Sitting of 29 April 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
  (By Order)
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By order)

  WIMBLEDON AND PUTNEY COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current activities of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland has recently notified me of its decision to begin a general review of parliamentary boundaries in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Marten: I am glad to hear that. Will the Minister at the same time seek to amend the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 so that the number of seats for Northern Ireland is increased, not because of the emergency but for reasons of pure justice?
    Mr. Rees: I accept that the number of seats for Northern Ireland was set in different circumstances. It is still the Government's aim—a long-term aim, I
    532
    feel sure—to get a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Powell: And Scotland?
    Mr. Rees: I am responsible for Northern Ireland, and I am glad that I am not responsible for Scotland as well. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has enough on his plate without including Scotland. I am responsible for Northern Ireland and in that sense we stick to the 12 seats.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Minister realise that the people of Northern Ireland assume that the right hon. Gentleman is against an increase in the number of Northern Ireland seats because he puts party advantage before the democratic rights of the people of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rees: I must admit that there are some hon. Members representing Northern Ireland whom I would not like to see duplicated here, but that is not the reason.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the level of violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland during the first three months of 1976, as compared with the first three months of 1975.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the latest security situation in the Province.
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sectarian and political murders have taken place in 1976; and what measures he is taking to reduce the level of this terrorism.
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been killed as a result of terrorist activity in County Armagh since 1st January 1976.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: So far this year 111 persons have been killed as a result of terrorism. Of these, 92 were killed in the first three months, 45 of whom were

    533
    the victims of sectarian or interfactional assassinations. Thirty people have been killed in County Armagh. Between 1st January and 31st March 1975 a total of 40 people were killed. There has been in 1976 some increase in the number of serious attacks against the security forces. There have also been attacks on prison officers, two of them fatal.
    In the first three months of this year 294 persons were charged with serious terrorist-type offences, including 40 for murder and 63 for explosives offences. This compares with 266 persons charged with terrorist crimes in the same period in 1975, including 36 for murder and 21 for explosives offences. So far this yeas the total number of persons charged with murder is 44; with attempted murder 21; and for firearms offences 116. Up to 26th April this year, 8·9 tons of explosives have been neutralised or recovered, compared with 9·9 tons for the whole of 1975. Co-operation with the Irish security forces continues to be good.
    For the longer term, as I said to the House on 25th March, I and ministerial colleagues in other Departments are examining the action and resources required over the next few years to maintain law and order, how best to achieve the primacy of the police, the size and role of locally recruited forces, and the progressive reduction of the armed forces as soon as is safely practical. The examination continues, but I do not exclude the possibility of taking at least some modest steps in these directions in the foreseeable future.
    It is of course for the GOC to decide how to deploy his troops, and it has never been my practice to make public statements on the details. But I can assure the House that force levels and security force activity will continue to reflect operational needs in each part of the Province, and in particular that there will be no change in force levels in and around the South Armagh area so long as the present high threat of violence there persists.
    Mr. Gow: We are grateful to the Secretary of State for that detailed statement. Is he aware of the widespread concern in Northern Ireland about two figures he gave, the 92 people killed in the first three months of this year compared with
    534
    the 40 killed in the first three months of last year? Is the Secretary of State able to give the people of Northern Ireland reassurance that the prospective rate of assassination and violence in the coming months will be lower than it has been in the past three months?
    Mr. Rees: I thought that the House would like the details to appear in the Official Report. Of those killed, 45 were victims of sectarian or interfactional assassination, and that is a sizeable proportion. Yesterday afternoon when I drove past Shaw's Bridge in Belfast I learned that someone had placed a bomb underneath a table at which both Protestant and Catholic workmen were sitting. That bomb was put there to kill. I looked at the scene with the police. What on earth can one do to protect people from that sort of thing? If this is what the para-military groups want to do, it is by far the most difficult thing for the security forces to prevent.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: When will the working party report to the Secretary of State and in what form will the report be communicated to the House? Has the working party considered the closer coordination of security functions between the RUC and the Regular Army and the UDR? In view of reports in the Sunday Times and elsewhere of troop withdrawals on a considerable scale after the marching season, can the Secretary of State inform us of the Government's intentions in this matter?
    Mr. Rees: I have had a preliminary report from civil servants who report to me and a ministerial group. A great deal of it is the sort of information I should not like to see published. It would certainly be read with great interest by the Provisional IRA. I do not reject the possibility of publishing the report, but, on the basis of the preliminary report, it would be foolish of me to publish it unless there were further parts, which I have not seen, of general interest. Co-operation between the security forces and the police is a matter to be further considered. That is how to obtain the primacy of the police. I have seen many reports that the Army will be out of West Belfast by the end of the month. Like me, the Army and police feel it is hard to read this sort of article, often written by people who get

    535
    information that a unit is moving out of West Belfast when it is doing so quite properly as part of a tactical redistribution of forces. I sometimes feel that the people who print this stuff are setting out more to help the Provisional IRA than anything else. The movement of forces is not information which should be bandied about, but I can assure the hon. Member that there is no question of pulling the Army out of West Belfast.
    Mr. Flannery: Would riot my right hon. Friend agree that no matter what security measures and precautions are taken—and I understand the terrible problems he faces—the situation in Northern Ireland does not seem to get any better? Would he not agree that a new political initiative is now absolutely necessary? Would he, for instance, consider calling a conference devoted exclusively to the problems of Northern Ireland and invite whatever forces he feels should be present?
    Mr. Rees: I cannot use the word "better" in relation to the security situation, whose nature has changed considerably. The pure thuggery which is now going on would not be stopped if I found a political initiative. It is endemic and I do not believe that calling a conference would do anything to stop it. The Convention demonstrated the inability of the politicians in Northern Ireland to get together and our next steps must be slow but sure. There is no initiative to solve the Irish question waiting to be pulled out of a drawer in my Department. It is bad for Northern Ireland if we even give the idea that there is an initiative which the Secretary of State is not willing to pull out.
    Mr. McCusker: In view of the appalling statistics, which indicate that more than a quarter of the people murdered in Northern Ireland have been killed in my constituency, does the Secretary of State still consider that County Armagh is a special emergency area, as defined by the Prime Minister on 12th January? Can he give us a report on the effectiveness or otherwise of the seven steps announced on that date and say whether he thinks the withdrawal of Army vehicles to 10 miles north of the border in my constituency is likely to help?
    Mr. Rees: I know nothing of the withdrawal of Army vehicles to 10 miles north of the border. When I was in the border area the other day, there were vehicles around. What the officer commanding that area decides to do is done in the full knowledge of the problems of the area. The two colonels of the regiments there are excellent. They know what they are doing. County Armagh is a special emergency area. I do not want to talk too much about the movement of soldiers, but the fact that I said in my statement that we are keeping the same number of troops in the area is an indication of our special concern for it.
    Mr. Neave: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but do not the statistics show that this is likely to be a very bad year for explosions and explosive offences? Will he condemn the increase in UVF activity in regard to explosives? Does not the whole security picture show the futility of continuing talks with para-military organisations, which the Irish Minister of Justice so roundly and rightly condemned yesterday?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Member has a point about explosives. We have seized almost as much explosives this year as in the whole of last year, yet the explosions still continue. That shows how much of the stuff there is still around. However, the Army is doing very well.
    As for talks with para-military groups, I believe that I am right to stay where I have been for the past year on this matter. There can be no negotiations with people engaged in violence. I have no doubt—and it is very rarely I can say that about anything in Northern Ireland—that there is revulsion against the men of violence on both sides of the community, and this shows itself in the increasing amount of information the police are receiving every day. The basic reason for this in the minority community is that when people are locked up, it is by the due process of law and not by me or any other Secretary of State.
    Mr. Fernyhough: When my right hon. Friend says there is no intention even to consider withdrawal from Northern Ireland, can he say whether that view, which he put forward so emphatically, is

    537
    shared by all the Ministers in his Department?
    Mr. Rees: Yes. It is shared emphatically by all the Ministers in my Department and in the Government. I have no doubt about that. If my right hon. Friend is talking about the withdrawal of the Army in the political sense of the term, I believe that that would be a recipe for disaster. However, the withdrawal of the Army is what I am about —though my aim of the past year or 18 months is best expressed as the primacy of the police. I look forward to the day when I can tell the House that there are fewer soldiers and more policemen in Northern Ireland and that the police are accepted throughout the Province.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the grave issues involved in this Question, I allowed very much longer questions and answers than is usual at Question Time. I hope we can now return to reasonable brevity.

    Government Departments
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to alter the number and structure of Government Departments in Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): Since the return to direct rule, the Department of Community Relations has been merged with the Department of Education; the Office of Law Reform with the Department of Finance: and the Department of Housing Local Government and Planning with the Department of the Environment. My right hon. Friend has no plans for any further changes, but he keeps the matter under constant review.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister of State satisfied that the organisation of Government Departments no longer retains the makeshift, temporary character suggested by the fact that they were set up when there was a locally-based Executive in Norhern Ireland and Ministers did not have to answer to this House for four or five Departments each? Does he agree that it is important that the people of Northern Ireland should realise that this House governs Northern Ireland by a system of direct rule, not of a temporary character but established on long-term principles?
    Mr. Concannon: The functions of Departments and the allocations of responsibilities are always determined by the need to ensure that political and administrative requirements are met at any given time in the most appropriate manner.
    Mr. Powell: I congratulate the Minister of State on his promotion and wish him well with his extended responsibilities. Has he any reforms of the administrative structure in mind which might avoid my having to trouble him three or four times a week on the subject of paving, lighting and such matters in my constituency, since I am the only democratically elected representative of the people on these subjects?
    Mr. Concannon: Not at the moment. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will still have to bother me about such matters.
    Mr. Fitt: Does my hon. Friend detect a feeling in Northern Ireland, especially since the departure to another office of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), that the Northern Ireland Office is not as important as it should be, that in some way it has become lower in the priorities in the restructuring now taking place? Will the person in charge of creating employment in Northern Ireland play as much attention to it as was paid to it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West?
    Mr. Concannon: My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), after a hard stint of hard labour, has been gone for only a few weeks. I thank my hon. Friend for congratulating me, but it was a funny way of doing so.
    Mr. Kilfedder: As regards the work carried out by the former Department of Community Relations, does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a fear that money is being given to organisations which are para-military in nature and which are working in various communities? Will he institute an inquiry as to where the money is going?
    Mr. Concannon: There is no need for such an inquiry. Community relations come within the Department of Education and are in its capable hands.

    Statistics
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further consideration he has given to the manner of publication of statistics of: (a) terrorist offences and (b) arrests, convictions and sentences for such offences, and in particular to clear presentation of the relationship between the two series.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Statistics, including the number of indictable offences known to the police and those cleared up, appear in the Chief Constable's annual report to the Police Authority, which is published. In addition, a report "Statistics on Security", providing a range of security statistics, including persons charged, is issued by my Office on a quarterly basis. These reports are placed in the Library of the House. I am giving consideration to ways of making the quarterly figures more widely available by inclusion in the Official Report.
    Mr. Powell: I am grateful for anything that will give a wider diffusion to these statistics, but will the right hon. Gentleman concentrate especially upon methods of presenting the degree of success attained in apprehending and convicting those who arc concerned with offences in a particular period?
    Mr. Rees: There is one problem in that last respect which is very important —namely, that it is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The right hon. Gentleman will recall a very interesting debate on this matter in the House a few weeks ago. I want to see the collation given a wider distribution. To do so through the Official Report is a way in which I can bring it to the attention of right hon. and hon. Members.
    Mr. Loyden: I recognise the problems that my right hon. Friend faces in Northern Ireland. I remain on the subject of security, particularly the matters which have been brought about by the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which are not confined to Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend investigate the arrest of James Rutledge, a Liverpool born and bred person who was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act? The obvious implication of his release is that there was no cause for his arrest. Does
    540
    my right hon. Friend recall that anxiety was expressed by Labour Members about certain aspects of the Prevention of Terrorism Act when it was introduced? The case of James Rutledge clearly demonstrates that anxiety.
    Mr. Rees: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. He has every right to raise it, but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Unless I have it wrong, the incident did not occur in Northern Ireland and therefore it is not my responsibility.

    Redundancies
    Mr. Bradfordasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of people made redundant who were technically based or skilled workers since the inception of direct rule in 1972, the number of new industries which have been introduced since 1972 and the number of jobs provided for the above category of workers in these industries.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): During the period 1st January to 31st December 1975 a total of 23,764 workers qualified for payments under the statutory redundancy payments scheme; 54 per cent. of these were in manufacturing industries, but I have no information on their occupational skills.
    Since direct rule began, 194 new undertakings have been established in Northern Ireland with selective assistance from the Department of Commerce or the Local Enterprise Development Unit, or with assistance from the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. It is not possible without disproportionate effort to give details of the types of employment provided by these undertakings, or by the expansion of existing undertakings which the Government also assist and which are an important source of jobs.
    Mr. Bradford: Does the Minister accept that in view of the alarming statistics it would be of great benefit to Northern Ireland if he were able to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence not to proceed with the proposed defence cuts as they relate to Antrim, Aldegrove and Sydenham? The cuts will add another 2,000 plus to the

    541
    already unacceptable total of unemployment in skilled industries. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to encourage his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to pay a visit to Northern Ireland at the earliest possible moment to acquaint himself with the harsh realities of economic life in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a Question on the Order Paper about that.
    Mr. Moyle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Defence cuts are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Those are going ahead. The Department has initiated a review of the economic condition of Northern Ireland. One of the aims of the review will be to provide more permanent long-term prospects of employment than exist under the present defence arrangements.

    Direct Rule
    Mr. Budgenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on his proposals for the development of positive direct rule.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to provide for additional facilities for informing Members of Parliament and the public about policy matters within the responsibility of his department.
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further consideration he has given to methods whereby a more continuous surveillance of administration and security in Northern Ireland can be provided.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am considering whether any changes are required in the arrangements for direct rule, including any additional facilities for keeping Members and the public informed. I have, however, answered 508 parliamentary Questions and nine Private Notice Questions between 1st November 1975 and 31st March 1976, and a wide range of papers and reports on Northern Ireland are available in the Library. The Government are responsible for all aspects of the affairs of Northern Ireland and have made it clear that they will provide firm, fair and resolute government.
    Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as direct rule may last for a number of years there is an overwhelming case for increased representation for Northern Ireland, so that Northern Ireland may enjoy the same representation here as the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rees: I have answered that point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will notice that even if the law were changed and the Boundary Commission were to do its work on a larger remit, the change would not come into being until the General Election after next, so it could not have any immediate effect.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: I welcome the Secretary of State's apparent slight change of heart over the possible new institutions as a result of direct rule. The under-representation to which my hon. Friend has referred, and the fact that Northern Ireland has neither an Assembly nor a Parliament, which is a decision of this House, mean that Northern Ireland must have its Questions answered roughly every three weeks for three-quarters of an hour, while the problems of the Province remain matters of life and death. In those circumstances I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the setting up of a Select Committee. Within its confidential intimacy the problems of the Province might reasonably be discussed and probed so that Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland might receive adequate answers from Ministers.
    Mr. Rees: Of course Northern Ireland is different: we have the great problem of terrorism in Northern Ireland. The Province consists of 1½ million people and it has a Department to look after it. It is smaller than Yorkshire or Lancashire. In that sense it does very well in the House. It is because of the particular problems of Northern Ireland that the difficulty arises. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the 'phone calls to my outer office are about Northern Ireland. The vast majority of the letters that I am receiving are to the effect that their senders go for direct rule. They give reasons for taking that view. That is the general view that has come out of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Powell: I do not dissent in any way from what the right hon. Gentleman

    543
    said earlier about solutions and initiatives, but does he recognise that consideration has to be given to the provision of a wider scope for local government in the normal sense of the term in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that that would lead to a great improvement and alleviation of administration?
    Mr. Rees: On the point about local government and the fact that under the Macrory Report changes were made, putting it into Stormont, one of the problems in that respect—it is not something that I am actively considering; I say this only because it illustrates the point—is that on the minority side of the community it is put to me firmly that the last thing wanted is a return to the local government functions in Northern Ireland. This is one of the problems. When one comes to do anything in Northern Ireland, one cannot look at it logically. There is the basic split in the community.
    Mr. McNamara: Has it been drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention that there are only 16 Questions on the Order Paper today relating to Northern Ireland, although on other occasions there have been somewhat more, and today there are only eight Questions from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, which is roughly two-thirds of the number of Northern Ireland Members. The people of Northern Ireland, through their elected politicians, had an opportunity of finding some sort of administrative and institutional function which would have enabled them to look after these matters themselves, but they lamentably failed to do so. Therefore, it comes badly from Opposition Members to suggest otherwise.
    Mr. Rees: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. It is a matter of note that hon. Members should consider my responsibilities for Departments of Education, Agriculture, Health and Social Security and right across the span. Ministers are working actively all the time in these matters, but the amount of interest in them expressed in the House of Commons is remarkably small. Even when there is a larger number of Questions, rarely are they on the subjects that I should have thought would exercise people in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In the interests of the whole House, may I ask the Secretary of State when he will act on my reiterated but quite simple suggestion that a list of Northern Ireland papers analogous to the list of European Community papers be circulated to all Members so that they may apply for them?
    Mr. Rees: I shall certainly do all I can to help in that respect. I certainly had no problems when I was in opposition about getting all the papers on Northern Ireland that I wanted. It is a matter of going to the Library and having a look. I shall do what I can to help. However, I do not think that this gets to the nub of the very real problems that, I accept, are being raised about direct rule. For instance, I wish that the problems of education in Northern Ireland could be discussed. It may he seen, indeed, to be more than apposite to the problems of Northern Ireland. The opportunities exist, but they are not taken.

    Industrial Development
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the amount spent per head on the promotion and provision of industrial development in Northern Ireland during the last two years.
    Mr. Moyle: I understand my hon. Friend is referring to the amount spent per head of population in Northern Ireland.
    The total amount spent on industrial development, including capital assistance towards re-investment, between 1st April 1974 and 31st March 1976 was, on the basis of the 1971 census, £86·50 per head of population.
    Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend consider that the people of Northern Ireland are adequately aware of the fact that in this important field, as in others, they are given markedly greater opportunity than that enjoyed by citizens in the rest of the British Isles? If he is not so satisfied, will he ensure that these benefits are repeatedly explained, perhaps in order to increase the revulsion against violence which has already been mentioned?
    Mr. Moyle: I am satisfied that the people of Northern Ireland are to a large extent aware that they get a better deal in these respects than do most other sections of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend's point will be borne in mind and publicised to them.
    Mr. McCusker: On what basis is the hon. Gentleman able to make those comments? Does he not agree that for any meaningful comment to be made on those figures we need equivalent figures for other peripheral deprived regions? Does he have those figures?
    Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman's last question would be better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. There is no doubt that far more aspects of industrial promotion are the subject of Government support in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman wished, I could provide him with a list, if he has not got the pamphlet from my Department of Commerce.
    Mr. Fernyhough: As my hon. Friend says that £86 per head is spent on industrial development in Northern Ireland, and as I represent part of the North-East of England, which has had problems similar to those of Northern Ireland, may I ask what is the comparable figure for the North-East?
    Mr. Moyle: I cannot tell my right hon. Friend the comparable figure for the North-East. He could obtain that by putting a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The problems in the North-East are not quite comparable with those in Northern Ireland. As well as a security problem, in Northern Ireland there is the periphery problem.

    Illegal Organisations
    Mr. Wm. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he has any proposals for strengthening the law relating to membership of illegal organisations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: By virtue of Section 19 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 it is a criminal offence to belong or profess to belong to a proscribed organisation. The problem in securing convictions is that of evi-
    546
    dence not a deficiency in the law. I am not satisfied that changes in the rules of evidence would be justified.
    Mr. Ross: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, is he aware that in view of the continuing level of violence many people in Northern Ireland feel that the law should be strengthened, and strengthened in much the same way as that which prevails in Eire, where there are special criminal courts for dealing with these people? In the case of Martin McGuinness, my constituents believe that such a strengthening of the law is long overdue.
    Mr. Rees: I would rather not get involved in individual cases. What matters is the evidence of proof of membership. As I have said in the House previously, if I were to listen to the gossip in Northern Ireland, I should find that the number of people who believe that other people belong to para-military organisations is large; but that does not stand up in a court of law, and quite properly.
    The present Government will not introduce special courts. I am not prepared to put the RUC in the position of the Garda. What is done in the South is a matter for the South, in its own circumstances. To put the RUC to giving evidence in court saying "I have reason to believe", would turn the community against the RUC, and that has been one of our major problems in recent years.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the Secretary of State aware of the very deep sense of frustration among all ranks of the security forces about the difficulty of getting effective evidence against men who plan murder of the rank and file? What consideration is he giving to making really large sums of money available for information that would lead to the conviction of these leaders?
    Mr. Rees: When I first arrived in Northern Ireland I found that sums as large as £50,000 were available for information, but they were not taken up. Hon. Members must consider the history of informers in the Northern Irish situation. If, as the hon. Gentleman has done, one visits areas and sees painted on walls advice about what will be done to informers, one can appreciate that it is far better to handle matters in the present

    547
    way now that information is coming. Certainly in recent weeks we are getting higher up the hierarchy in para-military organisations. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is the "godfathers" that we should like to have locked up. It is good to catch 16-year-olds firing Armalite rifles, but it is the organisers who are the men we want.
    Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend propose to take any action in relation to the criminal injuries legislation to prevent damages from being awarded to members of illegal organisations under that legislation?
    Mr. Rees: I published a Written Answer yesterday, and I must not get involved in sub judice cases. If my hon. Friend would care to look at that answer and see the details of the legislation as it is, I think that he will find that the involvement point is met. However, on both of the Acts that I have to operate, under which the decisions are taken by the courts and not by me—not by a criminal injuries board but by the courts—certainly I can only say that there are times when decisions are as upsetting to me as they are to hon. Members. But the decisions are taken by the courts. I hope to amend the legislation when I get reports from the working party.
    Mr. Neave: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that now that detention is ended, an unspecified number of former detainees are becoming reinvolved in terrorism? For that reason this Question is very important, and the security forces need legal powers to bring people before the courts. Would not one solution be to amend the laws of evidence and the onus of proof with regard to membership of illegal organisations so as to strengthen the whole position of the law in this regard?
    Mr. Rees: It is not only ex-detainees who return to violence. It is also ex-prisoners who have been properly sentenced who do so, when they come out. It is not just a matter of ex-detainees. I am looking at this problem. However, unless we can get in Northern Ireland a respect for the law by all the community, we shall not win through. Playing about with the law might sometimes be a means of dealing with our own frustrations, but I am absolutely con-
    548
    vinced that it is only through the rule of law that we shall win through. Perhaps if it had been nearer the rule of law in the past we should not have had the problems that we have now.

    Housing Executive
    Mr. Carsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many housing executive tenants, from the introduction of the rent rebate scheme to 31st March 1976, have made application for rent rebate; and how many have qualified.
    Mr. Concannon: I am advised by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that at 31st March 1976 18,985 tenants had applied for rent rebates. At this date 11,815 tenants were receiving rebates and 1,128 applications were being processed.
    Mr. Carson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that in Northern Ireland there is a large proportion of low wage earners? Could he give an assurance that the rent rebate scheme will be based on net rather than gross income?
    Mr. Concannon: The scheme in Northern Ireland is on an exact parallel with that in the United Kingdom. Because there is a higher proportion of low wage earners in Northern Ireland, there should be more people on rent rebates than there are. I regret that they are not coming forward in greater numbers.
    Mr. Fitt: As the people already in debt to the Northern Ireland Executive do not qualify for the scheme, will my hon. Friend say how many people in Northern Ireland are on rent strike and are deliberately not paying rent? Can he give a list of the various estates involved, particularly in Belfast, so that we can estimate the number of people who are deliberately not paying rent?
    Mr. Concannon: Finding out who are the original rent strikers is difficult. The number is now so low that it is not worth sorting out. There has been a change in the number of rent defaulters which is now small compared with what it was.
    Mr. Wm. Ross: Will the Minister indicate the percentage of squatters who would otherwise qualify for rent rebate?
    Mr. Concannon: Squatters do not qualify for rent rebate.

    Employment Prospects
    Mr. Kilfedderasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about employment prospects in the Province.
    Mr. Moyle: A precise forecast of employment prospects is not possible. In Northern Ireland they will depend to a considerable extent upon an upturn at national level. The extent to which Northern Ireland participates in the upturn will be heavily influenced by the political stability of the Province. At present the Government are taking all possible steps consistent with current economic policy to maintain employment and to create or promote new jobs. In addition an exercise to re-assess the economic and industrial strategy of the Province over the next few years is currently in hand.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Minister realise that potential employers see that Government activity in Northern Ireland is closing down, or at least not helping to keep open, the Rolls-Royce factory at Dundonald and three defence establishments in Northern Ireland? They believe, as a result, that the Government have no confidence in Northern Ireland. Have not the Government a duty to show the world that they have confidence in the people of Northern Ireland and that they intend to keep those jobs going?
    Mr. Moyle: The Government are not reponsible for closing down the Rolls-Royce factory: that was a decision by the company. As for the closure of the defence establishments, it is right for people to look at the whole of Government involvement in Northern Ireland industry. The substantial sums that we are offering to people who settle in the Province and that they are spending there should be sufficient indication of the Government's confidence.
    Mr. Bradford: Is the Minister aware that cavity wall insulators have been afforded the right to operate in Great Britain since October 1975 under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act? Should not the same right be afforded to cavity wall insulators in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Moyle: We intend to apply the regulations to Northern Ireland as soon
    550
    as possible. The delays have been necessary because of the need to ensure proper consultations.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Sugar Refineries
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the reorganisation of British sugar refineries.
    The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): Consultations with the cane refinery companies and workers and with the British Sugar Corporation are continuing and I cannot yet add anything to my answer to the hon. Member on 18th March.
    Mr. Taylor: Has the Minister seen the joint paper published by Tate & Lyle and Manbre and Garton which shows that some sugar refiners will have to close and several hundreds of jobs will be lost because of the EEC restrictions on imports of cane sugar? How many jobs does he think will be lost, and where?
    Mr. Bishop: My right hon. Friend has been in close touch over a period of time with the trade unions, with Manbre and Garton and with Tate & Lyle on this matter. We are considering the proposals and hope to come to decisions by the end of May. We are involved in close discussions. The hon. Gentleman will know of the proposals by the two firms. The effect on lay-offs and employment will depend on the conclusions.

    PRIME MINISTER (BROADCASTS)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister how many Ministerial broadcasts he has made since his appointment.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): One.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Prime Minister remember making in his broadcast on 5th April a reference to the fact that he could not promise any real improvement in living standards for some time? Can he elaborate on that? Can people

    551
    on low incomes expect any improvement in living standards before the next General Election, particularly in view of the Labour Party's manifesto promise that there would be an irreversible shift in the balance of wealth in favour of working people and their families?
    The Prime Minister: The events of 5th April will be constantly in my mind and I doubt that I shall ever forget that day. The Budget was intended to protect families, especially this year, against the fall in the standard of life which this country is enjoying—if that is the proper word to use. That is an essential condition for getting us back into the position where the country will be able to enjoy an improved standard of life. Our first task is to ensure that sacrifices are fairly borne among all sections of the community.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister recollect that in his last ministerial broadcast he said that he would root out injustices and seek to put them right wherever he could? Will he tell the House whether he approves the sequence of events which led the Government to have a majority on Standing Committees, when they have only a minority in the House?
    The Prime Minister: I have been studying "Erskine May" while sitting here listening to questions, and it is an interesting document. I understand that we are to have a debate on the matter, although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt want to discuss that later. There is one consideration which needs to be taken into account. If the House has made a decision on Second Reading and therefore on the principle of the Bill, what does the House think should be the composition of the Committee set up to carry through the principles which the House has approved?
    Mrs. Thatcher: In that case, is the Prime Minister aware that he is totally repudiating what the Leader of the House said just before Easter, when on 13th April he said that in future Committees must reflect the numbers in the House of Commons? Is the Prime Minister repudiating that?
    The Prime Minister: I am not repudiating it: I am adding to it. There is more than one principle at stake here.
    Mr. Tebbit: Twister.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady has not addressed herself to
    552
    whether she believes that the details of a Bill which has been given a Second Reading by the House should be examined by a Committee to enable those principles to be carried through.
    Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity not only to explain to the public in a ministerial broadcast his intention to carry on doing the job for which we were elected, to 1979 if necessary, but to deal with the growing public disquiet about the admission by British Petroleum that it made payments to political parties in Italy?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the question of a General Election is put at rest for the time being. If the Government were unable to govern, and if they were unable to get their legislation through. a different situation would clearly arise. Therefore, we shall just have to see how we go.
    The question of BP is a serious matter, although the matter is obviously not limited to BP. I have been giving consideration to it with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that in due course a statement will be made about it.
    Mr. Thorpe: Having regard to Standing Order 62(2) I am surprised to note that the Prime Minister is not well aware of it, so perhaps I may elucidate for his benefit: it deals with the regard which the Committee of Selection must have to the composition of the House when it is making appointments to Standing Committees. Are we to take it from the Prime Minister's earlier answer that he believes that that Standing Order—and three seconds ago he was apparently asking what it was—has been complied with by the events of yesterday? Is he aware that the doctrine he enunciated would mean that many people who might wish to support the Second Reading of a Bill would not do so if they thought that the Committee stage thereafter would be rigged?
    The Prime Minister: The Government have no influence on, and have played no part in, the decision of the Committee of Selection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), who has been a Member for 31 years, is responsible for what is done in that Committee. I understand that a debate will be arranged later,

    553
    and then it will be for my hon. Friend to indicate the Committee's position and for the Government to indicate theirs. In the meantime, I suggest that the Opposition get over a little of their synthetic indignation.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that in six years as Opposition Chief Whip and two years as Leader of the House I never heard the principle that he has just enunciated? The Standing Order to which the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) referred has always been the principle of the Committee of Selection. I hope that the Prime Minister will not start to introduce a totally new principle which has never been discussed through the usual channels.
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the House waits to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has to say. My right hon. Friend the Lord President will no doubt be making a statement about future business in due course. I repeat—and the right hon. Gentleman had better accept it from me —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—if there are to be the relations between us in the future that have existed in the past—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that the Government have played no part in the work of the Committee of Selection. It is for the Chairman of the Committee to indicate its position. Now will the right hon. Gentleman please withdraw any reflections of that kind?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Is it not reasonable to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to intimidate me? If that is his purpose, he will find that it is a very unwise course for him or anyone else to pursue. I do not withdraw one word. What I said was perfectly simple—that the right hon. Gentleman was producing a new principle of which I had never heard before. Of course, I accept that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is entitled to tell us why he did what he did. But I am equally entitled to tell the Prime Minister that he has introduced a new principle, without my being told that I am to be intimidated.
    The Prime Minister: I have rarely met anyone who is less capable of being intimidated than the right hon. Gentleman, even in his most offensive moods. I do not expect to do that. What I am
    554
    telling the right hon. Gentleman—and I think that he has accepted it—is that the Government have played no part in this. If that cannot be accepted, it will be a bad thing for relations between the two sides of the House. Therefore, I hope that it is accepted.
    On the question of the principle, it seems to me an extraordinary failure to understand the common elements of democratic practice to suggest that when a Bill has been given a Second Reading on principle, it should not be allowed to go through Committee.

    TUC AND CBI
    Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC and the CBI.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC and CBI.
    The Prime Minister: I hope to meet representatives of both the TUC and the CBI at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
    Mr. Blaker: Whilst we all admire the Prime Minister's ingenuity in finding new principles, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the TUC and CBI, for which it is very relevant, how the Secretary of State for Energy can abstain in the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party on the Government's spending plans, with all the effect on international confidence that that has? Does not the principle of collective responsibility apply?
    The Prime Minister: I am not finding new principles. I am restating old ones when I suggest that when the House has given a Bill a Second Reading, the Bill is supposed to be allowed to proceed in Committee. A similar principle applies to the doctrine of collective responsibility —that is, collective responsibility includes all Ministers, who must be willing to defend the Government's policies at all times.
    Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend rightly said earlier that sacrifices should be fairly borne. Does he not agree that in the last period the trade unions have

    555
    fallen over backwards to accept sacrifices? Will he now clearly indicate that the other side of the coin is an extension of egalitarian principles and of public ownership—[Interruption]—and that the Opposition and their supporters in the country—big business—should also make their sacrifices?
    The Prime Minister: I have repeatedly said—and I at once say again, despite the Opposition jeers—that the trade union movement is playing a most remarkable part at present. It ill behoves anyone on the Opposition Benches to jeer at what is being done.
    On the rôle of the trade unions, it is true that the people of this country and trade unionists have accepted sacrifices, but these sacrifices—and this is why we stand where we do—are in the best interests of securing a new base from which we can build a productive economy. Only on that base would my right hon. Friends and I feel free to ask the people to make those sacrifices. That is why we shall endeavour to carry through the programme laid down in our manifesto.
    Mr. Adley: If the TUC rejects the 3 per cent. pay limit, which the Government have said is imperative, will the Government cut by a similar percentage the proposed tax concessions? If they do so, will they tell the 10 million trade unionists who are members of the trade unions affiliated to the TUC whose fault it is that they are having their tax concessions cut?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, is being helpful and I am grateful to him for the way in which he puts his remarks. We should first wait to see how those discussions turn out. The trade unions are trying to carry their members into a situation in which they will freely and voluntarily accept a level of wage increases this year that is inconceivably low by comparison with the situation a year ago, when nobody would have thought that possible. What I am anxious to do, as I hope is the whole House, is to help the trade unions to achieve that.
    Mr. Spriggs: What special steps are the Government prepared to take to help school leavers, particularly in view of
    556
    the fears about unemployment in the Merseyside area, to obtain jobs in the next year?
    The Prime Minister: As the House knows, the Budget Statement contained a doubling of the temporary employment subsidy. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been looking especially at the subject of school leavers, not only as to the situation on Merseyside, but in other respects. I believe that he is now undertaking discussions on this matter.
    Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister reconsider what he said a few moments ago? Is he aware that nobody in any part of the House will doubt that the trade unions are playing a considerable part at present? What some of us are concerned about is the part played by Parliament. What proposals have the Government to restore the power of representative parliamentary democracy?
    The Prime Minister: It would be open to Parliament, in the light of any voluntary agreement reached by the trade unions, to overturn it if it were foolish enough to do so. What the Opposition have totally failed to understand is that in these matters of Budget judgment for the year ahead the level of earnings is one of the central features to be considered. No Chancellor of the Exchequer can afford to ignore it when deciding on the other balancing factors in his Budget. Therefore, if a sensible agreement were reached with the trade unions, it would be foolish for anybody to seek to overturn it, because that would throw out the balance of the Budget as a whole.
    Sir David Renton: Although I understand the Government's reasons for entering into these wage negotiations with the TUC, may I ask the Prime Minister who, if anybody, is representing the interests of those who will have to pay the wage increases?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, it will be for employers to decide what can be paid at the end of the day after negotiations with the trade unions. That is not a new principle but an old one. Last year some employers were unable to pay the full amount that had been agreed, but this is a process of collective bargaining.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Leader of the House please state next week's business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3RD MAY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Debate on appointments by the Committee of Selection.
TUESDAY 4TH MAY—Second Reading of the Rent (Agriculture) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constables) Bill and of the Land Drainage (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]
WEDNESDAY 5TH MAY—Progress on the Report stage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
THURSDAY 6TH MAY—Supply [19th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 7TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 10TH MAY—Until about 7 o'clock, remaining stages of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Afterwards, completion of the remaining stages of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Mrs. Thatcher: Will the debate on Monday, following the conclusion of the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, take place on the motion tabled by my right hon. Friends and myself? Furthermore, so that we may be better able to debate the matter thoroughly, will the right hon. Gentleman say on what provision in "Erskine May" the Prime Minister was relying when he referred to this subject and enunciated a totally different principle from any we have ever known, and, indeed, a principle which appears to be wholly at variance with the precedents established from February to October 1974?
Mr. Foot: I suggest that the best way to deal with all these questions, including that put by the right hon. Lady the
558
Leader Opposition, is to debate the matter on Monday not on the motion tabled by the right hon. Lady and her colleagues but on the Adjournment of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] It will then be open to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to report to the House on the effects of the decision of his Committee. The House will then, because of his report, be in a better position to judge the matter.
If I may be impertinent enough to say so, I believe that the mistake made by the Opposition in tabling their motion is that they have prejudged the matter before the House has had a chance to hear the Chairman's views. I hope that the House will regard my suggestion as the best way of proceeding with this matter. We have provided the earliest possible time for the matter to be debated. I recognise the importance of the matter. I hope that following Monday's debate everybody in the House will understand the situation very much better.
Mr. George Cunningham: Is it not a fact that the Committee set up to consider the Abortion Act reflected more or less the vote on Second Reading, much to the annoyance of some hon. Members on this side of the House, and that that decision was approved by many Opposition Members?
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend draws attention to one factor in the situation. There are several factors which no doubt gave rise to the decision taken by the Committee of Selection. One matter which did not arise was any representation by Her Majesty's Government. I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said and repudiate the suggestion made by the Leader of the Liberal Party that there was any rigging whatsoever. I repeat that there are a number of factors to be taken into consideration, and I believe that before the House makes up its mind we should hear what the Chairman of the Committee has to say.
Mr. Thorpe: Will the Lord President accept that of course I accept that the votes of the five Labour Members—the four plus the Chairman's casting vote were all coincidentally in the same direction? We accept that no Whip was on and that it was pure coincidence that they all voted the same way. Will the

559
right hon. Gentleman ensure that the debate is allowed to go wide enough not merely to deal with the matters that occurred on 28th April but so that he may be able to deal with the composition of the Committee of Selection? Some of us believe that the composition should be representative of the balance of seats in the House rather than merely of the two sides of the House, which at present it is not. The position takes no account of the 36 Members of Parliament who belong to four Opposition parties not represented on the Committee.
Mr. Foot: Since the debate is to take place on the Adjournment on the recommendation of the Government, there will be a wide opportunity for all such matters to be raised. That is a much better way of proceeding than by way of a debate on the lines of the motion tabled by the right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends or, indeed, the amendment tabled by the Liberal Party. I am glad to have a full repudiation from the Leader of the Liberal Party of any possibility of rigging. I hope that that fact will be widely reported.
Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider, as a matter of great urgency, giving time next week for the House to debate the secret payments by BP to political parties abroad? Does he not agree that it is scandalous that the accounts of BP failed to reveal these payments and that the lamentable excuse offered was that company legislation does not require political contributions to be revealed? Does he not agree—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not state his case. He must ask only whether the House can debate the matter.
Mr. Cryer: May I ask whether we may debate the matter, if not next week, at a very early stage?
Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the matter. I cannot promise a debate. There are some Questions tabled to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for answer on Monday. I suggest that that is the occasion when the House should consider the matter.
Mr. Peyton: May I ask the Leader of the House to read again his own words
560
in the debate on the Tuesday before Easter, as reported at column 1219 of the Official Report, and say whether he fully endorses them or wishes to resile from them now that they have become inconvenient? Would it not be quite sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to allow his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to make a personal statement on this matter? This would then clear it. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall have time to debate the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and an opportunity to vote upon it?
Mr. Foot: Concerning the words I used in the debate in reply to the right hon. Gentleman just before the recess, I do not withdraw anything there. I believe that those words were a perfectly correct statement of the Standing Order as it appears in "Erskine May". I do not withdraw a single word that I said there. Indeed, I believe that it governs the present situation as well. We can debate that matter.
As for saying that it could be dealt with by a personal statement from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), that is not the position at all. It is a question of the constitutional rights of all Committees of the House. If my hon. Friend catches your eye in the Adjournment debate on Monday, Mr. Speaker, he will, of course, be speaking on behalf of his Committee which has reached this decision. The House of Commons is wrong, in my opinion, in jumping to a conclusion on this matter and in putting motions on the Order Paper without even hearing what my hon. Friend has to say on the question.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's question to me about the possibility of voting on the motion, various Members in different parts of the House will be able to judge whether they wish to proceed with any particular motions. The Government hope that following the discussion we have on Monday, right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side will be prepared to withdraw their motion. But, if not, the House will have to find time for debate and be able to vote on such a matter. I still feel that the best way for the House of Commons to deal with this matter is to hear what is said in the debate and for all hon. Members

561
faithfully to make up their minds on the basis of what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman doubtless means that he will find time for the Opposition's motion to be debated before these Committees start their deliberations.
Mr. Foot: I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. Therefore, in order to ensure that no Committee shall start under this procedure until the House of Commons itself has been able to decide the matter, I suggest that the Committee that might have started on Tuesday should not start on Tuesday. I think that that has already been indicated to right hon. and hon. Members opposite. It is a perfectly proper way in which to proceed. It would be absurd for the Committees to go ahead while we are still uncertain what the House itself is deciding. Far from denying the House of Commons any right to settle the matter, I am recommending a better way of settling it than that proposed by the official Opposition. Let us listen to the case first before we make the judgment.
Mr. William Hamilton: Before the debate on the matter on Monday, will my right hon. Friend look up the record of the former Leader of the House in the Tory Administration to see how he rigged the Scottish Standing Committees of that day? My right hon. Friend will find an interesting precedent—if precedent it be—on this matter.
On a related subject, will my right hon. Friend explain the delay in the setting up of the Committee concerning the procedures of the whole House, which has been unduly delayed, and also the delay in giving the names of the Royal Commission dealing with the legal profession? I hope that my right hon. Friend will give an undertaking that he has not been got at by the Members of the House who are in the legal profession.
Mr. Foot: I give my hon. Friend an absolute undertaking that I have not been got at by any section of the House in the sense that he was describing. I agree that we have to deal speedily with the matter of the Committees dealing with the procedures of the House. If the House would give me a little longer to decide how we should proceed, and whether we should have two Committees
562
looking into these matters, I should be grateful.
As to the Committee of Selection, I hope that my hon. Friend will not tempt me into making attacks on the opposite side in regard to these matters, but it seems to me that, from the evidence to which he was referring, if he happens to be correct, he has material for his best speech for a long time—and on our side for a change.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: The Leader of the House has emphasised the importance of this issue. He said that it affected the constitutional rights of every Member of the House. In view of that, will he assure the House that there will be no question of any time limit on the debate on Monday evening?
Mr. Foot: We were suggesting that the Adjournment debate should be for one and a half hours. [Interruption.] The official Opposition can state their own view, but I gather that they did not have an objection to a debate of that character. [Interruption.] If there is any desire for a somewhat longer debate, I am sure that we would take that into account. [Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends may disagree with me, but I believe that it is right that there should be an opportunity for the House of Commons to discuss the matter properly. If the House of Commons wants a bit longer to discuss the matter, I shall not object.
I have proposed a way of dealing first with what may be said by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). I believe that the atmosphere may be very much changed when Members in all parts of the House are in full possession of the facts. We ought to know the facts before we pass judgment.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us on this side feel that it would be a better use of the hour and a half proposed for Monday night if we were not to debate the decision of the Committee of Selection—which we feel is a sensible decision—but to debate the illegal currency dealings on the Stock Exchange? Will my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends agree that we should set up a comprehensive inquiry into this matter and invite the Fraud Squad to investigate it, so that anybody with the idea of leaving this country with

563
a suitcase full of cash will know that the Government intend to prevent this happening?
Mr. Foot: The matter to which my hon. Friend refers is being investigated, and there may be a point at which the House will want to debate it, but I do not think that is a suggestion which can be put into operation on Monday.
I think it is right that the House of Commons should have the opportunity to debate the procedure on which these matters are based so that we may have general agreement about the way in which to proceed. It is better for the House of Commons as a whole that this should be done. What I have suggested is, I believe, a better way of dealing with the matter than that put forward by the official Opposition.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Leader of the House accept that the selection of Committees is being rigged at the present time in relation to the Scottish Standing Committees? Will he accept that the Scottish Standing Committees do not reflect the representation of Scottish Members of Parliament and that they reflect the English rather than the Scottish representation?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the debate on the motion on Monday should take into account the fact that the SNP's recommendations for Committee membership seem to be disregarded by the Committee of Selection? Would it not be simpler if we debated the subject on a simple motion to discharge the Committee of Selection?
Mr. Foot: The word "rigged", as sometimes used in the House, can be understood by hon. Members as a very modest word, but it is sometimes put into the headlines as if it has a stronger meaning. I repudiate entirely the suggestion that the Committee of Selection has in any sense whatsoever been guilty of rigging. I believe that it is very foolish of hon. Members in any quarter of the House to sling around charges of that character. But all the general questions raised by the hon. Gentleman would, I presume, be in order in the debate on Monday.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is outrageous on the one hand to say that this is a major constitutional issue and then to suggest that the House should have only an hour and a half to discuss it, which is roughly the time that we would have for a Prayer against some Statutory Instrument or Order from the Common Market, of which I am sure he would approve? This is not good enough. If it is a major constitutional issue, as many of us believe—and the mere fact that the right hon. Gentleman has deferred the sitting of a Standing Committee indicates that it is—surely he must offer us nothing short of a full day's debate.
Mr. Foot:I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has made a sensible proposal about the way that we should deal with this matter. Let us first see what happens when the House is in full possession of the facts, then let us see whether we proceed to a further debate. I have already indicated that if the official Opposition thought, following the debate, that they were not satisfied, there would be an opportunity for a further debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] At a very early stage. It would have to be dealt with very early, and possibly Tuesday would be the best day for dealing with it. But I think that it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman and others to say that they will pass judgment on the matter before they have even heard what the Chairman of the Committee, representing his Committee, has to say on the subject.
Mr. Jay: When are we to have a further debate on the handling of EEC secondary legislation as my right hon. Friend promised after the recent muddle over the skimmed milk Order?
Mr. Foot: There is to be one of the periodical debates on EEC legislation within a measurable number of weeks. I am not certain how many weeks exactly, but there will be a debate some weeks hence, and conceivably the matter could be dealt with then.
Mr. Spearing: Oh!
Mr. Foot: If we find that there are a great many subjects likely to be involved covering general policy questions in that debate, certainly we shall be prepared to provide a period after 10 o'clock

565
—we have to fit it into the general programme—when we could return afresh to the procedural point on which we had discussions before, and that would be as soon as we could arrange it.
Mr. Tebbit: May I put two matters to the Leader of the House? First, is the reason for putting on the debate on the Committee of Selection affair late at night that that is the traditional time for doing dishonest deeds? Secondly, when shall we get the promised debate on the proposed increase in school meal charges which was presaged in the White Paper on Public Expenditure, if that still has any validity?
Mr. Foot: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, no date is fixed for the debate on that Order to take place. But I shall let the House know as soon as we know when the debate is likely to take place. As for the hon. Gentleman's comment about the timing of Monday's debate, I repudiate entirely his suggestion. The fact is that it is the earliest time, apart from the debate on the Finance Bill— and that is also extremely urgent—that the House can debate the matter. Instead of being denounced for it, I should have expected congratulations, even from the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is customary for changes in prison rules to be debated in this Chamber? Will he therefore give an assurance that there will be a debate on the Floor of the House on Statutory Instrument No. 503?
Mr. Foot: I cannot give an absolute assurance that we can debate it on the Floor of the House, although I know that that is the desire of many of my hon. Friends. In view of the pressure of time, I cannot give that assurance. It could be debated upstairs. If that is not thought satisfactory, I am afraid that any debate on the Floor of the House will have to be postponed until later.
Mr. Powell: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to find time for the debate, which he has accepted to be necessary —it need not be a lengthy debate—on the motion with regard to the use of Standing Order No. 22?
566
[That in the opinion of this House the use of Standing Order No. 22 on 13th April 1976 ought not to be cited or drawn into precedent on any future occasion.]
Mr. Foot: I have, of course, seen the motion on the Order Paper. As I said when I answered business questions before, I think that it raises an important question. Although I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reflect on the decision of the Chair, as it stands the motion could be so interpreted. A motion of that character should be either withdrawn from the Order Paper or debated at an early date and removed by such a debate We are agreeable to an arrangement next week —I suggest Thursday evening—when that issue might be debated. That would enable us to dispose of it speedily. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is essential that the House itself should have the chance of dealing with it.
Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recall my letter to him last week calling for an inquiry into the Bank of England and the relationship between the Governor and this Government, and also the fixing of the minimum lending rate, together with a debate about the whole question of currency dealing in the City of London? Does he not agree that Monday's debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is not a suitable occasion for the inclusion of these matters? Therefore, will he urgently fix a time when we can have a full debate on the whole question of currency dealing and the fixing of the parity of the pound?
Mr. Foot: I recall my hon. Friend's letter to me, and I recognise the importance of all the subjects he has listed, but I cannot promise a speedy debate on the matters. I believe that many of these questions can be raised in the debate on Monday and in some of the subsequent debates that the House will have over the next two or three weeks.
Sir David Renton: With regard to the Committee of Selection, can the Leader of the House explain the rather strange position which has arisen? On the one hand we have a motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, supported by her right hon.

567
and hon. Friends, a motion of great importance which I think normally would be debated in Government time. On the other hand the Leader of the House says that the House will not be in possession of the facts until we have debated the matter first on the Adjournment. No doubt Oppositions always like two bites at the cherry, which is what we hope to have in view of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. But would not it be better to go straight to the point and have a full day's debate on my right hon. Friend's motion?
Mr. Foot: I have already explained the reasons why I do not believe that to be the best procedure. Others may take a different view, of course. I think it is better that the House should know the facts as reported by the Chairman of the Committee, on behalf of his Committee, before making up its mind. The motion prejudges the issue altogether. I believe that it is better to have the debate in the circumstances and on the basis that we have announced.
Mr. English: Is it true that the Opposition are blocking all changes in the membership of Select Committees until this Standing Committee argument has been settled? Is it also the case that most of those changes result from recent ministerial appointments? If that be the case, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are trying to secure themselves majorities on Select Committees by rigging them?
Mr. Foot: I am not aware that such action is being taken by the Opposition. I have not heard about such action. We shall have to see what develops.
Mr. Lawson: Although I am grateful to the Leader of the House, as many right hon. and hon. Members will be, for his promise of a full day's debate on Tuesday on the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, does he not agree that an hour and a half on Monday night for the debate on the statement by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is wholly inadequate? Does not the right hon. Gentleman want to preserve the last vestiges of his reputation as a parliamentarian?
Mr. Foot: I do not think that any hon. Member heard me say that I would
568
promise a full day's debate on this matter on Tuesday. I think that, probably, the hon. Gentleman himself heard me correctly. I made no such promise. I believe that what I have done is the best way of proceeding. If the House does not like it, we can see what happens afterwards. What we have done is to give the House of Commons a chance to discuss the whole of this matter, quite freely, at the earliest possible opportunity. Instead of being criticised for that, I feel that I should be congratulated.
Mr. John Garrett: When will my right hon. Friend announce the membership, and the start, of the Committee to examine the procedures and practices of the House? Did I gather from his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) that this matter is now being reconsidered by the Government? Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us think that this is a very important matter indeed?
Mr. Foot: I fully understand the importance which my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members attach to this question. I am just asking for a few more days before we decide how we should proceed on the matter. I am not suggesting that the whole question should be reconsidered but I should like a few more days before I make some statement about it. I hope the House will agree with what we suggest then, but we shall want to reach some more detailed conclusions about it.
Mr. Baker: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Finance Bill on Monday is exempted business which may run well beyond 10 o'clock, to midnight or later? For a major constitutional issue such as this to come up at such a late hour is totally unacceptable. If, as he said, he wants the House of Commons to debate this matter at the earliest possible opportunity, the first possible opportunity is 3·30 on Monday afternoon. Should he not put the debate forward to that time?
Mr. Foot: I and, I believe, many hon. Members would regard what the hon. Gentleman said as unreasonable—that the House should scrap the Finance Bill debate in order to proceed to this discussion—important though this matter is.

569
I have offered the first available time—apart from the Finance Bill—to the House for this discussion, and I hope the House will listen and ascertain what the situation is before it jumps to any further conclusions.
Mr. Faulds: I do not know what influence my right hon. Friend has in the new Government, but would he consider re-peopling the Services Committee because of the oddity of some of its recent decisions? Will he bear in mind that my services are always at the Government's command?
Mr. Foot: I gather that the latter situation, which my hon. Friend describes, has been the situation in recent weeks. I cannot understand how my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was not fully aware of the fact. It must have been brought to his attention on several occasions. I will certainly take into account what my hon. Friend says about a matter in which he is an expert.
Mr. Grylls: Would the Leader of the House remember that he is the Leader of the whole House and not just acting for the Government? The Committee of Selection is a House of Commons matter, primarily. If he refuses to have a full-scale debate at a proper time and of a proper length, in which the whole House of Commons can take part, he will be defending the indefensible. Will he think again about his decision this afternoon and ensure that we have an early full-scale debate?
Mr. Foot: I do not see how the hon. Gentleman, or the House, can come to the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman has reached. What I have proposed is to deal with this matter as a House of Commons matter. What the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have done is to seek, by their motion, to deal with it on a strictly party basis. I hope that we can escape from that way of dealing with it and deal with it as a House of Commons question.
Mrs. Renée Short: My right hon. Friend's predecessor promised the House on four occasions that the Government's reply to the Select Committee on Expenditure Report on the working of the Children and Young Persons Act would be available shortly. I am won-
570
dering how shortly is "shortly". Can he say when that will be forthcoming? We have already had a debate on the subject without the benefit of that reply. As the Prime Minister has chosen to debase the currency of the whole area of the arts by appointing a Minister in the other place, who will reply to Questions on the arts in this House?
Mr. Foot: On my hon. Friend's last point, I assume, unless I have made an error, that replies to questions about the arts will be made by a spokesman from the Department of Education and Science.
Mrs.Short: Who?
Mr. Foot: I have no doubt that various spokesmen from the Department of Education and Science would reply on such matters. As for the earlier report to which my hon. Friend drew my attention, I have no further information to add to what has already been said but I will see that she gets an answer shortly—as soon as we can give it.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider what he said a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)? The Leader of the House—in this respect I do not think that we are interested in who holds that office—promised a statement about the establishment of a sessional Committee on Procedure before Easter. Is he now in a position to say whether a sessional Committee can be set up while the House and the Government give further consideration to the major Committee?
Mr. Foot: I quite agree that there is an obligation upon me to make as speedy as possible a statement on both these Committees.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: Would the Leader of the House advise the Minister who is to reply to the Army debate next week that some of his hon. Friends were concerned at reports last week that the Secretary of State was seeking arms sales to the Government of South Korea, and that some of us may seek to raise that in the debate in we catch Mr. Speaker's eye? Would my right hon. Friend consider whether a Committee of the House could review the guidelines on arms exports, which are now looking very tatty indeed?
Mr. Foot: I will certainly pass the point on to my hon. Friend. No doubt in the debate my hon. Friend will press the case for a special Committee if he has the opportunity, but I cannot make any promises about a Committee at the moment.
Mr. Gow: What is the objection to having this afternoon a debate on the decision of the Committee of Selection? Is the Lord President aware that, in view of the record of the Prime Minister as gerrymander-in-chief of the Boundary Commission, the reputation of the Government in this matter is very low already?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Foot: I did not think that it was necessary to reply to a foolish and insulting question.
Mr. Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his initial reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in respect of the debate on EEC procedure? Would he not agree that it is in the best interests of this House to separate debates on substance from debates on procedure? A six-monthly sessional debate on EEC policies in general would not be the right time to discuss procedure. Since members of the Scrutiny Committee en bloc have signed an Early-Day Motion on this subject, would this not be a suitable time to have a debate?
Mr. Foot: I think there is considerable force in what my hon. Friend says about having a separate debate on the procedural aspects. This is what we are inclined to do. I hope that, in the not too distant future, we shall be able to arrange a debate.
Mr. Marten: Reverting to the question about Monday night, there was some noise on this side, and I am not certain that I got it right. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall initially have a debate on the Adjournment, which may run for longer than an hour and a half, and that, if the Opposition wish, they could then almost claim a proper debate on which we could have a vote, but not on the Adjournment?
On a more interesting matter, has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the two
572
motions on the dislike of people in this country for the evisceration of fowl? Since we had an assurance on 26th April 1972 that we need not follow that procedure if we did not want to, may we have a debate on that, too?
Mr.Foot: I think I have almost always agreed with the hon. Gentleman on the question of the evisceration of chickens, and it would be very melancholy if there were a divergence of interest between us on the subject. That does not mean to say that we can debate the matter next week, whether there is a divergence or not.
What I said was we should have the debate on the other matter on Monday. Our hope naturally is that there should be no further necessity for a debate but if it is believed, by the official Opposition or others, that a further debate is required, I believe that, on a matter of this significance, we would have to provide some time for it.
Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman said Tuesday.
Mr. Foot: I said that I thought that a convenient time was possibly Tuesday, again after 10 o'clock—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have not suggested in any of the replies that I have given to Conservative Members that we were prepared to disrupt the timetable of next week to have the debate. I believe that the offer I have made to the House is perfectly proper and reasonable. I hope that it will be accepted, but, I repeat, I hope that the Opposition will listen to the case before they press for the judgment to be pronounced.
Mr. Peyton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although he may have got his breath back, he is now galloping away from what he said earlier? Any suggestion that a second debate, if one is considered necessary, should take place at 10 o'clock at night or later is entirely novel and even more unacceptable.
Mr. Foot: Nothing that I said in my reply a minute or two ago in any way contradicted what I said earlier. I am sure the House will confirm that. What I am suggesting to the House is that we should debate this matter at an early time on Monday. I believe that the House should listen to what is said then

573
before it makes up its mind about what it is to do later.
Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman will recall how he and his colleagues were very liberal in their criticism of former Stormont Administrations for not stemming the tide of unemployment in the Province. Now that this Government, who are directly responsible for employment in the Province, have achieved the greatest number of men and women out of work in Northern Ireland in 30 years, would he arrange a debate to mark this sad occasion? In the meantime, would he persuade the Prime Minister to go to Northern Ireland to meet representatives of the workers?
Mr. Foot: Questions of unemployment are extremely serious, both in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the country. They have been debated in the House continually and I have no doubt that they will be debated over the weeks ahead. It is not true to say that the hon. Gentleman will not have the opportunity of raising such matters.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that one of the arguments used by his right hon. Friends during the West Woolwich by-election last year was that they had to hold the seat so that they could retain control of the Committees? As the hon. Member representing the largest constituency Labour Party in the country, may I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if there is a debate for an hour and a half on Monday evening, and if one allows 10 minutes to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), there will be less than 10 minutes for each of the other parties in the House?
Mr. Foot: Some very curious arguments must have been used in the hon. Member's by-election, which must account for his presence in the House. I have no knowledge that any such question was raised. I am sure that the debate will go perfectly well on Monday. I do not believe that it is too much to ask that the House should listen to what is said before pronouncing judgment on it.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Commit-
574
tee of Selection yesterday afternoon discussed this matter—there were not many of us—for over two hours? Therefore, how can an hour and a half on Monday night possibly be adequate for the House of Commons to discuss the same thing?
Mr. Foot: I hope that we shall be able to get through it in an hour and a half, but perhaps we can proceed a little faster if the hon. Member is a little less talkative than he was in the Committee. That might help the proceedings of the House. Anyway, let us see how the House proceeds to deal with this matter. My experience of the House of Commons suggests that it will pass judgment fairly on what is said and reported to it. It is because I believe that people should weigh the evidence before they reach their conclusions that I have criticised the Leader of the Opposition and her right hon. Friends for rushing in so hastily to put her motion on the Order Paper.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE AND LIBRARIAN RETIREMENTS)
Mr. Speaker: I have to make a statement to the House on an entirely different matter.
I have to inform the House that I have received letters from the Clerk of the House and from the Librarian about their forthcoming retirement. The letter from the Clerk of the House is in the following terms:
"Dear Mr. Speaker,
I write in accordance with custom to let you know that I wish, at the end of June, to resign the patent of Clerk of the House of Commons which I have been honoured to hold since 1st January 1974, and to conclude more than forty-one years in the service of the House, in peace and war.
During this time I have served in twelve Parliaments and under seven Speakers. I have also been so fortunate as to visit a number of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and to meet a large number of their Members and Clerks at Westminster.
Throughout my service I have deeply appreciated the courtesy, kindness and consideration which I have always received from the Chair and from Members of all parties. For this I am deeply grateful.
I would also like to express my warmest thanks for all the help I have received from those colleagues in all Departments with whom I have shared the unique privilege of working for the House of Commons."

