Sitting of 1 December 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SCOTTISH TRANSPORT GROUP (CASTLE BAY PIER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRANSPORT

    National Lorry Route
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he is going to announce proposals to establish a national heavy lorry route.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): As soon as we have had time to make up our minds about all the comments.
    Mr. Madden: Is the Minister aware that the inordinate delay in the announcement of the proposals is causing widespread uncertainty, not least to local authorities which, by law, are supposed to submit their own schemes by the beginning of the new year. If this scheme is to be scrapped, as is widely rumoured, may we be told at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. Horam: I am anxious to come to a swift decision, but we have to consider all the points that have been made and, unfortunately, there are conflicting opinions. I am confident that local authorities can make proposals under the Dykes Act which will make a lot of sense. In many ways the best solution is to build up from the bottom by banning lorries from sensitive areas.
    Sir W. Elliott: Is the Minister aware of the terrific problem of heavy lorries
    886
    passing through the urban area of Gateshead—Newcastle—Gosforth? Will he do his best to hasten the decision on the detrunking of the A1 in order to get heavy lorries around this urban area?
    Mr. Horam: Of course I am aware of the problems of heavy lorries in Gateshead. We have made a proposal for detrunking the A1 through Newcastle and Gateshead but the period for objections to the scheme to be heard is still open. Therefore, I cannot say anything about its merits at this stage.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Will the Minister take account of the carriage of dangerous chemicals and liquids when he is considering these problems? In particular, will he think about urging the carriage of this type of freight by rail? If this does not happen, one day we shall wake up to a very serious incident.
    Mr. Horam: I believe that my hon. Friend has a later Question on the Order Paper which may well not be reached today. If it is reached, I have a very comprehensive answer to it. We have approached most large industrial concerns pointing out this situation and urging them to consider it in the disposition of their rail freight traffic.

    British Railways
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Chairman of British Railways.
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of the British Railways Board.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): I met him recently and expect to see him again soon.
    Mr. Ovenden: Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that his next meeting with the Chairman of British Rail is held before the end of the year in order to try to avert the proposed fare increases, which are due to take effect in January? Is he aware that an increase of up to 16 per cent. in rail fares will cause real hardship to rail travellers, undermine the social contract, and do

    887
    long-term damage to the rail industry? Will the Secretary of State consider that an increase in the subsidy to £25 million would halve the level of the increase and therefore be money well spent?
    Mr. Speaker: I feel like telling the Minister to attempt any two out of those five questions.
    Mr. Rodgers: Even then, Mr. Speaker, I might get only one of them right. However, I certainly can give my hon. Friend one assurance—I shall meet the Chairman of British Rail before the end of the year. I must disappoint him on his other questions. It would be quite wrong to mislead the House. These decisions on fares are for British Rail and there is no prospect whatsoever of making further resources available to the railways in the difficult economic time ahead. That should be accepted as a starting point. Of course, there will be hardship, but the decisions must be made on the basis of priorities and the resources involved.
    Mr. Neubert: In view of the recent record of the Greater London Council, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to allow it to have a monopoly of train services in the London area by taking over British Rail would be a calamity, both to the commuter and to the ratepayer? Will he scotch this disastrous idea straight away?
    Mr. Rodgers: No, it is not for me to scotch any particular idea today. The record of the GLC, which has had to cope with some extremely difficult problems, is a great deal better than the hon. Gentleman rather ungenerously suggests. One problem is to get a suitable accommodation among all the various public transport services in London. Co-ordination is difficult. I like to think that progress is being made, although I cannot pretend that it is very fast.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after the last fare increase there was a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of passengers using the route between Glasgow and London? Does he not appreciate that that places a much greater burden on his Department's road budget? Surely it would be better to keep down fares so as to keep passengers using the route to capacity.
    Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the sort of analysis that we have to make. It is wrong to consider any increase in fares in isolation. Whatever may be the experience of the rail service to which my hon. Friend refers, in 1975, for example, when there were increases in fares amounting to 50 per cent., the number of passenger journeys dropped by less than 5 per cent. while revenue increased by £90 million. These are figures that cannot be ignored.
    Mr. Madel: When the Minister meets the Chairman of British Rail, will he assure him that the electrification project for the line from Bedford to St. Pancras will not be postponed as a result of any announcement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make?
    Mr. Rodgers: I cannot possibly give an assurance of that kind on the basis of evidence I do not have.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about public expenditure constraints, does he agree that unnecessary subsidies must be eliminated? As it costs the taxpayer £70 million a year to subsidise rail freight operations, will the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the rail freight subsidy to be eliminated?
    Mr. Rodgers: A more temperate approach to subsidies is desirable. Without substantial subsidies on the passenger side, there would be a much smaller rail network, which would not meet the social need. On the freight side, I have made clear before that there is no good reason why within a period British Rail should not meet the full cost of its freight operation. There has been some improvement. I hope that the subsidy, if it is unnecessary, will be eliminated very soon.
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary or State for Transport if he will set up an inquiry into the efficiency of British Railways.
    Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir.
    Mr. Sainsbury: As we have already heard from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no prospect of further resources being made available to British Rail, and as we have heard from his hon. Friend that the Department is extremely cost conscious, does the right

    889
    hon. Gentleman agree that the taxpayer and the commuter are entitled to some independent judgment of the efficiency with which the resources of British Rail are now being used?
    Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not. The chairman and the Board are appointed and given a job to do. I think that they should be supported more frequently by the House. It is not an easy task. We have a mixed economy, and in those circumstances we should encourage managers, who are often very professional and devoted, to get on with the job. We should not make carping criticisms.
    Mr. Litterick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any judgment of the efficiency of British Rail must be made on a comparative basis? Does he agree that in the first place there should be comparisons with the efficiency of other railway systems throughout the world, none of which manages to make a profit? Secondly—in my view, much more important—does he agree that comparison should be made with the efficiency, or lack of it, of the private motorised freight-carrying system, which is an alleged free —that is, chaotic—market system involving the duplication of resources and immense social and unmeasured costs?
    Mr. Rodgers: I agree that comparisons are relevant, but I take a rather simpler criterion. The management of British Rail must provide the most efficient service that it can to meet economic and social needs. I think that it is tackling the task in the best possible way.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the new Chairman of British Rail, will he put it to him that it would be helpful to Members to be able to see separate accounts for the various British Rail regions, which at present are not readily available? Secondly, will he convey to him the congratulations of the Liberal Bench on the introduction of the high-speed train, which brings a successful service to Bristol and Cardiff, a service that could be taken advantage of by other British Rail regions?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that Mr. Peter Parker will note the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks. I shall mention the hon. Gentleman's first point to the Chairman
    890
    of British Rail. The more information that can be made available, the better. Of course the House wants to discuss these matters, but we must try to allow the management to get on with the job and deal with some of the major problems.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Chairman of British Railways about closing uneconomic sectors of the railway network.
    Mr. William Rodgers: None, Sir.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: May I suggest that when the right hon. Gentleman does meet the Chairman of British Railways he raises this matter with him and asks him whether he holds the view that the present concept of a subsidy for British Rail as opposed to subsidies for individual routes will allow anybody to know which routes are economic and which are not?
    Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not think that that is one of the matters which I should feel justified in discussing with the Chairman of British Rail at present. I know that there are differences of opinion about the best possible system, but there is common ground on both sides, first, that without a passenger subsidy there would be a very small network, which would not meet social needs, and, secondly, that the management must have some discretion within the statutory procedures.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that there is great fear among railway workers generally that not merely uneconomic lines but even economic lines are in danger of being closed down? Will he give an assurance that this will not happen, because there are fears among working people generally that the whole network will be drastically reduced?
    Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend very fairly refers to fears which exist in the industry at all levels. I greatly regret that such fears exist. There must be change in every industry and I greatly hope that railwaymen will be able to arrive at a sense of confidence about the future and will help to provide a service which is efficient and effective and meets

    891
    genuine need without increasing the cost, which would have to be borne on public expenditure.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that, when there are substantially more than 1 million unemployed, we listen to announcements on the loudspeakers at stations of a long list of trains which have been cancelled because of staff shortage? Is not this an extraordinary lack of co-ordination in the national system?
    Mr. Rodgers: That is an extraordinary simplification. The fact that there is a large number of people out of work and that British Railways have a shortage of staff does not mean that those out of work have the required skills or are of the right quality to fill specified vacancies. Although they are losing substantial numbers of men, British Railways are still recruiting as well.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend consider urging the Chairman of British Railways to do something revolutionary⁁that is, to halve the fares and thus attract back to the railways those who would greatly like to travel on the railways if only they were able to afford the fares?
    Mr. Rodgers: I greatly wish that I could agree with my hon. Friend that that is how it would work, but, I regret, all the evidence is very much to the contrary. British Railways have carried out a number of experiments and by and large the result has been that more passengers reduce revenue. I have made it clear to the Chairman of British Railways that any reductions that he chooses to make have my blessing but that if, as a result of reductions, there is a loss of revenue, that loss must be carried somewhere else within his budget.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present network is well below the level at which it ought to be and that the execution work done by Lord Beeching will be looked on in retrospect as a national disaster? Is not one way of improving the financial situation of the railways to adopt the suggestion by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) to transfer freight from the roads to the railways?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's expression of opinion about what was done some years ago will be widely shared. I agree that it is desirable that the railways should carry as large a proportion of freight as possible. But there are problems. We must have an efficient system, and there must be a limit to the money made available to it in the form of revenue support. Otherwise, additional costs will fall on both taxpayers and ratepayers.

    Rural Transport
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to improve transport in rural areas.
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to improve rural transport; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Horam: The Government, through transport supplementary grant, are already helping shire counties to provide bus revenue support at an unprecedented level this year. We are soon to begin a series of practical experiments to test various unconventional means of providing transport for people living in country areas. The major problems of rural transport will of course figure largely in the transport policy on which we are now consulting all the interested bodies.
    Mr. MacGregor: Is the Minister aware that, despite the grant, the problems of rural transport are getting more and more difficult? As it is likely to take some time for the results of his experiments to come through, will he consider introducing in this Session a short Bill relaxing licensing restrictions, especially for minibuses, as this would greatly ease flexibility in dealing with rural transport and would help voluntary associations and youth clubs whose use of mini-buses is being restricted?
    Mr. Horam: I accept that the transport problems in rural areas are getting more difficult. We cannot introduce a Bill relaxing licensing laws generally. We are conducting experiments and it is right that we should have some experience before making a general decision. I hope

    893
    that the hon. Gentleman will press his Front Bench colleagues to allow the Bill which we are introducing—which provides for four experimental areas—to make speedy progress. The use of minibuses for voluntary associations may be a suitable subject for a Private Member's Bill, to which I would certainly give sympathetic treatment.
    Mr. John Ellis: Does my hon. Friend accept that the opening of the Humber Bridge will have a major effect on the transport infrastructure on south Humberside? Does he agree that in the short term nothing must be done to alter the pattern until the local authorities have studied the problem of the area as a whole?
    Mr. Horam: I am conscious that we must take into account the Humber Bridge proposal—an excellent proposal on which we are making satisfactory progress—in considering the rural arrangements in my hon. Friend's part of the world.
    Mr. Fry: We have waited two-and-a-half years for these small measures to be brought forward. We hope that we shall not have to wait another two-and-a-half years before measures applying to all rural districts are brought in. Does the Minister agree that, because of the pressure on local government expenditure, which is likely to continue, after that lapse of time there will be precious little public transport left in many rural areas?
    Mr. Horam: As I said, I am anxious to get a move on with this problem, the seriousness of which I fully recognise. We hope to begin the experiment by about Easter, all being well. It depends on the progress of the Bill, which we are anxious to get through quickly.

    Road Building (Employment)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to ensure that all future contracts for road building are designed to provide the maximum number of jobs for the unemployed and to use the minimum quantity of imported machinery and energy.
    Mr. Horam: If the hon. Member has any practical suggestions which would not increase public expenditure or de-
    894
    crease the mileage of roads which can be built I shall gladly consider them.
    Mr. Pardoe: Has the Department made any estimate of the import content of the road building programme and its effect on the balance of payments? Does he accept that a switch to labour-intensive road building would provide substantially more jobs at no extra cost, with no increase in the borrowing requirement and no fewer roads?
    Mr. Horam: We have no information about the import content of machinery used by the road construction industry. I should be reluctant to single out road construction if we did not have more general policies about the import content of machinery. I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about there being no extra cost. Going back to manual methods of constructing roads would be horribly expensive and scarcely in the interests of increased efficiency.
    Mr. Selby: Does the Minister agree that to do what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) suggested would be a form of Ludditism—turning back the clock? Why not extend it to all forms of industry and employ all the unemployed?
    Mr. Horam: I am interested in my hon. Friend's suggestion that the Liberals are associated with the Luddites. That is very apt.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Minister accept that, while contractors are most willing to use the most modern machinery, his Ministry is the worst payer in the business, keeping firms waiting for two years for payment on contracts for road works and motorways? Will he make sure that payment is made more quickly?
    Mr. Horam: The Department is extremely cost conscious. If we have been too mean and too long-winded, I shall look into it. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular instances he can bring to mind, I shall certainly consider them.

    Seat Belts
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward legislation to make the wearing of safety belts compulsory.
    Mr. William Rodgers: I believe that Parliament will eventually endorse the compulsory wearing of seat belts but I cannot at present say when legislation may be possible.
    Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's failure to bring forward an early Bill on this issue is deplorable? More than 1,000 people die each year because of the absence of this legislation. The House knows my right hon. Friend's fine record on this issue. Will he consult his colleagues and urge that a Bill be brought before Parliament within the next few weeks?
    Mr. Rodgers: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern. In the past Session we probably had the worst of all worlds—a Government Bill with a free vote. The right course now is probably a short pause to enable us to devise the best means of ensuring that the next time legislation is presented to Parliament it will pass through all its stages.
    Mr. Carlisle: As the Bill was successfully killed in two consecutive Sessions, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the right course is to encourage the voluntary wearing of seat belts rather than waiting for compulsion?
    Mr. Rodgers: In so far as there is to be a pause, I entirely agree that it is right to encourage the voluntary wearing of seat belts. I have approved a new advertising campaign, which I hope will have that result. Although I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's views on this issue, the House registered its view by an overwhelming majority. I think that in due course that must take effect in legislation.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he now makes of the number of lives that would be saved in the United Kingdom in 12 months if the wearing of seat belts in cars were made compulsory.
    Mr. Horam: About 1,000, if all belts fitted in cars and light vans were worn.
    Mr. Goodhart: If the Minister accepts the improved figures, why do not the Government make more strenuous efforts to get seat belt legislation through the House?
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Member will have heard my right hon. Friend's reply. We intend to make every effort to get the legislation through the House. The situation is well known and I am glad of the hon. Member's support.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: Was it not the House of Lords that struck the seat belts provision out of a road traffic Bill more than 12 months ago? Does not that mean that their Lordships carry a heavy responsibility?
    Mr. Horam: My right hon. Friend is correct.
    Mr. Ford: Has any estimate been made of the number of lives that would have been lost had the wearing of seat belts been compulsory?
    Mr. Horam: Our estimate is that it would have been fractional. The consequences of wearing a seat belt and the likely damage as a result are infinitesimal compared with the advantages of wearing one.

    M1 (Bedfordshire)
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to prohibit heavy vehicles and lorries from using the overtaking lane on the two-lane stretch of the M1 south of Bedfordshire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Horam: Such restrictions have been placed on certain short stretches of two-lane motorway where there are uphill gradients and heavy traffic causing congestion, but I am not convinced at the moment that they would be appropriate on that particular stretch.
    Mr. Madel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the severe congestion on this section of the M1 is getting worse year by year and is made even worse when one lorry slowly passes another? I recognise that at present the Government do not have the wherewithal to construct a third lane, but will they consider this matter again? This section of the M1 will be used more and more as the years pass. Surely the suggestion in the Question would be helpful.
    Mr. Horam: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. We have no evidence yet that lorries, as opposed to the general

    897
    level of traffic, are causing a problem on this section of the M1. If we were to restrict lorries, it would, first, be difficult to enforce the restriction as this is a heavily-used route and it would be hard for the police to operate a restriction on this section of the M1. There is also the problem that lorries might begin to use other and less suitable roads.
    Mr. Ford: I could furnish the Department with the evidence. I could do so if my hon. Friend drove with me down the M1 from the North on a Monday morning. Is my hon. Friend aware of the intense frustration that is caused to private car drivers by lorries using the second avenue on a two-channel roadway? That occurs not only within the stretch mentioned in the Question but on stretches of three-lane motorway that have been restricted to two lanes.
    Mr. Horam: As I have said, I am not unsympathetic on this point, which I shall examine carefully. I am well aware of the problems, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that motorways are meant for lorries as well as cars. If lorries do not go on motorways, they will go on roads that are far less suitable and will thus cause far more annoyance to the general public.

    Cherished Number Plates
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from motor traders regarding the regulations which he proposes to make regarding the transfer of cherished number plates facility.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now seek to regularise the legal basis upon which the transfer of cherished number plates is carried out.
    Mr. Horam: Regulations will be laid before the House very soon. This will establish a proper legal basis and accord with the main thrust of the representations which have been received, namely, that the cherished transfer facility be speedily restored.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is it not the case that the new rules that were announced in a Press release from the Department the other day were forced from the Minister
    898
    by a completely unlawful ban imposed by his Swansea civil servants, a ban that was blatantly political in its intent? Does not the cherished transfer facility directly stimulate sales of higher-quality new cars and, therefore, stimulate jobs? If that is so, why should the new rules utterly destroy the livelihood of those who deal in cherished numbers?
    Mr. Horam: We have had consultations with the trade associations representing those who deal in personalised numbers or cherished marks, whatever one wishes to call them. They have not given us any evidence that they will suffer as a result of the new rules. There will be a change in the nature of their business. They will not carry out so much speculative purchasing of old combine harvesters or mopeds, for example, which have attractive numbers. They will, on the other hand, arrange marriages between, for example, elderly Bentleys and new Rovers. They will give advice and consultancy. They will have a rôle and a job. They have never said that that will not be so. They have played a most constructive part in finalising the new rules. with which everyone is now happy.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is intolerable that he should be led by the nose by the trade unions into promulgating what are not regulations but restrictive practices? Will he return and negotiate again? Better still, will he ask for tenders from the private sector to perform this work much more cheaply and on a more economic basis to meet the needs of the customers?
    Mr. Horam: The rules are specifically designed to protect the bona fide possessor of a cherished mark or personalised number plate. All they do is eradicate certain abuses that have crept into the system over the years.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that a realistic fee will now be paid for this facility? Will he tell the House for how long it has been subsidised by the Department? What is the extent of the subsidy?
    Mr. Horam: At present the fee is £5 plus VAT, which does not cover costs. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government took powers to increase the fee in the Finance Bill this year. Regulations

    899
    subject to affirmative resolution will be laid before the House in due course to raise the fee.
    Mr. Mayhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that, in view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply to Question 16, I shall also seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Non-residential Parking
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many comments he has received on the subject of private non-residential parking; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gristasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many comments he has received on the subject of private non-residential parking; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Over 250 comments were received on the consultation paper and they will be considered in the course of preparing my White Paper on transport policy.
    Mr. Montgomery: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the effect that parking schemes such as this will have on business in city areas such as Manchester?
    Mr. Rodgers: No, not at this stage. It is fair to say that schemes of this sort will have to be judged on merit and on local conditions. Local conditions vary immensely. That is why the responses to the consultation paper have shown a fair range of differences.
    Mr. Grist: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those of us who represent city centre constituencies receive a constant stream of criticism not only from those precluded from parking in city centres but from those who live on the fringe of the zones, who receive an undue and unwarranted amount of traffic parking in their streets to which they have not been accustomed? Is not the right answer the provision of proper parking facilities at a reasonably low price?
    Mr. Rodgers: The issue is a good deal more complex than that, as I think the hon. Gentleman will realise on reflection. It is not only a question of the capacity of the car park but the capacity of the streets. As I have said, there are differences of opinion. I think that Members on both sides of the House have had representations from those representing each side of the argument. For the moment, I have made no decision. The consultations will continue. We shall assess them and reach a decision.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend recall the recommendations contained in the White Paper on Urban Transport Planning published in July 1973 by the Tory Government? That document recommended, with the unanimous support of the House, that parking in city centres be discouraged by various methods.
    Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very timely reminder. There is a large measure of agreement that, unless there is restraint of traffic, and particularly of parking, in city centres, there is no way of ensuring the smooth running of public transport. There are also questions beyond that and they are those that were discussed in the consultation paper.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that what we are opposed to are indiscriminate parking restrictions? Does he agree that any parking scheme must recognise the legitimate rights of the business traveller and special groups such as the handicapped, for whom transport is not a luxury but a necessity?
    Mr. Rodgers: If the question is put like that, the answer is "Yes".

    Moorgate—Bedford (Electrification Scheme)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish his evaluation of the £80 million capital investment in the Moorgate to Bedford electrification scheme.
    Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir. That would be contrary to general practice based on questions of confidentiality.
    Mr. Spearing: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the criteria for evaluation were set out in House of Commons Paper 269/74 and that, although this investment in the Bedford to Moorgate scheme is welcome, there are many other schemes at much less cost that might take priority within inner London, particularly the dockland area? Would he explain why this evaluation, like many other Government matters, must remain confidential?
    Mr. Rodgers: I have always been in favour of the maximum disclosure by nationalised industries and others to the House and to the public, but there are some matters which inevitably come into an evaluation and which, if the information were freely available, could prejudice the commercial success of the railways to which my hon. Friends, as I am, are devoted.
    Mr. Madel: Is the Secretary of State aware that work on this scheme is due to start in January 1977? Can we have an assurance that work really will begin?
    Mr. Rodgers: I certainly have no reason to believe that it will not.

    Lorry Shipments (Documentation)
    Sir J. Edenasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied that there is no unnecessary documentation hindering the shipment of lorry-carried goods from United Kingdom ports to elsewhere in Europe; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Rodgers: I think so, but if the right hon. Gentleman has a particular point in mind I will gladly consider it.
    Sir J. Eden: I am glad that the Minister thinks so. As that is so, will he give priority attention to the inadequacy of the quota of permits available to British lorries carrying goods to the Continent and also look urgently at the fact that British lorries are barred from arriving on the Continent with full fuel tanks?
    Mr. Rodgers: The answer is "Yes" to both questions.

    Rail and Bus Services
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the discussions
    902
    leading to the integration of policy on rail feeder services and assured bus services.
    Mr. Horam: The discussions are continuing as part of the review of transport policy.
    Mr. Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very great concern that has been caused that other rail services could be replaced by short bus feeders? Does he think that the lines from Wick to Edinburgh and from Oban to Glasgow could be adequately replaced by bus services? What guarantee can he give that such bus services would be assured, as 50 per cent. of all bus service replacements for rail closures in the past decade have been withdrawn?
    Mr. Horam: I am aware of the concern that this proposal has caused. We put this forward as a suggestion for consideration in the light of all the consultations that we are having on the transport document. I am not familiar with all the details of the Oban to Glasgow line, but I can understand them from the way my hon. Friend describes them. I think that we should be careful before substituting a bus service of that kind for a rail service. I am aware that in the past assurances that have been given have in many instances been broken. They would have to be good in future.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State realise that in north Northumberland the National Bus Company seems to take the view that it would rather replace the rail services than provide the feeder bus services to sustain them? Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a general directive to the National Bus Company—after all, it is a nationalised concern—to the effect that it should seek to provide a better service as a matter of policy?
    Mr. Horam: I am interested in that suggestion and will look at it.
    Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the developments taking place on Merseyside with the loop link line and integration with bus services? As an integrated transport policy is Labour Party policy, will my right hon. Friend look at the policy of creating a viable rail network in the area and not create a white elephant?
    Mr. Horam: We are certainly interested in positive suggestions for physically integrating bus and rail services in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. In the course of consultations, many authorities have made such proposals, some of which have been very imaginative. We are anxious to provide services at the lowest possible cost. The alternative is that the services close down altogether. We are not in the business of producing white elephants.
    Mr. Fry: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, although essential services must be assured, there is no argument in favour of heavily subsidising under-utilised routes purely in the call for a dogmatically integrated transport policy?
    Mr. Horam: We are not interested in dogma. The whole point of the consultation process has been to open minds to new and imaginative proposals, and if people such as ourselves as politicians and operators are not sufficiently creative we shall not get an adequate transport policy.

    Greater London
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that sufficient progress is being made towards the optimum allocation of resources for transport, especially within the Greater London area.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Yes, Sir, as far as it is possible to be satisfied in present circumstances.
    Mr. Forman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we shall never get anywhere with this problem without more linkage between the various modes of transport on both services and timetables? Has he considered doing something to that effect or knocking together the heads of the Chairmen of London Transport and British Rail in the London area?
    Mr. Rodgers: This problem has exercised the minds of hon. Members over a period. The GLC, London Transport and British Rail are now getting together. Certainly they will have full encouragement and assistance from my Department.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the bus section of London Transport is probably the largest publicly-owned regional bus section in the country, that it covers the largest area, has immense problems, and provides a not very satisfactory service? Is he prepared to see the chairmen of the LTE and of the relevant committee of the GLC to consider how he can assist them with their grave problems?
    Mr. Rodgers: We all have a good opinion of ourselves in this House. However, I must not overestimate my capacity to do what others have not yet done in the management of the bus service. There are particular and difficult problems in London. We have all complained about them. Nevertheless, those responsible for the management of the bus section are aware of the problems and, with further co-operation, I hope that they will be substantially overcome.
    Mr. Gorst: Is the Secretary of State aware that under regulations to be introduced by the GLC after 4th December there can be no sensible allocation of resources in the London Transport area if commuters coming into London are selectively discriminated against, as they will be if car parking facilities are to be the subject of gross increases in charges and if the GLC is to have the power to restrict parking times so that people commuting into London by car are unable to make use of car parking facilities? If he is not aware of that situation, will he institute an inquiry into the whole matter before the regulations are introduced?
    Mr. Rodgers: The Greater London Council, like any other local authority, works within statutes laid down by the House. We must allow it a measure of local option. Inevitably, decisions made by a local authority of any political colour are bound to be uncongenial to some people. Increases in costs of this kind have to be borne where they fall. There is no prospect of either central Government or local government increasing the subsidy to transport.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the last few years considerable resources have been devoted to bus replacement in London and that there is controversy over that matter

    905
    now? Does he also recall that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and I raised the matter in the House many years ago? Will he now undertake an inquiry inside his Department to see whether his conduct of it in the past has contributed to the problem?
    Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that this problem could be put down to the conduct of my Department, because it has been short-lived. Certainly, if there is anything here which causes concern on both sides of the House and it is within my statutory responsibility, I shall look at it.

    Ports (Ownership)
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to change the ownership of any ports.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Not in this Session.
    Mr. Viggers: Is the Secretary of State aware that very few opportunities occur for the Opposition to congratulate the Government, but that his Department in this sector and the Drought Minister in his have been equally successful? Will he assure the House that he will keep up his present record, because the competition and efficiency of the ports are helped by their varied ownership?
    Mr. Rodgers: If I understand the hon. Gentleman aright, the answer is that I can make no promises.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the only way to keep Preston Docks open is to change their ownership by taking them into public ownership, away from a municipal authority which does not want to keep them open?
    Mr. Rodgers: I know of my hon. Friend's very proper concern, which he has expressed to me. Equally, he knows that I have no powers to exercise in this matter.

    British Railways (Shipping Services)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a general direction to the Chairman of British Railways for British Railways shipping services to be accounted for separately from those of rail services.
    Mr. Horam: British Rail has always been required to show shipping activities separately in its accounts.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that I am disturbed about the increasing numbers of foreign ships which are in use in British ports? Will he ensure that British Railways use their profits to build British ships and to find employment for British seamen, rather than to subsidise foreign lines?
    Mr. Horam: On the whole, the shipping subsidiary of British Railways has performed creditably. At the moment it is making a loss, but the situation is improving.
    The British Railways Board has in the past ordered ships from a Danish yard. I have no information about any future orders in that connection.
    Mr. Forman: Shipping services are shown separately in the accounts of British Railways. Will the hon. Gentleman consider persuading them to show the figures for inner and outer suburban services separately, as it is difficult for people to form an assessment if they do not know the percentage of total cost being met in each case?
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that under the 1968 Act, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), costs were shown separately for individual lines. That policy was cancelled in the 1974 Act, which reallocated funds on a general basis. This is a matter about which I can be sympathetic, but there are genuine practical problems, as I am sure the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) will be the first to agree.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not object to the separate showing of the accounts of British Railways shipping. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that because of that situation there is no interchangeability of tickets between British Railways rail and shipping services? Co-ordination in that area would be welcome, particularly for cheap day tickets.
    Mr. Horam: I was not aware that the accounts being audited separately led to problems regarding the interchangeability of tickets between British Railways rail and shipping services. If that is so, I shall certainly look into it. Clearly, any

    907
    effort to introduce a ticket which will take one right through would be sensible.
    Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the lack of orders in the British shipbuilding industry, will my hon. Friend ensure that when British Railways need any further new ships they will place orders in British yards?
    Mr. Horam: I well understand my right hon. Friend's concern about this matter. I know of his constituency interest in it. As I said earlier, the last ship ordered by British Railways was from a Danish yard. I have no information on what they intend to do about future orders. This is a matter fundamentally for British Railways, which are a nationalised concern.

