency is to exercise its functions. I believe that these purposes are too wide and too indeterminate. Obviously the development of the economy and the promotion of industrial efficiency lead to job promotion, but I hope that the Agency will distinguish between its commercial operations and decisions which are taken entirely on social grounds. When the noble Lord replies, I shall be very disturbed if he says that the Agency will take commercial decisions on other than commercial grounds. Job promotion is absolutely vital to Northern Ireland. May I say how sad I was to see that there
1314
is going to be a loss of jobs in the Province under the recent Defence Review. But the Province has a system of grants from the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce, to which the noble Lord Lord referred; it has successful direct labour organisations and it has an excellent system of industrial training. I trust that all those operations will continue, but if so I am still not entirely sure what the relationship is going to be between the new Development Agency and those organisations which I have just mentioned.
I also asked the Government to give an assurance that the Agency will have close practical links with small businesses, which I think was a matter to which the noble Lord did not specifically refer. We all know the tremendously important part played by the small business in Northern Ireland. Of course there is a continuing need to attract investment from outside the Province, but I think the home-based enterprises are of prime importance and I wonder whether the Agency will have a department or an appointment within it especially to deal with smaller concerns.
Article 4(2)(e) gives the Agency the function of promoting industrial democracy. A year ago the Northern Ireland Office published its discussion paper Worker Participation, which was entirely within the context of the situation at Harland and Wolff. In The Times, published this morning, I see it is reported that the Government have now reached agreement with the work force at the shipyard and will shortly be making a statement about the establishment of worker directors and participation in decision-making at four levels within Harland and Wolff. Obviously the noble Lord is not going to say anything about that this afternoon, but I should like to ask him how the Northern Ireland Office intends the Agency to pursue its policy under Article 4(2)(e). For instance, when we know whet the Harland and Wolff solution is, will it expect the Agency to use the Harland and Wolff solution as a prototype? Will the Agency perhaps be setting up a joint committee with the Northern Ireland CBI and the Northern Ireland Congress of Trade Unions and the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Trade, to study the different options which there are for industrial

1315
democracy, if and when the Agency wishes to introduce it into any undertakings. This is a function of the Agency under this order and it would be interesting to know how it is intended that the function is to be discharged.
I should also like to know what is to be the relationship between the Agency and the National Enterprise Board in London. After all, the functions of the Board are going to be exercised throughout the United Kingdom. To what extent will the Agency be a free agent? The Order which set up the NIFC in 1972 clearly set out that the Corporation was to give assistance to industry, depending upon the solvency prospects of the undertakings to be assisted, upon the capability of management which was to receive assistance and upon the suitability of the organisation of the undertaking concerned. My complaint is that the Agency's purposes for intervening are drawn far wider than that.
In addition, this order alters the purposes for which assistance may be given under the Industries Development Act 1966 and those purposes do not include an estimate of solvency, nor the capability of management or the suitability of the organisation. Therefore, I am apprehensive about the role of the Agency. As between the two sides of the House we invariably agree on Northern Ireland affairs, may I say that in friendliness and with no rancour; but it would be foolish of me to say that I am not apprehensive, because I am. None the less, given sensible guidelines—and I hope that the noble Lord may be able to reply to me on that point—I agree with the noble Lord that the Agency will work, and if it has a reasonable representation of Northern Ireland business interests and is allowed to get on with the job in Northern Ireland I expect it could work very well. On those grounds, and on those grounds only, I wish the members of the Agency well in the task they will be undertaking.
4.35 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful for the modified welcome which the noble Lord has given this order. I should like to deal first with his major worry, which is the political one; namely, the ques-
1316
tion of wider functions. In adopting these, the regulations we are speaking about follow the National Enterprise Board. This has been discussed—I was going to say ad nauseam, but to the greatest length in Parliament and I think the noble Lord will probably not wish me to rehearse the arguments. This is as near as anything a photocopy of the National Enterprise Board in relation to the Province. I made notes of various points raised by the noble Lord and I will go through them as I have put them down. The new body will be a totally free agent in relation to the National Enterprise Board but will of course indulge in the closest liaison. There is no question of its taking orders from the NEB.
The noble Lord asked about small businesses. We have not said much about small businesses here because, as the noble Lord knows, we have an admirable organisation called LEDU, Local Enterprise Development Unit, which has been set up for that very purpose. It has been working for four years and in that time has created over 3,000 jobs in small industries in the rural towns and villages. There seems to be no particular reason to create a formal overlap there. The noble Lord asked about consultations in connection with appointing members of the board of this body. The answer is that there has been wide consultation with Northern Ireland, including in particular the Northern Ireland Economic Council, on all aspects of the Development Agency, including the representation to be given to the different interests, and the representation is rather greater in trade union and local business representation than it was in the case of the Finance Corporation. When it comes to names, of course, that must be the business of the Minister concerned.
With regard to the question of commercial considerations, under Article 7 the Department is given power to direct the Agency to assist companies and to provide the money for that assistance. This will occur only where the assistance of the company goes beyond the stage of normal commerce. I think that answers the noble Lord's worry fairly clearly. The Agency is confined to commercial assistance; that is to say, assistance which will stand up to commercial standards, except in cases where there are particular social

1317
or other reasons, when the decision whether or not such help can be given will be made by the Department of Commerce and not by the Agency, so it would then be only an agent for the Government, if the Government wanted that. The noble Lord asked whether there would be guidelines. The answer is that there will be, in the way he suggested. He referred to the Regna case, but I do not think I want to go into that. In enterprises of this kind things will occasionally go wrong and this is one where they quite clearly did, but I do not think it would be helpful to have a post-mortem.
I think that covers the points raised by the noble Lord. I am perfectly happy that this will be a more effective edition of what we already have and of which the noble Lord approved in the NIFC. I think this will be rather more broadly based and it will be directed commercially fairly rigidly without any "lame duck" approach, if I may quote an expression used by one of the noble Lord's colleagues some years ago. It will certainly not try to assist lame ducks, but, on the other hand, in the peculiarities of Northern Ireland, with something like 30 per cent. unemployed in certain places, the Government, as opposed to the Agency, may decide in certain cases that something which is not strictly commercial will be done for social reasons. If they do, it will be a decision of the Government and not of the Agency.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EEC REPORTS: CONTROL OF POISONOUS SUBSTANCES
4.40 p.m.
Baroness WHITE Baroness WHITE rose to move, That this House takes note of the Reports of the European Communities Committee on the following EEC proposals relating to the environment:

(a) Standards for lead (R/1150/75) [6th Report, Session 1975–76];

(b) Water for Human Consumption (R/2098/75) [19th Report, Session 1975–76];

(c) Titanium Dioxide Waste (R/2003/75) [19th Report, Session 1975–76];

(d) Dumping of Waste at Sea (R/105/76) [23rd Report, Session 1975–76].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in so doing draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the reports from your Select Committee on five draft Directives which have issued from the European Community within the past few months. In the opinion of the Sub-Committee which deals with environmental matters, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, each of these Directives raises matters of importance; and two of them—that on titanium dioxide waste and that on dumping of waste at sea—raise matters of principle which, in our view, should cause our representatives at Brussels to resist them in their present form.
Before I turn to the reports, may I say how much we deplore the absence through illness of the noble Lord, Lord Ashby. He has fallen victim to a severely virulent form of American influenza. We wish him well, but his authoritative contribution today will be very much missed.
The first report on our list is concerned with two draft Directives, one on biological standards for lead, with certain requirements for the screening of our population, and one on air quality standards for lead. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, hopes to deal with these in some detail. He has made a considerable study of the subject, so I will confine myself to saying that we acknowledge the increasing concern caused by lead. It has, of course long been recognised as persistent and toxic, but only in relatively recent times has it become apparent that continuous exposure to even small quantities in the air or by ingestion may possibly be damaging, particularly to children. So we sympathise with the general objectives of these draft Directives.
We are, however, critical of some of the methods proposed, and believe that, as usual, the authorities in Brussels are aiming at universality and uniformity when more valuable results could almost certainly be obtained by concentrating our resources and efforts on areas and on population groups which are likely to be most at risk. We also find certain difficulties, which we have tried to describe in the report, concerning the desirability of the screening methods proposed, and we took evidence of this both from Sir

1319
Richard Doll, the Regius Professor of Medicine at the University of Oxford, and from the Departmental witnesses. This evidence is printed with our report.
Lead is the principal villain of the piece in the next report which is on the quality of water for human consumption. Here the problem for the United Kingdom arises hardly at all from the water supply to consumers by the water authorities whose responsibility it is to bring wholesome water to the rising main. Public water supplies in the United Kingdom are constantly tested and monitored and comply in almost all circumstances with World Health Organisation standards. The standards put forward by the Commission in the draft Directive are somewhat more stringent than those of WHO, notably for lead and for nitrates. We believe, however, that WHO is about to promulgate tighter quality standards, and these would be supported by our own Department of Health and Social Security.
Our problem, however, arises because the draft Directive is concerned not with public water supplies but with water as it is drawn from the tap. There is, of course, logic in this, as the person who needs protection is the one who drinks the water or consumes food or drink prepared with the water. It should be a commonplace of health education that water for consumption should be taken always from the main and not from a pipe leading to a storage tank which may be contaminated with dust, dirt and probably deceased insects. This, of course, is a matter for proper domestic management. But the intractable problem concerns the nature of the pipes which connect our domestic supplies with the public supplies. If these pipes are of lead—and this is particularly true in soft water areas—there can be constant contamination of the domestic water supply.
We reproduce in our report figures which indicate that there are many households, more particularly in Scotland, which would fail by a very considerable margin to reach the proposed limits. I have seen reputable estimates that in England there may be around 1 million houses which would show a lead content in excess of the standard of 0·05 mgs. per litre, and that in the early morning, when water may have been left in the
1320
pipe overnight, the number could reach even as high as 3 million houses which could be found to be consuming water in excess of what is regarded as safe. I am sure that other noble Lords—not least, I would expect, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford—will wish to comment on this draft Directive. So I will confine myself to asking the noble Baroness, who I understand is to reply to the debate, what action is proposed by Her Majesty's Government. She will have noted that our Committee believes that no lead piping should be permitted in new housing in the future, and that the replacement of lead pipes should be a condition for future house improvement grants.
We were much disturbed to learn that at least one water authority in the United Kingdom—I believe, the Thames Water Authority—still permits the installation of lead piping. Even if it is used primarily for waste water rather than for supply, with the increasing recycling of water for re-use, this does not seem to be a desirable practice, either. I should also like to ask the noble Baroness what steps are to be taken to increase the research into this field. We know very well that there are as I have said, a large number of houses in the United Kingdom in which the standard is not up to the proposed inter national standards. It would be an enormously costly and time-consuming job to replace all the pipes or the lead storage tanks, which I understand are particularly deleterious to the water supplies, especially in Scotland. But one could possibly find methods of changing the constitution of the water which would make it less liable to contamination by lead. There are also suggestions, I understand, for lining tanks or even lining connecting pipes. I think it would be very helpful to the House, and I would hope to our representatives in Brussels, also, if we could be given some further information as to the steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take.
My Lords, even if remedial action is promised, I think we would surely agree that the time limit of two years suggested in the draft Directive is completely unrealistic. The Association of Public Water Companies and Suppliers within the Community, appropriately named

1321
Eureau, suggests a period of at least 10 to 15 years as being required. The unrealistic estimate on the timescale was very clearly recognised by the Economic and Social Committee which issued its opinion on this Directive on 25th February last. It had many sensible things to say on the need to distinguish between parameters which are really important for public health and public water supply and those which are perhaps ideally desirable but frankly not worth the cost involved. This, I think, applies more especially to water used in manufacturing processes. This Directive, therefore, in our view needs the most careful and detailed scrutiny and should, we believe, be amended in detail. But we must recognise that in the matter of possible lead pollution we in this country should be prepared to act, where necessary, with or without the Directive to prevent, in particular, additional future risks.
I now turn to the next draft Directive which deals with titanium dioxide waste, a draft Directive for which my Sub-Committee had little patience and not very much respect. I am afraid that it is a further example to add to those we have already received from Brussels of proposals which could become binding on British industry, being put forward with quite inadequate justification and with no convincing evidence in support. We hope that Her Majesty's Government will firmly resist this proposal in the form in which it is now presented. It is well known that what we believe to be the exaggerated importance attached by the Community to titanium dioxide waste arises from the Mont Edison situation where severe discolouration of the sea has been caused by an Italian works most unwisely sited on Mediterranean shores, where the tidal conditions are such that the waste products cannot be swiftly or adequately dispersed. There have been complaints from neighbouring Corsican fishermen of diminished fish catches. But I must say that we have been unable to trace any substantive evidence that this was cause and effect. Even, however, if it were proven, it provides no case for insisting on expensive preventive measures in areas where the condition of the receiving waters is entirely different. We are fortunate in being able to site such works in the United Kingdom on fast flowing estuarial rivers where waste
1322
material can be rapidly dispersed. In such circumstances we therefore have no need to take measures which might indeed be required in the Mediterranean.
The draft Directive not only fails to convince us of its general necessity but it seems to us to add insult to injury by claiming that satisfactory alternative methods of dealing with titanium dioxide waste are ready to hand. So far as we can tell, they are not. None of the methods recommended in the draft Directive has gone beyond the pilot plant stage, and one at least of the processes referred to has been abandoned before reaching a practical form. It would indeed be possible to pile titanium dioxide waste on land instead of dispersing it in water, but the environmental problems would be far worse and the quantities would be enormous. It simply does not solve the problem of industrial waste to remove it from one element to another.
This waste, in our view, is unaesthetic, and objectionable on that ground, rather than positively harmful. It can be taken by barge out to sea, and this may be necessary where river conditions are not good, but it all depends on the local conditions. There is no case for uniform standards which can add quite unnecessarily to the cost of the product without significantly improving the safety of the environment. Our argument here is similar to that which we adduced some little while back on waste from pulp mills. Such installations should be sited in suitable locations so that problems either do not arise or can be mitigated without undue cost.
Finally, I come to the fifth Directive in the group we are discussing today, that on Dumping of Waste at Sea. This draft Directive, too, causes us considerable disquiet, but our reasons on this occasion are more complex. There are our customary difficulties over uniformity and universality, but there are wider political considerations to which I think I should draw your Lordships' attention. I need hardly say that the United Kingdom is fully conscious of the need to protect the marine environment, and we have the necessary legal basis for action in the dumping at Sea Act 1974 and the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.
Not only have we ratified the Oslo Convention but, as the name suggests, we

1323
took a leading part in initiating the London Convention, which is worldwide in its application. The London Convention was intended to give general guidance on dealing with this problem of the dumping of wastes at sea with the quite specific objective that there should follow a series of regional agreements. We welcome very much the arrangements that were agreed at Helsinki for the Baltic and the recent Barcelona agreement for the Mediterranean—agreements which, very rightly, take into account the peculiar and particular physical conditions of those seas.
But now we have the Community coming forward with a fresh set of rules which differ in certain important respects from the terms of those Conventions—particularly those which are applicable to United Kingdom conditions. I do not say "United Kingdom waters", partly because we do not know yet what agreement on territorial waters will come out of the current Law of the Sea Conference, and partly because we have already acknowledged that the Community may make proposals relating to areas extending beyond territorial waters. We refer to this in our Report. Paragraph 2 of Chapter 6 of the Community Programme of Action on the Environment is concerned with the Oslo and London Conventions which are not, of course, limited to territorial seas.
I should also draw attention to other international arrangements which are in force, more particularly dealing with radioactive substances. A Written Answer given in another place on 26th February last sets out in some detail the international arrangements for dealing with radioactive substances, and makes it plain that the United Kingdom has disposed of low activity radioactive waste in the sea since 1949. In 1967 the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD agreed to arrange sea disposal operations, to establish on an international basis the means by which solid radioactive waste could be safely disposed of at sea without damage to the marine environment. Furthermore, the International Atomic Energy Agency—an inter-governmental organisation under the aegis of the United Nations—is also concerned with radioactive waste management questions, including sea disposal.
We find it therefore disturbing that the Community, under the guise of
1324
"harmonisation", should endeavour to establish a set of uniform rules based, in part at least, on regional conventions, which have been deliberately worked out on a localised basis, simply because physical conditions vary so much from one marine area to another, and they seem to be oblivious of the other arrangements which are in force. After all, membership of the Community extends to States some of which are within the Mediterranean system, some of which are in the Baltic system, and some of which are in the North Sea and North-East Atlantic system. It is going completely against the philosophy of international action in recent years to try to set up a draft Convention for the EEC countries on the basis which is currently proposed.
It is not only the philosophy of the matter; we are not clear as to the enforcement arrangements. We ourselves are mostly concerned with the Oslo Convention, which provides for jurisdiction by the Oslo Commission, and it is their business to receive and consider records of permits and approvals issued and dumping which has taken place. Are we, then, to have a separate system of enforcement for the draft Directive which is before us? Is there to be a dual system with at least two different sets of rules applying to the same maritime area, the international rules and the Community rules? If this is what is intended, then surely it is a confusing, wasteful and unecessary procedure. My Committee was strongly of the view that if, in its wisdom, the Community considered that any one of the international Conventions which affect its members was in some way defective, it should seek to secure an amendment or improvement of that Convention, possibly by itself first becoming a party to it.
From the point of view of pollution control, if some measure is desirable for members of the Community, it is also desirable for other States in the marine area concerned, even if they are not members of the EEC, because nature does not recognise political boundaries. Our uneasiness is based on the difficulty which arises when one tries to marry conflicting concepts which are embedded in Community thought but which do not match the physical world known to science. Pollution control to protect man and the