575
The letter from the Librarian reads as follows:
"Dear Mr. Speaker,
I write to inform you of my wish, at the end of June, to retire from the office of Librarian of the House of Commons which I have had the honour to hold since 3rd September 1967.
I have had the great privilege of working in the Library for the last thirty years, and of watching its services grow as the use made of them by Members has grown. This growth could not have taken place without the support of Members in general, and of your Library Committee in particular, coupled with the tolerance and understanding of colleagues both inside and outside the Department of the Library.
For that, and for much else, I am and will remain deeply grateful."
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I am sure that the House will have learned with regret the news of the retirement of two of the most distinguished servants who have ever served this House of Commons. According to the normal practice, we shall have a motion on which we can express our views fully on this matter and I suggest that we should reserve our comments until then.
Mrs. Thatcher: I am very happy that we should reserve our main comments until then. Naturally, we are sorry that they are both retiring. Perhaps I might just say a preliminary "thank you" to both of them for their service and for their kindness and wish them well in their retirement.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Naturally I, too, should like to reserve some comments for the proper occasion.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY
Mr. Michael Latham: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the apparent breach of the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility by the Secretary of State for Energy in failing to oppose a motion criticising the Government's policy on public expenditure at a meeting of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party in London on 28th April."
576
Let me say at once that I gave notice of my intention in this regard by telephone to one of the Secretary of State's private secretaries in his private office at 11·40 this morning, directly after I had submitted my application to you, Mr. Speaker. I stressed to the lady that she should notify the Secretary of State at once.
I respectfully submit to you, Sir, that this matter should receive priority, first, because it is manifestly specific. It deals with a specific, named incident. Second, it is important. I submit that nothing could be more important for the conduct of Cabinet government than that Ministers should firmly uphold ministerial policy on all occasions. Indeed, in a Written Reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on 6th April, which was reaffirmed in a Written Reply to me on 13th April, the Prime Minister said:
"All members of the Government share a collective responsibility for Government policies."
In another reply to me on 6th April the Prime Minister, when talking about briefing journalists, said:
"A Minister cannot express views on policy matters in a non-ministerial capacity."— [Official Report, 6th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 99.]
I submit that such a proper doctrine must necessarily be extended to judgments by votes on policy matters as well.
Third, the matter is urgent. If the House does not take an immediate opportunity to discuss this apparent breach of Cabinet responsibility, a new precedent may be set which could be followed by other Ministers and which would thereby weaken the direct responsibility of all Ministers to defend the whole range of Government policy on public occasions. Such a precedent could also have the gravest effect on the ability of hon. Members to call Ministers to account in this House.
We saw, during the period of the EEC referendum, when Cabinet responsibility was temporarily abrogated, that Ministers could dissent publicly outside the House from Government policy but accept no responsibility for their opinions when questioned about them within the House. I believe that this is a serious matter. I have never previously used the

577
Standing Order No 9 procedure. I hope that my application will succeed.
Mr. Heffer: This is an abuse.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the apparent breach of the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility by the Secretary of State for Energy in failing to oppose a motion criticising the Government's policy on public expenditure at a meeting of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party in London on 28th April".
Under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Member has made, but I have to rule that his submisson does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Spaeker. Is it not an abuse of the House that a matter of this kind should be raised when the question of collective responsibility is not in the constitution of this House, or in that of any Government, and never has been? There is nothing whatever in the constitution that says that there must or must not be collective responsibility. It is something which has grown up but—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be out of order for me to allow the hon. Gentleman to make a counter-case. I have already ruled that it does not fall within the terms of Standing Order No. 9 and I have disallowed the application.
There is another application under Standing Order No. 9.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
Mr. Lawson: I rise to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the
578
purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that requires urgent consideration, namely,
"the failure of the Committee of Selection to reflect the changed composition of this House in its appointments of Members to Standing Committees."
I do not wish to detain the House. The fact that this is a specific, important and urgent matter has already been agreed by all sides in exchanges which have occurred earlier this afternoon. What we have been offered by the Leader of the House, however, is a one-and-a-half-hour debate late on Monday night. That is far too late. It is a constitutional affront and an insult to Parliament.
You, Mr. Speaker, are the last hope of those of us who believe in Parliament and in this House. You have it in your power under Standing Order No. 9 to say that a debate of such constitutional importance should be held either this afternoon or as the first order on Monday afternoon. This is what I appeal to you to do on behalf of those of us who believe in Parliament.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failure of the Committee of Selection to reflect the changed composition of this House in its appointments of Members to Standing Committees."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decisions. I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Member has made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
It is a very dangerous thing to try to involve the Chair in party arguments on major issues of this sort when the House has been discussing its own decision this afternoon.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRY AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.25 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Reports have reached me that the Tory Opposition intend to vote against the Bill tonight. What they do is of no practical consequence but it is of considerable historical interest. By voting against the Bill, the Tory Party will be divesting itself of whatever fragments of industrial policy it still possesses.
  The Bill is a straightforward amendment of one subsection of one section of a 19-Section Act which a Tory Government pushed through this House of Commons in 1972. I remember the cheers when the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, announced the contents of that measure. I remember the bitter opposition it met in Committee and on Report. The cheers came from the then Labour Opposition, and I remember that we waved our Order Papers to signify our satisfaction. The opposition came from a group of Tory Back Benchers, who rightly saw that legislation as a milestone on the road back from Selsdon.
  I remember that I spoke for the Opposition on Second Reading of that Bill. I welcomed it and made clear that we would support it. We did not vote against its Second Reading. It was a very flabby Bill. It provided many opportunities for considerable expense. Clause 7 of that Bill, for example, had no financial limits at all. The Conservatives published no guidelines on how proposals for assistance should be handled. We have had to make good that deficiency.
  The Industrial Development Advisory Board was added only as an afterthought, in response to pressure from both sides, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill turned down a Tory amendment which would have laid down viability tests for bestowing Government assistance. Having said all that, I would add that it was much to
  580
  be preferred to the vacuum that it was designed to fill.
  In the last few months, Opposition spokesmen have alleged that this or that action by the present Government does not conform to this Government's strategy. But the Industry Act 1972, imprecise and open-ended in many ways, was the only industrial strategy that the Tories had. Now, as I understand it, by voting against this simple, if sizeable, increase of the Section 8 financial limits they are voting to rewrite their own past in a way which would have been envied by the editors of the Soviet encyclopaedia.
  By repudiating the 1972 Industry Act —because that is what they will be doing if they vote against it—the Tories will be voting against any industrial policy whatever. No Tory Member is able to get up and give us a summary of the official Tory industrial policy. They can tell us easily enough what they are against—for example, the main economic highlights of their own period in office. They can tell us that they are against the nationalisation of Rolls-Royce; they can tell us that they are against the nationalisation of Govan Shipbuilders; they can tell us that they are against the Industry Act itself. Each of these actions now fills them with profound remorse. We understand that they are against all that.
  Mr. Tom King: If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I might have the opportunity to explain why we oppose the Bill. I humbly suggest that his job as Secretary of State is to present the Bill to the House and explain why the Government think that this expenditure is necessary.
  Mr. Valley: I have been speaking for only five minutes. I shall come to it in a few minutes. I can understand why the hon. Gentleman wants me to run over the ground very quickly. I should have thought that when introducing an amendment to legislation it was right to give a bit of history and background, if not for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, at least for the recollection of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), because he played an interesting part in the passing of the legislation. We know that the Opposition are against all that. But we

  581
  do not yet know—perhaps we shall hear later—what they are actually for.
  Meanwhile, we have published our approach to industrial strategy, which has been welcomed by both the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress—that is something that the Tories never achieved—and we are steadily getting on with implementing it. During the summer we shall be getting detailed and comprehensive reports from the economic development councils and other sectoral committees analysing the situation in a range of key manufacturing industries and making recommendations for actions by Government, industry and the trade unions.
  What is more, we are even managing to make sense of the 1972 Industry Act. Under the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), it was simply a ramshackle machinery for handing out public money in a mainly purposeless way. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has just walked into the Chamber. I know that he was here for a considerable time at Question Time, but he missed some of the historical background to the 1972 Industry Act. I am tempted to go over it again for his benefit. But I should warn him that he needs to be careful about it, because there are skeletons in the cupboard. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has just asked me to run over it quickly. He asked me to explain the Bill. I thought that for his benefit and others it was necessary to go over the background a little. I shall be glad to do it again if the hon. Member for Blaby wishes me to do so. I recall the articles he wrote in 1972. He used to say that the regional employment premium was a marvellous instrument of regional policy, even though the then Conservative Government were to phase it out. I used to do my homework at that time, and I read a great deal of what he wrote.
  I was about to say that we have refashioned the Act and established industry schemes under it. The Conservative Government were first with two industry schemes, the Wool Textile and the Offshore Interest Relief Grant Schemes. But we have expanded and built upon those schemes. Payments and commitments to date under them total £62 million. The closing date for applications under the Wool Textile Scheme has passed, but the
  582
  Offshore Supplies Scheme, with no terminal date, could continue to incur commitments totalling about £200 million up to 1980.
  That is one of the reasons—
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley rose—
  Mr. Varley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this part of my speech. That is one of the reasons why we need the Bill. I will give other reasons, but the fact is that the Offshore Supplies Scheme is one of the reasons why we need the Bill. We need the Bill and the increases under it to fulfil a commitment given by the Tory Government. Are we to be denied that opportunity? If by some chance the Opposition were to be successful in voting against the Bill, we could not carry out a Tory commitment. That is the ridiculous situation into which the Opposition have got themselves.
  Mr. Ridley: Does the right hon. Gentleman now see his job as dishing out money? Does he see his achievements as being £60 million on this and £290 million on that? What has been achieved for the money? Surely the right hon. Gentleman should be talking about his successes, not failures, in terms of spending.
  Mr. Varley: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient, because I want to come to some of the other schemes. It is proper and reasonable that I should point out that we would not be able to fulfil the previous Government's commitments if we were denied the Bill. I hope that that is widely understood by all Members.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman should understand that the more realistic explanation is that he spent the money on Chrysler, despite his better judgment.
  Mr. Varley: I am coming to Chrysler. I should not dream of avoiding mentioning Chrysler. Again, I must ask hon. Members to be patient. I shall get to Chrysler in due course. I hope that I may now make progress.
  We have gone further than the two industry schemes set up by the Tories when they were in Government. In response to the pressures under which

  583
  important sectors have been suffering during the recession, the Government have considered closely with particular industries the basis for further schemes aimed at improving the competitive position of whole industries in the medium term.
  Schemes for the ferrous foundry, clothing and machine tool industries were introduced last autumn. The initial response has been encouraging. Over 230 applications were received, involving a total potential investment of £140 million. [Interruption,] I understand entirely the position of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. He has gone back to Selsdon so fast that it would appear that he never left. As far as I know, he is not an official Opposition spokesman on industrial policy. For some time the hon. Gentleman was in the Department of Trade and Industry as a Minister. We know that he wanted to butcher Upper Clyde and so on, and was defeated in that object. Eventually, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) regarded him as a great liability and put him on the Back Benches. I do not like rubbing salt in the wounds in this way, but occasionally it is necessary to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of some of this history.
  We have built on those schemes and, despite what hon. Gentlemen say and their scoff now, they are welcomed by serious members of industry. Those who represent areas of the country where the Wool Textile Scheme is in operation know the value of it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) is ready to acknowledge that straight away.
  The yardstick against which proposals for these sectoral schemes and individual projects are evaluated is stated in the criteria for selective assistance placed before the House in January. We could not get any criteria for industry schemes from the Conservative Government. Our main consideration is to raise not only the level but the return on industrial investment. Only in this way can British industry compete more successfully in meeting the requirements of home and overseas markets.
  In addition, as a specifically counter-cyclical measure, we have introduced the Accelerated Projects Scheme to encourage
  584
  companies to bring forward investment projects which have been deferred as a result of the recession. That scheme has been very successful. So far, assistance of £35 million has been approved for 32 projects, involving investment of over £200 million. The scheme has helped to create some 4.000 new jobs and to safe guard 3,000 others. It is expected to bring benefits to the balance of payments of £200 million a year in the 1980s.
  On 6th April I also announced a special scheme of cost escalation insurance for the shipbuilding industry for both export and home orders.
  These positive measures under Section 8 have been warmly welcomed and endorsed by the Industrial Development Advisory Board and have met with a favourable response from industry.
  These powers must continue to be available for re-establishing the competitive position of our industry, and the new financial limits are essential to enable us to respond to the needs of industry.
  Under Section 8(7) of the Industry Act 1972, the initial limit on assistance was put at £150 million with provision that this limit could be raised by Order on not more than four occasions by sums not exceeding £100 million on each occasion. The overall ceiling on assistance which might be approved by Order is £550 million. The House has approved two increases of £100 million in the initial limit, through Orders which came into force on 13th March 1975 and 5th February 1976, and the current limit stands at £350 million.
  The Bill introduces a new initial limit of £600 million, which may be raised by Order on not more than four occasions by sums not exceeding £250 million on each occasion. The overall ceiling on assistance that might be approved by Orders would then be £1,600 million.
  In practice, selective assistance under Section 8 is generally provided in the form of loans or grants phased over a period of years as the needs of the project or scheme require. Thus, a commitment to provide a grant or loan will normally precede by some years the completion of actual payments. To ensure that we do not anticipate the approval of the House, we count against the statutory limit commitments as they are incurred rather than sums actually paid.

  585
  We do this even though under Section 8(6) of the 1972 Act we are strictly required only to count against the limit sums paid under that section plus any guarantees given. Commitments entered into at present amount to £315 million. This compares with the current statutory limit on Section 8 assistance of £350 million.
  For the future, we envisage continuing commitments being incurred through the various industry schemes, the Accelerated Projects Scheme and other measures of assistance to industry. During this financial year the total commitments counting against Section 8 limits could reach the overall ceiling of £550 million that may be approved by Orders. It is for this reason that the Bill proposes a new initial limit of £600 million. Even if no new measures of assistance under Section 8 were adopted, the total of commitments could reach £1,000 million by 1980–81.
  The overall ceiling of £1,600 million proposed in the Bill will enable the ongoing programmes to continue and provide the latitude necessary for Section 8 to be used in support of our industrial objectives. Any increase in the limit from the initial figure of £600 million towards a possible maximum limit of £1,600 million would have to be approved by Order of the House. But the Bill provides for an increase from £100 million to £250 million in the instalments by which the statutory limit may be increased by Order. This change reflects our practice of counting commitments—I emphasise that word—in full as they arise and the impact of inflation.
  I do not propose to increase the limit of £5 million for the approval of the House by affirmative resolution procedure for assistance to individual projects. In this respect, the control of the House will be even tighter in real terms than applied when the 1972 Act received Royal Assent.
  Mr. Nigel Lawson: I have been listening with considerable care to the Minister's statistical explanation. How does he relate the figures he has given to the House with Table 5 of the Budget Red Book, which shows expected cash expenditure by the Government on company securities in 1976–77 at £125 million compared with the 1975–76 figure of £481 million? Will there be
  586
  this substantial reduction, or has the Red Book figure become outdated?
  Mr. Varley: I do not think the hon. Member entirely understands the position. That is probably my thought. We counted as the actual commitment the contingent liability given. There are many examples, and that would account for it. If there is a further and easier way of explaining it, we will get the information and give it to the hon. Member during the course of the debate. Perhaps that is the reason for any apparent inconsistency between what I have said and the document he quoted.
  The increase in the statutory limit does not imply immediate or early new expenditure. For example, an industry scheme will have a prescribed period within which proposals may be considered, and offers of assistance, and so commitments, will be undertaken within this period. But the resulting expenditure will be spread over the subsequent three years or more as payments are made against actual progress of the projects. Moreover, certain guarantees, such as those involved in the Chrysler assistance, are unlikely ever to be called, or liabilities may be less than the sums guaranteed.
  I can give an example of what I mean. To date £26 million has been paid to Chryster, but at the turn of the year the figure of £162·5 million was the contingent liability. Many hon. Members thought that £162·5 million would immediately be handed over—
  Mr. Heseltine: No.
  Mr. Varley: I am not suggesting that a sophisticated man like the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) did not understand.
  Mr. Heseltine: What about your hon. Friends?
  Mr. Varley: My hon. Friends understood completely. In answering questions on the statement, I got the impression, however, that some Conservative Members did not understand it. I also read articles in the newspapers which demonstrated clearly that they did not understand the situation.
  Assistance under Section 8 has been provided to sustain certain companies of key importance to their industries, to

  587
  strengthen particular sectors under industry schemes and to encourage counter-cyclical investment under the Accelerated Projects Scheme. With all its shortcomings, the 1972 Act has proved its value. That is why we are asking the House to extend its life and range.
  The Tory Opposition ought not to shrink in shame from one of the few positive measures that will outlive their unproductive period of office. I confidently ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  4.47 p.m.
  Mr. Tom King: I was interested to hear the Secretary of State refer to the 1972 Act "with all its shortcomings". Some of its most serious shortcomings are the amendments by the Labour Government's Industry Act 1975 which removed from it certain essential protections. It takes a certain nerve to present a Bill to the House which represents expenditure of £1,600 million, to describe it as a straightforward amendment of a single section in an earlier Act and to expect the House to accept it.
  The number of Labour Members present in this debate is an indication—despite the distinguished presence of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) and two of his hon. Friends—of their total lack of interest in what is supposed to be a key industrial strategy. Maybe they are not so concerned, and have confidence in what the Secretary of State is doing, but I wonder whether I still have any confidence.
  The Secretary of State said he used to do his homework when we were in office. Did he do it today before he came here? He quoted the offshore supplies programme and said that it now has a requirement of £200 million by 1980, and that if the"wicked Tories"voted against the Bill tonight he would not be able to go ahead with this important project.
  That is not true. There are still tranches of £200 million in the existing powers, without this Bill. We should hear from the Minister tonight what is going on in offshore supplies. On 23rd January this year the Minister of State told us that this scheme—and it has been
  588
  running for three years—had in that period reached the sum of £910,000. We are now told that in the next three months there is a Government commitment for £200 million. That is a massive sum and we should like to hear more about it.
  The Secretary of State seems to adopt two laws when he is speaking. The emptier the benches behind him, the more he attacks the Opposition and avoids discussing his own policies. When he is putting measures forward—thinking back to his speech on Monday on the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Bill—he adopts the philosophy of the larger the sum the more soporific the speech.
  It has been quite a week for the Secretary of State. On Monday he asked for £2,000 million for the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Bill and on Thursday he is asking for £1,600 million. A visitor from a poorer country sitting in the Gallery this week could be forgiven for thinking that this must be a rich country. It is a little difficult to appreciate that the pound is at an all-time low and that we face the prospect of a £12 billion borrowing requirement when in the week following the worst troubles of the pound the Government are asking for £3,600 million new expenditure.
  It is fashionable to say that the poor level of the pound sterling is caused by the differential in the rate of inflation and the lack of an adequate differential in the interest rate. But a large borrowing requirement undermines foreign confidence in the Government. On Monday, the editorial in The Times said:
  "We should be prepared to make major changes if we are to avoid the real loss of wealth which would follow further heavy falls in sterling … they involve a switch from living on credit and funny money, to living on what we earn, and paying our way in sound money. The financial expression may seem complicated: the underlying fact is known to everyone."
  That is clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said in a letter to The Times this week, Government expenditure is quite outside Parliament's control at the moment.
  Nothing could more clearly underline that view than the way in which these measures are being put forward. There is no evidence that the Government are

  589
  attempting to live within their means or to recognise that the money is not there. It is a humiliating prospect that those who seek to carry the Bill will do so in the knowledge that the Government cannot honour it with funds themselves but will be dependent on their ability to borrow the money from others.
  The Secretary of State gave no adequate explanation why the Bill has suddenly been brought forward. He said that there were two further tranches of money available. In February, barely two months ago, we approved a further £100 million. When there is still the possibility of two further tranches of Government money, the Bill is introduced to jump up the figure by a further £1,600 million. It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State should ask Parliament in this way for such a large sum of money. In the debate on the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Bill on Monday, one of my hon. Friends said that if the Secretary of State had been a member of a board which was seeking funds for an investment project and had put forward the sort of case he put forward on Monday he would have been laughed out of the board room and out of his job.
  When we are being asked to approve such a massive sum it is a contempt of Parliament that we should be treated to the charade performance of a 10-minute knockabout in which the Secretary of State indulged in speculation about the Opposition's views and then gave only the baldest and most inadequate explanation of the Government's policy.
  There is no doubt that there is a crucial need for investment. On the Department's figures, investment is running this year at £1,300 million less than it was in the last year of office of the previous Conservative Government. The Government are desperately trying to fill that gap in the only way they know how—by rushing around and spraying Government money in all directions. Various schemes are being put forward. The Secretary of State read a list of schemes, which included ferrous foundries, machine tools, printing machinery, textile machinery, paper and board, clothing and non-ferrous foundries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech referred
  590
  to one of those schemes, on which the Economist commented as follows:
  "Mr. Healey insisted on having a new candidate to name in his Budget speech alongside the £40 million allocation. The best the Industry Department could come up with was the electronic and automation industry. The civil servants were deliberately non-specific because they are not yet sure whether it warrants a scheme."
  Another scheme for consideration is aid for that commanding height of the economy—poultry processing. I do not know what implication that has for the European approach to evisceration, but my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Martin) may be interested in it. We have a plethora of schemes and, in spite of what the Government say, industry is not rushing to take them up. Why is that? The answer is contained in the representations on price control made by the CBI to the Government. The CBI said bluntly:
  "There is no chance of the private sector embarking on the major investment programme and re-employment that the country needs unless an early restoration of adequate levels of profitability can be foreseen."
  It would be courteous to welcome the Minister of State to his new job, but I greet him with some misapprehension because I know the Department from which he came. The policy of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection is in direct conflict with what the Department of Industry is seeking to do. Is the Minister of State a gamekeeper turned poacher, or the other way round? I should, however, like to give him a general welcome to his new responsibilities. I must not make the welcome too long, as I have to say with respect that we do have to welcome new Ministers in the Department of Industry quite often.
  The Government claim to recognise the problem. Are they at long last taking to heart their "An Approach to Industrial Strategy", which said that we must ensure
  "that industry, both public and private, is able to earn sufficient profits on its investment to spur managements to expand and innovate and provide them with the internal finance on which to base investment."
  There is no way in which we can get the investment needed in this country by artificial means unless there are the funds within industry to make it possible.

  591
  The damage being done by the Price Code was recognised in a Guardian editorial this week which said:
  "It is essential … that the Code must be replaced by provisions which will not deter new investment as seriously as the present provisions … what do effective price controls imply? They undoubtedly mean less investment."
  If more investment is now the top priority, we must ensure that industry is able to retain the funds.
  If the Secretary of State has not read the CBI's examples of the Price Code's impact, I can give him the whole dossier. One example involves a large engineering company which studied an investment proposal which would have increased efficiency and produced more jobs. However, the extra labour costs could not be passed on in full because of the Price Code's productivity deduction. However, the reduction in costs per unit which the investment would have achieved would have had to be passed on to the customer under the Code, offset only temporarily by investment relief.
  As a result, a project which was supposed to show a return of £1 million would, because of price controls, have shown a loss of £300,000. The project was abandoned. The CBI has provided a whole series of examples.
  There is another example in a successful engineering company which I visited recently. It had been seriously hit by restraint on profit levels. Does the Secretary of State know that their level is fixed at 10 per cent. and that this company has been unable to generate funds for new investment? Does he know that his Department approached the firm saying it would like the company to consider bringing forward accelerated investment schemes? The firm put forward four schemes to his Department, two showing a return of 10 per cent. and two a return of 15 per cent. The Department said that it would certainly not support the schemes showing a return of only 10 per cent. because they were unviable. It would put money only into the 15 per cent. scheme. But the Minister of State's old Department says the company must not show a return of more than 10 per cent. on its prices. If the company goes ahead with its 15 per cent., in turn it will be told to reduce its prices.
  On one hand, the Government are trying to get investment and using all
  592
  sorts of pump priming while, on the other, they are doing all they can to stop the water rising in the well so that the pump does not work.
  If price controls can be justified, it is only in a very limited rôle. I regard them as being like a tourniquet. When a person is bleeding, a tourniquet may be essential, but if it is left on for ever the patient will get gangrene.
  If the Secretary of State wants investment, he will not get it by tinkering around the edges of the problem and stuffing in lots of Government money which has to be borrowed from somebody else, thereby reducing the value of the pound still further. We should be creating the climate in which new investment can take place.
  On Monday, the Secretary of State was asking for £2,000 million for the British steel industry. I recognise the industry's difficulties, but one of the reasons the Secretary of State had to ask for so much money was that the self-generated financing ratio of the British Steel Corporation had dropped from 55 per cent. to 30 per cent. and the only source of funds was borrowing from the Government.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: The hon. Member is getting very worked up about this. Has he forgotten that it was his Government which imposed unasked-for price controls on the electricity supply industry which is still trying to recover from that blunder?
  Mr. King: I respect the hon. Member for Bristol North-East and I think he takes my point. The case for price controls may be that they have a short-term validity. The danger lies in prolonging them. Perhaps the hon. Member has made my case. He is clearly opposed to price controls in nationalised industries. The Government say they recognise the need for investment in public and private industry. What is fair for one sector must be fair for the other. It is worrying that the Government are perpetuating the belief that industry can have security and prosperity through these investment funds when, in fact, there is no solution other than for companies to become profitable.
  There was a very sober warning given by Sir Richard Dobson yesterday when he said that even in British Leyland—with the massive funds proposed—he

  593
  could well see the time when neither he nor his board would be able to recommend the Government to put more funds into the organisation. The seriousness of the situation at Leyland is indicated by the fact that lost production has totalled £50 million since last month.
  Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman is incredible. The best thing for him to do would be to get through his speech very quickly. We know the Tories did massive U-turns while in Government, but they seem to be doing even bigger U-turns in Opposition. Before he gets himself worked up with this synthetic anger, he should turn round and look at hon. Members like the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who know the Opposition are not realistic about industrial policy.
  Mr. King: I do not think that intervention was particularly helpful. Those of us who care about what happens to industry in this country know the difference between the use we made of the Industry Act 1972, with its precautions, and what the present Government have done with it. By the time we left office, we had spent just £10 million on selective schemes. The Secretary of State has the nerve to imply that we are in favour of endless payments to an endless number of projects. It is utterly disgraceful. It is not fair to suggest that we are adopting double standards.
  There were two interesting comments in the Press which I hope the Secretary of State read this morning. First, Lord Ryder said younger management should be given a chance and promoted within industry. Secondly, in the same papers which reported those remarks, there was a reference to the fact that managers had suffered a 13 per cent. drop in their real incomes this year.
  If we are looking for the people who have given a year for Britain, we shall find them in middle management. The former Secretary of State for Trade paid tribute to our export performance and to all those who helped to improve it in such a remarkable way between 1974 and 1975. He said it was wholly due to the efforts of British workers and managers in the export markets. No matter how much pump priming the Secretary of State does and how much Government money is spread around, we shall not
  594
  solve our problems unless we have dedicated and enthusiastic people in our industry who will stay there and help us fight our industrial battle.
  It is difficult to get the facts, but I am worried about the number of people who are going to work abroad. In addition, the return flow to this country is effectively blocked. It is almost impossible to bring back the best of our managers from overseas, and this is a problem on which the Secretary of State should be giving serious consideration.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman make it plain that his party completely condemns those who were on pretty good incomes who abandoned Britain when, according to his estimate, the country particularly needed them?
  Mr. Lawson: Hon. Gentlemen opposite hounded them out.
  Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has only recently entered the Chamber.
  Mr. Grocott: I wish I had not bothered.
  Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman did not bother to be present to listen to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I take some slight comfort from the fact that he has done me the courtesy of listening to me. However, I am not in favour of turning the country into a concentration camp. I think I carry most of my right hon. and hon. Friends with me on that point.
  When the Chairman of the Illinois Central Gulf Railway came over to this country he spoke to Sir Richard Marsh about running a railway. He later said:
  "The trouble with Dick is that the has responsibility without power, and that ain't no good for anything except a prayer meeting."
  The trouble is that too many people in industry have responsibility without reward. That is no good for anything except a charitable organisation and if we try to run British industry as a charitable organisation we deserve the fate we shall have. We shall see a standard of living that none of us wants.
  The Bill proposes a massive increase for which no case has been made. Our intention to oppose the Bill is certainly not a rejection of the principle of selective assistance. The Secretary of State knows that that was the proposal that

  595
  we embodied in the 1972 Act. We provided safeguards which the Labour Government have abolished. Because those safeguards have been removed, because no case has been made at all for the massive extra sums involved and because the Government are grossly overspent and simply do not have this money, we shall vote against this further extension of profligate public expenditure tonight.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. Prior to entering the Chamber I was engaged in some serious discussions on matters concerning irregularities that are alleged to have taken place within the Bank of England. I have been dealing with that matter.
  During the last quarter of an hour I have had to endure listening to what the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) had to say. I am astonished by the almost synthetic abuse to which we have been subjected. That has happened mainly because the hon. Gentleman was trying to say that he would like to return the position where market forces prevailed completely, absolutely and truly, as they were supposed to do after the famous Selsdon meeting, but at the same time indicating that during the period that the Conservative Government were in office they introduced the Industry Act in such a fine and technical way that it was able to be used without increasing the money supply or distorting the market forces.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The plain fact is that capitalism is on the decline. That is one of the reasons why the Bill is before us today. I have seen many of these Bills since becoming a Member. Each one of them has been some sort of prop to the capitalist system. Incidentally, each one has had to have within it a great deal more money. It has not really mattered whether such a Bill has come from a Labour Government or a Conservative Government. Throughout a period long before I came to this place —this probably took place over the past three decades—the way in which market forces have been able to generate new investment has declined year after year.
  Irrespective of what the Tories have said in opposition, when presented with
  596
  the power of government they have had to face the responsibility of taking one of two options. One of the options has not really been open to the Tories. It cannot be, as it takes them a great leap forward to State control. Therefore, they take the easier option—the one that permits them to say that they are trying to preserve the free market forces, but that in order to help here and there, to prop up a small part of industry in one area, to assist regions in a certain direction, to help a small firm in another area and to mop up unemployment as they did in 1972 and thereafter, it is necessary for them to intervene in a multitude of ways, which, as they claim, do not add up to interference.
  That is what the Tories want to do when they are in power. The fact is that it leads them to the Industry Act. Of course, they try to adopt the same approach in a piecemeal fashion.
  Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is trying to maintain that the private capital market cannot finance the investment that is required. Does he not realise that finance is not forthcoming from the private market when the venture is not profitable because of Government interference, or whatever else may be the reason? When something is profitable, such as North Sea oil, private capital is available. Private capital flowed into North Sea oil on the largest possible scale—a far larger scale than that of many Government projects.
  Mr. Skinner: When the Tories were last in power I think that the hon. Gentleman was involved in editing an important Tory periodical. Why did he not make it clear, after the Tories had been elected in 1970, that they had struck out on the wrong course?
  Mr. Lawson: I did.
  Mr. Skinner: It may be argued that for a few months the Tories indicated that they were reverting to the jungle of market forces. However, after a further few months, after the Civil Service had got round their necks, they indicated that they could not revert to that jungle. They were told that they would have another 100,000 on the dole in next to no time if they did.

  597
  When that position was reached, Tory Ministers propped themselves up at the Dispatch Box to trot out the intervention policy. They did so not to my amazement, because the Tories had the same briefs as some of my hon. Friends got in 1974. Tory Ministers appeared at the Dispatch Box and, instead of trotting out the Selsdon philosophy, hey presto, they trotted out the intervention policy. The serried ranks of the Tories on the Government Benches dropped their heads. Almost all of them looked sad. Those on the Front Bench looked cheerful, or tried to look cheerful. They were intervening to a greater degree than The Tories had ever intervened before.
  That reversal having taken place, we moved forwards another stage. The right hon. Member for Leeds North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who represents the Tory Party across a wide area—the precise range of which I know not—indicated at the Tory Party Conference that the ratchet had moved another little notch. That is what happened. The 1972 Industry Act came later because of the 1 million unemployed in February. That is when the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sid-cup (Mr. Heath), said at the Dispatch Box—and he could not hear himself speak because of the 1 million unemployed—that he had decided, along with his Cabinet, to change course.
  That was not a big job for the right hon. Gentleman. It was not difficult for him to change course. He merely told his Cabinet what he was going to do. About 20 people immediately turned right round. No one protested, not even the present Leader of the Tory Party. I am told that she grumbled in private about the change in direction. She grumbled about the Industry Act but she did not do anything about it publicly. She carried on, and the Tory Party intervened in a fairly dramatic fashion. At about that time they rescued Rolls-Royce. That gave them a clue as to how they could prevent another Rolls-Royce debacle in future.
  I came here today, Mr. Speaker, shortly before you took the Chair, to listen to the Tory Front Bench spokesman—the hon. Member for Bridgwater. He told me what the Tories would do if they came back to power. It is not that I do not want to believe the hon. Gentleman;
  598
  based on past experience, I cannot believe him. When the Tories were in power, I watched the hon. Gentleman, when he was an ordinary Back Bench Member sticking up his hand in the right places and voting in the right Lobby, consistently, day after day and week after week. Rather strangely, most Tory Members followed. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has a rather difficult rôle to play in this matter. I am not sure whether he was kicked out or got dropped on the way. He made a few noises. By and large, however, the Tories accepted it.
  I have news for the Tory faithful who have been prepared to listen to their Front Bench spokesman—the nine Back Bench Members. It will be the same thing the next time round, if they get the chance. If they get the chance, the intervention policy will continue, because it must.
  Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Opposition Back Bench Members who listened to my speech. Why does he think that none of the Back Bench Members on the Government side of the House listened to the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Skinner: As I explained, I was on my way to listen to my right hon. Friend, who is my next-door neighbour, when I got involved in trying to explain to a mass of Lobby correspondents outside this place about the irregularity that has been occurring in the Bank of England. I had to explain that. When I leave the Chamber this evening, I shall be explaining a little further about that sordid affair, which needs a wider reference to the public generally.
  Mr. Ridley: Perhaps a Labour Party general inquiry.
  Mr. Skinner: The Tory faithful will have to put up with the Industry Act and these increases. As I say, if the Tories returned to power I would have no doubt that they would propose even more increases. The plain fact is that a £10 million-a-day intervention is the total of grants of one kind or another—tax reliefs, and so on. The Tory Party, if in government, could not dismantle it. It is too large.
  Mr. Lawson: When will the hon. Gentleman say whether or not he supports this policy?
  Mr. Skinner: I am coming to that. I shall deal with it much later. I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman what he will do. I know what he will do tonight. If he gets the chance, he will stand up and vehemently tell us what ought to happen, and he will vote in the same fashion as all his colleagues. They will be one happy band of brothers. But he would not do that in government if he got the Front Bench job that he is currently shadowing. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that he did not speak from the Dispatch Box the other night on some rather important financial matters at about 1 a.m.? That is what he will do if he gets the chance to put forward policies on behalf of his party.
  The Tories will do it not only because of the massive amount of money that is being channelled and funnelled into the private sector, which is diminishing all the time because of the falling rate of profits and the difficulties—
  Mr. John Stokes: With a Socialist Government.
  Mr. Skinner: It has nothing to do with a Socialist Government. The fall in the rates of profit has been going on for a considerable time. I remember putting down Questions, when the Tories were in power, about the rate of profit generally throughout the private sector. I got answers that indicated that it was falling during most of that time. There were slight spasms here and there, but by and large the general trend over about 15 or 16 years has been a falling rate, give or take a few minor variations along the way. That is because of technological changes that have taken place in industry. It is because of the mad desire of most politicians to allow the implementation of services not in the public sector but in the private sector—services that some of us would argue were of too low a priority and which perhaps we could do without.
  The manufacturing base has been narrowed more and more as each year has passed. It is because of having to compete with outside interests that have, perhaps, had greater advantages than in-
  600
  terests in Britain. Taking Japan or the Common Market countries, one can argue that, for a good number of reasons, their ability to produce more efficiently has without doubt made it more difficult for British speculators and firms to compete on the same basis. Our entry into the Common Market did not help us in that regard, either, because it enabled people to transfer their money and investment to other parts of the world, whereas hitherto they had found it more difficult to do so.
  For all those reasons the private sector, especially the manufacturing area, has been diminishing over a long period. It is that diminution that we must arrest. Therefore, my right hon. Friend comes forward with a proposition which is, roughly, that we believe that we can prop up the private sector and keep to some extent a modicum of price control—I do not go any further than that—by giving grants of various kinds, especially in areas in which they are needed for reasons of unemployment, for technological reasons or any of the other reasons for which my right hon. Friend is allowed to do these things.
  I take a different view. This is where I answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) about my personal views. He rightly raised the point. As a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party, I take the view, roughly, that because the capitalist system is now showing signs of decline that are more serious than any of those previously shown since the end of the war, and because the contradictions are exposing this to a greater degree, we ought to move in, in a public fashion and in a more dramatic way. We should recognise the difficulties of the private sector in surviving to an even greater degree than is being done by my right hon. Friend and his colleagues—who form a majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Let me put that on record. Not every one in the Tribune Group would agree with the point that I am making. I understand that my right hon. Friend represents the majority view, but it happens not to be mine, as an individual point of view.
  I would take another great leap forward, and not rely on getting another few notches on the system over a long period, during which we might have another fundamental crisis of high

  601
  interest rates, high unemployment and all the things attached to economic crises such as those of the past 30 years, each one of which has shown itself to be greater than its predecessor. That would be my way of examining this problem and dealing with it.
  I understand my right hon. Friend's point of view when he refers to the current view within the Parliamentary Labour Party as represented by the Cabinet and the Government. Therefore, I shall naturally support my right hon. Friend's application and the Bill to increase the amount of money that he will be able to use, on the basis that I know that for the majority of Labour Members and the majority of people in the Labour movement it will represent the answer to the problem.
  I know that we shall return to the problem, and that on the next occasion when we run into an economic crisis—and it may not be as far away as the time lag between the present crisis and the previous one—we shall return once again to the same fundamental problem. Perhaps I shall wander into the Chamber and make a similar speech. We shall have to face the problem.
  I understand my right hon. Friend's reasons for introducing the Bill. With his colleagues, he takes the view that by this amelioration they will be able to keep down the unemployment levels in some areas, soften the misery of unemployment, and many of the things they want to do to placate certain problems. I take the view that this is not resolving the problem with which the country is faced, and that it is not doing it in a Socialist fashion; but that is neither here nor there. I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate.
  I return to the central point that I made at the beginning of my speech. The Tories are in extreme difficulty in this matter. They introduced the Act in 1972 because there was high unemployment, and they decided to use the tools of that Act in a more limited way than this Bill does, but they used them for pretty much the same reasons. The difference between the Tories in 1972 and the Government today is that my right hon. Friend is taking account of inflation and understands that the crisis is more severe than in 1972. My right hon.
  602
  Friend therefore needs more flexibility and more money. For that reason I shall support him tonight, in the knowledge that we shall return to the problem over and over again, until it is solved in the way that I have described.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The House is fortunate because the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) managed to escape the financial journalists. If he had not he might have been prevented from delivering his speech. It was in the best traditions of parliamentary rhetoric. The only trouble with it was that it was not serious. It was a frivolous speech. His mind must have been more on the problems of the currency markets on which he had been engaging financial journalists. Perhaps one of the reasons for the appalling fall in the value of the pound is that financial journalists have been listening too much to the hon. Member for Bolsover.
  The speech of the Secretary of State was also frivolous. Listening to it one would not have believed that there is an appalling industrial and economic crisis. The two speeches from the Government Benches have been entirely devoted to an attempt to tie up my right hon. and hon. Friends in their policy. That may be great fun, and there may even be some justification for it, but it is not serious and it is not a real contribution to the debate.
  I want to make a serious analysis of what is wrong, and I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover will not agree with me. I intend to use the debate to analyse what has gone wrong with our industrial effort. It is too simple to try to describe the situation in terms of what the Tories did or what the Labour Government did, and how much investment took place under each Government. One cannot take periods of Tory or Labour Governments and say that things were good at one time but bad at another. There has been a continuing decline.
  We have substituted new objectives for industry. Whatever one might feel about the old objectives, the idea was that industry should achieve the best possible return on capital and that it should satisfy the needs of customers. Those two objectives have been thrown out of the window in recent years, to such an extent that I

  603
  want to treat the House to one quotation from the booklet entitled "The Contents of a Planning Agreement" from the Department of Industry. In that pamphlet there is only one mention of the consumer and that is on page 16, paragraph 26, which says:
  "What evidence is there that the company's procedure for handling customers' complaints is satisfactory? Has the NCC been asked about it?"
  That is the only reference to the market in the whole of the document.
  That brings me to the new objectives of industry as evidenced by this Government more strongly than any before it. I see that the financial expert, the hon. Member for Bolsover, has already left the Chamber to discuss currency markets again. What a pity.
  The first new objective of industry is that the price charged should be acceptable to the Government. We now have this mad policy of industrial price control, and I must chide the Secretary of State for defending price control today because he voted against it when the Conservative Government introduced it in 1973. I must also chide my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) for trying to dissociate himself from price control, because he voted for it in 1973. I have consistently voted against price control in the 16 years I have been a Member of the House.
  Mr. Tom King: I respect my hon. Friend's consistency in this matter but I tried to distinguish between what is a short-term emergency and measures which are prolonged long after their useful life. I used the analogy of the tourniquet as an example.
  Mr. Ridley: I do not want to become involved in the price control argument except to say that the damage price controls are doing to industry is deep and lasting. Anyone who wants British industry to succeed, expand and prosper must want price controls removed. They cannot have it both ways. The time has come to make up our minds.
  The second problem, that of jobs and the way in which people lose them, is more difficult: price control can be eliminated easily. Welcome though the unfair dismissal legislation is on humane grounds, it is another burden on Indus-
  604
  try.It has an immobilising effect on managers who are attempting to introduce labour mobility. The provisions of the Act are counter-productive to efficient, modern industry. If one puts jobs first, industrial efficiency and productivity must come second. That might be right, but the consequences are there for all to see—growing overmanning, growing misuse of labour, the desire of Government to introduce job creation and preservation schemes which can only lead to having more people in jobs than industry can carry.
  All Government legislation has been along those lines. One cannot have planning agreements, national enterprise boards and all the claptrap of State control in industry, unless one explains what is its purpose. Its purpose is not to promote industrial efficiency but to keep people in sheltered, protected employment. For real industrial efficiency the National Enterprise Board would have to close down all inefficient industries and rout out overmanning. The board would have to insist on unemployment being created on Merseyside because that is where the overmanning is. The Government and their supporters try to pretend that the whole claptrap is designed to secure greater industrial efficiency. It is not. It is designed to ensure that the industrial priority is to employ people in the greatest numbers possible in the places where the Government want them employed. I understand that but it is counter-productive to industrial efficiency.
  Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is no good having production unless industry makes the goods that people want to buy? It is the market and the customer who should decide.
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is correct. That is what has gone wrong.
  The worst thing of all is the industrial rescue. When the Government save a major industrial company they signal to all industrial workers that no amount of overmanning, strikes or inefficiencies will carry any penalty, and that, no matter how hard they push wage claims or refuse to accept modern working practices or shift work, there is no ultimate danger to the enterprise, because it will be saved. That is a final reinforcement of the policy of putting people's convenience and their jobs before industrial efficiency.

  605
  That is what is wrong with British industry. It has resulted in three or four times the manning scales that we should have, a quarter of the amount of shift work which our competitors are doing, and appallingly low use of capital investment resources. It is no surprise that this is the consequence.
  I want to take the matter a stage further. The latest pressures from the Labour Party are for import controls, workers on the board, the virtual abolition of the prerogatives of management, and the transfer to trade unions of large areas of industrial decision taking. Those ideas are not in order to obtain more shift work and to have machines manned properly. They are not in order to use our capital stock effectively. They are in order to make life even easier and less uncomfortable, to take all the hardship that is left in British industrial life out of it.
  The House can have it as it wishes. I am not necessarily arguing that it is wrong to do those things. I am saying merely that we must understand the reason why our industrial performance is so bad. Germany, Japan and France are pursuing the objective of return on capital employed by satisfying the demands of the market place: nothing else. They do not think about the effect on workers, trade unions or any of the sacred cows of the Labour Party.
  Mr. Grocott: That is good?
  Mr. Ridley: It may be good or bad. I am trying to explain to Labour Members why a further dose of the medicine that is already poisoning British industry is unlikely to help the patient to recover.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: They have planning agreements in France.
  Mr. Ridley: In a sedentary intervention, the hon. Gentleman raises the question of planning agreements in France. He will be wise to study the tax structure there. He may have heard that the French economy is beginning to decline, and he may also have noticed that the franc has been weak. That may be coupled with the fact that the French are now introducing the same sort of Socialist taxation policies as we have.
  606
  The escalating sums of money that we are being asked to vote for industry, to which the Bill is a witness, are the price we must pay for the decline in the standards of efficiency of British industry. We cannot feel happy about substituting the judgment of the State for the judgment of the market. The whole House is agreed on the problem—that the share of private industrial investment has been woefully low and is becoming worse, and that there is a vacuum. Even if we make money available through the City or the Government nobody wants to invest it. I do not think that that is a contentious point.
  The Labour Party then says "Let the State decide how to invest it." We say "Let us find a way of encouraging the private sector to invest it." I should like to remind the House of examples of major State industrial investment. I should hardly be wise to mention groundnuts, but that is where all this started. I should like to mention the atomic energy programme. The State has invested £l½billion and has nothing. We have not sold one atomic power station round the world. We have the hovercraft, another colossal British industrial failure, and the hovertrain. We have the 500 megawatt sets, which set back electricity generation for years. Now we have that all-time sales winner, the Concorde.
  Mr. Skinner: Is not the hon. Gentleman forgetting something which is a bit nearer home and much more recent? In the context of all the other matters he has mentioned he should refer to the Crown Agents' bid to involve themselves in the property market, which has already resulted in the taxpayer having to find £85 million. That was passed by the House, and I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman protesting in the same way as he is protesting tonight. The sad fact is that it will cost a hell of a lot more before the mess is cleared up.
  Mr. Ridley: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interventions. He makes my point, that where the State has undertaken major investment it has got it wrong, even more often than the private sector. As far as I know, the Crown Agents do not issue shares or have owners. I believe that they draw their resources from the House.