    Roads (National Parks)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct road construction units to hold full and detailed discussions with planning authorities about any proposals for major roads or motorways through national parks.
    Mr. William Rodgers: This is the normal procedure. The Department formally consults local authorities and other statutory bodies at a minimum of seven main stages in the planning of a new road, but there are more frequent discussions at officer level.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Peak Park Planning Board has complained to me in strong terms about its lack of ability to obtain detailed information on the activities of the road construction units and their plans regarding major roads and routes? Will he look into that matter with some care?
    Mr. Rodgers: Certainly. I am sorry if the board is upset. We shall try to remedy that situation.
    Mr. John H. Osborn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the route between Sheffield and Manchester on the M62, along which I had occasion to travel recently, is long and dangerous, and that there is a need to speed up plans? Will he ensure that the consultation procedures are carried out speedily as well as thoroughly?
    Mr. Rodgers: Odd as it may seem, I can also say "Yes" to that question without being inconsistent.

    Bus Licensing (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on bus licensing regulations in rural areas.
    Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on bus licensing regulations in rural areas.
    Mr. Speaker: No. 28; Mr. Mills.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Mills: Shall I answer the Question for the Minister?
    Mr. Speaker: It was to have been answered with Question No. 17. Perhaps the Minister will look it up.
    Mr. Horam: We went through so many Questions so fast that we left out No. 17. The Government's rural transport experiments, with the Bill I propose to introduce as soon as opportunity arises, will test the case for amendment of bus licensing law.
    Mr. Mills: Is the Minister aware that that is not good enough? The Government have had two and a half years to do something about rural transport, but they have done nothing. Is not this another example of their lack of concern for rural areas? Will the Government do something as quickly as possible? The problem is serious and flexibility is required.
    Mr. Horam: On the contrary. The policy was issued for consultation only in January this year. That is less than 12 months ago and since then we have had valuable consultations. Further proposals will be contained in a Bill providing for rural experiments and the relaxation of licences in experimental areas. I hope that experiments will begin at Easter, and there will be a period of about 18 months during which we can find out about the experiments. Delay is involved, but if we want something sensible and lasting we must experiment before we commit ourselves to new measures.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: Does the Minister accept that what the Government are proposing is too little and too late? Does he recognise that the present licensing procedure is preventing good services? Is there not now an overwhelming case for a fundamental reform of the system of traffic commissioners?
    Mr. Horam: On the contrary. Licensing may well inhibit experiments with unconventional services which could be part of the answer to the problem. But it also protects existing stage services. It would be foolish to abandon them without some idea of what will happen. We are entering the dark. Many other countries—America is one—have abandoned licensing wholesale and the result has been no stage services and worse rural transport. This is a case for proceeding slowly.
    Mr. Mills: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Dangerous Loads
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to minimise the serious consequences of accidents arising from dangerous liquids and chemicals being carried on the roads.
    Mr. Horam: I am delighted to reach the Question which my hon. Friend tried to ask earlier. I can now give a slightly more comprehensive answer. The Health and Safety Commission is currently engaged in the preparation of proposals for new general regulations dealing with this problem. As part of this work, the Commission is investigating the adequacy of present standards of vehicle construction.
    Mr. Johnson: Although I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, neither it nor the previous one is satisfactory. Does he not realise the seriousness of the problem? Does he not accept that with these vehicles going through villages and towns it is only a matter of time before there is a major disaster? Is not the only way to deal with the problem to take this traffic off the road and put it on to rail?
    Mr. Horam: In view of what happened earlier, I had some idea of what my hon.
    910
    Friend's supplementary question would be. We have already done something. Most major industrial companies have been urged to consider making greater use of rail for transportation of dangerous goods where that is economical. But there are sound reasons why that cannot be done for some dangerous traffic—for example, petrol, being delivered to retail outlets. Most industrial companies have no direct railhead. That is something we are attempting to deal with under Section 8 grants. We are concerned about the problem and we are trying to deal with it in two ways—by transferring such traffic to rail and by making greater preparation for what happens when there is an accident on the road.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Are dangerous loads required to be properly labelled? If not, why not?
    Mr. Horam: They are required to be properly labelled.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will my hon. Friend set up an inquiry into dangerous loads on roads and on the railways? Does he not agree that safety precautions on the roads are better than those on the railways? Is he aware that since the recent serious accident in my constituency when an ammunition train was derailed no further instructions have been given to railwaymen about such loads?
    Mr. Horam: I was aware of the accident and I am interested to learn that no further instructions have been given. I undertake to look into that.
    Miss Fookes: Is the Minister satisfied that the labelling required is adequate for those engaged in the fire and emergency services?
    Mr. Horam: Yes. Labels give clear instructions about what should be done in an accident. This practice has been developed under the Chemical Industries Association system, and it works. No doubt there could be improvements, and we shall try to make those which are sensible.
    Mr. Swain: Is my hon. Friend aware that vinyl chloride produced by Vinatex Limited is covered by a safety regulation allowing emission into the atmosphere of one to one million parts, which is dangerous? Hundreds of tons of this

    911
    chemical are transported by road annually. In the event of a road accident, heaven only knows what will happen to the people in the surrounding area.
    Mr. Horam: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. He reveals an interest in and knowledge of these matters. We are aware of the problem and we are trying to ensure that precautions are taken when dangerous loads have to go by road, and we are trying to encourage transportation by rail when possible.
    Mr. Carlisle: Is not the best way to avoid accidents to improve the road network to enable lorries to have easier access to motorways instead of having to go through residential areas, as occurs in my constituency?
    Mr. Horam: I am aware of the difficulties but, unfortunately, we are suffering from expenditure restraints. I wonder what would happen if the hon. and learned Gentleman's party were in power.

    Tyne and Wear Metro
    Sir W. Elliottasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the Tyne and Wear Metro; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Rodgers: I have received many representations from right hon. and hon. Members, local authorities, industrial concerns, trade unions and members of the public, mostly in favour of the continuation of the project. These will be taken into account in making decisions about the future of Government grant assistance for it.
    Sir. W. Elliott: Is the Minister aware of the concern felt on Tyneside about the possibility of the cancellation of the scheme, which is so important to the future integrated transport system of the region? Does he accept that the continued blacking by ASLEF—which he has rightly criticised—is deplorable? Will he do his best to encourage the continuation of the Metro scheme?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am certainly very fully aware of how important the Metro is to Tyneside and I shall do my very best, within the limitations placed upon me, to help. I do not think that I should
    912
    comment on an industrial dispute which at the moment looks as though it might be settled. I hope very much that it will be.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have news that the dispute has been settled? Will he accept from me and from all northern Members our great anxiety to see that the scheme goes forward?
    Mr. Rodgers: Yes. My hon. Friend's good news is my good news as well. I am very aware of the representations that he and others have made, and I am now keeping my fingers crossed.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when making his decisions that this construction is taking place in one of the areas with the highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom, and that if it were cancelled the effect in raising unemployment in the area concerned would be almost catastrophic?
    Mr. Rodgers: There are many factors to be taken into account, because it is an expensive project. We cannot ignore that at present. On the other hand, as my right hon. Friend says, the employment consequences of cancellation would be very considerable, not only directly on Tyneside and in the construction industry, but elsewhere, and account of this should be properly taken.

CARSTAIRS STATE MENTAL HOSPITAL (INCIDENT)
Mrs. Hart(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the incident at Carstairs State Mental Hospital yesterday.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The whole House will wish to join with me in expressing its deep regret and sympathy to the families of the three people who died in the tragic events which took place in and near the State Hospital at Carstairs last night, and to the others who were injured.
Since criminal proceedings are pending against the two patients, Mr. Robert Mone and Mr. Thomas McCulloch, who escaped, it would not be proper for me at this stage to comment on the events, and I shall give only a brief summary of what is so far known to me.

913
The two patients were parole patients —that is to say, they had some freedom of movement within the hospital. A nursing officer, Mr. Neil McLellan. was in charge of recreation. The patients were members of his drama group. Early in the evening of 30th November there was a routine check of patients in wards, and, as some patients in the drama group were absent, a call was made to Mr. McLellan's office in the old administration block, part of which is being used temporarily as a recreation area. As there was no reply, nurses went to the office and found the dead bodies of Mr. McLellan and another patient, Mr. Ian Simpson, with severe head injuries. Mr. Simpson was also a parole patient and a member of Mr. McLellan's drama group. A fireman's axe was missing. This axe had formerly been kept in a safe in the central nursing office in the old administration block. When the new block was opened the axe had been handed to Mr. McLellan to keep in the safe in his office for use in case of fire.
The alarm was given and escape procedure put into operation. It was found that the patients had got over the perimeter fence using a weighted rope ladder, which they had evidently prepared beforehand, by what means is not vet known. It is not the case, as stated in the Press, that the patients got through the gate in nurses' uniforms. The patients had taken Mr. McLellan's keys, but these were not used in their escape and they have now been recovered.
The police officers, Constables Taylor and Gillies, were meanwhile on routine patrol in the vicinity of the hospital in a Panda car. They saw two men and stopped to interrogate them. Constable Taylor sustained injuries from which he has since died. Constable Gillies was also slightly injured. The two men made off in the police car until it crashed on the A702. A van stopped at the crash so that the occupants might help. Its two occupants were seriously injured and are in hospital. The van was then taken by the two men, who made off to Town-foot Farm, Roberton, where they secured, apparently under threat of violence, the farmer's car. The men then made off to the south on the A74, with the police in pursuit. The car crashed at roundabout 43, just north of Carlisle, and after a
914
struggle the occupants were overpowered by the police.
Mr. Mone and Mr. McCulloch were brought before the Sheriff Court at Lanark this morning on a charge of murder. They were committed for further examination and sent to Barlinnie Prison.
These are the main facts as so far known to me. I am already pursuing my own immediate inquiries to satisfy myself that the incident does not reveal any obvious security deficiency that should be dealt with at once, but the House will know that the security record of the State Hospital has been a good one. In view of the nature of the incident, however, it is my intention to set up as soon as possible an independent inquiry into the circumstances in which the escape was possible and to report on any additional measures that might be taken in the interests of security.
Finally, I wish to express my appreciation of the prompt, brave and effective action taken by the police and of their ready co-operation with the hospital. I should also like to pay tribute to the constructive and devoted work done by the hospital staff in the care of patients, often in circumstances of the utmost difficulty.
Mrs. Hart: I think that the whole House would wish to share in conveying our deepest sympathy to the families of those who have been killed—Constable Taylor of Carstairs leaves behind four small children, and Mr. Neil McLellan had a son—including our sympathy to the family of the patient who was killed. I also share with my right hon. Friend the appreciation of the work of the staff of the State Mental Hospital and the very deep appreciation of what the police forces of Lanarkshire and Cumbria did last night in apprehending the two persons who had escaped and preventing any further disasters.
I welcome the inquiry that my right hon. Friend is about to conduct, but may I ask him to ensure that the results of that inquiry are made public, because this is a matter of deep public concern, certainly in my constituency and, I think, in the whole of Scotland? As he knows, there is great anxiety in the area surrounding the Carstairs State Mental Hospital about the security of its own people and their families in the area.

915
May I finally put one point to my right hon. Friend? Is it not the case that in order to allow maximum tolerance within the hospital for severely disturbed mental patients who are criminals, the perimeter should be much more totally secure? Is that not really one of the things to which we need to give deep attention?
Mr. Millan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what she said in the earlier part of her remarks. I know that the House will share the sentiments that she has expressed.
Concerning the nature of the inquiry, I shall make an announcement as soon as possible. It is certainly my wish that the maximum amount of information should be made publicly available, subject, of course, to the necessary inhibitions in terms of security. I shall certainly make available the maximum amount of information, because I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, namely, that the staff at the hospital and the people who live in the locality are entitled to reassurance about the security arrangements at the hospital.
It is true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that a certain amount of freedom of movement in the case of some patients is allowed within the hospital. However, as I recollect from my own visit to the hospital —admittedly a few years ago—there is very tight perimeter security. Obviously, that is among the matters that will have to be looked into very carefully by the inquiry.
Mr. Monro: May I join with all hon. Members in expressing regret at what has happened? Does the Secretary of State agree that the work of the Strathclyde, Dumfries, Galloway and Cumbria police was a quite exceptional example of police co-operation, in arresting these men at the shortest possible notice and in view of all the circumstances? In order to reassure the people living in the district and, indeed, in Scotland as a whole, even before the inquiry completes its work, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if there is the possibility of weapons such as axes being available within the confines of the hospital, they are most rigidly secured? Will he also, as the right hon. Member for Lanark
916
(Mrs. Hart) said, look again at the question of the perimeter fence?
Mr. Millan: The question of weapons will obviously be a matter for the inquiry. In fact, it is being looked at in the immediate inquiry now. Similarly, I have already said that the question of the perimeter fence will have to be looked at.
I pay unstinted tribute to the police in dealing with what was obviously an extremely dangerous situation. Perhaps the incident should also remind us that the staff at the hospital are in daily contact with extremely dangerous men, and it is a great tribute to their dedication that they take up this work.
Mr. David Steel: As one who has had occasion to visit this hospital more than once in the last two or three years, may I, on behalf of my colleagues, join in the expressions of sympathy for the injured and the relatives of those killed in this incident? It is right that the House should pause to pay tribute to those who work in the State hospital service, which is little known, publicised or understood outside. We shall await the result of the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry.
Mr. Millan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
Mr. Alexander Wilson: I live within four miles of this hospital. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a genuine fear—not just because of this incident last night—because the neighbouring villages do not receive sufficient warning immediately an escape occurs and, furthermore, because after the escapees have been captured the neighbouring villages are not immediately reassured that matters are under control?
I, too, pay a terrific tribute to the staff of the hospital. Included in the staff are my son-in-law and other relatives, so I know the work that they have to do. I add my personal tribute to the two young constables who were involved, one of whom was killed and whom I knew personally. They acted extremely bravely.
I ask my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to the suggestion put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). In my opinion the perimeter fence has never been sufficiently strong, or even high enough.

917
I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay careful attention to what seems to have been the availability of weapons to these two dangerous men.
Lastly, will my right hon. Friend make public the findings of the inquiry, so that we can all study them and find out how best we can help?
Mr. Millan: Again, I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. On the matter of the safety record of the hospital, one patient escaped in 1969, and two in 1972. In both cases those concerned were at large for only hours rather than days. The hospital's record is a good one, and I know that the hospital authorities have security as a constant preoccupation. That ought to be put on record. All the matters mentioned by my right hon. Friend will be considered, and I shall consider in particular the suggestion about giving warning to people in the surrounding areas when an escape has occurred.
Mr. William Ross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I particularly welcome his drawing attention to the fact that the hospital has a good security record? I visited the hospital earlier this year, and I formed and retain a high regard for the standard of security at the hospital and the devotion to duty of the staff. Last night's events underline in a tragic way exactly what we owe to our protective services in Scotland.
The people with whom we are dealing are potentially terribly unstable, and perhaps the most violent men in Scotland. Is it too early for my right hon. Friend to say what part was played by the patient in this affair—or should we await the further proceedings in that matter?
Mr. Millan: I gather that my right hon. Friend means the patient who died. I have no information that he was involved in the incident, except as an innocent victim, and I think that I had better wait until we get the results of the inquiry.
I was glad to have my right hon. Friend's impression of this hospital. Anyone who visits the hospital—and I include myself among those who have visited it—comes away with an extremely high regard for the staff at the hospital and the way in which they perform their difficult duties.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I should like to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the expression of sympathy for the families of those who lost their lives, particularly the policeman and the nursing officer. We await with interest the results of the inquiry. I think that it is best to rest on the assurance of the Secretary of State that the inquiry will be thorough.
I hope that this incident, horrifying as it was, will not in any way distort our appreciation of the work that is done by the staff at these hospitals, which is largely unrecognised, unsung and unnoticed when everything is going well. I pay my tribute to the work of these officers who, year in and year out, take on the major responsibility that is passed to them by the ordinary members of the community.
Mr. Millan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said, and I am in full agreement with it.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL (THE HAGUE MEETING)
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the meeting of the European Council which I attended in The Hague with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 29th to 30th November.
The meeting reviewed a number of important questions of concern to all the member Governments of the EEC. Some of our conclusions were recorded in agreed texts, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.
We had a full discussion on economic and monetary matters, where we looked at the present state and prospects of the Community in relation to the rest of the world. Most of our partners share, in varying degree, our own concern with problems of inflation, employment and balance of payments. There was common interest in trying to ensure that the growth of activity, both in the Community and in the rest of the world, should not slow down and in finding constructive ways of tackling our common problems in a Community framework.
A number of colleagues joined me in stressing that, whilst those countries

919
which, like the United Kingdom, are still faced with problems of inflation, unemployment, balance of payments and inadequate investment in productive industry must take all possible steps to help themselves, there are also helpful steps which others in the Community could take. In particular, as the Commission brings out in its report which the Council approved, the stronger economies have an important part to play. There was some measure of reassurance about the prospects of continuing recovery. But all member States were concerned about the serious potential effects of any further increase in oil prices.
The second major subject of discussion was the North-South dialogue and the range of problems relating to international economic co-operation. The European Council examined the questions which are currently under discussion in various international bodies, and reaffirmed the importance it attaches to making a contribution to the economic development of the developing countries, while keeping in mind the problems posed by difficulties in the Community's own economy.
We were able to complete our work on the Tindemans Report. There was a warm expression of the Council's thanks to the Belgian Prime Minister for undertaking this task. The European Council endorsed the general lines on which Ministers for Foreign Affairs have been working and emphasised the importance to be given in the next phase of the Community's development to combating inflation and unemployment, to drawing up common policies for energy and for research, and to developing a genuine regional and social policy in the Community. The European Council will have a yearly look at the progress achieved in various fields.
We discussed trade relations between the Community and Japan and drew attention to the problem created by the deterioration in the trade situation and the difficulties which have arisen in certain industrial sectors. The Council agree that these relations should be developed to the advantage of both the Community and Japan. Urgent consideration will be given to various trade problems by the Community institutions; and the Council called for substantial progress to be made before its next meeting. We expressed
920
satisfaction at the indications we have had of Japanese willingness to co-operate with the Community.
There was an exchange of views on agricultural problems in the Community including the question of monetary compensatory amounts. While some member Governments sought to focus attention particularly on matters arising from changes in currency relationships, I emphasised that these must be seen as only one part of a wider problem—the need to improve the agricultural policy and particularly to eliminate costly surpluses.
The Council approved the nominations of each of the member Governments to the new Commission, and agreed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) should now be formally appointed as President. The appointment of the hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Tugendhat) as the Second British Commissioner was also confirmed. The Council noted that the Commission would be reviewing its organisation and procedures and looked forward to hearing in due course an account of the conclusions reached.
This meeting once more made clear that many of the problems which we in this country face are shared by others in the Community. It also showed that the institutions of the Community are not sufficiently developed to provide common solutions to these problems, which are intensified by the growing divergence between the economies of various member States. Nevertheless, the exchange of views which we held during the Council meeting will be helpful in our efforts to resolve them.
Mrs. Thatcher: I thank the Prime Minister for making a statement so quickly on his return from The Hague. He certainly was not slow in his delivery.
I should like to put questions to him on three points. The first is agricultural policy. In view of the pressure that he encountered over the green pound, how much longer does he expect to be able to keep it at its present level? Can he give an up-to-date figure for the level of food subsidy which we are now receiving from the Community?
I am aware that he encountered some criticism about the high cost of this subsidy and that he countered that criticism

921
by saying that the cost was no greater than the cost of the agricultural products policy to the Community, but does he not agree that, if we are taking out so much by subsidies through the currency system, that precludes us from criticising and therefore revising the Community policy over dairy products?
Second, the right hon. Gentleman referred to concern at the increase in oil prices and to the North-South dialogue. Is he not aware that the fact that we do not have a common energy policy and have not moved far towards it hinders us in making an effective contribution to the North-South dialogue? Is there any progress towards a common energy policy?
Third, can the right hon. Gentleman help the House about Press reports about further large loans? There have been such reports in today's Press and it would help very much if we could learn the truth from the Prime Minister.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, if we always go to the Community as a supplicant, either for subsidies or for loans, that prevents us from carrying out the wider creative rôle which was very much expected of us when we joined the Community? Is he not aware that the impression is given that, whereas we used to save ourselves by our exertions, this Government now expect to be saved by the exertions of others?
The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Lady's first question, the difference in the various exchange rates means that the present benefit to the British consumer will run at about £500 million. That is, of course, a valuable aid to us in keeping prices below what they would otherwise be. Therefore, we must maintain this consequence of the monetary compensatory arrangements, which we did not seek but which is a natural result of the arrangements which were made.
The, right hon. Lady is wrong to say that we are prevented or in some way inhibited from criticising the common agricultural policy because we benefit by this figure. Quite the reverse: the point that I made was that the benefit which is received, or its cost to the Community, is less than the cost of the surplus of milk products alone. It follows that what is needed is to get rid of this structural surplus in milk products.
922
If the green pound were to be devalued here, we should be adding to the structural surplus, because of the efficiency of the British producer. Therefore, the job is to revise the agricultural policy. Then some of these other matters will fall into place. It is taking a one-eyed view of the matter to consider only the monetary compensatory arrangements.
Second, on the question of energy, there was a proposal that, as there is no complete energy policy now in the complete Community, we should concentrate on a common policy of conservation. I believe that work will be done on that, but we should like to see more progress made on the question of a minimum selling price and other aspects such as access, security of sources and that sort of question. But we have not reached that point yet.
Third, on the question of further large loans from the Community, they were neither asked for nor offered and there is no question—certainly on yesterday's discussions—of the Community being involved in any direct sense. As for the right hon. Lady's rather cheap point about saving ourselves by our exertions—[Interruption.] "Cheap," I said. If we pursue the current industrial policy, the industrial strategy, which involves keeping consumer demand down in a way which the Opposition never had the guts to do when they were in power and which also involves keeping other matters under control, then we shall, as the British people are doing now, save ourselves by our exertions.
Indeed, there is quite a possibility that if we continue with the existing policies we shall have at least a balance in our payments running by the end of next year and that we shall move into surplus in 1978. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not ask us to depart from that policy and to return to her own policies of confrontation in the previous Government, which led us into the position from which this Government are now rescuing the country.
Mr. David Steel: May I pursue the first point raised by the Leader of the Opposition? Is the Prime Minister aware that, because he was travelling back yesterday, he had the good fortune to miss my contribution to the economic debate, but that if he had been here he would

923
have heard me argue that he found himself on the wrong side of the argument with the President of France? How does it make sense—not to the Community taxpayers but to this country—at a time when we are trying to get the balance of payments right, to encourage the continued subsidising of food imports, when instead the Government should be placing maximum reliance on encouraging home agriculture?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry that I missed the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but the Leader of the House tells me that it was a very good one. If it was half as good as my right hon. Friend's own winding-up speech last night, it must have been excellent.
There is no contradiction in the policy which is being followed. We are encouraging home agriculture, as is well known, and the steps which have been taken have put a firm foundation under our own agricultural policy. But at present what is important is not only agricultural policy—important though that is—but also the position of the consumer. At a time when our counter-inflation policy is suffering considerable buffeting—not as a result of the unions or wage claims but as a result of many other factors—it is important that we should not throw away a valuable reinforcement of that policy.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend strongly resist any change in the MCAs, particularly automatic changes brought about by the Commission's policies? Would he try to explain to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition that her rather tatty talking-down tactics do not benefit either her country or her party, because we are well aware that we shall be a net contributor to the EEC in the coming year? It is time for the Conservative Party. therefore, to stop talking about subsidies.
The Prime Minister: I have no particular objection to taking a subsidy out of the Community if, under the rules, we are entitled to it. I have never seen any reason why we should not. We did not devise these arrangements—they were there—and as a result of the development of events, we are now securing a benefit from them. My hon. Friend
924
is right. I have no doubt that the time will come in other years when we may be a net contributor instead of a net receiver; we shall have to take the rough with the smooth in that respect.
Mr. Powell: Did the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to his colleagues that, so far from the green pound being a subsidy which keeps our food cheap, it is only a partial offset to what we lose from not being able to buy our food in the world markets?
The Prime Minister: I did not make that point because I am not sure that it is altogether true nowadays. There was a time when there was a lot of cheap food in the world, but those days are disappearing. It would be very difficult to take a balance of advantage and disadvantage on this. I am sure that there are commodities—I can think of some—which we would be able to buy more cheaply outside the Community, but there are others on which we would not get the advantage that we now have.
As for MCAs, if that is what they are called, I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman—indeed, I pointed this out—that they are of advantage to the exporters as well as to us. Perhaps such colleagues as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) might approve of the fact that I pointed out to those who are in favour of the CAP that if they got rid of the monetary compensatory amounts, I doubted whether the CAP would survive.
Mr. Fernyhough: The Press have reported that while my right hon. Friend was attending this conference, he had a working breakfast with Herr Schmidt, the Federal Chancellor. At that working breakfast, did the Prime Minister discuss offset costs with Herr Schmidt? Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the signing of the Brussels agreement the figure must now be approaching £2,000 million? If the Germans would favourably consider what I think is a moral obligation that they undertook at that time, it would be helpful to this country in its present economic circumstances.
The Prime Minister: Talks are going on with regard to offset costs. I did not raise that matter with the Chancellor yesterday morning. I am well aware of the size and nature of those costs.