1325
natural environment, the biosphere which we share with other forms of life, must be science based if it is to make ecological sense. It does not seem to us acceptable that, possibly in order to assert its political identity, the Community should propose actions which do not appear to be in the best interests of rational, international pollution control. There is ample scope for Community initiative in the field of pollution without either duplication of international administration or the adoption of generalised standards when all reputable effort in recent years, in the United Nations organisation and elsewhere, has been in the direction of the identification and refinement of localised standards for marine pollution control.
It would have been helpful to give examples in other areas if the Community had been able to persuade its members to adopt a common policy at the recent London conference on civil liability for offshore pollution damage. There are plenty of other instances where the Community could give a genuine lead, but the conflict with scientific validity exemplified in the draft Directive before us is clue, of course, to the desire for harmonisation at all costs. The principle behind the Directive seems to be the desire to deal uniformly with conditions which are not uniform in order
"…to avoid creating distortions in trade and in the distribution of investment."
This is a matter to which we have referred before in our comments, as I have mentioned, on pulp mill effluent and today on titanium dioxide waste. Where natural conditions are favourable to a particular process, it is surely the depths of stupidity to scorn the benefits offered by nature and to acid quite unnecessarily to the cost of the product, while by harmonisation one removes from the industrialist the encouragement to choose sites which are particularly favourable to his particular enterprise.
I have endeavoured to explain the reasons of principle which have caused us to draw this draft Directive to your Lordships' notice. There are, of course, a number of points of detail which need considerable further clarification; we have touched on them briefly in our report. The most important one is the proposal to prohibit the dumping of any radioactive waste, of however low activity
1326
it might be. This in itself of course does not solve the problem; it simply means that one must find storage areas on land. This is far from easy, but I would not deny that it is at least arguable. We, under the London Convention, are obliged in our dumping policy to carry out considerable investigation before we issue permits for dumping. I have had some difficulty—perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to help me in this—in finding out just what investigations we have made, for example, into the physical characteristics of the Bay of Biscay, which I understand is our favourite dumping ground for low activity radioactive waste. I am sure that investigations have been made and it could be that my researches were not sufficiently adequate to find out whether they have been published. I should like to know about this and to make certain we are completely in compliance with our obligations.
I hope very much that it will be possible to have further thoughts on this draft Directive. We were very much encouraged that following our debate last October on some other environmental Directives, the Ministers when they met in Brussels in December were able to agree on a compromise modus vivendi for countries with differing views on the sensible way to deal with certain pollutants. I am afraid that this afternoon we have felt obliged once again to be strongly critical because, as I have tried to explain, we do not think that the scientific basis for the proposals in the last two Directives which I have mentioned have been adequately worked out. And where pollution is concerned we believe that science must come first. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Reports of the European Communities Committee on the following EEC proposals relating to the environment:

(a) Standards for lead (R/1150/75) [6th Report, Session 1975–76];

(b) Water for Human Consumption (R/2098/75) [19th Report, Session 1975–76];

(c) Titanium Dioxide Waste (R/2003/75) [19th Report, Session 1975–76];

(d) Dumping of Waste at Sea [23rd Report, Session 1975–76].

—(Baroness White.)
5.7 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I join in this debate today as a member of the Front Bench team on this side of the House and as a new member of the noble Baroness's Committee. I am glad to say that, at any rate for this debate, I do not feel any division of loyalties. I wish to begin by claiming that the United Kingdom is second to none in its sensitiveness to the damage and danger of industrial pollution. It seems to me that we have learned our lessons the hard way. We are working hard to restore and reclaim our own despoiled environment and therefore we want very much to take a wholehearted part in protecting and improving the whole European environment and putting our extensive experience at the disposal of that task. We also want to help other countries, particularly the developing countries and those which are not yet fully industrialised, to avoid the mistakes that we made in the early days of our industrial past. This makes it all the more regrettable that our encouragement and support of the good intentions behind the European Commission and its Environmental Action Programme has to be tempered, as the noble Baroness said, with either sharp criticism or serious misgivings, or, in some cases, outright objection to almost every directive in this field that has come before us so far and certainly all of those we are debating today.
Fortunately for us, the fish in the Thames and the Trent, the clean buildings of Sheffield, the winter sunlight here in London, the valley floor around Swansea, all bear witness to our zeal, even in hard times like these, to press on with the control of pollution, with the protection and improvement of the environment, to the fact that we know how to set about it and that we very greatly prefer the principle known as the application of the best practical means. This requires the application of patient, painstaking, detailed policies applied with precise knowledge of the damage that each particular pollutant really causes and as an exact idea as is possible of what remedy produces what improvements and at the least cost. That is what the Commission is not doing. Take lead, for instance, which is the subject of the first of the Directives before us. If the Commission had had its way, we should even
1328
now have in force procedures which would apply over all large cities in all the countries of the entire Community for taking samples of people's blood and monitoring the level of lead shown in it. The need for this proposal is unsupported by any evidence that there is any widespread damage to health from lead poisoning and unsupported by any evidence of any particular disease being entirely attributable to lead poisoning, even in particular places where there is some danger of lead being ingested. Certainly, in such places where there is a prima facie case that some danger exists, there is a case for careful research and caution and monitoring such as is proposed. When that shows that remedies are required, by all means let us apply them. But there is really no justification for sweeping measures over the entire Community.
Much the same applies to water for drinking, as the noble Baroness said. Here, there is another sweeping Directive which, if the Directive is not amended, is to be applied within two years throughout all areas of the Community and which calls for routine comprehensive monitoring of all drinking water supplies. Here, there is more supporting evidence of polluting dangers, but it all points to the dangers being concentrated, as the noble Baroness suggested, in houses with lead pipes in soft water areas, rather than anywhere else. As your Lordships can see from the annexe to our report, all members of the Community have laws or regulations restraining the use of lead in domestic water pipes. All nevertheless have large amounts of lead water piping still in use and in many cases more lead piping is still being added. So there appears straight away to be a strong case for more selective enforcement of the national legislation which is already in force before we start to think about any Community legislation.
Research into the harmful effects of continuing to permit the use of lead in soft water areas certainly needs to be advanced. Then, if the need is shown, steps can be taken to restrain or reduce the use of lead by such means as building regulations. It could be made a condition of a housing improvement grant that lead pipes should be removed where they existed in soft water areas. As an alternative or addition, home safety steps could be taken to avoid the dangers of

1329
lead in the areas in question, for instance, by putting up a written notice in houses which had lead pipes in soft water areas, warning the occupiers to draw off water before taking any for drinking. Certainly, there are many better and cheaper steps to take about drinking water before it would be useful to introduce the proposed Directive.
I turn to the Directive on titanium dioxide. I strongly support the noble Baroness. This Directive is also objectionable, as the noble Baroness said. As a result of one particular case in the Mediterranean where some ecological damage has been alleged but not proved, we now have a sweeping Directive restraining the dumping of titanium dioxide anywhere at sea. Once again, this appears without any evidence that the present practices of, for instance, in our case, discharging it into rivers and estuaries by pipeline whence it flows to the North Sea, do any harm at all. On the other hand, we know for certain that any other way of dealing with it would be dangerous and difficult. As the European Assembly's own Public Health Environment Committee put it, the extent to which titanium dioxide waste is harmful depends on its composition, the way it is dumped and the kind of place where it is dumped. That is perfectly true. If the Directive were addressed to controlling these factors according to the circumstances of each discharge, it would of course be acceptable, but it starts by proposing uniform emission standards and I submit that it should not be accepted.
I shall not deal at all extensively with the dumping of waste at sea because the noble Baroness has—in my view, quite properly—devoted a fair amount of her speech to it. Here, once again, as she says, we have overlapping jurisdictions and potential conflicts in their application. We have insufficient scientific proof of environmental damage to justify the full range of proposed controls over so many broadly specified substances. Annexe 2, for instance, refers to all acids and alkalis. It is absurd, when they differ so much in characteristics and danger, to lump them all together in this way. It is far too wide an extension of too comprehensive codes of uniform prohibitions to be applied in a whole variety of different circumstances. As the noble Baroness said, it is only common sense
1330
that the warm, relatively still, non-tidal waters of the Mediterranean coast should need a different scale of protection from the turbulent, tidal, cold and deep waters of the Atlantic. It is absurd to have a common code for both. We must try to dissuade our friends in Brussels from blundering about blindly with a cudgel when what they want is to take up a more elegant stance based on scientific research and then put in a few well-aimed thrusts with a rapier at the places where there is real trouble.
To sum up, it seems to me that the main lessons to be learned from the four latest sorties by the Commission into the environment are as follows: first, preliminary research must be directed to establishing as accurately as is practicable the real damage that can be caused in various circumstances by each threatened pollutant; secondly, the choice of methods of control available; and, thirdly, the cost and the effectiveness of each method in each case. Against that background, the meaning and purpose of harmonisation of national regulations by Community measures which the noble Baroness rightly dwelt on at some length needs to be clearly set out because it means something quite different in each case. Then, and only then, ought Parliaments to be asked to give opinions and Governments to be invited to take decisions. I shall be interested to hear whether the noble Baroness agrees with that summary of the situation.
5.19 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I raise a general point before coming to the Reports of the Select Committee which we have before us. This is the third debate in which I have taken part on the Reports of your Lordships' Select Committee on EEC draft Directives. The first was on nuclear safety and, more recently, there was that on migrant workers. I am wondering what happens as a result of the speeches which are made in your Lordships' House. Can the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, tell us whether there is any point in the exercise at all? Do the things which are said in this House get reported to our delegation in Brussels and what action do they take on them? Most important of all, could there be some feedback? I have found it very discouraging to look

1331
at the Directives, to read the Reports of the Select Committee, to come here and make a speech and then to be left completely in the dark as to whether action has been taken or the Government have agreed with what was said. I believe that it would be useful to complete the circle of procedure by having some kind of additional stage of reporting back on the recommendations which are made not only by the Select Committee but by those who have not been serving on the Committee but who have taken part in the proceedings following the latter's Report.
I agree with some of the criticisms made of the Directive, but it would not be good enough if we were simply to rule them out without suggesting any alternatives. I do not take a complacent view about the questions of pollution raised here, and I wish to refer particularly to the matter of atmospheric levels of lead. I wish to put a different point of view on this matter to that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who seems to think that one must wait until there is conclusive clinical evidence of damage being caused to members of the public before one can take any steps to control the substance causing that damage. I am not sure that the determination of blood levels is the right approach. I can see that this has serious difficulties and implications for civil liberty.
One might consider whether blood samples taken for other purposes might be used, although obviously they would not represent a random sample of the population. But there are many thousands of blood donors, and samples are also being taken all the time to ascertain whether the level of alcohol in the blood exceeds the permitted maximum. It is possible that legislation might be introduced to enable these samples to be used as a means of determining the levels of lead in the blood. Certainly there are groups of people who have levels much higher than the average of the population as a whole. I agree with the sense of what the noble Baroness said: that one should look at particular groups—(as distinct from the general population)—rather than to try to determine a uniform method of tackling the problem,
1332
which may be inappropriate in particular cases.
I was looking at an article by Dr. T. J. Chow writing in Chemistry in Britain for June 1973, referring to a study of London taxi drivers. Obviously if anyone is to be vulnerable to levels of lead in the atmosphere it would be people who are constantly driving their vehicles in the highly built-up areas, where the concentration of fumes would be at its worst. This article showed that the mean blood level of London taxi drivers was 0·29 parts per million, and the range extended from 0·16 to 0·45 parts per million, which I think exceeds the permitted maximum recommended in this Directive. That also leads me to the point that where these groups of workers or residents may be thought to be highly vulnerable, I should not have imagined that there would be any difficulty in securing their co-operation, if necessary, in the voluntary taking of blood samples to make sure that their health is properly looked after.
There is also the point, which needs to be stressed, that continuous exposure, even in very small quantities, may be damaging to the health of individuals, even though there are no clinical symptoms. This point was brought out by some studies made on animals during the war in the Soviet Union, and since repeated elsewhere with similar effects. Those studies found that there could be very significant changes in the behaviour of the animals at blood concentrations far lower than those required to cause clinical symptoms.
Furthermore, studies in human beings show that children are particularly vulnerable. I wish to refer to an article by Professor Bryce-Smith, professor of organic chemistry at the University of Reading. He pointed to behavioural changes caused in small children as a result of high concentrations of lead in the bloodstream. He pointed out that these can, for example, result in mental retardation and other behavioural abnormalities, such as lack of attention, children being easily distracted, and being unable to sit for a long time. They may, too, be slower to learn, more aggressive, and possibly even suffer from dyslexia.
It may be extremely difficult to associate these behavioural symptoms with

1333
the concentration of lead in the bloodstream. As I have said in relation to the taxi drivers, people who live in urban areas are clearly more vulnerable than those who live well away from the traffic. This needs to be emphasised, in that the levels of lead in these urban areas may be adding to what has been called the "cycle of urban deprivation" on which millions of pounds has been spent by the Home Office, but to deal with the physical environment, when there may be other factors of equal importance.
The article by Dr. Chow, to which I referred, indicates that the levels of lead in the atmosphere in Fleet Street increased very considerably between 1961 and 1971. I do not know what has happened since 1971. The Government have taken measures to reduce the concentration of lead in fuels for motor vehicles, but I am seriously worried that this action may be negated entirely by the increase in the volume of motor traffic. If one is to believe the forecasts by the Department of the Environment of twice as many road vehicles circulating by the end of the century, we could be back in the same position, having reduced the permitted maximum concentration of lead in fuels, but then having entirely contradicted that by having so many more vehicles that the concentration, in fact, remains the same.
I believe that this needs to be monitored very carefully. According to an article in the Sunday Times last January, approximately 10,000 tons of lead is discharged into the atmosphere in the form of particles which come out of the exhausts of motor vehicles. This could be a very significant source of the concentration of lead in the bloodstream of individuals. The oil companies have always contended that if lead is removed from fuel, it will be necessary to pay 3p or 4p more per gallon at the pump. That had always been accepted until quite recently, when in Germany the regulations were tightened, I think to a considerably greater extent than in this country, and low and behold!, it was found that the oil corn-panics were able to accommodate this change without any increase in the price of petrol at the pump. We ought to look at that experience to see whether we are not perhaps going too slowly, irrespective
1334
of what we may be told to do from Brussels.
Finally, I believe that the report dealt with in the Statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for Employment, on the hazards of asbestos, is an excellent example of the Government's preparedness to react when an industrial substance is shown to have caused serious harm or even, as in this case, death, yet because we have no dramatic evidence to which to point, we shall be extremely lucky if we get similar firm action in the case of lead. But there are these behavioural problems and sub-clinical effects from lead in the environment which, I believe, it would be very dangerous to neglect.
5.30 p.m.
Lord HINTON of BANKSIDE: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady White, has drawn to the attention of your Lordships' House four reports which have been prepared by her Committee and which comment on draft Directives prepared in Brussels. Two of those reports deal with effluents and with the disposal of industrial waste, and it is with those two subjects that I should like to deal this afternoon. Besides the papers which have been drawn to the attention of the House this afternoon, there have been other draft Directives on effluents and on industrial waste which have been considered by your Lordships' Committees during the last few months, and those Committees have found reason to object, on various grounds, to several of those draft Directives.
However, there has been one feature in all of them to which we have found ourselves bound to object; that is, that the EEC seem to base their standards on the concentration and quantity of effluent at the point of discharge. It has been the practice in this country to deal with pollution in a more pragmatic way and to consider, not merely the composition of the effluent at the point of discharge but its effect on the environment, and in doing this to realise that an effluent which might well be objectionable if discharged into a small stream might have no objectionable effect on the environment if it is discharged into the open sea or into estuarial waters. But we have been told that the Minister is extremely conscious of this point and that he has made the British approach to this problem quite clear in