  607
  I have given examples of identified investment projects. The list of companies taken over by the State in order to inject money into them to make them succeed is equally dismal: Beagle, the Scottish Daily News, Meriden, the Kirkby co-operative, and now the two great motor companies, Chrysler and British Leyland, where all that I have described is only too evidently true. It is too soon to judge for sure, but the evidence that we have about the use of money under the Bill on projects to encourage investment, or for buying into private sector companies in the hope that they will take off, must be very depressing for Labour Members. It must sometimes cause them sleepless nights, after they have called for more State investment, to think of the results of such State investment as has already taken place.
  There is no doubt that our most successful competitors are succeeding through private sector investment. Although there are examples of semi-partnerships, they are partnerships with the financial parts of Government or the banking system, rather than through the trade unions and Socialist politicians, who, in this instance, are pursuing objectives totally different from those of the State planning which is taking place in France or Japan. I do not think that one will find the trade unions in Japan saying "Put another £1,000 million into this industry because of the jobs it will save. "Hard-headed bankers there say "You could use your cash better if you took it out of that industry and exploited this market." That is why we find ourselves bedevilled with colour television tubes, motor cycles and motor cars from Japan. It is because of an absolutely dedicated, hard-headed sense of where the best market is and how the best use can be made of investment. Not till the Labour Party gets that attitude into its view of how State funds should be used will it have a success story.
  I shall now be constructive. There has been a great deal of teasing and bantering about what the Tories would do. I plead not guilty to any equivocation over prices and incomes, State help for industry, or any of these matters. I shall tell the House what I continue to believe the right solution to our industrial problems to be. I draw attention to Shannon, in Eire, where there is a
  608
  province—if that is the right term—which is free from tax liability till 1991. Any company which starts operations there does not have to pay tax till that date. If we could give a guarantee of that kind we would begin to encourage investors.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is not here because I believe that if he were prepared to go to Merseyside, one of the more depressed industrial areas, and tell industrialists that their investment will be respected by Government and by the taxman for 20 years ahead, that the shareholders will have a good and fair return on their money, and that managers will not be taxed out of existence by having to pay more tax than their counterparts pay in other countries, that surely would make an enormous difference, because that area would obtain the required investment. The hon. Gentleman could go even further and say to the trade unions on Merseyside "Throw out restrictive practices, cut out overmanning and throw aside the process of having six men to do a two-man job". If that line were followed there would be so many industrialists rushing up to Merseyside that the trains, already oversubscribed, could not even carry them.
  The Labour Party must realise that the crisis is one of Socialism. What is afflicting this country is the failure of Socialism. In no sense is this a crisis of capitalism. Capitalism has been starved of resources and there has been no encouragement to allow the system to thrive. All that happens is that it is blamed for any failures.
  We have only to look at this Bill to see the danger of its provisions. We are being asked to spend another £1,600 million on propping up failed Socialism. The levying of a sum of £1,600 million will do grave damage to what remains of our productive industrial base. The Government cannot obtain the money in taxes, so they will print it. In due course that money will find its way through the system and will cause inflation and disrupt the stable areas of British industry. It will certainly cause more damage to be done, as if enough damage had not been done already.
  Why cannot the Socialists realise that all they have cherished for so long, all the rubbish they learned when young, has

  609
  proved and is proving so dangerous to this country that it is destroying us? When will they learn that their policies are eroding our industrial base and are thoroughly destructive to all we rely upon to survive?
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, and I apologise for the fact that I was unable to be present for the Front Bench contributions.
  I was interested to hear the speech made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). All I shall say of that speech is that it was a rhetorical effort in the parliamentary tradition, and far less sensible than the speech of the previous contributor. The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was rhetorical, but he put forward a coherent policy that was consistent with Socialism. It certainly contained a lot more than did the speech of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. But neither hon. Member tackled the central issue that faces this country. The central issue lies in finding a way to deal with our deep-rooted industrial problems—in other words a solution to our problems that will be acceptable in terms of social democracy and the traditions within which we live.
  Let me pass from the macro to the micro level and take the opportunity to say something about certain of the many purpose for which the money that we are voting in this Bill will be used. It is particularly appropriate to do this, since I come from a constituency and an area that will benefit considerably from the provisions of the Bill. I refer to Coventry in particular and the West Midlands in General.
  We have seen that operations mounted by Labour Governments against a background of bitter and acrimonious debate in this House—measures pushed through against the relentless opposition of the Conservative Party—have in effect saved Coventry from a devastation that would have made the blitzes of 1941 and 1943 pale into insignificance.
  Have Conservative Members fully appreciated what would happen if funds had not been made available to Chrysler,
  610
  British Leyland and Alfred Herbert? Indeed, would Conservatives have denied those funds if they knew that it would affect the livelihoods of 50,000 people in Coventry and in the areas surrounding the city? I invite the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury to say whether he would vote against such provisions.
  Mr. Ridley: Yes.
  Mr. Robinson: At least we now have it clear that the hon. Gentleman shows indifference to the livelihood of 50,000 people in and around Coventry. Does he believe that such a policy is practical in the Britain of the 1970s?
  Mr. Ridley: Yes.
  Mr. Robinson: Then you are farther from reality than I thought.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he must remember that when he says "you" he means me.
  Mr. Robinson: I shall do my best to comply more completely with the conventions of the House. Perhaps I should have said that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is farther away from reality than I thought. The hon. Gentleman's attitudes are just too theoretical. It is no good his coming forward with magnificent pieces of rhetorical but totally unrealistic political and economic atavism. What he propounds is nothing more nor less than that.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many people will be unemployed in Coventry when our creditors refuse to lend us this £1,600 million, which will be additional to all the other many millions that we are now trying to borrow?
  Mr. Robinson: The public sector borrowing requirement is a matter of great concern. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that score. I think that we can raise credit for a limited period in future. I do not think that we shall be denied that money by our creditors, and it will be well spent in the areas to which it will go. If it is not well spent, it will be as much the fault of the managers as of the men.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman says that we can raise the money for a limited amount of time. What happens when we reach the limit?
  Mr. Robinson: I do not want to be side-tracked along those lines.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: You are the one who is divorced from reality.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member I or Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has been in the House longer than has the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), and should know the rules.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the word "you".
  Mr. Robinson: Bad habits seem to be contagious.
  I wish to deal first with the Chrysler situation. The Labour Government should in no way apologise for their rescue operation of Chrysler. The decision was correct. The Government, particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, devised a finacially and organisationally ingenious formula. The operation was perhaps as skilful as some of those mounted the then Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, which was abolished as an act of rash and reckless political prejudice by the Tory Government in 1970.
  It is true to say that the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), as the then Secretary of State for Industry, tried to avoid that decision, but he was overruled by the reckless political prejudice that prevailed in the Cabinet at that time. It is the same Cabinet that embarked on policies of confrontation and conflict, the consequences of which are still working themselves through our industries and in particular those in the Midlands.
  If hon. Members opposite will not accept that, they are refusing to come to terms with our central problem in regard to industrial relations, particularly in those areas in the Midlands that I know something about. Unless they are unable to realise that they will never succeed.
  With regard to Chrysler, there is one matter in particular to which we shall have to pay attention. The management of Chrysler in the United States
  612
  must be pinned to the commitments it gave. If Chrysler is to succeed in this country, the key to its success will lie very much in Detroit. Unless we pin down the American management to honour its commitments, Chrysler will not succeed. It will be an acid test of the Government's ability to make a multi-national corporation honour its commitments, which are essential to the national requirements of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Michael Marshall: The House listens to the hon. Gentleman with great interest, knowing his experience in the motor industry. Does he agree that if he is supporting the case for Chrysler he is doing so only at the expense of British Leyland? Is it not foolish to have this competition between these two parts of the motor industry?
  Mr. Robinson: We have a much smaller motor industry in the United Kingdom, with fewer producers and fewer models, than many European countries. There is a perfectly good place for Chrysler within the United Kingdom and within the world-wide operation of the Chrysler Corporation.
  Hon. Members opposite are continually braying about industrial relations. The problems of industrial relations are put forward as being the only one we have in British industry, and in the motor industry in particular. Hon. Gentlemen opposite understand that there are not only industrial relations problems but also problems relating to design and development, which have nothing to do with industrial relations. Moreover problems of industrial relations have nothing to do with those of manufacturing or technology, or even the ability to sell things, particularly abroad. All those matters are equally relevant to the problems we have to solve. Hon. Members opposite are ignorant of the real world and their outlook does nothing to provide a solution to the problems of industry.
  None of this is meant to minimise the importance of good industrial relations. But strikes and the rest are not all the fault of the unions, or of the men. If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not believe me, let me given them a quotation from Don Lander of Chrysler, who I imagine has had as much experience in industry

  613
  as any Member in the House. The following quotation, from a brochure put out to the employees of Chrysler, says:
  "We have to accept that our old methods of management contributed to the crisis we faced. In future, we must be more sensitive, more participative and more communicative."
  I cannot imagine anything further removed from the ideas of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury.
  As to British Leyland, we would do well not to treat it here as a political football. Nobody opposed more than I did the particular scheme that was pushed through for the structural reorganisation of British Leyland. I should not have the privilege of being in the House had another scheme been adopted. Having said that, I maintain that it is vital that the company be given a period of respite from public criticism and from the concentrated, orchestrated, attacks on it made through the media and through the House. It should be left to get on with the job —but not for ever and a day, because time is limited. The reorganised company has had only 11 months so far, and when one considers it takes five years to bring a new model into production. With the company's deep-seated problems, that is not a long time.
  Let us take it, particularly its organisational structure for a while, out of the area of political debate, in which in any case the problems will not be solved. Let us also remember that if we are to witness a one-sided minatory posture on the part of management against the men—I found this implicit in the remarks of the new chairman at yesterday's hearing—we shall not succeed either. The men will not yield to threats. They will not take to bullying. But they will respond to a challenge and to a genuine opportunity to participate and co-operate in the company.
  I ask my right hon. Friend not to be too impressed with the would-be hard nosed pressure from the other side that the investment funds should be strictly held back and put forward only in line with improvements in the company. It is not an effective sanction.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will understand, with his unique experience, that the hard-nosed approach came from the Prime Minister, when he indicated the way in which the Govern-
  614
  ment would support the company, and that it also came from the chairman of the company, whom the Secretary of State for Industry did not bother to meet before appointing him.
  Mr. Varley: I did not appoint him.
  Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate the niceties of the Secretary of State's excuses, but I want to ask the hon. Member one question. In the next few weeks British Leyland will have to take decisions involving hundreds of millions of pounds, because one cannot have an ongoing forward capital investment programme for new models without taking decisions on that scale. What scale of money would the hon. Gentleman believe it right to commit now, when the standards that are expected, in terms of improved productivity and performance, have not been forthcoming? How much money would the hon. Gentleman commit without adequate assurances?
  Mr. Robinson: I really cannot answer that question without access to accounts, plans and proposals to which I am no longer privy. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has access to them.
  Let us try to get back to the real world of industry. We all know that the money will be spent. We all know that it must be spent. It should be spent as soon as plans are ready. It is as simple as that. That is the answer I offer to the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  In the context of industrial relations, I want to talk about one other venture that hon. Gentlemen opposite opposed with the same atavistic ignorance that they have demonstrated so amply today, and for which I am grateful to them. I refer to the Meriden Co-operative. There was a special debate, because the problem was considered to be very urgent. Let us consider what has been achieved in the first year—a year that was made triply difficult because of the delay, caused by hon. Members opposite, in setting up the co-operative by the collapse of NVT and by the tremendously difficult trading position in the United States market.
  As I mentioned when I last spoke in the House, the co-operative goes into its second year in much better shape than that it went into in its first year. As to manning levels, the ratio achieved in terms of indirect workers to direct workers

  615
  is 1:5. That is better than anything that I know in any comparable engineering Industry in Britain or Europe. Secondly, a level of production of 350 motor cycles a week has now been achieved, with about 600 workers. That is compared with the figure of some 1,600 workers that the oracular pronouncements of the Boston consulting group considered would be necessary to produce the same number of motor cycles.
  That example proves my point. It proves also what has consistently been put forward on the Government side of the House, in terms of what can be achieved with good will and co-operation between men and management. If we work together instead of fighting each other, and if we compete internationally in this way, we can achieve on a much wider scale what is now being achieved at Meriden.
  Mr. Speaker: I did not want to interrupt the flow of the argument of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), but it is out of order to address the House from within the Gangway. The hon. Member must stay within the seats.
  6.09 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), and was very glad to hear—and will accept—the good news that he brings us from Meriden. It does altogether surprise me. I appreciate that the hon. Member may have been drafted into the Chamber rather hurriedly to cover some of the nakedness on the Government Benches, but I was very disappointed to hear him, so soon after entering the House, make the bankrupt plea that a major recipient of public money ought to be spared the limelight of public attention. The idea that British Leyland can escape the public eye after the sacrifices that taxpayers are making for it—
  Mr. Robinson: What I think I said was that the form of reorganisation that has been chosen for British Leyland should not be the subject of continued debate. I said earlier in my speech that we shall be discussing British Leyland and Chrysler frequently in the House, and that it is quite right that we should do so.
  Mr. Wainwright: Yes, but the idea that the form of reorganisation chosen for Leyland can or should escape public attention is quite a hopeless proposition, because it is axiomatic in a democracy that any project which costs public money not only will be but always should be under very close public scrutiny. I felt that I must say that in order to resist any suggestion that this matter could be, even temporarily, taken out of politics.
  In my view, it is one of the great objections to injecting fantastically large sums of public money into any concern that inevitably its management is then subject to the hurly-burly of constant political criticism. That is one of the debits which we have to enter when drawing up a balance sheet on nationalisation or public finance of industry.
  The poverty of thinking in this pedestrian Bill almost rivals the lack of intellectual resource in the original Act of 1972. That is a great pity, because the way in which this legislation for helping industry has been drawn up—and the original begetters must bear the larger share of responsibility—regrettably plays into the hands of people holding the primeval views of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who has now left us after his diverting contribution. There is no proper administrative framework, no proper system of monitoring the results of this public expenditure, no system of budgeting in a democratic way for the allocation of this money, and no system of comparing one applicant with another in a really ruthless way. Because all these elementary precautions are missing it is possible for critics with the stance of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury to make a heyday of the whole proposal, and this is very unfortunate.
  In my brief contribution I do not intend to enter any total protest against the allocation of public funds for industry. Even in the regrettably poor framework of the Industry Act 1972 I believe that many notably good things have been done. The Secretary of State was right to say that I admired the way in which the wool textile scheme has been working out. If the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury had been here, I would have taken him step by step through the fact that the application of the wool textile scheme under the Industry Act

  617
  greatly reduced employment in the wool textile industry and resulted in a very much better level of return from the labour employed. It was all done very carefully. There is an extremely good little NEDC for the industry, and the ground work was prepared with conspicuous care, in marked contrast to the rather shotgun performance that we have had during the past 12 months in respect of various parts of the motor car industry.
  However, if we are to go on allocating such enormous tranches of national resources in this way the Government owe it to the British public to produce an orderly framework in which it can be done. It is very disappointing to find today that we are being asked once again simply to give statutory backing for the finance without any attempt to develop a proper framework.
  I shall not labour this point because it has been made before from the Liberal Bench. In my view, there should be a provision for an industrial budget in which this House can hear from the Secretary of State the intentions of the Government, always subject to the emergencies of business and commerce, for at least six months ahead.
  It is notable that the Secretary of State gave us virtually no clue in his speech about which industries are to receive the first tranches of this money. The whole proposal was presented to us on South Sea Bubble lines which, I am afraid, will make the foreigner who is watching us carefully feel that we do not know where we are going and that we are simply playing it by ear from day to day.
  Secondly, since this kind of legislation has been in operation now for more than four years, surely we could have some system under the scrutiny of this House for comparing one applicant industry with another so that we might satisfy ourselves that industries are being treated fairly one against another, and, incidentally, that parts of the country are being treated fairly one against another, because up to now the regional distribution has been monstrously unfair and has indicated that those who shout loudest and make the most urgent threats will get most of the money.
  Mr. Hal Miller: Surely there are also political overtones in the allocation.
  Mr. Wainwright: I believe so. I do not want to moralise to the House—indeed, if I did I should have to include the manifest vote catching in some Conservative schemes, especially in the steel industry—but it is opening the door to political jobbery of a very dangerous kind, which, again, would be more likely to be avoided if there were some orderly procedure under which these vast sums could be kept within parliamentary scrutiny.
  In regretfully having to make clear that I and my hon. Friends intend to oppose this measure I conclude simply by saying that there would be no need for public finance on anything like this massive Scale if only the economy had been and were being managed competently. What is, at heart, the reason why so many industries are likely to be queuing up for participation in what is permitted by the Bill is that the rates of commercial interest which they would have to pay if they approached the normal sources of finance are quite beyond the capacity of a normal manufacturing enterprise. We have reached a stage, owing to our economic mismanagement, where we are having to maintain a rate of interest that makes it impossible for anyone conducting a normal type of efficient manufacturing enterprise, without some whizzbang product or a monopoly position, to hope to be able to pay the bank the present monstrous going rate, which is a Government responsibility, and also produce a reasonable return on the capital employed in it.
  In that position, it is regrettable that this House is asked simply to alter the figures in legislation which was badly conceived at the start and which has never been improved during the four years in which it has been in force.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Hal Miller: Following the excellent contribution by the hon. Member for Collie Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who made a number of my points for me, my remarks will be briefer than I originally intended. I pay tribute, therefore, to the clarity of the hon. Gentleman's thought and to his presentation.

  619
  I must say that the performance of the Secretary of State today was well below that which the House not only has come to expect of him but has the right to expect of one of Her Majesty's leading Ministers. I am sure that if he has his remarks put before him tomorrow in his Department he will feel some sense of regret.
  The right hon. Gentleman set out to pretend that his Government and his Department had attempted to improve the operation of the Industry Act. He referred in particular to the introduction of the Industrial Development Advisory Board, provision for which he was taking credit for having inserted in the original Act. He went on to talk about the criteria. This, coming from a Government who have consistently overruled or neglected the advice of the Industrial Development Advisory Board on such projects as NVT—I shall come to the remarks of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) shortly—really sticks in the craw. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman has the gall to make such statements.
  As for the criteria, we are still waiting for a public announcement of the criteria that are, for instance, to be applied to British Leyland when the next tranche of money is to be made available. All the Questions I put down in the House trying to elucidate these criteria have met with no satisfactory response at all. I hope hon. Members will agree, if they were present at the meeting yesterday of the Sub-Committee—I regret that so few were there—which is inquiring into the motor industry, that it is apparent that these criteria do not exist and had never been communicated to the company. How it was to meet its objectives and on what basis the Government are to make the next tranche available is obscure. All we are told is that more money is to be provided in the Bill for more enterprises but without the necessary criteria.
  I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West. The Secretary of State, in attempting to justify this increase in money, did not even refer to his own Government's inflation. There was no going back to the 1972 levels of money. Why? It was for the very excellent reason that the
  620
  spendthrift Government he represents have even outstripped their own rate of inflation. The attention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is so interested in financial speculation, would be far better turned to the activities of his own Government.
  There is no end to it. That is the other very interesting admission we had from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, and this is one of the difficulties we are now in. I agree with the hon. Member that once one is in this position something has to be done. We cannot simply pretend that it has never happened, because the public's ability or willingness to pay the taxes has a limit, as has the willingness of foreign lenders to extend credit. We must have some limit on the amounts of money which are being made available in this way.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Does not my hon. Friend feel that it is particularly absurd to squeeze industry to the point of death by taxation and then to use the money thus removed to give it back a little life in the most inefficient possible way which may be achieved by the use of money?
  Mr. Miller: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend.
  That brings me on to the remarks I was about to make. I had turned to the subject of inflation and its effect on industrial cash flow and the need for funds. This has not only affected the value of stocks. Interest rates coming on top, as a result of the Government's borrowing policies, have also heavily penalised companies which have to hold large amounts of stocks as part of, for instance, the assembly process in a motor manufacturing company.
  Companies have also been squeezed by absolutely rip-roaring wages once the flood-gates were completely opened in order to buy the October 1974 General Election. That was what happened in 1974. That election was bought, and everybody is now paying the price for it. Companies have also been squeezed by the operation of price control. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) were very apposite in this respect.
  While welcoming the Minister of State to his new responsibilities—we do so

  621
  genuinely—we regard him with some suspicion as to whether he is a sheep in wolf's clothing or a wolf in sheep's clothing to be led like a lamb to the slaughter like other Treasury Ministers. This remains to be seen. But Mr. Beckett, the managing director of Ford's, in an interesting address to Aston University, made clear the adverse effect of price control schemes on investment in the motor industry and why his company had to abandon several large investment projects. I know that he has discussed this with the Minister's former Department, and I hope that in his closing remarks the Minister will deal with this.
  Successful companies have been squeezed. The money has been taken by the Government and is being redistributed to companies which have been unable to continue to operate in the circumstances which the Government have created. There is a double burden on success. Success is penalised and failure is rewarded. That is the motto of this Government's industrial policy. We are not considering social policy here; we are trying to consider the creation of resources necessary to sustain the country and its population.
  To come to the British Leyland situation and the funds which will be needed for that company, I have great sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Coventry. North-West and I greatly admired his presentation. But I rather regretted that his "cheapjack" crack at Question Time about the British Leyland management was not in character and did not accord with the more responsible note he was striking this afternoon.
  On the question of the British Leyland situation and the funds which will be required, the next tranche of funds will not simply be £100 million. We are not discussing £100 million. The Bill inevitably means that the whole programme must go through. I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West that we are deluding ourselves if we imagine that it is only £100 million for the next investment stage. The whole amount has to go through if it is to go ahead. It is in that sense that I understood the remarks yesterday morning of the chairman, which I heard personally, that the board might not be able to recommend it. I do not think that this was an attack or militancy or bluff in any way. What
  622
  he was trying to say, in answer to the Select Committee's questions, was that, if the performance of management and men—I do not make a distinction—in the company did not give the board confidence that the whole programme as originally proposed could be carried through, it might feel it necessary to recommend against it.
  Mr. Robinson: Since the members of the board are responsible for the management of the company, that would surely be a vote of no confidence in themselves. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that that was the spirit in which Sir Richard Dobson made his remarks?
  Mr. Miller: I had the advantage of listening to the whole of the evidence. The hon. Gentleman was not present and he has taken an extract from the newspapers. If he is misquoted as often as I am, he will realise how damaging such things can be. I was being interviewed by a journalist this morning on this very point, and I tried to explain what the effect of the chairman's remarks had been in the Committee. I assure the hon. Gentleman they were entirely responsible. What he was saying was that, if there was unnecessary delay or a commitment to success was not achieved in the corporation, he and his colleagues would feel it their duty to recommend that the whole programme as originally envisaged should not go through. If the Government still wished it to go through, presumably they would feel the need to resign
  For the Secretary of State to tell us, however, that these funds are restoring an internationally competitive position in the company, and to pretend to us that criteria are being laid down and that the Government have a strategy when we have the example of Chrysler, is too much to stomach. It was nearly too much for the Secretary of State himself to stomach, according to the remarks he made at the time—unless he intends to tell us that he was misquoted by the Lobby Press.
  Mr. Varley: The hon. Member said that everybody was misquoted.
  Mr. Miller: The Chrysler decision was taken against the whole trend of the Government's own industrial strategy and has seriously weakened, on their own admission, the competitive position of

  623
  other motor car manufacturers in this country.
  This is where I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). There is a real danger that the spending of public money in this way, unless it is carefully monitored and criteria are set and met, will inevitably weaken the country's whole industrial strategy. That is the danger with Chrysler. We shall not have Chrysler assembly operations in Coventry. British Leyland has now announced that the assembly at Canley is to end. This weakness will spread throughout.
  Mr. Varley: The hon. Member is going on at great length about the criteria for assistance to British industry. He acknowledges that no criteria at all for British industry were published when the 1972 Industry Act was laid before the House. I know that he was not here then, but he was a Conservative Party candidate during the 1970 election and he knows something about these matters. He is a leading man in the Conservative Party. What criteria did he think the then Government were following with Rolls-Royce, the nationalisation of Govan Shipbuilders Ltd. and the assistance given by Mr. Christopher Chataway to NVT? What precise formula was laid down by the then Conservative Government?
  Mr. Miller: I shall discuss the question of NVT, about which I know a little, but on the other matters I am not well informed.
  Mr. Robinson: I wanted to go back to the hon. Member's point about Can-ley and the linking of that to the continuation of Chrysler operations. He is surely not seriously suggesting that there is any link between the continuation of assembly by Chrysler in the United Kingdom and the removal of the assembly operations from Canley to an under utilised assembly facility of British Leyland at Solihull so that the space at Canley can be used for an enhanced and expanded machining operation.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the whole story behind Canley, but there is not time to go into it now. I shall discuss it with him outside the Chamber.
  624
  What I was trying to illustrate in my remarks about Canley was that the competitive position of the industry, far from being strengthened, can be weakened by propping up too wide a range of industry which cannot succeed in the light of the over-capacity of the motor car industry.
  But I must return to the Secretary of State's point about the criteria for NVT. This was a carefully-prepared plan for reducing the number of motor cycle factories from three to two, concentrating the manufacture, enabling a new range of models to be produced with sufficient backing to withstand the competition. The only result of this Government's action in insisting on keeping the three factories—I shall come to the Meriden co-operative in a moment; I am not discussing the merits of Meriden as a cooperative and NVT as a company—was to ensure that another factory closed. There never was room for three factories: there had to be two. As a result of the Government's action, we have ended up with one. But there was a clear business plan before money was originally put into NVT. There was a carefully-thought-out approach.
  To come back to NVT and the remarks of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West about its success at the moment, the interesting point, as he himself made clear, is that the manning level, now that it is run as a co-operative, is far reduced from that which obtained when it was operating under the Triumph Company. Similarly, the industrial record has been a great deal better, but that is not as a result simply and necessarily of public money being poured in.
  To conclude, the Secretary of State this afternoon—
  Mr. Varley: Is the hon. Gentleman going to say nothing about Rolls-Royce?
  Mr. Miller: I am not familiar with the circumstances of Rolls-Royce. I have dealt with subjects about which I know something. I am not a speculator. I am not informed on this subject and—unlike some people—I do not see why I should pretend to be informed when I am not.
  The Secretary of State has failed the House today in his obligation to provide us with a clear indication of what this additional money is to be used for, the

  625
  manner in which it is to be spent, the manner in which that expenditure is to be controlled and monitored and the rôle, if any, that the House of Commons will be able to play in that process. These are real and serious questions. As the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West made plain with the British Leyland situation, we have not yet reached a satisfactory basis for ensuring the necessary industrial continuity, and at the same time the public accountability about which we hear so much from the Labour Party is never, in effect, put into practice.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: I am sorry, but I, too, shall have to talk to some extent about public accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) was taken up by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), but I suspect that his point was that, once public money had been put into British Leyland and Chrysler, we should allow them the time to organise themselves so as to use it effectively. At no time did my hon. Friend say that there should be no accountability in respect of that money.
  I notice that the hon. Member for Colne Valley and the rest of his party are no longer here, even though they have decided to vote against the Bill.
  I find it difficult to understand the point of the hon. Member for Colne Valley and Conservative Members. They say that they are not prepared to support a measure which assists industry. Yet, as the Secretary of State said, that is precisely what they did—rightly, in the circumstances—a few years ago when public money was necessary to protect the jobs of Rolls-Royce and other workers. I welcome the decision to increase investment in this industry.
  What perturbs me is public accountability. Massive sums of public money have been put into private industry in recent years. I am not sure that the public have ever had a real assessment of how effective that investment has been over time. That applies to the previous Government and to this Government. I hope, that at least the Secretary of State will give assurances about follow-up action in respect of some of the money
  626
  which will be used when the Bill is passed.
  There are some areas I would commend to his attention. It seems to me that a further Government input to NVT would be valuable. It has perfected a new motor cycle engine which could be a substantial winner in world markets. The present attitude of the Department of Industry to NVT should be reappraised.
  I turn next to a situation which has recently developed at Seddon Atkinson in my constituency. Seddon Atkinson is part of a multinational, International Harvesters. It makes motor trucks, in competition, obviously, with importers of the Swedish Scania truck. When workers in this firm face redundancy because of decisions taken outside Britain by International Harvesters it is relevant to consider in what way we can intervene. I favour the utilization of the National Enterprise Board in planning agreements for this purpose. It seems to me that some of the arguments put at the time the Labour Party was creating the concept of the National Enterprise Board envisaged, where employment prospects of British workers were threatened by the activities of multinational companies, that there would be an intervention by a Labour Government to protect those jobs. Here is a classic instance where that could be done. By establishing planning agreements, by ensuring some control on the imports of Scania trucks, for example, we could improve employment prospects.
  I hope it may be possible for the Secretary of State to indicate why it is necessary by this Bill to increase the amount of money for FFI without strings, whilst the National Enterprise Board faces economic difficulties about the amount of money available to it. There seems a certain ambivalence on the part of the Government in this respect. I would prefer to see an increase in the amount of Government inputs into industry where they intend to establish planning agreements, where they intend to be involved in the decision making in those industries, rather than feeding money to certain sectors through FFI, where the degree of accountability leaves much to be desired.
  Whilst I indicate my intention to support the Bill, because I am quite certain

  627
  these inputs are necessary, I would like the Secretary of State to address himself to those criticisms—if that is the right word—when he winds up this debate, which, I hope, will not be too late.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Neville Trotter: I am appalled at the size of this proposal. It suggests that the Government are considering for years ahead, massive artificial aid for industry as an alternative to the healthy and prosperous industry that we should be seeking.
  Looking at this Government's record we see that their first act in 1974 was to impose higher taxes on companies. Then there is massive inflation coupled with price controls. Everything that has been done has made industry sickly and made it difficult for industry to make a profit and reinvest. The acts of this Government have not been conducive to a healthy industry. I do not believe the massive artificial aid suggested today is a step in the right direction. No doubt some aid to industry is necessary, but not on this massive scale. It is an attitude of defeatism, of suggesting that the future is very gloomy indeed.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the Budget debate:
  "I appreciate that the availability of finance is by no means the most important determinant of investment. The outlook for demand and the prospect of profits arc both crucial to investment decisions."—[Official Report, 6th April, 1976; Vol. 909, c. 251.]
  That is true. Those are the factors sadly lacking in the economy today. What is needed is a return to more normal trading conditions and to a normal state of the economy, rather than the introduction of massive artificial aid.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, for the average constituency, the proposed increase is £2 million? What are the criteria upon which that sum is to be raised?
  Mr. Trotter: I entirely accept that, and I shall come later to which constituencies are the beneficiaries. Certainly, little of it has been seen in my area, and perhaps it has also not been seen in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  I have not been convinced by any arguments from the other side of the House as to the need for this massive
  628
  scale of increase. We have had a figure of £315 million as being committed to date, half of it, £165 million, for Chrysler. We have been told of commitments of only £150 million for all the other schemes. I have the impression that each of the other schemes has been fairly small. The limits in existence under the original Industry Act provide for a further £235 million being made available by means of orders. With that amount of money still to spend, why are the Government dashing into raising the limit to the staggering figure of £1,600 million? Could it be that the Government consider more tragedies are likely to occur? Are there to be more Chryslers? This seems the most likely explanation. If this is the scale of the aid needed, there must be some serious catastrophies ahead of us.
  Presumably there will be repayments made of some of this money for some of it is in the form of loans. Are not these loans eventually to be repaid? Surely money is to flow back into the fund? It is incredible that there are apparently no plans and no justification for expenditure on this scale.
  It is also incredible that at this time there are only two Members of the Government party present in the Chamber. For a large part of the debate we have seen only a handful of Members on the Government side of the House. We are being asked to agree to £800 million for each of the two Members of the Labour party now present in the Chamber. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. It shows a lack of interest in this massive spending by the Government. They have become so used to the spending of money on this scale that it no longer concerns them.
  Where is the money coming from? It is coming from one of two sources. Either from taxation on the individuals in this country or on those businesses fortunate enough still to be able to make profits; or, more likely, from borrowing abroad. What are the foreigners to say about this? They are the people we now depend upon to balance the books of this spendthrift Government. What are they to think when the Government cannot even persuade their supporters to sit and listen to, if not take part in, the arguments on the spending of a further £1,600 million?

  629
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) mentioned £2 million for each constituency. Where has it all been going? Not much has been going to the North-East. I hope the Minister in his reply will correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to hear of any large-scale developments on Tyneside as a result of the spending of this money. There are no proposals for future large developments there. The people on Tyneside are involved either in paying the taxes or in repaying the borrowing from which the money is emanating. There has been a cynical use of a large amount of money in the past to buy votes in Scotland. I do not know if that is the intention of the Government for the future. Certainly I cannot support this measure.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Tony Durant: I wish to intervene for a few moments because I am anxious about the subject of national expenditure. What a moment this is to be discussing this subject when we consider what has happened to the pound in the last few weeks and the position regarding all matters of finance in this country!
  We are asked to pass a measure without knowing where it is going, what it is for and exactly where it has come from. It seems incredible that we have a Government who say that local government must have cash limits, which is a good thing and with which everybody agrees. Then we say that we must put cash limits on the nationalised industries, cut down on their enormous subsidies and show some control and accountability. We say that the workers of the country must have some control on their wages and that that must be by negotiation. We say that middle management must play its part by some form of control. But when it comes to the Government, they have a blank cheque. They have a large sum of money, but there is nothing specific about where it has come from or how it is to be used. This is not good enough.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who rightly said that there is no accountability. I sympathise with the former Labour Member Lord George-Brown, who in his day tried to have a national plan. At least some attempt was made
  630
  to show some direction of industry. Instead, we have a hotch-potch of help, irrespective of what happens, to those who need help, without rhyme or reason or any concerted direction.
  Who are the creators of the wealth that we need? They are the profitable businesses, particularly small businesses. A small business would get short shrift if it went to the Treasury and said: "This little company of 20 employees is in financial difficulty." I should not think that it would get much money from the Government. It is always the large concerns which make the big losses and create the problems which get the money. The wealth creators—private enterprise—are left out in the cold. They are taxed and penalised in every direction.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) referred to £2 million per constituency. We should repeat that figure again and again. Our electors should know that this evening we are being asked to pass a Bill which will put that kind of strain on their pockets. Is that what they want? Will they be prepared to do it?
  My experience in my constituency is that most people are fed up to the back teeth with taxation. It is one of the great problems of our nation. When I visit parts of my constituency and talk to the ordinary working man, he shows me his pay slip and says "Is it worth it? Should I bother to do any overtime? What is the point? I am not getting the return." Therefore, he does not bother, and laziness creeps in. That is perfectly understandable.
  Again, why should middle management executives worry and sweat if they are unable to take home the money they have earned? They understand that they are getting a certain amount, but the pound notes in their pockets are so much less because they are taxed beyond belief.
  We should work towards the creation of private wealth. We need risk capital. At the moment, our main investment comes from overseas or from establishments—for example, insurance companies—which go only for safe investment. We need speculative money. That will come only from individuals who are

  631
  prepared to take a chance by putting their savings into something which has an element of enterprise and might grow. We shall not get that kind of investment with this Government's approach, because they spend money liberally.
  I am reminded of the Sorcerer's Apprentice who thought that he could take a short cut by a little magic. He got the thing going, the buckets were moving marvellously using the brooms, but the whole thing got out of control and he could not stop it. More and more kept coming. In the end the whole place was a mess. He was using only a bit of simple magic to put the thing right, as he thought. I suggest that that is the Government's approach. They appear to think that it does not matter. They think that they are oiling the wheels and getting the thing going. But that is the Sorcerer's Apprentice's approach, and the situation will get worse.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was right when he said that the choice was whether to go the whole hog and nationalise everything. The Government are moving in that direction. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that they will be back later for more money.
  That kind of approach worries me greatly. That is why I have come to listen to and take part in the debate. It is appalling that we should be asked to give a blank cheque for this money without knowing where it is going. I ask my hon. Friends to come into the No Lobby with me.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: It is a matter for regret that we shall have to wait until tomorrow to read in the Official Report the considerable number of gems left behind by the Secretary of State. It is a pity that we do not have them here to feast our eyes upon them now.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would mean that control by this House would be even tighter. I am sure that my hon. Friends will find that statement as unreassuring as I did when they recall, as I do, the huge sums of money
  632
  that we have ladled out under Section 8 procedures in the last few months—usually as a result of the special 90-minute debates late at night.
  This wretched little Bill is a grossing-up exercise which is a clear condemnation and some indication of the Government's economic mismanagement. For what was previously to be £150 million we now have to read "£600 million", and for £100 million in another part of the Bill we have to read "£250 million".
  Labour Members—if there were more than three of them present—would find it hard to understand our concern that the Government have no idea what they will do with these sums of money when they have doled them out. We share their concern for the plight of people who are caught in the economic cross-fire and whose jobs will be at risk, but we feel no reassurance that the Government have any kind of monitoring procedures over what will happen to this money We know full well that it will be only a short time before they come back with another appeal adding further noughts to the figures in the Bill. That is the frustration which is felt in the House of Commons. Hon. Gentlemen talk about accountability, but that is to make a mockery of the English language, apart from anything else.
  The Secretary of State, in one of his more casual asides, said that the liabilities under the Chrysler agreement were unlikely ever to be called. I should have thought that most people, apart from the Secretary of State in his more optimistic moments, were aware that the Chrysler deal will not work.
  The Industrial Development Advisory Board has considered it unlikely that Chrysler will achieve viability after 1980. The head of the CPRS said that it would be a great uphill struggle. Indeed, no less an authority than Mr. Terry Beckett, of the Ford Motor Company, only this week said that by 1980 there will be excess capacity in the motor industry of between 480,000 and 1·1 million vehicles. That is the kind of back-drop against which the Government are making these absurdly optimistic assessments about the future of Chrysler.
  The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) wrote an open letter to Mr.

  633
  Riccardo in The Times on 1st March in which he said:
  "And a critical assessment of the terms of the Government deal reveals that it lacks any sense of operational urgency or managerial instinct or competence … a two-year 'make or break strategy' … is no more than a figment of an optimistic, zealous imagination."
  There seems to be no business plan, no investment strategy, no sense of direction —other than a short-term job-saving operation—and no proper assessment and monitoring of how it will work. The money is being taken and poured over the side. No statements of which I know have been made regarding what control mechanism is being established to monitor the progress of this operation. The prospects for Chrysler are as grim as they could possibly be. Yet the Secretary of State said that it was unlikely that the liabilities under the Chrysler agreement would ever be called. If this were not such a tragic matter, it could be part of the plot in a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. It is probably just as well for the Secretary of State for Industry that those two talented gentlemen are no longer with us.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It would defy the intelligence of anyone to believe it possible that at this time, with the present state of the pound, the Government should propose an increased allowance in their spending of £1,050 million. That is nearly £2 million for each constituency, or in the case of my constituency, which has one-thousandth of the country's electors, £1 million. That is the level of this irresponsible legislation, forgetting everything else such as the borrowing requirement of £12,000 million.
  One might ask the Minister of State where the money is coming from. Either it will be borrowed, which it probably cannot be—and if it is borrowed it certainly cannot be repaid—or will be removed by taxation from the very people it sets out to benefit. Nothing could be more inefficient than taking money out of industry and feeding it back through the Government. That is the worst way to use money.
  When a drunk, bankrupt profligate is signing cheques, one is entitled to ask what he wants the money for. When
  634
  a man is in debt to the extent that this country is—and our creditors have no confidence in our capacity to repay—and he goes around the streets saying "I want another £1,000 million. I just want it.", one is entitled to ask why he wants it. That is what the Government are saying, yet they have not put forward a single proposal for this money. They are going to spend a lot of money, yet they are not prepared to say upon what or why.
  What justification is there for such an astronomical figure, even in the devalued state of the pound? The Government have turned £3 into the worth of £2 both at home and abroad. In an ordinary household, one has a duty to keep in some balance one's outgoings and incomings. In a state of bankruptcy and debt, which more than anything is the cause of the collapse of the currency, the Government constantly waste and spend money they have not got and cannot borrow.
  Before the Government add another £1,000 million to the £12,000 million borrowing requirement, they should tell us where it is coming from, say specifically what it is for and give us the basis for choosing their figures. Why £1,000 million more? Why not £800 million or £100,000 million? There are no criteria upon which the House is being asked to vote money for unknown projects with no control.
  This is a total fairyland and fantasy in which the House of Commons thinks that it is entitled to do what no one else can do—that is, spend money it has not got on projects it does not know by criteria it does not announce. That is the habit of a man without sanity. The one thing which is making the world laugh at us is seeing in power a team which is so out of touch with reality that it imposes upon itself no financial restraints and gives no explanation of its profligacy.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to raise a matter of considerable importance. The Government have come to the House asking us to sanction a large sum for them to spend. Much of it is likely to be spent on inefficient industry which in turn will have to be subsidised by what remains of the efficient private sector.

  635
  I want to draw the Government's attention to Group 20 based at the Manchester Business School. This is a group of redundant skilled, experienced and qualified executives who have applied to every Government agency for small sums to help them set up projects to provide not only them but many other people with employment. Every Government Department has completely disregarded the group's applications, saying that its brief does not permit it to give such aid.
  Here the Government are asking the House to write out a cheque for £1,050 million, most of which, as has been said, looks likely to go to the highly inefficient, out-of-date industries. Yet this group of young, skilled and qualified people cannot obtain any financial assistance from the Government. These people are middle management. They are skilled entrepreneurs who often provide employment for the ordinary working man and woman. They are the seed corn of future prosperity and expansion, yet not a single Government Department is interested in them.
  I hope that the Minister will have the courtesy to listen to what I am saying. I am appealing on behalf of people who are out of work because of the evil, pernicious and irrelevant measures followed for two years by the present Government. These people want to work. They were made redundant and their unemployment was not of their own making. British Leyland is getting hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money—British Leyland, where irresponsible action by certain sections of that company has put people out of work while the position of those sections is guaranteed at taxpayers' expense. But the position of people who are not represented by powerful trade unions is of little interest to the Government.
  I do not believe in State handouts to lame ducks, but I believe in ensuring that the seed corn of skill is properly used and encouraged so that public money is not wasted and unemployment is reduced.
  The Minister might ask his civil servants to look into the letters I have sent to Government Departments about Group 20, who are the sort of people who represent the future prosperity of the country.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: This is a singular parliamentary occasion, marked by the absence of Government supporters. When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill only one Government supporter was present—the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), who has now left the Chamber.
  Mr. Skinner: What about me?
  Mr. Grylls: I shall come to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in a moment. A few hon. Members were brought in, including the hon. Member for Bolsover —
  Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr Grylls: I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Member for Bolsover came in and made one of his usual speeches, pulled out of the appropriate drawer, and disappeared quickly. That was the extent of the Government's interest in the Bill. The hon. Member for Bolsover, having been brought in by the Whips to make his speech—he had been talking to journalists outside—did not reappear during the rest of the debate. He went out quickly to resume his conversation with the journalists—about what, I do not know—and the Government Benches were left empty.
  Mr. Skinner: As I told the House, I was engaged in telling the Press about the irregularities and illegal currency dealings at the Bank of England. That meant that I had to come in late to the debate, and leave early. As for the inane suggestion that the Whips told me to come in to make a speech, the hon. Gentleman must be out of his tiny mind.
  Mr. Grylls: That is as may be. I shall leave the hon. Member for Bolsover to his journalists and witch hunts. It is more important to consider the Secretary of State's speech. This mammoth Bill—perhaps the most extravagant that has ever been introduced in the House—was introduced by the Secretary of State in a cheap and unworthy manner. I say that, having listened to him on many occasions and having some regard for him. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) put it well when he said that the Secretary of State had dealt with the Bill in a South Sea Bubble fashion.

  637
  He made a few party points against the Conservatives, which might have been good in a constituency speech on a Friday night, but he had almost nothing to say about the Bill. That was an abuse of Parliament and the legislative process. We in Parliament are used to being abused and insulted by the Government, but that was an abuse and insult to the public at large, who will have to pick up the tab for the Bill.
  The expenditure proposed in the Bill is on a scale that would have been unimaginable two years ago. If one adds up the £1,600 million authorised by the Bill, the £1,000 million allowed for the National Enterprise Board, and the £1,400 million granted to Leyland, the staggering total is £4 billion—£222 for every household in the land. That is profligacy gone crazy. We have seen some examples of profligacy by the Government, but this one takes the biscuit.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) said, the Bill was introduced in a spirit of defeatism, in the belief that the way to solve our industrial problems is to throw around more money. All that a Government bankrupt of ideas can think of is to throw money around. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) said, the Bill represents a blank cheque up to £1,600 million.
  The Secretary of State did not say what the money was for. Had he come to the House with a well presented case and told us where the money would go and what return there would be on this huge amount of taxpayers' money, we might have been convinced, but he did not even do us the courtesy of telling us that. He referred vaguely to the offshore scheme needing more money. We are doubtful about that because, according to our calculations—I should be grateful if the Secretary of State or his hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is to wind up the debate, would listen—
  Mr. Bob Cryer: He has nothing to say.
  Mr. Grylls: I hope that the Minister of State will have something to say. The Secretary of State has said nothing about why we need the Bill. I hope that the Minister of State will say for what the money is needed, and why it is needed
  638
  in April 1976. According to our calculations the two further tranches available under existing legislation, by order, should last for another year.
  A few weeks ago we considered the public expenditure White Paper. That must have been prepared in February, but it contained no reference to this expenditure. When the Government prepared the White Paper in February, if they expected to need this money why did they not include it? We knew that the White Paper was incorrect. What happened between February and now to convince the Government that they need more money? The figure mentioned for this purpose in the White Paper is £770 million. Where will the Government get the other £900 million? Will it come out of contingency reserves? I notice that assistance to industry is not included in the cash limits referred to in the White Paper. I am not surprised at that.
  In his speech in the Budget debate the Secretary of State spoke of his industrial policy as being modest. We did not know then that this Bill was coming along, but he gave us a clue when he said that the momentum was quickening. We did not think that it would quicken to such an extent that we should be asked to vote for a further £1,600 million. If that is a modest policy, what is an immodest policy?
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley made a sensible comment about the Industry Act that was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. He said that well-thought-out schemes such as the Wool Textile Scheme can do tremendous good. The majority of schemes put forward by the Government have been shot-gun performances. For example, there was the Chrysler scheme—that will not be successful. How many more shot-gun schemes will there be? If well-thought-out schemes are available in the Department, why are we not told about them when we are asked for the money? In which departmental drawer are they—or have we rumbled it, and are there no well-thought-out schemes, and is the money needed just to react to events and disasters?
  In his speech in the Budget debate the Secretary of State said that the key to industrial success was a reduction in the rate of inflation and an increase in

  639
  productivity. I agree with him. He did not mention overmanning. Does he believe that wild spending under Section 8 of the 1972 Act, as proposed in the Bill, will help to achieve industrial success? Our answer is that it will not. We further believe that the expenditure of this extra money will make inflation even worse. Most people in the country and in industry would accept that that is so.
  There is no proof in any country in the free world that the direction of capital on a massive scale like this will do any good for industry. In fact, it will do positive harm. It will distort the market and make it more difficult for successful companies to raise money.
  This policy is one more step down the road to a regimented economy. Grants on such a scale are not suitable for use under the 1972 Act, which is one of the reasons why we shall vote against the Bill.
  We do not believe that there is sufficient machinery to carry out the aims of the Bill. The Industrial Development Advisory Board has done some good work, and it is not sensible for the Government to ignore its advance. In 1974–75, the Government overrode the board's advice on five occasions, for political reasons, including the aim of getting votes in Scotland and Coventry. The choice of resource allocation by the Government will always lead to disaster, certainly when it is done on this scale. It will also lead to the erosion of a free society.
  The Government should be improving market forces and helping profitability in industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to recognise this need in his Budget speech, when he said it was important that there should be profitable industry. If there is profitable industry, money is available for expansion. The trouble is that, under this Government, industries which have been successful—like the British Aircraft Corporation, which has just announced record profits and record exports of £200 million—are nationalised. What incentive is that to industry? The accolade for success is nationalisation.
  In the Washington Post article, which has been much quoted tonight, Mr. Hugh Mulligan wrote:
  640
  "In the delirium brought on by the British disease, economic dreamers on the far left saw Britain rising from her sickbed in shining socialist shrouds as 'the Yugoslavia of the West'. Aghast Tory traditionalists saw her in danger of becoming 'just another seedy socialist republic.'."
  I do not know whether I am a Tory traditionalist, but I do not want our country to become a "seedy Socialist republic". The Bill is one more step in that direction.
  I hope the House will show its anger and disgust at the frivolous way in which the Bill was introduced by the Secretary of State, and at the Government's impertinence in bringing it forward. It is an arrogant and irresponsible act, at this time of economic crisis, to produce this Bill—this bit of paper which will cost the taxpayer £1,600 million. Never has there been a more expensive piece of paper.
  The Industry Ministers are not bad men—but good men advocating foolish measures are just as dangerous to industry and the country. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to vote firmly and decisively against this disgraceful Bill.
  7.24 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): I hope that it will not detract from the atmosphere of indignation which the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) has produced, in himself if not in the whole House, if I start by thanking hon. Members opposite, especially the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who have been kind enough to welcome me to the industrial scene. I noted that in nearly every case there were certain doubtful remarks about my departmental antecedents, and no doubt I shall have to live down my disreputable past in this new post. In their first week or so in office new Ministers are easy sport, so no doubt we shall have some interesting exchanges during my speech.
  If the incredible allegation by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West that the Government Whips had dragooned my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to take part in the debate were true, I would take up the matter with the Whips' Office. However, I am aware that the Whips are not necessarily the most influential force in the House as far as my hon. Friend's activities are concerned.

  641
  The purpose of this legislation is to increase both the initial tranche and subsequent additional tranches provided for under the Industry Act. The initial sum, which was previously £150 million, becomes £600 million and the subsequent four tranches are increased from £100 million to £250 million. However, each additional measure will still require a resolution in the House and will therefore be subject to further discussion.
  Mr. Lawson: If the Minister wants to get £1,000 million in additional tranches, he could have increased the four tranches of £100 million to 10 tranches of £100 million. That would have maintained parliamentary scrutiny at the same level as before. By increasing the four tranches to £250 million each, he is taking power away from the House and reducing parliamentary scrutiny.
  Mr. Williams: I am trying to cover as many of the points made in the debate as possible. The question of control was raised in several speeches and, although I understand why the hon. Member raises it now, I shall be dealing with it a little later.
  We have already approved two of the tranches under the existing scheme. The current limit is now £350 million. However, we have commitments amounting to nearly £320 million on further projects, including some under the Accelerated Projects Scheme. It is highly likely that we shall reach the ceiling of £550 million this year.
  Hon. Members have asked why we have provided for so large an increase. We have tried to be as straightforward with the House and the public as we can. I am not making a party political point, but under the existing Act the revenue which has to count against the statutory limits comprises guarantees and net payments which have actually been made. We feel it is right not only to take into account the payments made, which is what the Act appears to require, but also that, in judging whether we are near the ceiling, we should take into account future commitments, whether for next month, next year or five years' time.
  We are grossing up everything and making the figures appear larger because we are not taking account of any money
  642
  which may be trawled back. We are trying to give a more variable assessment —[Interruption.]Conservative hon. Members said that they wanted to hear an explanation. I am trying to give it as fairly and honestly as I can. The point to bear in mind—this can be demonstrated by looking at the figures to which we are currently committed—is that we have obligations marked against the statutory limit of £121 million. In fact. we have entered into commitments for the future of another £192 million. We are accounting for the total of £313 million.
  We are trying to be more accountable to the House so that the House will understand the situation more clearly. We are doing so so that we cannot drift into a situation where, because of a bunching of payments, which can happen because often the decision is in the hands of industrialists rather than the Department, we temporarily override the limits without the permission of the House of Commons. I hope that the Opposition will accept that this is a genuine problem and one that we have tried to accommodate with reasonable integrity towards the House.
  A further point to bear in mind is that within the ceilings we have guarantees. In many cases the ceilings will never be called upon. That is why it is important to differentiate. The hon. Member for Bridgwater has said that the Bill marks the spending of £1,600 million. It does not. It is important that the House understands the distinction. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands it. What he said was probably a slip of the tongue. Nevertheless, I feel it is right to emphasise the point. We are talking about commitments, including commitments which may never arise. In a sense, we are underwriting agreements that may be entered into but which we may never be called upon to meet. Therefore, we are not talking in terms of £1,600 million under the Bill, but in order to enter into such undertakings we have to have sufficient flexibility in order to be able to offer industry that facility.
  A further reason for the size of the increase is that we are hoping to get new industry schemes and more accelerated investment projects. As regards industry schemes, hon. Members will be fully aware that two such schemes were entered

  643
  into under the Conservative Government —namely, the Wool Textile Scheme and the Offshore Supply Scheme. It is worth repeating the point, made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the outset, that the offshore scheme was open-ended. That was not our doing, but it was open-ended.
  Mr. Tom King: So what?
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman says "So what?" The "So what?" is that it could conceivably reach up to £200 million.
  Mr. Varley: We were given a blank cheque.
  Mr. Williams: My right hon. Friend is correct: we are meeting the blank cheque that Conservative Members initially signed.
  Opposition hon. Members have asked about the increase in the sums involved under the offshore scheme. The payments to date have been relatively small. They were less than £1 million by the end of last year. However, there are commitments for £45 million. Some of those commitments may be as much as eight years ahead. That is in the nature of the sort of industry with which we are dealing. The obligation is imposed upon the Government when the decisions are made by the industrialists covered by the scheme. It is for that reason that we think it may expand to a substantial scale. I hope that it will be realised that in setting our ceiling we are having to accommodate a possible £200 million rather than the £1 million that now stands against the scheme.
  Mr. Tom King: The Minister is clearly trying to help the House by explaining the figures. He has now said that, in operating in what is obviously a prudent financial manner and taking total commitments into account, £313 million is now committed. I assume that that includes commitments under the Offshore Supply Scheme. I think that the Minister of State has said that the present money will last until the end of this financial year, virtually a year from now. If that is so, why has the Bill been brought forward now when the funds are not actually needed for a year?
  Mr. Williams: I have already indicated that the commitments under the offshore scheme are open-ended and not completely in our control. We cannot be sure what scale it will attain. We have to make provisions in ample time if, therefore, it appears that we shall have to meet the ceiling by the end of this year. It is as well that the House should have ample opportunity to discuss the matter. The Opposition will have a greater chance to discuss our going to the ceiling of £600 million than if we had gone to the ceiling of £550 million, because in that event there would have been two limited Order debates, instead of which we now have this Second Reading debate, a Committee stage and all the subsequent stages, including the Bill going to another place. In terms of accountability, for the extra £50 million which is initially offered within the Bill we have given hon. Members massively greater powers to comment to the House of Commons.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Surely, in making that claim the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the House has been given no details about the spending of the higher sum. At least under an Order we would have known those details.
  Mr. Williams: I have assumed that hon. Members want me to answer the points that they have made before I conclude my speech. I am trying to answer them. I am trying to develop my points in a logical fashion. I am trying to explain to the House why certain things are happening. I want to make the matter clear point by point.
  A further factor to bear in mind—it is foolish to treat this as something that can politically be swept under the carpet, ignored or turned into a political football by the Opposition—is that inflation has massively eroded the real ceiling of the existing legislation, because there was no provision in the initial legislation to ensure that the £550 million was in real terms. We must accept that in real terms world inflation—including our inflation—has eroded the real impact of the original legislation.
  As regards controls, I have indicated that Orders will be necessary for each subsequent tranche. [Interruption.] It

  645
  may be two and a half times as big, but in real terms it still does not work out very much bigger in spending power than the original tranches. [Interruption.]That is not exactly a great secret. Surely Opposition Members are not pretending that inflation has come as a surprise to them.
  Mr. Lawson rose—
  Mr. Williams: I shall develop my argument. I have given way often enough.
  Mr. Lawson rose—
  Mr. Williams: I have entered into an undertaking with the Opposition to try to complete my speech within a limited time. That is what I am trying to do. At the same time I am trying to answer the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) will allow me to develop my speech in my own manner. Each subsequent tranche of money will have its own Order. There will be a Committee stage and consideration in another place for the new legislation which is coming forward—[Interruption.] I am not sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you are supposed to be in control of the proceedings of the House or whether that control is in the hands of the hon. Member for Blaby, who mutters from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I have been noticing the sedentary observations being made by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to contain himself.
  Mr. Williams: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Normally I should not wish to embroil you in that way, but I believe that most of the House wants to know the answers and wants the debate to have a decision at a reasonable time.
  The second control is the fact that £5 million of the ceiling remains. That is the amount that remains on individual schemes. The £5 million remains in real terms. That means that the House exercises tighter control over individual schemes than previously. The third control is the Industrial Development Advisory Board. The fourth control is that we have now published, unlike the Opposition when they were in Government, a meaningful set of criteria. Each individual project is monitored. We are
  646
  monitoring each project within the Department, and the appropriate division monitors the work. We have recruited specialists into the Department to help us in our work. They are specialists from industry.
  Mr. Hal Miller: Will the results of the monitoring ever be made available to the House?
  Mr. Williams: They will in the sense that they will be part of whatever the Minister's decisions are on further investments and further assistance for firms. It may be part of the explanatory information that we would probably give. However, as it is part of the normal administrative advice within the Department, obviously we would not be publishing the normal working papers of the Department.
  The hon. Member for Bridgwater complained of a plethora of different schemes. That was his phrase. But it would be absurd to have an excessively rigid approach to industrial assistance. Therefore, flexibility is essential. Far from seeing it as a point of rebuke, I should have thought that flexibility was a commendation of the way in which Departments administer the legislation, because we are flexible both in the type of assistance and in the way in which each type is used to meet the needs of individual firms.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) asked for evidence of the way in which we shall be using extra funds that are made available. I have indicated that there are further industrial schemes, sectoral schemes, to come forward. The Paper and Board Scheme is the immediate one, but there are several others under consideration. Under the Accelerated Projects Scheme, which is a cyclical rather than an employment-creating scheme, a further 95 applications are being processed, and this should generate about £330 million of investment; and another 50 possible applications are now being discussed, which could generate another £180 million or so of investment. This investment comes over a wide range of industry.
  I believe that the Government have used the Section 8 powers imaginatively and effectively to bring forward investment, to increase investment and to create

  647
  and save jobs. It must be seen in conjunction with the Section 7 work, where 110,000 jobs have been created and 56,000 safeguarded since we came to office, and in conjunction with the largest ever advance factory building programme.
  The economic context must also be borne in mind. The House has to remember that although we have been through the worst world recession for over 40 years and our industry has tremendous liquidity problems, it is essential that we catch the upturn in the economy. That is what we are aiming to do with the legislation—to ensure that the new investment is available at the appropriate time and that there is maximum flexibility in the aids, assistance and incentives that we can give to new footloose industry.
  The hon. Member for Bridgwater said that he thought the Price Code was at the heart of many of our problems. I should remind him that it was his own party which introduced the Price Code, that we introduced the investment relief —something that the Conservatives did not do—and that the code is currently being reviewed.

  Division No. 114.]

  AYES

  [7.45 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Coleman, Donald

  Freeson, Reginald

  Allaun, Frank

  Concannon, J. D.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Conlan, Bernard

  George, Bruce

  Archer, Peter

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Corbett, Robin

  Ginsburg, David

  Ashley, Jack

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Golding, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Gould, Bryan

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Gourlay, Harry

  Atkinson, Norman

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Graham, Ted

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cryer, Bob

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Bates, Alf

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hardy, Peter

  Bean, R. E.

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Benn, Rt Hn Anthony Wedgwood

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hatton, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Deakins, Eric

  Hooley, Frank

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Horam, John

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dempsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Doig, peter

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Bradley, Tom

  Dormand, J. D.

  Huckfield, Les

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Edge, Geoff

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Buchan, Norman

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Hunter, Adam

  Buchanan, Richard

  Ennals, David

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce(Wood Green)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Janner, Greville

  Campbell, Ian

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Canavan, Dennis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Cant, R. B.

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Flannery, Martin

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Carter, Ray

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  John, Brynmor

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Johnson, James (Hull west)

  Cartwright, John

  Ford, Ben

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Forrester, John

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

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

  Judd, Frank

  The Opposition are in no position to lecture the Government on investment. When the Conservatives came to office they destroyed the existing investment incentive system. The regions suffered. Industrial development certificates in many regions fell to one-third of their previous levels. While the damage was done in the early days of a previous Government—within the first month, actually —and confidence was destroyed, by the time they left office investment in real terms had never returned to the level at which it was when they came to office.
  It is incredible that the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West could stand at the Box knowing that after three and a half years under his Government's administration investment was lower than it had been when they came to office and boast that they had spent only £10 million under their own Industry Act. In other words, it was being used as a sham. We intend of use it as a proper job-creating and investment-inducing measure.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 244.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Kelley, Richard

  Moyle, Roland

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Kerr, Russell

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Stoddart, David

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Stott, Roger

  Kinnock Neil

  Newens, Stanley

  Strang, Gavin

  Lambie, David

  Oakes, Gordon

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Ogden, Eric

  Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley

  Lamond, James

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Swain, Thomas

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ovenden, John

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Lee, John

  Owen, Dr David

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Padley, Walter

  Tierney, Sydney

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Palmer, Arthur

  Tinn, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Park, George

  Tomlinson, John

  Litterick, Tom

  Parker, John

  Tomney, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Parry, Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Luard, Evan

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Pendry, Tom

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Perry, Ernest

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

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

  MacCormick, Iain

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McElhone, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Ward, Michael

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Watkins, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Walkinson, John

  Mackintosh. John P.

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Weetch, Ken

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Weitzman, David

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Wellbeloved, James

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooker, J. W.

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Madden, Max

  Rose, Paul B.

  White, James (Pollok)

  Magee, Bryan

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mahon, Simon

  Rowlands, Ted

  Whitlock, William

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Sandelson, Neville

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Marks, Kenneth

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Marquand, David

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Meacher, Michael

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Woodall, Alec

  Mendelson, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Woof, Robert

  Mikardo, Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Millan, Bruce

  Small, William

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Snape, Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Molloy, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mr. James Hamilton

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Channon, Paul

  Fox, Marcus

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Alison, Michael

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Freud, Clement

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Clark, William(Croydon S)

  Fry, Peter

  >Arnold, Tom

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Clegg, Walter

  Gardiner, George (Re gate)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Cockcroft, John

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Banks, Robert

  Cope, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bell, Ronald

  Cordle, John H.

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Goodhart, Philip

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Costain, A. P.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Benyon, W.

  Critchley, Julian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Crouch, David

  Gorst, John

  Biffen, John

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Blaker, Peter

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Gray, Hamish

  Bottomley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Grist, Ian

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Durant, Tony

  Grylls, Michael

  Brittan, Leon

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hall, Sir John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Brotherton, Michael

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Emery, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hannam, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Buck, Anthony

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Budgen, Nick

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Burden, F. A.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Carlisle, Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Heseltine, Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Hicks, Robert

  650

  651

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shepherd, Colln

  Holland, Philip

  Milier, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sllvester, Fred

  Hordern, Peter

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sims, Roger

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Moate, Roger

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Monro, Hector

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Hunt, John

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Speed, Keith

  Hut hison, Michael Clark

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Spence, John

  James, David

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

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

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stainton, Keith

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jopling, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Stanley, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Newton, Tony

  Stokes, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Nott, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Knox, David

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pattle, Geoffrey

  Tebbit, Norman

  Lane, David

  Percival, Ian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Lawson, Nigel

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Trotter, Neville

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Raison, Timothy

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Lloyd, Ian

  Rathbone, Tim

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Loveridge, John

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Luce, Richard

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wakeham, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Walters, Dennis

  MacGregor, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Warren, Kenneth

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Weatherill, Bernard

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wells, John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Madel, David

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Marten, Neil

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Mates, Michael

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Mather, Carol

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Younger, Hon George

  Maude, Angus

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Sainsbury, Tim

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mawby, Ray

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mr. John Corrie.