925
But there are countervailing factors which must also be taken into account, for example the fact that the presence of British troops in central Europe is a reassurance to a great many people in central Europe and, indeed, in Eastern Europe. That factor, too, must be taken into account when we are discussing where the net balance of advantage and disadvantage lies. There is no doubt that this is an important contribution and it is one which should not be overlooked by those who criticise our performance.
Mr. Marten: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his quick reading of an empty communiqué. It was brilliant. As I always take an objective view about the Common Market—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]. I do. May I challenge the Prime Minister on his use of the word "revise" with regard to the CAP? That is a policy which should be scrapped. The sooner we have a national agricultural policy suitable to this country the better.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Common Market is more responsible than any other factor for putting up the price of food in this country and that by next year the situation will be serious for those on lower incomes?
The Prime Minister: We have constantly taken the view that the CAP needs to be substantially changed. We have to convince our other colleagues in the Community about that. There is dissatisfaction about it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an examination is now going on about whether some aspects of our policy can be grafted on to the CAP itself. I should like to see this done.
At the start, two or three years ago, my own view was that we could make substantial changes pretty quickly. It is quite clear that the vested interests—I do not want to use a derogatory term —of those who benefit from the agricultural policy of the Community are so strong that none of the other governments can act very quickly. It will be a case constantly working at this, but I feel sure that we shall get some results in the end.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Prime Minister aware that in view of the wide range of subjects in his statement, and the fact that this was a high level meeting,
926
there will be great disappointment and anger in the fishing communities that the question of fisheries policy has not been mentioned? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since certain of the EEC countries, notably the French, have held that they are not obliged to sell out a vital national interest, the attitude of the British Government is inexplicable with regard to the fishing industry?
The Prime Minister: I do not accept any of that. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman means what he said because he is as aware as I am of all the work which is being done on fisheries. The matter was touched on but not gone into in depth because the constitutional channels of the Community are now handling this problem. I hope the hon. Gentleman has seen the statement put out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary as recently as 26th November—Thursday last—which brings the situation right up to date.
Mr. Spearing: The Prime Minister made some reference to the Commission. Can he confirm that the Government are making proposals for changes in the structure and functioning of the Commission? If that is so, can my right hon. Friend say to what ends those proposals will be and when we shall know the recommendations which may be made?
The Prime Minister: I asked at the last meeting but one of Heads of Government whether the Community might be prepared to consider proper terms of reference on which the Commission itself might act. Objection was taken by the Commission on the ground that one institution ought not make such a formal request to another institution of the Community. Therefore, the compromise, which met everyone's concerns, was that the Commission itself is expected to come forward with its own proposals on how it will handle the revision of procedures. Honour was satisfied all round.
Mr. Blaker: Was any consideration given to methods of concerting foreign policy? Would it not be useful if a small central secretariat were set up to deal with this subject? It might then mean some reductions in the staffs of the national Foreign Offices. Did the Prime Minister consider this matter?
The Prime Minister: This is an issue on which there is no common view. The hon. Gentleman, and others, will know that I have always taken the position that if there were a field in which it ought to be possible to reach a number of common attitudes, this was it. This view is not universally shared by all the member States. I am quite certain that the proposal to set up a central secretariat—subject to anything that my right hon. Friend has to say—would awaken all the fears which are now reasonably dormant. Like so many matters, we shall have to take this item by item and subject by subject. When they are raised by my right hon. Friend in the political co-operation area it will be seen whether it is possible to get a common view.
I take note of the fact that from 1st January three members of the Security Council are members of the Community —France, the Federal Republic and ourselves. That should at least engender a common approach to some of these problems, although not to the exclusion of the smaller nations.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The whole House will be pleased to hear that the Council thanked Mr. Tindemans for his report. Were any decisions made on the matters raised in that report and if not, are any further discussions planned? Secondly, would the Prime Minister agree that the main reason for rising food prices in this country is the fall in the value of the pound and not our membership of the EEC?
The Prime Minister: There was a long discussion about the Tindemans Report. It was generally agreed that European union can be built only gradually on the basis of existing treaties and community institutions. That was the first agreement which was reached. Therefore, progress will not be as fast as some would like.
It was also generally agreed that we should try to follow a common policy in certain key areas of foreign policy but there is at least one major State with important reservations. The Snake as the centrepiece of advance towards economic and monetary union was discarded as an idea although Foreign Ministers will continue to work on the basis of the Duisenberg proposals to see whether they offer any prospect.
928
In passing I would say that as long as the divergence between our economies is growing—and they are not converging—this kind of arrangement is unlikely to be successful. Work is going ahead on this, as it is on the whole question of social and regional policies. These are the major proposals, but I know it was agreed that the Foreign Ministers would review the Tindemans Report each year to see what could be taken from it in order to get a greater sense of unity between member States.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's interest in institutional progress, may I ask whether there was any discussion about the future rôle of the European Fund for Monetary Co-operation?
The Prime Minister: No progress was made at this meeting, I am afraid.
Mr. MacFarquhar: In the earlier bilateral talks, was any warning given of the strong attack which has been levelled by the French President on our green pound policy? Does the Prime Minister think that the French President, as distinct from vested French agricultural interests, takes on board the need for a drastic change in the CAP?
The Prime Minister: I can understand my hon. Friend's belief that a strong attack was made on the green pound policy when he read our newspapers yesterday. I must say that it does not represent the reality of the situation. It is one of the misfortunes that the Press is not present at these Council meetings and has to rely on the kind of briefing it gets afterwards from those who had particular issues that they wished to raise. As we all know, the Press is not necessarily disinterested on these occasions.
The attack was made not on the British green pound policy but on the system of monetary compensatory arrangements. At the present time, eight out of the Nine are affected by these compensatory payments in one way or another, either as net givers or net receivers. Only one country—Denmark—is not. [Interruption.] It is possible to be neutral. I was about to say that Denmark is the only country which is neutral.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Was there any discussion of direct elections, and was

929
the Prime Minister able to say that legislation would be brought forward in time for the British electorate to return directly-elected Members by the target date?
The Prime Minister: There was no discussion on that matter, so I did not make any comment myself.
Mrs. Hart: Am I right in reading between the rapid lines of my right hon. Friend's statement that there was not exactly any positive breakthrough on agreements in the EEC about attitudes towards the new international economic order and the North-South dialogue in terms of economic relations with the Third World? In the discussions, did he tend to share the constructive views of such members as the Netherlands and France on these matters, or the views of others?
The Prime Minister: I took our own view on this. I hope that this perhaps assures my right hon. Friend. There was a very long discussion on this matter, which is complicated by the fact that there will be a new American Administration coming into office in late January.
We have taken a particularly forward view on debt relief, on the common fund and on the integrated commodities programme. There are different views here. But everyone was agreed that, whatever technical differences might exist, it was important that the CIEC should be made successful, and we all undertook to bend our efforts to do so.
Mr. Hal Miller: When discussing EEC-Japan relations with his colleagues, did the Prime Minister tell them of the doubts expressed in this House about transferring control of our trade policy, especially with regard to dumping, to the EEC? In particular, did the right hon. Gentleman make it plain to them that his Government would not be willing to see the Japanese do to our motorcar industry what they did to our motorcycle industry?
The Prime Minister: Not precisely in that form. But there is general disquiet about relationships between Japan and the Community because the adverse trade balance between the Community and Japan has risen from about $300
930
million a year some four or five years ago to $3 billion a year now. It is that imbalance which must be put right.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's fears about the consequences of transferring these negotiations. On the whole, I think this country will be stronger as a result of a central discussion of these matters with Japan than if we pursue them individually. I do not take that view on all matters, but I think that it will be the case with Japan.
As for dumping procedures, a number of complaints have been made. We have already indicated to the Commission, which is not, I think, yet responsible—I think that Britain is still responsible for her own dumping procedures—that, when they are transferred, we hope that the Commission will take up these matters quickly and prevent any delay in a range of complaints.
Mr. John Ellis: May I take my right hon. Friend back to one of his earlier replies when he was being pressed about the common agricultural policy and when he, I thought, said realistically that the nations of the European Common Market were conditioned by their own self- interest? This scarcely accords with the idea which was sold to this country when we agreed to go into Europe that we would all be a happy band of brothers helping each other. Is that the sort of attitude which is now causing my right hon. Friend to review his own attitude to the institution?
The Prime Minister: I do not remember ever advancing the possibility that we would be a happy band of brothers. I always argued that Britain would be able to serve her own interests inside the Community just as everyone else served theirs. I think that my hon. Friends have heard me make that case time after time. But there are many areas in which joint Community action can be more helpful to the people of Europe than individual action. We have just had an illustration. I take the issue of connections with Japan as being one such case. There are other illustrations in social matters and in terms of the possible convergence not of our economies but of the kind of policies that we are following where I believe that it is of advantage. In other words, I remain as pragmatic about this institution as I always was.
Mr. Peter Mills: Does the Prime Minister recognise that his failure to accept even a modest adjustment in the green pound may help the consumer in the short term but that in the long term it will have serious effects on home production? With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he talks about a lack of guts on the part of the Opposition, but when will he have the guts to do something about the long term, which is so important?
The Prime Minister: I always remember the old saying, "In the long run, we are all dead"—myself before the hon. Gentleman, who has the advantage of being much younger than I am. But we have the situation in which our agriculture has the possibilities of expansion, even under the present system, and that the negotiations on prices which take place every February give an opportunity to ensure that our agriculture does not fall behind.
It is a striking illustration of what I am saying if I remind the House that the efficiency of British agriculture is such that our milk producers still produce a very great deal of milk, even though it is costing rather more, but it is still below the continental price, and that if we adjusted in this way we should be producing very much more milk. That is an argument on the side of the farmers. But we have to balance that against the present need of consumers, and our anti-inflation policy must come first at the moment.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have been on this for half an hour. We must move on now.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES (WEST MIDLANDS)
4.17 p.m.
Mr. Eyre: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, 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 strike action today of public service employees in the West Midlands which is seriously affecting hospitals, schools, motorways and council services."
932
This day of chaos in the West Midlands has been brought about by the strike action of members of the National Union of Public Employees. Mr. Barry Shuttle-worth, the West Midlands divisional officer for that union, has stated publicly that the strike is in protest at public spending cuts.
As a result of the strike, a number of hospitals in Birmingham have been dealing with emergency cases only, the normal process of admissions of in-patients and the treatment of out-patients has been halted, because 80 per cent. of the ambulance staff have refused to deal with cases other than emergencies, and porters have restricted their performance of duties. Hospital catering arrangements have also been affected.
As for the motorways, some of the road gritting gangs did not report for work this morning, and a number of accidents have occurred in which road surface conditions are thought to have been a factor.
Schools also have been affected seriously by the strike of caretakers, although all caretakers have not taken part. As a result, 230 schools in Birmingham have been closed, as well as a number of schools in other parts of the West Midlands.
As the divisional officer of the union concerned has made clear, this strike is part of a direct confrontation with the Government. As a consequence, thousands of patients, schoolchildren and their parents, and other citizens have been gravely inconvenienced. In these circumstances, I submit that the conditions specified in Standing Order No. 9 apply.
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 strike action today of public service employees in the West Midlands which is seriously affecting hospitals, schools, motorways and council services."
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 decision. The hon. Member gave me notice this morning that he would raise

933
this matter, and I have given careful consideration to his representations. However, I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Philippines) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (PROCEDURE)
4.21 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
That—
(1) in view of the serious consequences of uncertainty for the industries concerned and for those employed in them, this House affirms the opinion expressed in its resolution of 27th May 1976 in relation to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill introduced in the last Session of this Parliament that there should be no delay in the passage of legislation to provide for the vesting in bodies corporate established by authority of Parliament of the securities of certain companies engaged in manufacturing aircraft and guided weapons and of certain companies engaged in shipbuilding and allied industries, and accordingly the Order of 29th November that the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill of this Session is discharged and in relation to the proceedings on that Bill any Standing Orders relating to private business and consideration of the application of any such Standing Orders are dispensed with;
(2) in the event of the Bill being read a second time, it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House, and when the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that Notice of an Instruction may have been given, and in the Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall forthwith put the Question that he do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House without putting any other Question, and the Question so put shall be decided forthwith.
This is a procedural motion, although it has political aspects in the background, and I would like to comment on those briefly at the beginning of my speech. I hope that the House will be prepared to pass this motion, no doubt after some discussion. The motion is in two parts, but it has one purpose, namely, to allow the House to assert its supremacy over the non-elected, irresponsible other place and to do so quickly and firmly.
Last Session this House passed a Bill to give effect to proposals to nationalise the aircraft and guided weapons, shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering industries—proposals which were clearly set out in the manifestos on which the Labour Party was returned to office in February and October 1974.
Their Lordships decided that they took exception to the nationalisation of

935
ship repairing. This House insisted on the restoration of ship repairing to the Bill, but the other place threw it out again, and then again. In doing so it threw out at the same time the doctrine that has been adhered to generally since the war by the Conservative majority in another place—the doctrine that it should not use its permanent built-in majority to defeat measures which were clearly included in the manifestos on which a Labour Government had been elected. That doctrine was accepted by the late Lord Salisbury. He was quoted as saying —and his views were enunciated again on the "Panorama" programme the other night—
"Anything that had been on the programme of the Labour Party at the preceding Election we must regard as having been approved by the British people and therefore measures of that kind we must pass and do our best to improve. And so we did in fact pass all the nationalisation Bills, much though many of us disliked them."
That doctrine was accepted by the late Lord Salisbury, who was the leading Conservative authority on relations between the two Houses. It was a doctrine which seems to be the right approach to the matter. The modern proponents of "The Right Approach" in another place seem to be on the wrong tack. I think that it could lead to considerable constitutional difficulties if that course were to be pursued and, worse still, were to be sustained by this elected House of Commons. We may, perhaps, come back to this new attitude on the part of their Lordships in the course of the debate, if any Conservative Members wish to discuss it.
I now turn to the motion which the attitude of the other place has made necessary if this House is to reaffirm its supremacy. I would have thought that all hon. Members would wish it to do so. Certainly Labour Members would. I should have thought that Liberal Members, if they had any allegiance to their traditions on this issue—whatever criticisms they have of the Government on other matters—would wish to support us on this occasion. This is, after all, a constitutional question and not one concerned solely with the merits of the Bill.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on, will
936
he clarify one passing reference which he made to the grave constitutional innovation which he sees if this House refuses to rubber-stamp the manifesto of the Labour Party?
Mr. Foot: It was not a question of rubber-stamping the manifesto of the Labour Party. I was quoting the doctrine that had been accepted and laid down by the late Lord Salisbury. I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment, but I was talking about Lord Salisbury's doctrine. I shall reiterate it because the hon. Gentleman did not seem to appreciate what I said. My attitude to the other place ranges over many wider questions. I was quoting to the hon. Gentleman what was said by the late Lord Salisbury about what he thought should be the proper relationship between the two Houses. His view was different from that of the present Leader of the Conservative Party in another place.
The view of the late Lord Salisbury was that the other place should take into account what had appeared in Labour Party manifestos. That view has now been set aside by the peers and particularly by the Leader of the Conservative Party in another place. All that I was saying to the House was that relations between the two Houses would be very much easier if the doctrine accepted by Lord Salisbury were sustained, rather than the novel doctrine operated by Lord Carrington and his supporters in another place.
Mr. Peter Rost: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that Labour Party manifesto also specified that the Socialist programme would be financed on borrowed money?
Mr. Foot: The programme which the Labour Party presented to the nation in February and October 1974 warned the country that we were faced with the gravest economic crisis since the war, thanks to the policies of the Conservative Government, supported by the hon. Gentleman. Certainly that part of our manifesto has been proved more true even, perhaps, than we knew at the time.
I turn to the first part of the motion, which makes clear that we intend to treat this Bill as it was treated during

937
the last Session by this House and by the other place, and to proceed with it as a public Bill. Last Session the question of hybridity was not raised in this House until after the Committee stage, and the one question on which a doubt was raised was dealt with fully before the Bill left this House. In another place the Bill was not referred to the Examiners, although there was ample opportunity when this could have happened. All the points raised there were fully and carefully answered, as anyone who studies the debates and the answers given to Lord Campbell and Lord Wigoder will see.
The second part of the motion is as essential as the first to the re-assertion of the position of this House. It provides that the Committee stage of the Bill shall be taken formally, so that the effect of the motion, taken by itself, is that the next stage of the Bill, after the formal Committee stage, will be Third Reading. It does so because the Committee stage can be no more than a formality if this House, as I trust it will, wishes to ensure that the Bill is sent back to their Lordships in the form in which it can, if necessary, proceed to Royal Assent under the Parliament Acts.
This part of the motion asks the House to affirm that it wants the Bill in the form in which it passed it last year, after the greatest number of Committee sittings of any Bill in all recorded time. It does so in very much the same form in which the issue was presented to the House last year in relation to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, and will therefore, I hope, commend itself to the House. The motion follows the precedents of 1913 and 1914, when a similar motion covered three Bills, and 1948 and 1949, when a similar procedure was required.
However, although we are asking the House to pass the Bill with all dispatch in a form that will allow it, if necessary, to proceed to the Royal Assent under the Parliament Acts, we do not intend to deprive the House of the opportunity to consider any amendments that right hon. and hon. Members may wish to propose should be suggested to another place under the provisions of the Parliament Acts. We shall provide time for such suggested amendments to be debated before the Bill receives its Third Reading.
938
I commend the motion to the House. I believe that on general and particular grounds the House as a whole, certainly those who agree with the supremacy of this elected House, will agree with it.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Francis Pym: We reject this motion and we reject the arguments of the Leader of the House. He talked about the supremacy of this House. I think that he exaggerated the manifesto argument which has, in some respects, got completely out of hand in our debates. This House recognises the sense in which one could say that it has a certain supremacy, but their Lordships also have a rôle to play within Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon what he described as the late Lord Salisbury's doctrine. He conveniently omitted to add what the late Lord Morrison said, when the 1947 Parliament Act was passed, about the proper rôle of the House of Lords and its rights in sending back Bills or parts of Bills. Unless another place has such rights there is no point in its taking part in debates.
It is unreasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to claim that this motion has been made necessary by the Lords. It has not. What has been made necessary is the reintroduction of the Bill under the Parliament Act. It was never envisaged that the Act would be used in a way that would require a guillotine of such fantastic sharpness to be part of it. The purpose of the Parliament Act was to give Parliament another opportunity to consider a Bill that the Lords, upon reflection on more than one occasion, had deemed to require more consideration. The idea that a procedure like this should be introduced is a novel doctrine. It is wrong, and we disagree with it.
This motion is a double-edged guillotine, seeking to suspend Standing Orders for two different purposes. It is a monster which we have never seen here before. Certainly paragraph (1) of the motion is entirely new. I do not think that anything like it has ever appeared before. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was, to say the least, thin, and in no way adequate to so major a departure. The subsection affirms the opinion expressed many months ago, that there should be no delay. Accordingly, it sets aside the Order in relation to

939
hybridity. There is no precedent for this being done in this way. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman that during our debate on 27th May in defending the motion that he presented to the House, he said:
"We are making a proposal to deal with it that does not set a precedent for future occasions".
That seemed to be a pretty clear indication that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to do it once only. When he was pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), the Lord President said:
"It sets a precedent only if one has exactly similar conditions relating to the two industries concerned."—[Official Report, 27th May 1976; Vol. 912, c. 750–53.]
But these are not exactly the same conditions. The hybridity case will be made in detail later by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and, no doubt, other hon. Members. The Lord President give a clear indication that he would not seek to do anything like this again. Yet, six months later, he is doing exactly the same thing.
Paragraph (2) of the motion has been used before. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the debate on 9th December and the precedents relating to this, but there is one new feature in this motion, in its opening words:
"in the event of the Bill being read a second time".
No such motion has been presented in this way before.
I wish to refer to the changed circumstances that face the House, and the changes which have occurred since the last time we debated the Bill. They are different because, as the Lord President reminded us, on the previous occasion the hybridity question arose at a late stage in the passage of the Bill. That is not the present situation, because we have not yet had the Second Reading.
During the debate on 27th May the Lord President made great play of the fact that the situation was unprecedented, because Standing Order 38 did not envisage that a challenge on the grounds of hybridity could be made so late in the passage of a Bill. The Lord President also made great play of the fact that on Second Reading the House had shown by a large
940
majority that it wanted the Bill, and he claimed that that entirely altered the nature of Standing Order No. 38. That is not the position today. Circumstances are different; we have not yet had the Second Reading.
We must consider whether we are departing from the proper procedures to be followed in the House. We have a procedure relating to hybridity, and the application made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton was found to contain evidence which required that procedure to be followed and that the Bill should be examined from this point of view in order to safeguard individuals.
The protection in our procedures relating to hybridity is intended to ensure equality and fairness of treatment between one citizen and another and between people in the same class or category. It is a subject that has recurred in our debates over the years.
It has been brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker, that in 1962 one of your predecessors said:
"I accept the true position to be this, that if it be possible for the view to be taken that this Bill is a Hybrid Bill, it ought to go to the examiners. There must not be a doubt about it."—[Official Report, 10th December 1962; Vol. 669, c. 45.]
That is not the procedure that we followed in May this year, when hybridity was discovered at a late stage in the Bill, and the Lord President made great play with that argument then. The position is different today, because the ruling was made by the Clerks only a day or two ago, before Second Reading, and therefore the proper procedures have been set aside.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Another difference is that on the last occasion when this nasty procedure was introduced the Lord President's excuse was that he was going to remove hybridity by amendments to the Bill before we dealt with it fully. On this occasion he knows that the Bill is hybrid and he intends to leave it as hybrid—it is certified as such—and therefore his offence is all the more disgusting.
Mr. Pym: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) says. This is a serious matter, and I want to point

941
out what the Lord President said on 27th May. He then said:
"I believe that many of our most essential freedoms are intimately linked with the procedures of the House."—[Official Report, 27th May 1976; Vol. 912, c. 748.]
He was entirely right to say that, but there is more to it. It is a matter not simply of following our procedures as laid down in Standing Orders but of the operation and execution of them in their spirit as well as their meaning. The Lord President is not even following the words of our Standing Orders and proceedings in this motion; he is setting them aside for his own purposes. I do not think that he is fulfilling his own words that our freedoms are essentially linked with the procedures of the House.
This motion is an abuse of our procedures, our democracy and our Standing Orders. It is totally wrong for the Government even to contemplate it. It concerns me very much that the Lord President, who should speak on behalf of the whole House, should take it upon himself, without consultation or recognition of the view of the official Opposition or anybody else, to set aside our procedures. It is particularly wrong that a Lord President should do this. During debates in the summer, the right hon. Gentleman readily admitted that in a different incarnation he had taken a different point of view—and we remember the passion with which he took it—but the minute he gets into his present job he claims that procedure is a tool in his hand to attack the Opposition and anybody else who disagrees with him, so long as he can carry his own party with him.
That is an abuse of procedure, and completely wrong. It is for the Examiners, not the Government, to decide the hybridity of the Bill. Our procedures say that this is a decision for the Examiners. No argument has been adduced by the Leader of the House in relation to another place or to anything else which justifies his putting down such a severe and vicious double-headed guillotine.
The Government must get their legislation right. If they fail, it is their fault. The details of the hybridity case will be put by my hon. Friends, and the responsibility lies with the Government. They
942
have their Departments and their draftsmen. Their official support does a superb job, but if, every so often, it comes out wrong and a Bill falls foul of our procedures, it is no answer to put down such a motion and expect the House to take a different view because the Government are wrong.
If the Government had not been so greedy, they could have had 80 per cent. of the Bill without any fuss. It is because they wanted it all that they have had to bring it all back, introduce the Parliament Act, break the rules, and expect us to think that nothing extraordinary, wrong or unusual is happening.
The Leader of the House has not acted well in his capacity as guardian of the liberty and responsibilities of the House. I have no hesitation in asking my hon. Friends, as well as hon. Members on the Government Benches, many of whom must be just as uneasy as we are about what is being done here, to reject the motion. We heard many hon. Members on the Government Benches expressing their unease about the Bill earlier this year.
The Government do not have a licence to run this place as they think fit, to vote all our procedures out of the window and to do as they like. What is Parliament all about? I do not like the rules being broken in the middle of the game. The excuse used in May does not apply, because we have not yet had the Second Reading. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to chuck out the motion.
4.42 p.m.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) correctly said, the Government have usurped a function which is not theirs. The function of deciding whether a Bill is hybrid is one entrusted to the Examiners. Once they have decided that a Bill is hybrid, the function of deciding whether we should suspend Standing Orders in respect of that Bill is not one which appertains to the Government—whatever their political complexion. That function appertains to the Standing Orders Committee.
The Government have abrogated unto themselves the judicial function of the Examiners and the advisory function of the Standing Orders Committee.

943
At no stage has the Leader of the House justified to the House why the Examiners, in his view, cannot be trusted to carry out their judicial function or why the Standing Orders Committee cannot be trusted to carry out its important function of advising the House.
The Standing Orders Committee is unique among our Select Committees in being appointed not by Government motion but by the Committee of Selection. It is an important Committee with an important duty to discharge.
The Leader of the House now presumes to take that duty upon his own shoulders. The right hon. Gentleman would not invite the House to believe that he is not partisan. His whole career as Leader of the House has been a shoddy one. He has taken upon himself as a partisan the functions of bodies properly constituted to undertake them on behalf of the House.
Mr. Tebbit: So did Mussolini.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is correct.
In the last Session, the House of Lords decided, by a majority so substantial that it would still have existed had no Conservative peers voted, to delete ship repairing from the Bill. One of the most important reasons for that decision was that the Members of another place were convinced not just that the ship repairing section contained one technical hybridity but that it was so peppered with hybridities that there was no way of removing them other than by the removal of the whole ship repairing section.
When the Bill was going through this House and the hybridity was detected, the Government disreputably tried to blame the Clerks and said that they should have spotted it. When the incompetence was pinned on the Government, they pretended that it was only a technical hybridity—just a little baby—and by one dishonest vote they succeeded in passing a motion to prevent the Examiners and the Standing Orders Committee from carrying out their proper functions.
However, notwithstanding the amendment to get rid of the Key Victoria issue, the Bill is still hybrid in a multiplicity of examples in the ship repairing section.
944
Why have the Government refused even now to allow the Bill to go to the Examiners or to the Standing Orders Committee? It is because they know that what I have said is true and they do not wish to have the final judgment of the Examiners confirming their own incompetence or worse—and, alas, it is worse. There has been not just negligence but a deliberate attempt by the Government to conceal relevant information from Parliament and to mislead another place in Written Answers.
First, the Government tried to blame the Clerks. Then they claimed that the hybridity was only a technicality. They then descended to a form of chicanery which should be held in contempt by all hon. Members, albeit it was practised upon another place rather than upon this House.
It was necessary, by tabling many Questions in another place, to ascertain many of the relevant facts both about firms which were included in the list for nationalisation on page 82 of the Bill and about firms which were not included although they fulfilled all the qualifying conditions for inclusion.
There are two distinct categories of hybridity. There are firms included in the list although they do not meet the qualifying conditions and firms not included even though they do meet the qualifying conditions.
This is what hybridity is about. It is when fiddles of this kind are perpetrated that the whole process of legislation and government falls into disrepute. There can be no better example of the deliberate deception and dishonesty of the Government than the correspondence between Tate and Lyle—a holding company which owns Richards (Shipbuilders) Ltd., the Sugar Line Ltd., and Clyde Wharf Limited—and the Department of Industry.
Lord Peart answered Questions in the House of Lords on 6th October 1976 and reference to Richards (Shipbuilders) Limited appears in Lords Hansard in column 1485. Richards (Shipbuilders) Limited fulfils all the qualifying conditions for being taken into public ownership but it has been excluded. Lord Peart said:
"It follows that Sugar Line Limited was not engaged in the business of repairing, refitting

945
or maintaining ships at the end of that year." —[Official Report, House of Lords; 6th October, 1976, Vol. 374, c. 1486, 1487.]
The Group Financial Controller of Tate and Lyle, Mr. N. A. Birrell, wrote to Mr. R. A. Dearing, Deputy Secretary at the Department of Industry on 8th October 1976 as follows:
"Dear Mr. Dearing,
Mr. D. W. Hardy, our Finance Director, wrote to you on 29th September confirming certain facts with regard to the operation of Richards (Shipbuilders) Limited, Sugar Line Limited and Clyde Wharf Limited.
It has been drawn to my attention that in Hansard for 6th October 1976 there is the following sentence:
'It follows that Sugar Line Limited was not engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships at the end of that year.'
In case there should be any misunderstanding we wish to put on record that we, as any other good ship owner, are in the business of maintaining our own ships. I am just writing to you to ensure that the record is straight and I would like to confirm that during the financial year ended 29th September, 1973, the situation was as laid out in our letter to you of 29th September, 1976."
Back came a letter from the Government in which they claim the right to conceal the facts and mislead Parliament. [Interruption.] The letter, dated 11 th October 1976, came from Mr. R. A. Dearing at the Department of Industry and was addressed to Mr. N. A. Birrell. It said:
"Dear Mr. Birrell,
Thank you for your letter of 8th October about the passage in Hansard for 6th October which deals with certain aspects of the activities of companies in the Tate and Lyle group.
It is certainly understood on our side that the statement made to Parliament that
'It follows that Sugar Line Limited was not engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships at the end of that year'
is one made on the responsibility of the Department. It was fully understood between us at the meeting that your company was being asked only to provide certain factual information in relation to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and it was not a matter on which the company was offering comment; such inferences as were to be drawn would be for the Department to make and justify."
In other words Parliament must be denied the facts, and the Government will deliberately mislead Parliament and keep it in ignorance of the facts.
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): If the hon. Member refers to the answers in the House of Lords Hansard he will see that Lord Peart makes it clear that the statements of fact are derived from the companies, but the inference is that of the Government. We do not expect the companies to interpret what is in the Bill. The hon. Member is concealing that from the House in order to make a fraudulent point.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: But the question at issue is this—was the company in business on 31st July 1974 engaged in repairing, refitting or maintaining ships? Does the company meet that qualifying point? The Memorandum of Association of Sugar Line Limited, an associated company, and the company with which we are now concerned, includes this item:
"The objects for which the company is established are (a) to purchase or otherwise acquire, contract for the building of, equip and maintain and alter ships and vessels, aircraft and land vehicles of every description."
In the Memorandum of Association it gives one of the objectives of the company as that of maintaining ships. That is part of its business.
There is nothing in this Bill whatever which says that the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships must be the repairing, refitting or maintaining of ships which do not belong to the company concerned. The Government may wish that they had put that in the Bill, but they did not. They have endeavoured to mislead Parliament in a clear case of hybridity so that that hybridity would be concealed from Parliament.
The reason the Hansard of another place is available in the Vote Office of the House of Commons is so that Members of this House can, among other things, see the replies given by Ministers in another place and accept them as if they had been given in this House. The Government have tried a lot of spurious arguments. They have claimed, among other things, that a company is not in the business of repairing or maintaining ships if it repairs, maintains or refits its own ships. But there is nothing to say that in the Bill anywhere. This is a classsic example of a company being wrongly excluded from the Bill—a company which meets all the criteria for

947
inclusion. Naturally the Examiners would have seen that just as clearly as the Public Bill Office did.
There are many examples. The London Graving Dock Company was included in the Bill although it does not, in fact, fulfil the conditions because it was not, on 31st July 1974, engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships. My evidence for saying that is letters from the London Graving Dock itself, and one assumes it would know. The managing director of the company, Mr. Donald S. Crighton, wrote on 21st March 1975 to the then Secretary of State for Industry. His letter said:
"Dear Mr. Benn,
I am writing to you direct as time does not permit an approach through the usual channels.
Together with the Boilermaker's Society, this company is endeavouring to decasualise all trades on the London River. This can be achieved by obtaining additional work which is currently available if we had additional investment to create the necessary facilities to construct the submersible pontoons and SPM's etc.
The necessary funds could be obtained quickly by disposing of certain non-shiprepairing assets and companies which will not fit the new nationalised corporation. Two years ago we placed our entire ship repairing operation under the control of LGD Ship Repairers Limited; London Graving Dock Company Limited no longer repairs ships."
That was on 21st March 1975, yet the Government claim that that firm meets the requirements of the Bill.
On 31st July 1974—which is the date specified in the Bill—the London Graving Dock Co. was not engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships. It therefore does not meet the necessary qualifying condition given at the beginning of the Bill which I quoted.
There is further correspondence between Mr. E. V. Marchant at the Department of Industry, who is replying on behalf of Mr. Wedgwood Benn, and that firm. Writing back again on 8th April 1975 is Mr. F. J. Eaton, the company secretary. He is writing because Mr. Crighton's fellow directors want the company to be nationalised. Mr. Crighton, on the other hand, believes that there is a certain duty of honesty and truth both to the Government and Parliament. The company secretary takes over the task, as Mr. Crighton is not
948
prepared to help pull the wool over the eyes of Parliament. Mr. F. J. Eaton writes a letter to Mr. Marchant at the Department of Industry in which he says in the third paragraph:
"At the meeting of the board of directors on April 8, 1975 it was recognised that the group contains activities which, when viewed as a whole, fall within the definitions laid down. Included amongst the group are, however, activities which do not fall within that definition. Because of group reorganisations, the activities of the London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. are now in the form of a holding central services company but the company continues to hold title to various assets which are used elsewhere in the group for ship repairing purposes. Thus, neither LGD Ship Repairs Ltd. nor the London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. in isolation appear to satisfy the definitions, but these two companies together with other companies in the group engaged in ship repairing, or closely related activities, which collectively satisfy the definitions. We therefore reply to your numbered paragraphs in the context of the above situation as follows:—
1. We believe that the London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. with its other subsidiaries, excluding the Electrical Mechanical Industrial Division comprising Ayrodev Processes Ltd., Ayrodev Processes (U.K.) Ltd., Devroome Developments Ltd., and Ayr Engineering and Constructional Co. Ltd., is the company which most nearly meets the criteria set down."
A company does not say that it most nearly meets the criteria if it meets them.
Clearly, the managing director having been forbidden by his board to communicate truth to the Department, and the secretary of the Company having been given the job of trying to accommodate the Department to back up this untruthful representation to Parliament, we get this unhappy situation that, even when given that task, the secretary has to say not that the company has met the conditions laid down in the Bill but that it is the company which most nearly meets the criteria set down.
I turn to Westminster Dredging Co. Ltd., which meets all the criteria in the Bill but is not included in the list to be found on page 82. The Government say that it does not fulfil the qualifying condition (a), because it was not engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships for the following reasons. The first given is that the company has from time to time carried out repairs of its own vessels. Certainly it has, but that brings it into the Bill, it does not exclude it.