1335
Brussels, and therefore I need waste no more of the time of your Lordships' House in dealing with it.
There is a cognate point, however, which was raised by the noble Baroness to which I should like to draw attention, or perhaps I should say, I should like to underline what she has said. It is the declared purpose of the Treaty of Rome, or one of its declared purposes, to harmonise industrial practices within the Community countries; but surely that does not mean that environmental standards should be harmonised by setting standards which suit the worst sited, the worst designed, the worst operated plants. Yet this is what seems to be happening. I hope that, in taking examples of this, I shall be forgiven if I refer as my first example to a report which is not before your Lordships' House this afternoon, and that is the one on the discharge of effluents from paper pulp mills. That paper sought, as so many of the other EEC papers have done, to lay down the composition and quantity of discharge quite irrespective of whether the discharge was into rivers, into estuarial waters or into the open sea.
But it went further than that, and said that pulp mills which found difficulty in complying with the standards which it was sought to lay down should be given what was referred to as "specific aid from public funds". This presumably means that the plants which have been sited well in relation to the supply of raw materials or in relation to the markets that they serve, but which have been badly sited in relation to the discharge of effluents, should, while retaining the advantages of siting in regard to raw material supplies or distribution of products, have other people pay for the environmental danger which they cause. The draft Directive said that the standards for effluent discharge:
"…could distort competition and create a barrier to the proper functioning of the Common Market".
But surely it is wrong to consider a factor which is disadvantageous to one certain plant while disregarding all the other considerations which give advantages to that plant. If the polluter has sited his factory badly, or has sited it so as to gain other advantages, surely he should
1336
pay for any environmental damage which results from that siting.
The second example which I should like to take is one which is before your Lordships' House this afternoon, and that is the disposal of waste from titanium oxide plants. The only titanium oxide plant whose waste has been judged to cause damage to the environment is the one in Italy. The waste from that plant, as has already been said, is discharged into the tideless Mediterranean. The Germans dump the discharge from their plants into the open sea; the British discharge the effluents and wastes from their plants into tidal waters. In neither of those cases is any damage done to the environment. Yet the proposed Directive appears to seek to apply conditions of disposal which may perhaps be necessary in the tideless Mediterranean but which cannot be considered to be universally necessary.
The Italian plant was presumably sited where it is because that site had advantages for the manufacturer; but, surely, if he wants to enjoy those advantages he should comply with the principle that the polluter pays, and he should offset the cost of dealing with his waste products in a satisfactory way against the advantages that he has gained from the siting of his plant. It should not be expected that other manufacturers, who have located their plants in positions where the effluent can be more easily dealt with, should necessarily be brought into line with the man who has sought other advantages.
I have given only two examples, but that same trend of thought, I think, can be seen in other draft Directives. I suggest that the principle of harmonising at a level which suits the worst case is one which ought not to be acceptable to us, and is one which should be resisted.
5.38 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady White, and her Committee for this excellent report which is now before the House. I feel certain that the Government will find it helpful, as well. The Commission's proposals deal with a number of important matters, but I should like to use most of the few words that I wish to say in referring to the problem of the lead

1337
content in drinking water. Perhaps I may first say something to console the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as to the product of these debates, which I must say are conducted at a very high level, I think, in terms of scientific content of the kind which comes from Lord Hinton and, on previous occasions, from Lord Ashby and others. I think we had a very good product from the last debate, because it enabled a Minister to go to Brussels and to achieve, substantially, what the House was recommending in the wake of the noble Baroness's report. So I think we can be entirely satisfied that we were cost-effective on that occasion.
Perhaps I may also say, in passing, how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, about the mistaken approach of the EEC in insisting on uniform emission standards. There really could not have been a more cogent economic argument than that which the noble Lord adduced. I just hope it is read in Brussels, because it could not fail to convince the authors of these documents that that is the proper approach in the interests of the whole future economic development of the Community.
My Lords, I should declare my interest to noble Lords as chairman of the National Water Council but I think that my interest is sufficiently indirect not to interfere with my making a comment now. Let me say that we, in the water industry, all 10 regional water authorities, are deeply concerned about the potential dangers of lead in water. We accept that a build-up of lead in the human frame is something potentially dangerous and that lead in water could be one of the sources of it. We are most anxious to take up a responsible and positive attitude; although I am inevitably going to follow a good deal of what the noble Baroness has said in being somewhat critical of the approach of the EEC Directive. The sample survey carried out by the 10 regional water authorities shows that some 2½ per cent. of daytime samples of water exceed the present WHO standard of 0·1 mgs per litre and that about 8 per cent. of daytime samples would exceed the proposed EEC standard now before the House of ·05 mgs per litre. Those figures can be doubled if we take first draw early in the morning.
1338
The noble Baroness rightly referred to our statutory duty in this country which is to deliver wholesome water to the point in the mains to which each household is connected. In fact, there is very little lead present in the mains; almost all is probably coming from the connection from the main to the house and in the householder's own plumbing. The EEC proposals, as the noble Baroness rightly said, refer to water in the tap; and that is a perfectly practical thing to do, although it makes the problem very much more difficult to deal with. The noble Baroness was also correct in saying that most of the areas in this country where there is high lead content in the water are the soft water areas because soft water has a greater lead solubility; but it is a fact that there are some hard water areas where, for not very clear reasons, they also have some lead in the water too. This is evidently due to the different natures of the hardness.
The noble Baroness asked some questions about what is being done in research on this difficult problem. The Water Research Centre is working on possible methods of water treatment to reduce lead solubility; but this is not at all a straightforward problem. There is some scope for progress here but one of the difficulties is that if the solubility of the water to lead is reduced it may result in a by-product of particulate lead in the water which will be ingested by the householder and will do damage in that fashion. So this problem becomes almost a matter of art rather than science; development is going to play quite as big a part as research; that is, the water authorities will have to try out approved methods of treatment to see what happens in their own particular waters. Water varies considerably from one place to another. They will have to find out whether the treatment does achieve improvement or not. This work is going on and it will achieve some improvement for the benefit of householders.
Turning to the EEC Directive that the level of lead in water should be reduced to ·05 mgs per litre, this in our opinion is completely beyond the capacity of water treatment to achieve. It would be impossible to achieve except by replacing all the lead piping now existing in connecting mains to the householders and in the households as well. We cannot make any precise estimate of what this would

1339
cost. The noble Baroness's figure of about 3 million houses being affected is something of the right order. The cost, we reckon, is something of the order of £500 million. That is equivalent to the total capital expenditure of the whole water industry for the year. If we did nothing else for a whole year that could be done. That is the order of it. One must immediately pose the question: would this really be the right priority? I am certain that before this summer is out there will be some places which are going to be very short of water and and they will think that these hundred of millions of pounds would be better spent on new reservoirs to make greater storage and on greater security than on replacing all the lead pipes.
The fact is that at the present time there really is not the scientific evidence to justify this gigantic expenditure which would oblige the deferment of many other desirable developments in the field of water: on supply, in the environment and generally in all the water services. The fact is, as we all know here as Parliamentarians, that in the reality of life there are all kinds of desirable improvements that we should like to be able to make, whether in the field of water and anything else. They cannot be done at once. We must arrange a system of priorities judged according to the best scientific evidence available.
When you turn to the picture to which the noble Baroness referred which appears in Appendix 1 of the Nineteenth Report of what happens in the other EEC countries, we see that they are, on the whole, a good deal worse off than we are as far as lead pipes are concerned. Therefore they are going to have the same, if not greater, practical problems than we in conforming to the proposed Directive. The noble Baroness rightly referred to the reaction of Eurea, which is the European Organisation of Water Industries of the Members of the EEC. They who have to deal with the realities on the ground would say something similar to what I am saying now: that they could not possibly conform to this under 10 or 15 years. It is quite clear that if the EEC are to go ahead with this proposal, all of their Members, I should think, would have to apply for what they call EMACs which are exceptions; for none will be able to
1340
conform with it. It seems a slightly absurd start to this new Directive that all the Members should have to ask for exceptions. I should like to suggest, with respect, that when the Commission are considering making these proposals, they might consider an alternative approach; they might find find out, first, what are the general standards obtaining through all EEC countries and having, from that knowledge, then established a common standard for all which is something like what is now existing, they might then proceed to aim at some progressive improvement and give some advice as to how that improvement is going to be achieved.
In the meantime, what we are doing here is aiming to conform with the existing WHO standard of 0·1mgs per litre. We are advising that all households should fit a rising main tap for drinking water supply and that where lead pipes exist between the mains, their first draw, the first half gallon or so, should be used for washing purposes rather than for drinking purposes. I warmly support the noble Baroness's suggestion—on which I do not doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will be making a comment—that the Government may consider making a regulation that in new houses there should be no lead pipework, and it should be made a condition of any reconditioning grant that lead pipework should be removed. This is obviously a position to which we want progressively to move; it cannot be done overnight. I thank the noble Baroness and her admirable Select Committee on the wisdom of their Report. I trust the Front Bench will think it sound and our Ministers will once again go to Brussels armed with some sound common sense, and will be able to inject this into the deliberations of the Commission.
On other matters, may I say briefly that I feel the cogent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, allied to what the noble Baroness said, has completely disposed of the titanium dioxide situation. I agree with them. I am certain that the proper approach is selective standards depending on the environment concerned. Certainly the sea is the proper place to dispose of titanium dioxide provided that there is adequate dilution.

1341
Regarding solid waste, there are a number of sludge ships that carry solid sludge out to sea. The disposal sites are selected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and carefully monitored by them. The whole record of this disposal has been entirely satisfactory. There has been no apparent danger to fish life—if anything, rather the reverse—so we can say confidently the systems being used for this particular process of disposal are completely satisfactory. As a politician, I agree with the noble Baroness that there is likely to be considerable political complications arising out of the EEC proposals, and I hope they will listen to the advice which she gave. May I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady White, and her admirable Select Committee for the tremendous amount of work that they do for us, and say how grateful we are to her and her colleagues for what they do.
5.52 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, so far the debate has been one of outstanding quality. As the proud possessor of a rather bad 0 level in biology, I hope your Lordships will sympathise with me if I say that I do not feel wholly confident that I have a valid contribution to make. But perhaps I can introduce a new tone to the discussion on the reports from the Sub-Committee of the noble Baroness (which I have now left) by saying that I speak as a Federalist who believes that environmental controls can only be successful if applied above and beyond the nation State level. I am sure that if Members of the House disagree with other things I may say, I may carry some of your Lordships with me by starting off with the remark that we all hope the emission standard of proposals from the Commission should be markedly improved, because their environmental proposals are not of the same quality as those that the other Sub-Committees of the EEC Scrutiny Committees have observed.
I suggest that there is a simple reason for this. The Treaty of Rome has nothing to do with the environment it was not a pre-occupation of its authors and, if you add the number of people who are occupied with the environment inside the Commission, it is not surprising that their proposals are not all that good because
1342
it has only been a subject of their concern since about 1970, when the Heads of Government decided to introduce and insert the idea of the environment into what is basically a free trade treaty, the Treaty of Rome, which has now been overtaken by events, and updated by diktat of the Council of Ministers. Those parts of the Treaty which are wholly concerned with free trade have nothing to do with the environment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, pointed out. It is to be hoped that perhaps a little before we have a written Constitution the Treaty of Rome can be updated as the Heads of State have agreed in practice it should be. This consideration lay behind Lord Diplock's reference to vires in a previous debate. If we are dissatisfied with the level of the quality of the Community's proposals in the environment—and I am—should we not press Her Majestys' Government to allocate more money to the Commission solely and specifically for improving their scientific expertise, so that when they come forward with proposals they are well based and well grounded? May I ask the noble Baroness whether she will look into that?
The situation is one where the Community has embarked on new territory and has not yet learned to cope. Having achieved the weapon of harmonisation as the legal basis for its activities in many other fields, mistakenly those enthusiasts in Brussels apply the same all-purpose legal basis for action to a field where it is not necessarily appropriate; namely, the environment. By and large, the Commission, in its present incarnation, has abandoned harmonisation for harmonisation's sake, if only at the urgent insistence of the present and previous British Government. The Commissioner now takes great steps to make sure harmonisation achieves some objective beyond that of harmonisation squared. I think when we suggest in your Lordships' House that sound environmental reasons must be the basis for future proposals, we are pushing at a door which is already open. We should also be comforted by the fact that the death rate for proposals from the Commission is extraordinarily high. The mortality rate of the British Government's legislation is, on the whole, low; but because of the open nature of the

1343
Community process, where the Commission is acting as a central motor attempting to drive the Community forward, many of their proposals are never put into effect because they are merely in the nature of Green or White Papers. We should comfort ourselves with this thought.
Very much of what I wanted to say about lead has been—I was going to say "pirated"—said before me by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I do not want to repeat what he said. There is a middle course which can be steered between his views and those of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. The Sub-Committee received evidence from Sir Richard Doll, Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford, which leads me in all my innumeracy still to be worried at the lack of real steps to control lead in the environment. Sir Richard said to us:
"I think the first thing to say is that, together with many people, I am disturbed at the fact that blood levels of lead in this country are getting—or perhaps I should say are, rather than are getting—uncomfortably close to what is generally recognised as a toxic level. They are closer to a toxic level than blood levels of any other element or toxic substance."
We do not have to wait for thalodimide to stop it. We do not have to wait for the lead equivalent of thalidomide to stop it. However pragmatic you may be, my Lords, you do not have to wait until your foot drops off to do something about it. I suggest to wait until disaster strikes is a little short-sighted.
I feel that the attitude of the Department of the Environment to one of the proposals we are discussing today fell into the "waiting-for-the-foot-to-dropoff" category, because in the Explanatory Memorandum to Directive No. 1150 they said:
"The United Kingdom practice in environmental protection is to use the best practical means of control. This always involves taking into account the local situation."
Of course we should do that. But what happens when the local situation is almost everywhere? By logic, we are getting towards a uniform emission standard when the local situation is almost everywhere, because air is everywhere and airborne lead is dispersed widely. It does not hang around cars in an invisible cloud and wait for people to stick their heads into the cloud and sniff it: it is
1344
dispersed into our reservoirs, on to our gardens and on sewage works which produce the sludge that we use as fertiliser. So when the Department of the Environment talks about taking into account "the local situation", the local situation is everywhere.
The Community's environmental policy is tending towards the same objectives as our own. We must not assume that in their methods the Department of the Environment is always right and that the Commission is always wrong. But to exaggerate differences in methodology into points of fundamental principle is a great mistake, and I hope we shall not let the very obvious defects in all the proposals we are discussing today blind us to the fact that genuinely successful environmental controls can only be achieved above and beyond the nation State level, and no matter how bad the Commission is now, it could become the most effective international organisation for dealing with the problems we are trying to solve.
6.3 p.m.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. Admittedly, the Select Committee has produced serious criticisms, but we must not run away with the idea that there are not some evils to be dealt with. The view has been expressed time after time in memoranda submitted by Departments that our existing legislation is capable of coping with all these problems, and they always adopt the attitude that has been expressed today: that we must have a pragmatic approach and consider each case on its merits. If that is done, and done thoroughly, there is a great deal to be said for it; but I am not satisfied that that is the case. Enforcement agencies are not always vigilant and sometimes they get very slack. We have had an example during the last few days in the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner with regard to asbestos in a certain works. This was trouble which had been going on for years and was observable. It was not concealed; yet no vigorous or effective action was taken.
This is where we must concentrate our attention if we are to adopt the view that we do not need to have uniform Community standards. But we ought to have some standards. In the case of titanium