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Stoddart.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]:
  Queen's Recommenation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient to authorise all such increased payments—

  (a) out of money provided by Parliament, and

  (b) into the Consodilated Fund,

  as may result from any Act of the present Session increasing from £150 million to £600 million and from £100 million to £250 million the sums specified in section 8(7) of the Industry Act 1972 as, respectively, the limit on the Secretary of State's financial assistance to industry likely to benefit the economy and the maximum amount of each of the four possible increases of that limit.—[Mr. Stoddart. ]

  PARLIAMENTARY AND OTHER PENSIONS AND SALARIES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Mr Speaker has selected the amendment for debate.
  7.57 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  With the permission of the House, I shall answer at the end of our discussions any questions asked during the debate. As hon. Members will recall, last summer the House decided that the appropriate salary for Members of Parliament was £8,000 per annum, as recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body. How-ever, in view of the serious economic situation at the time it was felt right that a substantial part of that salary

  653
  should be withheld and that the sum paid should be restricted to £5,750 per annum. That was the decision of the House last July and I am sure that it was the right decision.
  The House also resolved that those who retired whilst this self-imposed restriction was in force should not be permanently penalised and that pensions should be calculated on the full rate for the job—£8,000. The main purpose of the Bill is to give effect to that decision. This is done by Clause 1.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend tell the House why—with great personal respect to him—this measure is being presented to the House by the Minister of State, Civil Service Department? I should have thought that it would be normal, in a matter of this kind—a very House of Commons matter —for the Bill to be presented by the Leader of the House. Will my hon. Friend tell us why that is not being done?
  Mr. Morris: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but this legislation falls within my responsibility, and I shall be taking the measure in Committee.
  Mr. George Cunningham: It should be noted that there is at least one hon. Member—and I should have thought rather more—who thinks that this is not the right way in which the matter should be handled before the House.
  Mr. Morris: I shall convey my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. Friend the Lord President and Leader of the House.
  Clauses 2 and 5 make similar machinery provisions in respect of Ministers and other office holders. It is the normal superannuation practice to amend the rules of a pension scheme to cover all participants at the same time, and there could be no good reason to have different provisions for Ministers and office holders.
  I must emphasise that these clauses do no more than to equip the scheme to cope with the situation that might arise in the future. In no sense do they prefigure decisions that the Government may take on future recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. Moreover, before they can be given effect, prior
  654
  approval by way of parliamentary resolution is necessary.
  Clauses 3 and 4 make minor amendments to the existing pensions legislation, the latter remedying a number of technical defects.
  In moving the last resolutions to increase the salaries of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in March last year, I intimated that the Government would introduce legislation to alter the machinery for varying their salaries. The pay of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been linked to that of the Permanent Secretaries for more than 100 years, and that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has been similiarly linked since the creation of that office.
  Clause 6 does no more than make a change in the machinery for passing on changes in Permanent Secretary pay and provisions parallel to that for Members of Parliament on pensions. The House will retain control over the salaries of these two officers, since it will be open to it to vary the linkage by parliamentary resolution.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House what salaries are payable at present to the two office holders to whom reference is made in. Clause 6?
  Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. The information is not immediately to hand, but I shall cover the point when I reply to the debate.
  Clause 7 makes similar provision for the Health Service Commissioners, although there are no separate Health Service Commisioners as yet.
  I commend the Bill to the House and ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Dean: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, by basing pension rights on notional rather than actual pay, provides privileged arrangements for Members, Ministers and other office holders which are denied to the rest of the community."

  655
  I am obliged to the Chair for selecting this reasoned amendment.
  It can be strongly argued, and I believe that it will be argued in all parts of the House, that the pay, pensions, conditions and facilities of Members of Parliament and office holders are poor in relation to our work load and responsibilities, and in comparison with other jobs. If the labourer is worthy of his hire, the parliamentary labourer should also be worthy of his hire.
  But there is another princple which should be paramount—that we should not give ourselves privileges which the Government are denying others; that if the Government are dishing out medicine, Ministers should take it themselves, and MPs cannot escape. The Government are dishing out medicine on pension rights and other fringe benefits in their current pay policy and in the Finance Bill.
  This Bill exempts MPs, Ministers and other office holders from the medicine. That is the essence of my case against it. The Government are creating privileges for us at the very moment when they are denying them to others.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that part of our difficulties at this stage arises from the fact that when Parliament agreed, almost 12 months ago, on the level of salary that we should receive now, the Government advised the House, and the House agreed, to take less than the tonic then available to people outside? Therefore, part of our difficulties arise not from taking privileges to which other people are not entitled but from accepting restrictions on our own salaries and increments which no one outside accepts.
  Mr. Dean: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. I shall deal with that matter.
  Part of the essence of my case is that other sections of the community are equally restricted in pay, and in pension rights that follow from that. It is on that basis that I suggest that we are giving ourselves particular privileges.
  In a leading article on 23rd April, headed
  "Making His Own Pips Squeak",
  656
  The Times made the following point:
  "It is an essential principle of taxation policy that those who impose taxes should bear their full weight. It is obviously intolerable if ordinary members of the public have to pay taxes which Members of Parliament or members of the Government are excused. If taxes are too heavy or too unfair for the Cabinet, they are too heavy and unfair for everyone else."
  That quotation was in the context of the Finance Bill and the proposed taxation of certain benefits, including cars and accommodation. We have yet to see whether Ministers will take their own medicine on cars and accommodation.
  I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not wish me to pursue that point now, but the principle enunciated in that leader applies equally to other fringe benefits, including pensions. Should the medicine be taken by all, or is it an unnecessary and harmful medicine for all?
  I do not believe that restrictions on pension rights should form part of a pay policy. A number of us argued in that way when the pay policy was introduced last year.
  Pension schemes are anti-inflationary and are an ally rather than an enemy of pay policy. When we examine the effect on individuals, we see that when pensions are based on final pay and when that pay is either frozen or restricted, people who retire during the period of those restrictions can pay the penalty for the rest of their lives. There is a strong argument for saying that those penalties should not be inflicated as part of pay policy.
  This matter was debated briefly on the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill in July last year. A number of us argued on that occasion that it should be no part of pay restrictions to restrict pensions as well. We managed to persuade the Government to make a few limited exceptions, but they were limited. If the Government are prepared to remove restrictions on the development of pension schemes, stage 2 may be acceptable. If the Government stop nitpicking on fringe benefits in the provisions of the Finance Bill, this Bill will look somewhat different. But we must judge this Bill on the situation that now exists.

  657
  I thought that in presenting the Bill the Minister of State, Civil Service Department would rely on the argument that what is now being done has a respectable precedent in the Civil Service. But he did not rely on that argument. Had he done so, I would have been doubtful whether that argument could have been substantiated on the basis of the Bill.
  However, that is not the kernel of the case that I am putting. If we are to take the analogy of the public service, we must remember that many people, rightly or wrongly, feel that the public service is now in a privileged position in terms of pay restrictions. It is felt that members of the public service are in a privileged position in terms of their pay and the basis on which their pensions are calculated, compared with those who are not in the public service. That is a fairly widely held view.
  In these days of rapid inflation, criticisms are also heard that inflation-proofing of public service pensions, which last year involved an increase of about 26 per cent., is the kind of increase that no private scheme can manage. I shall not enter into the merits of the argument, because it is not essential to my point, but in so far as criticism exists, and I believe that it is widespread, it would be unwise to add fuel to the fire by putting Ministers and Members of Parliament in the same position.
  My main argument involves a comparison with the private sector during stage I of the pay policy. The original intention of the Government, when introducing the pay policy, was to have a virtual freezing of pension rights. Modifications were made as a result of our debate last July. I give the Government credit for recognising the points put from both sides of the House to the effect that if pensions were frozen considerable hardship would result, particularly for those who retired during the period of the pay policy.
  One modification made during the passage of that Bill sought to deal with this hardship. I should like to quote what was said by the former Secretary of State for Employment, who is now Leader of the House. He said:
  658
  "It will also be open to those concerned to decide, if they wish, to continue to calculate pension entitlements on the basis of the rate of pay to which the employer was committed before 11th July, even though that commitment may be limited by the new policy."—[Official Report, 23rd July 1975; Vol. 896, c. 688.]
  That statement by the then Secretary of State for Employment was in due course embodied in detailed rules that emanated from the Joint Office of the Superannuation and Occupational Pension Boards. In Memorandum No. 28, which the boards issued in January 1976, they said:
  "Where an employee retires and the calculation of 'final remuneration' depends in whole or in part on remuneration which has been restricted, so as to conform with the policy "—
  that refers to the pay policy—
  "below that to which there was a commitment in existence before 11th July 1975, then the calculation may be based on the actual remuneration received in the relevant period plus such further amount as the employer would have received had there been no such restriction."
  They then go on to define the meaning of "commitment ":
  "The word ' commitment' means an agreement made before 11th July 1975 which, apart from the pay policy, would have bound the employer to increase the employee's remuneration to an extent which would have breached the limits imposed by the policy."
  It is clear from the combination of the statement made by the Secretary of State in this House and the memorandum that I have just quoted that the concession made was specific and was available only for commitment entered into before 11th July 1975, which was the date of publication of the White Paper foreshadowing the pay restrictions. That is the significance of the date of 11th July.
  The Boyle recommendations are not on all fours with a pay agreement, but I suggest that they are very similar. The significance of the Boyle proposals in this context is that they were not published until after 11th July 1973. They were published on 16th July last year and eventually were agreed by the House in a modified form on 22nd July of that year.
  Therefore, we have before us an arrangement that is similar to a commitment to pay in the private sector and outside the clear time limits laid down by the former Secretary of State. We are

  659
  providing for ourselves privileged pension arrangements that the Government have specifically denied to the private sector under the pay policy.
  Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman said that the date of publication of the Boyle Report came considerably after the date of presentation. He must appreciate that some part of that time was occupied by the Government making up their minds on what they wanted to commend to the House to do about the report, and that some part of the time was taken up in printing. Is he suggesting that the appropriate date is the publication of the report rather than the date of the making or signing of the report?
  Mr. Dean: I am suggesting to the House that exactly the same criteria should apply in the case of Boyle as applied in the case of the Government White Paper. The publication date of the Government White Paper was, as I mentioned, 11th July. They passed all the concessions that are allowable from the publication date of the White Paper. I therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is an entirely fair and reasonable analogy that any concessions there should be for our pensions should be based also on the date of the publication of the similar paper, namely, the Boyle Report. I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that that was a date after the date from which the concessions apply.
  I have no pleasure in making this case, and I do not expect enthusiastic "Hear, hears" from colleagues who would value improved pension arrangements as much as I would. It is the Government who are putting the House in this false position. The remedy is in the Government's own hands. Let them take back the spiteful clauses on fringe benefits in the Finance Bill. Let them remove the restrictions on the improvement of pension arrangements in stage 2 of the pay policy. They can then commend the Bill to the House with a good conscience.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I can be very brief on this subject because I think that the nub of the matter is contained in one or two technical points. The merits of the
  660
  major question of the remuneration and other conditions applying to Members of Parliament were gone over with the most unsatisfactory result last July. All I want to say about that is that it is high time that this House had enough gumption and dignity to provide properly for itself, in accordance with the duties involved in being a Member of the House. It is time that Members stopped competing with each other with regard to how little we are prepared to pay ourselves for the services we give here.
  The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) referred to inflation-proofing in the public service and contrasted it with the arrangements normally applying with respect to inflation-proofing in private pension schemes. The public service has taken a great deal of stick recently on this point, I think totally unfairly.
  If we were devising a good pension scheme, whether for public servants or anyone else, that scheme, I suggest, should provide for inflation-proofing as total as possible from the moment of retirement. There ought in the long term to be no difficulty about doing that. We simply have to trade off inflation-proofing against the level of pension available at the point of retirement. If we want inflation-proofing, we have to settle for a lower rate of pension at the point of retirement in order to pay for it.
  I should like to see private schemes going more for inflation-proofing after retirement. They certainly cannot do it at a time when they are not able to get for their funds a return from the market which is anything like equal to the current level of inflation, but in normal times—and taking it not year with year but decade with decade—they ought to be able to achieve that. Rather than giving public servants stick and the Government stick for the arrangements applied to public servants, we should be telling the private pension industry that it ought also to be working in that direction.
  The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the two dates we should fix in our minds, with regard to the technicalities he quite rightly raised, are the date of publication of the Boyle Report and the date of publication of the pay policy White Paper. Even taking his own presentation of the case, what he was suggesting was that an agreement reached before the

  661
  date of publication of the White Paper should be satisfactory for this purpose. He did not suggest—and the words he read out did not suggest—that that agreement needed to be published before the date of publication of the White Paper.
  What would be the situation in the case of an agreement which had been reached on 1st July last year and which had then, in accordance with some normal procedure, fallen to be printed and published but which was not printed and published until 12th July last year? I suggest that, in accordance with the principles the hon. Gentleman read out, that agreement would have fallen on the favourable side of the line because it was an agreement reached before 11th July.
  The hon. Gentleman is inviting us to regard the production of the Boyle Report as being equivalent for this purpose to the reaching of an agreement, and I think that is fair. The question is whether we then pay attention to the date when the Boyle Report was signed, which as certainly before 11th July last year, or to the date when it was published. The date when it was published is a very arbitrary thing, depending upon whether the printers are able to do it in time and on how long the Government shilly-shally before doing the wrong thing. It has no natural existence at all. The only natural thing in that scene is the time at which the report was signed. I do not have handy a copy of the report, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us when that report was, as it were, promulgated to the Government by Lord Boyle and the others.
  In passing, I point out that it is high time the House stopped these reports being promulgated to the Government at all. They have nothing to do with the Government. The Government should be clean out of it. It is the business of the House to determine these things. The Boyle Report and other such reports should be made to the House. Only a decadent old establishment such as this would tolerate such reports being made to the Government and the Government's Minister for the Civil Service taking a leading part in putting the matter before the House.
  Mr. Paul Dean: Following the arguments about publication dates, and recognising that they can be somewhat arti-
  662
  ficial in that a great deal of negotiation has gone on beforehand, surely we have to take some date. The Government took the date of publication of the White Paper on which to base the concessions. Is it not reasonable, therefore, if that date was taken, however artificial it may have been, that a similar date should be taken for the Boyle Report in order to get a fair comparison?
  Mr. Cunningham: My immediate answer is "No". If I may try to say why I think it is "No", my answer would be something like this. Frequently, when the Government are announcing changes of policy, those changes of policy are made effective from the time when the intention to implement them is announced. Thus, if we declare that we should have a wealth tax, we frequently provide that it will be effective from the time when the intention is declared—subject, of course, to Parliament subsequently passing the legislation.
  That has a very commonsense purpose to it, namely, to prevent people from escaping the obligation which later will retrospectively be laid upon them because they know that it is to be laid upon them. I suggest that that is the justification for the Government taking the date of publication of the White Paper–11th July—as the date before which an agreement needed to be reached.
  I suggest, however, that the proper comparison with the date for the Boyle Report is the date of the making of the Boyle Report, which is equivalent to the date of the reaching of an agreement. If the hon. Gentlemen were saying that the comparison really should be with the date on which the House passed the motions I could see more logic in it, and that would meet his case as well as the argument that he has chosen to adopt. If, however, he bases himself upon the making of the Boyle Report, the more natural date to take is the date when it was made and not the purely artificial date when it was published.
  Mr. Paul Dean: Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, address his remarks to the date on which the House passed the Resolution in modified form, which was 29th July, after the date from which the concessions provided under the pay policy were operated?
  Mr. Cunningham: It was not 29th July.It was 23rd July, in the early morning—
  Mr. Paul Dean: After 11th July.
  Mr. Cunningham: I know. But the hon. Gentleman has made his case. When one knocks down his case, he cannot say "You are right. Now I raise another case. Please try to knock that one down." I have suggested to him that it is better than the case which he put forward. He made the best case he could, and I think that so far I have made a better case against it.
  I only say, because the hon. Gentleman makes it necessary for me to make some comment on the point, that one could take either the date when the House reached its decision in the matter or the date of the making of the Boyle Report. In the past, until the disgraceful precedent of last year, it has been the practice for the House to accept the recommendations of the Boyle Committee or its predecessor Committees. Therefore, it is perfectly respectable to adopt the date of the making of the report as the one which is to be compared with the making of an agreement for that purpose. Others may choose different dates, but in my view that date is not clearly wicked and unacceptable.
  Finally, there are tax concessions wall regard to contributions made by employees or quasi-employees like us for the purposes of superannuation. The question might arise whether, by basing our pension scheme on a notional salary of £8,000 and securing that the contributions into the fund will be at the rate of 5 per cent. of that and not 5 per cent. only on £5,750, we are exceeding any normal figure of contributions by employees which would attract tax relief. I have only one arithmetical point to make, and it is that 5 per cent. of £8,000 is equal to just under 7 per cent. of £5,750, and a contribution of 7 per cent. on the part of the employee in any employer-employee joint contribution is not unusual or excessive and is not above the limit for attracting tax relief.
  On both points, therefore, I suggest that the hon. Member for Somerset, North has failed to make his case and that the House should allow the Bill to have its Second Reading.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) opened his interesting comments by saying that the matter boiled down to a few technical points. I cannot accept that. If I may deal with his argument, I do not think that the Government would go along with what he said on his technical points. If the Government had accepted his view, they would not have introduced this Bill—
  Mr. George Cunningham: Why not?
  Hall-Davis: I shall come to that.
  This discussion is on the point of privilege arising from a Bill that applies specifically and solely to Members of this House. That is the point of principle to which I wish to address myself, because I believe that by that type of legislation the Government have introduced an ill-judged and insensitive Bill.
  We cannot consider our position in this House in a vacuum. We cannot think of our own reputation totally apart from the circumstances being experienced by the electorate outside this House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has already said, whether we like it or not we already belong to a select band, because we have inflation-proof pensions. I know this was introduced by a Government, which I was supporting, for civil servants and public servants for the very best of motives. It was done largely for reasons of which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury would approve—to give incentive and encouragement to private sector occupational schemes to do the same. It has, in fact, been turned by events into the most valuable of all conditions of employment.
  We must remember that many people have seen the value of their occupational pension schemes halved since their retirement date. Many of them have seen it halved in the last six years. It is a fact —and although it is not the main point I am making it is one that we should not ignore—that even those employers with the best of records in the provision and maintenance of occupational pension schemes—those who in former years have regularly adjusted the pensions of those who have retired to keep in line with

  665
  the cost of living—have, in the last two years, found it quite impossible to keep pace, in conditions of recession and falling profits, with the unprecedented inflation that we have experienced. This emphasises the special band who enjoy this very favourable condition of service.
  There are many people, whom, again, we should not disregard in our discussions, who were debarred by technicalities from an improvement in their pension. Many people who, in the course of their career, had every reason to expect a salary or pay increase—quite a substantial one after the chosen date—have not received it. We are not the only people in that category. When the Government ask the House to improve a level of pension related to a notional salary that has never been paid we must remember that we are not the only ones who have suffered a disappointment in relation to our legitimate expectations. There are many people who have every bit as good a reason as us to expect an increase in salary, and I, personally, would not like to see us sheltering behind a technicality —certainly not by a privileged Bill of this kind.
  Before I am thought to be too sententious, let me point out that I am on record as having said, in the unhappy debate which we had, that I thought the right figure for our salaries was £6,300 —the figure we would normally have expected in line with the various pay policies and the social contract up to that date. As my hon. Friend said, under the pay pause many people have been denied improvements in the terms of their pension schemes, and this is something of which he should not be insensitive.
  I was told by the Minister of State at that time that there was a precedent—it has been referred to again today—and that this type of action had been taken in the past for civil servants. But there is one difference, which is of decisive importance, namely, that we are, in effect, our own employers. We have the power to fix our own salaries and our own terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, we have a special and strong obligation to do nothing that might be held offensive or objectionable by those who do not enjoy this control over their own remuneration.
  666
  I find the Bill objectionable, regardless of the background—regardless of what went on in June or July last year. No one can make more derogatory remarks about the Boyle Committee than I. Any competent trade union official or personnel director could have come to that conclusion in three weeks from 1st January, not seven months. It is not that I lack a feeling of frustration at what has happened, but I find the Bill objectionable because, regardless of the background, it places Members of Parliament in a position of privilege through legislation the benefits of which do not extend to members of the generality of occupational pensions schemes. That is my objection.
  Some hon. Members may not go along with my next remark, but to compound the Government's misjudgment, this special legislation is unnecessary. The fact that the Government have chosen this course is as much an indication of the cavalier attitude that they have adopted to the feelings of the general public and the reputation of this House as the fact that the Leader of the House did not feel that this subject warranted his attendance tonight.
  I suggest—I hope that I am correct—that it would be possible to amend the rules of the parliamentary pension fund to allow us to introduce what the Revenue memoranda, from one of which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North quoted, describe as "dynamised final remuneration". That would be a particularly appropriate way of dealing with pensions of hon. Members. We have normally a three-, four-, and sometimes five-year span, and in happier times we would not feel it appropriate to have an annual review. The course that I suggest would have been much wiser.
  Such a course would have dealt with the position of hon. Members in a way open to all occupational funds under the existing Revenue rules. It would have used a vehicle that is available to the generality of occupational pension funds and without any legislation, let alone special legislation applying just to a small select band.
  If I interpret correctly an answer that I received today from the Treasury—I appreciate that whether the answer is

  667
  correct depends on whether the Treasury interpreted my Question correctly—at present it would have been possible by this course, without legislation, to pay to hon. Members pensions only 5p in the pound lower than they will receive under the Bill, and that that shortfall would have been made up by the inexorable advance of inflation by the end of this year.
  Therefore, by putting my name to the amendment, I do not wish to damage hon. Members financially. What I want to do is avoid taking a course which I believe will damage the reputation of the House.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Freud: The Minister spoke with a silver tongue and before a very thin House, but the fact remains that what we are debating is written on the first page of the song sheet that we have:
  "The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act … to enable the pension benefits of Members, Ministers and other office-holders to be based on a pensionable salary higher than the salary actually paid".
  I do not want to be technical, mechanical or procedural, because those causes have already been argued by other hon. Members. Like the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), I should like to consider the moral or ethical side of what we are trying to do.
  I consider that the Bill seeks to bring about an ugly precedent. It ill becomes us to be party to legislation for our specific benefit, especially while we are exhorting others to show moderation. Quite simply, I am against further elitism, because I think we already have enough in this House.
  I am against voting for ourselves benefits which we are denying other people, because we already do quite well when it comes to benefits. We have spent £2½ million on a car park when all that most of us wanted were offices. We have a £300,000-a-year loss on the catering services, which are run especially for our benefit, and we have a ratio of staff to customers which no commercial catering establishment could match. We have spent £28,000 on a porch in case it rains —and would that it would, for my farmers
  668
  are desperate for the stuff. We are heated very much more than any of us want to be heated.
  What I object to is that, with all the benefits we receive and which many of us do not want, we are here—in the absence of a senior Minister, in the absence of the Lord President, who might at least have looked in—to vote for ourselves a financial benefit based on a salary we do not draw. I am in favour of inflation-proofing, but we already have that. What I am against is that we should get what other people want and that we are party to achieving this.
  Last week I saw a man in my constituency who had been a regimental sergeant-major. He had retired from the Army 11 years ago on a pension of £9 12s. 6d. a week. He now gets £41–16 a month. In 11 years his pension has remained absolutely static. Not for him a retrospective decision to base an inflation-proof pension on a notional wage.
  To have the courage to pad our own future while manifesting our current reluctance to reward our present endeavours is humbug. I look forward to the day when we can pay ourselves what other people think we are worth. We can then base the pensions on that.
  I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), because this is a rotten time to introduce what is quite demonstrably an elitist—I cannot find the right word—Bill. When the rest of the people in the country reap the benefits of their work, we shall have the right to reap the benefits of ours and receive an appropriate pension.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) could not find a word to describe the Bill but he made it reasonably clear that he did not like it. Neither did the other two hon. Members who spoke from the Opposition Benches in support of the amendment.
  The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), a fellow Lancastrian, will not be too upset if I note that he used the words "select band" three times. It might be our peculiar Lancastrian humour, but that

  669
  reminded me of two old hymns. I am not certain whether he had in mind
  "Oh happy band of pilgrims,
  If onward ye will tread"
  or
  "Through the night of doubt and sorrow,
  Onward goes the pilgrim band".
  My complaint is not that the Bill provides a privileged position for Members of Parliament regarding pensions. I accept that it does. But I ask the House and people outside to set against that the underprivileged position which the House of Commons has imposed on itself in the last 12 months and which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely left out of his list of the advantages of membership of this House.
  Mr. Freud: I am very well aware of that, but the hon. Member must know that we are not the only people who have denied ourselves what we thought we were worth. Not only that, but we have been exhorting other people to ask for less than they are worth. That was my point.
  Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman's dates and exhortations have got mixed up. We are the only group of workers who have had their salaries and allowances for the job put to an independent arbitration body outside this House for assessment. Having had our salaries and allowances assessed by an independent arbitration organisation, we have voluntarily accepted one-third less than was recommended. To my knowledge, no one else has done that. We did that to set an example. No one seems to have taken any notice of it either at the time or since.
  I accept that the Bill will provide a privileged position for Members of Parliament regarding pensions, but that must be balanced against the underprivileged position which we have reluctantly accepted or imposed on ourselves because of the general limitations which we have agreed.
  My choice of hymns may have excluded me from membership of the Committee on the Bill, if it gets that far. I make no complaint. However, I say to my other fellow Lancastrian, the Minister of State, that it would have been nice if the Leader of the House had looked in on this debate. This might be a difficult
  670
  time for the Leader of the House to announce what Lord Boyle recommended and what the Government recommend, but to my knowledge my right hon. Friend's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), never neglected his duties in putting unpopular decisions before the House. I do not know what duties are keeping the Leader of the House away tonight, but it would have been nice if he could have shown his interest in the Bill and support for the Minister of State.
  Someone in the House should bluntly say that the pension proposals included in the settlement of last June and July were made on the basis that Members would limit their acceptance of salary to one-third of that which was offered because the Government would then provide a pension based on the notional salary.
  I understand that I am not supposed to use the word "bribe" in this House. I might get away with "inducement". It was an encouragement for Members who were approaching pension time to accept less in real terms if this would not affect their pension rights at a later time. Therefore, last July Members were encouraged to accept the one-third limitation, because their pensions would be covered to a degree. That is a fact of life which we should bear in mind. That helped the Government to get through their proposal that we should take less than the real salary at that time. If it was not a bribe, it was a real encouragement.
  On Second Reading we talk about what might be in the Bill. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State, what has happened to the Boyle Report on pensions which was due last November? There was talk of its being delayed and then being considered.
  It is now nearly 12 months since the last negotiations on pensions and rights. Last year I thought we had got away from discussing and negotiating the salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament across the table. I much preferred meeting the National Coal. Board across the table and arguing about a halfpenny on a ton of coal. There is nothing shameful about a man arguing for the rate for the job.

  671
  What, if anything, are the Government doing regarding a Select Committee to look into the possibility of linking our salaries to a grade in the Civil Service after the next General Election? The Government presumably accepted the Resolution of the House last July. What action, if any, has been taken to implement that proposal or to bring proposals before the House?
  Are there any proposals that Members of Parliament should accept the limitation placed on everybody else from 1st August last year? Are we entitled in July or August to a £6-a-week pay limit increase? Will the same limit apply to us as applies to other people? If we are only to take what is available to others outside, what proposals have the Government on the £6 limit? Will the Minister of State tell me whether any hon. Member who so strongly objected to our taking any increase last year, even an increase limited to £6, has refused his increase or paid it back?
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Yes, they have.
  Mr. Ogden: I think there may be some. Let us hear about them.
  This is not a good way of negotiating salaries and allowances. We may well be in a privileged position on pensions—I accept that—but on the whole package we are in an underprivileged position, and the sooner we get out of that the better. This is not the way of doing it.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. John Stokes: I join with hon. Members on both sides in deploring the absence of the Leader of the House from this debate, which concerns us all. No doubt many hon. Members, and the general public—if anything of our debate is published tomorrow—will consider the Bill as a small piece of tidying up, and I suppose it could be considered in that light.
  We are always embarrassed about our remuneration and we usually manage to make a mess of it. On the last occasion, to avoid this embarrassment we asked Lord Boyle to consider our salary levels. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-
  672
  Davis) that Lord Boyle took an intolerable time about it, but in the end, after a thorough and impartial investigation, he concluded that £8,000 a year was the right figure for the salary of a Member of Parliament.
  I shall not go into the reasons why the figure was not accepted either by the Government or the House, or why the figure of £5,750 was agreed in the end as being appropriate. Clearly, underlying this decision the Government and the House felt that £8,000 a year was correct. That is why, in the Bill, our pensions will be based on the notional figure and not on £5,750.
  We all know that the House can do what it likes with itself. I support the present proposal, but it would look decidedly odd if other bodies behaved in the same way. We must admit, therefore, that our action is peculiar unto ourselves, and we all devoutly hope that it will not be used as a precedent by anyone else. One reason for my supporting the Bill is that many older Members are not well off and stay on here because they simply cannot afford to retire. However wrong or illogical we may think the Bill, if we fail to pass it tonight we shall add to their hardship.
  My second point concerns the level of salaries of the Prime Minister, the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor. I have long held that these salaries—and all other Ministers' salaries—are miserably low, either by comparison with other senior posts in the United Kingdom, in the Civil Service or in private industry and commerce, or by comparison with the remuneration of Ministers in foreign Governments.
  A case can be made for paying ordinary Members of the House nothing—I believe that is the view of a minority in the House—or they can be paid £1,000 a year or £10,000 a year, to which inflation will probably have brought £8,000 before the next revision is made, but I believe that Ministers should be properly paid for the jobs they do. Incidentally, is it proposed that Ministers should also have notional salaries on which pension fund contributions will be paid? Perhaps that could be cleared up.
  Lastly, I should like to give a quotation from The Times leader of 23rd April,

  673
  which illustrates my point about Ministers' salaries. The article says:
  "The situation of the Chancellor will be this: a Chancellor's gross income from public funds comes to about £16,000 a year; supposing him to have only the married man's allowance, a Chancellor has a net taxable income of £14,915 on which his tax liability will presumably be £7,690, leaving him with a net income of £8,210, That is pretty miserable pay considering the responsibility of the job. It works out at £2·50 an hour in take home pay, on the supposition that the Chancellor works a sixty-five-hour week."
  Ministers' salaries are a disgrace, and nonsensical. It should be a first priority of the Government and the Leader of the House to examine the level of Ministers' salaries before anything more is done about Members' salaries.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am interested that the reasoned amendment, which is signed by only two hon. Members, has been called. When 100 or more Labour Members table amendments to motions on public expenditure White Papers or defence reviews, that precedent will be remembered.
  One reason for my intervening in the debate is that I do not wish Opposition Members who talk about privilege to get away with it. The Conservative Party is the party of privilege, and it is hypocritical for Conservatives to oppose a Bill to increase pensions when most members of the Conservative Party receive a salary as Members of Parliament supplemented by large salaries as directors of companies. They are not in the same position as working people outside Parliament, who cannot ask the boss for a day off to go to a board meeting in Bognor Regis because the boss will give them their cards if they do.
  It should be no part of the Government's policy to put forward this legislation when a few weeks ago they were telling pensioners that they could not have a modest increase in their pensions—making a total of £6 in 18 months—until November.
  We must not be surprised if people outside tend to say that the Government are pushing through this legislation. We know that there is a sort of consensus approach, with everybody here coming to the conscious-torn decision to support increases in their pensions, but a Labour Government will incur the odium of
  674
  people who say that we can increase our own pensions but cannot put up the pensions of ordinary people. It is no part of the Labour Government's programme to carry through such legislation.
  Mr. Ogden: I hope to be around for some time before I draw my pension. I shall be voting for increased pensions not for myself but for my hon. Friends who are retiring at the end of this Parliament. I hope it will be some time before I get any benefit from this legislation.
  Mr. Cryer: Many of the people who support us and who put us into power do not have the opportunity to save, and they have no superannuation schemes. They have only the national pension on which to live and they are facing great difficulties.
  We phased out subsidies for the gas and electricity boards and are now being criticised for increases in gas and electricity charges. People whose only income is the national pension find the greatest difficulty in making ends meet. We must bear these realities in mind.
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is thinking of others, but people outside may not interpret our action in that light. They will say that we are putting ourselves into a good position, and it is not the purpose of the Labour Party to do that.
  The Labour Representation Committee was formed in 1900 with the idea that if we got representatives of working people into Parliament their experience would bring to bear on this place ideas and a momentum for change that would produce the sort of society in which we wish to live.
  If we treat ourselves as members of an executive market place, in which we are taking such frightfully high responsibilities that we must always have more financial reward, we shall become removed from the social responsibilities on which the Labour Party was based. I sometimes wish that people would talk more about doing things because they felt a commitment to do them and not continually saying that because they form a particular group, making particular decisions, they must have financial returns the whole time.

  675
  I presented a Ten-Minute Bill providing for the election of heads of nationalised industry boards, in the hope that we would get talent from among the workpeople of the industries and might have chairmen who were not wholly concerned with financial reward and seeking ever increasing income in a spiral of financial returns.
  The whole pattern of the Bill seems out of character with the aims of the Labour Party and the Labour movement. I was a little staggered to note that the Bill contained two clauses with retrospective effect. When retrospective legislation was proposed in the case of the Clay Cross councillors, the Opposition were dancing with rage, claiming that we were introducing a new principle and that we never had retrospective legislation in this House. I do not mind retrospective legislation; it is necessary in some circumstances. But the Labour Government were not too happy about it.
  The Labour Party conference passed a motion to lift the surcharges imposed on the 11 Clay Cross district councillors who were carrying out Labour Party policies, employing people who were unemployed and ensuring that warden accommodation was properly serviced. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that if we removed the surcharges we should be applying retrospective legislation. Not even Clause 4 of the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Bill, which would simply have lifted the penalty of disbarment from the 11 Clay Cross councillors, was agreed to by the House. It is a different set of values that is displayed tonight by those who were prepared, in the Chamber, to vilify and accuse the Clay Cross 11, to talk about the great principles of Parliament as though they have to be laid down without any possibility of flexibility. They said that the principles were firm and fast, that the Clay Cross Councillors were totally wrong and that nothing could be done.
  When it comes to an increase in pensions with retrospective effect for a group of people who are not on the bread line, who do not live in two-up and two-down houses in terraced rows in provincial towns, who, by and large, are receiving very good salaries and are in an elitist
  676
  group within our society, where are all the Opposition? They are not here. They have gone home in the cosy knowledge that the Bill will slip nicely through. Let us expose the hypocrisy that exists in this place. In fact, the Bill in no way represents Labour Party politics and the ideas for which the Labour movement has stood over the years. The Clay Cross 11 stood far more closely by the standards of the Labour Party than this Bill does.
  I shall not vote against the Bill. [HON.MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was not elected as a Labour Member of Parliament to go into a Lobby with Tories on the basis of a hypocritical reasoned amendment that represents a total divorce from reality. I shall not vote against the Bill. I shall abstain, like a number—[Interruption] That may cause some amusement. The Opposition may find it amusing that some of us wish to abstain. Let me remind Opposition Members of what happened three or four weeks ago, when 38 Labour Members abstained from voting on the public expenditure White Paper. They did not say that that was a weak gesture. They were asking "What about a General Election?" That abstention was not regarded as a weak gesture.
  The Chancellor, not to put too fine a point on it, got quite cross, not too far from where I am standing. He used what might be termed blunt language about the abstention. The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), was pretty critical about the abstention. So was the Chancellor, in what might be termed a more formal manner, when winding up. Let it not be thought that abstention is a meaningless gesture; it is not. Within the context of this situation it is a reasonable position for some of us to adopt.
  We were most surprised that the reasoned amendment was called. Our experience, after collecting over 100 signatures and seeing Mr. Speaker, was that there was not a possible chance of the amendment being called. We were startled to hear it called and to know that a vote was to be taken, bearing in mind that it bore the signatures of only two hon. Members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is getting a little near the mark. He must

  677
  not under any circumstances question Mr. Speaker's decision as regards the amendment.
  Mr. Cryer: I should never question Mr. Speaker's selection, but I can express surprise at the result. These matters should be placed on record so as to make it clear that some of us are not too happy with this legislation.
  9.14 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gow: This Bill was presented to Parliament by the former Leader of the House. It is a fact on which many on both sides of the House have commented already that the new Leader of the House is not here to present and defend the Bill tonight. It is no commentary on the Minister of State to say that we believe that the Lord President should have been here. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Fins bury (Mr. Cunningham) expressed surprise, in an intervention when the Minister was moving the Second Reading, about the Lord President not being here. I suspect that the reason why the Lord President is not here is that he does not like the Bill and is rather ashamed of it.
  I believe that the Bill is a miserable measure. It is miserable for three reasons. The first is that Parliament should at all times be very zealous about scrutinising public expenditure. If it should be zealous at all times, it should be doubly so at the present time and trebly so when the expenditure that we are being asked to approve is expenditure which confers a special privilege on Members of this House.
  As regards the financial effects of the Bill, we are told that in a full year the additional cost to public funds will be £330,000 only, in respect of the additional pensions contributions and in respect of the salary supplements to Members. Even on a day when in a four-hour debate we have given a Second Reading to the Industry (Amendment) Bill, which increases the limit of so-called Government assistance to industry from £350 million to £1,600 million, I regard it as very much the duty of all of us to scrutinise and to protest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) did, about this further expenditure of £330,000 a year.
  678
  Although the sum of £330,000 a year is trifling as compared with the deficit this year of £12,000 million, it is symptomatic of a disease which is afflicting this House in a very serious way at present —namely, that we go on passing legislation to increase public expenditure while all of us know that, though we continue to operate in this way, the harsh reality of the economic situation is fast catching up with us.
  That is my first objection. I disapprove of an additional £330,000 of public expenditure, and notably when this confers a privilege on Members of the House.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real disease which afflicts this House and kills it dead as a working organisation is that every Member wants to be a Minister and pulls his punches?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: No.
  Mr. Cunningham: There are exceptions, but for practical purposes every Member wants to be a Minister and pulls his punches in order to be a Minister. One reason—only one—which leads that to be done is the vast differential in the remuneration of Ministers and those who have no other interests. There are some exceptions. Although that is only half of the story, it is one of the factors that makes this a non-working legislature. Is that not one reason for voting for a Bill of this kind?
  Mr. Gow: I do not really see the relevance of that intervention to the point I was trying to develop. In any event, I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman.
  I was coming to my second objection to the Bill, which is that the measure is retrospective, with retrospective effect to 13th June 1975. That is more than 10 months of retrospection.
  Mr. Ogden: But it was announced at the time.
  Mr. Gow: I was talking about the Bill being a retrospective measure. That is incontrovertible.
  Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for having previously interrupted from a sedentary position. The intention was announced last July when we passed legislation through the House.

  679
  We all know that it was the Government's intention to bring forward legislation to link pensions to a notional salary. The intention was announced almost 12 months ago.
  Mr. Gow: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but it does not alter my point that I believe that there is a principle involved about retrospective legislation and that that principle is being violated by Clause 1 It is retrospective for a period of more than 10 months, and I object to that.
  My third objection is that we are creating an Alice in Wonderland situation for the benefit of Members of Parliament. The Alice in Wonderland situation is that we are saying to hon. Members, but to nobody else, that their pensions will be calculated not on the salary they receive but on a figure which the Government say is to be taken as the notional salary. That will be totally incomprehensible to people outside the House. To say, as is said in Clause 1 of the Bill, that an hon. Member's ordinary salary is to be regarded for pension purposes as being at a higher rate than it actually is is the kind of world of make-believe and double-talk which should not characterise our legislation.
  I believe that the Bill will create a bad impression outside the House. The arguments advanced by my hon. Friend for Somerset North were compelling. I support his amendment and I hope that the House will have the opportunity to divide on it.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I am delighted to follow the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is my political neighbour. Before coming to my own arguments I shall add two riders to his argument.
  To underline the element of expenditure involved, I have calculated that the money on which we shall vote is the equivalent of the Government's borrowing for about 12 minutes. That is far too much Government borrowing. My second rider is on the retrospective element. I share my hon. Friend's concern about retrospection from now, but even if it is not retrospection from now—because it was announced last year—it is retrospection from July last year until
  680
  15th June this year. There is an element of retrospection in whatever way it is examined, although it might be a small element.
  My argument concerns what is or is not a commitment to pay an increased pension on the basis of a hypothetical salary which has not been granted. The former Secretary of State for Employment, now Lord President, touched upon that point on 23rd July last. It raises the question of what is a commitment to grant a pay increase. If on 13th June, the date to which the Bill is backdated, or on the date when the Boyle Report was presented, there was a commitment to pay an hon. Member a salary of £8,000, the need for this Bill is questionable. That is because it was already covered by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech last year. It would also be reassuring to people outside the House to know that hon. Members were being treated the same way as they are themselves in their own pension schemes.
  I doubt whether the amount of £8,000, or the date for payment of that amount, is in any way a commitment. I do not believe that the Government should say they will pay us more at some moment in the future and that it will be an amount to be decided upon at some future date.
  But if—and I fear that this is more likely to be the case—there is no real commitment as to the absolute amount or the date when it will be paid, the Bill truly proves that Members of this House are prepared to set themselves apart from other people who are suffering under the inhibitions of our economic constraints, most particularly the Government's wages policy. In the same way as I felt that our pay increases which were granted as from 15th June should have been limited to £6 a week, which was the figure to which the Government were asking the country to limit its pay increases, I believe that our pensions should be on the same basis as other people's.
  The Government and elected representatives, more than any other group of people, should abide by the principle of asking people to do as they do rather than as they say.
  9.26 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: It is much more agreeable not to take part in

  681
  debates of this kind, because the subject is distasteful, but I feel a duty to take part and to say what I believe to be the correct approach to the subject.
  I have the misfortune to disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), because I have seen this process going on for a long time. I can remember when Parliamentary Secretaries were paid £1,500 a year. That went on and on, almost for ever. In 1831, I think it was, Secretaries of State were paid £7,500 a year. In the interests of economy they accepted a cut to £5,000, and 130 years later they were still receiving £5,000 a year. That continued right up to a few years ago. It was an astonishing situation, which constantly excited attention.
  I remember the evidence that Mr Stanley Baldwin gave to a Select Committee. Asked how that had gone on for so long, he replied "I suppose it was because we all had a sense of delicacy about our own remuneration, and the moment never seemed to be right." That is the answer. The moment never is right for politicians to increase their own remuneration. I am sorry to say that it is rather a popular cause for politicians themselves to oppose any increase in their remuneration. It may be not be popular with some people in my constituency that I defend it, but we should have the courage of our convictions in this matter.
  Mr. Rathbone: I follow my hon. and learned Friend's argument, which he makes from a position of far greater seniority than I have and perhaps ever shall have. But the point is that there is no moment, in his experience, that was wronger than it is now, because at no moment have the Government been invoking restraint on the part of the people to the degree that they are now.
  Mr. Bell: With great respect to my hon. Friend, the invoking of restraint is a permanent feature of our political life. There always is a moment when it never could have been wronger, if I may use a somewhat involved expression, just as there never has been a time in our parliamentary history when the reputation of Parliament has not stood lower than ever before. One can look back over the records, the newspapers and history books, and see that the reputation of
  682
  Parliament has always been at its lowest ebb. "Retrenchment" has been one of the permanent cries in our history.
  We must apply a little realism and common sense to the subject. We have been setting ourselves apart, of course—but in what respect? We have treated ourselves differently from everybody else in the community in that, there having been an inquiry into the proper rate of remuneration for Members of Parliament, it was recommended that after nearly five years of static remuneration the appropriate remuneration was £8,000 a year. It was not we but an impartial committee set up to do the job which decided that.
  If that recommendation, or something similar, had been made in respect of some other occupation at the time, the class of persons about whom it was made might have accepted that they would receive less than the recommendation. In other words, if a figure of £8,000 had been recommended, the final figure accepted might have been £7,500, 7,250, or possibly even £7,000. But what category of people would have accepted £5,750 in relation to an award of £8,000? I suggest that nobody else would have done so. I thought that we were right to do so and to set an example, but by so doing we set ourselves apart. We did something that no other section of the community would have considered remotely reasonable.
  The practicable question arises whether the pensions of older Members of the House, who may be at the point of retirement, should be prejudiced because of what appears to be a temporary crisis in the nation's finances. We did something similar for a similar class of public servant in recent years, and it makes sense, although in one sense it is anomalous. However, it is far better to have the plain courage to get somebody else to decide a proper rate of remuneration and to abide by it—otherwise, we shall store up trouble for ourselves. We did so by waiting four and a half years, in a time of inflation, to rectify the matter. Although the recommendation may be 50 per cent. or 60 per cent., nobody takes into account the four and a half lost years, the compound interest, the deferment element, and all the rest of it. If the figure is compared with what other people are to receive in one year, it puts

  683
  the other category in a vulnerable position.
  The Boyle Committee, 18 months ago, said that the appropriate remuneration for Members of Parliament was £8,000 a year. Nobody thinks that next year or the year after that that the figure will be implemented. What will be the appropriate remuneration for hon. Members in three years' time? Will it be £9,000, £10,000 or £11,000? Does anybody think that it will be easy, then, to go from £5,750 to £10,000 or £11,000? This is the process taking place decade after decade. I have already said that this process occurred for a period of 130 years because people were scared of taking any action, until eventually the situation became so scandalous, especially for junior Ministers, that the Government could not have carried on unless something had been done.
  Various devices were used to meet the situation. We saw the introduction of Ministers of State, which was simply a device to pay Parliamentary Secretaries more money without having to put through an increase—
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: Not now.
  Mr. Bell: It is true historically, but of course is no longer the case. Almost everything has been done to avoid being open, full and frank about the matter. It is time for the humbug to stop. There is no doubt that recently we have got ourselves in a humbugging position. We have to remedy the matter tonight.
  I do not like this Bill and, so far as I can see, nobody does. But, logically, there is nothing else to do this time but support it. On Monday we shall debate the Finance Bill, which is retrospective to the date of the Budget Resolutions. Since this matter refers back to a resolution, I suppose that there is that element of retrospection about it. Disagreeable though it may be, we must take this step. At some point we must link our remuneration automatically to sensible machinery. Although we passed a resolution, it was non-operative.
  Mr. George Cunningham: It was as operative as any of them.
  Mr. Bell: It was not a resolution that took effect. At some point we must do this, because it is a bad system and a
  684
  bad procedure. It creates a bad reputation for politicians, and ends up by putting those in public life at a considerable disadvantage, to put it mildly, compared with those in other countries perfoming remotely comparable functions.
  I hope that the Bill will go through tonight but that at the same time it will serve as a starting point for a little thought on the subject, so that we can institutionalise our arrangements and get away from the dreadful business of haggling and wrangling about every change in our remuneration or allowances every time the subject comes up.
  9.36 p.m.
  Mr. Roger Moate: I should like to touch very briefly on a couple of points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). I agree with him in his dislike of retrospective legislation. I agree also that the Bill cannot be objected to on those grounds. We are going back only to the date of a resolution of the House, and I do not believe that is unfair retrospection. It was a clearly expressed view of the House that a certain decision should be taken from a certain date, and I think it is quite a reasonable basis for subsequent legislation.
  Where I disagree totally with my hon. and learned Friend is on the view that there is no other course but to support the Bill, and that to support it would be ending humbug. I think, frankly, that the Bill is humbug. There is a respectable argument to be made—I know that my hon. and learned Friend takes a different view—about the level of salaries. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) put the case very strongly. He believes passionately that the right figure was £8,000 a year, or whatever Boyle recommended. My hon. and learned Friend thinks that it should be a high figure. For some reason he endows Boyle with some degree of sanctity, as though that was the greatest wisdom and the rate for the job, and that everything else ought to flow there after.
  Others believe, as I do, that on balance salaries should be rather low, and that the end result of lower salaries would be a better House of Commons. [Interruption] I accept that there is a real difference of opinion, but the fact remains that

  685
  the House of Commons, for various reasons, decided that at this time the salary was not to be at a level of £8,500 or £8,000 a year but at the lower level. Whether it was a lack of courage, an act of wisdom, an act of sacrifice or an act of restraint, the House decided that the salary should be at a certain level, and it is the utmost humbug to go into the Lobby in support of a proposition that our pensions should be based on a very much higher level than the salary we had the courage to vote for ourselves. That is humbug, and I believe it is a cheat. I think it would be seen by the public to be misusing the special privileges of the House—the special power that we have to vote our own salaries, our own remuneration, and our own pensions.
  Earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) said that he hoped others would not follow this precedent. The fact is that they cannot follow it. If they sought to do so they would have to come to Parliament for legislation. We shall not legislate for them; we shall legislate only for ourseves, for our own special benefit.
  At this moment many millions of our people have, for a variety of reasons, accepted lower salaries than they think they are entitled to receive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in particular, has of late wept crocodile tears for these people, in the same salary bracket as Members of Parliament, who thought they were entitled to far higher remuneration. These people are in the middle executive range. They are not getting the sort of salary to which they feel entitled, and their pension entitlement is based on the salary that they are getting and not on the one they would like to have.
  Yet Parliament, tonight, is proposing to vote in favour of a very high notional salary, with the equivalent pension. Any hon. Member who votes for the resolution will have a very difficult job to explain it to his constituents, colleagues, friends and associates tomorrow, when they ask why they could not have similar privileges.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Does my hon. Friend suggest that £8,000 a year is a very high notional salary?
  Mr. Moate: That begs the question about the argument on parliamentary remuneration. If we voted for what we thought individual Members were worth, we should probably end up with variable salaries. Some hon. Members contribute magnificent services to the House—services that would be worth millions of pounds a year. Others justify a negative figure. But that is not the point. The question is whom we want representing us in this House. I suggest that if we abolished salaries altogether there would still be a long queue of people seeking election, and it is quite possible that we should see many of the same faces on these Benches.
  I think that the Bill is a misuse of the privileges of this House. If we passed it, we should be legislating a special privilege for Members—a privilege that I believe would be seen by the public to be a total misuse of our powers. I hope very much that those of my hon. Friends who have spoken so strongly and persuasively will go into the Division Lobby against the Bill. If they do not, having spoken so strongly against it, that, too, will be seriously misunderstood.
  I hope very much that there will be a vote, and that the House will see the wisdom of the case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and carry his amendment.
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. David Howell: Whatever we think of the Bill, I think that we can all agree that this is an ugly, miserable and messy business. It has been described as everything from "distasteful" to the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), "never could be wronger", which is a suitable ungrammatical epitaph to the whole affair.
  It is an unavoidable business. It cannot be ducked, although whoever fixed it to be taken at this hour on a Thursday evening had a good try at ducking it. It is a matter to which we have to turn our minds and on which we have to reach decisions. When I say "we", I wish to underline what I thought was one of the correct observations of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr.Cunningham)—although I did not agree with all that he said—about this being the business of the House. Of course it is, and it is the business of the House to

  687
  reach agreement on what, if any, our remuneration and pension arrangements should be.
  I am sorry to see that this evening the Lord President decided to be invisible and not to take part in what is a difficult job for any Minister. We salute the presence of the Minister of State to do his bit.
  The Lord President's text, if that is the right word to use in connection with someone who describes himself as an archangel, was the one quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), from the debate on 23rd July on the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill, when the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "It will also be open to those concerned to decide, if they wish, to continue to calculate pension entitlements on the basis of the rate of pay to which the employer was committed before 11th July"—
  and then the very ambiguous words at the end—
  "even though that commitment may be limited by the new policy."—[Official Report, 23rd July, 1975; Vol. 895, c. 688.]
  I am not sure what those last words mean. But that was the text, and that is the date that we have been debating.
  If we ask whether there was a commitment beforehand or an agreement after 11th July, there can be only one kind of agreement about the view of this House on how it should remunerate itself, and that is an agreement reached by a resolution of the House. There is no other way in which an agreement can be reached. There is no other commitment. There are no mythical publication dates when a review board said that something should happen. So, if we are to argue about these narrower points—because in a sense they are technical, in the same way as the whole of the £6 policy was not statute law but a curious, mixed, amphibious animal, lying between law and voluntary endeavour by the citizens—it is clear that 11th July lay before the date when the House agreed on the resolutions, one of which required the amendment to the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972.
  There is no escape, there is no dancing around the point. This is what we have decided for ourselves, and in doing so we have conferred upon ourselves—and,
  688
  indeed upon various dignitaries of State and servants of the House as well—a different treatment from that which the Government have urged on millions of workpeople under their policy. They have not passed a law about it, but having urged it and passed surrounding legislation, they have indicated that difficulties will arise if their policy is not followed. That is the distinction that we have conferred upon ourselves.
  We should be wary about conferring upon ourselves distinctions of this kind, just as we should be wary of allowing the State and the Executive to confer on its servants special privileges and distinctions over and above those available to millions of workpeople. The question that is rightly raised by the movers of the amendment—my hon. Friend for Somerset, North recognised it as a distinction or, as some would call it, a privilege—is whether one should go on from there and say that it should not be granted, that the House reached the wrong agreement about its remuneration, that we made a mistake, or whether it would have been a better course if the Government had never sought to interfere in the first place with arrangements for the payment of pensions and the improvement of pensions schemes, if they had never got into the tangle of deemed rates of pay and notional rates of remuneration, and that then, none of this difficulty and embarrassment would have arisen. I am inclined more to the latter view than to the former, but this raises much wider issues about the kind of business the Government set about in the late hours towards the end of July last year, when they brought in the Renumeration, Charges and Grants Bill.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said, Clause 6 provides a new means of setting the salary, as well as provisions for pensions, of the Comptroller and Auditor General and other servants of this House. Here again I emphasise the phrase of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury: these are matters which are the business of this House. I sometimes think that Governments—the present Government are not the first to make the mistake—have been inclined to overlook that point. When we consider the Comptroller and Auditor General's salary it is worth reflecting—what I say now is

  689
  no imputation at all against the present incumbent of that position, or upon past or future incumbents—that if this high officer is a servant of the House, his appointment should perhaps be rather more a matter for this House than it has been in the past.
  I know that people argue that it is best to have someone from inside in the position, because he knows the system, but one can just as well argue that it is best to have someone from outside, because he will bring a fresh approach to the whole situation. This is not an issue that can be resolved in neat terms—there could be one appointment from inside and another from outside—but when it comes to discussing not merely the remuneration and the pension but the appointment of this officer, Parliament should have a much stronger determination to decide whom it should be, rather than readily accepting what the Executive has decided.
  The basic point was touched on by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). He said that what we must have the courage to do is to identify the proper weight and apply it. We should begin to work our way out of our present tangle—a tangle that was intensified by the Government's mishandling last summer and the way in which the whole matter became hopelessly involved with their £6 policy and their attitudes to the fixing of remunerations, rewards, wages, salaries, pensions and everything else. If we can take courage and establish the proper rate, we shall escape those difficulties in future.
  9.51 p.m.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: This has been an enlightening, illuminating and in some respects sad debate. As a Minister, and certainly as a Member of Parliament over the years, I have shared the concern about the regard in which the public hold the House and Parliament. I am tempted to wonder what contribution some hon. Members have made tonight to public understanding of Parliament and of the circumstances and conditions under which hon. Members serve the electorate.
  Let us consider some of the adjectives which have been used to describe the Bill. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) described it as an ugly, miserable and messy business. The hon.
  690
  Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) spread himself. He said that morally and ethically we were establishing an ugly precedent—legislation for our own benefit. Everyone is entitled to his point of view and I would be the last to question anyone's sincerity, but the Bill has been represented as an example of parliamentarians establishing some privileged position for themselves.
  In seeking to refute that argument, I would say that it ignores the fact that in 1975 Members of Parliament had not received a pay increase for three and a half years. Let any hon. Member identify any other section of the community who have been in that position and then put forward the view that parliamentarians are over-eager to put themselves in a privileged position. Those who identify themselves with that view are misrepresenting the position of MPs and committing a travesty of the facts.
  Those who argue that we are seeking to establish a privileged position for ourselves overlook the fact that the appropriate rate for the job which hon. Members do was established by an independent body, the Top Salaries Review Body, and not by parliamentarians determining their own salary.
  Once the TSRB had made its report, parliamentarians indicated that they were prepared to forgo an appreciable proportion of that £8,000 in the national interest and out of regard for the nation's economic difficulties. The same people who took that decision are now being represented as people who are concerned only for their own interests. One cannot have the argument both ways.
  It is rather hard to listen to parliamentarians berating this measure, which seeks only to provide justice and a reasonable pension for those who have given many years of their life representing the interests of their electors as parliamentary representatives in this House. There are those who nod and shake their heads, but the fact remains that we have had disturbing examples over the years of parliamentarians who have shown the stresses of their services as individual Members of this House.
  I want now to deal with the individual points raised during the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Halesowen

  691
  and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) inquired about the position of Ministers under the Bill. The salaries and remuneration of Ministers at the present time is subject to study and review by the Top Salaries Review Body. As well as basing the pension of Members of Parliament on a notional salary of £8,000, the Bill seeks to make the same legislative arrangements for Ministers and other office-holders when the TSRB reports to the House on those salaries.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) inquired about the salaries of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner. The salary of both those gentlemen is £18,675.
  Mr. Gow: Following upon the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), will the Minister take the opportunity this evening of indicating the attitude of the Government towards the Parliamentary Commissioner (Amendment) Bill tomorrow?
  Mr. Morris: Not at this stage, and certainly not without notice. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's eagerness as far as that issue is concerned.