949
The second reason given is that on rare and irregular occasions it performs repair work on pontoon vessels for one fellow member of the same group. Indeed it did, but that again brings it into the Bill.
Thirdly, the Government say that this work was done on a non-profit-making basis. There is nothing in the Bill which says that a business has to be making profits. If it were a requirement for a firm to be profitable before it is taken into public ownership, Scott Lithgow—and indeed most of the names—would not be found on pages 81 and 82 of the Bill. That clearly is not one of the conditions.
Fourthly, the Government say that it was not in any way a separate business. The Bill does not require that it should be a separate business.
Fifthly, the Government say that its principal activity is and was dredging and land reclamation. So it may well be, but the Bill does not require that the maintaining, refitting or repairing of ships should be the principal business.
Sixthly, the Government say that the company did not at any time hold itself out to be or regard itself as a ship repairer. Nowhere in the Bill does it say that it has to hold itself out as being a ship repairer.
Let us look at the Memorandum of Association of the Westminster Dredging Co. Ltd., item 3 of which reads as follows:
"1. To carry on the business of dredging and general contractors, builders, mechanical, electrical and civil engineers, manufacturers of machinery, lightermen, ship and boat owners, builders and hirers, wharfingers, quarry masters and owners, cement manufacturers, cement and timber merchants, miners, mine owners … builders and repairers of all kinds of ships and craft".
If the Government consider that the Memorandum of Association is totally irrelevant, it can only be because they have not read it—and hope that the House has not read it, in which they are mistaken.
As to it being a firm repairing only its own vessels, between 27th July and 9th August 1972 it repaired the dredger "Savik" belonging to the borough of Preston, as the Clerk of Preston Council has certified. As for the company not holding itself out as being in the repair
950
business, the Clerk of Preston Council has confirmed that his council, as others, cannot put out work of this kind except by tender. It was indeed put out by tender.
Between 19th and 28th November 1973 the cargo ship "Vilya" belonging to Coronet Shipping was repaired. Between 10th and 17th May 1974 the tanker "Humeranto", belonging to C. W. van Meel, was repaired. Evidently the Preston Council was a satisfied customer, because between 19th and 24th March 1975 it came back again with a dredger called "Robert Weir".
Even if it is relevant, which it is not, for the Government to claim
"For the purposes of paragraph 1 above a company is a ship repairing company if—
(a) on 31st July 1974 it was engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships"
there is no question whatever but that the Westminster Dredging Co. Ltd. is wrongly excluded from the Bill, because it does not appear in the list on page 82 although it meets the requirements.
It is no part of my case that the Government should have sought to take into public ownership certain firms that they are not seeking to take into public ownership in the Bill, or that they should not have taken into public ownership via the Bill certain firms that met the qualifying conditions. They were entitled to do any of those things if they had written into the Bill the necessary criteria. In fact, the Government have misdrafted the Bill so badly that its criteria includes firms that they do not want to nationalise as well as firms that they want to nationalise. They have arbitrarily stuck the firms in the list in page 22, or excluded them from that list. That is the kindest way of putting it.
We shall never know what went on behind the scenes. Parliament will never know what deals were done by the Government to exclude certain firms despite the fact that they fall within the criteria or to include other firms despite the fact that they do not fall within them. We shall never know what deals the Government did, nor shall we know why they included firms that did not meet the criteria and excluded those that met them. All we know is that they included firms in the list in page 82 that do not meet the criteria and excluded firms that do

951
meet them. That is the essence of hybridity. Refusal to face that fact is the godfather of corruption.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member knows about that.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The institutions of the Examiner, the Standing Orders Committee and the Select Committee are the vehicles for ensuring that nothing improper takes place. Those are the institutions that have been set up by Parliament over many years to ensure that the taint of corruption is absent from Government. By cutting away those three instruments that were set up for the avoidance of corruption and the taint of corruption, the Government have taken upon themselves to do these shady and improper things. They have done so by avoiding the instruments that Parliament itself set up so that this sort of thing should not happen.
That is why all Members owe it to themselves to ensure that the instruments that Parliament has appointed—namely, the Examiner, the Standing Orders Committee and the Select Committee, or, exceptionally, a Joint Committee of the two Houses—are allowed to function so that legislation can be seen to be above board, honest and absent from dirty dealings behind the scenes. The Government, by cutting out these instruments, if the motion is passed, are asking Parliament to do a disgraceful thing to itself. I trust that it will not do so.
5.14 p.m.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I had no intention of speaking in this debate when I entered the Chamber, but, having listened to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I feel obliged to do so.
It is an honourable tradition in this House to pursue detail, even nitpicking detail, in the defence of freedom and liberty. History is full of individuals who have pursued constitutional point after constitutional point to ensure that we legislate properly in the interests of freedom and liberty. It is an honourable tradition for Members of this place to focus their attention on a particular subject and to make a reputable public name for themselves on that one issue. How-
952
ever, what has taken place this afternoon has little to do with freedom and liberty. In this context there is no individual facing unjust treatment.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: That is what Hitler said.
Mr. Buchan: On the contrary, Hitler happened to massacre 6 million Jews.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) will not pause in his speech when he hears what is clearly a remark from a Member in a sedentary position.
Mr. Buchan: When interjections are made with sufficient loudness it is difficult to avoid hearing them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) referred to Hitler. Earlier, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) made a reference to Mussolini. Those comparisons have been made.
I repeat that it is an honourable tradition to fight in the interests of freedom and liberty to defend the poor and the oppressed, but we are witnessing a campaign that has been undertaken in the interests of a conspiracy between the reactionary elements in this place and those in another place. Of course, there is a case for reactionaries to be Members of this place. That is part of our democratic tradition too. They have that right, and the people have a right to elect them. There is a conspiracy between the reactionary elements and members of an unelected, privileged and unrepresentative body.
We have been told that the Bill is peppered with hybridity. Those who make that claim took a long time to make the discovery. They made it during the dying stages of the Bill. They have used every possible method to hold back the Bill, defeat it and wreck it. They have continued with that campaign, and now we are told that the Bill is peppered with hybridity. I can recognise a sieve or a colander when I see it, but if the Bill is so full of holes as Opposition Members suggest, the scrutiny that they gave it originally must have been extremely poor. In fact, that suggestion is a nonsense, and Opposition Members know it.

953
We are now told by the hon. Member for Tiverton, who has left his place, that the Government have behaved disgracefully. He accuses the House. No doubt he will remember that the House, by a majority, supported the Government. We are now seeking by a third method to try to get the Bill through.
I remember that four years ago the House discussed a measure affecting the freedoms, liberties and democratic rights of the House and the Government. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was the Government Chief Whip when that was done. That measure was not discussed on Report. No amendments were accepted. The guillotine was used. That was the greatest invasion of the sovereign democratic rights of the British people that we have ever seen. That Act was conducted under the generalship of the right hon. Gentleman, who now has the impertinence to attack us. I am dubious therefore about the Opposition's motivation.
Incidentally, the House of Lords has not leapt to the attack to protect the poor or the oppressed whose liberty is at stake, but it has acted now in the defence of certain interests by claiming to find hybridity. Its actions have been prompted by a desire to try to wreck the Bill. It excluded a whole section of the Bill. That is how it has acted. That is the same House of Lords that did not introduce a single amendment to the European Communities Bill, notwithstanding its destruction of the democratic powers of this place. There was no attempt by their Lordships to try to defend the democratic structures of this place or this country.
Do not let the people at the other end of the corridor preach to us about constitutional rights. They clearly preach to Conservative Members because they come to this place like lapdogs and lackeys to reproduce the arguments. The unholy conspiracy of the Tory Party, the SNP and the House of Lords is threatening the democratic position of the majority of the British people.
There are grave issues involved. The people on Clydeside, the area from which I come, do not appreciate this sort of nitpicking in defence of business interests. We have already seen the first result of the nitpicking with the closure of the
954
Stephens Yard. Between 200 and 300 men have been thrown out of work in the past week. That is the result of the behaviour of the SNP, the Tory Party and the House of Lords.
Mrs. Margaret Bain: It is not in the Bill. Tell the truth.
Mr. Buchan: I always try to tell the truth. When I am faulted in the truth by the Scottish National Party, I shall indeed be in deadly trouble. The SNP has lied its way in propaganda in Scotland for five years, I am repeating the words of the leader of the workers, Jimmy Ramsay, who attributed the blame for the closure directly to there being no means of having the yard taken over by another. That is the truth. It has nothing to do with whether it was in the Bill or not. That was the first sacrifice, the first victim, of the failure to get the Bill through.
The jobs of tens of thousands of other workers are at stake as a result of what has happened. If I am asked to chose between the well-being of the people at the other end of the corridor in the House of Lords and the well-being of the people on Clydeside, I choose the latter. That is the issue at stake.
If there were one individual whose liberty or freedom was at stake or who was being oppressed by this action, I should listen with more respect to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Tiverton. I respect the hon. Gentleman for having raised this matter. That is the way in which we should work. But, having raised it, it is for this House to examine it and to decide democratically how we should proceed.
I am told that we are going against the democratic structures of this place because we have various Committees whose task it is to defend our rights or to look at the hybridity with which the Bill is supposed to be peppered. But those Committees are not of themselves the institutions to protect us against corruption and to ensure that nothing improper takes place. On the contrary, they are Committees whose purpose is to serve this House. It is we who ensure that nothing improper taks place.
What we are doing today is properly to establish the priority of the position

955
of this House and the Floor of this House in regard to the institutions within it. That is what we are doing and that is what we should be doing. We have had enough of the hypocritical humbug and rubbish which has come from the Opposition. I have nothing but contempt for this excuse for holding up the passage of the Bill, because it is sacrificing the livelihoods of thousands of workers whom I represent.
5.23 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I should like to make two brief observations to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), to whom I always listen with interest, though by no means always with agreement.
First, the persuasiveness of argument is often in inverse ratio to the intemperance of the language used to advance it. Secondly, one cannot or should not be selective in the application of the protection of the law and the freedom which it provides. One may not pick and choose and say "To this man I shall accord it, because I like his views" and "To that man I shall deny it, because I do not like his views." That is a denial of freedom which I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would not wish to pursue.
I am grateful for the opportunity of adding a word on this latest instalment of the sad and squalid saga of the Government's efforts to deny to Parliament and people the procedures and protection which the law provides for Hybrid Bills. I should make clear that my pejorative epithets apply only to the Government's action. As a compensating factor, the matter has evoked a commendable display of energy, industry and resolve on the part of many Members of both Houses and of all parties.
Events have taken a predictable course. Nobody who has studied the facts and the unsatisfactory explanations and purported justifications of Ministers in another place in the last two months could have expected any finding other than one of prima facie hybridity with the consequential application of Standing Order No. 38 and reference to the examiners.
956
Equally predictable was the Government's reaction in the face of the clear facts of the situation. Nobody who has studied the pattern of their conduct on the Bill could have expected, to what ever dwindling hopes they might cling any action by the Government other than resort to every expedient, however constitutionally disreputable, that might help them to evade the duties which the law and practice of Parliament lay upon them.
Therefore, we have this predictable situation: an order of the House for the examination of the Bill under Standing Order No. 38 based on fact and reason and the Government's effort to suppress it, deriving from a compound of obstinacy, ignorance and authoritarianism.
On 8th November last, as may be seen in columns 105 to 107 in Hansard, I drew attention to the fact that, following a series of exploratory questions in the House of Lords, a clear case had been made out for hybridity in the ship repairing provisions of the Bill. I said that a full and proper opportunity for debate should be provided for the proper investigation of the matter, which was clearly impossible under the proposed guillotine procedure. That was right and it is now proved to be so. Equally my plea fell on deaf ears within the Government.
Of course, on the facts now established the ship repairing provisions make this a Hybrid Bill. I say "the facts now established" because only patient and persevering interrogation by certain noble Lords has wrung from a reluctant Government the facts which they were under a positive and peremptory duty to ascertain and present to Mr. Speaker before asking for a Second Reading in the last Session. The Government have failed in their duty, but the other House has done its duty conscientiously and well.
Of course the Bill is a hybrid. The case or ship repairing is even clearer and more cogent than the case on shipbuilding in the last Session. Then it was a case of one ship and one yard. Now we have a cloud of witnesses, an accumulation of contradictions, and a diversity of disparity of treatment of private interests, which add up to what lawyers call an open and shut case.

957
The definition of a Hybrid Bill given by a former Speaker is:
"A Public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class."
In the ship repairing provisions we have a double dose of hybridity. Some companies have been excluded which, on a proper understanding and application of the qualifying conditions, should have been omitted. Others have been omitted which, on those conditions, should be included. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), in a very full and comprehensive speech, referred to some of those companies.
Mr. Foot: If, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, this is an open and shut case of hybridity—I certainly contest that strongly—why should the Lords not have taken that view and sent the Bill to the Examiners and had the examination there?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: It is an open and shut case when the facts are known. If the Bill goes back to the other place in this form—if this motion succeeds, contrary to all the merits—no doubt that course will be taken in the other place.
Mr. Foot: What are the facts which have come out since the House of Lords looked at the matter and considered whether to have the hybridity examined? The House of Lords, despite the open and shut case, decided not to take that action.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Because it felt that the Bill failed as a Bill in any event, and it does. The right hon. Gentleman—perhaps I may have his attention; he had mine—must try to be logical about this matter. The fact that there is one vice in the Bill does not prevent there being another vice. It has two vices. It is bad in its content and it is a hybrid. Those are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, they are cumulative vices in this single Bill.
Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for permitting me to intervene a third time. That might have been the view of the House of Lords on the first or second occasion. but when the Bill went back for the
958
third time, surely they might then have said that the question of hybridity might be raised in one form or another. Surely at some stage, if it was so unfair a proposal, the House of Lords should have taken action.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Of course the question of hybridity was canvassed in the House of Lords and I have referred to it. Surely the Leader of the House is not suggesting that because something has not been done in the House of Lords it cannot be done here.
Mr. Foot rose—
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I come to a semi-colon.
It is paradoxical that the right hon. Gentleman, who makes such scathing indictments of the other place, and who, at any rate in those now seemingly dim and distant days before he assumed the office of Leader of the House, was a great guardian of the rights of this House, now says that because this was not dealt with in another place this House is estopped from doing its duty.
Mr. Foot: I am not suggesting that this House is stopped. My intervention arose from the right hon. Gentleman saying that there was an open and shut case of hybridity. If the case was as open and shut as he claims, why did the House of Lords fail to refer the matter to the Examiners so that the so-called open and shut case could be dealt with? Perhaps they did not agree that it was an open and shut case.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman and I are unable to interpret the minds of the Members of the House of Lords. Perhaps the House of Lords thought that this democratically elected House should be given an opportunity to do in this Session what the arbitrary conduct of the Leader of the House prevented it from doing in the last Session.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Was not the reason most probably that, as the House of Lords had decided to cut out by amendment the section on ship repairing, it believed that if it had referred to it to the Examiners —which would have taken several weeks—the same Leader of the House who

959
castigates it for not referring the matter would have said that it was using a procedural device to waste time?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: That somewhat melancholy interpretation of the thinking of the Leader of the House is all too likely to be true.
I was about to refer to some of the companies that are or may be wrongly included—London Graving Dock; J. B. Howie and Western Ship Repairers. Those that may or have been wrongly omitted are Westminster Dredging, Richards, Humber St. Andrews and Helyer Bros.
There are three qualifying conditions in the schedule. The first relates to the business of repairing and fitting of ships, the second to having an interest in possession or licence to occupy, and the third to the turnover. The Government have had the dubious distinction of making mistakes on each and every one of those conditions in respect of the wrongful inclusion or omission of companies. On each of them the Government have, to use the polite language of law, misdirected themselves. Time forbids a full analysis of the unconvincing contentions and uneasy equivocations deployed by Ministers in the House of Lords on 14th October and 16th November.
Suffice it to say that they included a misapprehension as to the meaning of the words
"engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining".
Ministers seem to think that it means "solely or primarily engaged". It does not. If it did it would have been easy to draft the Bill to make that clear. This test is applied where it is meant to be applied in several statutes. I recommend the Government, as persistent and importunate borrowers, to examine, for an example, the Moneylenders Act.
Ministers then sought to introduce a criterion not expressed in the Bill at all—that certain activity was to be disregarded because it was said to be non-profit making. There is no warrant for the Government to graft on to the law things that are not there. The Government have a bee in their bonnet about profits and nonprofits, but I did not realise that it buzzed so frenetically and inconsequentially as as that.
960
In regard to condition (b) Ministers in the other House advance the startling proposition that a company engaged in substantial work of repair at a material date, did not have an
"interest in possession or licence to occupy a dry dock or graving dock."
In an effort to get away from the clear meaning of condition (a) the Minister in the House of Lords dragged in the improbable analogy of the activities of a laundry. I would have thought that the Government had enough dirty linen to wash already. They even mentioned land reclamation, which awakened some echoes on these Benches.
The Bill is patently hybrid. It applies different treatment to private concerns which are similarly circumstanced. Those concerns should, therefore, have the rights and remedies which the law allows. The protective procedures should be followed according to precedent. Why should they not? The Government say that there should be no delay. This is a cardinal recipe for the subversion of the rule of law and the erosion of democratic procedures. It begs the question of merit. The Government's motion assumes that prompt action is desirable, whatever its nature and content. I see that the Minister nods his head.
Mr. Kaufman: I was nodding in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should take nothing for granted.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, whom we normally regard as a very courteous Member, should be convicted by his colleague of discourtesy in talking during the proceedings.
The Government motion assumes that prompt action is desirable whatever its nature and content, and that speedy progress is desirable whatever its direction. That is not so. If it were, the best example of prompt action would be that of the Gadarene swine. There is no doubt about their sense of urgency or their preconceived and dogmatic choice of direction.
The true reason, of course, for the Government's indefensible proposal is the knowledge of the weakness of their

961
own case. They do not trust the procedures which Parliament, in its wisdom, has evolved for safeguarding the citizen and protecting his rights.
We can test it by an analysis of the procedures and see the various stages at which, and the various grounds on which, a Government may be entitled to proceed with a Bill as a Public Bill, provided always that their case is a good one, and only then.
Let us take the position as we now have it, with the Order inscribed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House and a duty laid on the Examiners the discharge of which is a condition precedent to the Second Reading of the Bill. What is that duty? It is
"To examine the Bill with respect to the applicability thereto of Standing Orders relating to Private Business."
Those Standing Orders are Standing Orders Nos. 4 to 68 inclusive in the Private Business Standing Orders. That we see in Standing Order No. 224.
If the Examiners report that none of those Standing Orders, compliance with which in a Private Bill would have to be proved before it is applicable, in fact applies, then it proceeds as an ordinary Public Bill. In that case, the wraps are off. The Bill can proceed to a Second Reading with a minimum of delay.
That is the first possibility that would present itself to a Government with the confidence that comes from a clear conscience, knowing that both sides, they and the Petitioners, would have a right of representation to the Examiners as provided by Standing Order No. 224.
But then, if the Examiners ruled otherwise—if they report non-compliance with the Standing Orders applicable to the Bill—their report is referred to the Standing Orders Committee. That, as you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is a very reputable and responsible body indeed, consisting of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means and eight Members nominated by the Committee of Selection. That we see in Standing Order No. 103.
In spite of non-compliance, that Committee can report to the House that the Standing Orders should be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed, on specified terms and conditions if need be.
962
That is the second possibility that would present itself to a Government with the confidence that comes from a clear conscience.
If the Government had a good case and a good conscience, they would rely upon these procedures, under which both they and the Petitioners would have a right of audience and representation in what is in effect a quasi-judicial proceeding. That we find in Standing Order No. 107. But no, they refuse those opportunities. They seek to reject the prescribed procedures and to deny them to citizens concerned.
There can be only one explanation. Ministers fear those objective and constitutional procedures. They fear the result of applying them. They fear that the right to petition, once exercised, would reveal beyond the peradventure the unfairnesses and illogicality of their approach and the invalidity of the Government's case.
We are not here concerned only with the pros and cons of nationalisation, important as that is. I accept that Labour Members have a belief, profound and sincere, in the efficacy of nationalisation. I do not share it, but I respect it. On that I say only this. The fact that we operate a mixed economy in this country should remove the question from the realm of general dogma to that of particular pragmatic proof—but such proof cannot derive from a Bill that is as defective in its drafting as this one.
However, we are not concerned only with these economic matters, important as they undoubtedly are. We are concerned with the preservation of the practices and processes, the procedures and protection, bestowed by democratic institutions on a free society. These are fundamental things. The detail of these matters may be dry, but there is nothing arid about the observance of the rule of law. It is a vital part of our way of life, and once lost can rarely be made good.
The motion involves a substantial erosion of democratic rights and a violation of constitutional proprieties. I should regret the presentation and passage of such a motion in any assembly of free men. To contemplate it here in this House of Commons, which I have known

963
and loved for 10 Parliaments and three decades, makes me sad indeed.
I say this in conclusion to the Government. Their case is weak and their motives suspect. I give them this warning. Do not underestimate the percipience of the British people. The British people will neither readily forgive nor speedly forget a party and a Government who use their transient position of political power to take from the citizens his rights and to filch from the nation its liberties.
Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have heard the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) to the effect that there is a hybrid element in the Bill. On the last occasion that we discussed such a motion as is before the House now, in May, the House was asked to come to a conclusion on the motion having had Mr. Speaker's ruling that there was indeed a prima facie case of hybridity in the Bill at that time. I believe that it would facilitate the House in coming to a conclusion on the present motion of Mr. Speaker were to rule whether there is a prima facie hybridity in the Bill.
I am, therefore, making formal application to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that either you or Mr. Speaker should give to the House a ruling on the submissions put forward by my hon. Friend and by my right hon. and learned Friend on the point about hybridity before the House is asked to come to a conclusion, because this would clearly greatly affect the way in which many hon. Members wish to cast their votes.
The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President has expressed it as his firm opinion that the Bill is not hybrid, but if he were to be told that the Bill was hybrid, presumably he would, as a man of honour, vote immediately against his own motion. I therefore believe that it is right for me officially to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask Mr. Speaker to rule on the point raised by my hon. Friend before the House is asked to come to a conclusion later this evening.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened most carefully to the point of order
964
raised by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I have listened as hon. Members will have noticed, with keen interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). From listening to the arguments, it seems remarkable to me that neither of them raised the point of order that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has raised, because I think that they have made a detailed study of the whole position. In any case, in my opinion—and this is how I rule—this is entirely a matter for decision by the House itself.
Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful of what you have said, but perhaps I may suggest that the matter is not one for decision by the House itself because Mr. Speaker has a right and proper duty to rule when a submission is put to him that a Bill is hybrid. The precedent for this is very real and true, in that Mr. Speaker ruled in just that way on a previous occasion on this very Bill. I do not believe that it is at all right to say that the House will resolve the question of hybridity by deciding on the motion, because the House may well come to a different conclusion if Mr. Speaker has ruled that prima facie it is a Hybrid Bill or if he has ruled that it is not.
Therefore, it seems wrong, I suggest, with the greatest respect, to say that this is a matter for the House to decide, when the House would be facilitated in that decision if Mr. Speaker were to give his ruling.
Mr. Foot: Perhaps I may say, in relation to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if there had been anything improper about our motion on the Order Paper, this would have been indicated by Mr. Speaker and the authorities of the House when the motion was put down. There was clearly nothing out of order about it. The House has the full right to decide the matter. Therefore, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), despite his great knowledge of these matters, is misinforming the House in suggesting that it is not the business of the House to decide the matter but the business of Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Tebbit rose—
Mr. David Crouch rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall get bogged down if I hear too many angles on a point of order. I shall deal with the point of order that has been raised.
The second point of order raised by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is based on a misunderstanding of what happened on the last occasion when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling. Mr. Speaker gave his ruling on hybridity after the Second Reading of the Bill. The situation is entirely different this afternoon. I see that the hon. Member for Tiverton is agreeing with me wholeheartedly. I think that if I were called upon to make a choice between the views of the hon. Member for Tiverton and those in the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I would always select the views of the hon. Member for Tiverton. There is a fundamental difference between the situation when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling and today. The occupant of the Chair has to give a ruling, and my ruling is that this is a matter for the House.
Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the Chair, the House and particularly the Lord President should be clear that the matter before the House is not that of deciding whether the Bill is hybrid. The House cannot take that decision. The matter before the House is to decide whether the hybrid Bill will be treated as though it were not a hybrid Bill, and those two matters are different.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for reinforcing the opinion that I gave.
Mr. Onslow rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have a lot of business to do and it will help if we can get on with it. I have given a ruling and I feel that I have to stick to it. However, I call the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) to raise his point of order.
Mr. Onslow: Perhaps it will save time if I put the point of order. It seems to
966
me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on reflection you will consider it unfortunate that the Chair should reflect upon the value of opinions held by individual Members, even on such a subject as matters of order. I put it to you that what you said about my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), was something which, on the whole, you would not care to put down as a ruling.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry if the hon. Member does not enjoy a bit of humour occasionally.
Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with you about your relative selection as between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton but I should like to draw your attention to the point that although on the last occasion the Bill had had a Second Reading, on this occasion it has had only its First Reading. Whether it has had a Second Reading as opposed to its First Reading seems to be relevant. After all, hon. Members on this side of the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, have been chided continually for being so late to discover hybridity on the last occasion. As the Bill has been challenged as to its hybrid nature on the first day after its First Reading, my hon. Friend is trying to rectify the defect of which he was accused on the last occasion. Surely it is right and proper that, through you, I can ask Mr. Speaker to give a ruling whether the Bill, which has had its First Reading in this House, is prima facie a hybrid Bill. If it is, it will affect the way in which hon. Members vote.
Mr. John Gorst: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to emphasise a unique aspect of the situation, namely, that when we get to the Second Reading of the Bill we shall not be in a position to do anything about the motion which embraces the fact of hybridity. That is an added reason for suggesting that perhaps my hon. Friend has a point for your consideration.
Mr. Crouch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that this is a serious moment and that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr.