1345
dioxide and other substances, it is said that, "It's all right if you discharge it into an estuary or into tidal waters". That is an easy thing to say, but it really requires very substantial research to see what the result is and whether there is a dispersion down to levels which are inoffensive and also whether there is a dispersion which ultimately could affect the fish life in the sea, for example. We are already seeing that the fish in the North Sea, for one reason or another—and the reasons are not always clear—have diminished significantly to a point where everybody agrees that the most drastic control and restriction on sea fishing is necessary. Do not let us imagine that that cannot—
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves from that point, may I ask him whether he knows that recent research in this country has enabled a model to be built for monitoring the waste discharged into estuaries in order to ensure that the toxic elements are kept to a level which does not damage fish life? The effectiveness of this model is such that it has been universally acclaimed throughout the world; so we now have an effective method of doing just what the noble Lord wishes to be done.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I think it is possible to have an effective method of following the physical and clinical dispersion of substances, although that is not quite as simple as it appears to be; but biological questions are a great deal more difficult to solve. I do not accept that they have all been solved—far from it.
Let me now revert to a matter on which this arises particularly acutely—the question of lead in the environment arising from industrial processes, from the discharge of lead in petrol and from domestic water supplies. It is only comparatively recently that this problem has begun to come to light, with the recognition that the consequences of lead to human beings are more varied and more serious than was thought for very many years. The question of brain injury to young children raises very serious disquiet, for example, and it possibly will become more acute as time goes by because of the fact that infants so frequently are reared upon artificially-com-
1346
pounded milk substitutes instead of being breast fed by their mothers. Consequently, in the most susceptible years of life they are subjected to far more lead than would have been the case in days gone by. The investigation of this kind of thing lags far behind the investigation of physical and clinical problems relating to industry, effluents, and so on. It is biological research which is lacking and which ought to be intensified. Until that is done thoroughly, we do not know what standards ought to be applied.
In the case of water supplies, the WHO level was revised from 0·05 to 0·1—in other words, it was doubled. What were the reasons for that? The reasons for that were not biological. The reasons were that the water authorities who were consulted about it said that it was impracticable for them to conform to the level of 0·05. It was not because anybody had discovered that lead was not so dangerous. It was merely in order to have a technical excuse for supplying water of a quality which is definitely undesirable.
I know that it is very expensive to deal with this and that the extent of the problem is very great. But if there are 3 million houses affected, that is 6 million or 8 million persons who are being exposed to lead poisoning and who ought to be saved from it. The sum of £500 million is a great deal of money but the longer we wait to begin to tackle these problems the more people may be injured and it will not become any cheaper.
It has been known for a long time that we had very large volumes of water supplies in this country which were capable of dissolving lead, and which did dissolve lead. There is not the slightest doubt about that. But for years the Ministry of Housing and Local Government refused to admit that there was any possible problem at all. They kept on saying that the water supplies were perfect, and that there was no lead danger at all. Now they say, "Ah, well! The water as we put it into the reservoirs and into the mains is all right, but unfortunately it dissolves the lead in the domestic water supplies and that is where the trouble is." It is indeed where the trouble is, but it has always been there. It has never been anywhere else. This ought to have been dealt with many years ago when it first became apparent that so

1347
many water supplies were being contaminated by lead. Therefore, I say once more that it is all very well to adopt the pragmatic approach and say, "We have got the machinery to deal with all these things and we will deal with them." Let us provide more proof that we are going to deal with them earnestly.
6.12 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, may I start with a declaration of interest. I was until recently a full-time consultant to the European Commission and on the completion of our piece of work I am still a part-time consultant to it. But I think your Lordships will see that this has not, to put it mildly, affected what I am going to say. I expect all your Lordships know that it was said within the Community before we joined that the Germans knew what the new Directives and Regulations were and tried to keep them; that the French knew what they were and that the Italians did not even know what they were. We, as comparative newcomers, are, I think, trying to find our place on this scale, and it seems to me that in the four draft Directives which we have before us this afternoon we should be well advised to adopt a German position on those concerning lead, and a French position on those concerning industrial emissions.
The villain of the piece is the concept of the uniform emission standard. I do not think I need to go into it, because everybody who is present for this debate is here because he knows about the subject, and knows the difference between a uniform emission standard and an individual emission standard. The key to the matter is: what do you want to be the use of the piece of the environment into which the pollutant is emitted? You take your decision. But in the achievement of your purpose a uniform emission standard is totally useless, because it may be 100 factories hitting that standard or one. The European Commission is addicted to the naïve and totally mistaken concept that you can control the environment by this means, on to which it sometimes grafts an even odder one that the emission of a given factory or industry, which is to be tolerated, should be related to its production. So one can imagine a factory where someone simply says, "I have the right to pollute this bit of the
1348
environment"—whatever it is, whether a tiny stream or the open Atlantic—"more and more, because, as you can see, I am increasing my production, which is of course a very good thing in the national interest."
The lead matter, on the other hand, is not necessarily related to this stupid uniform emission standard. It may be related to a uniform consumption standard through the tap—there is some sense in that—but the environment with which we are concerned in the case of lead is human blood and brain. If we can hit and keep below certain levels of lead in that internal environment, then we are all right. I must say that I share the feeling of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that we should not scorn the Commission's attempts in this direction, but should adopt a German attitude towards them; that is to say, we should know what they are and try to hit them. We shall fail to do so, but we should try.
On the titanium dioxide and dumping of waste at sea, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady White that we should adopt the French position; let us be fully informed about what the Directive contains. The Commission is addicted to this harmonisation way outside the field of environment. I would not go along with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in saying that the Environment Department is especially addicted to it. These attempts to harmonise supply and demand in agriculture have been among the most conspicuously unsuccessful attempts by anybody to harmonise anything over the last 15 years. This attempt to harmonise the conditions of sale of poultry threatens, apparently, to deprive us of the right to buy fresh chickens at all, because of this extraordinary draft Directive about guts.
The uniform emission standard approach, the harmonisation approach to the matter, is equivalent to ordering the sun to be turned off in Sicily, because it is unfair to Scottish tomato growers or, alternatively, ordering all the Sicilian tomato growers to build glasshouses, because the Scottish tomato growers have to do so, and that will restore parity of competition. You cannot do it, as many noble Lords have pointed out. The climate is different; everything is different.

1349
I sometimes wonder: can the Community survive the Commission? I answer myself: Yes, but not for much longer. And we must hurry to apply the only possible corrective, which is continuous democratic control through a properly directly elected and fully active European Parliament. That will do the trick, and will get rid of a lot of the nonsense that comes out of the present short-sighted, under-informed, ill-organised and under-qualified bureaucracy in Brussels.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government welcome the opportunity presented by the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lady White to hear the views of the House, and to give their own views on the draft Directives. Like my noble friend, I also regret the inability of the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, to be here with us today and I join in her good wishes for his speedy recovery. Your Scrutiny Committee, under my noble friend's chairmanship, has—as I am sure we all acknowledge—done a very thorough and expert job in looking at these Directives and drawing the attention of your Lordships to some of the serious matters for criticism.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wondered whether these various discussions which we are having in your Lordships' House on the Directives serve any useful purpose. I can assure the noble Lord that the views expressed in this House are indeed noted very carefully. They are certainly passed on to our representation in Brussels, and I have no doubt that they are brought to the attention of the Commission. The noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, visited the Commission last autumn and I have no doubt that they were not completely silent while they were there. I note the point about the desirability of feedback. I am not quite sure how this would be achieved but I will certainly have a word with my right honourable friend about it and see whether there is any possibility of feedback.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, could not the six-monthly report by the Government on activities within the Community be more useful? At the moment it is a waste of time. Could not the Government give an account of what they have done in
1350
response to debates in both Houses, perhaps as an appendix to that report?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that might very well be a useful way of dealing with the matter and I will certainly put the noble Lord's suggestion to my right honourable friend. Turning to the lead standards Directive, we have always made clear our support for measures to reduce the risk of damage to health from lead. In this country we have adopted a good many practical measures, some of which are also the subject of EEC proposals, such as those concerning paint and cooking utensils. There has been a limitation of the lead content in paints for indoor use; it has been limited by voluntary agreement to one per cent. Also, there has been a limitation by regulation to 2,500 parts per million of lead in paint for toys, while the content for pencils and coatings is limited to 250 parts per million.
The EEC proposal for paints is nearly ready to go to the Council and a proposal for toys is at an early stage of drafting. There is also an EEC proposal on ceramics which is being discussed at Council level and another proposal on enamel ware is being developed. Already there are regulations in force based on British standards which limit the amount of lead in glazed ceramic and vitreous enamel, articles designed for use with food, as well as the regulations which control the tinning of saucepans, et cetera. In food, the lead content is at present limited to a maximum of two milligrammes per kilogramme for most food items but the Independent Food Additives and Contaminants Committee has recommended the lowering of the limit to one milligramme per kilogramme for most foodstuffs. Representations on this Committee's report are now being considered.
In so far as lead in petrol is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether it is useful to reduce the content of lead in petrol, if we are to supersede this by putting more cars on the road. We appreciate the noble Lord's point that the number of cars on British roads is likely to continue to increase over the years. However, I do not think we can agree that this fact in itself will negate the benefits to be obtained from reducing

1351
the content of lead in petrol. The programme of phased reductions in the lead content of petrol which was announced by my right honourable friend Mr. Howell in another place on 4th March is based on keeping with the 1971 levels—this allows for estimates of increases in traffic—as advised by the chief medical officer. As your Lordships know, the Government's decision on the lead content in petrol is that there shall be a three stage reduction to a level of 0·5 grammes per litre as soon as practicable, to 0·45 grammes per litre by 1978 and 0·40 grammes per litre by 1981. In connection with this decision, I shall also draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the German experience.
This approach of tackling the risk at source is the most practical one if we are to prevent individuals absorbing too much lead. We have also made it very clear that we entirely support the work of the Commission on devoloping criteria on the dose/effect relationship of particular pollutants and, from these, arriving at quality objectives and, if appropriate, quality standards. We have always, however, insisted that proposals should be based on sound scientific evidence and that it would be quite wrong to adopt too rigid measures on the basis of inadequate information. At the same time we must avoid deferring prudent action simply because we do not know enough.
The Commission's proposals on biological standards for lead in blood and air quality standards for lead go, in our view, too far. The Government, therefore, are in agreement with the points made by the Scrutiny Committee about the inadequacy of the information on which the proposals for standards have been based. The scientific evidence, despite the effort put in over a number of years, is still not such that we can advance to the point where we should lay down, in legislation, precise standards. Such a step would imply in law that every individual exceeding the blood lead limit and everybody in an area in which the air quality standard was exceeded would be in danger. We would not dissent from the view that the sort of figures for the standards proposed are reasonably reliable indicators of where investigation
1352
of the sources of lead should be initiated and action taken. We are, however, opposed to the rigidity and overemphasis on particular figures which would be consequent on enshrining them in legislation and which would carry with them the absolute obligation that they should not be exceeded.
Until we know more, therefore, we should prefer something less rigid in the form of guidelines, or possibly quality objectives. These would set targets to be achieved which, in the light of further evidence, may be further modified or possibly adopted as standards. The main purpose of the proposal is to ensure that appropriate action is taken to deal with particular sources of lead contamination, and that would not be altered. Our attitude is wholly consistent with the recommendations made by the Royal Commission in its recently published Fifth Report. This would be, first, to set the targets to be achieved, which can be amended or changed to standards in the light of further evidence; then to ensure that action is taken as necessary to deal with particular sources of lead pollution (this requires identifying potential areas of risk which we are already doing in the United Kingdom through our monitoring programmes); and then, as a consequence of that, to improve the proposals for monitoring.
The point about the importance of the need to identify areas of potential risk was also made by the Scrutiny Committee and repeated by my noble friend Lady White today. The Government accept this point entirely. The proposals in the Directive are inadequate in this respect but we see no reason why we should not arrive at an answer. We are, at present, already doing a great deal of monitoring in areas where lead levels are known or expected to be higher than average. In the main, such areas exist around industrial sources of lead and near major roads, and are, in relation to the country as a whole, not extensive and readily identifiable.
The proposals for monitoring blood lead in particular do not meet the real needs of the situation. We would advocate first defining more accurately the areas at possible risk by means of monitoring lead in the air in places where people spend most time—in the localities where we know there could be higher

1353
levels of lead in the air. Where these exist it would be more effective to carry out some system of monitoring for blood lead levels. This kind of survey would indicate more accurately the possible dangers and whether there was a need to reduce them. We appreciate the legal difficulties of monitoring blood lead levels. United Kingdom health authorities do not have statutory powers to oblige citizens to submit themselves to medical tests and do not allow samples of blood taken for one purpose, such as blood donations, to be used for another. The Commission has, however, realised that sampling would have to be conducted on a voluntary basis and extra care taken to ensure that the sample is none the less representative.
There appears, therefore, to be little difference between the views of the Scrutiny Committee and those of the Government. We welcome the additional support that this gives—coming, as it does, from such an eminent and well-informed source. We have good reason to believe that a number of other Member States share our views on this Directive and we look forward to arriving at an agreed form of Community document which will meet the real needs of the Community in this matter.
The draft Directive on the quality of water for human consumption is still at a relatively early stage of discussion at official level.
We agree with the views which noble Lords have expressed today, that it is impossible to implement all the details of this Directive within the two years of notification to Member States. The facts quoted in the Committee's report make it clear that other Member States share our problems and we shall make it quite clear in Brussels that two years is unrealistic. We support the Directive in principle, but we are concerned that its requirements should be soundly based scientifically, that they should be realistic and that they should be practicable. We are therefore paying particular attention to the parameters listed in the annexes with which the water must comply, frequency of sampling and the methods of analysis used.
A general criticism which has been widely made is that the Directive does not distinguish sufficiently between sub-
1354
stances which are of proven harm to human health and those which are merely undesirable. We believe that only the former should be subject to mandatory standards. Individual standards have also been criticised as unnecessarily stringent; for example, those for copper and zinc. All the standards are currently under detailed discussion in the Community.
The main problem is lead. The standard proposed is 0·05 milligrammes per litre, and as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said in his very informative speech, that is twice as stringent as the current WHO standard for water in supply of 0·1 milligrammes per litre, though a WHO working group recommended in favour of 0·05 milli-grammes per litre as long ago as 1972. All water put into public supply in the United Kingdom is well within the existing WHO standards, but as my noble friend pointed out today, water from the tap can contain higher levels of lead as a result of contamination from lead piping.
I should like to assure my noble friend Lady White that research is being carried out, with Government support, both into the factors which cause plumbosolvency in water and the treatment of water in areas where the water is plumbosolvent. It is a complex matter. The noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned that soft water can be plumbosolvent. There are, however, soft waters which are not plumbosolvent and there are hard waters which have been found to contain lead, and this research will supplement the knowledge which we shall obtain from the current lead survey and the epidemiological studies which will follow.
There is often variability in the amounts of lead which come away at the tap. A recent survey of lead in water carried out by the Department of the Environment and other Departments in conjunction with the water authorities has shown the complexities of the situation. That report will be published shortly. We shall need to consider carefully whether the medical need to limit the overall intake of lead can best be met by tightening still further the existing WHO standard, bearing in mind that lead from water is only one of the sources of lead ingested by the body and, if so, how far a more stringent standard could be met