  Division No.115.]

  AYES

  [10.0 P.m.

  Body Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Kenneth-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Sims, Roger

  Clegg, Walter

  King Evelyn (south Dorset)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Warren, Kenneth

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Durant, Tony

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Mr, Clement Freud and

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Mr. Roger Moate

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  NOES

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fowler, Gerald (The wrekin)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Freeson, Reginald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Bates, Alf

  Gillbert, Dr John

  Mawby, Ray

  Bell, Ronald

  Golding, John

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Bishop, E. S.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mendelson. John

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hamilton, W. W. (central Fife)

  Millan, Bruce

  Bray, Dr, Jeremy

  Hardy, Peter

  Molloy, William

  Carmichael, Neil

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Harrison, Walter (wakefield)

  Moyle, Roland

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hooley, Frank

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Conlan, Bernard

  Huckfield, Les

  Ogden, Eric

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Hunter, Adam

  Ovenden, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Irvine, Rt Hon sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Parker, John

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (lincoln)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Janner, Greville

  Ross, Rt Hon w. (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Deakins, Eric

  Judd, Frank

  Silverman, Julius

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kerr, Russell

  Skinner, Dennis

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lambie, David

  Small, William

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lamond, James

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Snape, Peter

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fletcher, Raymond (IIkeston)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Fletcher, T (Darlington)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stoddart, David

  Ford, Bon

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stokes, John

  A crucially important point was made by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) when he was seeking to argue the case that there was no analogy between the pension provision for Members of Parliament based on a notional salary of £8,000 a year and pension provision in the private sector. He developed his argument by quoting various dates—11th July and 22nd July. The Government's recommendations on this Bill are based on the date of the report of the independent Top Salaries Review Body, which was 13th June.
  I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) suggested that a number of Members of Parliament had gone home in the cosy knowledge that the Bill might go through in their absence. That was an uncharitable attitude to many Members of Parliament who have pressing constituency commitments. At the same time, I hope that this measure will go through with the wholehearted support of the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 84.

  Tinn, James

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Tomlinson, Jonn

  Woodall, Alec

  TELLERS FOR THE NOE

  Torney, Tom

  Woof, Robert

  Mr, James Hamilton and

  Urwin, T.W

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Mr. Thomas Cox

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's Sitting, the Parliamentary and other Pensions and Salaries Bill and the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Harper.]
  PARLIAMENTARY AND OTHER PENSIONS AND SALARIES [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 and to make
  694
  further provision with respect to the pensions and salaries payable to or in respect of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioners, it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act;

  (2) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which under any other Act are required to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund;

  (3) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which under any other Act are required to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Harper.]

WAYS AND MEANS

  PARLIAMENTARY AND OTHER PENSIONS AND SALARIES
  Resolved,
  That any Act of the present Session to amend the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 may make provision, with effect from 13th June 1975, for reducing the amount of relief from income tax under Chapter III of Part IX of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 in respect of qualifying premiums paid by a Member of the House of Commons who is also the holder of an office in respect of which he has elected not to be a participant under section 2 of the said Act of 1972.—[Mr. Harper.]

  NORTHWICH (BULL RING SUB-POST OFFICE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Harper.]
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. Alastair Goodlad: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise before the House the important matter of the proposed closure of the Bull Ring sub-post office in Northwich, following the retirement of the present tenant next month. I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for staying up until this late hour to answer the debate. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment, on this his first appearance as Minister at the Government Dispatch Box, and of wishing him well.
  When it was announced that the post office was to be closed, there was a storm of protest and a unanimous expression of disapproval in Northwich. As the Editor and Manager of the Northwich Guardian wrote to me,
  "I cannot ever recall a bigger explosion in Northwich than this week after it was announced, without any warning, the Bull Ring sub-post office would be closed in May."
  In a letter from Messrs, Moss and Haselhurst, Solicitors, Mr. John Haslehurst, senior partner of the firm, said:
  "There is not the slightest doubt the Crown Office, or main post office, was in fact the centre of activities 30 years ago, but it no longer is. At one stage the Crown Office was surrounded by populated areas which have since been removed to council estates far remote from the Crown Office. Forty years ago the Crown Office was the centre of population. Now the whole centre of things is the Bull Ring, Northwich. There is no population in the Northwich town centre area. The business activities of the banks, solicitors, estate agents, accountants, shops, etc. are concentrated on the Bull Ring post office."
  In a letter to the local newspaper, Mr. M. Evans, the branch manager of Hepworth, 70 High Street, Northwich, stated:
  "Whenever I go into the Bull Ring Post office to buy stamps, I almost always find a queue at both counters and the staff busy with one job or another. This surely is not a feature of a trading outlet that is not viable. In contrast, on the occasions I have called at the main post office there are rarely more than two positions manned and the staff are often
  696
  sitting around talking. I am not suggesting that the staff are lazy—but that the trade is spasmodic and mainly at peak periods, whereas trade at the Bull Ring is more regular and consistent. It would appear, therefore, to be financial suicide for the Post Office to shut down the Bull Ring branch.
  A final point. As a manager of a one-man shop, I have to close the shop to buy stamps. When buying at the Bull-Ring, this entails closing the shop for only a couple of minutes extra as I buy them on my daily visit to the bank. However, if I were forced to buy at the main post office, that would entail closing the shop for an extra 15 minutes approximately—so in what way does this decision by the Post Office help traders remain efficient? We all realise every trader (except nationalised ones) must be efficient to stay in business. This country cannot afford many more business losses."
  The post office at the Bull Ring serves many of the town's businesses, including solicitors, estate agents, traders and commercial businesses, and is also popular with many elderly people who cannot face climbing Witton Street to the main office. At times as many as four people arc employed on the main counter.
  In a letter to the Chairman of the Northwich Post Office Advisory Committee, Mr. Arthur Platt, the head postmaster at Altrincham, Mr. V. Cooke, stated:
  "little inconvenience should be experienced by the business sector in that part of the town."
  In a letter to Sir William Ryland, Chairman of the Post Office, I asked what evidence there was for that statement, which runs contrary to the unanimous opinion of business people in Northwich. In a reply dated 14th April. the Managing Director of the Post Office, Mr. A. Currall, makes no attempt to answer that question It is clear that a great deal of inconvenience would be experienced if the Bull Ring sub-post office were to close.
  In my letter of 16th March to Sir William, I asked for details of the business conducted at the sub-post office in the last few years, compared with the business conducted at the main office. I informed him that I had written to you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, asking leave to raise this matter for debate on the Adjournment of the House. To my great disappointment, though with little surprise, I have to inform you that in the reply from the Post Office no details are given about the business conducted at either of the post offices.

  697
  Mr. Currall wrote:
  "although the Bull-Ring is a busy office, the amount of business transacted is considerably less than that of the nearby Crown Post Office. The head postmaster provided some figures confidentially to the Post Office Advisory Committee to illustrate this point which he was invited to attend after you had written to Sir William Ryland."
  I shall be grateful if the Under-Secretary can say why these figures are confidential and why they are not available to the House. It is quite extraordinary that we should he expected to debate this mattter without the benefit of figures which I specifically requested six weeks ago and which have now been categorised as confidential.
  It may be the view of the Post Office and the Government that the closure of the Bull Ring sub-post office is of no concern to this House or to my constituents and that we should be denied the necessary information on which to base our deliberations. If that is so, I very much hope that the Under-Secretary of State will say so himself in terms or on the other hand, and preferably, produce the information for the benefit of the House and my constituents, my constituents having a strong influence in the matter, as, I am sure, has the House.
  Mr. Currall continued in his letter to me dated 14th April that
  "Post Office counter business has declined in the past year by 8 per cent. owing primarily to the withdrawal of the national insurance stamp."
  He then wrote:
  "the withdrawal of the national savings stamp at the end of 1976 after allowing for the additional traffic that a new television stamp will generate, will result in a further loss of around 4 per cent, of counter traffic."
  I appreciate that it is the duty of the Post Office to contain counter costs as far as it can, but I cannot see that the general circumstances recited by Mr. Currall have any relevance to the specific case of the Bull Ring sub-post office at Northwich, which is a particularly thriving enterprise. It is almost as if Marks and Spencer were to say "We are closing our busiest store in Oxford Street because we foresee problems facing us in the Outer Hebrides". If, contrary to the unanimous view in Northwich, the Bull Ring sub-post office is not a thriving enterprise, I very much hope that the Under-Secretary of State will produce the facts to support such a contention.
  698
  Particular concern has been expressed at the role of the Northwich Post Office Advisory Committee in this matter. I take the opportunity of paying a tribute to its efforts to save the Bull Ring sub-post office. It appears that the committee is now the only one still in existence within the area covered by the Altrincham Head Office. I shall be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman will let me know whether it is the policy of the Post Office to discourage such committees or whether it has no policy towards them.
  Feelings in Northwich are very strong that decisions have been taken by the man in Whitehall, or perhaps more accurately I should say by the man in Manchester, without the slightest notice being taken of local opinion. The head postmaster in Altrincham notified the local Post Office advisory committee on 2nd March that the sub-postmaster had resigned and that after full consideration it was decided that the office should be closed. The notification took place prior to any consultation. A consultation took place after the decision had been made known to the committee. I cannot see how that fulfils any of the criteria normally related to the word "consultation". The consultation should have taken place in advance not only of action being taken but of the taking of the decision.
  Following the meeting between the Post Office advisory committee and Mr. Cooke, a letter dated 15th April and received on 21st April was sent to Mr. Harold Hocking, the Northwich Town Clerk, in which Mr. Cooke wrote that
  "resultant upon that meeting much further thought has been given to the case by myself, by my Regional Headquarters, and at Post Office Headquarters, and to date I have not received the final decision from my headquarters and have thus made no public announcement."
  Surprisingly, however, a letter from Mr. Currall, Managing Director of the Post Office, was sent to me on 14th April, the day before Mr. Cooke's letter, in which he says:
  "having personally examined the case I must support the Head Postmaster's decision."
  It seems that there has been an unfortunate lack of communication both within the Post Office and between the Post Office and the Post Office advisory committee. It seems apparent that the

  699
  decision had already been taken at the time when Mr. Cooke wrote to Mr. Hocking on 15th April.
  In a letter dated 13th April to the head postmaster at Altrincham, the Town Clerk of Northwich, on the instruction of the Northwich Town Council, wrote as follows:
  "At last night's meeting of the Town Council the Town Mayor (Councillor Harold Fletcher) reported on his attendance at the meeting of the Northwich Post Office Advisory Committee held on the 1st April 1976, when you discussed with the Committee your decision regarding the future of the above sub-post office. According to the Town Mayor you stated during the above meeting that the Northwich Advisory Committee was now the only surviving committee in your area which appears to support the views of the Town Council that such advisory committees will only continue to function if they are permitted to operate in an effective manner and, in this connection, I would refer to your letter to me of the 24th March last in which the following paragraph appears."
  Then Mr. Hocking quotes:
  "'The Post Office Advisory Committee is a body set up in an area by local people, and not by the Post Office, for the purpose of considering the needs of that area in so far as Post Office services are concerned. The Committee meets quarterly and, when there are items of the Agenda, which require comment or explanation, they invite the Head Postmaster or the General Manager, Telephones, or their respective representatives to the meetings.'"
  Mr. Hocking continues:
  "As far as I am aware the Post Office Users Council was established by Section 14 of the Post Office Act 1969, and Section 15 of that Act reads"—
  and he quotes:
  '"Before the Post Office so puts into effect any major proposals relating to any of its main services as to affect the persons for whom they are provided, it shall be incumbent on it subject to the next following subsection, to refer the proposals to, and consult thereon with, the Post Office Users' National Council.'"
  Mr. Hocking says:
  "In my opinion the word 'consult' in the above mentioned Section 15 means in law that you must supply the Advisory Committee with sufficient information to enable them to tender advice to you on such matters as the future of the above Sub-Post Office and also give them sufficient opportunity to tender their advice."
  He continues:
  "Your letter appears to indicate that you consider you are at liberty to reach a decision
  700
  on the future of the Bull Ring sub-post office and then, as stated in your letter"—
  and he quotes,
  "'to explain how and why the conclusions have been reached'".
  Mr. Hocking continues:
  "The Town Council have instructed me to take up with the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the Post Office Users' National Council, the question of the role of Advisory Committees having regard to the procedure adopted in this particular case but, before taking any further action, I would welcome your further observations on this matter."
  Fortunately, this House will be relieved to know that we are not too late to save the situation. The Bull Ring sub-post office has not yet been closed. In view of the serious implications of the points raised in the Town Clerk's letter from which I have quoted, and of the wholly unsatisfactory explanations which have been forthcoming, I appeal to the Under-Secretary to tell the House on behalf of the Government that it is the Government's intention to reverse the decision to close the Bull Ring sub-post office until the whole matter has at least been the subject of a thorough inquiry, the results of which should be made public and available to my constituents and should be reported to the House. Once that has taken place, I am sure that it will be seen that there is no possible justification for withdrawing from my constituents a service which is so vital to them and which has been provided so efficiently by a very thriving and viable sub-post office.
  10.30 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I should like first to thank the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad) for the kind remarks and good wishes that he has expressed, and to congratulate him on the excellent and very comprehensive way in which he has dealt with this matter on behalf of his constituents. I can imagine the problems of the hon. Members' constituents. Not long ago I was a Back Bencher and raised similar problems with my present Department. Until something like this happens the Post Office is often taken for granted because of the comprehensive nature of the services which it provides. The hon. Member for Northwich expressed the feelings and difficulties of his constituents very well.

  701
  Let me begin by making it clear that the Government are not responsible for the provision of or closure of post offices or, as in this case, sub-post offices. The Post Office, by an Act of 1969, is no longer a Government Department. By that legislation it was made a nationalised corporation. In giving the Post Office full responsibility in the 1969 Act to operate as a nationalised corporation, Parliament clearly intended to remove any need for the House to intervene in matters affecting the day-to-day manage-men of the services provided by the Post Office.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has certain reserve powers under the Act to give the Post Office directions, but only of a general character. I am sure the House would agree that it was not intended that these powers should be used in respect of day-to-day management decisions affecting particular sub-offices. The Post Office has a statutory obligation to exercise its powers in providing a postal service, including counter services, so as to meet efficiently and with economy the social, industrial and commercial needs of the British Isles.
  The broad criterion which the Post Office adopts in reviewing the need for a sub-post office is that an office is not normally opened within one mile of an existing office in a town, or within two miles in a rural area. Local factors are also taken into account. These include the volume of business transacted at the office concerned, the nature and terrain of the area it serves, and the availability of local bus services. The Post Office assures me that it also gives full consideration to the needs of local residents, retirement pensioners in particular. Many pensioners in my constituency are not very mobile. Well before the event, local authorities and Post Office advisory committees are notified of any impending closures and the reasons for them. Their views and those of other interested parties are taken fully into account before a final decision is reached.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the lack of information about business transacted at this sub-post office, but the figures that he sought are not mine to give. The Post Office regards it as important not to publish such information for security reasons. I am sure that the
  702
  hon. Gentleman understands that. The district head postmaster gave the advisory committee comparative percentages of business between the Bull Ring sub-post office and the Northwich Crown office.
  I remind the House of the corporation's policy in respect of the provision and closure of sub-post offices. There are now 22,000 sub-post offices, which, together with 1,600 Crown offices, represent an area served per post office and population served per office one of the best services in the world. The rate of net decline is less than ½ per cent. per year.
  This certainly does not bear out any suggestion that the Post Office is failing in its responsibility under the 1969 Post Office Act to provide adequate counter services for national needs. The provision of sub-post offices is important. The Government recognises this. The Post Office recognises it, too. It has stated publicly that substantial changes in numbers of offices will not be made.
  I now turn to the question of consultation. I cannot accept what the hon. Member for Northwich has said about the inadequacy of the consultation procedures, either as they apply to normal Post Office proposals for closures of particular post offices, or to the more general issues affecting customers or users of the Post Office services.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, too, in his constituency duties has come across the Post Office Users' National Council. Only today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry announced that parcel charges would be increased not by 25 per cent. but by only 13 per cent., very much as a result of the council's representations. Therefore, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have an effective watchdog.
  The arrangements and procedures are part of a continuous dialogue between the industry and its users. Nobody is barred from putting forward his views and complaints about services. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Post Office welcomes the committees as useful sources of advice on local needs and problems, but their status is as set out in the letter from the Post Office official which the hon. Gentleman quoted. They are not

  703
  statutory bodies, but rely on being spontaneously generated by local enterprise, whether local authorities or chambers of commerce.
  The hon. Gentleman can also have a rôle to play. If he does not find that the advisory committee procedure is sufficiently active in his constituency, he can do a great deal to encourage a more active local machinery. The consultation procedures have been established for some time and are therefore well tried.
  I understand that the proposal to close the Bull Ring sub-post office in Northwich was notified to the local Post Office advisory committee some three months in advance of the proposed closure date and that the district head postmaster in person explained to the committee the facts on which his proposal to close it was based.
  I do not know how the proposed closure burst into Press before all the normal procedures had been followed, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that it was no part of the intention of the Post Office to present his constituents with a fait accompli which they could not discuss. I have already stressed the comprehensive nature of the normal Post Office consultation procedure.
  704
  The Post Office had strong reservations about the suitability of the counter and access facilities of the Bull Ring sub-post office. I understand that within half a mile three alternative post offices, especially the Northwich Crown office, are available to handle business. The Post Office takes local factors into consideration before coming to final conclusions, after submitting the matter to the normal consultative procedure.
  It would not be proper for me to intervene in the normal day-to-day operational affairs of the Post Office. Therefore, I could not reverse the decision in this case. However, having noted the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put his case on behalf of his constituents, I shall expressly draw the attention of the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation, Sir William Ryland, to the points he has made. I am sure that the Post Office will take careful note of them.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will regard this as a very useful debate. I am only sorry that I cannot give him some better news to take to his constituency this weekend.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S BROADCAST)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S BROADCAST)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S BROADCAST)
CITY OF LONDON
  CITY OF LONDON
  CITY OF LONDON
BRUSSELS
  BRUSSELS
  BRUSSELS
PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS
  PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS
  PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS
SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
OPEC STATES
  OPEC STATES
  OPEC STATES
COUNCIL OF EUROPE (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION)
MR. VORSTER
  MR. VORSTER
  MR. VORSTER
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
COLUMN 88
  COLUMN 88
  COLUMN 88
EEC REGULATION 563/76
  EEC REGULATION 563/76
  EEC REGULATION 563/76
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorist Offences
  Terrorist Offences
  Children and Young Persons
  Children and Young Persons
  Craigavon and Daisy Hill Hospitals
  Craigavon and Daisy Hill Hospitals
  Law Reform
  Law Reform
  Altnagelvin Hospital
  Altnagelvin Hospital
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis
  Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis
  Land Purchase (Severn-Trent Water Authority)
  Land Purchase (Severn-Trent Water Authority)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Charities
  Charities
  C. Byrne, T. F. Byrne and R. J. Park (Trials)
  C. Byrne, T. F. Byrne and R. J. Park (Trials)
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Bailed Persons
  Bailed Persons
  Prison Service
  Prison Service
SCOTLAND
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Hill and Upland Compensatory Allowances
  Hill and Upland Compensatory Allowances
  Cattle (Premium Payments)
  Cattle (Premium Payments)
  Prescription Costs
  Prescription Costs
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Pharmaceutical Services
  Pharmaceutical Services
ENERGY
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Oil and Gas (Production and Reserves)
  Oil and Gas (Production and Reserves)
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Fuel Costs
  Fuel Costs
  Disconnections
  Disconnections
  Wave Energy
  Wave Energy
EMPLOYMENT
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  Redundancies (Scotland)
  Redundancies (Scotland)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Stockport
  Stockport
  Egg Batteries (Fife)
  Egg Batteries (Fife)
  Adolescents (Birmingham)
  Adolescents (Birmingham)
  Textiles
  Textiles
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  United States of America
  United States of America
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Royal Ordnance Factory (Hungarian Officers)
  Royal Ordnance Factory (Hungarian Officers)
  Mozambique
  Mozambique
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Defence Equipment (Exports)
  Defence Equipment (Exports)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Re-establishment Centres
  Re-establishment Centres
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Broadmoor Patients (Open University Courses)
  Broadmoor Patients (Open University Courses)
  Eraldin
  Eraldin
  Fuel Bills
  Fuel Bills
  Social Security Expenditure
  Social Security Expenditure
ENVIRONMENT
  Lorry Drivers
  Lorry Drivers
  Local Government Finance (Layfield Report)
  Local Government Finance (Layfield Report)
  Municipalisation
  Municipalisation
  Domestic Insulation
  Domestic Insulation
  Football Association Cup Final
  Football Association Cup Final
  Rate Support Grant (London)
  Rate Support Grant (London)
  Water Shortage
  Water Shortage
  Land Purchase (Severn-Trent Water Authority)
  Land Purchase (Severn-Trent Water Authority)
  Hillingdon
  Hillingdon
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
DEFENCE
  Territorial Army ("Column 88")
  Territorial Army ("Column 88")
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Spying
  Spying
  Tritium
  Tritium
  Nuclear Developments
  Nuclear Developments
INDUSTRY
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Inflation
  Inflation
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Dried Egg
  Dried Egg
TRADE
  Franchised Operations
  Franchised Operations
  British Film Authority
  British Film Authority
  NATIONAL FINANCE
  NATIONAL FINANCE
  Fringe Benefits
  Fringe Benefits
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Land Purchase (Severn-Trent Water Authority)
  Land Purchase (Severn-Trent Water Authority)
  Invalidity Pensioners (Taxation)
  Invalidity Pensioners (Taxation)
  Tax Evasion
  Tax Evasion
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Value Added Tax Officials (Searches)
  Value Added Tax Officials (Searches)
  Members of Parliament (Pensions)
  Members of Parliament (Pensions)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
WALES
  Printing and Publishing
  Printing and Publishing
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing

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

HARHLAND AND WOLFF: WORKERS' PARTICIPATION
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 an agreement has been reached for workers' participation in the management of the State-owned shipyard Harland and Wolff at Belfast; and if so, what are its terms.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, discussions over the past year have resulted in agreement being reached on proposals for the work force to participate in the management process at all levels in Harland and Wolff. These proposals provide for representatives of the workers to be elected to the Board of the Company, and for the establishment of a joint implementation council, joint departmental councils, and joint productivity committees.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that many of us would like to congratulate Mr. Stan Orme, MP, on this extraordinarily satisfactory arrangement? May I ask my noble friend whether it will be extended to other publicly-owned industries and, in particular, whether it will be extended to Londonderry, where negotiations about industrial democracy are also taking place?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brockway will be aware that the Bullock Committee is sitting at the moment. We are waiting for its report on industrial democracy. Beyond that I can make no further commitment.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, tell us
216
why, despite the fact that the Bullock Committee has not yet reported, these provisions are restricted to Northern Ireland?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this was a particular problem where the Government had taken over the industry. The industry became State-owned last August, and it was the wish of the management, the workforce and the Government that the arrangements should proceed. But it has been agreed that, when the Bullock Committee reports, the arrangements now made will be reviewed.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not extraordinarily helpful that this arrangement should have been made at Harland and Wolff, where the employees are mostly Protestants, while at the same time negotiations are taking place in Londonderry in a firm in which the employees are mostly Catholics?
Lord JACQUES: Yes, my Lords; I would agree that this is exceedingly helpful. We should like to see it extended to other parts of the economy of Northern Ireland.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, does the noble Lord suggest that it is only in publicly-owned industries that one can have social democracy, or whatever one calls it?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, not by any means; the Bullock Committee has not confined itself to that sector, but we should show an example.

NURSES: COMMONWEALTH INTERCHANGE
3.9 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: 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 nurses from old and new Commonwealth countries are now employed in general and psychiatric hospitals in the United Kingdom; and what facilities are currently available to British-born nurses who wish to work in hospitals in the Commonwealth.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, information about the countries of origin of nursing staff is not regularly collected other than for trainees. On 31st December 1974 there were approximately 91,000 trainee nurses and midwives of whom 6,900 were recruited direct from the Commonwealth. British nurses who wish to work in the Commonwealth would have to comply with the entry requirements of the particular country and local regulations on the right to practise as a nurse.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that helpful Answer. Would he accept that the role which our Commonwealth nurses play in this country is a very valuable one? Would he also accept that there are encouraging signs of more British-born nurses being recruited into our psychiatric hospitals?—and long may that continue. But would he, if necessary, make representations to some of the Commonwealth Governments to facilitate nurses who wish to do a period of training, particularly in the new Commonwealth countries, being able to do so, so that they can bring valuable experience both to those countries and also to their country of origin?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity afforded me by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, to express not only the thanks of the Government to those from the Commonwealth who are nursing in this country, but to the countries as a whole. It is perfectly true that the number of trainees recruited from overseas countries generally, and not just those from the Commonwealth, has declined since 1970. Now that most health authorities are finding it easier to recruit trainees many schools are, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, no doubt knows, full for the next 18 months, it would not be surprising if fewer students were recruited directly from the Commonwealth and overseas in the year ahead.
With regard to the third point, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, may know, there are a fair number of nurses in this country who apply not only to Commonwealth countries but to other countries to go to work there for periods of time in
218
order to get further experience and an idea of the various methods that are adopted. In fact, the General Nursing Council received 5,163 applications from nurses trained abroad to come here, and about 5,565 verifications have been sent by the General Nursing Council to other countries in respect of nurses in this country who, for a variety of reasons—either to see the world or a particular country—want to work there while they are doing so.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, as a matter of interest, whether the plural noun "nurses" includes young men as well as women?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I understand that it does.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House—I know this is another question although it is highly relevant—of the proportion of those nurses from abroad who, having completed their training, return to their country of origin?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, a person who comes here to be trained as a nurse has to satisfy her own country, before she can practise there, that she is in fact qualified and possesses all the necessary professional qualifications in this country. I mentioned that the General Nursing Council received requests for verifications in respect of 5,565 nurses in the year ending 31st March last year, and that would indicate that perhaps a high proportion of those, or a large number of them, are in fact Commonwealth nurses who have come to this country for training and may want to return.

SOVIET FREIGHT RATES
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 what action they are taking regarding Soviet freight charges for cargo ships after studying the document on Soviet Shipping which she has lent to them.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have read with interest the publication which the noble Baroness so kindly lent me. As I indicated in earlier Answers, we believe that this question must be pursued in collaboration with our Western maritime partners. This is what we are doing.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether, in the interests of the advantage to the invisible exports of our shipping industry, very quick action can be taken? Would he agree with me that part of the problem is that very important matters seem to take so long to deal with? Will the noble Lord forgive me if I keep putting down the Question in order that he may then stir up those who are to make the investigation?—because that would be very helpful to this country and to the shipping industry.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is very easy to forgive the noble Baroness; her sincerity is known. May I say that the whole business of Government is unfuriatingly slow, as noble Lords opposite will know only too well. All I can say is that this is made even slower by the fact that we as a maritime nation cannot act alone. However, we understand that CENSA—there is a new group of letters for the House—which includes the European and Japanese shipowners, have been invited to send a mission to the USSR and are in the process of following up this invitation. Let us hope that their talks are satisfactory.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords. I thank the noble Lord very much.

GREEN HOWARDS BAND EQUIPMENT
3.18 p.m.
Lord TRANMIRE: 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 to state their decision on the claim of the Green Howards to compensation in respect of the loss they suffered on 11th June 1974, when a terrorist bomb
220
attack on Strensall Camp destroyed the regimental band instruments and equipment.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the representations made by the noble Lord and others in this House on 16th December, and by a delegation which was received by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the same day, and the arguments advanced during a debate in another place on 14th April, have all been most carefully considered, but Her Majesty's Government regret that they are unable to pay any additional compensation from public funds over and above the sum of £2,500 already paid to individual bandsmen.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the courtesy with which he has phrased a most unsatisfactory reply, can he answer these two questions: first, does he accept that the net loss of over £10,000 which this regiment has suffered originated from an IRA attack on a military target, Strensall Barracks? Secondly, does he agree that the greater part of that £10,000 loss was a risk that could not have been covered by insurance at that time because there was an immediate need to replace the whole of the band equipment and instruments in order to fulfil public engagements?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the problem is that the size of the loss mentioned by the noble Lord is, in a sense, a hypothetical one, since it was based on the assumption that new instruments would have to be purchased. This was in fact not true. The whole basis of the argument and the compensation which the Ministry of Defence paid to individual bandsmen was on an assessment of the purchase of secondhand instruments, which are available. It is no doubt true that it was an IRA action that destroyed the instruments of the band. Nevertheless, the band's instruments are the responsibility of the regiment, not of the Government, and if they were under-insured that, I am afraid, is the regiment's responsibility and not that of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as well as being

221
infuriatingly slow the actions of the Government in this particular case seem to be mean and bureaucratic and silly?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I understand it, we are not talking only about a lot of instruments of a band. The whole question of insuring against terrorist activity is a far wider one, and is one that we have to take into consideration. We are all in sympathy with the problems of the regiment. The individual bandsmen have been compensated, and if the regiment feels sufficiently strongly—as it obviously does from the support it gets in your Lordships' House, and I am in sympathy with that support—the fact is that monies could be raised from the friends of the regiment to assist in re-equipping the band. After all, we cannot, unfortunately, insure against every circumstance where terrorism is observed.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, why should it have to depend on the friends of the regiment? The IRA are the enemies of this country and the regiment is one of the instruments by which we defend ourselves against the country's enemies. Why cannot the premium, if insurance has to be paid, be borne by the Government? If in fact it is not, why cannot the Government compensate the regiment?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am in sympathy with the noble and learned Lord. However, the facts are that regulations relating to bands and to compensation emphasise the particular importance of insuring band property, and indeed all the property of a regiment in its home quarters. The Green Howards' band property was nevertheless insured for only part of its value, and Her Majesty's Government decided that it would not be proper to expect the public to pay for the band's failure to insure its private property.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in spite of the debate which took place in another place recently and the Government's refusal to meet the claim of the Green Howards because of the loss of their instruments, does not the matter require further consideration? Is my noble friend aware that the under-insuring of the instruments—and this is the fundamental
222
issue—is not attributable to any defect on the part of the Green Howards regiment, but simply because it was impossible to insure at a higher rate? May I ask my noble friend to assume that Kneller Hall lost its instruments and various other equipment, and perhaps the whole building associated with music in the Army and the Forces, because of an explosion or through other cause. Are we to understand that no compensation would be provided?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, first of all, here compensation has been provided; secondly, because of the strong feeling in this House I will once again bring the matter to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in Yorkshire there is a tremendous amount of public sympathy over this matter? Does he not think that the morale of the Army at this particular moment needs boosting?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords, I think their capacity to absorb punishment is greater than the loss of the instruments of the Green Howards' band.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his offer to reconsider this matter. Will he bear in mind that this regiment is again on active service in Northern Ireland at the present time, and that when Members of Parliament lost some of their belongings in the explosion in Westminster Hall they were immediately compensated without any delay and without any argument?

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
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, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Aberdare be added to the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADOPTION BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a straightforward consolidation measure. It consolidates the Adoption Acts of 1958, 1960, 1964 and 1968, and Part I of Schedule I to the Children Act 1975 and certain other enactments as set out in Schedule 4 to the Bill. The Bill consolidates these Acts as they apply in England and Wales, but as they also extend to Scotland it contains consequential amendments to Scottish enactments. A comparable consolidation measure is being prepared for Scotland. If your Lordships approve, the Bill will be referred to the Joint Committee in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— [The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

STATEMENT ON THE DEFENCE ESTIMATES 1976
3.25 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1976 (Cmnd. 6432). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I think it right at the outset—and I hope that the House will agree with me—that we should take the opportunity of the first debate on defence after his death to pay a very sincere and heartfelt tribute to the late Field Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein. I know that I speak for the House when I say how much we regret that we have not had the benefit of his enormous experience in recent years, particularly on matters of defence. For a large number of years he has been absent because of illness. Before then he was a regular attender of your Lordships' House, made many controversial speeches, and was a good comrade, if I may use that term, in the tea room, when those who may have served with him were regaled with the past and those who had not served with him were information of their misfortune.
I suppose that the late Lord Montgomery will be remembered as the architect of the crucial Allied victory in the Western Desert in 1942, and as one of the greatest generals that this country has seen. I believe that history will be a great deal kinder to the Field Marshal than some who wrote about him and sought to assess his military and, particularly, his wartime leadership during his lifetime. I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, could speak of his own intimate connection with General Montgomery, as I then knew him because I was one of those who were fortunate enough to be in the Western Desert. No greater tribute could be paid to a soldier than that he could identify and sympathise with the motivation and aspirations of civilian soldiers, because that was very much the Army that fought the 1939–45 war.
I went to the Western Desert just before the fall of Tobruk and Mersa Matruh and the humiliating retreat to Alamein. I would not say that the Army there was disillusioned or despairing, although there were undoubted signs of this. But if one gives credit for leadership it must be to General Montgomery, as he then was, because in a relatively short time, due to his personality, he changed an Army that had doubts in itself into an Army that had supreme confidence, determination, and belief that it would not only win the battle of North Africa but would hasten the day, which was the aspiration of us all, when we could return home to our families. In my view that is the quality of leadership. We therefore express great sympathy to his family.
Before turning to the specific subject of today's debate, I wish to pay a further personal tribute to the remarkable and unstinting way in which the
Services have approached their various tasks in the past year. Every year we pay a genuine and sincere tribute to our soldiers—to all those who serve in the three Services, but particularly the soldiers in Northern Ireland—and there is a real risk that by doing it every year it will become a ritual. We need only recall the number of Servicemen who have lost their lives and suffered grave injury in the execution of their duty. I think particularly today of the part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, which has gathered strength in the last two or three years; part-time members who do not need to

225
serve but who feel that they have a duty to Northern Ireland to serve and to put themselves at risk. They, both men and women, are bearing the cost of that duty. It is also right that we should remember those, particularly in the Royal Navy, who, in co-operation with the Royal Air Force, have shown very great skill in the cruel seas around Iceland. One need only see some of the films not only to understand the dangers and the savagery of the weather, but to appreciate what we have asked our Navy to undertake.
A debate on the Government's White Paper always, quite properly, arouses great interest in your Lordships' House because there are many noble Lords who over a number of years have acquired not only interest but also expertise in defence matters. This interest was made manifest recently when, I think in January, a group of noble Lords visited NATO, and I am looking forward very much to their contributions to this debate. Even more recently we established an all-Party study group on defence. Noble Lords may be aware that only yesterday this group had a most successful inaugural meeting when it listened to and closely questioned Sir Peter Hill-Norton, a senior operational officer of NATO. I am extremely pleased to note the interest which this meeting aroused among Members of your Lordships' House, and I am convinced that, if yesterday's meeting is anything to go by, this group will develop to become an important source of advice on defence matters to the benefit of the whole House and the Government. As I said, this House has a wealth of experience and expertise in the sphere of defence, and I am confident that this afternoon's debate on the Government's Defence White Paper will be much enriched as a result. The Government will pay close attention to what is said in the course of the debate.
The object of a Defence White Paper is to explain the Government's defence policy and the roles of Her Majesty's armed forces. One of the aims of this year's White Paper was to give more detailed information in a more readily understandable form than was ever before attempted. I think that anyone who has read the document and who takes an
226
interest in defence matters will agree with this aim, and I hope will share my view that we have achieved our purpose. Naturally, the facts contained in the White Paper are not to everyone's liking, but in these days of economic adversity many unpalatable realities must be faced. The ratio of public expenditure to the gross domestic product has increased from 42 per cent. to 60 per cent. in the past 15 years. If the Government had continued to increase our programmes at the rate we planned earlier, by 1979 the ordinary taxpayer might have found himself paying 50p or more in taxation and contributions on every extra £1 he earned.
The Government therefore decided broadly to stabilise the level of public expenditure programmes after 1976–77. This was necessary not only to prevent an unmanageable increase in the burden of taxation, but also to release resources from the public sector to allow manufacturing industry to invest and create the economic growth on which the future growth in public expenditure depends. No Government could be pleased that circumstances have forced us to forego for the time being some of the improvements in public services for which we had planned and which remain as desirable aims. Nevertheless, we have made a sincere effort to plan the cuts in accordance with the real priorities. It is for this reason that we have increased our programme for jobs and trade by nearly £500 million in 1978–79 compared with previous plans. However, our decision to reduce public expenditure after 1976–77 has meant cuts in most programmes totalling £3 billion in 1978–79. I do not believe that there is anyone in this House who would question that the Government must resist all pressures for increases in public expenditure where there are no compensating reductions. Defence has to make its own share after allowing for the fact that £5,900 million are already due to be saved by 1983–84 as a result of last year's Defence Review.
The House is well acquainted with last year's Defence Review. It was an exercise that put under the microscope our defence commitments outside NATO—Hong Kong, Singapore, Brunei, the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, the Mediterranean. the Caribbean and South Atlantic; it reassessed our NATO commitments and

227
analysed in detail the forces which the Services needed to maintain to meet those commitments. It more than fulfilled the Government's pledge to achieve savings in defence expenditure of several hundred million pounds a year, progressively over a period, and to bring our defence budget more into line with those carried by our main European allies, while maintaining for ourselves a modern and effective defence system.
When they understood what we had done and how we had achieved it, our allies in NATO did not conclude that their security or ours had been undermined by our actions. Indeed, they know that Britain is pulling her full weight in the Alliance and that our fighting forces are professional, efficient and well-equipped with modern weapons. In fact, our forces in NATO excel over, rather than merely compare favourably with, those of our colleagues in the Alliance. In short, we transformed a ten-year defence programme which was rapidly escalating in cost to one which would maintain our security at, I recognise, a lower, but, I believe, at a more stable level of resources. Since the Review was published, we have made good progress in withdrawing our forces to the fullest extent possible from our non-NATO commitments. We have left Gan, Mauritius and Singapore. Elsewhere we have reduced our presence. But, as I have said, these are days of economic adversity. Inflation is the enemy that the Government and the country must defeat.
When the economic situation made it imperative for defence this year to make a further contribution towards improving our economic prospects, the Government faced up to this in what I believe to be a totally responsible manner. We started from the baseline that we could not, and should not, cut our basic contributions to NATO, because this could have caused a crisis of confidence in NATO and could well have unravelled the Alliance as the weaker members saw Britain reducing its commitment and its contributions. Nor did we want to eat too heavily into the defence industries. We had already reduced job opportunities in this field by the Defence Review and further reductions would have meant cutting the equipment programme of the forces—and hence the quality of our front line. It was decided
228
that the cuts must fall on what is called the "tail" and not the "teeth". As a result the burden has fallen on civilian numbers and establishments in the United Kingdom.
Your Lordships will have noticed from the White Paper that nine establishments will be closed, and the level of activity at others will be reviewed. Other economies in the support area are being implemented and reductions in Ministry of Defence Headquarters' staff are planned. In all, some 10,000 civilian jobs will disappear, in addition to the 30,000 already planned to go under the earlier Defence Review. However, everything will be done to implement the economies as painlessly as possible, particularly as regards redundancy. There will be close consultation with the staff representatives at all stages. Given that the civilian staff reductions will be spread over the next four years and taking into account natural wastage and measures such as staff transfers and selective recruiting cutbacks, we hope to keep redundancies to the minimum. Nevertheless, I think it is likely, though regrettable, that some redundancies will be inevitable.
Our NATO allies have, of course, been given full information of these further reductions and the NATO staffs are examining them and discussing the details with us as necessary. By their systematic and, I believe, sensible approach to the problem, the Government have been able to divert, between 1975 and 1980, some £3,200 million at 1975 survey prices from defence towards investment and the balance of payments. I am sure that our allies appreciate that our economic health is to their ultimate advantage. I believe that far too much weight is laid on military defence, and that an alliance such as NATO depends on the economic health and strength of all its member countries. For any one to be permanently weak, with all the political and social consequences that that brings, creates, in my view, a major threat not only to the stability of the alliance but to its very cohesion.
I think it would be worth while if, at this stage, I reminded your Lordships of the details of our contribution to NATO. We commit virtually the whole of our combat forces to the Alliance and. unlike our European allies, we rely solely on

229
volunteers—full-time professionals. They in turn are backed up by nearly 250,000 reservists and 300,000 civilians. On the mainland of Europe, we commit no less than 55,000 soldiers and a large tactical air force. A high proportion of NATO's immediately available maritime forces in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas is provided by the Royal Navy. And it is worth remembering that, in spite of all the cuts, our major equipment programmes—our weapon systems of the future—have come through intact. We play a very full role in NATO, and that is only right and proper because our security and freedom are bound up with that of our Alliance partners.
Of course, many people question whether our security is indeed under threat. We have had thirty years of peace: thirty years which have been guaranteed by the collective security we enjoy through the existence of the Alliance. But no one under the age of 35 has any memory of what it was like to have a war in Europe. It is becoming increasingly difficult to persuade people of the needs of defence and of the unique dangers of lessening our security.
What threat do we face? The Soviet view of d étente and peaceful co-existence assumes the continuation—indeed the intensification—of the ideological struggle by all means short of war, and accepts the subordination of the freedom of Soviet citizens and citizens of the satellite countries to the continuation of that struggle. But there cannot be a real relaxation of tension between East and West if one side unilaterally lowers its guard or disturbs the balance of power. As the White Paper makes clear, the Soviet Union, having achieved strategic nuclear parity with the United States, is continuing to build up its conventional and tactical nuclear forces, improving the quality and number of its armaments. In terms of ready forces in the areas vital to our own security—the Eastern Atlantic and the Central Region of NATO—they already have a substantial numerical superiority.
So the means to pose a military threat are readily available. However, I do not see a deliberate military attack against the West as a likely Soviet move. But given a hint of weakness in the West—whether
230
this weakness were economic or military—I have no doubt that Russian leaders would exploit it by all means at their disposal, including the threat of military force, to deny to Western countries individually or collectively their freedom of political choice in their internal as well as their external affairs. Let us therefore be in no doubt that a threat exists. Our defence budget is what we pay for our security insurance. We do not intend to let our policy premiums lapse. We must seek to settle the economic basis on which our political and social stability depend, as does our ability not only to provide the forces now but, if it were necessary, to provide for their extension.
Some of your Lordships may conclude from what I have said that détente is a sham—a Soviet con-trick. But I would ask them not to close their minds too quickly to the possibility of genuine improved East/West relations. We all know that these are better now than they were in the cold war era. So in a very real sense d étente has already brought some rewards, however limited. I am sure no one would wish to see any backsliding. The Government are intent on pressing for improvements in East/West relations and I believe that we must all work to try to make this a reality.
This year the Soviet Union has a real opportunity to demonstrate that in military fields it has a true willingness to develop a better understanding with the West. It could translate the words of the final act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe into action, by implementing in a real way voluntary, military, confidence-building measures, in addition to the other provisions of the agreement. It could reduce the size of its garrisons in Eastern Europe, and cut the enormous share of its gross national product which it spends on defence.
It could adopt a more helpful and forthcoming attitude towards the Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions negotiations in Vienna, through which we hope to achieve a more stable relationship in central Europe by reducing the imbalance of forces currently weighted heavily in the East's favour. And it could negotiate with the United States an actual reduction in the strategic nuclear arsenals of both sides through the SALT talks.
If it did these things we would be some way along the road to a situation where money at present spent and needed for defence could be channelled into other peaceful and more beneficial areas. It is, however, regrettably a very long road we have yet to travel. Our own commitment to working for a genuine improvement in relations between, and contacts between, the peoples of East and West must nevertheless remain firm. I believe that we must be patient and diligent, but at all times vigilant.
We cannot base our future on paper promises of the Soviet Union. We must see concrete actions before we consider, as an Alliance, reducing our combat forces. But, my Lords, do not get me wrong. I am in no way advocating a return to the doctrine of an imperial Britain, and I do not have dreams of our policing the world and playing a military role in Africa or other troubled regions outside the NATO area. To consider such suggestions is grossly irresponsible. But we have a real role to play in, and a real commitment to, Europe. We have a military and political contribution to make which gives us a far greater influence there than perhaps our mere economic size warrants.
But of course what Europe wants, and needs, is a strong Britain. Government policies must be aimed at this objective, and I believe that this is being increasingly understood and accepted throughout the country. We must all strive to create within Britain a strong economic, social and political base. I think that it would be wrong to be complacent about anything. We need to create a cohesive and strong Europe, an outward looking Europe; and this means that until such time as multilateral disarmament can be achieved we must retain, maintain, and, if necessary, strengthen the NATO Alliance, for that is our safeguard for the future.
My Lords, earlier I mentioned that our major equipment programmes have emerged intact from the savings exercises. I should like quickly to mention one or two examples. On the naval side we attach great importance to the antisubmarine warfare cruiser and the nuclear powered fleet submarine programmes. Together with the RAF's Nimrod aircraft, they will be the core of our future anti-submarine warfare capability. We
232
need the cruisers to enable us to deploy in the most cost-effective way our Sea King helicopters. Each Sea King helicopter has the equivalent anti-submarine warfare capability of a present-day frigate and the cruiser, because it supports the Sea King helicopter, will therefore be a most powerful and valuable ship to the Navy.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's statement that so much was to be taken from the tail and not the teeth and bearing in mind what he said about the importance the Government owe to the anti-submarine capability, why, if it is to be the core of our anti-submarine capability, has the Nimrod force been cut by 25 per cent. according to this White Paper?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, we had to seek a balance, but I use the expression of the cruiser and the helicopter as being a very valuable contribution to the Navy. This is something which my noble friend Lord Winterbottom can attend to because he will be dealing with what I call the nuts and bolts at the end of the debate. The only thing I say to the noble Lord is that cuts had to be made and the various priorities upon which the Servicemen advised the Government had to be taken into account.
My Lords, we are also developing the Sea Skua, helicopter-launched anti-ship missile, and negotiations have been opened to purchase from the United States the submarine-launched anti-ship missile known as the Sub-Harpoon. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, will be particularly glad that we are going ahead with the Sea Harrier, which will certainly add to our anti-submarine warfare task force.
So far as the Army is concerned, subject to obtaining acceptable terms, we shall be buying Milan, a light-weight infantry anti-tank missile. This will prove a welcome addition to our range of weapons. Next year we hope to put the collaborative 155-millimetre gun into series production. The self-propelled version—the SP70—will follow later.
Those noble Lords who take a deep interest in the subject will know our decision to order, subject to negotiations with our partners, 385 MRCA aircraft for the RAF, and that this is of major importance to the British aerospace industry.

233
It will provide at peak 10,000 jobs at BAC, 6,000 at Rolls-Royce, and 8,000 on equipment and avionics. Indirectly another 12,000 jobs will probably flow from the contract. NATO will also gain from our decision to go ahead with the project. It is inevitable, given the current economic climate and the lessening of our international obligations, that much of the discussion on defence should be centred on cuts and reductions. This should not, however, make us forget the magnitude of the role which our forces still have to play. Nor should we forget the opportunities still available, which will continue to be available, to those who wish to take up a career within the Services. I hope that as part of this debate some attention will be given to the questions of enrolment; and one is very glad to see that figures for those enlisting in the Services today show a very marked and welcome increase.
At a time when there is much talk of the military unpreparedness of the West, I should like to conclude these opening remarks by stressing again the value which we place upon our membership of the NATO Alliance and the strength of our commitment to it. Together with our partners in the Alliance, we remain determined to counter the threat to our own security and freedom, while at the same time seeking a reduction of this threat at the conference table. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1976 (Cmnd. 6432).—(Lord Shepherd).
3.59 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I can at any rate agree with one thing said by the noble Lord; namely, I can think of no more appropriate an occassion than a defence debate to pay tribute to the late Lord Montgomery. There must be many of us in this House who recall with pleasure and nostalgia the trenchant and short contributions he made over a number of years to our defence debates. All of us who were privileged to serve in his Army under his command remember his leadership and owe him a debt which neither we, nor this country, can ever repay.
My Lords, we have, as usual, listened to a most competent speech by the noble
234
Lord the Leader of the House, helped, I suspect, by some equally competent and even more knowledgable people in the Ministry of Defence. I only hope that as a result of the changes under the new Prime Minister it will not be necessary for Lord Shepherd to do everything himself, for I notice that his team is now two under strength. There have been no replacements for Lord Crowther-Hunt and Lord Lovell-Davis. We on these Benches do not like to see noble Lords opposite overworked; nor do we think it a good idea that this House should not have on its Government Front Bench enough Ministers to deal, with knowledge, with the many difficult issues, which affect so many different Departments, which are raised in all quarters of the House. Perhaps the Leader of the House would be good enough to let it be known to his colleagues that we view this development with some concern.
As I have said, the noble Lord has made a competent speech, but it has glossed over a number of very awkward facts, just as does the Defence White Paper—and I shall have more to say about that a little later. Just recently we have seen a revival of interest in the defence of this country. That is partly, I think, because Mrs. Thatcher made a speech which was given considerable publicity, even more than it normally would have been given because it attracted the considerable wrath of the Soviet Government. I doubt whether the result was that which they intended. It is partly, too, because we have had the opportunity recently of hearing, reading and watching Mr. Solzhenitsyn reminding us of some very elementary and important truths. A number of us, of course, have been saying much the same thing over a number of years without attracting so much attention. But Mr. Solzhenitsyn has two advantages. First, he speaks with first-hand knowledge and experience of the Soviet Union. He has suffered a great deal for what he believes. He knows the aims, the methods, the aspirations of the Soviet Union. No wise man should ignore what he says. Secondly, he has the appearance and manner of an Old Testament prophet, and certainly on television that is a very important and impressive thing. I wonder what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, could have done had he looked different.

235
My Lords, I believe that what Mr. Solzhenitsyn has said has had an enormous impact, and I hope it will not be a temporary one, for there can be no doubt that there has been a marked shift in military capacity as between the West and the Communists; and there has been an equally significant decline in the apparent will of the West to protect its way of life—or, indeed, the belief that its way of life is worth protecting. The Defence White Paper brings out very clearly the first of these points. On pages 5. 6, 7 and 8 are set out in detail the growing capacity of the Warsaw Pact countries; the increasing disparity between what they have and what we have; the better quality of what they are now getting; the growth—the enormous growth—of the Soviet fleet, world-wide and more modern than any other; the deployment of their intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles; the efficiency which standardisation has brought them; the capacity for reinforcement; the better dispersal of their military aircraft; the improvement in their surface-to-air missiles. All this is in the Defence White Paper. The list is boundless, and it makes menacing reading.
But in the West recently all talk has been of détente—except, of course, in the United States, where it is called "lessening of tension"; and that Presidential edict in itself is of some significance. It cannot be said too often, for those of us who, like myself, are sometimes accused of being cold war warriors, that no sensible, civilised or sane person could possibly he opposed to the relaxation of tension between the two power blocs in the world. More than that, all reasonable men must do everything in their power to see that it comes about. Only a madman would not he overjoyed if détente led to a more rational approach to East-West relations and a diminution of the vast sums of money spent by both sides on weapons of destruction.
But, my Lords, must we not be a little prudent? Must we not ask ourselves whether or not there is evidence of Russian intentions to seek such a genuine détente? Have we got that evidence? Has the post-Helsinki experience been such that we can confidently spend less money on our own security? Are we sure that when we speak of détente the
236
Soviet Union means the same as we do? I think that the answer to all those questions is uncertain, and in some instances rather more gloomy than that. I do not think that the Soviet Union means the same thing as we do when we speak of détente. I do not believe that they have given up, or will give up, their intention eventually to see Russian Communism as the dominant philosophy everywhere in the world. Generally speaking, they will abide by the strict terms of the agreements that they have signed, but no more. Détente to them does not mean abandoning the theological battle or the effort to undermine other systems.
Ought we not to ask ourselves what are the purposes of the enormous forces which the Soviet Union has and which it continues to enlarge and improve? What are they for? There are, of course, a number of perfectly reasonable explanations. Perhaps they are still frightened of a pre-emptive attack by the United States. To us here that may seem impossible—indeed, ludicrous—but seen through Russian eyes it may be still a credible and real threat, though I should have thought that American actions in the last few years dispelled any such belief. But enough capability, surely, is enough, and I do not believe that that explanation can tell us why there is this enormous build-up of Soviet armed forces, or why they are dispersed around the world. For example, I see from the paper today that the Russians have now gone into the Wheelus base in Libya. I do not think it explains the very modern and extensive naval capacity which they have built; nor the exercises which they are carrying out all over the world, designed specifically to deal with convoys. Perhaps the whole thing is a gigantic bureaucratic error. Sometimes one thinks that one's opponents are 10 feet tall. Perhaps there is in the Soviet Union just a sort of military momentum which goes on spending vast sums of money every year because it always has, and because the military are very important and nobody can stop it. I do not know; but for whatever reason the overwhelming military power is there.
I agree with the Leader of the House: I do not think it very likely that the Russians have any intention to launch an attack across the central front of Europe.