967
Ridley) is important. I, like my hon. Friend, have sat through the whole debate and heard the deep and thoughtful speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in which they advanced revealing and telling arguments to show that without question and without a shadow of doubt the Bill is a hybrid measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in view of such revelations and the complete failure of the Leader of the House to deal with those matters and rebut them, it would save the House a great deal of time if the matter were referred to Mr. Speaker for a ruling. I strongly support the application.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I respectfully submit that a great deal of time would be saved if hon. Members would read the terms of the motion, because that provides complete guidance on what the debate is about. The debate is about whether the matter should be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. That is what we are discussing, and no ruling is required from Mr. Speaker.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Clemitson: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) accused the Government of a whole series of misdemeanours, if not heinous crimes. There were so many that I ran out of paper trying to write them down. I noted cowardice, deception, corruption and dirty dealing occurring during his speech as accusations against the Government with regard to their behaviour on this Bill. Indeed, by the end of his speech the burglars of Watergate and the plumbers of the White House appeared as knights in shining armour by comparison.
Let us get back to the points at issue, particularly the question of Standing Order No. 38 to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred. We went over this argument several times during the last Session, but I hope that the House will forgive me for spending a couple of minutes on repeating the
968
point that Standing Order No. 38 refers only to raising the question of hybridity before the Second Reading.
In the last Session the Opposition were trying to raise the question of hybridity after the Second Reading, and from this side of the House we argued—and I argued this on a couple of occasions —that because Standing Order No. 38 referred only to the time before the Second Reading of a Bill, the clear implication was that if the matter of hybridity was not raised before the Second Reading, that issue was out of time. If that were not so, the Standing Orders would provide for the possibility of hybridity being raised and considered at subsequent stages of a Bill after the Second Reading. No one from the Opposition Benches could produce a single precedent of hybridity being raised successfully after the Second Reading of a Bill.
The situation today is that we have a Bill—effectively the same Bill as before —which has been through every stage of the procedures of the House at exhaustive and, indeed, in the case of those hon. Members who were on the Committee exhausting length. We are dealing with what the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East called law, or the rules, the Standing Orders, and the precedents about hybridity. The argument from the Opposition Benches can only be that we have gone back to square one and therefore yet another bite can be had at the hybridity cherry. But we are clearly not going back to square one, because if it is argued that that is what we are doing that is to ignore completely the hundreds of hours of debate on the Bill during the last Session of Parliament.
We know why we are in the position of having to bring the Bill forward in this Session. It is because of the action of the House of Lords.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has recalled the exchanges that we had in the summer. I well recall the interesting speech that he made and the interesting argument he adduced. I subsequently replied to that in The Times newspaper, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, on 4th June and dealt with the argument that it was possible to do this after Second Reading. The hon.

969
Gentleman will appreciate that we are now faced with an entirely different situation. The fallacy of his present argument is that, if it were so, it would not be necessary for the Bill to be read a Second time at all. Standing Order 38 says:
"Where a public bill (not being a Bill to confirm a provisional order or certificate) is ordered to be read a second time on a future day".
That is precisely the set of circumstances that we have here today.
Mr. Clemitson: I can only say in reply —I do not wish to score cheap debating points—that a different interpretation of the hybridity situation is now being offered. The Opposition are now agreeing with the interpretation of the Standing Orders which we argued last Session. During the debates on procedure last session we continually argued that the only relevant Standing Order was Standing Order No. 38 and that it dealt only with the situation before the Second Reading. Technically we now have a situation where we are in the position of being before the Second Reading but we are also in the situation—this must surely be taken into account—of having a Bill before us because of the application of the Parliament Act. That is a very different situation from the one envisaged in Standing Order No. 38.
The hon. Member for Tiverton said that the Bill is peppered with hybridity. The question that inevitably arises in certain sceptical and suspicious minds on this side of the Chamber is: why were these issues not raised before? We heard about the Key Victoria—that peculiar looking vessel—in the last Session but now there is an argument about ship repairing. No doubt the list will be added to day by day. We await the news with interest.
Why were these issues not originally raised last session before the Second Reading?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When I raised the matter in debate I said that the external facts, not printed in the Bill, on which hybridity depended—the Key Victoria being on the slipway—were not known by hon. Members of this House before Second Reading. As soon as it was known I raised it with Mr. Speaker. Similarly, I had not been through the accounts of Westminster Dredging and I
970
did not know what ships they were or were not repairing on a certain date. Those facts could not be ascertained even by reading the Bill a million times. They were external facts which could be discovered only by people taking a good look and seeing what they found out.
Mr. Clemitson: Those facts were known perfectly well by the companies concerned. Are we to believe that those companies are poor little companies with no facilities and no legal and expert advisers? That is stretching the bounds of our credulity to impossible lengths.
Mr. Onslow: I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman was not present when all these matters were explained. It is a matter of fact that one of the companies clearly wanted to be nationalised, knew that it could not qualify under the Bill, and kept its mouth shut. That is not stretching the bounds of credulity. It is a fact.
Mr. Clemitson: Perhaps I might get on with my argument. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have lost it."] The argument is not lost. As Sydney Smith said, we are obviously arguing from different premises. We are on different sides of the House if not on different sides of the street. These facts were known by people—[An HON. MEMBER: "They were hushed up."] They were not hushed up. They were well known to many people who were intimately concerned with the Bill and its effects. It was up to them to raise these matters. They have the benefit of expert advice.
I would make a comparison that I have made before. Hon. Members of this House know about problems which affect ordinary people concerning the immensely complex social security legislation that we pass through this House. All of us have come across people who have been told "I am sorry, you cannot have sickness or unemployment benefit or even redundancy payment because you are out of time. You ought to have known that the onus of knowing what your rights are, and what you should do, is on you." That is said to people without the benefit of expert legal advice. But we are not talking about individuals in this case. We are talking about large powerful companies with plenty of expertise, legal and otherwise, at their disposal.

971
The original Key Victoria attempt to raise hybridity was an attempt by the Opposition to get a second bite at the cherry. But the Opposition knew very well that according to the rules and precedents they were out of time. Not content with trying to get a second bite at the cherry, they are now trying to get yet another bite. The Government are not attempting to rewrite the rules or break them. It has been the Opposition who continually throughout the passage of the Bill have attempted to bend the rules to their own ends. I ask with what objective.
Mr. Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clemitson: I am sorry, I have given way many times and I am literally on the last sentence of my speech.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Stop being a Heap, Uriah.
Mr. Clemitson: Is the Opposition's objective really to achieve justice and equity or is it to wreck the Bill?
6.8 p.m.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Knowingly or unknowingly the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) may have blown the gaff on the Government's extraordinary conduct on the probable hybridity of this Bill. It may have been that the Government—unless there has been gigantic incompetence—were made aware of the serious risks of hybridity in the Bill at the beginning. It may have been that the Government were banking on the interpretation of Standing Order 38 which the hon. Member for Luton, East has so persistently upheld. The Government may well have said to themselves that there was a great risk of hybridity, but that by the time the Opposition parties found out what was going on it would be too late for them and Standing Order 38 would not enable them to raise the matter. That is a possible interpretation of what, to me, is still a rather unpleasant mystery.
Only a vandal would deliberately disturb, or attempt to disturb, the reverence which earlier this afternoon the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) showed for the late noble marquess from Hatfield House. This was a partnership of authoritarians in their different
972
spheres. It quite often occurs in British politics and transcends other differences of political philosophy. These people say "It must be done my way", they lay down the law, and they expect people in the middle of the political spectrum to bow down and agree. All that I ask, without disturbing that touching reverence, is that the utterance of the late noble marquess should be seen in a historical context, as any sixth former writing an essay on the subject would be adjured to do.
When the noble marquess made this great deliverance on the subject of how far the other place should go, he was doing so at a time when, in terms of voting numbers, General Elections were substantially two-party affairs and where it was, therefore, in a two-party situation, inevitable that the party which won power would have if not more than 50 per cent. of the vote at any rate a figure approaching 50 per cent. Certainly the noble marquess cannot have visualised the situation in which an important measure would be introduced by a party which obtained only 28 per cent. of the votes of those on the register. This is a fundamental point of democracy.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the noble marquess, who grew up in a tradition of rather more efficient draftsmanship and more careful legislation, ever envisaged that an important manifesto point would be embodied in such highly defective legislation. He would never have imagined that a Government in this country would come forward with a measure reeking of hybridity in the hope that this would not be discovered until it was too late to raise the matter. Therefore, it is inappropriate for us to be lectured today by the Leader of the House in terms of the late noble marquess, who was in his time a great statesman.
We are confronted with a more than unworthy attempt to abandon a traditional and extremely important arrangement whereby private interests, if they feel that they are being unevenly treated by a Bill, are entitled to be properly heard by a Committee of this House.
What I personally resent most is the suggestion that they can legitimately be deprived of this most important right either because they are not terribly important victims—that was the unworthy

973
assertion of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who said that they were not martyrs who were about to be carted off to prison, as if that were the test—or because it is rather late in the day that this has been discovered. If either of those assertions were ever widely accepted in this House it would be the beginning of the end of any kind of meaningful freedom.
The idea that on a complicated issue of this kind, when the House is breaking completely new ground in nationalising four manufacturing industries of great complexity, there must be a time limit, as though one were claiming sickness benefit, is a monstrous assertion. This is the way that liberties perish. Everyone begins by saying how important they are and how he would go to the stake to defend them, but then turns to a specific case and says that it is a most unworthy one and not the kind of case he had in mind at all. It is unfortunate that that sort of argument has been adduced today.
If we were tamely to give way to this bulldozing procedure for the second time this year we would be setting an unfortunate precedent which would undermine the faith which a large number of worthy private interests of all sorts have in the proper procedures of this House.
I turn now to the other part of the motion. Again, it would be disreputable of this House to pass a motion to carry a Bill virtually to its final stage without the opportunity for debate on it. Under the present system there are in this House parties which, despite having very strong voting support in great areas of the country, have no representatives of their parties in this House from those areas. Therefore, time is naturally required for facts to come to their notice, and it seems wrong that this Bill should be pushed through at this stage without an opportunity for any further such revelations to be reported to the House.
I know of a case in point. Only yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) happened to be able to pay a visit at last to an area where my party is grossly unrepresented in this House, namely, the North-East Coast. It was the first opportunity that any representative of my party had had to go up there personally to reconnoitre the shipbuilding situation. My hon.
974
Friend met the shop stewards of Austin & Pickersgill. He found to his surprise that, with one exception, they wished to have it on record that they were wholly opposed to the nationalisation of their shipyard. That is a fact which should at least be ventilated in this House in a proper debate on a large measure of this kind, and one which we shall be unable to develop properly if this motion is passed.
Of course, the will of the other place should not prevail against the wishes of the British people if these are efficiently ascertained and properly embodied in respectable legislation, but that is no reason why this House should submit tamely to a measure which is a great piece of deceit practised on the House on the basis of which no respectable—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In fairness to right hon. and hon. Members, and in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), as is his right, is not giving way at all, I think that I should point out that, immediately after we have disposed of the motion under discussion, we shall proceed to the very matters which the hon. Gentleman says will not be discussed.
Mr. Wainwright: If that amounts to some assurance that a view—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There will be a Second Reading debate on the Bill.
Mr. Wainwright: If that amounts to an assurance that it will be possible to have a second innings from the Liberal Bench—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not an assurance from the Chair. Hon. Members are making claims which they would see, if they would read their Order Paper, represent precisely what is to happen in the House.
Mr. Wainwright: If my fears are groundless that it will not be possible, once this motion is passed, for a further contribution from this Bench to be heard, my cup of happiness is full. But I doubt very much whether I can have an assurance about that.
Mr. Tebbit: The Lord President is selecting the speakers now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Colne

975
Valley wants an assurance that he is certain to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair during the Second Reading debate. That is a matter for the occupant of the Chair at the time.
Mr. Tebbit: The Lord President says that he will be. The Lord President is listing them now.
Mr. Wainwright: It is that very doubt that gave rise to my deep concern with which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must therefore, persist.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me make it absolutely clear. I think that it is only fair to the House to do so. The Lord President has no say whatever and makes no representations to the occupant of the Chair about who shall be called in the debate.
Mr. Wainwright: I understood that from the beginning, and that was the ground of my fear.
As I was saying, there is no doubt that the wishes of the British people must prevail if they are backed by a proper mandate and if they are efficiently embodied in a respectable piece of legislation, but since neither of those conditions is fulfilled in this case my right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel obliged to oppose the motion.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The speeches of the hon. Members for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) and Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) were absolutely disgraceful. They could be described as "housemaid's baby" speeches, in that they pleaded that the hybridity in the Bill was both very little and discovered very late—in the latter case, more than nine months after conception. For them to seek justification for the Government in those arguments is something of which they should be bitterly ashamed.
Mr. Clemitson: The whole thrust of the argument, certainly of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) was that the Government were bending or breaking the rules; that the law was being undermined. The thrust of my speech was
976
that the rules were being properly interpreted by the Government.
Mr. Ridley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I owe you an apology. Since I raised my point of order with you, I have discovered that the Bill has been virtually declared a hybrid, since the Order Paper contains the words:
"Second Reading (To be reported upon by the Examiners.)"
I had overlooked that, and I apologise.
So we are not now in any doubt about the true nature of the Bill. It is a hybrid Bill. All that the hon. Gentleman was arguing was "Yes, but it is only a little bit of hybridity and anyway we have discovered it at the wrong stage in the game." That is special pleading of a sort which, on mature consideration, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will bitterly regret.
It is this expediency about the Government's actions of which I want to talk. I notice that there are only two sad little names proposing the motion—"Mr. Michael Foot" and "Mr. Secretary Varley". The latter is one who would have us believe that the Bill will help Britain to rule the waves; the former is the one who waives the rules.
The Leader of the House gives the game away in the very first line of the motion, with the words
"in view of the serious consequences of uncertainty".
Nobody uses those words unless he intends to do something that he knows he should not do. In effect, the Government are saying We know that the Bill is hybrid and we are crowding out the rights of the petitioner, but in view of something which we consider to be of overriding importance, we shall do it."
That is the justification of the Lord President's great friend, Mrs. Gandhi. Why does he not say "In view of the serious consequences of uncertainty, the House thinks that the whole Opposition should be put in prison"? It is just as logical and just as constitutional. The House could pass such a motion. The Lord President does not have many more steps to take to achieve that same high degree of honour which the Prime Minister of India has achieved—in view of the overriding importance of what he wants to do.

977
What does the right hon. Gentleman want to do? He wants to end the uncertainty for the industries concerned. During the long-drawn-out game of tennis between this House and another place over this Bill, I have observed the share values in the Financial Times when something dramatic has happened, making it either more or less likely that the industries would be nationalised. The curious thing is that when it seems likely that the Bill will fail, the shares of half the companies go up a good deal and the shares of the other half go down. Then, if the Government show determination, the reverse happens and the shares revert to the previous pattern.
This happens because the uncertainty, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it, works both ways. For the prosperous and successful companies, nationalisation means that their prosperity and success will be ended. Better uncertainty than that, surely. But for the unsuccessful and unprosperous companies whose shares rise only upon the certainty of nationalisation arising again, there is a very serious point which I wish to put to the House and which goes to the heart of all the arguments used by the Government in these debates.
That argument is that people will lose their jobs if the Bill does not go through quickly. The hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West, who, in his usual disgraceful manner, did not stay to hear his arguments answered, said the same thing. Will these men really be made redundant if the Bill does not go through, and will they not be made redundant if it does? That argument means that by passing the Bill and agreeing to the motion we should simply add to our economic problems by taking on to the payroll people who should not be on it. That is the most disgraceful argument that could be used by a Government struggling up to their necks with debt and trying to get the economy right—"Give us the Bill so that we can employ all these people whom we know we should not be employing".
The only good piece of news that I have heard this week came from the Chancellor yesterday. He said that the IMF had even suggested that it might try to sell the social contract to some other countries. If we could export the social contract, we might
978
indeed have an industrial revival. We might be able to beat the competition if the social contract, as exemplified in the Bill and the motion, were exported to our chief competitors. That might damage them grievously.
The Bill is hybrid. We have heard good and persuasive arguments from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about the number of companies that should be in but are not and the number that should be out but are not. The Lord President and the jack-in-the-box Minister of State who keeps trying to interrupt seem to believe that the list as it is is right, whereas grave doubt has been thrown on it by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
This is not a matter that we should decide; it is a matter that the Examiners should decide, and the Clerk has so ruled. It is wrong for the Government to seek to interpret their legislation even before it has gone through Parliament, to say which companies should be in the list and which should not. That is the reason for the hybridity rule.
If there is a dispute at a later stage, what will happen? Supposing that the Bill becomes law exactly as it is and some rapacious Secretary of State—perhaps the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will soon take over as Secretary of State for Industry— says "I want Richards or the Sugar Line or I do not want the London Graving Dock Company". He will make an order under the Bill, dragging them in and saying "They are mine. I want them in. I have nationalised them, because they meet the qualifying conditions."
If the companies concerned take legal action, what will be their legal rights? How could litigation arising from this situation be resolved? The law is not clear. The schedule says that they are not in, but according to the qualifying conditions, they are in. This matter cannot possibly be resolved even by the courts. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Luton, East to say that it does not matter, and that he is more interested in the welfare of the Clyde shipyards than in that of another place. These are large companies employing large numbers of people, with, large capital funds. People's jobs and financial holdings are at stake. That is

979
why the procedure laid down is right as it is and should be maintained.
In moving this motion, the Government are not employing some technical little device to stop my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton raising his usual brilliant procedural points; what they are doing is breaking the rules so as to disadvantage ordinary working people and ordinary working investors. The Leader of the House should be ashamed of the doctrine that he envinced and that he and the noble marquess have cooked up together—that the Lords are not to change anything that is in the manifesto.
Let me remind hon. Members that the manifesto contained proposals for making everybody better off and happier, for stopping the rise in prices, and reducing taxation. There was all the usual Socialist euphoria. What are the Lords to do about this, because the Government have not stuck to that? Are the Lords to throw out proposals because the Government have not kept to their manifesto in what are the more important respects? The right hon. Gentleman would not like it if they did. His doctrine is rubbish. What might apply in one year does not apply in the next.
The right hon. Gentleman sits there shaking his head violently from right to left when anything is said from the Tory Benches, and shaking it the other way when rubbish is spoken from his own Back Benches. He is beleaguered, unhappy and unsure of himself, knowing that the country has failed to support him, knowing that his supporters have drifted away, and knowing that he remains with a majority of only one vote in the House. He has no support anywhere else in the country. Yet he is grimly determined to force through this hated Bill by cheating, by waiving the rules in any way he can. Why can he not realise that in the end democracy must prevail?
6.31 p.m.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I used to say that I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I no longer do that. He has just made a disgraceful speech. The speeches from Opposition Members have been loaded with hypocrisy and cant. I include, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Benches. What has
980
happened to all the great radical tradition of which we used to hear? The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) does not display any, either. He has become more Tory than the Tories—apart, of course, from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who represents the extreme Right Wing of the Tory Party. Whenever he makes a speech in this House he attempts cheap jibes and character assassination. He never succeeds, because he does not believe what he is saying. When he speaks about taking into public ownership this and that he forgets that he was on the Government side when Rolls-Royce was taken over within 24 hours. That is the true position. There was not a whisper of opposition then.
When we are examining the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, and when we are talking about people's employment, I wish that more members of the public could come here to listen to the Opposition. It does not matter to them. They do not care. All they are concerned about is hybridity and about the future of the great companies of which they speak—companies which are going bankrupt as they while away their time. They talk about democracy. They depend upon a Second Chamber which has not been elected by anyone. What kind of democracy is that?
I only wish that Opposition Members could have met the frustrated aircraft workers with whom I spoke last night. Those workers told me that their jobs were at stake. They said that they wished that the Government had asked 400 of them to become peers so that the Bill could go through the House of Lords. We want this Bill because the plans for the industry are being held up and no decisions are being taken. This is not good for the workers or for the economy. It may well be that due to the irresponsible Opposition here and in the other place—
Mr. Victor Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman is surely aware that the Government could have had the aircraft and shipbuilding industries nationalised a week ago if they had wanted to. It is only the obstinacy of the Government in insisting on including ship repairing that has prevented the aircraft industry from getting what the hon. Gentleman says it

981
wants—although I do not believe that the industry does want it.
Mr. Hoyle: That has nothing whatever to do with my argument. We have a mandate to nationalise ship repairing and we are sticking to that mandate. It is necessary to take that step if we are to have a viable shipbuilding and ship repairing industry. As long as the Bill is held up, decisions that are vital to the aerospace industry are delayed. The workers and the economy are suffering. Unless these decisions can be taken fairly quickly we may well miss the market for the new aircraft that ought to be being designed now. That is the indictment of the Tory Party.
In the shipbuilding industry it is even worse. If ever there was a memorial to the fact that private enterprise has failed the nation it is the shipbuilding industry. That is not because it has not been taken into public ownership; it is because, not just now but for decades, the industry has let down the nation by failing to invest money and modernise the yards. That has meant that we are unable to compete. We are starting, rather late in the day but better late than never, to revitalise the yards. We cannot begin to do that until we get this Bill.
In the meantime, in areas of high unemployment, many more people may lose their jobs. The responsibility for that must lie with the Opposition and those representatives of no one in the other Chamber. They are all indicted. It is time to end this synthetic nonsense, arguing about hybridity and the rest. It is time to wake up and realise that the jobs of people employed in these industries are at risk and that the nation and the economy are being sold short by irresponsible action which has been evident throughout the proceedings on this Bill.
6.37 p.m.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I suppose that it was inevitable that in support of the Government's grotty little motion someone would make the sort of speech that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) has just made. I am bound to say that if he takes word for word the sort of rubbish that is spoken by an ad hoc delegation of five Communist shop stewards who have been drummed up at the last minute to produce a bit of evidence of concern—
Mr. Hoyle rose—
Mr. Onslow: I have not even begun to provoke the hon. Gentleman. He had better save his ammunition for a little later. We have before us a motion that is justified on the grounds that there will be serious consequences for industry, including the aircraft industry, if the Bill does not go through. As a matter of fact, the aircraft industry is in for a pretty rotten time because of the way in which the Government have consistently mismanaged affairs since they came to office.
There is nothing in the Bill that will make any difference to the number of jobs that will be lost in that industry because of the action, or inaction, of the Government. It is a brutal and callous confidence trick to pretend, as the Government sometimes do when members of its Front Bench are sleep-walking through their scripts, that there would not be a single redundancy in the aircraft industry if we could get this Bill on the statute book tomorrow.
Everyone in the industry knows that there will be a large number of redundancies for reasons for which the Government are largely to blame. The Minister of State who has been bobbing up and down like a ping-pong ball on a jet of hot air was recently in the United States. He was going around trying to persuade people that he was the saviour of the civil aircraft industry in this country and was interested in anything that made commercial sense. He wanted to preserve jobs. He was determined to build the HS146.
At that point, he lost conviction and the interest of anyone who was listening to him. Circumstances have so changed, thanks to the way in which the Government have mismanaged the industry's affairs, that there is no possibility of making money out of the HS146. If the Minister of State is saying that he wants this project to go ahead as a form of outdoor relief for the aircraft industry, or in a vain attempt to save the seat of the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman), who has had such distressing publicity recently, he may as well save himself the trouble. Everyone who knows the industry knows that these objectives are illusory and cannot be achieved.
It is about time that we got away from the pretence that there is anything in this

983
Bill that will make any difference to the inevitable redundancies that will be experienced in the aircraft industry all over the country. The Secretary of State, who sleepwalked his way through a speech the other night, said that if the Bill does not go through the British Aircraft Corporation plant at Weybridge will have to close. I represent many workers at that plant. If any of them had believed the Secretary of State they would surely have come to me to say that this was a serious state of affairs and that we must support the Bill, but I have not had a single representation or expression of concern and I doubt whether anyone in the industry was so persuaded. The defence industry will keep the aircraft industry in this country alive with orders like the one, initiated by private enterprise and risk taking, for sales to Iran. Nothing will flow from the takeover of this industry by the bunch of incompetents on the Treasury Bench.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will find that workers in his constituency will be done out of work because of the direction of Government contracts to nationalised industries. Lucas Aerospace is in danger of losing work that will be pre-empted by the Government and put into the nationalised company, Hawker Siddeley. He will have to explain that, and good luck to him.
This debate on hybridity has taken place after the event. The prima facie issue was settled on Monday, when the Clerks decided that the Bill should go to the Examiners. The Leader of the House may shake his head, but he should look at the Order Paper, because it appeared as item No. 5 on Monday. If he dissents from what I have said, perhaps he will explain how this happened. Was it because of inadvertence or incompetence, or was it the proper parliamentary process? Perhaps whoever replies for the Government at the end of the debate will touch on that. If the Leader of the House claims that because this House chooses to set its own rules at naught the House of Lords must to the same; that because the Clerks here find the Bill is prima facie hybrid, the House of Lords must not do the same; because we choose to upset the ruling of our Clerks, the Lords must do so also, he is on dangerous ground. He is preparing
984
the way for straightforward tyranny. He shakes his head. We get to know the right hon. Gentleman very well. Last night we saw him on good form, clowning, hamming it up, back to his good old Back Bench irresponsibility.
Mr. Hoyle: You are jealous.
Mr. Onslow: I am not jealous. To be jealous of such Jekyll and Hyde character, a man with such a split personality—to see myself in the shoes of such an incompetent Leader of the House —never ! He is a disgrace. If the Lords assert their right to make up their own minds and decide that this is a hybrid Bill—and their Clerks will advise them—they will be well and truly justified.
6.42 p.m.
Mr. Peter Rees: If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) had paid the House the courtesy of listening to earlier speeches, particularly those made by Conservatives, he might have addressed himself to the real issue.
I have not previously sought to intervene in debates on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill because I have no direct constituency interest, although I suspect that the majority of my constituents have, like myself, watched the erosion of our freedom over the past two years with as much concern as any hon. Gentleman who had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committe on this Bill. The reason I sought to catch the eye of the Chair today is that I do not want to be party to a repetition of the particularly squalid incident that occurred in this House in May, during the last Session.
I do not complain that the Leader of the House has attempted to project this as another passage of arms between the two Houses. We know that he has a slight fixation about the Lords. But that is not the most important issue that we are debating tonight. I do not complain that the Bill is being reintroduced. The Government are entitled to take advantage of the Parliament Act 1948, in the same way that the House of Lords is entitled to exercise its powers to reject a Bill sent up from this House.
I do not propose to consider the Salisbury doctrine, although I am fascinated that it has now been elevated to the level

985
of a constitutional convention. Perhaps I have not given such close attention to the Labour Party manifesto produced for the last two Elections as I should, but I do not believe that the nationalisation of the ship repairing industry is to be found in it. I am open to correction. The hon. Gentleman opposite who is on his feet could, no doubt, in due course, quote the passage from this remarkable manifesto upon which the Government base their case for proceeding in such a pig-headed way with this Bill.
Another reason why I believe that the Salisbury doctrine, if we are obliged to regard it as a constitutional convention of great significance, should not be enforced on this occasion is that, as hon. Gentlemen who spoke for the Liberal Party pointed out, we have not had for a very long time a Government who had about them such an odour of decomposition and decay. Over the past few weeks the Government have shown that they palpably no longer have the support of their own party in the constituencies.
It is a matter for comment that almost before the last words in the Gracious Speech had passed into the rafters of this Chamber we should be asked once again to consider this Bill. I must confess that I almost felt a twinge of sorrow, practically compassion, for the Prime Minister when in March this year, having demonstrated the level of his own mediocrity so conclusively in 1967, he was called upon to extricate this country from the mess into which it had been led by a more adroit figure. Perhaps it would be offensive to a friedly Power if I compared the Prime Minister to President Ford. It might even be offensive to Mr. Nixon if I compared him to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). I do not wish to press the analogy too far, but it appears to me, as it does to many people outside this House, that the Prime Minister is endeavouring to extricate this country from a constitutional and economic Watergate.
The relevance of my remarks is that if the Prime Minister wishes to project himself as a great healer who will bridge the divide between various sections of the country, he was singularly ill-advised to re-introduce this Bill on the third or fourth day of the new parliamentary Session. He has lost a signal opportunity to create a different climate and to demonstrate by
986
deeds, rather than by words in the Mansion House, that he has some regard for the private sector of British industry. It is entirely specious to say, as the motion does, that in view of the serious consequences of uncertainty the House should consider seriously this rather trumpery Order. If there has been any uncertainty, it has been created by legislation for which the present Government are responsible. It ill becomes them to reintroduce this measure when the heat of the previous Session's conflict has barely had time to cool.
The real burden of complaint against these orders is that the Government are seeking, by a pretext which might possibly have had some shadowy justification during the last Session, to suspend the Orders of this House specifically designed for the protection of private interests in order to put through this singularly unattractive Bill.
We have been told that there would not have been time during the last Session to force through the Bill. I am prepared to accept that, although it was open to the Government, with the leave of House, to extend the Session. That pretext is not to them open in this Session. What would be lost if the Order of 29th November were left on the Order Paper? How much time would be lost if the Examiners considered and ruled authoritatively on the hybridity of the Bill? How much time would be last if private interests which will be affected were able to make representations to a Committee of this House? Would the Bill be put out of court and prevented from becoming law in this Session? I very much doubt it.
We are being asked to speed the passage of this Bill in order to satisfy the pig-headed obstinacy of the Government and, particularly, the Leader of the House. If any example were needed of the unarguable case for a Second Chamber, however constituted, it is in this Order.
It is implicit in the Order that there is at least a prima facie case for regarding the Bill as hybrid. I was persuaded by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) but the House does not have to be satisfied that the Bill