1355
by redeployment of sources of supply and by developing more effective means of treating water to reduce its plumbosolvency. If there proved to be a case for setting a more stringent standard for lead in water, this would have to be treated as a target with a realistically long period for implementation because, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, reminded us, of the gigantic expenditure that would be involved.
We know that my noble friend's Committee has been worried about the enforcement of the Directive, particularly about the powers to test water on a consumer's premises. The Directive does not specify the precise point at which its requirements should apply, and in particular at which sampling should take place. It may well be preferable to avoid precision in these respects. We are of course ultimately concerned with the quality of the water as received by the individual, that is, as it comes out of the tap. But the means by which a satisfactory quality of water is assured on a consumer's premises ought, we think, to be left to Governments to decide in the light of varying national circumstances. We think it is important that users of small sources should not be subject to the burden of an extensive testing programme. But again this should be left for Governments to decide.
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, while the statutory duty of water authorities to provide a wholesome supply of water for domestic purposes does not extend to the quality of the water within the consumer's premises, they have power to make and enforce by-laws for preventing the waste, misuse and contamination of water supplied by them. These by-laws are now in force over the whole of the country. Local authorities also have powers to enter premises in the exercise of their public health functions. We are advised that the powers of both kinds of authorities should be adequate for enforcement of the Directive as it stands. These arrangements have worked well in protecting the consumer. Sampling at the tap, whether by water authorities or local authorities, is carried out only where necessary, and the need does not arise very frequently. We see no justification for changing and we shall certainly attach great importance to prac-
1356
tical provision being made for the application and enforcement of the Directive.
My noble friend Lady White and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred to the question of lead in water, and my Department decided, after consultation with the water industry, to set up a national survey of the current levels of lead in water, to ascertain the implications of these proposals. Two thousand four hundred households in England and Wales and 500 in Scotland were included in the survey and we are most grateful to the people concerned for their co-operation. The water put into supply has lead levels below the current and proposed limits, but the levels can be affected by factors such as the length of time the water spends in the lead piping used in the supply system, or in the house itself, and by the chemical nature of the water itself.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, reminded us, the results of the national survey showed that about 2 to 3 per cent. of the households in England and Wales had levels of lead in normal running water in excess of the current limit, and about 8 to 10 per cent. had levels above the proposed limit. In Scotland, the proportion exceeding the limits is somewhat higher, and, moreover, a higher proportion in each case has levels over the limit in the first draw water, Which is the water drawn off first thing in the morning after it has stood in the pipes overnight. The water authorities and the water companies are advising householders about what action may be desirable where higher levels are found, and usually this means not drinking the water which has stood in the pipes for some hours.
On the Directive on the titanium dioxide waste the Minister of State for the Environment, my right honourable friend Mr. Howell, declared on the 16th October last in the Council of Environment Ministers, that we could not accept the proposal in its present form since it embodied uniform standards for controlling discharges of waste, regardless of environmental circumstances. Discharges are said to present a problem in the Mediterranean, but we have no significant problems from our industry which discharges into the North Sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred to the draft Directive on pollution from

1357
pulp mills which was debated in this House on 13th October last year in connection with its proposal for uniform controls on discharges. We intend to take a similar line against ill-conceived uniformity and in favour of flexible controls, designed to produce an acceptable quality in the environment rather than a uniform standard of discharge. On the pulp mills Directive your Lordships generously supported the Government's line in this respect, and we hope that you will be able similarly to endorse our policy here.
As your Lordships know, the draft Dumping of Waste at Sea Directive intends to harmonise within the Community the application of three international Conventions. Each of the Conventions has a regulatory body. We fully support the need to control dumping at sea in accordance with the criteria in the appropriate Convention. However, the draft Directive establishes the Commission as an additional regulatory body whose functions will need the most careful consideration and examination if it is not going to duplicate the works of the others. The intention of the Directive, as I have said, is to harmonise. Your Committee has pointed out that there is a danger that the establishment of the Commission will give rise to duplication of the work already being satisfactorily carried out. We intend to establish what exactly is proposed and to ensure that there is no duplication.
My noble friend Lady White asked some questions about the Bay of Biscay. I am advised that it is not true to say there is prohibition of dumping of all radioactive waste. The draft Directive provides in Annex 2 for the dumping of radioactive waste not prohibited in Annex 1; but those high, medium and low-level wastes prohibited in Annex 1 have yet to be defined. We are completely in compliance with our own international obligations for the dumping of radioactive waste. The selected dumping areas are by international agreement under the control of the nuclear energy Agency. But we do not dump in the Bay of Biscay.
One area where conflict could arise, of course, is in the disposal of radioactive waste. The Commission's proposals envisaged a prohibition on high, medium and low-level radioactive wastes.
1358
This is quite different from the arrangements set out in Annex 1 of the London Convention, which effectively prohibits only the dumping of high-level radioactive wastes as defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Other categories of radioactive wastes may be dumped under this Convention provided this is not contrary to the current recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that a permit has been obtained from the competent national authority. Because of our nuclear energy programme, we shall have a need to dump low-level wastes for the foreseeable future. This is clearly a matter which will have to be vigorously taken up, as the Scrutiny Committee recognised, in our negotiations in Brussels.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, made reference to the environmental controls, and I am sure that we would all share his concern that such controls should be above and outside any nation State level. We are more environmentally orientated here than in many other countries, and perhaps by our criticism of these Directives from time to time we can help with all that is being done. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, also raised the question of more money being made available to the Commission for scientific research. There is a considerable effort in research in support of the Community environment programme, both directly in the Community Joint Research Centre, and indirectly in member countries, and a second research programme is about to start. The Commission usually, but not always, consults widely, and it has available to it the best scientific advice from the experts of the Member States, but it remains free to make its own judgment having received that advice. I will certainly pass on the noble Lord's suggestion that when we have money available this is one source to which it might perhaps be directed.
The draft Directive also envisaged a prohibition of the dumping of acids and alkalis from the titanium dioxide and aluminium industries. The Government share the concern of the Committee that such a prohibition is unjustified. Our long experience leads us to subscribe to the view that these wastes can be safely disposed of in coastal waters, provided that the operation is carried out under

1359
suitable conditions, when the effects of such disposal can be reduced to such a level that little or no ecological disturbance can be observed. We will naturally take up this question also in the forthcoming negotiations in Brussels.
I share the view—I am sure all noble Lords do—of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that here in the United Kingdom we are second to none in our environmental endeavours, and I know the Government appreciate your Lordships' interest. I hope to have shown the Government's awareness of the problems raised by these draft Directives, and also to have shown how we intend to deal with them. I have listened with interest to the debate and have tried to deal with particular points of concern. If I find that I have missed any points, I will get in touch with noble Lords on the points they have raised. Much of what has been said is indeed helpful in supporting the Government's attitude. I would hope in turn that those who have expressed concern are reassured about what action the Government intend to take. But I would not wish to be pressed to go beyond the present statements of intent, since, as your Lordships will undoubtedly appreciate, this will allow discretion to the Government and will not embarrass them in their room for manoeuvre.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I should like to express the gratitude both of myself and of my Committee to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Perhaps I might say that we were delighted to have the unexpected bonus of contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lord Kennet, which added greatly to the quality of our deliberations. I was also particularly happy that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who has perhaps as close a knowledge of the workings of the Community as any noble Lord in this House, put our debate into the European context in, I thought, a particularly enlightening and illuminating way. I am also most grateful to my noble friend Lady Stedman for her comprehensive reply to the debate.
If I may make just two small points of regret, they are these. She did not make any reference to the esuggestion from the
1360
Committee that there should be consideration of building regulations for new houses which would prohibit the use of lead pipes in any new construction. I am sure this inadvertent omission does not mean that the Government will not pay some attention to it. Maybe she will be able to write to us in the Committee to let us know what is proposed. The other matter on which I felt some slight disappointment was her suggestion that it would be possible for the Community to administer a quite separate set of rules for dumping at sea without an element of duplication. I think those on the Committee take this point extremely seriously; we think that where you have adequate, fully international arrangements, it is not desirable as a matter of policy to embark on other rules for the same marine area which inevitably, if they are to mean anything at all, will mean duplication of administration. We would hope very much that our representatives in Brussels will make this point with considerable force.
Finally, I should like to say that I trust that our colleagues in Brussels, not least those in the Commission itself, will not take amiss the criticisms we have felt obliged to make. We do so in the most constructive and, we hope, helpful and co-operative way. We genuinely wish to see achieved the objectives aimed at in these various Directives. It is largely the methods to which we have taken exception.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HONG KONG
6.48 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY Lord BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what decisions have been reached regarding the social, economic and political future of Hong Kong. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I want to begin by acknowledging that I have not been to Hong Kong. I have not been further East than Singapore. But I have developed over the years a curious identity with the people of Hong Kong. I have had innumerable letters from those resident there. I have tried to study all the reports. I think it likely that the picture which I have

1361
gained may be a little unbalanced, because those who have communicated with me have been mostly the underprivileged, but the fact that my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will be replying, and was there last year, may correct any imbalance which my remarks reflect.
My Lords, I want to express particular thanks to two of those who have been informing me on this question. The first is Mr. Walter Easy. He is now Secretary of the Hong Kong Research Project, and he himself was a policeman in Hong Kong between the years 1962 and 1968. He has acknowledged from his own experience the widespread corruption in the police, the enforcement of bribes under threat of trumped-up charges, and the harassment of the poor. He has admitted that he has connived at this while he was in the police service. He is now seeking to correct that record by his service to the people of Hong Kong.
The second person to whom I am greatly indebted is Councillor Elsie Elliott. She went to Hong Kong as a missionary. She established in a tent a school for 20 children. Her school now has 3,000 children. She has been fearless in her championship of the rights of the underprivileged people of Hong Kong, and, despite the abuse which the establishment have thrust upon her, her integrity is so much recognised that even the very limited franchise which elects the urban council has returned her with the highest majorities in Hong Kong. I want to pay tribute to that brave woman, whom I have met in this country and with whom I have been in frequent communication. I regard her as the Florence Nightingale and the Sister Teresa of Hong Kong. The population of Hong Kong is 4 million, only 1 per cent. of whom is European. The population is larger than many of the countries which now have their independence.
I want to speak first about the corruption there. One often hears new nations in Africa and Asia denounced for their corruption; I denounce them. But I doubt whether there is a single one of the new nations where corruption is so integrated into the whole of the Administration as it is in Hong Kong. May I give two examples? First, in the streets of Hong Kong there are 100,000 hawkers who have to have licences for their stalls, and for the place from which they operate.
1362
There is an absolute protection racket throughout the whole of that relationship. There are secret societies, triads, which work closely with the police and which demand bribes from the hawkers; otherwise they will be charged with trumped-up charges. There is a similar system of corruption among the many mini-cab drivers, who again have to have licences. The corruption by the police was so well known that it took place in the streets, and Councillor Elsie Elliott has photographs of it taking place. Because of her public exposure of it and the photographs, it now takes place in secret rooms. It has become a part of the life of Hong Kong.
This corruption does not apply only to the ranks of the police force; it extends to the most senior officers. There is the notorious case of Ernest Hunt, who admitted in court that he had amassed £500,000 over 18 years as a policeman. Because this became known as a result of the agitation in Hong Kong by Elsie Elliott and others, a Commission Against Corruption has been established. I have asked Questions in this House about it. In February 1975 there were 1,798 complaints to the Commission against the police, and 1,550 against other departments. I want to ask the Minister questions of which I have given him notice. How many complaints have now been made to the Commission Against Corruption; how many have now been investigated; how many of these investigations have been completed; and how many convictions have there been?
The unhappy state of Hong Kong is not limited to corruption. Councillor Elsie Elliott gives evidence in her reports that the administration of the courts is weighted heavily against the poor and the uninformed Chinese. This may often be due to their ignorance rather than bias of the magistrates. I want to pay particular tribute to the late John Miller, who was known throughout Hong Kong as, "The just magistrate". Sometimes legal representation of these poor and ignorant people is not available. I want to appeal to the Government tonight and ask that legal aid should be expanded, that there should be no means test for it and that it should be available to all who need it. I should like to see attached to every court a prisoner's friend, similar to our probation officers, who would sympathetically explain, advise and help.
The unhappiness of Hong Kong goes further than this. It is absolutely unique in the British Colonial system for its absence of democratic rights. There is no Legislature, and therefore no vote for it. There is only an urban council. Those who vote for it are limited to one in ten of the adult population. The scope of the urban council, in the words of The Times of February 1975, is:
"…whose duties and responsibilities are concentrated largely on garbage collection, tree planting, hawkers' licences, and restriction on spitting."
That is the extent of democracy in our largest colony.
In Hong Kong there is no free compulsory education; there is no free medical service open to all; there are no unemployment benefits; there are no old age or widows' pensions; there is no paid maternity leave; there is no maternity allowance; there is no minimum wage; there is no limitation of the hours of work for males over 18. Legal and illegal child labour are rife, as indicated only last January in the report of the Christian Industrial Committee. There is in Hong Kong the worst heroin traffic in the whole world. It also has the third worst suicide rate.
In contrast to this, it is often pointed out how much the Administration has clone in the housing sphere and the encouragement that has been given to trade unions. I will only say on housing that when areas with small huts are demolished and blocks of buildings are created, those blocks are constructed on one-third of the land previously occupied by the huts and two-thirds of the area is leased to private companies. One welcomes the encouragement that has been given to trade unions, but they are still terribly restricted. For example, no casual labourer in Hong Kong—the number of such workers is very large—is allowed to join a trade union.
One asks why there is this terribly unhappy state of affairs in our largest remaining colony. If there had not been special circumstances, Hong Kong would have advanced to political independence in the wave of liberation which occurred after the war. The British occupation of Hong Kong began in a way of which we must all be ashamed; it was annexed after the infamous opium war of 1829
1364
when the Chinese Government sought to stamp out opium smuggling, which was a major source of British profit. We declared war and Hong Kong was made an opium base. I sometimes think that wrong beginnings determine future injustice.
In addition to the Island of Hong Kong, Kowloon was seized in 1860 and a large mainland new territory leased from China for 99 years in 1898. China has refused to accept these unequal treaties but we now have a strange situation. China found British occupation an advantage—for trade in the world, for foreign earnings and as a centre of financial institutions—but the situation is changing. China has become a major exporter of oil and, because of the financial advantages of that, China is no longer dependent on Hong Kong. Our occupation has been valuable for Britain in terms of the profits of its companies, in the contribution it has made to our balance of payments and in terms of the military outpost there. However, the lease for the mainland ends in 21 years and without the mainland territory Hong Kong itself would not be valid. Its ultimate return to China has become inevitable.
I urge that, meanwhile, we must accept responsibility for the 4 million Chinese in Hong Kong. The Commission Against Corruption is not enough. The whole Administration must be overhauled, the courts brought into relation with the people; we must establish social services, minimum living wages, maximum hours and make Hong Kong a place where its millions have the opportunity to live a human life. This will be a very big task but it need not be expensive for Britain. Business in Hong Kong is extraordinarily profitable. The incomes of the élite there are the highest in Asia except for the sheikhs in the Middle East. Hong Kong's wealth has just been indicated by the new defence agreement; this year it will pay this country 50 per cent. of the cost of the British garrison, next year 62½per cent. and, thereafter, 75 per cent. There is plenty of money in Hong Kong.
The necessary planning will require technical experience beyond the present Administration. I urge the Government to gather a team of skilled civil servants and others under a chairman who is both realistic and imaginative: a Commission