237
There are far too many uncertainties in that for them to do it. But prudence tells me that, while there is this enormous military capacity not very far away from where we are now sitting, it would be madness to put ourselves in a position in which we could neither defend ourselves adequately nor resist pressure because we are powerless to defend ourselves. If the West becomes so weak, if the resolution of the West becomes so frail, that we are obviously not in earnest about our own defence, then we are open to pressure and blackmail which it is impossible for us to resist. It does not need a war or fighting for the West to succumb; it needs only neglect and selfishness, the pursuit of materialism, and the collapse of our resolution.
Even now, it seems to me, far too many people, when they talk about defence, seem to think that armed forces are there to win a war. Of course they are not. They are there to prevent a war from happening. The success of a defence policy is measured by the fact that no war takes place. NATO has been successful in these last 26 years and has prevented war. Because of it, the foolish, the short-sighted, say that NATO is now useless and superfluous and that armed forces are no longer necessary. What is the point, they say, of keeping up vast and expensive paraphernalia? We have had peace for 30 years and the Helsinki agreement has brought with it détente. They have not read their history.
What does all this add up to? It should add up to a resolve on the part of the West not to go further along the path of disarmament and détente unless there is a solid bargain struck. I have, on more than one occasion, deplored the decoupling of the Helsinki talks from the talks on mutual and balanced force withdrawals. Since the Helsinki Pact was signed, there has been no progress of any kind in Vienna; and in paragraph 10 of the White Paper we can read for ourselves the Government's admission about this.
I do not suppose that there would be anything more calculated to reduce tension than a genuine agreement on force reductions in Central Europe which, as the White Paper says, would correct the imbalance between the two Power blocs. I believe that the decoupling of these
238
conferences was shortsighted and in the end will prove to be a serious mistake.
If there are any in this House who agree with what I have said, we should then ask ourselves how the Government are measuring up to these unpleasant facts. There are various strands of opinion about defence in Parliament and outside it. There are those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Soper, believe that any military resistance is wrong. They are pacifists. They are logical; and they have a point of view which to me is perfectly understandable, although I do not share it. There are those who, like the Tribune group, wish to see a drastic cut in our armed forces which would mean that they would become only a token. This again has logic; for that wing of the Labour Party does not on the whole believe that we have much in this country worth defending. Some of them, it seems to me, are more in sympathy with the philosophy of the East than that of a Parliamentary democracy. That has logic, too. Why spend a lot of money on something you do not much believe in or, alternatively, if you half believe in it, why not let the Americans spend the money and protect you for free? I do not applaud that; but I understand it.
What I do not understand is the attitude of the Government. In White Paper after White Paper, and more particularly in this one, they spell out in the strongest possible terms the increasing menace of Soviet militarism. Yet what is their answer?—" Cut defence. We are spending too much. We are spending more percentage of our gross national product on defence than our neighbours. We know they are doing too little, so let us do too little, too. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, merely reversed the order of things in the White Paper. In the White Paper we are told about the menace of Soviet militarism for the first half of the White Paper; and in the second half we are told how we are going to cut our defence expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spent the first half of his speech telling us about how we are going to cut defence expenditure; and in the second half he talked about Soviet militarism.
At 1975 Survey prices, the cuts which the Government have announced in total over the years now add up to £6¼ billion. Yet it seems that there is abroad a general

239
impression that the Government have not really done too badly; that the Secretary of State for Defence, on the whole, has done a good job. Of course those who say that really mean that Mr. Mason has not done as badly as everybody expected that he would. They expected even worse cuts and that to some small extent he has managed to prevent Mr. Healey from his worst excesses.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer plays an extraordinary part in all this. We can recollect that in the days of the last Labour Government he spent six years seeking to salvage for the armed forces what he could from a Government determined to slash defence expenditure. He battled—I will not say he battled successfully because I inherited all the problems that he left behind; but he battled. For the last 2½ years he has devoted himself to demolishing what he managed to achieve in his six years as Defence Secretary. I do not know where his convictions lie. At one time I thought that they lay in our having proper defence forces. I doubt whether the Healey of 1968 would find much to admire in the Healey of 1976.
And so, my Lords, we have the Secretary of State for Defence saying that the situation is very grave; that we cannot ignore the military capability of the Warsaw Pact which has increased in numbers and in quality. He tells us about the improved quality. He tells us about the failure of the talks in Vienna. He tells us in paragraph 26 of how the Russians may be tempted to apply other forms of pressure and that this will succeed only if the West was so gravely weakened as to have lost its will to resist. The sterling answer that he gives to reassure the British public is to spend less on defence, to move out of the Mediterranean, to abandon our bases overseas, to cut our support and to cause our allies in NATO the gravest concern; for they, in truth, are appalled at what the Government are doing.
But fair is fair. There is one aspect of the Government's policy which I applaud. The recent Statement—it is not in the White Paper—about the manufacture of tritium, although it does not explicitly say so, denotes that the Government are intending to maintain Britain's independent nuclear deterrent. That should give us all reassurance. In an uncertain world, none of us can be sure in the future what
240
may happen to the groupings and alliances of the present day. I am sure that Britain is safer because in the last resort she is known to have a nuclear capacity, powerful and under her own command. But as we read this White Paper, we are asked to believe that no damage has been done to our forces; we are asked to believe that all the cuts are to come from the tail rather than from the teeth.
It is an illusion to suppose that the teeth can operate without the tail. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the complexities and sophistications of modern equipment and weapons knows that support is an essential part of a weapons system. If there are no spare parts, no technicians, no back up, the weapon itself is absolutely useless. I should be interested to hear from the noble Lord who is to reply exactly what is going to be cut in terms of support. Are we cutting spare parts? If so, are we sure that we shall be able to use the equipment sufficiently for our forces to be trained in its use? Are they cutting fuel to such a degree that training cannot be carried out? In the Supply Estimates there is the figure of a cut of £25½ million in fuel, a cut of no less than 10 per cent. What is the explanation of this? Are they cutting research and development in such a way that we are bound to be out of a number of fields of defence research and consequently compelled to buy from abroad at the expense of employment and of foreign exchange?
And what are they doing about standardisation? One of the means of saving money is standardisation; and apart from the vague generalities of paragraph 39 of the White Paper we are not told. For example, has the Eurogroup yet come to an agreement about the future main battle tank? Is it not perhaps time when all countries which are under economic difficulties should think of a more radical apportionment of duties in NATO? These and many other questions can be pursued at a later date in another debate.
There is one matter about which I should like to say two or three sentences; that is, the state of the equipment and capacity of the Ulster Defence Regiment. It has been said, and I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply can comment

241
upon this—and I have told him that I am going to say this—that they are not equipped to the standard necessary for the job. For example, I have heard it said that their radios are very inferior to those used by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I hope that any economies that are practised do not fall on that body of men who are on active service, whose lives are in danger and without whom the job of the Regular Army would be that much more difficult. But for today there can be no one in this House who is interested in the security of this country who cannot view the policy of Her Majesty's Government on defence without the gravest possible misgiving. No amount of whitewash, no amount of camouflage in the defence White Paper can make us believe that the Government are not reducing our capacity and capability to an unacceptably low level, and consequently failing the British people in the trust which they have given.
4.20 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to be associated with the remarks of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in the remarks they made about the late Field Marshal Lord Montgomery. I find it rather difficult having to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as he is rather more well versed in these matters than I am. Also, at one time in my career I had the great pleasure of serving under him. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for setting up the all-Party Study Group in the House of Lords. As noble Lords know, yesterday evening there was the first proper meeting of that group. It was extremely well attended by all Parties in the House, as defence debates should be, because they should be non-Party.
We all realise that when there is an economic crisis there must be public expenditure cuts. Unfortunately, defence always seems to be the prime and first target for these cuts. I wish that we could live in a world that could do without armed forces but, alas! in the present state of civilisationa it is not to be. It is an ideal world which at the moment is not here. I think that defence, unlike Gaul, which
242
was divided into three parts, can only be divided into two parts: local and worldwide commitment to NATO. On the local side, we have Northern Ireland, our oil rigs and subversive acts in the United Kingdom. I gather that since our debate on defence about a year ago, the forces looking after the oil rigs and fishermen are rather better equipped. I would reiterate something I said, and which was also aired by Vice-Admiral Sir Hugh Mackenzie, that we should seriously consider having a new force, a maritime defence force, on the lines of the United States or Canadian Coastguards, to look after our oil rigs and fishing interests, particularly in view of the fact that with the law of the sea and the 200-mile limit it may become even more important. In spite of the fact that our forces in this area are better than they were 12 months ago, it is still, I am afraid, like the country policeman on a pedal cycle instead of in a fast patrol car.
I do not think that our oil rigs are in danger of being attacked by the super-Powers from the East; but I think they are possibly in great danger from subversive activities anarchists or the IRA. if we go to the "big picture", NATO, we must be guided by what the chiefs of NATO say. If they are happy that our commitments are adequate, well and good; but I still do not believe that this leaves us room for any complacency. Détente is useful only if one can be a partner in it from a strong position. We must remember that it has taken Russia only ten years to become a super-Power. Their present leaders may have a policy of détente now, but what happens when they go and they have new leaders? The policy could be changed overnight.
I suggest that one method of letting us all sleep more safely in our beds at night would be if Her Majesty's Government could organise some meetings with the Heads of State, which will include our Prime Minister with the rest of the European Community countries and initiate a European defence force which would not be separate from NATO in any way but would be much more standardised, possibly more mobile and more efficient. We must not forget that at the moment France, who is still not back as a member of NATO, could not sit down round the table; but perhaps serious discussion with the President of France would help to

243
bring her back under the NATO umbrella. I do not believe that if this meeting happened nothing would come from it. We must remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, that the nuclear deterrent is still with us. But if we weaken our conventional forces, we are asking for trouble. The Russians know that they will not have a nuclear war, and maybe they do not want a conventional one, but we are sticking our chins out to be hit if we put ourselves in a weak position.
It seems incredible to me that we cannot have defence policies with other countries in the EEC, whereby we have standardised weapons, and also that we cannot collaborate in building these weapons, whether they be ships, areoplanes, guns or missiles. Incidentally, if we had a European defence policy it would certainly save this country many millions of American dollars by not having to import American weapons. I will not go into the details of all the different weapons that exist today. Several other noble Lords will do so and they are much better equipped than I am. But I will ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, two questions: first, has any decision been made on the minicarriers for Harrier aircraft? I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government have considered exporting arms to China. I know that China is a communist country; but China and Russia do not get on very well together and, provided that we do not give China too powerful a weapon, it might well help to keep the Russians busy on the other side of the world.
My Lords, there are some 20 speakers to follow me this afternoon and I shall be brief. I will end in a similar way to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The right honourable gentleman, Mr. Denis Healey, when Defence Minister, said on 5th March 1969 in another place:
"…I warn my honourable friends who agree with the Amendment on the Order Paper that once we cut defence expenditure to the extent our security is imperilled, we have no houses, no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders."— [Official Report(Commons) 5/3/69; col. 551.)
The right honourable gentleman is now Chancellor of the Exchequer and when he is advocating further cuts in defence expenditure I only hope that he remembers what he said in 1969.
244
My Lords, let us never forget that for nearly 100 years the controversy on defence has raged between the Treasury and Service Departments; and I think the Treasury has always been wrong. I hope—indeed, I feel sure—that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to give your Lordships more than adequate answers and reassurance when he winds up this debate.
4.30 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, as one who has inflicted himself upon your Lordships' House in practically every defence debate since 1964, I fear I may have laid myself open to the accusation of riding my particular hobby-horse too often. However, following the first defence debate after the arrival in your Lordships' House of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, he came up to me and said that his big worry had always been our lack of reserves. So, encouraged from such an Everest height in the defence field, I venture to battle on.
Let us first of all examine the changing pattern of military tactics and strategy. Modern minds, shaped by memories of the first and second World Wars, have an almost entirely outmoded conception of things military. Military means of warfare are now being developed which, with scientific and nuclear armaments, introduce an element of confusion—an element which I hope to show can be cured only by the organisation of a strong territorial militia or, if you like, a national guerrilla force. For centuries mankind has dreamed of a world in which conflicts between nations would be resolved through arbitration and recourse to law, but all solutions have so far been found too unrealistic. Modern news media are inevitably pacifist and defeatist per se. They have become a non-military means of waging war. One has only to look at Northern Ireland to see what is meant by that. Our small Army rose to that challenge by running courses for offices and NCOs on how to cope with the "smart Alecks" of the interviewing media—but how pathetic it is that we should have to defend ourselves so! With every minor war brought into our sitting-room within the day, what a trap our advanced technology has set for us.
I know of a young lady from Londonderry who, in the early days of the current

245
troubles there, had left her car in a car park within the city walls. On returning she found a few youths stoning some police; so she went to a telephone box to ring up her father to tell him where the car was and where to pick her up. She was riveted to hear a journalist in the next telephone box—a journalist from one of our most reputable media—giving a very highly-coloured account of the "terrific battle" that was going on at that time. I may say that when I heard that particular journalist was to address our local university recently, I had great pleasure in pricking his particular bubble of self-esteem to one of his hosts. Again, recently there was a demand by an SDLP member for a public inquiry into the shooting by the SAS of a well-known Provisional thug. That makes news, but no mention is made of any such demand when a Provisional guns down a father in front of his family. This is the sort of thing I mean by "non-military means of warfare"; and as far as Northern Ireland is concerned it reached its peak in the Bloody Sunday schemozzle.
However, in Western Europe nationalist feelings have been largely abandoned as the standards of intelligence and education have risen. But they are strong in the Third World and the Communist bloc, which associate them with idealogical sentiment. In the same way, racist and religious sentiments are strong in the Third World, as exemplified by Black Power, anarchism, Arabism, and so on. But the Russians have a fundamental doctrine—one can read about it in Sokolowski's Military Strategy—which conceives war as a violent nuclear exchange from which the USSR must emerge victorious.
Nuclear deterrence and the mass media now dominate recent developments in war, but we have by no means returned to the conventional war of the pre-atomic period. The modern form of conventional war is the limited war as, for example, in the Middle East. We have to ask ourselves: how is the gap in the deterrence system to be filled? The intercontinental ballistic missile makes a nonsense of conventional anti-aircraft defence, and target observation satellites make a nonsense of a lot more of our preconceived ideas of war.
246
What answers have been put forward to the stalemate and the danger arising out of nuclear parity? First, there is the 1914–39 arms race concept—not a very good one. Secondly, there is the use of nuclear tactical weapons. No-one yet knows what the danger really is of excalation in this field and therefore we do not know how much of a deterrent that would be. Thirdly, there is the "Chinese formula" that is, a people's militia for general interior resistance. Such a militia is already established in various parts of Europe; for example, in Yugoslavia. One can see how effective it was in Vietnam.
As your Lordships may have guessed, this is what I am suggesting for ourselves and for NATO. Modern methods of mobility have outdated traditional defensive warfare. The attacker is always at an advantage, as we have seen from the Six Day War. He who reacts quickest generally wins, depending on the preliminary air battle and not forgetting the effect of surface-to-air missiles. To my mind, military conflict now plays an auxiliary role within the complete context of total strategy of a persuasive character. In Korea it was the Yalu River; in the Middle East the two great Powers contained the limits. Because of utilisation of space by guerrillas, these are now often the equal of conventional forces. There are countless examples I might give, but perhaps I might just quote from my own experience in the Appennines in Northern Italy during the War when half-a-dozen bands of about 15 to 20 men made absolute rings round a complete Volksdeutscher division.
From what I have said, I draw the following conclusions. First, highly technical and conventional forces are rare and costly. "Primitive" forces—for lack of a better word—which can be multiplied at will, are inexpensive. Secondly, with our frightening reduction, in the West, of conventional forces, the whole situation has become unstable to such an extent that we are encouraging the return of military adventurism at a time when errors in calculation are fraught with great dangers. Thirdly, in the sphere of conventional warfare the only deterrent now remaining is what I term a national guerrilla force. The pre-conditions for such a strategy are, of course, a large or comparatively large geographical area,

247
a difficult terrain and a tough and determined population with the necessary political and patriotic feelings throughout the country. I admit that the latter worries me a little, when I consider the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on subversion, the possibility of Communist growth in Italy and, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the views of the Tribune group. I have already mentioned wartime in Italy—to come back to what I was trying to get across—and I may add another example. I am certain that from the wilds of Dartmoor the Territorial unit that I commanded many years ago could have made quite an impact on an advancing force.
With tactical nuclear weapons, the defence would have to be dispersal. That is the constant solution to the development of fire power. Thereby the efficacy is reduced; thereby the tactical effectiveness of conventional forces is brought to near zero without preventing the risk of rapid and unacceptable attrition rates. Because of this we no longer know how to use the ultimate weapon. Because of the insoluble problems that its use poses to both sides, it became in effect a deterrent. Russia's answer, it seems, is now the quick break-through, the quick thrust, to get in among the civilian population and so prevent the use of the tactical nuclear weapon. Is it wise, my Lords, to base our deterrent on the unknown psychological explosions?
Through an extraordinary increase in naval power, the Russians have been able to put their Cuban mercenaries into Angola, Somalia and Dhofar, without the rest of the world daring to say, "Boo". They were in Angola long before the MPLA were the Government there, and yet our Foreign Office excuses them by saying that the Government asked for them. The result of our attitude of not taking a stand anywhere in the world is that we have allowed our European, NATO, position to be outflanked before the contest ever begins. Remember, my Lords, that over 60 per cent. of our vital imports come via the Cape and the South Atlantic, and they are now cut by the Soviet forces in the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic.
The West may have nuclear parity with the Russians, and maybe that is what has prevented a war so far, but that is the
248
only parity we have got. Elsewhere the inequality is appalling and downright dangerous. We have no reserves, as has already been mentioned—Healey saw to that; our Regular Forces have been cut to the bare bones, and the equipment which was "top of the pops" 10 years ago is fast becoming outdated. I see on the list of speakers the names of two Members of your Lordships' House who have recently had experience of that.
Every year since 1965 I have complained of our lack of reserves. The Conservatives, to their eternal shame, abolished National Service and the consequences have been seen in our national life ever since. The Labour Party, in the person of the present Chancellor, as good as abolished the Territorial Army just when it should have been doubled and trained to take on the role that I have been referring to. We would never, to my mind, have had the Northern Ireland situation if that had been done. I realise that this is a debatable subject, and that it could well be confused with the arguments about the B specials.
The defensive solution consists of creating, in periods of peace, military institutions which lend themselves to successive reinforcement in response to the political situation without reorganisation—what the French General Beaufre refers to as "the inflatable Army". Only by some such system can we have adequate reserves for the comparatively small forces required for the first and second levels of defence, and for our national guerrilla force, or TA, to preserve our existence and be the new deterrent. We could learn a lot from the Swiss and the Swedes. We should adapt the TA and the Civil Defence, instead of which we obliterated the one and turned the Civil Defence Staff College, of which I am a graduate, into a forcing house for civil servants. In every Defence White Paper we squeeze our forces until they are no longer able to cope with a dissident Province, and the Navy are unable to cope with Icelandic gunboats. That is a war we shall never win. I am convinced that the majority in the country, and of the three main Parties, are now genuinely concerned with our lamentable defence position. Our friends and allies get more and more despondent with every cut.
We were not overrun after the war, because America had the bomb. Since

249
then we have not been buried, because the West has kept ahead. Now we are still comparatively free, because Russia has China to think about; and because China has a national guerrilla force it is too much of a hornet's nest for the Russian bear to stick its snout into. It is the third deterrent and we should learn the lesson. Reserves we must have for all our forces, and quickly. We cannot depend on America and China forever.
4.46 p.m.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, first may I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for the excellent first meeting of the all-Party Committee last night. It was a useful meeting and there were excellent speeches. Secondly, I am glad to see that I am being followed by my friend the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I speak as a Christian soldier, not thinking these two to be incompatible. He, I suppose, will speak as a Humanist pacifist—also not incompatible. But I hope that he, too, will think that I have a right to speak as I do.
Once more, we have had an excellent White Paper, excellent in its production and lay-out. The last two have been good ones. This one is easy to read. The enormous Russian threat is there and the cuts are shown all too clearly in their amount, but not in the details of their effect. In another place, the Secretary of State shot down the article by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on the possibility of a surprise attack on the central front, on the grounds that our intelligence would quickly pick up any preparations for such an attack. That is true; we would pick it up, perhaps weeks before rather than days. The preparations were picked up just before the attack on Czechoslovakia, but the Russians then turned left instead of going straight on. It is so easy, for such big-scale exercises which are held regularly by the Soviet forces and their allies, to issue ail the instructions to take part, and if they were mad or provoked, or thought it too easy to go straight on instead of turning left, the warnings to the West would be almost identical, and we should be able to do little about it. The more we cut the tail, which includes some of those things which we find out about
250
that type of movement, the less able shall we be to do anything about it. I honestly believe that a danger exists there that ought to be looked at.
Two years ago I criticised the German Army and was doubtful about its capacity to fill its role on the central front. I am happy now that they are well disciplined, well trained and with great facilities—greater than the British Army of the Rhine now has. In the opening speech from the Front Bench opposite, we heard the figure of 55,000. I am not asking for the true figure to be given; it would frighten your Lordships if it was. We know, and must accept, that some of those forces are being used in Northern Ireland, some are in transit being trained to be used in Northern Ireland and some are being trained to go back to the British Army of the Rhine. So we must at least be honest and say that the figure cannot be 55,000. It is therefore the Germans who have some right to criticise us, as I criticised them two years ago. They have now grown up into a most efficient army and, unlike me, they are far too polite to criticise us.
The British Services are in difficulties, particularly, as the Leader on my side of the House said, on the training side. We want assurances that the units in this country will also get a fair share of training "mileage" in petrol and oil, and particularly in ammunition. In training, we have always been used to firing the real round. The practice round is not the same, particularly in tank warfare. I fear that, if not already restricted, the real round may be restricted, and I hope that the Government will look carefully at this point. There is an enormous difference between the real and the practice round. We must be ready and able, and be seen to be able, to use the real thing.
So far as the tail is concerned, I am not very keen on it but we know that it is vital. The merceneries who went to Angola failed because there was no short, medium or long tail. We know that failure can happen if too many resources are devoted to the front for publicity purposes and not enough resources are devoted to the tail for fighting efficiency after the first few days—and, indeed, in the first few days. We are in honour bound to reinforce the British Army of the Rhine in the event of real trouble, but have we the capacity to do so, taking into account the cuts in

251
Hercules? Have we the helicopter airlifting capacity in the Rhine Army? This I do not know, but I fear that the capacity is not sufficient.
The people who have been and will be affected by the cuts are Servicemen. They are being sentenced to unemployment, and I wonder whether the difference between their pay as Servicemen and the pay that they and their families will receive as unemployed persons (which, unfortunately, is all too certain) has been worked out. Is it conceivable that there should be some other form of immediate reserve that is drawn from ex-Servicemen and others who wish to join a force to support the police? We have heard the commissioner of police say that he will need some form of additional support. Perhaps there should be an easier way for men to join the police force. Possibly ex-Servicemen could be encouraged to join the force on special terms. As my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh said, we need more reserves. Also, we could build up the Territorial Army. My own unit, the Kent and Sharpshooters Yeomanry, is over strength. We could form more units of that type—the small reconnaissance unit. That unit is devoted to the Rhine Army. There is nothing left with which to deal with trouble here.
Last night we had another interesting talk and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, asked what would happen if, before the real alert, the Communists in France and Italy, rather like the IRA over here, tied down vast police forces and military units. Could not they block airfields and railways and interrupt communications? Therefore, will not we need more rather than fewer of the ordinary kind of forces? Above all, what the Services are longing for is a period, however short, of stability so that they can get on with the job and train for what they may have to do. It is agony for them. I am not saying that their morale is low. Strangely, their morale is not low, but this chopping and changing and doubts about the future is agony for them. You do not join anything if you think that you will be cut off midway. The Services want a period of real stability.
Finally, the prudent man hopes for the best and prepares for the worst. What I think is dangerous and what appears to have happened is that as well as hoping for the best we have prepared for the best.
4.54 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am glad that this occasion has been taken to pay tribute to the late Lord Montgomery. I was a little surprised that a previous occasion had not been taken for that purpose. I had no knowledge of him except in this House, but those who heard his contributions to our debates—and, perhaps more, those who had social contact with him—must have been entranced by his personality. I was deeply impressed that, with his experience of war, he took the view that in the present generation we must seek to prevent the repetition of war, and I want to associate myself with what has been said on both sides of the House in appreciation of his Lordship.
In this debate I shall be expressing a minority view which will not be popular with many Members of this House, but in our debates I have learned of the tolerance which is shown when one is expressing, with some thought, an opinion which is sincerely held. May I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who preceded me, that of course I welcome his statement of the position as he sees it, and I know that he will welcome mine. None of us has the truth; the truth will be achieved only if we show tolerance in our discussions.
Since the last world war this country has faced the immense task of adjusting itself to the fact that it is no longer a world Power. We no longer rule the waves. We no longer have a great Empire. A slow and perhaps belated adjustment has been made to accustom ourselves to that fact. There has been the decision of the Government to reduce their forces East of Suez. There has been the withdrawal of the bases in Aden, in the Maldive Islands, in Singapore and off Brunei; and in the White Paper which we are now discussing we have further acceptance of that fact by reducing expenditure over a large part of the world and concentrating upon Europe.
The basic adjustment which has been made in defence expenditure since we ceased to be one of the great Powers has been reliance upon the military aid of, and alliance with, the United States of America. This has involved, first, American bases in this country and the equipment of our Polaris submarines with American missiles and, secondly, the overwhelming

253
background support which the United States has given to NATO. I want to question whether in the present circumstances that reliance is best for our country. I believe first, that reliance by Britain upon American nuclear aid is suicidal for the future of our population. I believe also that it is becoming increasingly clear, by developments which we are not taking sufficiently into account, that in the coming years NATO defence in Europe will be unreliable.
I turn first to my view that reliance upon American bases, nuclear weapons and missiles for the Polaris submarines in this country is unjustifiable. If war were to take place between the West and the East, the first action of the Soviet Union would be to bomb our territory because the American nuclear bases here are nearest to Moscow and Leningrad. Seven hydrogen bombs dropped from the Soviet Union could destroy the whole of our population. When we speak of our own nuclear weapons, they are utterly irrelevant. They are insignificant compared with the might of the United States of America and of the Soviet Union. They are an additional reason why this country would be bombarded, in the case of war, to the death of all our people.
I want to depart from my argument for a moment to ask immediate questions of the Minister. I want to ask whether the Ministry of Defence statement on Tuesday that a contract has been placed with British Nuclear Fuels Limited in Dumfriesshire to produce tritium, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred, means that we are now to construct British hydrogen bombs. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the statements of a technical correspondent in the Guardian this morning. He says:
"Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen which emits beta rays. It is an inseparable and untrappable by-product of civil reactors which contaminates the atmosphere, and which inevitably disperses throughout natural systems, where it behaves like hydrogen."
The technical correspondent of the Guardian adds:
"Tritium may be much less innocuous than is at present assumed by both the Government and the nuclear industry".
254
He concludes:
"It could be that Britain intends to become the European supplier in this field."
I want to ask the Minister whether those statements are true, and to say to him that, if they are, they will be received with dismay by the great majority of our Labour Party and by a large section of the progressive population of Britain who are not within our ranks.
My second point is that the NATO Alliance is now becoming increasingly unreliable. It has been weakened by the withdrawal of the military association of France and Greece. It is now threatened from within by the imminent probability of communist participation in an Italian Government and the likelihood of early participation in government in France, which, despite its lukewarmness to the military aspects of NATO, remains a central pillar of the Western European Alliance. Communist participation in Western European Governments would make nonsense of the conception of NATO as a defence weapon against communism. It is no wonder that the United States of America are now becoming concerned and that the State Department is unlikely to continue its supply of arms to Western Europe in these circumstances.
But as we look at Europe we have not only to see this undermining of NATO; we have to see that in Eastern Europe there are now tendencies growing which will weaken the Warsaw Pact alliance—Yugoslavia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Poland. I do not believe that any of us who has knowledge of what is happening in Europe can look at the next decade without appreciating that the monolithic character of Eastern Europe will be undermined by the growing education of its people and the growing self-reliance of the States which are there.
I suggest that these considerations mean that not only for the hope of peace but for security we must seek now a new approach. A few weeks ago I put a question to the Government regarding Mr. Brezhnev's proposals for disarmament and peace. May I just remind the House of the Soviet proposals. First, ending nuclear weapons tests; secondly, the banning and destruction of chemical weapons and new types of weapons capable of mass annihilation; thirdly,

255
examination of ending the arms race in the Middle East; fourthly, a world treaty on the non-use of force in international relations; fifthly, the convening of a world disarmanent conference at the earliest opportunity.
In reply to my Question my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts endorsed those objectives but emphasised that they can only be realised by international verification. In that respect I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the communiqué which was signed by the British and Soviet representatives after the recent visit of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Gromyko. It was given little attention in our Press. The item to which I refer reads as follows:
"The Soviet Union and Great Britain are still convinced that effective steps must be taken to end the arms race and achieve general and complete disarmament, including nuclear disarmament, under strict and effective international control. The sides reaffirmed that the holding of a world disarmament conference would facilitate a solution of disarmament problems which await solution."
I ask the House to note that in that communiqué the Soviet Union accepted international inspection of tests and nuclear development. They have since specifically accepted it. On 9th April there was a conference between the United States of America and the Soviet Union in Moscow on peaceful nuclear explosions, which made arrangements for on-site inspection of explosions at the time of occurrence. My Lords, I ask the Government very seriously to explore the great possibilities which now arise from the Soviet acceptance of international inspection.
There has been very much scepticism about the Helsinki Agreement, but it was of enormous significance. The President of the United States, the Heads of State from 35 countries, were all present in Helsinki, and all signed the Final Act, but there has been scepticism. I deplore the fact that although the Soviet Union has said it would accept human rights, it is still persecuting dissidents in that country. Dissidents today are the guarantee of progress tomorrow.
Nevertheless, there have been a number of achievements since Helsinki of which we do not take sufficient notice. The Soviet Union has given far greater facilities to journalists there; it has permitted the reunion of families across the frontier, and
256
it has permitted Western newspapers into the Soviet Union. It has allowed Western representatives to attend its manoeuvres. There has been the conference on economic co-operation in South-Eastern Europe, between the Communist countries and Greece and Turkey. Bulgaria has just had its conference and reached agreement with Greece. All these are acknowledged to be sequels to the Helsinki Agreement. There has been the recent decision in Vienna that the United Nations European Commission for Economic Co-operation should develop economic association, pollution association, trade association, and energy association between the two sides. These are all advances.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that the test of Helsinki will be whether disarmament takes place. The results of the Vienna Conference have so far been disappointing. I will not say that this has been entirely due to the attitude of the Soviet representatives—I think there has been intransigence on the Western side as well. I would urge Her Majesty's Government in their representations at the Vienna Conference to do their utmost to secure agreement, by concession if necessary, by compromise if necessary, on the reduction of the forces in Europe. I go beyond that and, in view of their endorsement of the proposals of the Soviet Union for disarmament and peace, ask of the Government that they should respond in an active, positive way, not merely by giving verbal acceptance. Take the proposals to the Security Council of the United Nations; place them on the agenda of world affairs. I believe an approach of this character is the alternative to the kind of policy which dominates the White Paper on Defence.
5.15 p.m.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, I wish to associate myself warmly with the tributes paid from all quarters of the House to the late Field Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein. If I may be allowed to say so in passing, I thought it was unfortunate that in the course of his own warm and clearly sincere tribute, the noble Lord the Leader of the House saw fit to refer to the controversy which surrounded the life of the late Lord Montgomery. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, history will judge the Field Marshal, and will probably

257
judge him in the context of biography, of the history of war and of military analysis. I do not believe the dignity of this House is much served by introducing these controversies on this occasion. I shall content myself by saying that I, like many other Members of your Lordships' House, whether we served in the Western Desert or elsewhere, recognise the great contribution the Field Marshal made to the country, the Army, and to this House. I offer my deep sympathy to his son David, whom I am proud to count among my friends.
Anyone who still needs to be convinced that there is a grave and growing threat to the West now has available to consider a formidable array of evidence provided by a succession of witnesses with impeccable credentials. Among others, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to Alexander Solzhenitsyn who has described, in the face of considerable scepticism and often derision, the appalling nature of the tyranny which will overtake the West if its people cannot overcome their present crippling paralysis of will. At another level, a succession of NATO former senior officers, admirals, field marshals, air marshals, from General Hackett, Graf von Keilmannsegg to Generals Steinhoff and Zumwalt, have scarcely waited to hang up their uniforms before issuing a series of grave warnings about the weaknesses of a Western defence system which is now faced by one of the most formidable military machines in modern history. A few journalists, a few academics, a few independently minded politicians have sounded the alarm bells as well, but possibly because they do not all look like Solzhenitsyn, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, the response has so far been one of scepticism and apathy.
But, now, a new and perhaps even more impressive voice has been added to this range of warnings; no less than the voice of Dr. Kissinger, the United States Secretary of State. As I think most who have studied the subjects now know, the State Department in the United States recently issued a telegram under the authority of the Secretary of State, a telegram of guidance to American diplomatic posts abroad. It had a certain immortality conferred on it in the form of a guidance telegram, because it started
258
as a dissertation by one of Dr. Kissinger's advisers to a gathering of ambassadors here in London. But it is clear that that telegram now represents the thinking of the Government of the United States. Therefore, I think it is a matter of some importance that the general lines of that thinking should be very widely known and clearly understood. It is not of a very revolutionary nature, but it has the enormous advantage of being lucid, logical, and furthermore of being realistic almost to the point of brutality.
Its basic premise is that the Soviet Union is emerging as a global super-Power, and that there is nothing anybody can do to prevent it. According to this doctrine, the Russians are the new imperialists, and their power is based entirely on military strength. At the same time, says the Secretary of State, Communism is making substantial advances in Western Europe as well. Dr. Kissinger, like most other people capable of reading and thinking, declines to believe that French, Portuguese, British or Italian Communists are fundamentally different from their comrades in Moscow. In other words he recognises—and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, himself, surprisingly, has recognised this in his own speech today—that if Communists begin to participate in and eventually to dominate the Governments of Western Europe, that will be the beginning of the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the signal for a radical and dangerous transformation in American foreign policy. I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, any further than that, because my conclusions from what Dr. Kissinger has said are very different from his.
You see, my Lords, faced with these frightening hypotheses of Russian intentions and the ability of the West to do anything about them, there are still those in the West who seem to remain totally unmoved. Anyone who postulates an aggressive or imperialist Soviet foreign policy is at once denounced, as Lord Carrington has said, as a McCarthyist, a reactionary or a cold war warrior. It is claimed still that the Soviet Union has nothing to gain from expansionism, that the policy of détente should be taken at its face value, as the expression of a genuine desire for world peace through

259
disarmament and international co-operation. So I think it is important perhaps for a few minutes to look beyond just the hypotheses of Soviet aims.
As I have said before in your Lordships' House, anyone who has been trained in the business of military assessment or intelligence knows that the likely actions of an enemy are based on two main factors, his intentions and his capabilities. So if those of us, like myself, who wish to warn about the dangers of Russian imperialism are to carry any weight, they must be prepared to demonstrate that the Soviet Union has not only the intention but the capacity too, the capability, to carry out its intentions, and furthermore that it has shown unmistakable signs of doing so.
Let us look for a brief moment at the Soviet military budget. It is, of course, notoriously difficult to make any confident or accurate assessment about what the Soviet Union spends on its armed forces. But in a very detailed and highly technical assessment of the problem recently given in testimony to the United States Joint Economic Committee, Mr. Andrew Marshall of the American Defence Department had a go at it, and it was a very informed and educated one because he has most of the facts that are available in the West. He suggested that the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States, normally regarded as the standard bearers of the cold war, had in fact been consistently underestimating the extent of Soviet spending on defence. He pointed out, for example, that in the Soviet Union military research is always given clear priority over civilian research and development. They deploy all their best scientists, in such disciplines as applied mathematics, data processing, systems analysis, biochemistry and bio-physics. All the best brains are deployed in military research and development, not on the civilian side.
Their accounting practices tend systematically to underprice military, compared with civilian, research and development and production. Finally, there is the fact, perhaps not generally known in the West, that military activity is directly or indirectly subsidised from non-defence departments or even from society in general. For example, pre-military training, designed to prepare young Russians
260
for military service, is not paid for out of the defence budget; it is paid for out of donations, lottery proceeds and State grants.
All this evidence given to the United States Congress resulted in the conclusion that defence activities in the Soviet Union may account for anything between 10 and 20 per cent. of the gross national product, compared with approximately 6 per cent. in the United States of America and 3.5 per cent. in the rest of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. But, my Lords, it is not only the level of spending which is significant, it is the trends, too. The consensus among Western intelligence services, Western intelligence assessments, is that Soviet defence expenditure has doubled in the last ten years. That of the Western countries has remained virtually static on average. Last year the United States Defence Secretary, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, told the American Senate that in 1975 the Soviet Union spent 42 per cent. more on defence than the United States of America.
My Lords, the result of all this—and these, after all, are only statistics and we know what to think of those—has been a massive accretion of Russian military power. I think it is worth pointing out, for example, that ten years ago the Soviet Union had only 224 intercontinental ballistic missiles, while the United States of America had 854. Today the corresponding figures are 1,618 for the Soviet Union and 1,054 for the United States of America. I am not suggesting that pure numbers of ballistic missiles are a definitive argument. I am suggesting, however, that the balance has moved very perceptibly, very considerably, in favour of the Soviet Union.
Let us look for a moment at conventional forces. We have performed this exercise before in your Lordship's House. We seem to perform it every year and no one ever seems to take the slightest notice. But let us have another go. The Red Army, together with the air defence forces and the paramilitary units of the KGB and the MVD, now has a strength of 2.8 million. The total strength of the armed forces by most calculations is 3½ million. There are indeed some Americans who believe that it is much higher, anything as high as 4½ million. But let us take the conservative figure of 3½ million. The

261
comparable figures for the United States of America are 790,000 in the Army and 2.1 million in the armed forces as a whole. The Soviet Union has 40,000 battle tanks, the united States 10,000. One could go on like this endlessly. Of course, these raw figures, as alarming as they may be, do not provide the complete picture of the military balance. I think the much more significant comparison, which we have also made before, is that between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe. And here, according to that eminently conservative and cautious body, the Institute for Strategic Studies, the balance is still very considerably in favour of the Soviet Union. I will not go through all the figures again; they are available for anyone to read, and they are, I think, to any military analyst truly frightening.
Of course, we have to take into account other factors as well. It is true that some of Russia's Warsaw Pact allies might not be entirely reliable in a crisis. It is true that NATO's equipment is technically better in many cases than that of the Warsaw Pact. But, on the other hand, NATO's forces are not where they would be needed in wartime. The Russians, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, have secure internal lines of communication across Eastern Europe, while the American home base is 3,000 miles away across the Atlantic. The Soviet Union can impose almost complete standardisation of equipment upon its allies, an achievement which has proved far too difficult for NATO to achieve. But if you take all the factors into account, cancel them out where necessary, and analyse them with care, instead of trying to make political propaganda out of them on one side or the other, it is impossible for anybody who has any knowledge of military affairs to resist the conclusion that the military balance in Europe is heavily in favour of the Warsaw Pact.
A recent NATO study pointed out that this superiority would become even more decisive if the Soviet Union decided upon a surprise attack in Europe. Not altogether surprisingly, that report and the publicity that was given to it was subjected to heavy attack from those who do not want these facts to be known. I gather that someone has recently said in a learned disquisition to Members of your Lordships' House that, in the event of a surprise attack, the
262
Warsaw Pact forces would not be victorious in a matter of days, but in a matter of weeks. If that gives anybody in your Lordships' House any comfort, I can only say you are welcome to it.
Most Western strategic analysts still believe, in spite of the great and growing superiority of the Warsaw Pact in the European theatre, that, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, a military attack there is still a very unattractive proposition for the Soviet Union, if only because of the risk of irrational response; the risk of nuclear retaliation. So we must turn for a moment to consider the massive accretion of Soviet naval strength. Here, under the very expert guidance of Admiral Gorshkov, who has been charged with the construction of this fleet, the Soviet Navy has been transformed in little more than a decade from a comparatively insignificant coastal defence force into one of the greatest ocean-going navies in the world. It has 236 major surface combat units (236 major warships); 265 attack submarines, and 75 strategic missile submarines.
The Soviet Union, possibly accepting the position of stalemate in Europe, has clearly decided to give an enormous priority to naval deployment. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, that navy constantly demonstrates its strength on a global scale. Its ships move freely and flexibly through its four main fleets: the Atlantic Fleet, or Northern Fleet as they call it; the Baltic Fleet; the Pacific Fleet; and the Black Sea Fleet, and from those to the Indian Ocean Task Force. In addition there is a research fleet which is larger than the combined research fleets of the rest of the world, constantly engaged in oceanography, intelligence collection, meteorology, and communication. There are Soviet bases and naval facilities all over the world: in East Africa, West Africa, India, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Somalia and in Aden. Some of those names may strike a chord with those in your Lordships' House who have served in the Royal Navy.
It is, then, demonstrable that whatever may be the declared intentions of the Soviet Union, and whatever complacent people in the West may say about them, the Soviet Union is rapidly acquiring a war-winning capability. The Government White Paper, Statement on the

263
Defence Estimates, which we are debating today, devoted four pages to an extensive commentary on the growing strength of the Warsaw Pact. It remarks among other things, that in the European Atlantic area the Soviet Northern fleet and the Warsaw Pact have a clear superiority in surface ships, submarines, naval aircraft, men, tanks, guns, and tactical aircraft—everything in fact that matters in warfare; outnumbering NATO by ratios ranging from 1·3 to 1 for soldiers and 2·7 to 1 for main battle tanks.
Yet in the face of all this there are still those who insist that this massive build-up derives from motives which need cause no alarm in the West—the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned some of them; there are others, and you can find them anywhere where the forces of complacency are at work—such as fear of China; the need to maintain Soviet dominance over the Eastern European Empire; the simple desire to be biggest and best as a reaction to years of psychological inferiority to the United States. But in my view it would be a totally irresponsible Western Government which ignored the possibility that it all might have a simpler and more brutal motive—the motive imputed to the Soviet Union in the Chinese analysis; namely, that these powerful forces are meant, sooner or later, to fight an imperialist war.
Of course, it is argued, as Dr. Kissinger has argued, that if this is so there is very little that can be done about it. The logical policy, the only intelligent policy, is that of d étente; attempting, as Dr. Kissinger has said, to affect the way in which Soviet power is developed and used. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, spoke of détente and of the three main areas of negotiation that have gone on within it. I, for my part, can only say that the progress of those talks so far does not furnish grounds for excessive confidence. The Strategic Arms Limitation talks have done nothing to prevent the further spread and development of nuclear weapons, and specifically, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, they have done nothing to prevent the Soviet Union from shifting the nuclear balance perceptibly in its own favour.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said that there had been scepticism about the Conference on European Security and Co-operation. I will go further and say that in my view it was very little more
264
than a collection of pious declarations and empty platitudes. There was a great deal about non-intervention in the affairs of other countries, which did not seem to prevent the Soviet Union from intervening very actively in Portugal and later in Angola. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, the talks on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions, in which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, apparently places such great hopes, have achieved absolutely nothing in the whole time they have been sitting except to change their name from Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions to Mutual Reduction of Forces and Armaments and Associated Measures in Central Europe. So now, instead of having the MBFR talks, we have the MUREFAAMCE talks. This is not, I think, a world-shaking development.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has asked us to look carefully at Soviet proposals in all this connection. I would ask him and your Lordships to look closely at the proposals put forward by the Soviet Union and the United States in the opening session of the talks on MBFR, in which it is perfectly clear to anyone who reads with care that, whatever the changes, the Soviet Union intends to maintain (even in the unlikely event of an agreement to reduce force levels) a numerical superiority. Anyone who examines with care the proposals made cannot fail to come to that conclusion.
Of course, as others have said in your Lordships' House, it is clearly in our interests that we should maintain a dialogue with the Soviet Union. But we must maintain that dialogue from strength. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, it is not our fear that these great Soviet forces are going to overwhelm us overnight in some massive surprise attack, it is only that one day, following the example of the Mafia, that if they become powerful enough they may be able to make us an offer that we cannot refuse, and this is what the geopolitical threat of the Soviet Union means.
I should have liked to say more about the strategy of NATO in Central Europe but I have already taken up enough of your Lordships' time. It seems to me that there is much we can do in the West even at our present level of defence to improve the effectiveness of our military preparations. I believe, too, that it is a

265
most pressing imperative that we should push ahead with political integration in Europe. The principal members of the EEC still seem to be behaving with appalling irresponsibility in the face of the growth of Communism in two of the major countries of the Common Market and two of the major countries of the alliance. The advance of the Left in European politics continues, and even if you do not believe me perhaps you will believe Dr. Henry Kissinger when he says that this will be the beginning of the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. If this trend continues, then I do not believe—I agree with Dr. Kissinger—that NATO can long survive. Nor can the present relationship between the United tates and Europe survive, not in its present form. I would go further and say—at the risk, once again, of being branded, as I have been in the past, an alarmist and cold warrior—that Western democracy is in greater danger today than it has been at any time since the 1930s. As the late Russian, Marshal Grechko, knew perfectly well, when the fruit is ready to fall there will be no shortage of people to shake the tree either in this country or outside. The Motion asks us to take note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1976. I for one have no difficulty with that Motion. I take note of it—with despondency and alarm.
5.41 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, I wish to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for the opportunity he has given us to have a better understanding of defence matters by his proposal to form an all-Party defence study group. Certainly since the Government began their Defence Review in March 1974 the two subsequent Statements on Defence Estimates have shown a remarkable degree of continuity of aim and sense of purpose, so much so that I was almost tempted to repeat the speech which I made this time last year, but I will not.
The Statement on Defence Estimates for 1976 which we are debating today contains some reductions, a few changes, some rationalisation and some reorganisation. It also spells out very clearly two major changes which have taken place since last year. The first is that while our defence
266
commitments have remained constant, they must now be achieved with reduced expenditure since our defence budget has been reduced three times in the last 15 months. This must either mean that the most extensive and thorough Defence Review ever undertaken was less than thorough at the time and therefore left considerable reductions still to be made or else, and I think more likely, that the Government are taking a risk and are reducing our defence capability below the minimum that the national security demands. The other major change since last year is, to use the words of the Government's Statement:
"During the past year the military capability of the Warsaw Pact has increased in numbers and in quality."
Again, on page 20, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, we read:
"In conventional ground and air forces the imbalance in Central Europe has moved further in Warsaw Pact's favour."
In particular, the Soviet capability both in sea and air power, and with ballistic missiles, has expanded tremendously and it is difficult to relate this expansion of military might with the spirit of détente on which the Government's defence policy already relies so much. I do not wish in any way to disparage the policy of d étente; indeed, it is our main hope. But I should prefer to see the fruits of détente ripen on the tree before we pick them. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe which was signed at Helsinki in August 1975 was principally concerned with d étente and one of the principal military measures resulting from that Conference wsas the agreement to report all military manoeuvres involving more than 25,000 troops and to invite observers to those manoeuvres; 25,000 troops on an army manoeuvre is not a very large manoeuvre. This is clearly a highly practical way of reducing tension across the demarcation line which divides NATO from the Warsaw Pact countries and it must do much to achieve mutual understanding and confidence in that part of Europe.
It is interesting to note that in the first seven months since the Helsinki Agreement was signed, NATO has reported and invited observers to three major and five minor manoeuvres while in the same period the Warsaw Pact has reported and invited

267
observers to only one exercise, and presumably that was the exercise to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred. Perhaps NATO trains harder than the Warsaw Pact Alliance. In any event, I hope that both sides in future will regard this measure as a practical method of reducing tension and a worthwhile way of demonstrating the allegiance that both sides have committed themselves to the spirit of détente. To return to the Defence Estimates, I regard the defence cuts being made at this early stage in the development of d étente as being like a man going off on a luxury cruise in anticipation that Ernie will automatically bring him luck in the Premium Bond draw at some future date.
At the risk of carrying out my threat of making the same speech that I made last year, I must express my satisfaction at the fact that the two points which I then made have now received better attention in the current Statement on Defence than they did in the earlier Review. In the 1975 Defence Review the defence and security of the United Kingdom received only a passing reference and scant priority, but this Statement says:
"In the United Kingdom, the main tasks of our armed forces are to reinforce the mainland of Europe and to ensure the security of the home base, whose defence is not only of the highest importance of itself but which is invaluable also to NATO as a base and as a staging point for reinforcement forces from the United States."
This is a satisfactory statement which not only gives the defence of the United Kingdom a respectable priority but establishes the need for this priority as an essential part of NATO strategy. This statement is repeated in similar terms on pages 16 and 35 and in my opinion it cannot be repeated too often.
I do not want to involve your Lordships with speculation on the many and varied scenarios which might lead up to hostilities or in which our forces might have to contend. It is an alternative scenario to the one that was posed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and I regard it as the most likely one to occur. That would be a fairly long and unpleasant period of rising tension during which time the will of the nation to stand by its commitments and policies would be put to the test. During that unpleasant period there would be acts of sabotage and violence throughout the country. All of us, the Government of the
268
day included, would be reluctant to admit that the danger of war might be imminent. During that period, the task of the civil police would be overstretched and at an early stage the Army, and the volunteer army in particular, would have to be brought in to assist the police by guarding the many vital points normally unguarded in peacetime.
Military aid to the civil police could be made a contentious subject, but I was particularly pleased to see mention of the defence exercises which have taken place between the police and the Army at Heathrow and Gatwick to ensure our greater security, and I hope that more of these exercises will take place in future. Much of the defence of the United Kingdom would fall on that part of the volunteer army which is not committed to NATO and I hope that the full strength of these units will be maintained. The noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, said that the TA unit with which he is involved and of which he is honorary colonel is overstrength. It would be interesting to know how the recent recruiting drive in the TA has succeeded and whether all the units are up to strength at which we would like to see them. I am also particularly glad that the Defence Review spells out the closer integration between the TAVR and the Regular Army, but I am sorry that the Defence Statement is so specific in saying that Group A of the TAVR will not be called out when, as it describes
"…warlike operations are in preparation or in progress…"
until full use has been made of Section A of the Regular Reserve.
In the scenario which I have depicted, Section A reservists will be required to fill the gaps in the Regular Army and there will be an urgent need at an early stage for the TAVR units to support the civil police in guarding key points in our public services and in protecting defence instalations from sabotage. Incidentally, although I should have become used to it during my service, I find it unnecessarily confusing when discussing our reserve forces to have to use the expressions "Section A", "Section B" and so on, as well as "Group A" and "Group B". Could not some better collective description be devised to describe the deployment of the TAVR than the expressions

269
"Group A" and "Group B", which tend to be confused with "Section A" and "Section B" which describe the reserves?
The other point of which I was critical in the last White Paper and which has been dealt with in a much more satisfactory way in this year's defence statement is our improved capacity to reinforce the Northern flank of NATO. With an additional commando group, we now have two commando groups trained and equipped for operations in Norway in all weathers. Even if nobody ever reads one's speech, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, felt—and I am sure that that is quite untrue in his case—it is satisfying to be able at least to think that one's views coincide.
I have no time to go into further detail on the Defence White Paper owing to the large number of speakers who are down to follow me, but I must say in conclusion that I believe the Government to be anticipating the success of d étente too soon. I feel that they have got their expenditure priorities wrong in imposing such frequent financial cuts on defence at a time when there is nothing to justify those cuts except our own financial difficulties, which are all too apparent to us all.
5.53 p.m.
Lord SHIN WELL: My Lords, if Soviet military superiority constitutes a threat to world peace, and if, concurrently, the allegations about NATO's military weakness and lack of capability are accurate, the question which I venture to pose is quite a simple one. It is, what are we to do about it? To that question no satisfactory answer has been given in the course of this debate. The debate has followed its usual course. The Government have made the very best of a bad job. The economic malaise is responsible for what, on the whole, are minor cuts in defence manpower and equipment, the answer to which, ventured by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition, was, "This is not good enough; in the world situation as it is and with the tension that surrounds us, we ought not to cut." The noble Lord might have gone a bit further and told us what he thinks we ought to spend in the circumstances.
270
It should be quite easy to find a figure provided it is appropriate and provided it can be accepted.
There is an organisation called the Institute for Strategic Studies. In association with NATO it occasionally produces publications on military affairs. Some weeks ago, a few Members of your Lordships' House accompanied me—or rather, I accompanied them—on a visit to NATO headquarters. We had discussions with notabilities. We learnt a great deal. We learnt many things which had previously been undisclosed to us. In particular we managed, perhaps surreptitiously, to obtain a document described as a statement of the military balance in 1975–76. I read it over and over again. What did I discover? It formed the basis of the articles which have appeared in The Times newspaper from the pen of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. That is where they come from. It is, at any rate to some extent, the justification for the agreement in your Lordships' House that a defence study group should be set up to probe and question in order to get the facts. Unless we get the facts, all we can indulge in is wild exaggeration about the situation.
Of course, there has been a threat from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but that threat did not come into being at the beginning of this or even last year. It began many years ago. Indeed, only a few weeks after I had become Minister of Defence in a Labour Government, we became aware of the threat. This was only a few months after the end of the war, and so great was it that we had to embark on a vast rearmament scheme based not on one year's requirements but triennially. This was an innovation, for such a need had never been known before. The scheme was rejected by the subsequent Government, headed by the late Sir Winston Churchill. This was probably done for very good reasons, such as that the country could not afford it, or perhaps it was unnecessary in the circumstances; but the threat has remained ever since and has become ever more powerful. We have known about it and it has been debated in my presence in defence debates in this Assembly for the past four or five years, and in the other place for the past 20-odd years. We are aware of it. We are also aware of the disparity of strength. However, we should be a little more accurate

271
and correct about this alleged disparity. There is disparity in several categories but there is equality in some other categories, and in yet others the United States is the superior power.
I am not suggesting that all the information is conveyed in documents produced by the Institue for Strategic Studies or NATO. For example, only the other day I received a publication from the United States from which I learnt that there was a place in some almost uninhabitable part of the United States in which the Americans had for several years been constructing a vast location—that is what they called it—capable of accepting a new Government in the event of nuclear war, with all the administrative ancillaries that that would require. There are protests about it just as there was a protest in the course of this debate by my noble friend Lord Brockway about the decision to produce some essential requirement associated with nuclear energy in the county of Galloway, or Kirkcudbrightshire, or somewhere in the Lowlands of Scotland.
I repeat that the threat has always been there, but let us be careful about it. Let me refer to what is believed by some elements on our side. When I use the term "our side" I mean the side that I support. It is the side which has the common sense to understand—as, indeed, every country in the world, without exception, and however large or small, understands—that some defence requirement is necessary. That is what I believe; I have always believed it. Incidentally, I have always listened to the speeches of my noble friend Lord Brockway. There is hardly any difference, though there are some variations. They are about the need for unilateral disarmament, détente, conferences of high ranking people who come together, talk about disarmament, then depart and forget all about it. We have had it all, and during all those long years in which my noble friend has been arguing so vehemently, so logically, so elegantly and so sincerely about the need for peace, or the search for or approach to peace, we have had nothing but wars, one after the other. That is how it has been. That is not the answer.
I wish that we could believe the Russians' regard for d étente. I wish in
272
my heart that I could believe what Mr. Brezhnev says. By the way, I noted that my noble friend Lord Brockway appreciated what the Russians were prepared to do in allowing journalists to roam about Russia for a change—I wish I could believe that it was as true as all that; yet he condemned what was happening in Italy or France: the emergence of Communism. So what we gain on the swings we lose on the roundabouts. That is the position. Let us have some common sense about it. The fact is that we need defence, but we must recognise that in isolation we are incapable of providing adequate defence in the emergence of hostilities. We have to depend on allies. What is wrong with that? We always have depended on them; there is nothing wrong with that.
So I come to the question which I have already posed. What are we to do about it? Get détente out of the way. Of course we can talk about it at tea parties, with the vicar in the chair, and in similar situations. That is all very well. We can talk about it also at women's institute meetings. I hope that noble Baronesses will forgive me mentioning that, and I must say that I understand that those who attend women's institutes are very intelligent. D étente can be talked about in institutions of that character, but we should leave it out as a practical proposition. With all respect to Mr. Brezhnev, Mr. Gromyko, and the rest, and with all respect to their intentions, however well founded or ill founded, I say forget about it, and let us deal with defence.
We have tried to find out a little more about defence. Some of us have managed to discover some things about defence of which hitherto we were not aware. One is that there are certain potentialities which we must not ignore; and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who adopts a very sombre tone in matters of this kind and who tries to make our flesh creep. One is the recent election in Portugal. I do not say that because the Socialists sought to form a minority Government. There are the possibilities of reform in Spain, the Iberian Peninsula associated with NATO. And there is the situation as between Greece and Turkey; that is another possibility. This is all on the side of NATO; in other words,

273
strengthening NATO in every possible category.
Quite frankly, I do not believe that standardisation is the answer; I wish I could believe that it is. Frequently it is alleged that because of Soviet standardisation they have the capacity for mobility that is exceptional. But standardisation can also be a disadvantage. Therefore, my Lords, do not attach too much importance to standardisation, though obviously it would be better if there were more co-ordination and integration in the production of certain weaponry. I leave it at that. That is not the answer.
We have to find ways of defending ourselves. What is the means? First, let us consider NATO. I make a suggestion to noble Lords; I make it with the utmost restraint and, indeed, with a certain reluctance. But I make the suggestion because I believe that this ought to be said. Do not, my Lords, believe all that you hear about the weakness of NATO. It is probably much stronger than you think. But even if it is not strong enough. it is possible to strengthen our contribution. I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. It is not a question of finance, because I am satisfied that he would not have the answer to the question I have already posed; namely, how much would you spend on defence? Would it be another £1,000 million, or another £100 million? That is irrelevant. No, it is a matter rather of strategy, of allies, of co-ordination. This is what is required; but there is something more.
There is so much to say about this matter and I should like to go on for some time, but I come now to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh; namely, the question of reserves. This is not the first time I have raised this matter in your Lordships' House. I say this, which I know to be true: that the target of the TAVR has not yet been reached; and we have been talking about this for the past five or six years. No doubt recruitment has been better than before, and indeed recruitment to the regular forces has been better than hitherto, perhaps to some extent because of unemployment. But so far as the reserves are concerned, the position has not really been much better.
274
Here I interpose something which is rather strange. It was stated in the Press recently that the National Front—an organisation which is supposed to be ultra patriotic, though I am not sure whether or not it is—had received some support in training paramilitary people through a contingent from a territorial company somewhere in the Midlands or elsewhere. I do not know whether there is any truth in that; when my noble friend Lord Winterbottom replies to the debate perhaps he can tell us whether there is any truth in the allegation. However, never mind about that.
The point is, what about the reserves? I shall tell your Lordships' House what I should like to see happen. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, we have 250,000 reservists. But of course we know that this is nonsense; he was talking about reservists from the last war. He talked about reservists who have been untrained for many years, who probably would not know how to use a weapon and who would be disinclined to take part in any hostilities. I am talking about reserves being trained: not trained like regular forces, but trained in so far as our ability will permit of it. I should like at least 150,000 of them. I should like to be able to make that contribution to NATO—but I want something more than that. You can have your reserves—you can have 50,000, 100,000 or 150,000; you can have a million—but you have got to provide mobility so that they can be moved rapidly. I should like my noble friend Lord Winterbottom to reply on those two points. If he forgets everything else that I have said—and he will probably have very good reason for forgetting what I have said—I should like him to remind himself of two questions that I have put to him. First, what are we doing about reserves? Secondly, what about their mobility, so that they can be moved rapidly, expeditiously and usefully in the event of an emergency?
Finally, my Lords, I should like to associate myself, if I may, with the tribute that has been paid to the late Field Marshal Lord Montgomery. I knew little of him upon the battlefield; I knew little about him at headquarters. But I knew something of him at the War Office and when I was at the Ministry of Defence, when he became, to use his own words, an international soldier. He was, in my judgment, a transparently honest man; perhaps

275
too forthright; harsh when necessary; human nearly all the time. I paid my short tribute to him in the The Times newspaper; and I have received a letter from his son. Lord Chalfont referred to his friendliness with the late field marshal's son. I have received a letter from him, which I cherish because of its terms. I do not like anybody criticising Field Marshal Montgomery in my presence. I understand that sprats sometimes find disfavour with whales and sharks, probably with some justification. That is my comment about the people who have attacked Lord Montgomery. Let us pay tribute to a man who was a hero of sorts, if not the kind of hero we all want; to a man who was a human being, and a great friend. That is my tribute to the field marshal.
6.13 p.m.
The Earl of GLASGOW: My Lords, it is a rare privilege for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who probably knows more about defence than all of us, and over a longer period of time. I should also like to follow the noble Lord, as a sailor, in paying my personal tribute to the late Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, for whom I had the greatest regard. I would also extend my sympathy to his family.
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Cathcart has already said, over the last year cuts in Defence expenditure have been announced, first in March 1975 in a White Paper, again in April 1975 and in February 1976, and now in the White Paper that we have before us today. I should like to speak to this series of cuts as one package. To say that I deplore them in general would be an understatement; and I fully agree with all that my noble friend Lord Carrington has said this afternoon. But nowhere do I think they are more damaging than in the reduction in our maritime strength. On this aspect of our defence policy I should like to comment briefly. The general public and successive Governments too readily forget that for 400 years the Royal Navy has been our first shield of defence, and that in two world wars we were within an ace of being brought to our knees—not, my Lords, on the battlefield, but on the oceans of the world, and rather particularly in the North Atlantic. We have never had enough
276
escorts or, more recently, maritime aircraft adequately to protect our convoys, whose cargoes are vital to the survival of an island people. The threat now is greater than it ever was.
There is one other aspect relevant to maritime strength that I should like to mention. If the worst ever came to the worst and an exchange of tactical nuclear weapons escalated into a nuclear holocaust, the Royal Navy and our Merchant Fleet, by virtue of their mobility and dispersion, might well have a better chance of survival than most other elements of our population. They might have a very important part to play in picking up the pieces.
My Lords, the Government's maritime policy, as I understand it, appears to be to withdraw all our maritime forces from their worldwide tasks and to concentrate them in the NATO area. The implication of this is that, despite our considerable run-down in ships and maritime aircraft, we have not significantly reduced our contribution to NATO. This, my Lords, is not the case, and I should like to make three points. First, defence of the trade routes. The smaller and less maritime nations of NATO have built up small navies to defend their own coasts and the adjacent sea areas. In return for this, they must expect the maritime nations—and by those I mean particularly ourselves, the United States and France—to protect their merchant ships on the wide oceans, on which they will depend almost as much as we shall on ours in time of war.
Are we in a position to contribute to this task? This last year has seen the withdrawal of our two frigates from the Caribbean. In the Indian Ocean, we have withdrawn from Gan, Mauritius and Singapore, and we have removed the frigate from Hong Kong. We have ended the Simonstown Agreement, which cost us virtually nothing. While all this has been going on, the Russians have established themselves in Angola and are likely shortly to do the same in Mozambique. This will add to their penetration of Somalia and the Aden area. They now stand astride the Cape Route, by which come supplies vital to all the NATO countries. South Africa—a very importtant ally in time of war—will be virtually cut off. This is a very serious situation indeed, for which no provision appears to have been made.