987
is hybrid. The constitutional question that we are debating is whether there is a prima facie case. As I understand the position, Mr. Speaker, you, through the Clerks, have ruled, by implication, that there is such a case by allowing the order of 29th November to stand on the Order Paper.
That is the point which the Leader of the House failed to deal with when he opened the debate. I can only hope that the Minister who is to reply will be able to deal with it effectively.
We know that the Leader of the House is apt to be carried away on flights of fancy and to see everything in constitutional terms as a conflict between this House and another place, but he would have done a greater service to this House if he had addressed himself to the real point at issue—whether we are right to suspend our Standing Orders before the Committee of Selection has even empanelled the Standing Orders Committee. It is quite wrong that we should be asked to do so.
Over the past three decades, we have given various territories of our former Empire their independence and have equipped them with a parliamentary system, complete with a Speaker, a Mace and a Serjeant at Arms. It is noticeable, in some instances, that although the forms have remained the substance has evaporated. I believe that we are getting to the edge of that position here. Over the past two years, we have seen the substance of our constitution and the conventions by which we operate flouted time and again and the responsibility lies entirely with the Government.
Some Opposition Members, perhaps speaking with more vehemence than thought, have sought to equate what has happened over this Bill with the passage of the European Communities Bill. The essential distinction is that every amendment on that Bill was debated. The fact that none was carried may have been due to the composition of this House. There was no Report stage, because there were no amendments. On no occasion that I can recall were the Standing Orders suspended to facilitate the passage of the Bill, important though it may be for our future and important as the country believed it
988
to be in the referendum—though I suspect that the Leader of the House may not have been in sympathy with that vote.
I look around to find the people to blame for this state of affairs. I do not attach much blame to the Secretary of State for Industry. He is no more than the office boy of the Cabinet. The Minister of State—the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman}—energetic and vociferous though he may be, is no more than the office boy's office boy.
Two right hon. Gentleman stand convicted of having contempt for our constitution. One is the Prime Minister, who has sought to project himself as the Baldwin of our times but has turned out to be a rather less nimble version of his predecessor—the right hon. Member for Huyton—and the other is the Leader of the House, who built a considerable parliamentary reputation on his concern for, interest in and knowledge of the ways and conventions of this House, but who has used his considerable forensic talents, ingenuity and eloquence to destroy those conventions over the past two years.
I shall vote against the motion, not only because these Orders are a particularly unattractive piece of business, but in order to register my lack of confidence in the Leader of the House as the person who, by convention, should represent everyone of us in the conduct of our business. He has proved himself not to be the Leader of the House, but merely a squalid party manager.
6.56 p.m.
Mr. William Molloy: I do not wish to comment on everything said by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). He made an extremely vulgar and contemptible speech, but it did him justice. That is the only level he can reach.
I was taken with the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarkable defence of another place and how he was so enamoured of it. I only hope that he will soon be elevated there so that we shall be rid of him and all his vulgarities and the status of this place will be raised.
We know that the sort of behaviour we have seen recently from Conservative landlord and hereditary peers boils over only when there are Labour and Liberal

989
Governments. It is only then that we see such incredible behaviour from the commissars of another place who would do justice to almost any totalitarian reéime. None of them is elected. When Tory Governments are in power, they revert to their rôle as docile puppies.
Some of us have criticised the behaviour of another place and have said that the way they handled this legislation was a disgrace to our democratic procedures. A question that everybody wants answered is whether the statement by the Conservative peer, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords should be abolished, is supported by the Opposition in this House. Let the record show that some hon. Members opposite approve of the maintenance of the House of Lords and the abolition of this House. They will never be able to raise a single objection to any totalitarian régime in future. Nevertheless, that is not an official answer from the Conservative Front Bench. I believe that the House of Commons and the people outside want to know whether it is the policy of the Conservative Party to see the House of Commons abolished and the House of Lords maintained. We are entitled to an answer, and I hope we shall get it tonight.
7.1 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: Without the ridiculous observations of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) I would not be feeling so angry now.
I did prepare myself for some comments on the procedure motion, and I have been sitting here all the afternoon, like the Leader of the House. I will say this for the right hon. Gentleman: he never lets the House down. He does sit here and listen to the debates and arguments advanced when Bills and motions are before the House. He has not failed as Leader of the House in this way, but he has failed in allowing the Cabinet to put such a motion on the Order Paper today and in asking us to brook no delay on this Bill.
To advance the argument that the Lords have exceeded their constitutional duties, coming from him, is hardly honest and is not in keeping with his understanding of the constitutional position of the other place. Yet he dared to
990
come here and sneer at the Lords because they gave the Commons, the Press and the public the opportunity to rethink the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish; it is never rubbish for this House to have second thoughts. It is never rubbish for this House to take a little extra time, or to consider the views of hon. Members from either side or from any extremity.
In this motion today the Leader of the House tells us, in one very telling sentence, that there should be no delay. What right has he to tell Parliament that there should be no delay?
Mr. Tom Litterick: It is urgent.
Mr. Crouch: Of course it is urgent to those who want the Bill, but it is even more urgent to have freedom—
Mr. Litterick: Whose freedom. The House of Lords?
Mr. Crouch: The freedom of our people to have their views and their rights observed by Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has not been in his seat this afternoon and he has not heard the arguments advanced from this side, particularly the remarkable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
Mr. Litterick: He said nothing new.
Mr. Crouch: It was said that this Bill was a hybrid Bill. This was reinforced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who gave us the benefit of his very experienced judgment in legal matters. As I said in an intervention on a point of order, there was, in my opinion, and that of many hon. Members, no shadow of doubt that this was a hybrid Bill. I owe the Chair an apology for the intervention I made in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). When he raised the point, I supported him in seeking your advice, Mr. Speaker, to rule that this was a hybrid Bill. I would have been helpless if the Leader of the House had stood up and said that the Government's Order of the Day made it clear that this was a hybrid Bill. The first Order of the Day—that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding

991
Industries Bill should be reported upon by the Examiners—is a clear statement, and it would have been helpful if the Leader of the House had been so forthcoming when he opened the debate. It did not need the skilful arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend to establish that this was a hybrid Bill, because it was already stated to be so. [Interruption.]
However, it no longer concerns me that this is a hybrid Bill. It does concern me that this procedure motion, hustling the Bill through the House, has been put down, thus keeping the measure away from the examination that it should receive as a hybrid Bill. Certain procedures and institutions of the House have been dispensed with. It is a remarkable day in the House of Commons when we are told to rush a Bill through, and dispense with all the recognised institutions of the House. I protest most strongly that we should be asked at this stage to do this just because the Government are determined to get the Bill through. [Interruption.]
I have not taken part in earlier discussions on this Bill, and I was not on the Committee. However, I was disgusted by many aspects of it, and by the way it was rushed through and guillotined. I was disgusted more than ever today by being asked to dispense with the proper procedures of the House. When the Bill goes back to the Lords it goes back as a hybrid Bill and, automatically, it will be referred to the Examiners by the Lords—that is how I understand it.
There has been much talk by Labour Members that the Lords have exceeded their duties in this matter. We have had references to the Marquess of Salisbury. Labour Members might reflect on the the letter in The Times last week from Lord Shawcross, who happened to be the Attorney-General at the time of the passage of the last Parliament Bill, which gave the House of Lords the constitutional right to delay measures. The other place was not given the power to wipe out legislation altogether, and it did not wipe out this measure. The Lords allowed it to proceed and in their wisdom—
Mr. Litterick: In their what?
Mr. Crouch: In their wisdom—it is a phrase of which the hon. Member may not have heard—
Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a running battery of seated comments, ruderies and questions from hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government Benches. This makes it almost impossible for my hon. Friend to make his speech and for us to listen to it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right. Continuous interruptions from a sedentary position are unparliamentary, and spoil our debates.
Mr. Crouch: It is kind of you, Mr. Speaker, to give me a quieter reception, but the comments were not really worrying me. I regarded the undercurrent as an acceptance of my argument by hon. Members opposite, even though they did not like it.
The House of Lords took out one element from the Bill because they thought it was wrong. Why should they not have second thoughts? They were given this right by the Attlee Administration, after the war. They have used that authority and they have not gone any further than that. There has been a lot of wild and stupid talk about abolishing the other place. I have been critical of the Lords in the past, in the context of the parliamentary democratic situation, but I am not critical of them in this instance. They have done no more than call upon the Commons to reintroduce this measure and get it debated. I am arguing tonight on a procedural motion, which says that we will dispense with certain institutions and measures, and I am strongly against that.
I call upon the Leader of the House to lead the House again. When he used to speak from below the Gangway he was strong in his defence of the rights of hon. Members and the public. His was a clarion voice when he spoke from below the Gangway, but not today. He is nodding while Parliament is trying to ensure that the freedom of the people is preserved. He is nodding, although he is the one man on the Front Bench who should be seeking to preserve Parliament and its institutions.
7.10 p.m.
Mr. Norman Lamont: One thing that seems to have been lost sight of is that we are in fact discussing a motion in two parts, first to get rid of the hybridity procedure and, secondly, to dispense with the Committee stage when the Bill again goes through the House. It is unfortunate that the two parts should be taken together, and some Labour Members may also feel that there are few precedents for what is being done. On the hybridity procedure there is only the precedent of the last Session, and on the suspension of the Committee stage, other than in the last Session, there is only the precedent of 1913 which the Leader of the House quoted, and I hope to show that that was a different situation. Never before have we had two such motions in one composite motion, and never before have we moved towards invoking the Parliament Act on a prima facie hybrid Bill.
Before dealing with the two parts of the motion I shall deal first with two general matters. Labour Members seem to go red in the face about what the House of Lords is doing but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said, the House of Lords is only using the constitutional powers that it has been given by a Labour Government. In a previous incarnation the Leader of the House prevented the House of Lords from being reformed It ill lies in his mouth to complain about the way in which the House of Lords exercises its powers. He was one of the people who opposed a previous attempt to reform the Lords. When he destroyed that attempt what did he expect? Did he seriously expect the House of Lords not to use the powers it has?
Another general point was raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) and others. He and the Government say that it is necessary to get the Bill through quickly because of uncertainty about jobs and the state of the industries. If that is so, the Government are behaving in an extraordinary manner. They brought in the Bill in a leisurely way.
They introduced it in 1974 and let it drop. Six months elapsed between presentation and Second Reading. The time
994
the Bill has taken in the House of Lords has been very short compared with the delay for which the Government are responsible. If the Government think that there is a great problem of uncertainty for the industries, it is also extraordinary that they should have dealt with the questions of hybridity and ship repairing in such a way. Those two issues are inter-related and all the Government needed to do was to reach an accommodation over ship repairing.
In the House of Lords, Lord Carrington said that the Government could nationalise the aircraft industry and the shipbuilding industry and in the next Session introduce another Bill to nationalise ship repairing. But he asked the Government to take back ship repairing and to consider it for a period. All that was required to get the Bill was for the Government to exercise a little care and a little of the conciliation that has been so lacking on the Government Benches. The Government have put politics before the welfare of the industries concerned. It does not lie in their mouths to accuse other people of endangering jobs and industries.
The suggestion for truncating the Committee stage is unfortunate. A suggestion stage is not as good as a Committee stage because the choice of suggestions lies with the Government, and that is to the disadvantage because of the Opposition. It is also a disadvantage because of the limited time available. I appreciate that the Committee stage was lengthy, but this is an unprecedented Bill which nationalises more than 40 companies, transfers 140,000 jobs from the private sector to the public sector and nationalises, some would say, not two but three, four or five industries. The Report stage was truncated. Only three days were allowed to us to consider 208 Government amendments alone. There are many matters to be raised if the House is to operate properly. That is why I much regret that the Government are to truncate the Committee stage.
I suspect that the real reason for the Government wishing to truncate the Committee stage is that they are frightened that the House will change its mind. They are frightened that the composition of the House may change and that they may lose a by-election. They are

995
frightened that there might be an outbreak of democracy and that Members will take a different view of the Bill.
We had very close votes on the Bill. On one occasion we had a tied vote in controversial circumstances. After that, we continued with narrow majorities. There is one great difference between what the right hon. Gentleman is doing now and what was done in 1913, which the right hon. Gentleman uses as a precedent. When Mr. Asquith in 1913 got rid of the Committee stage of three Bills in one go, the majorities on the Second Reading of those Bills were 98, 95 and 103. At the same time the average vote for each opposed Liberal candidate in the previous election was 49·3 per cent. of the poll. How very different is that from today, when we have a minority Government insisting on pushing through legislation supported only by a minority of their own supporters.
It is astonishing that the Leader of the House hardly referred to the controversy about hybridity. He made no attempt to rebut the case that might have been put. He made scarcely any mention of hybridity. This occasion is different in one significant respect from the previous occasion when we discussed hybridity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said, the last time we discussed the hybridity procedure the Government said that they would alter the Bill to take account of the parts that were alleged to be hybrid. Now they say that they will go ahead regardless of whether the Bill is hybrid. Does any hon. Member believe that that is sensible? Is it not at least possible that if we push through a hybrid Bill without observing the proper procedures the will of Parliament may be challenged in the courts? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman wants? Is that sensible?
This debate is not just about technicalities. It is a pity that the term "hybridity" is used. It might be to do with almost anything under the sun. It would be much better to talk about a procedure for Bills that involve "unfair discrimination". This is not a technical matter. It is about the rights of individuals and equality of treatment for people in the same category or classes. Above all, it is about minorities. That is why I regret that the Members of Plaid Cymru
996
are not here and will not vote in the Lobbies. Representing a minority party, they above all others should be concerned about this issue.
Procedures have been built up in the House to protect the rights of citizens and minorities. The Select Committee procedure replaced the procedure by which people petitioned at the Bar of the House, safe in the knowledge that they would get a fair hearing and would see justice done. Some people say that the House of Commons can do anything provided it has a majority of one, but is it right that the House by a small majority should cast aside the procedures for securing justice and equality of treatment for minorities? If that is what the Government are proposing, it is an end to impartial law and another step on the road to arbitrary government.
The facts are that the Bill has been judged by the Public Bill Office to be prima facie a hybrid Bill. It should not be open to the Leader of the House to question that. It should not be open to him to prevent the Bill from going through the normal procedure to a Select Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) quoted the ruling given by Speaker Hylton-Foster when he said that, in his opinion, if a Bill were prima facie hybrid it should go to a Select Committee. It should not be open to us to question it. That is where I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to want to be judge, jury and executioner. The trouble is that when he is being judge and jury he acts those parts in the spirit of executioner.
The Leader of the House of course does not know on which grounds the Public Bill Office reached its decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has indicated some of the grounds and some of the submissions that have been made. He has indicated a number of cases that give good grounds for believing that the Bill may be hybrid. But it is not necessary to go quite as far as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and to say that it is clearly hybrid.
The point is that it should not be for the House to judge. It should not be up to us. It is not a proper decision to be

997
taken on a whipped vote. It is a decision that should not be taken following a debate that has been attended by only half the House. The procedure laid down should be followed, one that has been laid down over a long period—namely, the Select Committee system.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who is no longer in his place, asked "Who are these individuals? What are these interests that are arbitrarily affected?" My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, to whose research and industry I pay tribute and to whom the House is greatly in debt, demonstrated quite clearly that the criteria for inclusion in the Bill are very arbitrary. The line that determines whether one is in or out of the Bill is extremely fine and comes down rather suddenly. Some people whose firearms are included in the Bill have a sense of grievance because firms that they do not regard as their competitors are not included. That is the unfairness.
Although the Government may not like it, they must face the fact that the Bill is imperfectly drafted. They cannot escape from that. Let them face the consequences.
The hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) asked why the hybridity had not been discovered earlier. Surely people are entitled to protect their interests. They are entitled, even at a late stage, to point out an unfairness. One reason for it taking a considerable time to find these examples is that we have had to base our case on companies outside the Bill which, by any logic, should be inside the Bill.
We are opposed to nationalisation and we are not saying that any more companies should be included. I do not want to get them in the Bill. All we are saying is that at present the Bill is imperfect. It is unfair, arbitrary and not in accordance with the traditions of the House.
The Leader of the House has a reputation as a defender of Parliament—[Hon. Members: "Had".]—and as a most eloquent speaker. He still has a reputation as a most eloquent speaker. However, some people are beginning to think that the view that should be taken of him is rather like that which Mr. Austen Chamberlain took of Asquith in the 1913 debate. That is the debate which the
998
right hon. Gentleman has cited as a precedent. Mr. Austen Chamberlain described Mr. Asquith as a very eloquent speaker and went on to say:
"the more mellifluous the language in which he commends it to the House the greater is the outrage which he proposes to perpetrate upon our … liberties."—[Official Report, 23rd June 1913; Vol. 54, c. 824.]
The Public Bill Office has ruled that this is prima facie a hybrid Bill. In our view it is clearly the duty of the Leader of the House, if he is the Leader of the House and not merely a party manager, to let the normal procedures of the House go through. The desire of the Government to get this Bill should not overrule the requirement that it should be fairly drafted and equitable.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is challenging the ruling of the Public Bill Office. I do not think he is entitled to do so. Perhaps he is saying that he does not care whether the Bill is hybrid and that he will get it through. However, he is trampling underfoot not only the rights of a free Parliament but the duties of a free Parliament.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. Foot: I do not question in any, way—
Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman, obviously by omission, did not seek the permission of the House to speak again. I believe that to be necessary in this debate.
Mr. Speaker: No. The right hon. Gentleman does not need permission on this occasion, it being a substantive motion.
Mr. Foot: No one who has listened to this debate could deny the importance of the issues that have been raised. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has said, the motion deals with two matters at the same time. I shall seek to deal with the two important issues.
First, there is the general question of hybridity and its effect upon the Bill. Secondly, there is the question how the House should properly deal with Bills that come from another place when the Parliament Act procedures are to be applied. Although it is the case that those are two separate subjects. and I

999
understand that they are two separate arguments, they overlap to some extent. Are we to acknowledge the authority or the power of the House of Lords to overthrow legislation that passes through this place? That might be done by various Members. That is a factor that has to be taken into account as well. However, I agree that the two subjects, to some extent, must be dealt with separately.
Many fierce charges have been made throughout the debate. Much strong language has been used in the accusations made against the Government and against myself particularly. It has been said that we are riding roughshod over the rights of Parliament. I shall answer the charges as they have been made although I must say that the language used in making them has gone very far to destroy the arguments themselves.
As everyone acknowledges, and as I acknowledged previously, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is entitled to claim the credit for the original appeal that he made successfully to you, Mr. Speaker, on the ground of hybridity, and all the more so because the Bill had gone through such a lengthy procedure. I shall deal with that again in a moment. However, the hon. Member for Tiverton today and on other occasions, but especially today, has gone far beyond anything which can be drawn from his first deduction. He has made accusations of concealment on the part of Government Departments and Ministers, and presumably on the part of civil servants. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and I are fully prepared to take all the responsibilities that are ours, but if anything like the charges of the hon. Gentleman are justified they will be charges against the whole of the Departments concerned. I repudiate those charges in every respect.
There has been no attempt by the Department of Industry to conceal the facts from the persons to whom they should have been presented, including the authorities in this place and the authorities in another place. I repudiate in entirety the whole of the charges that the hon. Gentleman makes in that respect. But he goes further and tries to build charges of corruption. That is to use language that brings the rest of his arguments into discredit. It is like the 13th
1000
stroke of the clock that casts suspicion on all the previous 12 strokes.
We know that the hon. Gentleman had a great triumph once—and we shall never hear the end of it—but that does not mean that he has been right on any of the subsequent occasions. In my opinion he was not right in the presentation of his case today. At least he can claim that by the use of his exaggerated language today he is in very good—or rather, very bad—company. He is in the company of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). The right hon. and learned Gentleman should never have used such language as he used if he is ever to appear in the courts again. He said that it was an open-and-shut case of hybridity. That is the language he used. Whatever else it is, it has never been that. Maybe it has been a marginal case. Many of us thought when the hon. Member for Tiverton raised the issue originally that there was not a case of hybridity. But I understand that others took a different view. It certainly was not an open and shut case, whatever else it was.
The hon. Member for Tiverton said that the Bill is now peppered with hybridity.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who usually speaks with great fairness, talked about idle Bill reeking of hybridity, or perhaps it was some other hon. Gentleman. That is the language of Surbiton.
Sir D. Walker-Smith rose—
Mr. Foot: If this Bill reeked of hybridity, was peppered with hybridity, or was an open and shut case, why did not their Lordships, who are not noted for their fairness and eagerness to assist this Government, take the step of sending it to the Examiners, as they could have done?
I must say that their Lordships listened to the argument maybe a little more carefully than some hon. Members in this House. Their Lordships listened to the argument which came from the Department of Industry and was presented by Ministers in the other place. It may be that they were convinced by that

1001
argument, as many here would and should be, because it was formidable. I do not think that every noble Lord was convinced, but in the end their Lordships were convinced in the sense that they did not send the Bill to the Examiners in another place.
I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman shortly. I hope that whatever else he does when he gets to his feet, he will withdraw the absurdity that he tried to palm off on this House of this being an open and shut case of hybridity.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: It has taken the right hon. Gentleman a good deal longer to get to his semi-colon and give way to me than it took for me to get to mine and to give way to him. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about this matter, which is perhaps not unsual, though regrettable. This is a hybrid Bill. The fact that the Examiners have got it under their jurisdiction makes it a hybrid Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it does. They are now charged with the duty of considering whether the Standing Orders applicable to it—Standing Orders 4 to 68 in the Private Business Standing Orders—have been complied with. If not, then the procedure is as for a Public Bill. But it is a hybrid Bill, although the Standing Orders can be dispensed with or may have been complied with.
Mr. Foot: I am sure that the House will have noted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ran away from the precise question. I asked why, if this were an open and shut case, the House of Lords did not resort to the action that it could have taken. I suggest that he should not use language about open, and shut cases, nor should hon. Members say that the Bill is peppered with or reeks of hybridity when that was not the view taken by their Lordships who looked at this matter a few weeks ago. Such language as that applied to this Bill brings into disrepute the arguments put forward by their Lordships. It also brings into disrepute those right hon. and learned Members in this House who try to palm off their legal knowledge upon us and think that we have to accept it. It never was an open and shut case. It is not an open and shut case now.
1002
I do not believe that anybody, looking fairly at the details which have been presented, would say that it was an open and shut case.
Mr. Peter Rees: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one question?
Mr. Molloy: Mine was not answered.
Mr. Peter Rees: Does he accept as a prima facie case that this is a hybrid Bill?
Mr. Foot: I shall come to that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall come to it immediately. I shall not try to dodge the question put to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman as his right hon. and learned Friend dodged the question which I put to him. The motion on the Order Paper about the reference is a statement that it is a prima facie case of hybridity. But that is not the same as saying that it is a case of hybridity. The case is not proved. It is certainly not the same as saying that it reeks of hybridity or that it is peppered with hybridity. What the Opposition have left out of account altogether is what happened to the Bill when it went to another place, which further substantiates the case that I am presenting to the House.
The Bill went to another place. It was not proved to be hybrid there. It was not referred to the Examiners. A number of new points of alleged hybridity were raised, this time relating to ship repairing. These related to such unlikely propositions as the BP Tanker Company, with a turnover of £400 million moving oil in every quarter of the globe, being part of the British ship repairing industry.
Three times detailed points were made in another place, each of which was answered in great detail. I think that certain noble Lords professed not to be satisfied. But the Bill was not referred to the Examiners in another place, and no move was made to do so.
This is the same Bill generally and in particular as regards the ship repair definition as was introduced into this House a year ago and as was introduced into another place in the summer. It is the same Bill as fell—[An HON. MEMBER: "The same hybrid Bill."] If it

1003
was the same hybrid Bill, why did not their Lordships take some steps to deal with it? They did not do anything of the kind. It is the same Bill as fell at the end of the Session because the other place disagreed with this House. That is why we propose to treat the Bill in this Session as it was treated in the last Session.
Mr. Norman Lamont: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, first, that the issue of hybridity was raised in some detail in the House of Lords by the noble Lord, Lord Colville and, secondly, one reason that the House of Lords did not raise with the Clerks the issue of hybridity was that they had deleted the ship repairing part of the Bill which was also the part involving hybridity?
Mr. Foot: That is not so. The hon. Gentleman is misinformed on that subject, just as he was misinformed when he said that we would not be able to raise matters in later discussions on the Bill in the procedure that we have laid down.
This is the same Bill as fell at the end of the Session because the other place disagreed with this House. That is why we propose to treat the Bill in this Session as it was treated in the last Session. The first part of the motion has that effect. It ensures that doubts raised now on minute points of alleged potential hybridity shall not obstruct the progress of the Bill, impeded as it has been in another place.
Nobody has suggested that the Bill is a hybrid in the sense that it reeks of hybridity. The Bill is said to involve an element of hybridity because, on the facts and on an interpretation of the wording of Schedule 2, certain companies which repair ships may possibly satisfy the conditions in the schedule and yet are not included in the list of companies to be nationalised whereas others in that list may not satisfy those conditions. The Government are satisfied that the Bill is not in fact hybrid in that the list of ship repairing companies is correctly described in the schedule and no other companies come within the description.
Furthermore, our view is that the points which have so far been made do not involve any such doubts as would justify
1004
a reference to the Examiners, although —here I repeat what I have already underlined—we appreciate that a different view has been taken by the House authorities.
I understand that those who wanted to destroy the Bill in the past want to seize on every possible opportunity for doing so. In any event, the Government are clear that the doubts are not such as would justify the delays to the Bill which, of necessity, would be caused by the reference. I could analyse many of the individual cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Tiverton to prove that case.
I say to the House that it is not a case of a Bill which has just appeared before the House. This is a Bill which has been before the House for many months. It is a Bill which has had a longer examination—and this refutes what was said by the hon. Member for Canterbury—than any Bill presented to us since 1945.
A further absurdity is the way in which the argument has been presented to the country to suggest, as the newspapers have suggested, that we have curtailed and truncated discussions and that the issues have not been properly discussed. It is absurd to suggest that people have not been able to defend their individual interests. Of course they have. There have been more opportunities in this than in any Bill presented to the House since the war. If hon. Members opposite did not raise some of the questions for more than a year, it is their fault and not ours.
When the question of hybridity was raised last time by the hon. Member for Tiverton we were faced with a unique situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was hushed up."] There was no hushing up. It was all above board. Everyone knew what was happening. It was not hushed up. We came to the House of Commons. We said that the Bill had been through a lengthy and detailed examination and no question of hybridity had been raised in the early stages, and that to disrupt the whole Bill for that reason would make a mockery of the procedures of the House and that the whole procedures of the House would have to be put aside.
Mr. Crouch: Will the Leader of the House help us at this late stage? He

1005
talks about sweeping aside certain institutions and procedures of the House regarding the examination of a Bill which is considered to be hybrid. Is he honestly saying, as Leader of the House, that he is advising hon. Members to vote to dispense with those procedures because the Table has recognised that the Bill is hybrid and that the rights of individuals to be heard under the right procedures of the House are now to be swept aside?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Canterbury has not got the facts correct. The authorities of the House have not pronounced that the Bill is hybrid. They have said that, in their view, it should be regarded as a prima facie case of hybridity. They apply the rule as they have it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] This Bill is not appearing before the House for the first time, although some hon. Members seem to speak as if that were so. On the previous occasion, when we said that we would dispense with the procedure for referring the Bill to the Committee, we said that the case for doing that was that it was a unique situation. For the first time in our history the matter was being raised after the whole Committee stage had been completed.
Far from that being an attack on or an invasion into the rights of the House, what we propose and what we proposed last time amounted to a protection of the rights of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I know that hon. Members opposite do not care much about the protection of the House, particularly when their property interests are involved. They do not care about protection at all. I know that they do not care about the protection of the rights of majorities in this House. But I say that when a Bill, for the first time in our history, has been through such long procedures as this Bill—
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard.
Hon. Members: Why?
Mr. Speaker: The Lord President.
Hon. Members: Why?
Mr. Foot: The Opposition are suggesting that the House of Commons should have accepted the proposition that hybridity should be used to disrupt a measure. That is their defence. For the same reason I say that if the hybridity arrangements are permitted to destroy the passage of a Bill which has been discussed at such length, the effectiveness of the House of Commons will indeed be undermined.
I know how sensitive the Opposition are on my next point, and I therefore address my remarks particularly to the Liberal Party and to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) who referred to how we should deal under the Parliament Act with matters that come from the other place. The hon. Member for Colne Valley said that it was improper to truncate debate as is proposed in the motion. He criticised me for citing the case of Lord Salisbury. I cited that case because it was apposite. He explained how the House of Lords should deal with measures that had been put to the country in party manifestoes. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Gladstone?"] I will not go back to Gladstone, but let us look at Asquith. They were great defenders of parliamentary liberty, but the Conservatives did not defend liberties then, nor are they doing so today. They are defending their property interests. I hope that the Liberal Party will save themselves from the humiliation of siding with those who shouted down Mr. Asquith in the old days. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It happened. The Opposition know so little about their own parliamentary history that they do not know that the Tories used to behave as badly then as they do today.
When the procedures were established under the Parliament Act by the Liberal Party to deal with intervention by the House of Lords, certain steps were taken. We are dealing with a precedent in this case. The Opposition are now complaining that I am using precedent. They are never satisfied. There were precedents on how to deal with Bills which were obstructed by the other place. They are Liberal precedents. Lord Asquith said:
"It is quite obvious, and it is admitted already, that it would be a waste of Parliamentary time to propose Amendments which ex

1007
hypothesi cannot be adopted without destroying the identity of the Bill, and that clearly was contemplated when the Parliament Act was passed."—[Official Report, 23rd June, 1913; Vol. 54, c. 818.]
Therefore, what our motion does in this respect is to protect exactly the situation that Mr. Asquith defined. It is to protect the identity of the Bill, because if we were to agree that the House should go through procedures which would disrupt the identity of the Bill, which would be sent back to the other place in a very different form, the Parliament Act could not be invoked. That is exactly what the Liberals did in having to deal with the House of Lords before the last war, and that is exactly what we must do now if the House of Commons is not to be obstructed by another place.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept at least part of what I was trying to say earlier? That is that this precedent largely falls
because in the case of Asquith and the Marquess of Salisbury they were talking about virtually a two-party system. Asquith in particular was in possession of a majority of over 80 in the House and had the support of over 50 per cent. of the electors at the previous election.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed and he misunderstands the situation. The Liberals in that Parliament were dependent on other parties, and we shall see whether we are, too. The question for the Liberal Party, which Liberal Members should face, is whether it will try to sustain the supremacy of this elected House of Commons. That is what we on the Government side of the House are doing, and in doing so we shall be sustaining the liberties of the British people as well.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 268.