1365
of Reconstruction. It should include in its objectives the extension of democracy. The argument is sometimes used that Peking will not allow democracy to be established in Hong Kong, but experience in the Portuguese similar area of Macau indicates that that is not true; the Chinese have agreed there to adult suffrage and a direct vote to the legislature. When Hong Kong eventually becomes absorbed into China let us be proud of the society which we have helped to create there. China is building a new society. When Hong Kong's millions join it, let them have an experience of democracy which they can contribute to it.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, for once I have great pleasure in sharing a negative experience with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in that I, too, have not had the pleasure or opportunity of going to Hong Kong. However, I do not share with him the opportunity of having read the very interesting correspondence on which he based such a large part of his Question and, accordingly, I can only use for my contribution to this short debate information which is official or which has been published in the rather better daily or weekly newspapers. The noble Lord will forgive me, therefore, if, owing to the lack of availability of the same sources of information, I do not deal with all the points he mentioned.
The noble Lord, in his own inimitable way, at least managed to avert our gaze from the more troubled domestic economic scene of the United Kingdom to a part of the world where certainly the economy at least is very much more salubrious. I understand that quite a number of his proposals and facts, or at any rate his observations, came from a Fabian report which was commented upon in one of the daily newspapers. It rightly emphasised the enormous amount of social injustice, and those who have been to Hong Kong and to whom I have spoken have confirmed that there are terrible housing conditions in parts of Hong Kong, and this nobody would deny. But for a report to be valuable it must be objective and fair and must realise the conditions under which the people of Hong Kong have been living and have to live, the contribution and work of the governing body of Hong Kong and the
1366
elected bodies which work under the Government.
First, if the noble Lord was referring to the trade in narcotics, it is true to say that there is a considerable amount of opium taking and that Hong Kong has become one of the traditional outposts for trading in this drug. But it is also true to say that this has been a tradition for centuries in that part of the world. That has to be taken into account and I would advise the noble Lord of the comments of Chinese and other Asians who come here to this country and see the enormous amount of alcoholism. When they go back, precisely the same comments are made about alcoholism in Western Europe as the noble Lord has been making about opium in Hong Kong. So I feel that this must also be viewed with a certain amount of tolerance, however much we ourselves may deplore the use of opium and drug trafficking, which is an evil which we should wish and hope to see suppressed. I believe that it is fair to put it in its proper perspective.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to the very large population of Hong Kong. However, he did not mention the fact that the population has increased from about 600,000 to 4½ million in the last 30 years. That is an enormous increase by any standards and a proportional increase in this country would not only not be tolerated but would be quite impossible to administer. This must be taken in relation to the size of the territory on which these people are living. Nor did the noble Lord refer to the almost impossible difficulty of resolving the franchise problem because the population has not only increased but is an ever-changing population. That makes it all the more difficult to administer. I was very interested to see in a recent communiqué from the Community Relations Commission that by far the largest ethnic group in the schools in this country are children of Chinese origin. It is of course true that they are coming into this country from Hong Kong. This merely emphasises the point that considerable numbers are crossing the border the whole time. Again, that must make administration a nightmare for those responsible.
The noble Lord mentioned schooling. I believe that he was probably slightly unfair. From the information that I

1367
have, there are about 1,200,000 schoolchildren registered in the Hong Kong schools. That is about a quarter of the population of the country. By any standards, that is a vast problem and it cannot just be brushed aside by saying that nothing is done about it. To have a proportion of 25 per cent. of the population of school age must set any Government an enormous problem.
In the past five or six years, 1¼ million of the people coming into Hong Kong have been refugees, so if the noble Lord is making these comments about Hong Kong and criticising the Government, I believe that it is fair to nut the other side. What the noble Lord did not mention—which is perhaps hardly surprising—was the enormous benefit which is flowing to the whole population of Hong Kong from its increased economic growth. I gather—and these are the only statistics I have seen, though the noble Lord may perhaps have others—that the gross domestic product is increasing at an annual rate of something like 7¼ per cent. One need only think of the Hong Kong dollar which in 1971 was 14½ to the pound sterling and is now 10 to the pound sterling. That in itself gives a very fair comparison of the benefits of a free market economy and free enterprise. I do not think that I need say much more on that point.
With regard to the growth of industry which, after all, affects the whole labour force of Hong Kong, Hong Kong is a very small territory in relation to world land space but it has now become the sixteenth largest trading nation in the world. Not only does one realise the effect of a free market economy but one must pay strong tribute to the people themselves. They are willing to work hard. They want to improve their living conditions and to remain independent. That may account for the comparatively small number who belong to trade unions.
With regard to the defence of Hong Kong, which, as the noble Lord rightly said, is a vital element, I should like to draw attention to the Third Report of the Expenditure Committee for 1975–76 on Hong Kong and Cyprus. I refer to the summary of conclusions, page xxiii. Conclusion 2 reads,
"We consider that the continued presence of British forces in Hong Kong is vital to the
1368
continued existence and the economic wellbeing of the Colony."
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, when he comes to reply to the Question, will be able to make some comment on this point.
Of course it is not for me to attempt to answer the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because it is rightly addressed to the Government. Nevertheless, I think it right to put some of the points in favour of the people of Hong Kong, and by that I do not mean only the upper class and richer people of Hong Kong, but all those who live there and who contribute by their work to the improvement of their standards of living.
When the noble Lord speaks of there being no maternity allowance and no minimum wage, I should like to draw his attention to some of the social provisions is this country. Maternity allowance was only very recently introduced in this country, after very many years of National Insurance. Maternity allowance was not considered necessary. Nor do we in this country have a minimum wage. It is not correct to attack a country like Hong Kong for not having benefits which we ourselves do not have.
In conclusion, I should like to see Hong Kong remaining a prime financial centre for South-East Asia and working in harmony with its great neighbour China. I should like an assurance from the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that they have no plans to change the constitutional establishment or status of Hong Kong and that we, as a country, and Her Majesty's Government in particuar, will continue to fulfil our obligations to our greatest Crown Colony, Hong Kong.
7.18 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I always listen wtih respectful attention to the noble Baroness, but I was not quite sure which side she was on during her speech. One felt that she was speaking more for the Hong Kong chamber of commerce than for the British Government and that she was rather rejoicing in a very odd economy which has done infinite harm to the economy of this country in the last few years.
The reason why I am taking part in this debate is that 30 years ago Lancashire Members of Parliament were

1369
calling attention to the devastating effect of miserably paid competition from Hong Kong, in particular, and South-East Asia, in general, which was putting people here out of work and destroying our cotton textile industry. I recall my noble friend Lord Brockway and I, who were both members of War on Want, being almost attacked by fellow Members of Parliament for trying to undermine the stability of the workers in Hong Kong and their conditions by suggesting that that competition was unfair. Of course, we replied, given fair conditions, that was exactly what we were asking for.
Thirty years have passed since then, and I dare say that many other speeches have been made by myself and others. Now we take another look. The noble Baroness said correctly that the population has gone up since then from 600,000 to 4¼ million. I hope that she will forgive me for saying so, but she seemed to give the impression of speaking of that as some form of population planning which had produced benefits. It is not a good thing to be grossly overcrowded, particularly when out of the 400 acres that constitutes the established and the leasehold parts of Hong Kong, the overwhelming majority of the population are on the Island of Hong Kong and Kowloon, which represents only about a tenth of the total area. That is dreadful overcrowding.
When we look at it today, we find that Hong Kong contains 4¼ million people, 500 churches, 150 religions and 137 banks. One commentator says that there are the same numbers in the City of London, but I find that difficult to believe in view of the growth in the City; banks are growing everywhere. There is a record of corruption almost unequalled in modern history, and there is practically no national debt. As the noble Baroness said, there is an admirable looking balance sheet. Hitler could have shown something similar, and so could Tiberius, if the figures were available.
A dictatorship running on excessively low wages can, of course, show such figures: no national debt, and running an adverse trade balance with the United Kingdom which amounted, I think, in 1973 to £100 million a year. To be quite fair, I should say that they reduced it in the following year to something nearer
1370
to £60 million. My noble friend Lord Brockway has detailed the failures of the Government of Hong Kong to implement the minimum standards of decency which are required.
Meanwhile, as the noble Lord said, and as everybody says—there is no doubt about this—we exist by the courtesy of the Government of China. When I refer to China I no longer mean Taiwan, but President Nixon's China. They have behaved admirably. There is always a touch of pragmatism in their approach, and political pragmatism has an element of political cynicism. They find it quite convenient to have the entrepreneurial trade there; they find it equally convenient to be able to point to Hong Kong as a horrid example of the evils of capitalism. They have not got any corruption in China, so far as anyone has yet been able to find out. They have helped in times of emergency, and on occasion they have shown temporary annoyance and a demonstration of their power when, as a couple of years ago, they suddenly granted exit permits to a large number of the citizens that they regarded as most undesirable, and 50,000 came in to swell Hong Kong, to make a demand on housing, water supplies, and so on.
That is the position. But I should differ slightly from my noble friend on this. I think that the present Government of Hong Kong is probably the most honest they have ever had, and perhaps the most able. I think that this limitation of 21 years completely and absolutely controls possibilities of long-term planning now. One really cannot involve oneself in enormous capital expenditure, which cannot repay its debt or anything like it, if the country is passing to China. I am not certain that it will pass to China, but it has to pass if they ask for it. Indeed, it could pass to China tomorrow if they have made a motion. Nobody questions that; it would be silly to say anything else. The Chinese could release a million of the civilian population which would not be noticed in China for a week or two. The problem could be solved without even any arms or any demonstrations. The Chinese have behaved, in the circumstances, with understanding and generosity.
The other thing that has happened, as the noble Baroness said, is that the

1371
pound and the Chinese Hong Kong dollar have been floated. The Hong Kong dollar floated upstream, while the pound was sinking. It may very well be that at this moment they find it extremely difficult to compete with Lancashire because of the rise in the value of the Hong Kong dollar. This is not very meritorious, because we are speaking in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and this represents an accumulation of mistakes that surely really means disaster. I have heard, too, that the independent committee against corruption, which has now been functioning for two years, is doing its best. It has achieved some major successes, but of course is facing a problem whose roots are so deep and so widespread that the committee cannot hope to succeed wholly in extirpating a corruption which is almost part of the people.
Finally, one should say that there are 10,000 independent small registered businesses in Hong Kong. It is true that there have always been trading nations; the Lombards in the 11th century in France, the Jews, the Indians in Africa, who are now to be replaced by the Kikuyu, I think. They have always been trading races, and very often their economies are based on the family economy. One can work 15 or 16 hours a day if one is working for one's mother, sister, brother and uncle, but it is not so attractive when one is working for a highly paid part-time director. I should have thought that even a Labour Government would have had sense enough to know that this is not a very good way to start to try to develop an immense—and perhaps too immense—combine.
My Lords, in view of what happened last night I propose to have a little mercy upon the staff and the Members of the House, and to go home to bed rather earlier than I otherwise would—
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to point out that he misquoted me on at least two or three occasions. I ask him to do me the courtesy of reading in the Official Report tomorrow exactly what I said. I will not take up the time of the House now in correcting every statement, but I ask the noble Lord to look in the Official Report to see what I said.
Lord HALE: Most certainly, my Lords.
7.29 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is not here because I have often taken part with him on occasions such as this, and very often we had some sympathy with each other in what we had to say. But this evening I regret that I have not any sympathy with what he said, because I believe that he has given a picture which is not the realistic picture of Hong Kong. I had the opportunity of going there in 1946, and I have been several times since. I must say that it is quite amazing what has happened to the island, and how it has revitalised itself. I think we can say that a really excellent job has been done—all the people working together. I have also lived in Indonesia and in Malaysia for considerable periods, and I therefore have the greatest respect for the Chinese people. We have to remember that their civilisation is a great deal older than ours. They have kept their traditions in the many countries in which they have worked, and have successfully contended with all kinds of conditions.
Hong Kong's reaction to the world depression has been no strikes and no serious industrial disputes; and when the shadows of the world recession darkened their nation, groups of workers organised their own internal systems of shared labour and part-time rotation. I should like to quote what they said:
"Share the bowl of rice which has temporarily"—
and I should like to emphasise the word "temporarily"—
"replaced the normal two bowls; don't break the empty one".
I think this is the way in which they have tackled the crisis at the present time.
Mention has been made of the Chinese extended family system. I think this is admirable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hale, that when you are working for your family you obviously work harder, and probably better; and, though most of the people work for firms, and so on, they think that they are working for their families, because they are so proud of their children and they want them to have a better future

1373
than they themselves had. Whether they remained in Hong Kong during the war or whether, as so many of them did, they went to the mainland, or whether they are the one who have been mentioned who have come from the mainland to get a better life, they are thinking of the future of their families. One has to remember that a great many of these Chinese think that some of the mistakes of the past—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would agree with me in this—have been that we have imposed too many European standards on the people in the countries which are erstwhile colonial territories, though I must say that, as a whole, we have not done anything with regard to their religion or to the culture of the people.
Trade expansion in Hong Kong depends, as has been mentioned, upon trade and good relations with China, because we are not only dependent upon them for food coming down the Yangtse River and the Pearl River; we also need their water. But the Chinese do not just leave Hong Kong to this trade. They have got very large, shall I say, "safaris", who have been visiting countries like the United States, the Eastern European countries and the Arab States—in fact, I believe about 153 countries in all—to get other trade. I have recently read the Fabian pamphlet called Britain's Responsibility, and I would suggest that at present the British Government are guardians of the territory. If the Chinese are only left alone, I think they will be able to thrive under a liberal type of colonial rule. I think that is exactly what is happening at the present time. That is why I was not very happy about the statements in the Fabian pamphlet, because they went on to say:
"For socialists, indeed for any liberal British observer, the patent injustices and exploitation in Hong Kong are unacceptable and inexplicable".
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned hawkers. There is now, of course, as he probably knows, legislation, and the hawkers have been taken off the streets, not only because they block the roadways but in order to give them the protection that he mentioned. The Chinese who left Hong Kong during the war returned in 1945 to 1947, when the population was, as mentioned by my noble friend, 600,000. Then it rose, in 1971, to 1,800,000; and it is now just over 4 million. What I think
1374
is even more admirable is that they received 4,000 Vietnamese refugees. With all their other problems, that is really an example to us. Furthermore, they were able to open the universities as early as 1946, when they had 109 students. By 1975 they had expanded this number to over 3,500, besides sending as many as they could overseas, to this country and to other countries in Europe.
In regard to welfare, a social welfare office was formed as early as 1946 and it became an independent department in 1958. It may be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to know that eight times as much is now being spent as was spent eight years ago. There is also a Community Chest comprising 70 different organisations and over 100 voluntary organisations, with the Council of Social Service at their head. This was also formed in 1946. What I am also very pleased to say—because I am interested in both—is that there is a school for the deaf and a school for the blind, and also workshops for the blind. Why I particularly wish to mention the school for the deaf is because previously the only method of teaching them was through English. Now, with the modern instruments, they can teach these children Cantonese. Cantonese is a tone language, so it is more difficult; but it does mean that when the pupils go home they can converse with their parents, and so on; and it is really rather thrilling to see these small children and the interest they are taking.
Also, of course, the Chinese have outside representation. They have representatives to deal with GATT, with UNTAD and with the EEC. Mention has also been made of wages. The wages as a whole—not just the millionaires—are still the highest in the Far East, with the exception of Japan. In regard to the problems—and of course there are problems—I would mention housing first because, obviously, it is the most important. One thing that everybody needs in order to have a happy family is to have a good roof over their head and somewhere where they can live in comfort. My Lords, 1·7 million Hong Kong dollars have been spent between 1954 and 1973, and 1·8 million dollars are allocated now. In the early days—and I have done so since—I visited some of the housing which. I agree, was very standard. In