277
Secondly, the NATO area itself. We are assured in both Defence White Papers that our contribution to NATO has not been reduced on the central front or in the Eastern Atlantic Channel commands. Be that as it may, my concern is on the flanks. The Southern flank is going through a bad patch. Events in Cyprus have not improved relations with or between our two Southern allies, Greece and Turkey; and the political instability of Italy does not inspire confidence. It seems, therefore, an odd moment to withdraw all our ships from the Mediterranean (where we still have bases) and our maritime aircraft in the next two to three years.
Lastly, my Lords, the Northern flank. This has already been touched on by my noble friend Lord Cathcart. When I last spoke on defence in December 1974 I was very concerned about the amphibious force. Although I realise that this force is capable of being deployed anywhere in the world, I personally connect it rather particularly with the Northern flank. In view of paragraph 45 a of the White Paper, I am not quite clear how matters stand as regards commando groups. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply could clear this up for me. What is clear, though, is that one commando carrier has been paid off and the other is being converted to another primary role. Only one assault ship will be in commission at one time, and neither of these two ships will be replaced.
My Lords, this will be a very great loss to NATO, and one which it can ill-afford. This is a very efficient force, with mobility and quick striking power—a form of warfare at which we as a nation are particularly expert. I ask the Government seriously to think again on this question. I draw a little comfort from the knowledge that at last we have a Prime Minister who was once a naval officer.
My Lords, a very brief look at the wider issues. I know that a number of noble Lords opposite feel that I and others like me who tend to concentrate on conventional forces and old-fashioned but well-tried strategy and tactics are dismally out of date against the background of the atom bomb and the social changes which have taken place in the world over the last 30 years. I think that we were described in the last debate as political dinosaurs. I will accept that. I make no apology
278
for concerning myself with conventional forces and their deployment; for they provide the first line of defence in the NATO alliance and should there be an early exchange of nuclear weapons, there will probably be no second line. They are very important.
The whole of NATO strategy is bent on preventing war. The disposition of our forces is wholly defensive, unlike those of our potential enemies. As we are not in a position to match them gun for gun, tank for tank, ship for ship, aircraft for aircraft, our defence posture must be credible and formidable enough to deter them from direct military action against us. Any weakening in our position must be an encouragement to our potential enemies and it is for this reason, among others, that I am so opposed to these defence cuts.
Since Helsinki we have seen only too clearly what détente means to the Russians. The ideological war continues unabated. I agree with the White Paper that there is no evidence to suggest that the Soviet Union and its allies are contemplating attack on the West. They have no need to if they can get all they want without the risk of nuclear exchange. They continue to infiltrate the free institutions in all the NATO countries and indulge in military adventures outside the NATO area with impunity. All this is obvious to the most superficial observer. Why do the Government shut their eyes to it? Surely this is not the moment to lower our guard.
Finally, my Lords, perhaps the greatest deterent is the knowledge by the enemy that we have the will to defend ourselves and to support the alliance on which our safety depends. Are we showing this determination with sufficient force? The security of this country must be the first call on our resources and the prime responsibility for any Government. In these days of inflation, when public expenditure must be drastically cut, it seems to me that it is all the more important that we should get our priorities right.
6.23 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, we have heard a great deal of the word détente this afternoon. It is a foreign word which seems to have many different meanings not only to individuals but also to NATO

279
and perhaps to the Warsaw Pact countries. Whatever it means, I think we must agree that it is a bit of give and take, a fifty-fifty arrangement between the two sides. Regrettably, some interpretations are extremely wide to the extent of thinking that détente can mean that we can carry out a total reduction of our forces and an immediate expectation that the Warsaw Pact to do the same. All the information gathered points to that not being the case. In fact, the reverse is true. Our ability to provide a reasonable deterrent with our allies is all that is between us and a "Red Star" State.
No, my Lords, the dictionary tells us that détente means "a relaxing of strained diplomatic relations", but people who pay lip service to this and do nothing at all are not to he trusted. We are certainly playing our part and try hard; but the evidence so far makes it difficult to believe that the other side is even lifting a finger. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and others of how enormous are the forces arraigned against us. We are outnumbered vastly in every sphere. They are poised to attack us at will. I say "poised" specifically because a great deal of the equipment that they have is known to be able to be used only offensively rather than defensibly. No other conclusion can be drawn. Apart from the numerical strength, they have vastly improved equipment. And this improvement is going on at a very fast rate.
We have heard a great deal about the big picture. I should like to come rather closer home and down to earth. I returned six days ago from visiting Germany where I was able to talk to many soldiers and airmen and to see and use their equipment. Although I do not pretend to know it all, I have been brought up to date to a great extent. A great many of the soldiers and airmen have always complained about such things as pay, conditions, lack of recreational facilities and so on. But there is one subject which is now very much in the forefront of all minds. This is the universal complaint about the large amount of aged equipment the shortage of spares, the restrictions on mileage and ammunition which makes training very difficult.
I believe that the commanders at all levels do the best they can with the reductions that have been imposed on
280
them. They are dedicated, professional and efficient men. I do not know how they manage to keep up the morale, but they do so in a remarkable way and they deserve to be congratulated on the job they are doing. But it is evident to me, and, I think, to others, that it was not only that the tail has been cut, but that it has been cut so short that it is affecting the spine.
Despite the efficiency, determination and the ability of them all, they can go only so far. I have seen very many worrying instances of shortages in vital areas. I have documentary evidence of essential spares which will not be available until 1977 and I firmly believe that the lack of funds has already gone too far. I think that possible future manoeuvres that have been planned will evaluate this; but I would urge the Government to watch the position very closely in certain areas where our ability completely to fulfil our NATO role may be somewhat in doubt.
One message came through very strongly wherever I went. The noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, has already mentioned this. The Army, the Air Force and all of our forces are saying: "Leave us alone! Let us evaluate the cuts! Let us confirm whether we can live and work in the present situation. Let us be allowed to consolidate." The bones are certainly showing through in some places; there is no fat left at all. Luckily, there is a certain amount of muscle left. I do not think that any Department of Government has investigated itself with as much care as has the Ministry of Defence with so much devotion to the duty it has to the country. If only other Government Departments would do the same, I think we could save an enormous amount of money. I hope that the Government will see if this is possible. Let them make other Departments do the same as the Ministry of Defence has done. The forces must be allowed a period to examine the present situation. They have got to evaluate the theory, to try it out in practice and see whether the pruning really works. All they ask at present is just that.
There is one other factor which is severely influencing the majority of forces in Germany. We all know that service in Northern Ireland is sadly essential. Most of the forces going there come from

281
Germany. Although normally the period of service in Northern Ireland is four months, because of different arrangements where sometimes armoured regiments must turn themselves into infantry regiments and other factors like that, it takes between 7 and 8 months from when a regiment or unit starts to train for Ireland, to when it gets back and is ready for its NATO role again in Germany. This limits drastically the training time; it affects morale, pay and families and wives. Some units and some individuals have already done more than five tours of Northern Ireland and the duty comes round regularly every 15 or 18 months. It is a necessity which is recognised by our NATO allies, but it seriously weakens our ability to play our proper part. It is the cuts which make this so necessary. Our defence is surely a great deal more than an insurance policy. In itself, it can prevent the tragedy. Anyone who can sleep soundly without the knowledge we have of our efficient and professional forces standing between us and the Warsaw Pact must be either stupid or selfish. Many people have laid down their lives for the country we all love, and it cannot be right to put all we have here at risk.
We shall never initiate hostilities, but we cannot say the same about the others. At the present time we have serious shortages of spares and equipment. We have well-maintained but patched-up old equipment. We have reserves on whom we rely very greatly, but their shortages and the state of their equipment is even worse. Our soldiers often have opportunities to go and see our NATO allies. They compare equipment and talk among themselves and, in nearly all cases, our soldiers feel that they are in a second-class Army or Air Force. Many instances can be given, but I will not do that here because a lot of the information one gets from these trips is confidential. Suffice it to say that there are many problems, some of which can be overcome but all are connected with the lack of funds, and this is borne by the brave men who are doing the job. At present levels we have very difficult problems to overcome. We have many obligations and, from what I have seen, I can say that we have the most marvellous men, but do we really have the tools to do the job? We cannot win. We must not lose. We can only play for a
282
draw. My Lords, is this what we really want?
6.32 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, first I should like to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid to the late Field Marshal Lord Montgomery. Although I never served under him, and only got to know him in your Lordships' House, I think that he was a fine soldier and a great man. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newall. He pointed out things that had not been pointed out before: that we were suffering from a shortage of spares and also, I think, a shortage of ammunition. Lastyear NATO was described as the linch-pin of our defence policy and as such a first charge on our resources available for defence and commitments outside NATO. Therefore to my mind Britain's forces now fall into two parts: our contribution to NATO and, secondly, our home defence responsibility and the legal and moral responsibility to defend the Colonies and, if necessary, the Commonwealth. I should also like to proceed on the assumption that our defence policy is based on defence grounds and not on Party grounds. Defence is too important to be decided otherwise. Last time I spoke on defence I quoted Mr. Nixon. He pointed out in a short quotation that defence was equal to freedom. I think he was right.
The House of Lords, through the political influence of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has set up an all-Party Defence Study Group. We are now level, I hope, with the United States of America who have had such a group for 100 years. In this group we went to Brussels in January led by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. We were told nothing that had not already been published in the Press. The visit revealed two central things: first, Britain and her allies cannot again reduce their contribution to NATO. We are very near the edge of the precipice and we had really embarrassing discussions with NATO in February 1975. Secondly, the North and South flanks are both very weak. Incidentally, Britain helped to weaken them. We not only took away the commander and an absolutely essential ship, but we also withdrew our warships from the Mediterranean for the first

283
time for 300 years. As a result, NATO is perilously weak.
My Lords, I ought to speak for a short time about détente because the first five pages of the Defence White Paper are based on the hope of d étente. Unless we raised the subject in Brussels, it was not mentioned to us. When we asked their leaders for a single example of successful d étente since the leading European statesmen signed an agreement about this in August last year at Helsinki, the only one which was given was the easing of conditions for correspondents in Moscow. It does not amount to a row of beans. On the contrary, at the MBFR—I am not fully up to date with new initials—in Vienna, their latest proposals from the Warsaw Pact, quoting the Defence White Paper, was apparently designed to preserve the disparities between the forces of the two sides. In other words, as I said in this debate a year ago, détente means nothing yet and we should pay no attention to it.
Now, back to our visit to Brussels. We were told by the NATO leaders and by the SHAPE leaders that US nuclear superiority has gone and that we now have strategic nuclear parity. This automatically puts greater emphasis on the conventional forces. Unfortunately, as a recent defence Statement spelt out for us, the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact have great superiority in these, not only in number but in quality, as was emphasised by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. This automatically lowers the threshold of using our theatre and strategic nuclear weapons. Put another way round, we have to rely more on our deterrent nuclear forces.
Then we raised another point: from the Soviet point of view their conventional superiority, particularly their maritime superiority—which was emphasised by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow—is doing them very well. Look at Angola, for example In the old days-not so old, by the way, my Lords—the US navy and the Royal Navy would have said to the Cubans: "You do not land in Angola!" And they would not have done so. But, as we have heard, the Soviet warships were able to cover them. They have not only covered the Cape route but the South Atlantic and Angola as well, so we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Again, look at the
284
African littoral. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the Russians have occupied Wheelus Field, which used to be a very big US airbase. I cannot think why they did not do that before. I imagine they have also got a free run of airbases in Syria, and, historically, land-based aircraft have always defeated carrier-borne aircraft.
When, on top of this knowledge, we were reminded that Finland in the North and Greece in the South could be occupied in three days—and there is nothing new or secret about that information—it is small wonder that when we asked the question: are not the Soviets doing well in peacsetime without firing a shot? the NATO and SHAPE high-ranking officers ducked and changed the subject as quickly as possible. We never got an answer. This was in line with the man from Mars who had not been here lately but who paid a visit quite recently and found that British defence was the same as, though considerably weaker than, it had been 25 years ago.
No one thinks that the Soviets are likely to attack the Central Front. Although the twelve German divisions are the key, they must have allies alongside them. A promise is a promise—and unfortunately we promised 55,000 men and a tactical air force of 4,000 or 5,000 to the Brussels Western European Union. We are keeping that promise. Of course, the Soviets have no need to attack—why should they? We have only to look at Vietnam as an example, where they waited for ten years. They are not in a hurry.
Under the present system, NATO will continue to live on the edge of this precipice, at the mercy of any of its fourteen allies. Therefore, I would propose that instead of a Government here sitting down to write a comprehensive review, NATO should do it. They have probably done it before; but they ought to do it in public and people ought to know that they are doing it. Of course, they will keep their conclusions secret until the Council have considered them. This review would pay special attention to the following two points: first, the problem of the Central Front and the flanks and, secondly, the question of Western Europe's sea routes, including those of the United Kingdom, and how they would meet the threat of the 330 Soviet submarines which are mentioned on page 5. All the allies should

285
be asked to subscribe to this NATO policy, and all would know if an ally fell down and could not, or would not, subscribe. The result of this system would be that any such allies would become publicly known and the weaknesses, if any, would be laid clearly at the right doors. Last year, I remember, I recommended that the Royal Navy should represent top priority to save us from starvation; and this year I recommend that NATO should carry out an appreciation.
I turn now to the second part of the problem—and there is not much left over, by the way—which concerns home defence and the defence of the Colonies. Sadly, in recent years, without resort to BAOR troops, we seem to have lacked the force. In present financial circumstances this can be well understood; and I agreed entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he said that we have refused to face the facts. But we also seem to have lost the will to fight. For instance, we cannot even send a brigade group to deal with an emergency—what the Conservative Government described as "countering the threat to stability in the world"; and this fact is simply not mentioned in the Defence White Paper.
Let us review the situation very quickly. The Navy is not up to its task, especially its anti-submarine task. It cannot even spare a ship for the Seychelles Independence celebrations. The Army is fully occupied in Northern Ireland, and we have heard about the diminution of BAOR, which I have worked out at about 4,000. That has had a very bad effect on BAOR training. The RAF has been so reduced that it cannot take losses at all in its first line. This Labour Government have reduced the Forces from 455,000 in 1964—and I am quoting these figures from the Defence White Paper—to 327,000 in 1977. I make that a reduction of about 30 per cent., in spite of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, having put back a certain number of battalions. in addition to that, the civil servants are being severely cut, and I understand the ammunition reserves, although they do not get a mention in the Defence White Paper, are also affected. Do we not remember World War H when the divisional slice was, at the very minimum, 50,000? Probably about 20,000 were fighting troops, but the remaining 30,000 were doing essential jobs, and they
286
were the civilians. We did not do it for fun: we were fighting the Germans, who were an extremely tenacious enemy.
Lastly, I come to Hong Kong in what is left over in the second part. We have reduced the garrison there, despite the fact that we have had conversations with the Hong Kong Government, who have promised to maintain 62½ per cent. of the garrison there. We have reduced the forces by a frigate, four to five battalions, an artillery regiment, an armoured reconnaissance squadron and goodness knows how many engineers. The same conditions prevail in Cyprus. Incidentally, the Hong Kong garrison is so reduced because it is expecting reinforcements. I should like to ask: Where from? If the answer is "Brunei", I may say that the Sultan of Brunei at the moment very much wants to keep his Gurkha battalions and he may not he able to spare them. We are already reducing very heavily in Cyprus, and the Navy seem to have withdrawn completely from the Far East, beyond the Suez Canal.
In addition to all these things, I think we ought to provide for anti-subversion in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, initiated a very good debate on this subject last February, and I came away convinced that we ought to provide for anti-subversion. I would say, in parenthesis, that special constables ought to have sections for electricity, gas, sewerage and the docks, but I should be shot down by the Government. To sum up, I propose that now NATO is the linch-pin of British defence we ought logically to accept its defence review-and it ought to carry out a review. So I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom: why not? If we are to be a good ally in NATO, we ought to do it this way round and not the other way round. In other words, it is with considerable misgivings that I take note of this Defence White Paper.
6.51 p.m.
The Duke of NORFOLK: My Lords, as the hour is getting late, I shall detain your Lordships for only a very brief time. I should first like to join all those past speakers in paying my tribute to Lord Montgomery. He became a great friend of mine, I served under him for a lot of the war and I think that this House is quite right in almost every speaker

287
remembering him. He did a great deal for our country.
I am delighted to see that there is no question in the Defence White Paper of tampering with our nuclear capability, and I am amazed that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who I am sorry is not here, should have said that one of the things he is worried about is that London is near to Leningrad and it therefore might have nuclear weapons on it. With the present means of nuclear delivery, everywhere is within everybody's range and he well knows that no Power would retaliate on the capital cities; it would retaliate only on the means of launching. We all live in nuclear glasshouses, and that and the fact that we have nuclear stones is probably one of the reasons why we have nuclear parity.
I should like to talk for a brief moment about the conventional forces, and in particular those in the central sector of Europe. I have some experience of this subject, because I commanded the mission with the Russian Armies for two years, I commanded a division in the Rhine Army, and I have seen both sides conduct their annual manoeuvres in the belief that each side might attack the other. Every year, the Russians have their exercises assuming that NATO will attack them and cross the Elbe, and their forces carry out a withdrawal action until stronger forces arrive from Russia. Every year, also, we see the Rhine Army, which is the finest Army of the central forces and long may it remain so, carry out similar exercises of withdrawal.
I should like to bring out just one point to your Lordships. In the d étente that may be taking place, we shall never see the Russian conventional forces reduced. The Russian conventional forces are there not because of NATO, but to hold down the Warsaw Pact. It is the tyranny of the Warsaw Pact, the tyranny of the Russians, that is the reason for their being there. If the 20 divisions of the group of Soviet forces were no longer in East Germany, then East Germany would revolt; noble Poland, that great country, would revolt; your Lordships have seen Czechoslovakia revolt and the others would revolt, too. So you will never see any reduction in the conventional forces in the Warsaw Pact, neither of the
288
Russian forces nor of the dragooned, conscripted forces of misguided youth who are made to join the forces in their own countries. I should be the first to tell your Lordships that we are in no way unwise in suspecting that this traditional manoeuvre of withdrawal that the Russians carry out indicates, by any means, what their plans are, because their plans might well be to use the capability of all those forces to invade Western Europe. So it is undoubtedly essential that we do not reduce the conventional forces of NATO opposite the Russians.
I should like to make only one point about the reserve forces. We in our country do not have conscription, but we have always had our auxiliary forces and, in particular, the Territorial Army. The Territorial Army and the auxiliary forces of the Navy and the Air Force are shown in this White Paper as costing £91 million, which is 2 per cent. of the Defence Vote. The Territorial Army, which is the chief component of the auxiliary forces—because the Navy, alas! and the Air Force, seem to have almost no reserves; this is said in this White Paper—is at the moment 24 per cent. under strength. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked for the figure, and that is it. As we know, it is a force that is immensely reduced from what it should be.
I should like to see it brought up to strength and immensely increased. How should this be done? It should be done by increasing its pay. A Territorial Army reservist gets a liability bounty of £60, and this has not been increased since 1967. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is taking note of this, because I am not raising points that are beyond the ability of the Government to change. This money is not a big sum. The training bounty that someone in the Territorial Army gets is between £35 and £55. This was admittedly increased last year, but I suggest that the recruitment for these forces could be doubled if the bounty was raised, which would not cost much money. Let me make one other point about the territorial forces. If there was a mobilisation, the Territorial Army would compose 30 per cent. of our mobilised land forces and yet as I have said it uses only 2 per cent. of the Defence Vote. That is fairly cheap stuff, and it does not cost the country much. But, my Lords,

289
it is worth every penny and I should like to see a great amount of money devoted to it.
I would mention one other aspect. Like many of your Lordships who have been in the Services, I have travelled over much of the world and I have seen how—and I have also seen this in the Warsaw Pact countries—there is a lust for adventure in youth. This need of adventure was very often met by people being able to join the auxiliary services, but what have we done in our country? We have so cut down the auxiliary services that they give no opportunity for our youth to join them. They have nothing to join. Our youth now have to be content with going to football matches and, inevitably, they let off some of their high spirits. How much better if they could find adventure in the forces of the Crown.
In the other countries of NATO, and in the countries of the Warsaw Pact, one is able, by joining the forces, to take part in activities which cost money. If you are a French conscript and you want to ski or to climb mountains, you can do so. I saw a French conscript doing so the other day. But many of our countrymen do not have the money to take part in these activities. Why cannot they be allowed to join the Territorial Army and go to ski and climb mountains? Why should not the Naval Reserve be increased so that our countrymen can take part in seamanship? If you belong to one of the communities situated around our shores, you have no chance to take part in seamanship unless you happen to be a rich man who owns a yacht. Why cannot we have an increased Naval Reserve in all the seaports, with the youth there taking part in naval activities which are subsidised by the Government? I should call it the Naval Reserve, but I would not mind if they were called the municipal recreation centres of the port towns.
Why do the Government deny to the poorer people of this country the opportunity to take part in these adventurous activities? I take part in activities like gliding for the Air Force Reserve. Only the very rich can afford to glide, but the Air Force Reserve ought to give other people the opportunity to glide. I need hardly say that even the rich cannot parachute. But why is not there an opportunity for the youth of this country
290
to parachute? If you belong to the Freideutschejugend in East Germany you can learn to parachute, and if you are a Frenchman and you are conscripted into the Air Force you can learn to glide and parachute.
Not a great deal of money is involved in my suggestion, and if the Government say that it cannot be provided from the Defence Vote I would say in reply that they should cut down on the expense of the Ministry of Defence. Far more integration should take place. The only two integrated parts of the Ministry of Defence are Intelligence and the Signals. Other integration has not taken place. We have just added a Fourth Command. I for one would not support the continuance of the Chiefs of Staff as that is organised now. However, the Ministry of Defence is by no means the only place in Whitehall where there should be pruning. There are some far fatter alley cats, perhaps in the Home Office and parts of the Civil Service, which should be pruned first. I must not speak for too long, but I would make a plea that the Government should stop starving the voluntary effort of our nation by neglecting to give a chance to the auxiliary forces to be properly recruited and increased.
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I have little say. Indeed, I do not see how it could be otherwise, following, as I do, two generals and being followed by a field marshal. To find oneself in the midst of that kind of sandwich in the knowledge that one has never been any more than a rather ordinary regimental officer carries with it no comfort other than that of knowing that I share a somewhat similar position with my noble leader. That, at any rate, is something!
As usual, this debate is sprinkled with generals and admirals and it is almost taken for granted when we come to this annual fixture on defence that this shall be the normal state of affairs. I find this strange. Perhaps I do not find it strange because I am used to it, but I think it is a pity. It seems to me that defence is a matter of high national policy. I do not believe that people are talking sense when they say that the military type of person, whatever they may mean by that, is interested in defence and that others are not. It may be true, but I am quite certain

291
that it is wrong. If ever there was a subject which ought to interest everybody, defence must be it, for sooner or later, if we are unlucky—and certainly we have been unlucky in the past—it will affect every single one of us all too closely.
When he began his speech, the noble Lord the Leader of the House referred with approval, as have others and so do I, to the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in setting up the House of Lords Defence Study Group which had a most successful inaugural meeting—if "inaugural" is the right word, though perhaps not—Slast night, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also referred. It was addressed by Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Peter Hill-Norton, and enormously valuable it was, too. What is more, it was a very well attended meeting.
Looking at the list of speakers this afternoon, I find that with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, not one member of the Labour Party has bothered to attend. Noble Lords may care to look around the Chamber now and see how many members of the Labour Party are present. There are two on the Front Bench but none on any of the Back-Benches. This is the usual pattern. It is said frequently, on this side of the House in particular, that the Labour Party is not interested in defence. This charge is levelled against it as a criticism. I am not at all sure that the criticism is altogether just; nor am I sure that the statement is altogether just.
Generalisations usually are not just, but certainly there is something in the criticism. But how could it be otherwise? The Labour Party, after all, stems from only 1906. Originally it was an amalgam of the Trades Union Congress, the Fabian Society and one or two other bodies which have since left it—and one or two rather odd, strange people have since crept in. It was not, therefore, a national Party, even from the beginning. It existed solely for the purpose of bettering the social conditions of one minority section of society, albeit a very important one. Therefore it has never been a national Party. Its politics have been based on the socialism of the Fabian Society.
Perhaps I would not be out of order in reminding your Lordships that the Fabian
292
Society is named after the Roman General Quintus Fabius Maximus, better known to history as Fabius Cunctator, "the Delayer", for his determination never, if possible, to engage in a pitched battle with the enemy. Is it, therefore, reasonable or fair to expect such a Party seriously to be interested in defence? When the Labour Party arrived, as it was bound to do in the end, in a position of power and found itself engaged in national affairs and responsibilities and, therefore, in foreign affairs policies (which include defence as a first priority), it was bound to take an interest in defence, whether or not it liked it. In fact, I do not think that the Labour Party liked it, nor that it takes much interest in defence now: but there were bound to be men in that Party who, by reason of their appointments, were bound to take an interest in defence—sfor instance, Ministers of Defence and Ministers in other defence Departments. They could not help but cannot take an interest in defence. We have seen among them, as we do now, dedicated men who have taken defence to their hearts. We have also seen, as my noble leader has pointed out, what can happen to one of them when he becomes Chancellor of the Exchequer, so we may fairly be excused for wondering how genuine is the interest even of Labour Defence Ministers.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that he thinks that too much emphasis is placed on defence, meaning military defence. He would like it to be more economic defence than a military type of defence. However, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to this remark of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd:
"We have made serious efforts to plan the cuts in relation to real priorities".
I think that I have got the noble Lord's words about right. What does the noble Lord mean by "real priorities"? Does he mean phasing out pay beds at the expense of the National Health Service, nationalising the ports, the aircraft industry and so on? Is this more important? Is it not damaging to have more and more costly public ownership? Will it not be for the benefit of a few people, or at any rate for a minority of people? Above all, it will be for the benefit of no policy of practical use, but pure Socialism as a dogma; nothing else. This is the spirit of Fabianism which is being set up and exemplified by—there is no need to be

293
personal about this because the names are only too well known—a few leaders
in the Party and a very large number of noisy people straggling along behind and trying to get to the leadership. Are those things to be set up as higher priorities than the defence of the nation? Apparently they are. In my view it is outrageous.
Rather less reference has been made than I expected to the recent speeches, utterences and writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. My noble friend and Leader Lord Carrington mentioned it and so, I think, did the noblse Lord, Lord Chalfont. But somebody else has mentioned him recently. My noble Leader said that no one could ignore what Solzhenitsyn had said; indeed nobody should ignore it. Whether or not he is open to critici personal about this because the names are only too well known a few leaders in the Party and a very large number of noisy people straggling along behind and trying to get to the leadership. Are those things to be set up as higher priorities than the defence of the nation? Apparently they are. In my view it is outrageous. Rather less reference has been made than I expected to the recent speeches, utterences and writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. My noble friend and Leader Lord Carrington mentioned it and so, I think, did the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. But somebody else has mentioned him recently. My noble Leader said that no one could ignore what Solzhenitsyn had said; indeed nobody should ignore it. Whether or not he is open to criticism on the grounds of exaggeration or lack of appreciation of the British character is neither here nor there. He certainly did state a large number of elementary and unpalatable truths about this country. But it is worth noting that in a recent debate in the House of Commons the Prime Minister of the day—and I happily add my small word of congratulation to him on his becoming a Knight of the Garter, which comes from the Queen and not from the country, of course—said that he refuted everything that Solzhenitsyn had said. One cannot do that without either being a total fool or totally dishonest. I defy anybody to do it. And this is the Prime Minister of Great Britain speaking in a debate in the House of Commons.
Can we not have a little more greatness? Can we not have somebody who will speak up with a voice which is recognisably British? There is no need to call for a Dunkirk spirit: all that is required is that we shall once more, if possible, be seen to be true to the ordinary standards of our past. It is difficult. With the leadership we are getting now it is exceedingly difficult. It is complicated by the fact that we have the Welfare State, of which we are justifiably proud and which to the Labour Party, above all, is a great source of pride; but there is a price to be paid for that. The price is that we have become, to some extent, a nation of takers. Nobody proposes that we should have guns instead of butter, but there is no
294
doubt whatever that we need rather more guns and we might well have them at the price of slightly less jam. A little resolution is required, and that is totally absent from the White Paper. Not only is it absent; in my opinion it is actually denied and counteracted.
"Will" is the word. My noble friend Lord Cathcart spoke of the will in a particular connection; that is, the dangerous period before a possible outbreak of war of testing, when we might be moving towards a state of war. He will correct me if I have got it wrong, but I think it is about right. Here is the test of the national will and the will of the Government to meet this test, to be ready to take all sorts of difficult decisions. Then the will comes into play, but if the will is not seen to be there then the process will come to an end with the going off of the guns. If the will is seen to be there, then the process may be arrested and that, as has been said several times this afternoon, is what defence is for; that is, to see that war does not happen, not to deal with it when it does.
My noble friend and namesake Lord Glasgow referred also to the same thing—the will. Where is the will? I deplore two things that I have not yet referred to; one is the insistence on—and this is my only reference directly to the White Paper—sthe lack of any likelihood of an attack in the Central Sector of NATO. They are safe there, say the Government, and in that I hear echoes of French remarks about the Maginot Line. Again, my noble friend Lord Glasgow has rightly drawn attention to the fact that the flanks are not defended. So we have a Maginot Line mentality with no will whatever to defend the nation, no interest apparently in the fact that any small reinforcement to the Northern flank has been done at the expense of the South; no interest whatever in the defence of anything South of the Tropic of Cancer; no interest whatever in the defence of anything that comes round the Cape and, so far as I can see, no interest whatever in the defence of our North Sea oil; and no will. The other thing that I deplore-and this is a change of note-is the departure of the will that we should have heard if we could have listened to the voice of my late noble and gallant friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein.
7.16 p.m.
Lord HARDING of PETHERTON: My Lords, my thinking on our defence policy is conditioned by three facts: first, that the Soviet Union has now built up a massive global military instrument with which it can exert pressure at any level, at any time and anywhere; secondly, the world is still in a very disturbed state, particularly in Southern Africa and in the Middle East, where the United Kingdom still has most important interests; and thirdly, the Communist Parties in the member nations of NATO are making steady progress and it seems likely that in some cases they will be participating in the Government of some of our allies in the NATO organisation. Those three facts condition my thinking. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that the threat from the Soviet Union has existed for many years. In fact, about 30 years ago I was hauled over the coals by the noble Lord for referring to that threat and allowing the fact that I had done so to be published in the Press. That is by the way.
In the debate last year on the Defence White Paper, I expressed my views on global strategy and pointed out that in the face of the situation that I have mentioned, which is a global one, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to concentrate all our military resources on NATO and to leave the rest of the world to look after itself, and at the same time to cut down our own defence forces to the bone. I submit that this is taking too great a risk, but I do not propose to go over the whole question of global strategy again this evening. Rather I would address myself briefly to an assessment on the capability of NATO to carry out the role for which it was set up.
There are two critical factors in making that assessment. First, the comparative strength of NATO and the Warsaw Pact: and secondly, the comparative state of readiness of what one might call the opposing forces. There is no doubt whatever about the disparity between the numerical strength, both in manpower and weaponry, of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO Alliance. The figures are given in the White Paper and speak for themselves. There is no doubt whatever that the Warsaw Pact has a great superiority in numerical strength over NATO, particularly in the Central Front. In my
296
opinion, that superiority is not counterbalanced by a superior technology of the NATO forces or, as is sometimes claimed, by the fact that the NATO forces have wide operational experience. There are ways and means of adjusting that disparity, some of which have been mentioned in the debate this afternoon, but I will refer to them in a moment.
My Lords, next I should like to refer to the comparative state of readiness. Here, I think it would be appropriate for me to say how warmly I join with other noble Lords from all sides of the House who have paid tribute to Field Marshal Montgomery. I had the highest regard for him as a commander and as a comrade-inarms. When he came to the Western Desert, he restored the morale of the Eighth Army. He sorted out the muddle in which the Army found itself on its retreat to Alamein. He inspired us with confidence that we could fight back and win, and he led us to victory. I had the good fortune to be a student at the Staff College when he was a teacher in tactics and battlefield leadership. One of his teachings, among many of the splendid things he taught, was that to avoid being taken by surprise an army must always be deployed on its battle frontage when within striking distance of the enemy. The NATO forces on the Central Front can by no means be described as being deployed on their battle frontage. The forces of the Warsaw Pact are much better placed in that respect and there, too, they have superiority and an immense tactical advantage.
So I maintain that there is no question whatever that NATO, and particularly the Central Front of NATO, is highly vulnerable to surprise attack. All the same, I would agree with the statement in the White Paper that there is no evidence that the Soviet Union and its allies are likely to launch such an attack. However, that situation can change overnight, whereas it would take time, a long time, and would call for great efforts and considerable sacrifices on the part of the NATO countries, to reach parity in conventional forces. My real worry, my great anxiety, is the threat of political coercion backed by almost overwhelming military power, which the Soviet Union can exercise, coupled with a growing weakness in political stability and the lack, I think, of resolve and willpower referred

297

to by the noble Earl who has just spoken, among the NATO countries, including ourselves. I think that is the real danger at the present moment. That thinking is clearly supported by the recent disclosure of the thinking of the State Department, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred in his remarks. I ask the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government if he could say whether Her Majesty's Government are still satisfied that NATO can, to quote the words of the White Paper, preserve for all of its members "the right to pursue their own destiny"? That is the first question I should like to ask.
I mentioned just now the possibility of redressing the disparity in strength and in readiness between NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact forces. Here, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, because I think that standardisation and rationalisation of organisation and function will go a long way to redress that disparity. It is nearly 25 years now since I had any responsibility in connection with the standardisation of equipment in NATO. Those were early days, and we were then full of hope that standardisation would become a reality. Slightly less than 25 years have passed, and so far as I can make out from the information at my disposal, there has been a total lack of progress in this matter of standardisation. There are certain pious hopes, expressed in the relevant paragraph in the White Paper, but I have the impression that they are only pious hopes.
I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government a second question. Can he say what have been the obstacles to progress in standardisation of equipment? What can the Government do to accelerate the process and so improve, in my opinion very greatly, the cost effectiveness of the NATO forces? Anyone who has had any practical experience of commanding Allied forces knows full well that all the great problems of differences in equipment, in supplies, in organisation and in armament stem from the lack of standardisation.
My Lords, there is another aspect which, as always, presents a difficult problem in the conduct of operations with allied forces; that is, the flexibility of the forces under one's command. It has now be
298
come known as "inter-operability", a clumsy word, but one which expresses what is meant. I am concerned whether the decision of Her Majesty's Government announced in the White Paper last year, to eliminate the brigade level of command, will not damage the inter-operability of our forces, the Rhine Army, with those of our allies in NATO. I ask the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government whether that is still the intention of the Government, as I think it is from what is written in the White Paper. If so, I would ask whether the Government are really satisfied, whether the General Staff is satisfied, that it will not damage inter-operability.
I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply a question affecting the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas, in which I have a close personal interest. It seems from the paragraph referring to the Gurkha Battalion in Brunei that Her Majesty's Government have finally decided to reject the offer of the Sultan to meet the total cost of that unit, I should like to know whether that is really the case, and if so, why.
Finally, my Lords, having had the rather bitter experience of being involved in the opening stages of two World Wars for which the Governments of the day had made totally inadequate preparations, I sincerely believe that Her Majesty's Gov ernment are taking too great a risk in reducing our forces further. They are already very attenuated, as has been clearly emphasised by many speakers this afternoon. Any further reduction of these already attenuated armed forces will, in my view, seriously prejudice our national security, and above all our ability to withstand coercion backed by superior military force. I only hope that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider the matter before it is too late.
7.32 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, at this late hour, for us, I shall not he too long, but I am going to make a rather political speech, because I think this is a political White Paper and no one has drawn attention to this aspect of it until now. I apologise if I am not here during the latter stages of our debate, but I did not know it was going on quite so long and I made

299
my arrangements. I am glad to see that the noble Lord who is to reply is wearing his Brigade of Guards tie. Another person under whom I served was Harold Macmillan, and he always wore that tie when he knew he was going to have to reply to a very sticky debate. I think the noble Lord is following a very good example.
The reason why I think this is a dishonest document is that it is perfectly frank in underlining the considerable and increasing threat from the Soviet Union, but it then goes on to say that, despite this, the Government are going to cut out of the Defence Vote 38,000 Servicemen and 40,000 civilians. Other nations and our NATO allies have also assessed the threat, but they have taken exactly the opposite view. We find the USA, France and Germany all building up their forces because they believe the threat is so considerable. I can see that this Government—and I believe this is the reason for it—have always found it necessary to appease what the last Prime Minister called "the Marxist wing". In a debate on 31st March, the Minister of Defence, in reply to some criticism from the Left Wing, said (Hansard, Col. 1338) that expenditure per head in dollars shows the following figures: Britain, 214, bottom; the Netherlands—not a great country-220; Norway—not a great country—228; France, 255; Germany, 332–50 per cent. more than ours; and the United States, twice ours. 416 per head. That puts the matter in perspective. We have, surely, an interest in spending as much as we conceivably can, alongside our allies, matching their sacrifices with ours.
The first excuse is that it was in the Manifesto. But we must acknowledge that only 28 per cent. of the people voted for the Manifesto, and the last survey I saw was that only one in every 1,000 people had ever read what were in any of the Parties' Manifestoes. When all the circumstances and all the factors in the equation have changed, I do not think it is right that the Government should feel bound not to make a parallel change. The situation has changed in other ways. The Government have not found it necessary, when these factors have charged, to stick to their Manifesto promises. After a period of wild inflation in 1974, with
300
30 per cent. wage increases becoming the norm and over 26 per cent. rise in the cost of living, they abandoned free collective bargaining.
I have just refreshed my memory of what the Manifesto said on this. After talking about the Social Contract, it said:
"The unions in response confirm how they will seek to exercise the newly restored right of free collective bargairting."
In July 1975 Labour's incomes policy was produced—having derided ours, I may say—and we are now just coming to the end of Phase 1 and negotiating Phase 2. This is realistic; this is facing the facts. If we can face the facts on that important front, with the trade unions of such immense importance to the Labour Party, and, or course, to the country, surely we can also change direction on defence.
I suggest that the USSR, by its actions and by its speeches, has shown that détente is a hollow farce. We all hoped that there was a change of mind, but its strategy has not changed and in fact has accelerated. After the massive subjugation of the whole of Central Europe and the Baltic States right down to the Black sea, we hoped perhaps, in that early post-War period, that they might come to live in a mixed world. But that is not so. We had first the Hungarian revolution put down by massive Russian forces in 1956, and then later the Czech insurrection was also put down. After Helsinki perhaps we thought again that there was a change of mind. Lord Brockway was the first to say that once this was signed it would produce a change. It has not. The Soviet intervention in Portugal and their massive sponsoring of the Angolan invasion shows that they have not changed their strategy or thinking one jot. The speeches by my noble friend Lord Chalfont and many others have underlined this point.
What else has changed? The unemployment situation has changed immensely in this country. When the Manifesto was being written, when the policy was being worked out for the Labour Government, there were 650,000 unemployed. That number has now doubled. So why add to the unemployment by throwing useful civilians and usefully trained Service people out of work on to the scrap pile. In his speeches the Minister has said that not only are we going to see 38,000 Servicemen deprived of their jobs, and the 40,000

301
civilians I have mentioned, but these cuts would affect 60,000 extra in the defence industry. He has said that perhaps a further 80,000 job opportunities would be affected as a result of these measures. So again, with people idle, we are adding to that problem.
It has been claimed that this has come from the tail and not from the teeth, but the speeches this afternoon have shown that this is a hollow fallacy. You cannot go on cutting the tail. We have been told that it has already been cut to the bone in previous Reviews. I intervened when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was speaking to ask, if it is only cutting the tail, how is it that in one of the most vital areas for this country, antisubmarine warfare, we have cut 25 per cent. off the Nimrod force? Incidentally, Nimrod is one of the best anti-submarine aircraft in the entire world, and we have been content to cut that. I do not think, either, that the Government can go on shrugging off the sad position—the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, drew attention to this—where our forces are increasingly using equipment which was designed in earlier decades.
It takes seven or 10 years from the initiation of the research and development to the start of a new weapon system, before it ever has a chance of reaching operational units. It then has probably a life of another 10 or 15 years in those units. But now we are beginning to run out, and we are using old equipment, and our allies are better equipped. So we are trying to save money. I think what is revealing—and I shall come to this later—is the very small amount of our defence budget which is now being spent on new equipment.
Another argument that sometimes comes forward is that we have to make these cuts despite the appreciation, which is honest and straightforward, of the threat from the USSR; we have to make them because of our economic situation. Here again, I cannot believe that this argument stands up. We have only to see the manner in which money is being spent by this Government in the public sector to ask why we have to save a few hundred million pounds here. and later make many more massive savings on defence. The Community Land Act
302
alone is costing our nation £400 million; the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill, £900 million; the National Enterprise Board between £900 million and £1,000 million; the nationalisation of aerospace and shipbuilding, according to Government figures (the Bill has not yet come to our House) £300 the abolition of paybeds, £40 million. There is a total of £2,600 million, and we are being told that despite the threat, despite everything we see of Russian expansion plans and imperialism, we have to make cuts in our defence forces. Like other noble Lords, I cannot help feeling that this is a result of the Labour Party, and particularly the Marxist Wing of the Labour Party—and I borrow that phrase from Sir Harold Wilson—demanding that their Front Bench and their Government should make these cuts.
If it is said that we are somehow trying to save manpower, may I say that r have been looking at some of the figures of our nationalised industries, and particularly one which really surprised me—and here T am quoting from an article in the Lloyds Bank Review s of April 1976 by John Redwood, who is a Fellow of All Souls. There he showed that the British Steel Corporation (when Monty Finniston was head of this he was always complaining that they were overmanned) in the last year has recruited 7,900 extra people. The Post Office—and we all know how the services have been cut—added another 7,500 people. The National Coal Board—and we are almost saturated with too much coal at the moment, and too expensive—another 6,250 people. British Rail—and Richard Marsh is always saying that they are overmanned—another 5,800. Those are just four nationalised industries and they have added 25,000 to the number of people they employ. Yet apparently we are going to cut 38,000 Servicemen from our defence forces.
The noble Lord will no doubt deal with this in his wind-up, but we are told that there is now to be an economy in public spending, and particularly in local government spending. Any of us who have any knowledge, or eyes to see, will know how far this has gone. The figure I obtained from the Digest of Statistics s was that local government recruiting in the period June 1974 to June 1975 had gone up by 121,000 people, and according to the last return

303
from the Department of Employment, in the last nine months they have added another 25,000 to that figure. So that you see vast recruiting in every field for which the Government are responsible—and I include the nationalised industries—but apparently a need to run down our strength at a desperate time.
I should like now to turn a little to what I was saying about equipment. Only 36 per cent. of our total defence budget is now going on equipment. Every year—and I know that my noble friend when he was Minister for Defence had to face this same problem—our men and their support, and the hospitals, the schools, and their wives and their children, all cost us more, and there is less money for sophisticated and essential equipment. The interesting figure in the USSR budget, which of course is vastly greater than ours, is that 80 per cent. of it is spent on equipment and only 20 per cent. on their massive manpower.
New systems come in, and they take a long time to develop. We really must put more effort into standardisation. Here I should like to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton. It is deplorable—and I echo his much greater knowledge—that in 25 years we have made so little progress towards standardisation. I believe that there are now some signs of standardisation, but it is deplorably thin and they are deplorably few. I say that where you cannot get standardisation and where we cannot afford to develop our own systems or our own weapons, then we have no alternative but to do a horse-trading job. We have to say to the French, "If you will sell this to us, we will be prepared to sell that to you". This we did with Exocet. My noble friend was keen on offset agreements, and in fact negotiated a general agreement with France on this weapon. We are to spend £150 million on this French missile. We have been paying for the majority of the development, and now of course the French are competing with us in its sale all over the world. No doubt it is an admirable missile, but where is the offset? What has France bought from us?
This is something about which I very much hope the noble Lord is going to reply. I have warned him in a note that I was going to raise this subject. Can he tell us,
304
when he replies, what France has bought from us to offset the £150 million we are spending with France for Exocet? We are told now that we are going to buy another French missile, the Milan—again, if we can get the right terms. May I suggest to the Government that the right terms are that the French honour the agreement first on Exocet, and then the Government make another watertight agreement that the French must buy some equipment from us if we are going to buy this from them.
Perhaps we can also ask France, while we are discussing these things with them, why they have not joined the Eurogroup. Officially they are not members of NATO. We get co-operation on exercises, I am glad to say. When you ask the French why they are not members of Eurogroup, why they cannot work towards the standardisation of general weapon systems, they tell us that it is because this is still dominated by the USA. This is barking the song which de Gaulle sang for so long. I really think that they should change their tune, or their excuse, because clearly the Eurogroup is not dominated by the USA.
I should have liked to say a word on reserves, but it has been so well covered by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, that I would want to add only one point to those that he and others made so ably. Here I speak having four sons, one of whom is a 22-year-old Territorial, and you could not have a more dedicated and more enthusiastic form of young service. The Territorials are prepared to go one weekend in every three, or sometimes one weekend in every two, at very little cost to our nation, to dedicate themselves to a rigid and rugged training. This is surely the best way not only to engage our young people in challenging experiences but to form ourselves a useful, very economic, and very worthwhile reserve. I would merely add that to the views of other noble Lords.
Lastly, I turn to a plea for all-Party interest and support on defence. I have spoken in every defence debate over 26 years, and I think in the majority of them I have believed that if we are to have an adequate defence for our nation, and people well informed in both Houses to discuss defence, we ought to have an all-Party approach. I welcome the initiative and the approach by the noble Lord,

305
Lord Shinwell. If at his age I am half as good as he is I shall be delighted by my performance.
If I have one criticism of the Minister for Defence, it is that I do not think I have ever read a more personalised speech than he made when he was introducing these Estimates on 3st March. I ringed round the number of times "I" or "My" appeared in the first three colums, and after that I rather lost courage. "I" appeared 32 times in three columns If he keeps up that average for the rest of the speech, there will be 270 uses of the personal pronoun.
I would remind the Government that this is not "my programme" or "my defence". It is the defence of the nation approved by the Cabinet of the day, backed by the Government of the day and, I hope, approved, although I have strong criticisms, by the nation. A little less of the personal pronoun and a little more of the "we" would be more appropriate. That brings me back to the thought that it is we who should try to inform ourselves; we should try to form an all-Party group. I should like to see our study group broadened to take in Members of the House of Commons, because the closer the two Houses work together on matters of national interest the better it will be for the safety of our nation.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am pleased to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, because for many years, I think for the same number of years, he and I took part in the debates in the other place. I found it rather easier to speak in the other House because possibly there were not quite so many knowledgeable people, those with personal experience, as there are in this House. I support what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, said about the Gurkhas; as he knows, I have been working with them and for them. In fact, they actually saved my life in the Far East.
have taken a great interest in their welfare and, particularly as he has been the only speaker to refer to them, I wish to support his remarks.
I would also mention the fact that we have two new Ministers, one for the
306
Royal Navy and one for the Royal Air Force, and I hope that they will be willing to fight for their Departments. They have two main tasks, one to see that the men arid women in their Services are given the tools with which to do the job they are supposed to do, and the other to see that their individual welfare is considered. I wish also to congratulate the chairman of the Expenditure Committee on the Second Report of 29th January of this year. It would be interesting if the all-Party group could read that document and go through it thoroughly because it contains some valuable recommendations; it would, of course, take too long to discuss them now.
If I were a Victorian lady I probably would, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and several others, have taken the smelling salts from my handbag, because their descriptions were so realistic and brought so clearly to mind the incidents they were describing. More people should have knowledge of what has been said in this debate, and I hope that some of the speeches will be widely reported. I was brought up to believe that peace depends on the balance of power. However, we seem once again to be in a 934 situation. It is astonishing that President Ford should suddenly have authorised 60 Minuteman missiles. Is this just election fright, or has he given up any idea of détente?
In the House of Commons on 3st March—it was reported at col. 33 of Hansard—the Minister for Defence boasted I think about the amount he had cut back, but as Lord Orr-Ewing mentioned the figures I will not repeat them. The noble Lord was perfectly right, and only yesterday, when we were talking about the social services, I suggested that we might delay the Community Land Act, which would give us another £400 million a year, and that we should seek to achieve the really necessary priorities. In that debate in another place the Minister went on to say:
"We commit almost the whole of our combat forces to the—[NATO] Alliance, and…a large tactical air force…in West Germany—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/76, col. 332.]
I suggest that the Russian bear could squeeze that force at any time, and as even the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned, one cannot have much faith in the

307
forces of Italy and France, with their tendency to have Communist Parties. It was also stated in that debate in the other place, at col. 333:
"Above all, we ensure that we can always maintain the security and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom…"
After all we have heard today, how can we do that? The Russians could march into Europe and in my view the European forces would collapse, as they did in 94 and 939.
I am saying this because I have served for many years on the Western European Union, and even there—it is a minor body compared with the NATO staff and so on —one has been unable to get any form of agreement in this respect. Lord Harding mentioned standardisation. When I mentioned it in Paris all that got from M. Debré, the then Minister, were some rather rude remarks; there was no chance of even discussing it or getting a proper paper on it. Brigadier Close and General Steinhoff have stated that with conventional weapons the Russians could reach the Rhine in two days and that the United States would hesitate for fear of starting a nuclear war.
We are told that this has been a most extensive Review, the most thorough in peacetime, and that it will give us the security we need. I am afraid that I cannot agree with what was stated in the other place. It seems to me that in the very near future we shall have to decide whether we agree to have an adequate defence force or resign ourselves to being, perhaps by the year 2000, a State in Europe of the USSR. In my view it is absolutely necessary to be independent. With Her Majesty the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth—and, despite all the difficulties, the Commonwealth States have remained independent with democratic Governments suitable to their countries—if we were to sink, then all those countries would sink, too. And we know that the tentacles of Russia are already in Africa. Only recently Malaysia was having trouble again, in the Kuala Lumpur area; this all happened in Malaysia before 958. We have these happenings in at least two continents and in Europe.
I would like to comment on the Roya Navy because it is rather sad to think that
308
we now have the smallest Navy since 895. When I was the MP for the Devonport area Sir Harold Wilson came down and promised us, as far back as the 'sixties, that we should have a larger Navy. In fact now, 20 years later, its ships have fallen in number from 772 to 266. Reference is made in the White Paper to the building of H.M.S. "Exeter," "Newcastle", "Glasgow" and "Coventry", and it is said that these will make an important contribution to NATO. I should like to know how far these vessels are in progress of building. As they are counted as a contribution to NATO, we should be told in what state of building they are.
We have now been asked by Iran to lease to them a hydrographic survey ship. Will this request be accepted? These ships are not being used, as we know from a previous debate, and we want more friends in the world. Surely this would be a very useful exercise for these ships. It is reported that the Brazilian Navy wants to buy the "o" class submarines. If this is true, how many do they want, and will we sell them? The Brazilians are very friendly with us and we have recently had some of their ships in Britain. In Devonport one of their commanders presented the workers with a plaque to express his thanks while he was learning there.
I come to the question of frigates. These are excellent ships, but are they the right ships for the cod war? I have seen the damage done to them. Their tinplate, if I may so term it, is, I suggest, too thin. We want a ship of the Belfast type; not as big, but of that type. Frigates are not made for that type of work, and certainly they are not made to be hit in that manner; they cannot stand it. What is the cost of repairing them and, of course, H.M.S. "Achilles"?
As I see my Leader sitting on the Front Bench, perhaps I should say a little "hurrah" for H.M.S. "Ark Royal". We had a terrific struggle to save this ship and she is doing her job well. During one Recess I remember sending a telegram to the then Minister, Mr. Healey, asking what was to happen about this ship, for several hundred people were going on her in the morning not knowing whether they were to lose their jobs in the evening. I asked for a reply by two o'clock because