Division No. 5]

AYES

[7.51 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Corbett, Robin

Freeson, Reginald

Allaun, Frank

Cowans, Harry

Garrett, john (Norwich S)

Anderson, Donald

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Archer, Peter

Cronin, John

George, Bruce

Armstrong, Ernest

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Gilbert, Dr John

Ashley, Jack

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Ginsburg, David

Ashton, Joe

Cryer, Bob

Golding, John

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Gould, Bryan

Atkinson, Norman

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Gourley, Harry

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Davidson, Arthur

Graham, Ted

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Bates, Alf

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Bean R. E.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Grocott, Bruce

Benn, Pt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Deakins, Eric

Harper, Joseph

Bidwell Sydney

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Bishop, E. S.

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dempsey, James

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Boardman, H.

Doig, Peter

Hatton, Frank

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Dormand, J. D.

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Dunn, James A.

Heffer, Eric S.

Bradley, Tom

Dunnett, Jack

Hooley, Frank

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Horam, John

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Eadie, Alex

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Edge, Geoff

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Huckfield, Les

Buchan, Norman

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Buchanan, Richard

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

English, Michael

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Ennals, David

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton amp; P)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Campbell, Ian

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Canavan, Dennis

Evans, John (Newton)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Cant, R. B.

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Carmichael, Neil

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Janner, Greville

Carter, Ray

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Cartwright, John

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Flannery, Martin

John, Brynmor

Clemitson, Ivor

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Cohen, Stanley

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Ford, Ben

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Concannon, J. D.

Forrester, John

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Conlan, Bernard

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Judd, Frank

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

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

Kaufman, Gerald

Kelley, Richard

Moyle, Roland

Spearing, Nigel

Kerr, Russell

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Spriggs, Leslie

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Stallard, A. W.

Kinnock, Neil

Newens, stanley

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Lambie, David

Noble, Mike

Stoddart, David,

Lamborn, Harry

Oakes, Gordon

stott, Roger

Lamond, James

Ogden, Eric

Strang, Gavin

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

O'Halloran, Michael

Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.

Leadbitter, Ted

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Lee, John

Ovenden, John

Swain, Thomas

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Padley, Walter

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Lipton, Marcus

Palmer, Arthur

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Litterick, Tom

Park, George

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Loyden, Eddie

Parker, John

Tierney, Sydney

Luard, Evan

Parry, Robert

Tinn, James

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Pendry, Tom

Tomlinson, John

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Perry, Ernest

Tomney, Frank

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Torney, Tom

McCartney, Hugh

Prescott, John

Tuck, Raphael

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

McElhone, Frank

Price, William (Rugby)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Radice, Giles

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

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

MacKenzie, Gregor

Richardson, Miss Jo

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Mackintosh, John P.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Ward, Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Watkins, David

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Weetch, Ken

Madden, Max

Robinson, Geoffrey

Weitzman, David

Magee, Bryan

Roderick, Caerwyn

Wellbeloved, James

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Mahon, Simon

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

White, James (Pollok)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Rooker, J. W.

Whitlock, William

Marks, Kenneth

Rose, Paul B.

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Marquand, David

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Rowlands, Ted

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Ryman, John

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Sandelson, Neville

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Sedgemore, Brian

Wilson(Alexander (Hamilton)

Meacher, Michael

Selby, Harry

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Mikardo, Ian

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Woodali, Alec

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Woof, Robert

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Molloy, William

Sillars, James

Moonman, Eric

Silverman, James

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Skinner, Dennis

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Small, William

Mr. Donald Coleman and

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Mr. Peter Snape.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Burden, F. A.

Fairgrieve, Russell

Alison, Michael

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Fell, Anthony

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Carlisle, Mark

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Arnold, Tom

Carson, John

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Awdry, Daniel

Churchill, W. S.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Baker, Kenneth

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Forman, Nigel

Banks, Robert

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Beith, A. J.

Clegg, Walter

Fox, Marcus

Bell, Ronald

Cockcroft, John

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Freud, Clement

Benyon, W.

Cope, John

Fry, Peter

Berry, Hon Anthony

Cormack, Patrick

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Biffen, John

Corrie, John

Gardiner, George (Relgate)

Biggs-Davison, John

Costain, A. P.

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Blaker, Peter

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Body, Richard

Crouch, David

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Crowder, F. P.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bottomley, Peter

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemotown)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Goodhart, Philip

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Goodhew, Victor

Bradford, Rev Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Goodlad, Alastair

Braine Sir Bernard

Drayson, Burnaby

Gorst, John

Britten, Leon

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Dunlop, John

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Brotherton, Michael

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Gray, Hamish

Bryan, Sir Paul

Elliott, Sir William

Griffiths, Eldon

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Emery, Peter

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Budgen, Nick

Eyre, Reginald

Grist, Ian

Bulmer, Esmond

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Grylls, Michael

Hall, Sir John

Marten, Neil

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mates, Michael

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mather, Carol

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Maude, Angus

Royle, Sir Anthony

Hannam, John

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Sainsbury, Tim

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Mawby, Ray

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Hastings, Stephen

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Havers, Sir Michael

Mayhew, Patrick

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Hayhoe, Barney

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Shepherd, Colin

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Shersby, Michael

Heseltine, Michael

Mills, Peter

Silvester, Fred

Hicks, Robert

Miscampbell, Norman

Sims, Roger

Higgins, Terence L.

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hodgson, Robin

Moate, Roger

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Holland, Philip

Molyneaux, James

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Hooson, Emlyn

Monro, Hector

Speed, Keith

Hordern, Peter

Montgomery, Fergus

Spence, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Howell, David (Guildford)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Morgan, Geraint

Sproat, Iain

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Stainton, Keith

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hurd, Douglas

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Stanley, John

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Mudd, David

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Neave, Airey

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

James, David

Nelson, Anthony

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

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

Neubert, Michael

Stokes, John

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Newton, Tony

Stradling Thomas, J.

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Normanton, Tom

Tapsell, Peter

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Nott, John

Toylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Jopling, Michael

Onslow, Cranley

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Tebbit, Norman

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Kershaw, Anthony

Page, Richard (Workington)

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Kilfedder, James

Paisley, Rev Ian

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Kimball, Marcus

Pardoe, John

Townsend, Cyril D.

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Parkinson, Cecil

Trotter, Neville

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Pattie, Geoffrey

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Kirk, Sir Peter

Penhaligon, David

Vaughan, Dr Gerald

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Percival, Ian

Viggers, Peter

Knight, Mrs Jill

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Knox, David

Pink, R. Bonner

Wakeham, John

Lamont, Norman

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Welder, David (Clitheroe)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Lawrence, Ivan

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wall, Patrick

Lawson, Nigel

Raison, Timothy

Walters, Dennis

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rathbone, Tim

Weatherill, Bernard

Lloyd, Ian

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Wells, John

Loveridge, John

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wiggin, Jerry

McCrindle, Robert

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Winterton, Nicholas

McCusker, H.

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Macfarlane, Neil

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

MacGregor, John

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Younger, Hon George

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Ridsdale, Julian

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Rifkind, Malcolm

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Madel, David

Roberts, Wyn (conway)

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Mr. Michael Roberts.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That—
(1) in view of the serious consequences of uncertainty for the industries concerned and for those employed in them, this House affirms the opinion expressed in its resolution of 27th May 1976 in relation to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill introduced in the last Session of this Parliament that there should be no delay in the passage of legislation to provide for the vesting in bodies corporate established by authority of Parliament of the securities of certain companies engaged in manufacturing aircraft and guided weapons and of certain companies engaged in shipbuilding and allied industries, and accordingly the Order of 29th November that the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the
1012
Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill of this Session is discharged and in relation to the proceedings on that Bill any Standing Orders relating to private business and consideration of the application of any such Standing Orders are dispensed with;
(2) in the event of the Bill being read a second time, it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House, and when the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that Notice of an Instruction may have been given, and in the Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall forthwith put the Question that he do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House without putting any other Question, and the Question so put shall be decided forthwith.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: In view of the decision that the House has just taken the Bill no longer stands referred to the Examiners, and the rubric on the Order Paper—"To be reported upon by the Examiners"—should be disregarded.
  8.7 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.
  It will be just a year tomorrow since I moved the Second Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill in the last Session. I think that on that occasion I addressed the House for nearly an hour, but I do not intend to do that today, because over the past 12 months, in spite of what has been said this afternoon, no Bill has been debated with quite as much interest as this one, and certainly in the last Session of Parliament no Bill was considered at such length as was this measure.
  One thing is sure: during the last Session we made clear our determination to fulfil the pledges contained in both the Labour Party's 1974 General Election manifestos to bring the aircraft and shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering industries into public ownership. There are sound reasons of industrial logic for including both shipbuilding and ship repairing, but in insisting now on the scope of the proposals that were endorsed by this House I do not propose to develop the arguments as fully as they have been developed over the past 12 months.
  We are proceeding because we do not think that this Government, or, for that matter, any other Government, can afford to allow the other place to emasculate their policies—policies that have been endorsed at two General Elections and on many occasions in this House. It is inconceivable that a Conservative Government would even face such a challenge, and they would certainly not allow it to succeed. We shall demonstrate that a Labour Government can carry
  1014
  through their policies despite the fact that we have had placed in our way obstacles that never block the path of a Government formed by the Conservative Party.
  We believe that public ownership will bring great benefits to these industries. During the last Session the general arguments were often put, and we stated our belief that it will help to improve the performance of both industries and to ensure that they make the maximum contribution to the economy.
  I do not expect to win converts at this stage among Conservative Members, who oppose public ownership in principle. I know that there are many outside the House who do not share my belief that the industry should be brought into public ownership, but I believe even they concede that it is in the interests of both these industries that the issues should be resolved as quickly as possible.
  This continued delay will have many damaging results. First, it will add to the problems that face the two Organising Committees that I established in the early part of this year. They have made an excellent start in the most difficult circumstances and I would like to take the opportunity afforded by this debate to acknowledge their magnificent work. In both industries there has been a genuine willingness to co-operate with the Committees, which have interpreted their rôle not only as preparing for nationalisation but as providing a focus for action within the two industries to develop policy initiatives.
  The Shipbuilding Organising Committee has played an important part in laying the foundations for the Corporation that will bear the responsibility for seeing the merchant shipbuilding industry through the present world crisis. The Aerospace Committee has taken the lead in negotiations with European and American companies about British participation in the next generation of civil aircraft. I have made it clear to the members of both Organising Committees that I want their work to continue, and subject to this Bill getting a Second Reading tonight, I understand that they are prepared to continue. It is my earnest hope that in future months they will continue the valuable work in which they are engaged and which will be so important to both industries.

  1015
  Under the Organising Committee for British Aerospace, the two aircraft companies are now beginning to work together, so that for the first time the British aircraft industry can now speak with a single authoritative voice. In present circumstances this is essential if the industry is to play its full part in the world aircraft scene.
  The scale of projects, planned and possible, is now beyond the resources of any single aircraft company and even beyond the resources of a single country. Therefore, the future of the industry in this country will depend on its participation in collaborative projects. Jobs will depend on the British industry being able to play its proper part in whatever projects emerge from the present formative discussions. The aircraft industry cannot delay vital decisions which will determine its future size and capacity in this country.
  Until about six months ago there was relatively little firm activity on future projects, but the outlook for aircraft manufacturing companies, Governments and airlines is now quite different. They are beginning to enter into serious negotiations, which will lead to the formation of groupings to produce the new generation of civil aircraft.
  Through the Organising Committee, the British aircraft industry has been involved in useful and promising discussions with a number of potential partners. These are now moving beyond the exploratory stage, but they will make their alliances with others if the future organisation of our industry remains in doubt. If doubts are not removed, I do not think that the collaborative projects on which the Organising Committee is having discussions can come to fruition. That is a major reason for removing doubt as quickly as possible.
  Indeed, as the negotiations move towards the formative stage, these uncertainties are placing and will place our industry at a disadvantage. If groupings are being formed, the attractions of a partner whose future structure is unclear will be diminished. If opportunities are not to be missed—opportunities on which will depend jobs and the maintenance and development of a technological capacity and capability—this delay must be ended.
  1016
  If the delay is serious—I hope that there will not be much further delay—the consequences will be felt even more severely by the merchant shipbuilders and the marine engine builders—not to mention the many companies who supply marine equipment for merchant ships. As we all know, merchant shipbuilding faces a world-wide crisis, the most serious for many years. There is over-capacity, and cut-throat competition for the few orders going.
  The difficulties facing shipyards in other European countries have been much in the news lately. This country cannot escape those facts.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman says. He has put his finger on the button in saying that there are many more yards available to build ships than there are ships to be built and that we must compete with the rest of the world. If we cannot meet the requirements of price, delivery, and so on, which are necessary to get foreign orders, do the Government themselves intend to place orders for merchant ships? If so, what will they do when they have got them built, and what money will they use to build them?
  Mr. Varley: The Organising Committee is having discussions with the Government to work out the industry's future structure and to identify possibilities. I agree that many difficulties will face our industry in the face of world over-capacity and cut-throat competition. That has been confirmed in three major articles in the last few days.
  The Economist last week, under the headline "Delay Equals Disaster", outlined the problems and concluded that they called for putting British Shipbuilders in control right away. The Sunday Times illustrated the problems by pointing out how much the industry has lost ground in productivity and in net output from each employee and for each pound in wages or salaries.
  On Monday, the Financial Times graphically described the present problems of the Scottish merchant yards.
  Mr. Neville Trotter: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Economist also said in that article that nationalisation was not the best solution for either of these industries?
  Mr. Varley: I know that the Economist took that view some months ago, but in the article that I saw on Friday it did not say so in quite such clear and graphic terms.
  Mr. Trotter: If I may not quote from the article, I would only say that it is at the start of the second paragraph. I believe that the wording is to the effect that nationalisation is not the best policy for the aircraft and shipbuilding industries.
  Mr. Varley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will disagree with what I said just now—that that article said that British Shipbuilders should be in control right away. As a Member from Tyneside who knows how serious the situation is, he will surely agree that the doubt should be ended as quickly as possible. I hope that, as someone who knows something about the industry, he will have some influence with his hon. Friends and with those in another place when the Bill is passed to them.
  There is no doubt that the picture is gloomy for parts of these industries, but there has been one hopeful sign. The advent of British Shipbuilders gave promise of a new approach to the problems and the hope of a positive national policy for the industry. As I have said, the Organising Committee has made a good start and has brought a new spirit of enterprise to the industry's needs. But for the intransigence of the Opposition in the other place, British Shipbuilders would by now be established as a statutory corporation, tackling the urgent problems facing the industry.
  It has often been argued by Conservative Members that the Government can deal with these problems under existing legislation. That has usually meant—or we have taken it to mean—that we could put taxpayers' resources into these industries by using the good old 1972 Industry Act. That has been used, I think, by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and his colleague who used to support him on industry matters —the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—but I do not suppose that we shall hear that argument from the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).
  The argument that we cannot have a national strategy is unacceptable to us. Assistance has to be given on a regional
  1018
  basis in accordance with a national strategy. We have to take into account the social grounds, and we have to make sure that the resources that will have to be devoted to shipbuilding can be used effectively in accordance with the corporate plan that will be designed by British shipbuilders. That is why we are convinced that public ownership is the right solution for this industry. Ship repairing also faces a difficult period. Even the successful yards find orders hard to get.
  Mr. Burden: The Secretary of State has been not answered the question that I put to him. If the orders are not coming on the open market to keep these yards open, what will the Government do in order to justify taking over the shipyards? How are they going to see that the people in the yards are kept busy?
  Mr. Varley: Orders are the key. I do not deny that. We have to make every effort to persuade British shipowners to place orders in British yards. When we look at the figures over the last few years we find that British shipowners have placed many orders overseas, for all kinds of reasons. I do not think that it would be proper to go into those reasons now. British shipowners have to realise that it is in their interests to have a British shipbuilding capability. If our shipbuilding industry were to go it is unthinkable that Britain, as a great maritime nation, would become permanent prisoners of foreign shipbuilders. That is the philosophy that we have to accept.
  I have had informal as well as formal discussions with the General Council of British Shipping, and I think it understands the difficulties. I hope that in the months ahead it will place orders in British yards.
  Mr. John Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that none of us who worked in the industry could ever understand why British shipowners were able to go to Japan, Korea and other countries and have their ships built there, with substantial Government grants, while British shipbuilding workers were unemployed? Some of us will certainly expect this rule to be changed in the future.
  Mr. Varley: These are factors that will have to be taken into consideration. Certainly, a few years ago there was a

  1019
  boom in British shipbuilding and it could be argued that at that time British shipowners had to place orders abroad to fill the time scale. But the key in the future depends on persuading British shipowners to place many more orders in British yards than they have done in the past.
  The ship repairing industry has also faced difficulties. That industry has a long history of decline. In the closing stages of the last Session I made clear several times the industrial reasons for this decline under private ownership. Public ownership offers the only hope of a workable industrial strategy to halt and reverse this decline.
  Once again the Opposition offer no clear alternative policy—except possibly providing some 1972 Industry Act money in the way it was used in Govan and elsewhere. Anyone who refuses to accept the industrial truth about the shiprepairing industry as I have described it—and as confirmed in the PA Consultatnts' report—must have been seriously misled by the false and extravagant publicity recently disseminated about this industry.
  It is a matter of regret to me that so many noble Lords in another place allowed themselves to be taken in so completely by this false picture. I regret even more that such an error of understanding led them in the end to take the serious step of obstructing one of this Government's major industrial policies, which must be urgently implemented if employment in vital industries is not to suffer drastic reduction. I urge them, when they receive this Bill, as I am sure they will within the course of the next few days, to put this right at the earliest opportunity.
  We are determined that our proposals shall reach the statute book in the form endorsed by this House. We believe this to be in the interests of the industries that we intend to take into public ownership and in the interests of the whole country.
  In this situation it is right to point out that the only effect of the action taken in another place is delay. The damaging effects of delay, which I have outlined, are acknowledged on all sides. In moving that this Bill be read a Second time it is my firm hope that its opponents will not, by continuing their resistance, continue to
  1020
  harm the industries whose interests they claim to have at heart.
  What we are now debating is not some interesting parliamentary procedural tactic. We have just had a heated debate about that, and the House endorsed the Government's action by the largest majority that we have had during the whole of the time that this Bill has been before the House of Commons.
  The consequences for many areas of the country will be serious if the Bill is delayed. They will be serious for Merseyside, Tyneside, Wearside and Clydeside. I am sure that members of the SNP will take that into account when we vote for the Second Reading tonight.
  After the Bill is given its Second Reading, and passes to the House of Lords in the next few days, I hope that it will reach the statute book as quickly as possible.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: The Secretary of State explained that he would make a reasonably brief speech not because of the insignificance of the topic but because it was one which had been widely canvassed in the House over previous months. I do not dissent from that but I must confess that I rise with all the modesty of a maiden speaker on this subject.
  At the outset I would therefore like to read into the record that the register of Members' interests indicates that I am an economic adviser to a company which acts as brokers to Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited and that I also have a modest shareholding in that shipbuilding company. It may seem slightly pedantic to make that point but I think it ought to be on the record.
  I join the Secretary of State in a common analysis of some of the background problems of the related industries. Certainly we can agree on the likely continuing low demand for shipbuilding and on the strong competitive force which is evident from some of the new centres of output both in Asia and Latin America. What is more, until recently there has been a lack of worldwide demand for civil aircraft.
  I note some incipient optimism in the remarks of the Secretary of State on that account. My guess is that the military

  1021
  market is likely to remain a good deal more buoyant than the civil market for some time to come. We can also agree that none of these fundamental difficulties can be willed away by the proposals in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright)—I have to speak as the priest on behalf of the absent congregation in this instance—said of nationalisation:
  "This is a measure of industrial archaeology."—[Official Report, 2nd December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 1475.]
  During the Second Reading debate in the previous Session, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said in respect of nationalisation:
  "It brings change more slowly and not more quickly but just as inevitably at a cost which is totally disproportionate to the illusory benefits which are claimed on its behalf."—[Official Report, 2nd December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 1462.]
  The major criticism that I still make of this legislation is that the Bill gives no indication of what nationalisation will mean for two significant sectors of the economy which undoubtedly will have to undergo very considerable structural change over the next few years.
  I do not believe that this is a matter where the judgments of the Organising Committees should be, as it were, paramount and withheld from the House. The Government's strategy should have been evident both on Second Reading and in Committee. Here, I echo the very fair inquiry of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). It was argued constantly by many supporters of the Bill that it merited support on account of its job protection potential. That is in no sense an unfair description of the arguments which were advanced both on Second Reading and in Committee. But we are bound to ask where are the expected areas of concentration under British Shipbuilders, how will the industry be re-deployed, and, above all, what investment will be made available to give substance to whatever is to be the prospective strategy.
  The levels of compensation will have some impact upon the totality of the Government's public sector borrowing requirement and financial policies. In the light of the remarks of the Secretary of State today, inevitably there will be grow
  1022
  ing interest about the extent to which British shipping is to become a captive or a quasi-captive market for the new industry.
  To none of these questions was an answer given throughout all the stages of the legislation in the preceding Session of Parliament, and Scottish National Party Members are perfectly right to argue that, in the absence of commitments of this kind, the House is entitled to question the strategy, the philosophy and the policy embodied in this Bill even though it comes to us 12 months after it was previously given its Second Reading.
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said that he had some connection with the shipbuilding industry, and I accept that. But is he not aware that the only way in which we can have job protection in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries is to bring them under public ownership? Taking the ship repairing industry on Merseyside as an example, in 1947 it employed about 20,000 workers. They have been reduced to about 3,000 now. That has happened without public ownership, and if the industry is left in the hands of private enterprise. I think that the hon. Gentleman must agree with me that the levels of employment will get even worse.
  As for shipbuilding, which is again an industry with which I have had a lot to do—indeed, I worked in it for many years —one of the problems is that managements did not keep up with the times. They never modernised. One could go to Japanese, American and other shipyards throughout the world and discover modernisation programmes which our managements—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The intervention by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) is extending over quite a period.
  Mr. Heffer: I apologise for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However I think that I have made the point adequately that there is a very important case for this Bill being passed at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: It was a good intervention.
  Mr. Biffen: As the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) said, it was a good intervention. In fact, it was a hybrid intervention, because it was really a speech purporting to be an intervention.
  It enables me to move to my next point, which is whether, having our debate today on 1st December 1976—rather than 2nd December 1975—are there any additional factors which enable us to bring just some fresh nuance to the arguments which are tolerably familiar. Quite obviously, it is the view of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Hafer) that a publicly-owned industry would be commercially more viable, more aggressive, able to sustain higher levels of employment and able to stand ready comparison with such assets had they remained in private ownership.
  The new factor, which I draw to the attention of the House, has been the report of the National Economic Development Office on the experience of our nationalised industries in major positions of economic influence in the totality of the economy. The National Economic Development Office report clearly indicates that nationalised industries under successive generations of politicians—no one is engaging in a policy of comparative neglect as between the pot and the kettle—have been subject to constant and well-documented political interference which has impeded correct pricing policy, distorted preferred investment policies and led to the destruction of managerial morale.
  The destruction of managerial morale goes far wider than that. It has an impact on the morale of those who work on shop floor levels in those industries. I am not such an elitist that I think that managerial morale only could command the attention of this House. The latest evidence of that was the departure of Mr. Farrimond from his rôle as British Railways industrial relations expert. His parting shot was a testimony to some of the shortcomings of nationalisation as an instrument for promoting the effective economic use of our resources. Whatever may be the strictures of the hon. Member for Walton, I do not regard the misdemeanours of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries as being so demonstrably evident.
  1024
  The aircraft industry has a commendable pattern of success. The four companies contained in the schedule for nationalisation have an enviable export record. In 1975 exports totalled £800 million out of a turnover of just double that figure. Even in the last few days we have seen the welcome evidence of the successful commercial skills of the BAC 1–11 series 475 jet airliner. It was observed by Michael Donne in the Financial Times:
  "The possibility of a Japanese order for the BAC 1–11 series 475 jet airliner now appears to be strengthening."
  I could quote many other instances of the profound success of our aerospace industry in the markets of the world.
  I turn now to the shipbuilding industry. There is a considerably varied pattern of commercial experience, which is hardly surprising in the face of the development of the tremendous competitive strength of the shipbuilding industries outside the United Kingdom and Western Europe. We do ourselves—and certainly those in the shipbuilding industry—no service if we lead them to believe that these profound structural competitive forces can somehow or other be set at naught. That is not so.
  Many of the companies contained in the schedule dealing with the shipbuilding industry have patterns of commercial success. I should have thought that that was particularly true of naval shipbuilders. Obviously, one expects both industries to alter their structure in the next two or three years. But the history of both these industries since the end of the war has been a history of ownership concentrating on restructuring in the face of market conditions without recourse to nationalisation.
  One is driven increasingly to relate back to the previous Second Reading debate as the Secretary of State did in our earlier debate on the procedural motion. It is difficult to believe that we are in the same House of Commons. The emotions that were evident just a short while ago—and I do not suppose any of my words could raise the temperature much above—
  Mr. David Lambie: What about those who are making a fortune on television?
  Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) says that a fortune is being made on television.
  Mr. Lambie: The gentlemen we are talking about are making a fortune on television.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Central Ayshire wishes to make an intervention, perhaps he will try to catch my eye.
  Mr. Lambie: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Biffen: I think that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire owes us an explanation. I do not think that I am the only person in this House who would like to know how one could make a fortune on television. Could he indicate the hon. Members who are doing so, and how it is achieved? I shall willingly give way to him. I had hoped that at least that pearl could be extracted from this debate.
  There is no doubt that nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries is part of a compact to keep together the restless, and possibly disintegrating, factions that comprise the Labour Party. The orthodox member of the Tribune Group in the Department of Industry may laugh, but I notice that the Minister, who is a less orthodox member of the group, is less amused by that commonsense and self-evident observation.
  This measure has no friends outside the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Walton is making sedentary and bellicose noises. All right, the measure has the support of the Scottish Labour Party, and during the last parliamentary Session it had the support of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire). That support was much welcomed by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. I sent a note to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which I dare say he has received, indicating that I would mention his vote, because it has interested me. I envy him. When I came into the House of Commons it was seven months, or perhaps slightly more, before I made my maiden speech. That stood as a record until the arrival of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and he has deprived me of my record because he has
  1026
  yet to make his maiden speech. Obviously he wishes to say something now.
  Mr. Frank Maguire: Is the hon. Gentleman jealous?
  Mr. Biffen: Of course I am jealous because I have lost my record for having observed the longest silence between entry to this House and maiden speech. I had trusted that my record would eventually find its way into the "Guiness Book of Records". Naturally, I am jealous because I have lost my record, but my jealousy has been matched only by my fascination to hear the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone making his maiden speech on this Bill, because it was upon this Bill that his vote proved vital. I think that considerable care was taken to persuade him on this matter. He has certainly not been the most active participant in our affairs.
  Mr. Maguire: Would the hon. Gentleman repeat that statement? I did not hear it properly.
  Mr. Biffen: I said that I did not think that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone had been the most active participant in our affairs. I had understood that the hon. Gentleman did not have perhaps the same devotion to the constitutional arrangements of Westminster and all they entail as the rest of us.
  Mr. Frank Maguire: The hon. Gentleman has made some statements which I think that he cannot back up. My commitment to the Bill is well established in Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to make the same statements outside this Chamber, I shall deal with him.
  Mr. Biffen: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman says that his commitment to the Bill is whole-hearted and well known. If I have said anything which was offensive to him, I withdraw it at once. If the hon. Gentleman's attachment to the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom stands foursquare with that of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), I have clearly misunderstood the situation. I had understood that there were differences between the hon. Members.
  Mr. Maguire: Is the hon. Gentleman withdrawing his original statement? It is nice to see that you appreciate the error of your ways.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that so far any error of my ways has not been detected.
  Mr. Heffer: I have always had the highest respect for the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). We have had many serious theoretical arguments in the House on economic policy. But if the hon. Gentleman continues along the road on which he has been travelling for the past five minutes, my respect will be seriously diminished.
  Mr. Biffen: I am happy to put that respect at risk on this issue. I say that without meaning offence to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone I believe that any person who comes here has a right to be judged on his views and opinions over the whole range of issues within the ambit of Parliament. I am fascinated that the hon. Gentleman should have conferred his support on the Bill and I do not question the integrity with which he does to.
  Perhaps we can part as friends if I say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will show the same devoted interest to other items of domestic legislation covering the full range of matters in the Queen's Speech.
  Mr. Maguire: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to cut out the red herrings, please?
  Mr. John Evans: The time taken by an hon. Member before making his maiden speech is a matter of interest mainly to parliamentarians. The length of time which the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and his party are keeping the shipbuilding, ship repairing and aircraft industries in a state of suspense is a matter for the country, and that is what we are debating.
  Before the hon. Gentleman started his haranguing of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire), he claimed that the only support for the Bill was within the ranks of the Labour Party. Will he recognise that shipbuilding and ship repair workers on Tyneside, Wearside, Merseyside, Teesside and Clydeside want the Bill quickly? That
  1028
  is where we have the support for the Bill.
  Mr. Biffen: Well, if there were such substantial support for this legislation as the hon. Member indicates, there would have been much more powerful evidence of it in recent electoral tests to which the Labour Party has been subjected.
  I believe that this measure is short of friends outside the Labour Party. I believe that this measure is a high price to pay in divisive legislation when the nation needs a strategy of conciliation.
  The Government have shown a perverse determination to proceed with this Bill. I say that on three counts. First, I believe that the Bill is slipshod in its drafting. The very fact that the Public Bill Office pronounced a prima facie case for considering it as hybrid is evidence of that fact. It is particularly sad that we should have had recourse to the measures of the particular procedural device to deal with that. The burden of the case of the Leader of the House was that the issue of hybridity had been raised at an inconvenient time. It is not the purpose of Members of this House to conduct operations for the convenience of the Executive. That was never the view of the Leader of the House when he sat below the Gangway.
  Secondly, I believe that ship repairing could have been excluded. In the debates between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the whole issue of ship repairing, which after all encapsulated the problems of hybridity, became as it were the topmost peak of the commanding heights of the economy. I cannot understand how it came to be elevated into a kind of political Everest, which had to be scaled at any cost. I believe that the Minister of State is principally the arch-mountaineer in this case, and he carries with him a number of uncertain and bewildered Sherpas bearing the ideological baggage of this measure.
  Thirdly, there is an ultimate motive in this Bill. It is that of a despairing Cabinet seeking an external diversion on the issue of peers versus people. I believe that the Government are mistaken if they think that that isssue can be raised on this legislation. Not even the formidable oratory of the Leader of the House can inflame the long-dead embers of that controversy. I urge my hon.