1375
fact, when I saw the Governor last time he said, "When you came previously, when I was First Secretary, you ticked me off". I could not remember what I had said, but he told me that I had complained about the standard of housing, and he agreed with me. There is already certain money specially allocated for rebuilding these old blocks; in other words, instead of having the one room, as they had before, with communal washing and so on, they are going to be made into fiats. Unlike a great many other nationalities, the Chinese have a tremendous facility for home-making. If you go to certain towns, like Calcutta in India, and if you compare their standards with those of the people who come out of the houses on the hillsides in China—and there are still some—it is quite remarkable when you see them coming out in their beautifully starched garments.
The question of drug addiction has been mentioned, and action has been taken by the Committee against Narcotics, which advises the Government. At the moment there are about 100,000 addicts, mostly males; that is only 2 per cent. of the population. A great many of them—and I have been to see the places where they are rehabilitated—have not reverted; they have really been cured of drug-taking. I would agree that schooling is still a difficult proposition. I do not know whether any action can be taken by the Hong Kong Government, but what worires me is the fact that children have to leave school at 12 and are not legally allowed to go to work until they are 14. So there is a two-year gap, which I think means that many of them go to work illegally. On the other hand, through the activities of the inspectors, child labour is going down. But, of course, the situation is very difficult when you have 25,000 factories—the industry is very fragmented—only 118 of which have over 500 workers and about 15,000 of which have less than ten workers. But the inspectors do prosecute. We have now seen, too, that everybody has holidays with pay; but still there is no payment for rest days. I think this is unfortunate, because it means that people do not take their rest when they should. Therefore, I should like to see payment on rest days, if possible.
1376
Then we come to the question of family planning. There is a greater need for help in this work. When one goes to China and is able to see for oneself how the Chinese there keep to the standard of two children per family, one hopes that perhaps the Chinese in Hong Kong may feel that they are able to take that example. If not, in 10 years' time there will be 5·3 million Chinese on this small area.
The other problem is pensions. There are pensions for those over 75; but I cannot discover the average age of the Chinese. Whether they have much expectation of drawing their pensions for a long time, I do not know. I should like to see the elderly single people, who are in great numbers but who are obviously rather neglected, given some more help. I should like to make a suggestion: that we might suggest to the Government of Hong Kong that there be a tax on tourists going to hotels. There is a very good tourist industry. If you go to France you pay tax on the hotel bill according to the number of days that you stay. At one time we thought of introducing such a tax in this country; but I suggest that it might be useful in Hong Kong.
I would mention also the fact that women's progress is quite considerable in Hong Kong. They had the first woman stockbroker and the first woman to be ordained in the Church of England. Their youth organisations are doing well. If in proportion to the population we could say that we had 60,000 youth in uniformed organisations, we should be delighted: but we have, of course, a great many other organisations run by the Church and voluntary organisations which do a great job in helping young people. The British Council should be mentioned too because they are a very great asset and are much appreciated by the people of Hong Kong.
My Lords, I finish by saying that there is still a great deal of superstition in Hong Kong, and among the Chinese in general. When the Queen and her family visited Hong Kong, the first reigning Monarch to do so, they found that it was on the birthday of Ten Han, the goddess of Heaven and the protectress of seafarers. I hope that this augers well for the future of Hong Kong.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I apologise for the fact that I was out of the Chamber for a moment when she began her speech?
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I was merely saying that on many occasions we have taken part in debates like this and often I have agreed with the noble Lord. Today, I am afraid I cannot do so.
7.42 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I feel that we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Brockway for raising once again for discussion in this House the situation in Hong Kong. Having said that, I should like to part company with him in many of the comments he made. In my view, he described in perhaps too minute detail only one side of the coin. May he perhaps take it from me as an old friend of many years' standing that there is another side to Hong Kong. He has only to read the speech in Hansard of my noble friend Lord Hale to see that he took a rather more moderate, perhaps less rigid doctrinaire view of the situation when he said that the present British Administration in Hong Kong is the best Administration that Hong Kong has yet had. Those were the words of Lord Hale. I go with the noble Lord in that. If my noble friend Lord Brockway says that that is not saying very much, then again I would part company with him and say that it is saying a very great deal.
Of course, he is right about corruption. We know that corruption exists in Hong Kong to an appalling extent; but I would say most emphatically that while corruption is endemic in every country in South-East Asia, it is less marked in Hong Kong than in any other. I feel a little hesitant in accepting the views of people who pass judgment from a distance of 14,000 miles, people who are ready to absorb all the complaints of visitors to this country from Hong Kong, without going out and investigating for themselves not only the conditions in Hong Kong, but the conditions in the Philippines, the conditions in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in South Korea and in South Vietnam as we used to know it. They would be thankful to come back to Hong Kong and see what success the British Administration has been able to achieve on behalf
1378
of the native population there. He spoke to us of the marvellous work that Councillor Elsie Elliott has been doing in Hong Kong. I go with him in every word he said. She is a noble character. She has been doing magnificent work and almost single-handed. It is almost parallel to the work that my noble friend Lord Brockway has been doing consistently in this country through the whole of his life. If he would forgive me, I would describe my noble friend as the Councillor Elsie Elliott of our own public life in this country—and I say that as a genuine tribute to the work that he has done because he is a friend of old standing. We know each other reasonably well although there are many points on which we may agree to differ.
There are many other points in his remarks that I should like to take up. Perhaps some of the answers were given by my noble friend Lord Hale. Lord Hale was quite right when he described the intense competition that our textile industries in Lancashire have had to endure from cheap labour in Hong Kong. I sat with him for some years as a fellow Lancashire MP in the House of Commons. I would ask how it is that, repeatedly, under successive Labour Governments, the situation has been tolerated. That is the other side of the coin and there is a reason for it. Even today the imports keep coming in from South-East Asia, from Hong Kong, from Taiwan and other countries, imports which our Labour Government persists in allowing into this country. All I want to say, without trying to justify it, is that there is another side to this case.
My noble friend spoke about child labour in Hong Kong. I believe that the labour regulations of our British Administration have been more liberal and more effective than any labour regulations in any of the countries of South-East Asia; and although they are faced with an uphill task, I think that they are doing magnificent work in this direction.
There are many other points that I should like to follow up in the remarks of both my colleagues on this side of the House: from the speech of my noble friend Lord Brockway to the rather milder, more objective and more balanced approach of my noble friend Lord Hale. Perhaps I may be forgiven on these Benches for going slightly more to the

1379
other extreme. Reference has been made to the family life in this unhappy country, as my noble friend Lord Brockway described it. "This unhappy country" to my mind is one of the happiest areas that I have been in in the whole of South-East Asia. Having travelled again and again, three or four times, over most territories in that area, one is able not only to meet people and hear their complaints but to get the feeling of life in the area.
Reference has been made to the enormous growth of the population in Hong Kong. The British Administration has had to cope with a flood of immigrants into that tiny territory. And from where do they come? They come in from one direction, from the mainland of Communist China. The noble Lord may take my word for it, the facts are irrefutable: the movement is in one direction only. It is not a two-way flow. The Government of Hong Kong would raise no objection if people wanted to go out of that "unhappy" country into the "happy" country of Communist China. But no such migration has taken place.
Lord HALE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me reminding him that the population of Communist China has increased in the same period by 400 million.
Lord SEGAL: Yes, my Lords, but the territory of Communist China is vastly greater than the territory of Hong Kong. I yield on this point, except I insist that this is a one-way traffic in human souls—and I will come to this later in my remarks. Unfortunately, latterly there has been a forcible traffic.
A point of criticism that I would level against the British Administration in Hong Kong is the forcible migration of unhappy people, refugees from Communist China, forcibly repatriated into Communist China. Whatever criticism may be levelled against our Administration of that Crown Colony as the last remaining outpost of colonialism—the citadel of paternalism, and so on—it is only fair to point out that our own Westminster concepts of democracy, representation of the people by free elections, are not always universally applicable. We may regret this, but it is nevertheless a
1380
fact, and particularly so in Hong Kong. They have to be considered in perspective, and especially in perspective of the surrounding territorities. Corruption, as we know, is endemic in the whole of that part of the world. It is not unknown even in other parts of Asia, India, Ceylon, look where you may. I believe that more genuine, effective methods have been taken to suppress corruption in Hong Kong than in almost any other territory that my noble friend would care to name.
Here we are dealing not in any sense with a developing territory. Hong Kong today is a highly developed, sophisticated area. The Chinese people have a civilisation and culture of their own that is 5,000 years old—3,000 years older than ours. We have a great deal to learn from them in culture, art, and the philosophy of Goverment—far more than we, with our 700 years of Parliamentary history, are able to give to them. Nor have we the right to remain in Hong Kong today as a ruling Power unless we are fully able to justify our right to remain there. We are there today only on sufference in the interests of the native population and of the vast adjoining territory of Communist China. Let us never forget that beyond the tiny 16 miles of frontier lies a vast population of over 800 million—nearly a quarter of the world's total population. It is 16 times the size of our own population and 200 times greater than the population of Hong Kong.
It is probably true that the standards of education, the general level of prosperity and the average working wage, are higher in Hong Kong today than in any of the adjacent territories. The economic growth of Hong Kong has been phenomenal and its impact has also been felt in Communist China. But with it there has also been a rapid growth in higher education, housing development, medical, cultural and recreational facilities without parallel in South-East Asia, except possibly in Singapore, which has only a half of Hong Kong's population. Above all, we must remember that our British administration is in Hong Kong today not as a colonial Power, any more than the Portuguese today are masters of the nearby territory of Macau, already referred to by my noble friend Lord Brockway. There is no parallel whatsoever between the growth of democracy

1381
with the active encouragement, if you will, of Communist China among a population of from between 30 to 40 thousand and a rapid growth of democracy among a population of well over 4 million.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, what I was saying was that in Macau there is now adult sufferage, there is direct elections, and that has been accepted by Communist China. That is in great contrast to the administration in Hong Kong.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, the size of Macau is a little attic compared to the territory in Hong Hong. The population of Macau is only a tiny fraction of the population of Hong Hong. You can encourage the growth of democracy more easily when you are dealing with a population of from between 30 to 40 thousand largely indigenous than when dealing with a vast population of over 4¼ million composed almost entirely of refugees. The problems are in no sense analogous.
We must realise that we remain in Hong Kong only by consent of the administration in Peking. It might be an exaggeration to say that if Peking sneezes, Hong Kong is liable to catch pneumonia. But there is a slight element of truth in this assertion. Even so, the medical services in Hong Kong have made such rapid progress that they are easily able to cope with even an epidemic of pneumonia, if it should arise in that colony. All those admirable reforms suggested by my noble friend Lord Brockway can be introduced only with the approval of Peking, which may not always be taken for granted.
Here I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, whether we can take it for granted that the administration of Peking would necessarily approve of an immediate wider application of democratic principles among the population of Hong Kong? For example, would a growth of Party factions, democratic institutions, more active and more militant trade unions—which are badly needed in Hong Kong—or free elections be possible today, unless Peking had given its prior consent? How far would Peking approve of further progress in Hong Kong along the path of democracy without taking great care it has the last word, not only in the extent of that progress but also in the rate of that progress? Yet, having said this, I must confess
1382
there is one aspect of our administration in Hong Kong which fills me with the direst misgivings. In the past two years there has been almost a total reversal of our humanitarian policy of giving asylum—even of temporary asylum until they can find refuge elsewhere among their own people—to refugees who arrive in Hong Kong from the Chinese mainland. Hong Kong was generous in providing temporary asylum to thousands of refugees from South Vietnam who fled to her territory after the fall of Saigon. They were granted refuge at the expense of the Hong Kong Government until they could be absorbed into other territories.
In the 12 months December 1974 to the end of November 1975 no less than 1,282 hapless refugees who reached Hong Kong from Communist China—some in peril of their lives and nearly all after undergoing appalling hardships were turned back and sent to whence they came. It is indeed a tragic story. An average of more than 100 refugees a month have had to suffer this humiliation, to put it at its mildest. It is true that in the past few months these figures have dropped to a mere trickle.
There is something about this traffic strangely reminiscent of the Ernest Bevin régime during the last days of our Palestine mandate—also, let it be said, under a Labour Government—when thousands of Jewish refugees were sent back to Germany in rotting hulks like the "Exodus", refugees who were seeking asylum in a land of spiritual freedom. I am fully cognisant of the difficulties in Hong Kong, and of the dangers impending. The trickle could very easily resolve itself into a cascade, and the cascade into a tidal wave, in which thousands of refugees might be involved. But has this reversal of policy taken place at the request of Peking? If so, I can fully understand it, however much I might regret it. I could possibly even condone it, rather than put at risk the freedom of the 4 million Chinese who are still our responsibility in Hong Kong. If this diagnosis of the present situation in Hong Kong is correct, I believe that is the complete answer to my noble friend Lord Brockway. It is a diagnosis I must perforce accept with great reluctance, while having to express my approval of the calm, the wisdom, the steadfastness and the high sense of public duty which

1383
characterise our present administration in Hong Kong.
Finally, a word must be said in praise of the restraint shown, in the face of great difficulties, by the Communist Government of Peking. They have endeavoured to pursue a policy of detente and to honour that policy as befits a great world Power. They have established trading relationships with many nations of the West and with America, and have turned off the heat where many controversial issues, such as the offshore islands, are concerned. May I express the hope that this constructive attitude of déetente—in a region of the world which needs peace perhaps as desperately as any other region on the face of the globe, especially after the 30 years of war that went on in Vietnam—will be strengthened in the future, and not least where Hong Kong and its refugees are concerned.
8.2 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, will my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts forgive me if I intervene briefly before he speaks? I have just a few remarks to make. First, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Segal, that there are two sides to this case. It is very easy to criticise any capitalist system. Of course there are defects; of course there are things like heroin, opium, and other things and of course there are child labour and similar problems. But they are a good deal worse in Peking and Canton—at least, I think so.
I should like to divide my remarks under two heads: administration and defence. First, on the administrative side, what the noble Lord, Lord Segal, said just now was that the Hong Kong Government, under their Governor, are very much alive to these things. They run a frightfully good show, in my opinion. The Chinese are fully represented on the Legislative Council and have been for many, many years. I was stationed there before the war, when the population was only 600,000—a situation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred—and I have seen it grow to 4⅓ million, having been back there since. Despite that, I would defy any colony to be better run, although of course there are defects.
1384
Turning to defence, this Government have reduced the garrison of Hong Kong to four battalions, a Gurkha engineer squadron, five naval patrol craft and an RAF helicopter squadron. In my opinion, that is not enough. There is a contradiction here, and I should like to quote from the same Report of the Expenditure Committee to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred. The only role now which they are capable of carrying out is internal security. Yet, turning over the page, we find that the main function, exercised on behalf of the local administration on a continuing basis, is the securing of the Border between the Colony and the Peoples' Republic of China. That border is 20 miles long, and in my opinion the force available to the Colony is not enough. The Expenditure Committee implore that at least an artillery battery should be restored to the Colony, together with an armoured car squadron. That is certainly not very much, and I think it would make much more sense in that setting, because, so far as I know, there is no prospect of any reinforcement. My Lords, that is all I have to say.
8.6 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: A good contribution! My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for introducing this debate and also to those who have taken part in it. The debate, of course, will have to be read and studied as a whole so as to offer the maximum advantage resulting from our discussions. I hope that all the speeches that have been made will be studied both here and in Hong Kong.
As I listened to my noble friend and then to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, I felt I should have my work cut out to steer a course between the Charybdis of outright denunciation of Hong Kong, on the one hand, and the Scylla of almost unalloyed complacency about the situation in the Colony on the other hand. Fortunately, there have been a number of interventions by noble friends which have helped to give a fuller picture, and now I hope to do my little best to complete the picture and to put it into perspective.
It is very important to see the achievements and the present plans of the Hong Kong Government in historical context. Since the end of the war, as we have heard, Hong Kong has been faced with