309
I wanted to go out. The telegram came at .59: it said, "No decision, no cows are sacred. "I did not feel that that was exactly the way to refer to an excellent ship and I felt that it implied an unfortunate attitude in the Government of that time.
I should like just to mention the dockyards which have also not been mentioned and which of course appear in the Defence Review. A very interesting experiment has been made with the first and largest aluminium mould to be built anywhere in this country. It was completed in the new fabrication bay at Devonport. This is the laying up of the glass reinforced plastic for the hull of HMS "Brecon" and from this mould, which was designed by the Ministry of Defence and has been specially built and was to be finished at Woolston, Southampton, by the Vosper Thorneycroft Works, is to come the first of the new class of mine counter-measures. I hope that these will continue. These ships will be about 450 tons and 200 ft. long.
A further point in regard to the dockyards is that noble Lords may be interested to hear, as I am the only woman speaking in this debate, that the girl apprentice scheme is going well. One of these apprentices has now been on sea trials, engaged in work on water displacement, fuel system, domestic system, water boiler room and laundry compartment. Another was sent the other day to the Royal Marine barracks to put the electricity right.
We have competitions in all these dockyards and I believe that that has proved to be a success. I am glad that Mr. Chatten has been made the Assistant Chief Dockyard Executive and that there is to be a separate vote in future so that we can really keep an eye on what is happening there. I believe that that will be very beneficial. I should like to know what has happened about the Wages for the Workers pilot scheme which was started in Chatham. We want to know whether it is going to be satisfactory so that it will be able to be extended to the other yards. What is to be the present pay policy?—because, if it is a success in Chatham, I gather that it may be over the Government's future norm.
The Expenditure Committee recommended that Ministers should start planning the closure of one of the four United
310
Kingdom dockyards and suggested that in determining the location of major new dockyard facilities they should try to ensure that nothing was done to prejudice that objective. Then there was the Dockyard Trading Fund which was to have been established in April 974. I should like to know what has happened to that. Another point which the Minister can perhaps answer relates to the Seebohm Report. This Committee was set up to deal with the welfare of the Services, particularly the Navy, and it was stated that a report would be published shortly. I do not know whether anybody has yet been appointed to run naval welfare but I should like to see a report shortly.
I have two small points to end with: the first might be described by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, as a woman's point—in other words, Women's Institute. I notice in the Report of the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee dealing with Hong Kong—and I should like to suggest here that we ought to be very grateful to the Hong Kong Government for contributing towards defence—it said:
"We are satisfied that, although some individuals and families may not be adequately briefed,"—
those are the ones going to Hong Kong—
"the need for this preparation is well understood and all reasonable efforts are made to prepare servicemen and their families for their life in Hong Kong. We believe that the time and effort devoted to this problem before departure and locally after arrival on station is most valuable and we recommend that arrangements for dealing with this…".
I could perfectly well undertake that through the Women's Corona Society. We do a great deal of it at the present time for people going overseas and, if the noble Lord would like to get in touch with me, as president of the organisation, I should be willing to do this, which would save him some expense.
Finally, I should like to return to the question of the spirit of détente. I believe that the Western nations have made far too many concessions in their negotiations. The Soviets have violated the SALT treaties by stating that they are loosely formed and ambiguously worded. This suggests a need for a thorough reappraisal of the Western techniques of negotiation with Moscow. The Russians concentrate on the letter

311
rather than the spirit, whereas we may perhaps concentrate too much on the spirit. Any agreement should be judged on its merits and not, as in the past, on its supposed contribution to an elusive spirit of détente. This seems to be the only way in which the West can avoid dangerous self-deception in its dealings with Moscow which could undermine Western security and freedom from within.
8.7 p.m.
Lord ASHBOURNE: My Lords, over the last few years, I have taken a modest part in our defence debates. have limited my contributions to the maritime aspects of defence and more recently I have concentrated my remarks on the increasing activities of Russian naval forces in the Indian Ocean and their threat to our oil supplies from the Gulf. This increase in activity has continued unabated and, indeed, it has been speeded up with the reopening of the Suez Canal and the establishment of fuelling and communication basis in Socotra, Mauritius and elsewhere. The recent additions to Russia's already large field of nuclear submarines and the coming into service of the "Kiev", her first aircraft carrier, have markedly raised the tempo of this activity. Here, let us take note of the fact that, whatever we may think, the Russians and the Americans still have a use for aircraft carriers. While Russian expansion has been continuing, we have been reducing the size of our fleet and cutting down our bases around the world until now our only naval base abroad is Gibraltar and our fleet is, according to calculations by the Press—which I have no reason to doubt—the smallest it has been since 1895.
The naval base situation abroad has been slightly eased by the decision of the Americans to build up facilities on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. This island, which is about 1,000 miles from anywhere, is well placed to support maritime forces in the area and, therefore, to a limited extent, to guard our substantial trade with Australia and New Zealand and all the rubber and tin that comes to us from Malaya. Despite our prospects of North Sea oil, we still have substantial trade passing through the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean and, apart from our own very modest fleet, now concentrated in the North Atlantic, we have few, if any,
312
ships to defend it. It is no use our thinking that we can rebuild our fleet when we are once more under threat. The next war will have to be fought with the fleet which we have today. It takes five years to build new ships and to recruit and train new crews. We must have numbers as well as quality in our ships, for a ship can only be in one place at a time.
I do not want to pursue the previous arguments regarding the inadequate size of our fleet, for they have borne little or no fruit in the past and I doubt whether they would bear any now if I raised the matter this evening. Instead, I should like to refer to two matters which have been well aired in the Press recently. One is the fighting quality of our ships. It is alleged—I believe with some reason—that too much attention and, thus, too much weight and space is being paid to habitability and comfort in our ships. We have always, I think rightly, designed our ships to keep the seas for long periods in all weathers, but here I think a balance must be struck, and I believe there is now a danger of our putting too much into habitability and too little into fighting qualities.
In what I am now saying, my Lords, I do not want for one moment to criticise the professional ability of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors; far from it. Over the years I have known and had close friends among their ranks, and I have the highest regard for their skill and their achievements. But though our ships have always had a high reputation for battle worthiness, there have of course been exceptions. One's mind turns at once to our battle cruisers at Jutland, three of which, the "Queen Mary", the "Indefatigable", and the "Invincible", were sunk by the Germans with no more than five shells each. Compare this with the German battle cruiser "Seydlitz", which in the same action was hit by 2 large calibre shells, took on board over 5,000 tons of water, and though the water was up to her fo'c'sle and she was drawing 42 ft., she got back into harbour and, indeed, into dock. Twenty five years later off Iceland the "Hood", which admittedly was then over 20 years old, was sunk by two or three salvoes from the "Bismarck", and the "Prince of Wales", which was a brand new ship but not fully worked up, was put out of action by not many more. "Bismarck", on the other

313
hand, took innumerable shells, and at least eight, and possibly 2 torpedoes before she finally succumbed.
One can think of other examples, but those are sufficient, I think, to demonstrate my point. I cannot, my Lords, pretend to have any great knowledge or experience of ships in our fleet of today, but I have seen and heard enough to have some doubts as to the fighting qualities of some of them. I believe, in fact, that this is a matter that should be watched carefully.
The only other point I want to touch on this evening concerns the protection of our North Sea oil installations and pipelines. I have spoken about this before, but it seems to me to be a matter of such enormous importance that I make no apology for referring to it again. This is a matter that is occasionally referred to in the Press, but in general terms it seems to be regarded as a problem for civilian guards and policing, and although this is of course very important, I myself am much more anxious about attack by naval and air forces in times of war or strained relations. I do not know the details of the technique of protecting our North Sea oil, but I have little doubt that it presents a formidable problem which I should imagine is best taken care of by the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps it is, and if so, I shall be reasonably happy. Nevertheless, I am disturbed to think that Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the plans put forward in the White Paper. To me it looks as if there are too many gaps in our defences.
8.4 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I am equally dismayed at the run down in our naval forces. For 400 years our traditional role has been as the guardian of the oceans. When I was a young man doing my economics, I remember that it was Adam Smith who said that the first duty of Government was to protect the State from external enemies. But when we look at the White Paper we must decide whether the Government are upholding this duty. I have always taken the view that defence expenditure must come before any other public expenditure. No matter how
314
many free teeth are provided, how much cheap or subsidised food there is, or what is spent on housing, health or education, if the State is destroyed by force of arms all the free "everythings" go for naught. Therefore there comes a point when the nation must start to choose a few guns and forget about the surfeit of butter.
I realise the difficulty which the Government and the Minister of Defence are in. As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, the Government have their Marxist Left-Wing, but I am sure that the Secretary of State for Defence is a patriotic individual and therefore he lutist be a rather unhappy man. Irrespective of the Marxist Wing of the Labour Party, it is, repeat, the first duty of Government to protect the State against its external enemies. We were told that last year's defence cuts were the rock bottom, but now we have to stomach the present cuts.
The Minister for Defence has been ingenious. By letting the main body of cuts fall on the support services rather than on the front line forces, he is trying to have his cake and eat it, but that is a very difficult thing to do. However, he has made the best of a bad policy. In a short, conventional war of a week, a nation might get by, despite cutting its defence support forces, but in any protracted hostilities that would be quite impossible, as anyone who has been in the Services—as I have been, although only for a comparatively short time—knows. Without adequate support services, front line troops will soon run out of the essentials needed to keep them fighting.
My noble friend Lord Newall is just back from Germany after visiting the British Army of the Rhine, and I was rather concerned to hear him say that some of our equipment there is out of date. I thought that our equipment was excellent, though I do not have first hand knowledge of that matter. If only NATO could standardise—we have heard much about this in the debate—then the plan of the Minister of Defence to cut support services might have some credibility. We could then use the support services of our NATO allies. But to cut support service at present must weaken our contribution to NATO.

315
I have often heard arguments—I think we have heard them today—to the effect that we are providing more of our GNP to the Forces in NATO than are other members of the Alliance. But perhaps we have forgotten that our GNP, for instance, is not, despite our large population, as great as that of France, which has a smaller population. In fact, France is spending more on her forces than we are; so is Germany, as we have heard today. It is completely irrelevant to talk about what proportion of the GNP a country is spending on its forces, because all the enemy is interested in is how effective are those forces, and he is not concerned with what proportion of the GNP is spent on defence.
I fear that any weakening in the conventional forces of NATO must increase the likelihood of a nuclear war. This may have been said many times today, but I personally do not think that there is any question of Russia attacking the Central Front in Europe. To start with, I think she is far too wise. She has no need to; and she has, as we have heard today, such vast numerical superiority. I do not think she has superiority in quality, but I believe her quality is improving. But suppose the Warsaw Pact forces did overrun Western Europe in a lightning war owing to any weakness in NATO. The West would then be faced with the alternatives of either succumbing or of using tactical nuclear weapons, leading into strategic nuclear weapons; and the result is too horrible to contemplate. But, my Lords, Russia, as I have already said, has no need to attack the West in Europe. She can, I think, get everything she wants, or she thinks she can, by operating in other spheres and by other means. After all, you do not attack your enemy at his strongest point, and, of course, NATO in Europe is the strongest point of the West, certainly so far as conventional weapons and tactical nuclear weapons are concerned.
My Lords, what I deplore (and my noble friend behind me said something about this) is the withdrawal of our forces from all over the world—from the Far East, from the Indian Ocean, from the Mediterranean; to all intents and purposes, apart from Hong Kong, from every global sphere. It is no good bolting the front
316
door if you leave the back door open. We forget that Western Europe is dependent for the majority, anyway, of the imports essential to keep the wheels of industry turning, upon South and Central Africa. It is surprising that the White Paper does not mention Africa at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that it was irresponsible to think that we could defend anywhere outside Europe, and he mentioned Africa, I think. With all due respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I would say that I think the noble Lord himself was rather irresponsible in making that remark. As I say, the only time the White Paper mentions Africa is when it mentions the ending of the Simonstown Agreement, which I think is absolutely mad. It also mentions (and this seems equally mad) the provision of a 50-bed field hospital in Somalia. What on earth can that be for? I suppose it is to succour Russian mercenaries. It really does seem extraordinary.
There is no mention of Angola in the White Paper, although we have had it mentioned in this debate. Angola is one of the richest mineral areas of Africa. It has been conquered by a Soviet satellite, armed, equipped and instructed by Russia. It could be said that it has been a remarkable military operation if the very long lines of communication are taken into consideration. But, my Lords, why did the Russians go there? Mr. Brezhnev, in a speech the other day when speaking about détente, said that he did not consider that détente inhibited the Soviet from aiding any liberation movements. But, my Lords, you had black rule in Angola; you had no colonial problem. Why did they go there? They chose the smallest Party there, the MPLA. Of course, the whole answer why they went there is, first, to get control of a rich country and, secondly,eventually to expand their influence throughout the whole of Southern and Central Africa. Mr. Brezhnev's idea of helping liberation movements is, of course, to help only those movements that the Soviet can bend to their own advantage and for their own purposes.
My Lords, what is the West going to do about this? We cannot rely on Dr. Kissinger, evidently, because, to judge by his speech in Lusaka the other day, he

317
appears rather on the side of Communist influence in Africa. The Americans appear to have very little interest in Africa. They used to have an interest in it (rather, I must say, to our detriment) but they appear to have very little interest there now. I do not know what the West can do; but what they need not have done is to end the Simonstown Agreement. Russia, with her vast forces, will blackmail or subvert any moderate leaders in Africa and make them go along her course, and eventually any European leaders will he overthrown if they do not get help from outside. But I should point out that if this happens the Free World will be denied 50 to 75 per cent. of the raw materials which are necessary to keep the wheels of industry turning—copper, cobalt, chrome, platinum and vanadium, which is used for hardening steel, 85 per cent. of the world's diamonds and 65 per cent. of the gold. What will the West do then? She will have to accept Russia's terms. She will have to accept them economically and politically if she wishes these raw materials for her industry.
My Lords, I will not go on about this, but I should like to know whether Her Majesty's Government are going to bring this before NATO or whether they are going to consult with America. What are we going to do about this? The whole of the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean appear to be completely undefended from the point of view of the West, and if we get cut off from those raw materials the unemployment in this country, which is now bad enough, will become absolutely unbearable—3 million, 4 million or 5 million. It could destroy the whole economy of this country. I therefore urge the Government, especially where our naval forces and our air forces are concerned, not to deplete them any further and at the first opportunity to increase them. For instance, the 25 per cent. cut in Nimrod, used on anti-submarine work, is irresponsible. I really think this is absolutely irresponsible. I am very pessimistic about the whole position, and I must say that I find it very hard to welcome the White Paper on the Defence Estimates.
8.30 p.m.
Lord WESTBURY: My Lords, I had the honour last week to be part of
318
an all-Party Parliamentary delegation to visit our armed forces in Germany with my noble friends Lord Newall and Lord Dormer. The former having said most of what I wanted to say, I can cut my speech. We visited the RAF at GÜtersloh, the th Armoured Brigade at Minden and also the Joint British Headquarters at Rheindahlen. There is no doubt that the morale and standard of efficiency of all ranks is very high and, slowly but surely, their accommodation in barracks and married quarters is being improved. We were told by the High Command that aeroplanes, tanks and armoured fighting vehicles were as good as, if not better than, those of the Warsaw Pact. Our Lightning aircraft are being replaced by the Harrier, a more up-to-date aircraft, and we were told also that in an emergency spares for all arms would he available immediately.
But for day-to-day training and maintenance, spares are in very short supply. There is not enough petrol for aeroplanes and vehicles to be used properly for training. The petrol ration is 300 miles per vehicle a year, and there is not enough ammunition for our airmen and soldiers to use to be trained to the proficiency and high standard that is required. Our commitment in Northern Ireland is a permanent drain on our army, one infantry battalion or armoured regiment in every brigade being permanently away in Northern Ireland on a four-months' tour of duty. This means that our land forces are always under strength and, therefore, I believe we are not honouring our NATO agreement.
My Lords, I believe it is wrong, utterly wrong, of Her Majesty's Government to allow our armed forces in the field to be faced by an ever growing threat, without the maximum support of up-to-date arms and equipment to give complete confidence to our small but highly efficient army and air force in guarding the safety of the United Kingdom and our NATO allies in the event of war.
8.33 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords I should like, as a sailor, to begin by paying my tribute to the late noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein He was one of those few people who seemed to understand the

319
potentiality of sea power, and for that I am very grateful to him and was grateful in the early days when I had occasion to address your Lordships when I joined this House. One could always rely on him to say all the right things. Often there were others who did not.
I should like to start by congratulating the Government. They have not had many congratulations, so perhaps it would be kind to give them one. It is a bit of a back-handed compliment, but on the whole I think that this document, which could be described as an account of the stewardship of the Secretary of State for Defence, is a very good one. What it has in it leaves much to be desired, but the way in which it is laid out, the clarity with which the views are expressed—whether or not one agrees with them—are excellent.
I would ask the Government whether they would consider inviting the other Secretaries of State responsible for major Departments of State to produce annual reports of their stewardship on similar lines. I think it would give a very good basis for discussion and, possibly, a good basis for probing what the Government do with their other money in the same detail as we have to bother with the money of defence.
While dealing with the report itself, there are one or two points that I should like to make. One is a suggestion. Perhaps I may ask the Government if, when reporting the activities of the units of the forces involved (as they do at page 46) they could consider describing those units in the same detail as they have in paragraph 60 and not in the anonymous way in which they have described them in paragraph 58 on page 45. I would suggest that the mentioning of ships by name will perhaps be of value to the morale of the forces and perhaps also give more of a sense of reality to the report as a whole rather than just to say, as in paragraph 58, "A Royal Navy frigate and two infantry companies". Where do the two infantry companies come from? The report speaks of "detachments of Harriers and Pumas". What squadrons were they detached from? I think there could be in the Chapter II heading a great deal more about the detail; and it need not necessarily be in the operational sector only. One could
320
expand it on the same lines in the exercise sector and others.
That gives me the contrast between paragraph 60 and paragraph 58. There are other contrasts. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing mentioned the Nimrod. One finds on page 55, in paragraph 23 a, that the Nimrod is so splendid that it is going through a long period of modernisation. One finds in paragraph 64, on page 25, that the Nimrod strength is being reduced. It seems to me that if you have a good weapon of war, it is not entirely wise to reduce the capability of operating it.
We now come really to the nub of the matter on which many noble Lords have spoken; that is the contrast between paragraph 2 at the beginning of Chapter I and the immediately succeeding paragraphs after it, and paragraph 6 in Chapter I and the immediately succeeding paragraphs after it. Paragraph 2 talks about détente and the hopes of, if I might so put it, the unrealistic members of the Government; and paragraph 6 tells us of the threat as it really is. I will not delay your Lordships by going into the details of that because so many noble Lords have done so, including, in particular, my own Leader, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Both spoke—and it was interesting to me—about the confirmation of the concern that one may feel about our adversaries, to put it mildly, which is so endorsed by Solzhenitsyn. Whether one likes what he said, it really does bear thought and it bears thought for the Government.
The real point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who said, "Well, that is the form. What to do? "In fact, noble Lords on the whole have not been able to come up with what to do, or so I thought while I was thinking of what I was going to say to your Lordships, until I heard my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing who did show you what to do; because, surely, the problem is—and this is the overall consideration as put to us by the noble Lord the Leader of the House in his opening speech—that we must lick inflation. But in licking inflation, where should the economies be? The thing which seems to me to have been neglected by the Government is the fact that, certainly in naval forces and, I think in air forces and, I suspect, in military forces, there is one

321
essential difference between them as a Government expenditure and many others; that is—and we have known this for years —it takes from between 0 and 5 years to develop a weapons system. Now it also takes, regrettably, a longer period to build a new ship or a new tank, once you have gone through the development phase. And as for an aeroplane, we know about various aeroplanes which need not be mentioned in detail. So, my Lords, we cannot—as could our ancestors when Napoleon threatened—replace the material of our armed forces at the drop of a hat. This could be done 50 years ago. It could not be done today. Therefore if you do not keep up a steady investment in the material back-up of your fighting forces, when you require them you will not have them and, in the meantime, your potential enemy will not respect you one little bit.
By way of example, my Lords, in Annex D you will find, under the section which relates to ships in refit or building, very few names indeed. Twenty years ago, in similar columns—because in those days the Admiralty used to produce such columns, though I do not think they made them public to the Houses of Parliament then—you would find many ships of all shapes and sizes, from battleships, aircraft carriers, downwards. They thought ships could be put into reserve—I am talking about the early 950s—and brought out whenever the alarm occurred. We have since discovered that this is not practicable. Therefore there is the list of names in the refit column in Annex D. I strongly suggest the Government note the difference and realise that they have to invest. If I may suggest it to the Government, this is what they and their backers in Transport House have been saying to the industrialists of this country. When they get the opportunity they do not seem to exercise it themselves. But the important point is that a major weapons system cannot be produced in under 0 to 5 years. This point is absolutely vital if we are to feel that we are making a proper contribution to NATO. I do not think anybody would disagree that that is what we have to do. If we do not make a proper contribution to NATO, then we will find—as some noble Lords suggested—it will tend to disintegrate. The worst thing that can happen would be if the Americans lost interest, maybe imperceptibly. We are talking
322
about a long period of 0 years. But it could be that if the American "mums" felt the support forces for keeping their sons happy in Europe were not there, they would say, "We want our sons back in the United States. If that means we have to suffer in the wider sense well, so be it." The people who would suffer in the wider sense would be the United Kingdom and our other NATO allies.
So it is a serious point and a question of how do we lick inflation and match this need for producing a continuing backup, whether it be large pieces of equipment or spares, as was mentioned. How are we going to do this? The answer to it is that we can make economies in the area that my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing spelt out in great detail to the Government. And what is more they need to think about this now. There is not much time to put this right.
Finally, my Lords, you may say, "Why are you feeling so urgent about this?" The answer is—and I am sure this has come through to many noble Lords—I do not trust the Russians. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, may say—and I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment—the Russians are not to be trusted. There is every evidence that they should not be trusted, and it is crazy to make your plans on the basis of the early paragraphs of Chapter I of this Statement.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I must first apologise and ask the indulgence of the House for my absence at the beginning of the debate. I can assure you it was only a most pressing engagement which had been of long standing that prevented me from being here and hearing the early speeches. I feel sure many of the aspects that I should have liked to have raised in this debate have been duly covered, and at this late hour it would normally have been an impertinance on my part to keep this House sitting beyond the present time. However, I feel there is such a commitment on the defence forces to Northern Ireland that my own personal experience and knowledge of the situation justifies me in keeping your Lordships here.
May I say at the outset that I believe in the greatness of the United Kingdom as a

323
whole. I believe we must play our part in the world and our part in NATO. If what I say today is local, it is designed to enable this country to play its part in world affairs. I need hardly say after that how much I deplore the defence cuts. Like so many other noble Lords, I feel they are pandering to both a trust of Russia and to the Left of the Government's Party.
This debate gives me a personal opportunity of paying tribute to our Army in Ulster. I see it every day and I never cease to be amazed by their bearing, efficiency and deployment. I want to pay a special tribute tonight because I believe we can enable a relief of the Regular Army to be provided if we support the Ulster Defence Regiment. Therefore, I want to pay special tribute to the Ulster Defence Regiment; so many of my friends are in it and my daughter is in it. They guard us night after night, some of them four or five nights a week, and they have been doing it for year after year after year. I cannot tell you what my admiration for them is. It is a service which has been unrivalled in the history of this country.
Tonight we have been involved in a great debate and have heard some great speeches. But a small matter has arisen in Belfast today and I have to tell this House that the Government's credibility, so far as their intention to win is concerned, has received an enormous blow. There has been speculation in the past week or two about whether the Army were going to be withdrawn from certain areas. This was vigorously denied by the Secretary of State and, indeed, supported by Northern Ireland Command. But the Press got hold of the story and referred to a small post in Lenadoon in West Belfast which was abandoned. After these disclosures, it was then reoccupied at once. This calls very much into question whether the original decision to abandon the post was a military one. Therefore, was the decision to re-occupy a military or political one? It reminds me of the grand old Duke of York. It is not an important military matter, but it is an important political matter because the commitment of our troops in Northern Ireland depends so much on confidence.
I should like to ask the Government what is the ordinary citizen in West Belfast
324
to believe? I think the Government have to come absolutely clean on this matter, because the primary requirement for any Government in a revolutionary situation is consistency. However it starts, it must be consistent. I believe that the Government in Dublin have been consistent: at whatever level they have reacted, they have done so with consistency. If the truth is that the Government intend to decrease the Army's involvement after they have strengthened the Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment, I personally would welcome that with open arms, if that is the decision. I do not know whether that is the decision, but it would be a terrible mistake to say that it is not intended to withdraw from a place, then to withdraw from it and later re-occupy it. This seems to me to be giving a further commitment to our Army which is quite unnecessary.
The past has shown that locally-recruited forces have been much more effective than Army regiments and squadrons which are coming in on tours of duty for four months, or even two years, because the key to all operations in Ulster is intelligence. It would be my guess—and I do not think it is far wrong—that 70 per cent. of the intelligence coming into the Army channels at the present moment is in fact coming in through the UDR. If we wish—and certainly I very much wish—to see some relief given to some of our regulars so that they may be properly committed to their proper task, which is NATO, the Government must decide now to act on what I believe they know in their heart is one of the methods by which the Army can be relieved—that is, to establish at once a full-time regular company of specialists in each battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The reliability of the UDR has been proved to be every bit as good as any other collection of men in the United Kingdom. There are always black sheep in every collection of men numbering up to 0,000; but they have proved themselves. Let the Government show their confidence in these men and establish a full-time company in each battalion.
I should also like the Government to be flexible about that establishment, because I do not think the Army has been quite as flexible as ideally I should have liked. In my county we have a third of the Border. Perhaps we ought to have a bigger

325
establishment of regular full-time UDR people than some battalion up in Belfast. Let us be flexible, but let us start off by meeting that requirement. The equipment of the UDR requires immediate review. When they were formed, they were given a certain amount of civilian equipment. That has served very well, but it requires up-dating. They should get the most efficient equipment that there is, because the better their equipment the more troops they will be able to relieve and the greater will be their effectiveness against the IRA.
I should now like to get down to some fairly nitty-gritty local matters. With unemployment at the present high level in Northern Ireland, it seems to me inconceivable, with the right pay and career structure, that we should not be able to recruit a company per battalion. I was involved in the original formation of the UDR as a member of the Northern Ireland Government, and there was no question about establishing a regular company per battalion. There are full-time members and they are called "consolidated rate men" —known in our lingo as "con-rate men".
Incidentally there is no question of confidence tricksters here, or anything of that sort. When the force was originally formed, the use of the con-rate standard was never on the present idea of possibly having a permanent, established company. The inhibiting factor on the part of the War Office, I believe, has been: "Will the pay structure of somebody who is doing 80 hours' duty in Northern Ireland affect somebody who is doing six hours a day in Plymouth on a con-rate operation in a Territorial battalion?" This must be forgotten: we must be realistic, because the UDR are at war just as much as any regular battalion. I would appeal to the Government to believe that, even if they do not at this moment set up these companies, which I believe would release an enormous number of troops, they must re-examine the pay scales of these particular men and provide each battalion with some structure to command these con-rate men, because such a structure does not exist.
The present battalion structure never envisaged that this was going to happen. The present position is almost ludicrous. A man I know is a con-rate officer, a
326
captain, who works in an operations room 80 hours per week. He is paid 9p per day less than the regular staff-sergeant whom he commands for those 80 hours. That is a ludicrous situation which should be looked at at once. The situation becomes even more curious when we find a con-rate captain on enrolment being paid 23p per day less than somebody on the same basis—a con-rate WOII. It really makes a nonsense of the whole matter. These con-rate people who are operating at the moment, the officers and the warrant officers, are doing it out of patriotism and I could not pay a high enough tribute to them. But even if the pay of the UDR was to be increased enormously—and I am not suggesting it should be increased enormously—these men would still be far cheaper than a regular soldier on the same level. There are no barracks, no travel warrants or educational facilities and no back-up of various kinds. Therefore, they are cheap, which is what we want, and they are terribly effective.
If we did that, I believe that the Ulster Defence Regiment could play a more effective role. I should like to suggest that these people should be trained specialists, because we have the SAS collecting intelligence in a very effective way and their influence is tremendous. We must train these people to be top intelligence people because it is on intelligence that everything is based. I appeal to the Government to take action as urgently as possible, because this is where savings can be made.
I want now to direct attention to what has hit us in Ulster in a very serious way: that is, the decision to close down defence institutions in Northern Ireland. The decision of the Government will have cut 2,200 jobs from Northern Ireland. It is all right to say that Northern Ireland should share its side of the economy measures. I absolutely agree with that; but this would be right only if its side of unemployment was fair in the first place. The facts are that there is no confidence for people to invest from abroad because of the security situation. Therefore, the pick-up which undoubtedly will happen in this country is most unlikely to happen in Northern Ireland, because our factories are closing right and left. Therefore, it should have been only in the direst necessity that the Government should have

327
decided arbitrarily to cut those 2,000 jobs. So far as I know—and there may be one that I do not know about—we now have no military establishment or defence establishment in Northern Ireland which is not totally involved in the maintenance of the forces at present there. So there is no question that the Government have demonstrated that they could withdraw and not be involved in leaving industrial establishments behind them.
It seems to me that this is a direct attack—and I hope that it is not deliberate—which is very foolish, because the first principle of the terrorist is to undermine the belief of the ordinary citizen in the Government's determination to win. It follows from that that the Government must never carry out any action which supports the terrorist in that way. What action could more compel the undermining of confidence than removing every defence establishment, except those involved in the direct maintenance of the troops in Northern Ireland? I say that with great sadness, because since this cut was announced I have been involved with so many level-headed businessmen and trade unionists, and one and all believe that this action has undermined the determination to win.
I shall not ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to give me an answer, but I believe that if he were to whisper into the ears of his colleagues in the other place he would find that they did not greatly disagree with me, because they are very much involved and aware of the problem. I should be very surprised if they were not as dismayed as we all are. But I believe that if the Government pull themselves together and demonstrate an inflexible will to win, and reinforce the UDR as I have described, then the role that can be played by our forces in NATO will be re-established and we shall again be able to hold our heads proudly.
9.2 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, at this stage of the debate, I should like to begin by associating myself with the very fulsome tributes paid throughout to the late Lord Montgomery. As your Lordships will realise, I am a trifle young to have served under him but I did two years' National Service and I read his memoirs,
328
so he is still very fresh in my mind. During this debate we have heard many notable speeches from many noble Lords, not least from the respected Leaders of the Government and the Opposition, and we have heard many comments on the detailed and informative Statement on the Estimates. The 974 Defence Review, and the Statements on the Estimates for both 975 and 976, contained much that was common and, I must admit, much that makes me and many others apprehensive. These three documents are littered with references to thorough reviews, to greater cost-effectiveness, to increases in man-teeth ratios and the like.
While all of us applaud such concepts, many of us in all parts of the House are concerned at the effectiveness of our defence forces and the systems, and I believe there is a limit to what we can ask of these forces. But it seems that the tasks we demand are in no way diminishing. We appreciate that economic factors concern the level of effectiveness of our defence forces, but it appears that over the last three years our forces have become leaner and leaner. Also, it must be apparent that further reductions in defence spending will diminish the credibility and effectiveness of our defences.
The Statement seems to be most interesting when it deals with defence and détente; and we have heard a lot of the word "détente" during the debate. It is also in danger of becoming the great clichéof the 970s. From my earlier French studies, it seems that it means relaxation from military, political and other forms of tension, which is very nice. But this one word was used consistently at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe which, as noble Lords will be aware, published its Final Act last summer. The Government of the United Kingdom played no small part in the proceedings, and we can look forward to a United Kingdom Government continuing the good work next year at the Conference in Belgrade. But at such conferences there is a danger of one or both sides at the negotiations seeking too much or too little from genuine negotiations based on mutual respect and trust.
As some noble Lords will be aware, I and other noble Lords here have the

329
honour of being members of the North Atlantic Assembly. My studies at that Assembly have been directed towards various aspects of détente, but mainly to the free flow of peoples and information between the NATO States and other countries in the West and members of the Warsaw Pact. It seemed to me, and apparently to other noble Lords, that there was a very wide divergence of opinion between the two sides as to what they felt able to do, and what they have done, to reduce suspicion, fear and mistrust over a very wide range of subjects.
For example, the Warsaw Pact members have given only grudging approval to any improvements in the flow of human beings and families across the frontiers of Europe, and there is even less progress in the passage of information both by journalism and by radio. The Warsaw Pact members continually jam some Western broadcasts, and from some simple and reasonably reliable surveys that have been carried out it seems that these broadcasts are the most effective and popular in the countries of the Warsaw Pact. Token gestures have been made to see that Western journalists have been more widely allowed to travel in the East, and that the products of their work have been more widely available. But, clearly, the concepts of what is so-called crude propaganda and what is acceptable differ greatly between the Warsaw Pact members and the NATO members.
Many of us would like to believe that the CSCE has been a success, but it seems that there is still fear and mistrust among members of the Warsaw Pact as to our attitudes and intentions. Thus, while we are delighted to help the cause of détente, its success must ultimately depend on other equally important negotiations. Two of these are the MBFR talks and the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. The Statement that we have had before us this afternoon stresses, rightly, how all these negotiations are interdependent; but for any lasting success to come from any or from all of them, surely one emotion which has to be present is that of respect. Should a potential political adversary lose respect for the capacity and the will of those of us in the West to defend ourselves, then I can see less grounds for optimism than can the Government in
330
their projects for our defence, as outlined in the Statement. While the negotiations that I have mentioned take place from a position of strength, both political and military, I am happy to repeat that we support the concept of détente. It has to be part of an effective parcel of agreements binding all parties together.
While considering the need to negotiate at all levels from positions of strength and respect, the Statement considers the capability of the Warsaw Pact's military forces. There were the rudimentary studies which I noticed that my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal suggested last year to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, whom I am pleased to see in his seat tonight. In his reply the noble Lord was at his most bland, and I am wondering whether the Statement this year is equally bland when it considers détente and then goes on to say that the West must look realistically at all the facts concerning the Warsaw Pact.
After paragraph 6 of the first Chapter there follows what I can only describe as a very chilling list of the new equipment and armaments available to members of the Warsaw Pact. New intercontinental ballistic missiles, new Delta Class submarines with ballistic missiles and improved nuclear-powered conventional submarines are being completed all the time at twice the rate that such submarines and missile carriers are made available to NATO. Equally formidable is the list of new aircraft and new missiles. There is also the reminder that Warsaw Pact ground forces are being provided with new and improved equipment. This, together with the possibility of swift reinforcement overland from Russia and the increased morale and training of the forces required to operate this equipment, must give NATO cause for added respect, if nothing else.
I do not believe that this list of improvements in Warsaw Pact forces or their equipment is so sudden or so critical. I believe that it is simply a gradual, remorseless process. In this debate, the one occasion each year when we can take the close and detailed view of our defence which it is so important to take, I feel that we simply cannot allow the Warsaw Pact to gain an increasing advantage. I believe that Warsaw Pact military improvements, which could leave the

331
forces of NATO and the United Kingdom further and further behind, cannot be allowed to go on unchallenged.
The Statement further details NATO strategy. Many other noble Lords who are more expert in strategic studies than I am have dealt with its effectiveness, but from all the information which can reach us, particularly that contained in the notable talk which was given yesterday by Sir Peter Hill-Norton, the so-called triad of NATO strategy of conventional theatre nuclear weapons, strategic nuclear weapons and conventional forces is, indeed, effective and, we hope, will continue to be so. However, as I have already stressed, the United Kingdom Government must consider that our own forces should he effective as a deterrent and as part of NATO, not merely good value for the money we may care or be able to devote to them.
I do not recommend that we should pour unlimited economic resources into our defence forces. To me, it is a matter of expenditure priorities. For this reason, I welcome the reference in the Statement to the Eurogroup and to the continuing desire to achieve greater standardisation of equipment and training. One of the advantages possessed by the Warsaw Pact members is the complete standardisation and interchangeability of equipment. While we seek a similar degree of standardisation and interchangeability among the NATO forces, seeking is all that we can do. We cannot and must not impose standardisation on our NATO partners. Indeed, standardisation is more likely to be imposed upon us.
The most encouraging part of the Statement that we are considering is that part which deals with Britain's contribution to NATO. In this Statement and in anything to do with defence the Government repeat time after time that NATO is our main defence and that our support for and commitment to it are paramount. The list of improvements in the equipment and forces committed to NATO is most impressive. Perhaps I may be allowed to pick out one item. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, who is to reply to this debate, will remember a memorable visit that we paid three years ago to a Royal Air Force station when we witnessed a Nimrod operation. The one
332
aspect that I am very encouraged by in this section of the report is the improved radio communications to be installed in the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, which will keep these outstanding aircraft in the position of excellence that they occupy at present. I and many more knowledgeable observers of maritime reconnaissance have always been very impressed with the work done by this force, yet we read in paragraph 64 that the Nimrod strength is to be cut, possibly by up to 25 per cent. Indeed, this point was forcefully and eloquently stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. It is very sad. The noble Lord the Leader of the House mentioned that there were to be Sea Kings, but nevertheless many of us would like to see the Sea Kings as a supplement and not just as a substitute.
The Statement took me, and, I dare say, other noble Lords, from the heights of ecstasy in this particular section, down to the depths of gloom in the passage concerning the economic and the financial framework. I noted with interest that our existing commitments were subjected to a close scrutiny and then there seemed to follow a list of the amounts by which defence establishments would be reduced during the years to 980. Many of us are concerned about the elimination of many valuable non-NATO commitments. There seems to be absolutely nothing more to be saved in financial terms which will not gravely weaken our much valued and worthwhile contribution to NATO. I believe that ultimately there will need to be further cuts in public expenditure, and I cannot see that our defences will be able to hear any further financial cuts in their sector without making nonsense of the Statement we have before us today.
I have mentioned briefly some non-NATO commitments and how these were the first to go under the plans detailed in the Statement. I have three questions to put on this: first, can the Government honestly say that the South Atlantic, the Cape route and the Indian Ocean are not as vital to us as our own contribution to NATO naval forces in the North and the East Atlantic? I believe that they are. Secondly, do the Government deny that two-thirds of our oil and at least three-quarters of our raw materials arrive in the United Kingdom, and indeed in Western Europe, via the Cape route?

333
Thirdly, is it absolutely wise to abandon this vast area to the Soviet Navy with the possibility—just the possibility—that the US Navy will keep the route open for our benefit and that of Western Europe? Be that as it may, I must pass on because the hour is late.
I now want to mention briefly the implementation of the expenditure review. Apart from the sums which have been mentioned earlier in the debate—it seems that there are to be reductions of £670 millions or so over four years, which is an impressive reduction—this part contains a depressing list of closures and amalgamations, and I find it rather difficult to understand why the Government feel it imperative to create further unemployment at this time. We heard a most eloquent plea from the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in this regard.
When the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, replies, I shall be glad if he can give some indication of how the estimated figures for recruiting into the armed Services compare with the actual figures, because the estimates which we have before us seem to show that recruiting is very healthy; but we should be glad of confirmation that the latest figures in fact bear out that optimism. It is gratifying to read that in general recruiting is satisfactory, but we should like to have the noble Lord's confirmation that it is indeed so.
Also we read that the defence budget includes some savings in equipment which will not impinge on the effectiveness of our essential contribution to NATO. I hope the Government will heed our warnings and those, albeit more muffled, of our NATO allies, that any further cuts in expenditure can only do just what the Statement wishes us to avoid. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, made this point very well.
I should now like to turn to the more detailed and operational aspects of the Statement as it concerns our combat forces. It seems to me that the Mediterranean is in danger of becoming increasingly under the domination of the Soviet Black Sea fleet and, with the reopened Suez Canal, with their Indian Ocean naval forces. Is it wise, or even compatible with the firm desire not to reduce NATO's overall effectiveness, to
334
withdraw all Royal Naval forces from the Mediterranean? Is it good enough to suggest that our navy will visit the Mediterranean—in the words of the Statement—"from time to time"? Can we expect our allies to cope with the increased Soviet naval presence? Noble Lords will not need me to remind them that in one non-NATO State in the Adriatic, Yugoslavia, President Tito is growing older day by day, and when he retires from the scene I believe it will be a wonderful opportunity for the Soviet Navy to put pressure on Yugoslavia from the Adriatic as well as to obtain superb port facilities there. If Yugoslavia does not give us cause for concern at first, I believe there is an equal risk in Albania. For both these reasons I am very worried that such a withdrawal of our Royal Naval forces from the Mediterranean could throw a serious additional burden on to the shoulders of our allies, or indeed could weaken the effectiveness of NATO on the Southern flank and in the Mediterranean.
Passing on to the other sections of the armed forces, we are told that the Army is committed as to approximately 70 per cent. in equipment and manpower to NATO in the form of BAOR. We have heard about that from other noble Lords this afternoon. Suffice it for me to say that r believe that BAOR—one British Corps, as it is called—is superbly led, superbly trained and equipped, and makes a vital contribution to the defence of the Central Front. It is encouraging that our allies also believe this, and we have a great deal of evidence to show that this is indeed so. The remaining 30 per cent. of the British Army forming the United Kingdom land forces are to be reorganised. It seems they are to be reshuffled, and apparently made responsible for a number of further tasks, including North-East Italy—I am interested to see this—and home defence, but North-East Italy could be very vital in the years to come with regard to Yugoslavia.
My Lords, we are considering the Defence Estimates, NATO force reductions, and the like, whereas there is one theatre which all of us dread, but which our Army regard as just another task. I am referring to Northern Ireland. Earlier this evening the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred to it at great

335
length, but I would just add that I believe this is a foul, nasty and thoroughly regrettable war, fought out in our own towns and cities in the United Kingdom; yet our soldiers remain steadfast and cool day after day, month after month, year after year. If we can take it at this stage of the evening, all of us are allowed on this one day to salute them, and assure them of our good wishes.
My Lords, one other aspect of the defence forces and the operations within the United Kingdom which deserves mention here concerns the search and rescue operations carried out at sea and on land, when the Royal Naval and Royal Air Force helicopters and their crews are available to search for and rescue civilians or Servicemen who are in any difficulty for any reason. I had the opportunity within the last few weeks of observing the last stages of what was unfortunately an unsuccessful mountain rescue, when civilian volunteers, the police and Royal Air Force rescue teams were involved in a joint rescue operation. This was a very impressive display of how the armed forces are able to provide very swiftly a highly skilled and much valued service to the public.
We are all glad to read that part of the Statement concerning the research and development of equipment. Much of what I said about standardisation is relevant here. It is gratifying to read of the various joint development of arms, aircraft and equipment carried out between different members of NATO. In particular, it is encouraging to discover that the maritime version of the Harrier is under full development and the continuing progress of the multi-role combat aircraft is equally encouraging. It seems that there will be a need for the air defence version of the MRCA, and on this version development is progressing well. The improvements to the equipment and communications of Nimrod are equally welcome. I referred to them earlier.
The Statement before us today is very full and highly informative, but there are some issues which are unclear—I will not say they are deliberately blurred—which concern items of equipment or research which are to come under threat of cancellation. Nevertheless, the Government are committed, apparently, to fulfilling
336
all of our NATO duties. As always, we have different priorities and different needs, and given our current economic situation it is interesting to note that among the NATO members, the United Kingdom pays a higher proportion of its financial resources in defence costs; yet in dollar terms during 975 our contribution per head was below that of other Western European nations, except for Belgium and Denmark. It was just on half of that of the United States of America. Of course, it is possible to claim that the United Kingdom cannot afford to do more than it does at present for defence, yet, as I stressed earlier, the Government are committed to a sharp upturn in the economy in order to maintain even the planned, leaner defence force, and should the economic strategy take longer than foreseen, defence is almost bound to suffer. We shall have to ask whether or not our arrangements are effective, not just cost-effective in providing superb value; they may even have a reduced tail in all the terms we have heard expressed by the Government since they came to power, but we must make sure that our defence forces are effective for the job we require them to do.
I am encouraged by the continuing firm commitment to NATO. I know that our allies rely on us to a very great extent. Some of us wish that extra commitments, which we believe to be as vital to the United Kingdom as NATO commitments, could be carried out. The Government believe that such burdens should be borne by others. I do not think this could be termed as flexible planning or as anything else. I think it is a great omission, and it is regrettable. However, there is an encouraging list of improvements in our equipment which we allocate to our NATO forces, and for that we are grateful.
When we come to discuss this Statement or a similar Statement at some time in 977 it is my earnest wish that we shall no longer read of farseeing and throughgoing reviews of our defence forces and of the expenditure incurred on them. After three years of this Government we are coming to the point that the chilling description of Warsaw Pact military strength may well concern us more and more. At present we do have a solid, effective, competent, well-trained, and

337
well-equipped and well-led defence force. Let us see to it that this defence force remains as effective as it has to be to meet any threat that arises, either to us or to our friends and allies, or indeed to any of our interests. If we have to tie our defence effort to our economic effort, then there cannot be any gamble, no mere hope. We have got to provide sufficient forces, in men and in materials and equipment, to maintain the security of our islands; nothing more, nothing less. We shall be watchful. We shall be defensive. We do not seek to impose our power on other nations, but merely to assure our vital needs and our supplies. I hope the Government are going to be able to assure us that they, too, put the same high priority on defence as everyone wants to see.
9.27 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the tone of his closing speech. I am also grateful to him for his usual courtesy in informing me in advance that he was not going to try to reply to the debate, but was going to make his own speech and his own points. I am certain that he will agree with me if I follow the same course; he will not be too displeased with me. To reply to a debate of this size and scope really needs a speech equivalent to that of Comrade Khruschev on a major occasion, or it needs to be concise and short, and I propose to follow the latter course. I propose to follow it by stating my own defence philosophy. Where noble Lords agree with that philosophy I shall mention them; where they disagree—I am disciplined by the shortage of time—I shall write to them giving them answers to various points they have raised.
This is probably the most well-attended and perhaps the best informed defence debate that I have spoken in during the years that I have been in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I say that the scope is so great that I must reply to many points in writing. I will only try to make a coherent reply to the debate as a whole by basing it upon my own views on defence. My views go back a long way, really to the first of our great Puritan soldiers,Cromwell, who said that the good soldier knows for what he fights and loves what he knows.
338
I think this is what all defence policy must be built upon. The good soldier, who is the man in the street, the man in the field, must know what he is fighting for and must love it. We have seen examples in the recent past where the good soldier in the field did not know what on earth he was fighting for, and he therefore failed to perform in the manner which his country expected and which the equipment with which he was supplied should have enabled him to achieve. I believe that we are entering a very interesting transitional phase in this business of knowing for what we fight and deciding whether or not we love it.
My Party, in particular, but I think men of good will in all Parties, have for a number of years been trying to create a better society for all our people to enjoy, and within which they can develop all their gifts. It is on this that so many of us—and I am not speaking purely from a Party point of view but as from all the Parties—have concentrated. What sort of society are we building? Are we building a society which we can love? There have been great arguments, and I do not think that anybody has got round to the point of deciding whether our society, as it is today, is truly loveable. But, after all, we can talk about it, and when we suddenly start comparing it with the alternative it becomes very pleasant indeed.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who pointed out in his opening speech that suddenly out of Russia has come one great voice, Solzhenitsyn, and a number of equally important voices speaking less passionately but more rationally, who have pointed out that this paradise that is supposed to have been created on earth is no paradise at all. It is a hell on earth, and we had better realise it. I have known this for a long time, as I think many noble Lords who have been involved in defence have known about it, but it is going through to the younger generation. They are suddenly realising that Marxism is the greatest "con" trick in the book. This is now reaching the point when young people—I speak from a limited circle, but including my own children—have suddenly realised that they have been "conned" by the Marxists over decades. We spoke about détente, we spoke of Helsinki, and, of

339
course, we must try to reach some modus vivendi with this vast military machine. But suddenly, post Helsinki, the major Russian act is to support the Cubans in their occupation of Angola. It hardly restores people's confidence in Russian intentions. It is therefore true to say that suddenly the people of this country are waking up to the fact that our society, however imperfect, is worth defending, and that, quite simply, it is threatened.
I believe that the really surprising blossoming of my noble friend Lord Shinwell's Defence Study Group in this House is just an indication at this level of this fact. Our meeting yesterday was really the most surprising affair. We managed to fill a large committee room upstairs. I heard echoes of what was said yesterday—and what was said in various visits that other noble Lords have made—already starting to echo through our discussions today. I believe that the first thing that is going to happen is that your Lordships' debates, in which you have always been well-informed, and to which well-informed individuals have contributed, will become increasingly important, will be caught by the Press, and that we shall be able to start to influence public opinion. If we can start influencing public opinion, then we can get the public to pay for the defence that we require.

Let us face it, those of us who believe profoundly in defence have got less than we would like to see in this White Paper, but there has to be compromise. Many of us have a different balance of values, and what we have got is a very good compromise indeed at a time when, in a severe economic crisis, we have had to balance the requirements not only of the defence of our country but the requirements of the people living in it in the area of the essential services which all men of good will have been trying to create over many decades, and in which I think we are succeeding reasonably well, imperfect though they are.
That is really the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who said that he could understand the pacifist view and the Tribune view but not the attitude of the Government. I have done my best to clarify the position, but if darkness still falls I cannot help it. Nothing has been done which has caused us to lessen
340
our support from the critical area, which we have defined as the Central Front. No major project has been axed and the armed forces, alone I think of all the NATO armed forces with the exception of the United States, still have a complete, balanced force of all arms, including a second strike capability. I think that this is of profound importance.
Having talked about the things for which we are willing to fight, we come to the question of will, and this is of absolutely profound importance. Soldiers will fight and nations will tight if they have the will to light. The most surprising and illuminating example of a nation with a will to survive is Israel; 3 million Israelis and X million Arabs around them. They have the will to survive and, by Heavens!, they have survived. I believe that this country has the will to do so, too. Nevertheless, the will—
Lord MOTTISTONE: But have the Government the will to do so, my Lords? Is that where the will is lacking?
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, certainly the Government have the will and the House need have no worry about that. The Government have the will to do so. I was about to say that that will does not grow like grass; it must be cultivated, and I believe that it is cultivated by involving a very large proportion of our people in the total commitment to defence. We are talking about comparatively small armed forces, but in addition we have a very large civil manpower involved in the defence business, either in administration or manufacturing, and all of those individuals have wives and children. In addition, we have what are in fact really quite substantial reserve forces. I believe most strongly that the reserve forces which are available to us are of great importance indeed in this very sensitive area of the will to resist.
It has been said throughout this debate—indeed, it has been the thread running through the debate—that it is the volunteer reservist, giving up his spare time, risking his life in Northern Ireland, who really may be the tap root from which the whole will to defend this country comes. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, spoke on this subject and he has apologised to me for not being in his

341
place for the reply. People have been talking about the cost of the reserve forces being 2 per cent. In fact, it is rather less than that. The T & AVR, which is really the teeth of the reserve forces, costs only about per cent. of the defence budget and the current strength is about 54,000, which represents approximately 75 per cent. of its establishment. We are not up to establishment yet, but I noted that the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, talked about his area and the fact that he could recruit more intensively.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: Yes, tomorrow, my Lords.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a point which I am sure my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will note when he reads our proceedings, because it seems a great pity that if we can get men in a sensitive part of England who are willing to serve in the volunteer forces, we should not tie them down to the fact that we cannot recruit an equal proportion in the Outer Hebrides. It is a question of getting them where we can find them. What we do with them then can be decided.
The Government have in fact started a recruiting campaign and have already received during the past few weeks 2,400 applications for information about the T & AVR. This is only what has come through official channels: clearly, many more inquiries come through friends and over a drink at the pub. To quote from my brief,
"Many requests have been made direct to units and associations."
The noble Viscount can perhaps confirm this. I cannot now say how many new recruits we are likely to end up with, but I am certain that, with this changing attitude, we shall find that recruiting is becoming increasingly easy, not only in this country but in Northern Ireland where the gallantry of the Ulster Defence Regiment has been proved time and again.
One very important principle which was announced in the Defence Review and which noble Lords will welcome is the fact that the T & AVR is to be much more closely integrated with the Regular Army. We are working towards a concept of one
342
army. This, I believe, can only be valuable and helpful.
That concludes my statement of the philosophy of defence and the areas in which it touched on points made by various noble Lords. However, I should like to answer a number of points which were put to me in the debate and which go a little wider than those upon which I have already touched. May I go back to the Ulster Defence Regiment. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raised the question of equipment, and it was also mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough. The present state of play is, as the noble Viscount said, that we are using several types of commercial equipment. This has been useful but it is reaching the end of its life. There is a wide-ranging review taking place in the communications area for the regiment, but I cannot say at this stage when that will be completed. However, it is clearly a most urgent matter and it will not simply be put in the pending tray.
The House has joined the noble Viscount in paying tribute to the Ulster Defence Regiment. I should like to associate myself with that tribute. The regiment has given its services unstintingly and with considerable self-sacrifice, and it has played what it would be no exaggeration to say is an essential part in our overall security operations. We hope to see it play an even more important role. It has been announced in another place that a Working Party is now looking at the forces and resources required to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland, and the use of full-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment on operations is one of the subjects which is being looked at by the Working Party. That is the regular company, as the noble Viscount mentioned. So the noble Viscount has raised a point which is receiving immediate, careful and sympathetic consideration. There is no doubt whatever that, however valuable the training which young soldiers receive in Northern Ireland may be in some areas—and the noble Lord, Lord Newall, has commented on this—it causes a vast amount of disruption. The training programmes of NATO forces as a whole are disrupted and there is "turbulence"—I believe that that is the word—among wives and children. The fewer troops we have in Northern Ireland, the better for the Alliance as a whole.

343
Several speakers, including my noble friend Lord Shinwell, mentioned standardisation, though my noble friend suggested that our salvation could not come from standardisation alone. Nevertheless, I believe that standardisation is something which is close to all our minds. I believe that we, as an Alliance, are moving towards it, though the pace may be excrutiatingly slow. I feel that I may also say that our progress is thanks to the initiative taken by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Secretary of State for Defence, when the famous Euro-dinners were first formed. They developed into the Eurogroup, and are now moving towards a really integrated body of individuals dedicated towards getting standardisation. Real progress is being made. Noble Lords will perhaps remember that the long term thing is "Euro-long" group, when we try to agree to standard tactical solutions of military problems.
Then we have the recently formed European programme group. This is an attempt to create a European defence industry working towards commonality and negotiating with the United States in order to get a two-way street going between the supply of European equipment to the NATO Alliance, which includes the United States, as well as equipment flowing in the opposite direction. This is only just taking off. The first working meeting took place in Rome on 9th April—only a couple of weeks ago. At that meeting, in a determination to make progress, it was decided to prepare a schedule of nations' equipment requirements with a view to identifying potential co-operative projects, and then to set up ad hoc groups on specific subjects. That sounds rather "jargony", but the intentions are right. We regard these as important developments, and we will do all we can to press ahead with them.
Complete standardisation throughout the Alliance on particular items of equipment is obviously very difficult to achieve, but throughout progress has been made through collaborative projects and different countries buying common equipment. When we criticise what is not being done let us also remember what has been done. For example, on the collaborative
344
front there is the multi-role combat aricraft, the FH 70 and SP 70 artillery systems, which are coming into operation within weeks, the Lynx helicopter, and the Milan anti-tank missile. On the sales side the purchase by a number of NATO countries of Olympus marine gas turbines and Sea King helicopters from the United Kingdom, and the F6 aircraft and Sea Sparrow missiles from the United States, helps us to work towards a commonality of equipment and weapons which we all know is necessary if we are to match the Warsaw Pact advantages in this field.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred particularly to the main battle tank, which is perhaps the core to this business of standard equipment. We have been collaborating with the West Germans since 972 on a programme for such a tank to enter service in the late 980s. This is the time scale on which we have to work. It will replace the British Army's Chieftain. Concept studies are being carried out which we hope will lead to a common staff requirement being issued in due course. It sounds like Euro long-term working long-term, but what we are trying to do is get a standard concept.
As noble Lords will have noticed, in the past few months various tests on tank guns and tank ammunition have been going on at Shoeburyness. What is happening is that we are steadily coming together, and although we seem to be making slow progress this is due to the fact that all these main weapon systems take so long to develop. Ten years is the standard unit of time. When we discuss this matter annually it must be realised that although one has not much to offer noble Lords in terms of progress, nevertheless we are all working towards a solution which we all agree is necessary. But we must be patient because we are not alone in charge of what other nations buy.
This brings me, my Lords, to my final point tonight. It is simply this. No one who has any knowledge of the subject expects us to fight the Warsaw Pact forces alone; this is quite clear. We are fighting as a member of an alliance. We are one member of a 5-nation alliance. But I believe that we have a special responsibility, because, as my noble friends who

345
went with me to Brussels learnt, and as we heard yesterday, more is expected from this country by our allies than perhaps we expect from ourselves. Our reputation stands high as a country capable of producing balanced and professional armed forces. Anything we do, any sign of weakening, is much more damaging to the Alliance as a whole than we imagine that it may be. So, my Lords—and this is the last point I have to make—we must realise that people think a great deal more of us than we think of ourselves, and we must therefore behave in the way, and give the leadership, that the Alliance, I am glad to say, still expects of us.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AUSTRALIAN ESTATES COMPANIES BILL
Reported without Amendment.
STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL
Reported without Amendment.

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
Petition against, from the Port of Tyne Authority, withdrawn.
House adjourned at nine minutes before ten o'clock.