1385
a population explosion of atomic proportions. In 1945 the population was 600,000: today, it is 4½ million, and this in an area of rather less than 400 square miles. If you have an inpouring of hundreds of thousands a year into a tiny area like that (smaller than the smallest county in England), what do you expect, my Lords?—especially where the area is almost completely without natural resources from which one can create indigenous industry to sustain not only employment but social services. It is an area which, indeed, is deficient in the obvious essentials such as an adequate water supply. What is remarkable to me is not the fact that conditions in Hong Kong are as bad as they are—and they are bad in patches—but that the quite superb achievements of the Government in Hong Kong pass without more praise and appreciation than they actually receive.
We all know there are massive problems in Hong Kong and there have been these problems in the past. We must also examine the record to see how the Hong Kong Government, backed by the British Government, have tackled those problems. My noble friend divided his Question into three. He asked what we were going to do about social, economic and political questions in Hong Kong, and as briefly as I can I should like to feed into the Record some of the facts and figures. First, in the field of housing—addressing myself to the social scene—the Hong Kong Government continue to face great problems. But they have overtaken great problems, also, and 1·7 million of the population, or 43 per cent. of the whole, have already been accommodated in Government subsidised housing. There are still, of course, many without adequate homes, but the Hong Kong Government are planning to house a total of 3·3 million, or 54 per cent. of the estimated population, by 1983–84. In this coming year, 1976–77, alone, it is planned to complete homes for a further 94,000 people. An important and imaginative part of this large programme is the construction of three new towns in the New Territories.
I think it is fair to say that the record of the Hong Kong Government in the field of health and medical services is already very good. It is at least comparable with cognate countries in that
1386
part of the world, and in many respects much better. The development of preventive health services has now resulted in the eradication of quarantinable diseases, which is a remarkable achievement in view of the over-crowded conditions which have had to be overcome. Today, the average life expectancy in Hong Kong is 71·7 years. This is the second highest rate in Asia, and is virtually the same as in the United States. By the same token, the infant mortality rate is among the lowest in Asia. But there is no sense of complacency. There are extensive plans, which I saw for myself, to reduce hospital overcrowding, the target being to provide 4·5 beds per 1,000 population by 1980, as compared with 4·1 at present.
On the subject of education, here, too, plans are extensive. There is already free primary education for all up to 12 years of age, and it is intended that this should be extended to the age of 14 in a comparatively short time. In 1974, the Hong Kong White Paper on Education laid down as an objective the provision of, admittedly subsidised, secondary education for all up to the age of 14 by 1984, and for 40 per cent. up to the age of 16 by that date, and the programme is already well on target. Over 160 new schools are to be built, and 42 will be under construction during the course of this year. There are also plans to improve opportunities for further education. Three technical institutes have been completed, a fourth is under construction and a fifth will be started this year. The Government are also steadily increasing the number of places at the two excellent universities, both of which I visited, and all university places are subsidised.
At this point, I turn to my noble friend's query about social welfare programmes and benefits. The social welfare programme has been expanded greatly over the last few years. In 1971–72 the expenditure on social welfare was 50 million Hong Kong dollars—divide that by 10 and one gets £5 million sterling. In the coming financial year, it is expected to be not 50 million Hong King dollars but 400 million. The money is coming from somewhere. If the mass of the population is as poor as my noble friend has made them out to be, it must be coming from the rich minority he has been denouncing so much. In the coming financial year, it will be eight times what it

1387
was two years ago. It can be expected to rise in the future, and I understand that a Working Party is at present actively considering the question of an extended system of social welfare allowances.
There are no unemployment benefits as such, but public assistance for needy families and individuals is extended on a means test. So it is not true to say that there is no provision for people who are unemployed. Admittedly, able-bodied persons aged 15 to 55 are not eligible if they have no family commitments. On sickness benefit, again there are provisions for this, not as lavish as those in this country, but more lavish than in many countries comparable to Hong Kong, and there are programmes for improving such benefits. Already, all manual and non-manual workers earning less than 2,000 dollars a month are entitled to sickness benefit on a formula which, as I said, is not as lavish as ours but is certainly there and improving all the time.
I have dealt at some length with these programmes, because they represent the great effort that is being made in Hong Kong to plan ahead for the future wellbeing of the population, and I think that the Administration can be proud of their achievements bearing in mind the heavy odds against them. This is an area which has no resources, except what it can attract into itself from outside, and to attract foreign investment places certain constructions on one's fiscal policy. This is inevitable. If you have no resources you must attract them from outside, and in order to do that you must extend inducements. It is the balance between the production of fiscal inducements and direct taxation in order to finance a progressive social programme. That is the question which the Hong Kong Government must face every year—indeed, every day. The Governor himself—a progressive and humane man—Sir Murray MacLehose deserves particular credit for what has been done in recent years.
There are three other fields which have been referred to in this debate about which I shall comment. First, there is the question of the increase in crime, in the last few years in particular, and the problem of corruption. Violent crime increased sixfold between 1965 and 1974—a macabre experience not confined to Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Government
1388
are radically reforming the organisation and methods of the police force to cope with this situation, and are achieving very considerable success. At the same time, the Independent Commission against Corruption, which began operations in February 1974, has made impressive progress in the fight against corruption. The work of this Commission, combined with a large-scale public education programme, has played a vital part in combatting the problem.
I have some figures here which my noble friend gave me notice he would like me to provide. From February 1974 to date, the Independent Commission against Corruption has received 7,026 complaints of corruption, as a result of which 2,820 investigations were launched. Of course, complaints vary. When there is a determined attempt to persuade people to feed in reports and complaints in the fight against corruption, you are bound to receive many reports and complaints which, after fairly cursory examination, are found to be without content.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I may have misunderstood my noble friend and I may be unjust in what I am about to say. If so, I apologise. I thought, however, that my noble friend suggested that the determined effort to obtain complaints came from outside. In fact, it came from the Commission themselves who very properly published illustrated advertisements all over Hong Kong appealing to people to make complaints of any kind of corruption which they thought it proper to make.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in my own inexpert way I was trying to convey to the House that in fact there had been a determined campaign by the Commission to get the general public to send in any complaints which they thought the Commission should look at. As a result, there was this very large number of complaints—7,026 in two years—which were all looked into. As a result, 2,820 investigations were launched. Of those 2,800 investigations, 2,400 odd have been concluded; 408 people have been prosecuted, resulting in 275 convictions; and a further 57 are still before the courts.
The budget for the ICAC in 1976–77 has been increased to 38 million Hong Kong dollars, an increase of 52 per cent.,

1389
with the aim of bringing the establishment up to its full strength of 1,000 investigators by the end of this year. There can be absolutely no doubt about the determination of the Hong Kong Administration to tackle the question of corruption in the colony when the facts and the figures are as I have given them.
Secondly, in the field of labour affairs there has been a steady stream of legislation to safeguard the health and safety of workers in recent years, including the 1975 labour relations ordinance. This sets up formal procedures for solving labour disputes and amendments to the employment ordinance which entitles workers to severance pay and protects employees from anti-union discrimination. The problem in Hong Kong is not that they have no trade unions but that they have too many of them. Of the many trade unionists in Hong Kong, three-quarters are Chinese and Communist. Once more, Hong Kong is sui generis. There is no lack of freedom of speech, of the Press, of discussion, of unionisation. What Honk Kong lacks is natural resources. Therefore, the policy of keeping this vast population employed, healthy, and progressively better educated has to be coped with against that background. Considering the difficulties, the Hong Kong Government have succeeded very well indeed.
Thirdly, I ought to mention the great efforts which have been made by the Hong Kong Government to improve public amenities in Hong Kong by providing recreational facilities and applying environmental standards, particularly in the construction of the new towns. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, this is of major importance in so densely populated a territory where the population is comparatively young.
I pass now to the third point that the Question raises: the economic aspect. These improvements in social services have been made possible by the rapid rate of economic growth until the recent recession. An economy like Hong Kong, which is so dependent on exports, is particularly sensitive to world trading conditions. The world trade recession over the past two years therefore hit Hong Kong particularly badly. For example, by the end of 1974 exports had fallen 23 per cent. below the December 1973 level. By mid-1975, the economy was
1390
operating well below capacity; there was a considerable increase in unemployment and a decline in real wages; and economic growth had come to a standstill. Even so, the Hong Kong Government continued to pursue their social objectives during that recession. The percentage of the budget spent on the social account for the purposes my noble friend and I have so much at heart increased from 37 per cent. in 1972–73 to almost 40 per cent. in 1975–76—that is, during the recession at its worst—once more proof that the Hong Kong Government are and were in earnest in devoting resources to the amelioration of the conditions of the people.
The resilience of the Hong Kong economy has once again been demonstrated. By the spring of 1975 there was a renewed demand in world markets so that by the latter part of the year Hong Kong exports showed an increase of 4 per cent. at constant prices over the year as a whole, compared with 1974. The textiles industry, which is Hong Kong's largest employer and foreign exchange earner in the manufacturing sector, is expected to record a growth in exports this year of between 15 and 20 per cent. Other industries are also reasonably optimistic about their prospects.
That brings me to a point made by my noble friend Lord Segal about the imports of textiles from Hong Kong into this country. Textile imports from Hong Kong into this country are already subject to control under the EEC Hong Kong textiles agreement. An important element in that agreement is that other Member States of the Community will take a greater proportion of the growth of Hong Kong textile exports than in the past, and the United Kingdom correspondingly less. The average rate of growth of intake of textiles from Hong Kong for the Community as a whole is 7 per cent. For the United Kingdom it is 2 per cent., with some growth rates in imports as low as one-half of 1 per cent. for the most sensitive items. I suggest that by agreements in this way between the Community and Hong Kong it is more effective to protect British interests than to go for the cruder kinds of import control measures which nowadays are so frequently advocated.
As I am referring to my noble friend Lord Segal, whose speech I greatly

1391
admired because it so greatly helped to give us a balanced picture of the situaton in Hong Kong, may I mention a point which I know he has very much at heart; namely, the problem, as he sees it, of the people who continue to enter Hong Kong from the mainland and who very often are turned away or turned back. He described them as "political refugees", but with all due respect to my noble friend this is not quite the position. The vast majority of the many thousands who come into Hong Kong from the mainland are not political refugees. Rather I would describe them as merchant adventurers: the grass is greener, or thought to be greener, across the border.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, but, if he will allow me, may I ask him whether it is fair to assume that these refugees are adherents to the Communist system, or whether or not it is fairer to assume that they are non-Communists who wish to live, if allowed to do so, under non-Communist rule?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, clearly they want to live in Hong Kong; but what is reasonably certain from the fairly dependable information one gets is that they are not, in the great majority, political refugees. They are people who, rightly or wrongly, think they would benefit economically from crossing the border. That is all very well, and up till 1967 Hong Kong kept open door to them and in they flowed in their thousands. Indeed, in 1967 they came in in numbers in which, even with the burgeoning population of Hong Kong itself, they could be digested socially and economically in terms of the resources and the accommodation available. But under the "open door" policy, their numbers had become 12,500 in 1971. By 1972 the total was 37,000; in 1973, it was 73,000, and of course in 1974 it was found necessary to control this inflow to allow legal immigration to proceed—and it is still proceeding—while checking illegal immigration.
Where an illegal immigrant is able to show that his return would indeed lead to suffering on his part, he is not sent back. But those who are sent back—
1392
and the great majority are sent back because there is no real reason why they should come in—are not treated unduly harshly by the mainland Government. This is the information we have. But if any Member of this House or of the other place has an example of what he thinks is the return of an illegal immigrant who, because of his political opinions, is likely to be, or has been, dealt with harshly on the mainland after being returned, I should like to know about it. I can assure the House that every illegal immigrant's case is examined individually and, where there is any question of undue hardship attending his or her return, then the Hong Kong Government exercise compassion. But I repeat that the vast majority of these illegal immigrants are not there because of ideology but because of economic opportunity, which is rather a different thing.
I now turn to the political aspects of this matter, and I want to concentrate particularly, but as briefly as I can, on the existing political institutions in the territory. There is little one can say about the future of Hong Kong itself and the end of the New Territories lease in 1997. One can only point out that this date is still quite a long way ahead and a great deal will have happened by then, not only in the territory but in other parts of the world, especially those adjacent to Hong Kong. It is not possible to predict what the circumstances will be so far into the future, and Her Majesty's Government will continue to administer the territory in the interests of those who live there, and will do so having regard for the unique internal situation in Hong Kong and the equally unique external relationships which this territory has to live with.
It is well understood in Hong Kong that the pattern of constitutional development followed in most other dependent territories, previously colonies of ours, that is to say progress towards internal self-government and thereafter, where appropriate, to independence, such as in the case of the Seychelles, as we observed when the Bill was read a second time in this House today—that pattern which Britain has followed honourably, effectively and successfully with so many former colonies is ruled out by the particular circumstances of Hong Kong. I repeat, this is sui generis not only economically

1393
but politically. The genius of this country is to recognise the facts when it sees them. It might be rather easy to proceed dead-pan according to the pattern regardless of the circumstances and the implications, but what will happen to Hong Kong itself—to this tiny territory of 4½ million people?
In the absence of popularly elected institutions there has evolved in Hong Kong a unique system of government which seeks to achieve the same objective of responsiveness and responsibility by means somewhat different from ours. The aim there is to produce a system allowing wide and active participation at all levels in the process of government. Here the blessed word "participation" comes in. We hear a good deal of this in our own country, as a means (dare I say?) of supplementing our own ancient Parliamentary tradition. Perhaps Hong Kong is also having a good look at participation by other than Parliamentary means. To achieve this, contacts between local institutions and community organisations and the central Government are being improved. I saw this for myself. I sat in at meetings of what are called "mutual aid committees". They are grass-roots committees of Hong Kong people, Chinese people, who discuss their local affairs—and solve them, too—participatively, co-operatively and also feed up through the proper channels into the Government itself their own views, wishes and offers of help.
There is more than one way, especially in Asia—in the new Asia—of achieving participative democracy. The Governor has also indicated that there is room for change in the Legislative Council while retaining its essential character. Of course we accept that in the absence of an elected legislature, opinion in the Legislative Council is, and should be seen to be, representative of all sections of the community in Hong Kong.
In conclusion, we and the Hong Kong Government fully accept that a great deal remains to be done; that there is absolutely no room for complacency. For all the progress that has undoubtedly been made there are basic deficiencies still in housing, education, social welfare, communications and recreational amenities. There has been a rapid increase in violent crime over the last eight years and an
1394
unacceptable level of corruption. I have outlined the plans that have been made to tackle these problems, to create a prosperous, stable and happy community, and I have indicated how far those plans, put into operation, have so far succeeded.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, if I may intervene, the noble Lord has not mentioned the question of compensation and the legal aid department, which was raised by Lord Brockway. I think it is very important. I understand that, since 1967, £22 million has been paid out in compensation and damages to people who have been legally aided. Perhaps the noble Lord can confirm this.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords; in fact I have a rather useful note on that matter, although I think the noble Baroness has answered the question better than I could. Legal aid is available for about 75 per cent. of all criminal cases tried in the district courts. There is a means test, but the availability is there, and, as the noble Baroness has said, it has an impact. There is a real attempt here to enable people with small means to avail themselves of the processes of justice.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would pay some attention to the proposal I made that at the courts there should be a prisoner's friend who would be able, like our probation officer, to give advice and help to those who are often completely ignorant of the procedure and are destroyed in presenting their case because of that ignorance, which might be removed if they had that kind of help.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Gladly, my Lords, it is a splendid suggestion. I do not know to what extent it is not already available, but I am sure that my noble friend has gone into this, and I most gladly welcome the suggestion. When I visited Hong Kong last year I took with me the chairman of one of our benches of magistrates, a member of my family, and she was able to attend courts and indeed treatment centres for drug addicts. I believe she saw, at least in many cases, the kind of provision my noble friend has rightly advocated. Whether it is the general practice I do not know. I will check with my friend the magistrate when I go home and see what

1395
her report is. But it is an excellent suggestion and one that I should like to look into much more deeply.
I was coming to the end of my remarks. I think what we need to do is to bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Segal and others have reminded us of during their remarks, in looking to the future constitutional progress of Hong Kong. The position is that our relationship with mainland China is excellent; our relationship with them in regard to Hong Kong is excellent. They do not regard Hong Kong as having been properly separated from the mainland, as my noble friend reminded us; they denounce the acquisition as having been made under duress. Nevertheless, they, too, see that Hong Kong is unique. While I cannot put words into the mouths of our Chinese friends, I think it is perfectly fair and safe to say that they regard the present position and its continuation as being at least as satisfactory as any other solution that has been offered. So that we can look forward, I am sure, to a period of peace during which the British Government and the Hong Kong Government together do their best to raise standards in Hong Kong, to protect the economy, to expand social welfare, without engaging in any policy which might force the great Republic of China into an attitude rather less co-operative than the one she has been adopting for so many years in so statesmanlike a fashion.

RATING (CARAVAN SITES) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS: WOMEN MEMBERS
  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS: WOMEN MEMBERS
  NIGERIA: OVERSEAS AID
  NIGERIA: OVERSEAS AID
  EARNINGS INCREASES AND WEEKLY DEDUCTIONS
  EARNINGS INCREASES AND WEEKLY DEDUCTIONS
  JOINT CARE PLANNING
  JOINT CARE PLANNING