  1029
  Friends to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill tonight.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Never before have I had the opportunity of following a maiden speaker. However, I do not intend to extend to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) the courtesies normally extended to maiden speeches because his speech tonight was the worst I have heard him make in the House. I had a lot of respect for the hon. Member and the speeches he made as a Back Bench Member. Perhaps he feels uncomfortable on the Front Bench, but it was really a bad speech. He never made out a case against the Bill, and at least five minutes were wasted over arguments leading to the intervention of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire), which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Burden: Yes they did.
  Mr. Mitchell: I believe very strongly that if we do not have public ownership in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries we shall not have these industries at all in a few years. It is essential for the survival of the industries that public ownership takes place. However, I do not believe that the mere act of public ownership will solve the many problems that face these industries. The problems will still be there, but at the moment the very worst thing is happening. The action of the other place in turning out the Bill was an utter disgrace. The very worst thing we could have is another long period of uncertainty. That would kill the industries.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Oswestry, who contrasted this debate with the previous three hours, when we had all sorts of people sitting on the Back Benches making speeches about parliamentary procedure. I do not know why the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) did not stay for this debate, after his previous remarks. He has gained a reputation as an expert on parliamentary procedure, but in doing so he has threatened the jobs of thousands of shipyard and aircraft workers. People outside the House do not understand what it is all about.
  1030
  If the Bill does not go through quickly, we face the prospect of shipbuilding firms going into liquidation. Shipbuilding throughout the world is already in great difficulty. There is a recession in world trade, spare shipping capacity, and strong competition from Japan.
  I want to diverge slightly to urge the Minister to co-operate with the EEC countries in forming a common policy towards the threat of Japanese shipbuilding. Britain, Germany and other European nations are involved. I should like to see a European shipbuilding policy established.
  Some hon. Members are constantly calling for extensive import controls. If we imposed extensive import controls there would be retaliation, the net effect of which would be still further to reduce the volume of world trade. A reduction in the volume of world trade would lead to a further reduction in the demand for ships to carry goods from one country to another. The shipbuilding industry would thereby be further threatened, and that could be the final blow.
  What is endangering the aircraft industry is the delay and uncertainty about the future. Will the Minister give us more information about the future of the HS 146 aircraft? The decision is long overdue. I saw a deputation last weekend consisting of middle management from Hawker Siddeley, at Hamble. They came to see me on a different matter relating to the certification of their union. They said "We may not be particularly in favour of nationalisation, but for goodness' sake let us have a decision one way or the other."
  The Vosper Thornycroft shipyard, which builds warships, is in my constituency. It has extensive export orders. It is one of the three specialist warship-building companies in the country. I hope that the Government will stick to their policy of the past seven or eight years, of placing most warship orders with the three specialist companies, Vosper Thornycroft, Vickers and Yarrow.
  When the Bill was first introduced, there was considerable apprehension among management and trade unions. They feared that the Government would set up a Morrisonian national structure for the shipbuilding industry. I am pleased to say that their fears have been

  1031
  considerably allayed by the Organising Committee. I pay tribute to the Minister for appointing Admiral Griffin as Chairman of the Organising Committee. It is an excellent appointment, which has dispelled the rumours about who would be appointed.
  The Organising Committee has done an excellent job. It has made clear that British Shipbuilders will not be a decision-making centralised bureaucracy. Local management is to retain a great deal of freedom. I hope that Vosper Thornycroft will retain its name. I think that has almost been agreed. In such matters the Organising Committee has shown a practical approach to its job.
  The hon. Member for Oswestry asked why we do not choose to leave ship repairing out of the Bill. It so happens that in Southampton the ship repairing firm of Vosper Thornycroft also carries out naval shipbuilding. There is an agreement and interchangeability of labour. For example, if a couple of ships need urgent repairs, Vosper Thornycroft can transfer men from the shipbuilding yard to get on with the job. If the demand works in the other direction, men can be transferred from ship repairing to shipbuilding. Pension and welfare arrangements are almost identical.
  What would happen if we took out ship repairing—
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman says that Vosper Thornycroft builds warships and that it should therefore repair warships. What would happen to the Royal naval dockyards, which are now repairing warships, if Vosper Thornycroft and other yards took on that work?
  Mr. Mitchell: Either I did not make myself clear or the hon. Gentleman did not listen. I said that the ship repairing yard in Southampton repairs merchant ships, not warships. The yard that is owned by Vosper Thornycroft used to be two yards. One was owned by Vospers and the other by Harland and Wolff. There was an amalgamation, and the two yards are now owned by Vospers.
  What would happen in Southampton if ship repairing were split from the Bill? It is clear that the interchangeability agreement would be threatened. There would
  1032
  have to be a new agreement. If one section were owned by British Shipbuilders and the other remained in private ownership, there would be a disastrous situation. Southampton claims to be one of the most efficient shipbuilding and ship repairing yards in the country. No doubt others will dispute that, but that is its claim. One of the reasons for its efficiency is its excellent industrial relations. There is a proper agreement covering all the ship repairing and shipbuilding workers in the port. The arguments in another place and in this place to split ship repairing from the Bill would result in utter disaster in my area.
  I accept that under the Parliament Act their Lordships have acted constitutionally. However, I believe that they have acted unwisely. One of the arguments was that the Government have a small majority and were elected on a minority vote. The latter point applies to every Government since 1945, Labour or Conservative. They have all been elected on a minority vote. The only time that the other place puts its foot down or wields the big stick is when a Labour Government presents it with Labour legislation. It has never taken that stand with Conservative legislation.
  Surely the other should have put its foot down when one of the most ridiculous measures ever passed was presented to it by the previous Conservative Government—namely, the Industrial Relations Act. Many peers from the Cross-Benches, and even from the Conservative Benches, warned the then Government what would happen if that measure reached the statute book.
  Mr. John Evans: They still voted for it.
  Mr. Mitchell: As my hon. Friend says, they still voted for it and turned out in force to do so. They did not then argue "Let us give time for thought. Let us postpone the matter for a little while and give the Government another chance."
  We cannot allow the other place to continue with its practice of delaying only that legislation which emanates from a Labour Government. What alarms me even more is that it seems that the other place has yielded to pressure from a public relations organisation working on behalf of certain ship repairing firms. We

  1033
  have all been subjected to this to some extent. At the beginning of the campaign I went to a lunch organised by a public relations firm. I was invited to a second lunch and to a third one, but I declined. Many hon. Members probably went to one of the lunches. We all know what the object of the exercise was. I believe that the Lords yielded to pressure in a disgraceful way.
  I fervently believe that unless the Bill gets on to the statute book as soon as possible the whole future of the shipbuilding industry in particular will be threatened. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that vesting day will be, at the latest, in June 1977.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall not follow many of the comments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), except to say that I agree, to some extent at least, with his concept of a European approach to the shipbuilding industry. I hope to return to that point later in my speech.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman telling us of the good things that may come from the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, and to hear him express the hope that Vosper Thornycroft would still look much as it does today. That showed his split-mind approach to the Bill, because, by its nature, the Bill will create a single industry rather than independent industries throughout the country.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, I was impressed by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), although I was a little sorry that my hon. Friend allowed himself to get landed in a rather awkward Irish bog. However, these things happen when one tangles with Irishmen. What my hon. Friend said had much force, in particular his accusation that the Government have not thought out in great detail the strategy that should underlie the Bill.
  I think I am right in saying that this is the third attempt by the Government to get the Bill through the House of Commons. It is the grandson of Benn, and much time has passed since the first draft was presented to us. In that time,
  1034
  many things have happened. Yet, so keen are the Government to get the Bill on to the statute book that they seem prepared to assume that the circumstances that held sway in 1974 and 1975 still hold good in December 1976. Given that fallacy, the Government are bound to produce a Bill that is inadequate for the task for which it has been designed.
  Mr. John Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the only thing that has happened in the shipbuilding and shiprepairing industries since 1974 is that things have got much worse and that unless we take action quickly, irrespective of nationalisation, we simply will not have a shipbuilding industry left?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: That interjection does not help the argument that I want to advance. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that if the Bill had been on the statute book by the end of the summer the shipbuilding industry would have been in a different situation, he knows less about the industry of which he claims to be an expert than he believes.
  A number of factors have come to light in the past 12 months, and it is very disappointing that the Government showed no willingness to take note of those factors and decide that the Bill should be redrafted in certain important respects before they brought it back to the House as they are doing in their effort to scramble it through this Chamber and then the other place, and so get it on to the statute book.
  I want to look at the prospects that lie before the two industries as we approach the end of this year. The lesson that we are learning about the aircraft industry is that it is not likely to develop many new civil aircraft projects in the foreseeable future. In fact, the British industry and the industries in Europe and America will be developing existing aircraft as far as they can before investing the vast sums needed to produce a whole new generation of civil aircraft.
  Reference has been made to the BAC 1–11 series 475. That aircraft shows that the British industry is looking realistically at the market, clearly with success just round the corner. It is saying "We have a good aeroplane. Let us see how far we can stretch it in terms of the numbers of passengers that it can carry. Let us

  1035
  see if we can make it quieter, by introducing either hush kits to its engines or a new generation of engine." The industry is resisting, saying "Let us spend a lot of money on a completely new aircraft, with all that that involves." That is the right and sensible approach. I have no doubt that, if the Bill goes through the British Aerospace Corporation will take a broadly similar approach.
  Regarding collaboration in Europe, the industry and, in particular, Mr. Alan Greenwood, of BAC, are making approaches to various West European companies with a view to setting up the right collaborative projects. But no one need tell me that these collaborations depend on this Bill, because they do not. The aerospace industry is doing and has done well. It has turned in record profits year after year, though a fat lot of thanks it gets from Labour Members.
  The shipbuilding industry is in a different position. I know not enough about it to want to say very much, except later in my speech when I touch on the problems of Harland and Wolff.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) expressed concern about yards not having had enough investment put into them. I wish he would go to Belfast and look at Harland and Wolff. There has been huge investment in that company. The hon. Gentleman would see marvellous machines and great cranes. If he asks, "Why are there no ships on those slipways?" the answer is not lack of investment in that yard but lack of ships wanted in world markets.
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, but I am sure that the Minister of State will listen with the attentiveness that he always displays. On Second Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill in 1975 the Secretary of State claimed that one reason why these industries should be brought into public ownership was that if public money was to be spent on them there there had to be public accountability. Indeed, as I want to make the point as strongly as I can, I shall quote from the right hon. Gentleman's speech in Hansard. Talking about the financial assistance which had been given to the
  1036
  aircraft industry, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "An industry which depends for its existence and progress on public money on this huge scale cannot be called a genuine example of private enterprise. It is much better that this massive public stake should be based on public ownership. Moreover, the provision of money on that scale to private firms means detailed monitoring—it has to be so—to achieve the degree of accountability that we all expect in this House.
  If, instead, the public money is channelled into a publicly-owned undertaking, the accountability can be at the strategic, corporate level, and the substance of accounability can be maintained and improved, but the detailed intervention and monitoring by the Government under public ownership can be dispensed with."—[0fficial Report, 2nd December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 1450–51.]
  I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman believed those words absolutely. I am sure that, as a Socialist, he would like to think those words are always the truth. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry suggested, the Secretary of State has presumably read "A Study of UK Nationalised Industries" recently published by the National Economic Development Office. If not, I shall read a short extract from it. A part of that document refers to this kind of accountability. It states:
  "Ministerial responsibility for nationalised industries is … ill-defined. The resulting confusion leads to a situation in which boards are not effectively required to account for their performance in a systematic or objective manner …
  Despite the investigations and continuous efforts of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Parliament has not been able to reassure itself, the general public or individual interest groups about the performance of nationalised industries.
  Annual reports and accounts perform a limited function in their present form and are not an adequate means of assessing the performance of statutory duties;
  There is widespread uncertainty in government departments about the underlying performance of nationalised industries;
  Targets for return on net assets have proved an insufficient and misleading means of assessing the adequacy of current and past performance …
  The consequences of government influence on board decisions cannot be disentangled from the results of decisions made at the board's own discretion;
  Boards of nationalised industries sometimes seem to aspire to a freedom from public scrutiny which is at odds with their corporations' status as publicly owned enterprises."
  and so on and so forth.

  1037
  This is the public accountability that we are told we shall now achieve as a result of the Bill. That report was published a few weeks ago, and no one need tell me that we can pass this Bill tonight and believe in our hearts that we are establishing a new form of public accountability that will make the aircraft or shipbuilding industries more accountable than they have been in the past. Tell that to Sir Arnold Weinstock. Ask him what he thinks about public accountability? He will say that his companies involved in aircraft projects have been made to monitor everything that they do. He will also explain about Ferranti and the Bloodbound deal, when companies were asked to pay back vast sums of money because they were said to have overcharged. Has any nationalised industry been put in that state? Has any nationalised industry ever made such a large profit that it has been asked to pay money back? No hon. Members will be able to tell me of one, because none exists.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the hon. Member quote from the report of Slater Walker?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I would have loved to quote from that enormous tome but I have not got it with me.
  Public accountability is one of the planks on which those who advocate nationalisation so often stand. I suggest that the NEDO report absolutely damns the argument that nationalisation gives public accountability. In fact, it gives nothing at all. Until we have a nationalisation Bill that makes the type of proposals contained in that study workable, we shall not get public accountability. That means that we shall waste Britain's public funds on worthless projects. It means a waste of labour and people's efforts—a waste of money and resources that could go to other badly needed projects, particularly those required for their social consequences.
  The Secretary of State told us that he was so sure that public accountability would exist that any future projects would not be monitored on the factory floor. Let us think of what he is really saying. He is saying that if Concorde were built by a nationalised industry the detailed monitoring which took place and which still cost Britain £600 million, would not have taken place. I hesitate to
  1038
  think what figures we would now be discussing in terms of the cost of Concorde if he had his way.
  I say to the Minister of State that until the Government take the question of public accountability more seriously than they have, until they cease to live in their dreams about what Socialism should be rather than what in fact it turns out to be, this nation will pay a very high price. It will be a very much higher price than just taking these companies into public ownership.
  I make this last point on the question of accountability: we of the Opposition believed that there was an argument for rationalising the aircraft industry and for BAC and HSA getting together in one company. However, we also believe, as we have always believed, that the private enterprise system and structure allows for the sort of monitoring about which we are really concerned. It means that the companies have to use their assets as well as they know how, because for them there is always the possibility of bankruptcy. But within nationalised industries that final sanction never exists. Because it never exists, there is never the ultimate discipline which makes those in those industries use their money wisely. As Flight International said in its edition of 6th November 1976:
  "Nationalisation remains a maximum gross irrelevance, and it will almost certainly weaken rather than stiffen the Government's control of public spending. But, to be positive, a merged BAC/HS—which could be stronger than the sum of its parts—is worth having."
  Those are my sentiments.
  I want to turn briefly to the second part of what I want to say. This Bill, which was introduced in 1975 and which is being reintroduced tonight, contains certain amendments, some of which are due to the Standing Committee, of which I was a member, and some of which are due to the other place—although one would not think so to hear some of the comments that have been made. One of those amendments has created Clause 48, which is the clause that now requires British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace to pay some heed to the fact that there is a State-owned aircraft factory in Northern Ireland called Short Brothers and Harland—which once was sited in Rochester and which can lay claim to the proud title of the oldest aircraft

  1039
  company in the world—and to the fact that there is Harland and Wolff.
  Both of those companies are absolutely State-owned, yet, as we know—because we have raised this question previously —the present Government, for reasons best known to themselves, will have nothing to do with the suggestion that Harland and Wolff should be in British Shipbuilders, or that Short Brothers and Harland should be in British Aerospace. The Government have produced all sorts of reasons, all of which persuade me that they are terrified that if that were to happen someone might say Oh Lord, they have actually integrated something in Northern Ireland into a British institution."
  So that that should not happen, the Government have kept this arms-length relationship going, despite the fact that they know, as I know, that the Chairman of Harland and Wolff at least would like to have a director on the main board of British Shipbuilders. As those companies are State-owned, one could hardly describe them as being in competition with each other. But a close link is not to be.
  However, at least Clause 48 imposes a duty upon British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders to
  "have full regard to the need to consult"
  these companies. What a strange set of words. Why is it not simply "consult"? It is just to
  "have full regard to the need to consult"
  so the option is theirs. If they do not want to consult they do not have to. That is meant to satisfy all those whose livelihood depends on Short Brothers and Harland and on Harland and Wolff, who are subjects of Her Majesty the Queen and whose lives are decided by this Parliament. That is all that they are to have.
  The clause goes on to say:
  "and wherever possible co-ordinate their activities with those of, any company incorporated in Northern Ireland".
  It is "co-ordinate", but not "co-operate". They must get the division to make absolutely sure that they do not get closer than that.
  Again I ask the Government why this should be so. The Minister of State must know—in case he does not, I have
  1040
  brought a copy of Hansard for him—that on 22nd November, only a couple of weeks ago, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, told us that
  "the Government have agreed to waive the accumulated interest due on all Government loans outstanding"
  —to Short Brothers and Harland—
  "to write off loans of £5·05 million related to certain aircraft produced in the past: and to convert the remaining Government loans, totalling £8·95 million into share capital."
  We know that the ownership of that company is in the following terms:
  "The issued share capital, as increased, will be held as follows: 61·45 per cent. by the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce; 33·85 per cent. by the Department of Industry; and 2·35 per cent. each by Harland and Wolff and the Rolls-Royce receiver."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 932–3.]
  The Department of Industry now owns 33·85 per cent. of Short Brothers and Harland and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office says that the Secretary of State for Industry, as sponsor of the United Kingdom aerospace industry, will continue to have the same sort of responsibility for Shorts as for any other part of that industry. What absolute, arrant nonsense. The Government hand out the money to Shorts. They admit that the Department of Industry owns part of Shorts, and that the Secretary of State is responsible for Shorts, yet if one tells the Government that Short Brothers should be in the Aerospace Corporation they run a mile. I could say almost the same thing for Harland and Wolff, except that the plight of the people in the company will be so awful if it does not continue that I want nothing that I say to be treated flippantly or facetiously.
  It seems to me inconceivable that we should set up two State industries, one in Northern Ireland and one in Great Britain, and that the Leader of the House should then tell my hon. Friends from Ulster, as he did last night, that he has been thinking of devolution not just in terms of Scotland and Wales but possibly in terms of Northern Ireland. Perhaps he recognises that it is under-represented, as heaven knows it is, for Northern Ireland is denied democracy and is different from any other region in the United Kingdom. I say that my hon. Friends from Ulster should remember the old Latin exhortation to "fear the Greeks even when bringing gifts."

  1041
  This Government's concern is about survival and about Socialism. They are not concerned about Northern Ireland. If they were, they would see, as anyone can, the ridiculous absurdity that they are creating by setting up these two State industries so that they are in effect in competition with each other, but may consult if Big Brother requires.
  If the Government are really serious in their intentions towards Northern Ireland, if they have set their hearts on this devolution that was referred to so amiably last night, and this greater representation at Wesminster, let them show their good faith by listening to the words of Dr. Quigley, whose report also came out a few weeks ago. The Minister of State blinks and wonders what it is all about. So that there will be no misunderstanding, let me say that the report was written by a civil servant, and its title is "Economic and Industrial Strategy for Northern Ireland".
  In that report the author says that shipbuilding affords a practical example of regional and national policies. He goes on:
  "The future of Harland and Wolff is clearly of vital significance for the Northern Ireland economy. Equally clearly, the problems of Harland and Wolff cannot be viewed or treated in isolation from the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom as a whole. We believe this observation to be valid, whatever the institutional arrangements within which Harland and Wolff operates."
  As a sign of the good faith of the Government towards Northern Ireland and its shipbuilding industry, perhaps the Minister of State can say tonight that even though it is not in the Bill he intends that the link between British Shipbuilding and Harland and Wolff and British Aerospace and Short Brothers and Harland shall be close, shall be to consult and shall be to co-operate. Until he puts something like that before the House, i shall vote against the Bill, as I did in 1975.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: I will resist the temptation to follow the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) about Northern Ireland and increased representation. It is a strange suggestion when his party has had a great deal of opportunity over the years to take some steps in that regard but has not pursued it.
  1042
  The hon. Gentleman said that this was the third time that we had discussed the Bill. I think that it is the second, since the first time it was not proceeded with. But if he is right, for us it is third time lucky.
  The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), who is not here now, unfortunately, made a contribution to our earlier debates about public ownership of the aircraft industry when he referred specifically, in a story straight from the horse's mouth, to the attitude of workers at the BAC factory at Warton in his constituency. Some of those workers live in my constituency. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a Mr. Andrew Ridley, a member of my trade union and a member and supporter of the Conservative Party, has made it absolutely clear that most workers at that factory opposed nationalisation.
  I do not wish to question the credentials of Mr. Ridley, but it is relevant to point out that we have never claimed 100 per cent. support for our measures. That would be absurd—as it would be for the Conservative Party to claim that it has over the centuries had majority support for the measures that it has pursued. One has to judge how one interprets the election of Members and Governments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) has said, it has been custom and practice, certainly since the war, to accept that the party with the majority of seats, even if it does not have a majority of votes, should form a Government and then pursue generally speaking the policy that it had advocated in the election. Therefore, when we in the Labour Party say—one can only applaud the Government for taking this course so firmly—that we have the support of the British people, we do so against that background.
  I attended a weekend school of my union last weekend, where one of the students was Mr. Andrew Ridley. He broadly confirmed what the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde had said, but he also said that over recent months there had been a shift of opinion at BAC Warton and that more and more of the work force—including the white-collar workers, of whom he is one—were coming round to the view that the Bill was desirable.

  1043
  I say this deliberately because there is a growing consciousness of the connection between the prospects of the aerospace industry and the likelihood of Government intervention, because of the general problem which faces producers of aircraft not only here but in France, Germany, America and elsewhere.
  People are becoming aware that it is possible to make the advances that are increasingly required within that industry only on the basis of national and international co-operation. The workers are increasingly coming round to believing that the best way of achieving that national and international co-operation is through Government intervention in that industry. Yet again my value judgment has been strengthened by relatively minor discussions with a few people within the industry.
  We inevitably come back to the whole question whether the actions that the Government are taking are legitimate. Over the years both sides of the House have accepted that Governments govern by consent. Without consent, the difficulty of governing is obvious. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) may find that remark rather humorous, but there is something very fundamental in it.
  Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What I found rather humorous was the fact that recent by-elections seemed to imply—I put it no higher—that the Government are not now governing with the support of the people of this country.
  Mr. Thorne: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman put forward a similar point of view during his own Government's rule when it was clear from the expressions outside what objections there were to the Industrial Relations Act. I recall the notice that the hon. Gentleman took to those objections and I recall the way in which his party steamrollered that measure through the House irrespective of growing public opinion and abhorrence with regard to that Act. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's point of view.
  How do we determine consent? The hon. Gentleman and his party have always argued that one determines consent on the basis of the results that take place in a
  1044
  general election. The party that wins the majority of seats, and the party that is called upon to form the Government, has the consent to govern on that basis. There is therefore no argument but that the Government are proceeding in a perfectly legitimate fashion.
  One thing that is worthy of note is that this Government, unlike some of the Governments that have been formed by the Conservative Party, are doing something that the public sometimes feel is rather rare in terms of Government actions. They are carrying out what they put to the electorate in their manifesto. I am one of those hon. Members who believe that even this Government do not always do that. I would seek to criticise them when they fail to carry out the promises that they made to the electorate. But that claim cannot be made with regard to this legislation.
  The public know where the Labour Party stands on this issue. They are confident that the Labour Government will continue to carry out this measure despite the difficulties with which they are being presented by gentlemen down the corridor and by their friends in this House. The Government are standing four-square behind the undertaking they gave to the electorate. They will see this undertaking carried through. That does not often happen in the history of Governments, and it is worth recording.
  Why are workers giving support to this measure? It is because they recognise increasingly that Government intervention in these industries is vital and that planning is required—not entirely centralised planning but some regional planning and some planning within the various divisions of the industries. They also recognise the need for industrial democracy.
  It may be suggested that Government intervention in these industries has been going on for many years. That is perfectly true. One of the appalling features of the present situation is that literally hundreds of millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money have been poured into these industries, without any accountability by the firms concerned other than in certain areas where researeh has been carried out and has been subsidised by Government Departments.
  My increased contact with workers in the aerospace industry has made me feel

  1045
  that over recent months there has been increasing optimism and expectancy linked directly with this question of public ownership. Far from seeing it as a threat to their future, increasingly they are confident that in British Aerospace under Government control they can make real progress and be able to lead more secure lives with the possibility of being involved in decision making in such a way that increasing satisfaction will be derived from their participation in this valuable industry.
  9.42 p.m.
  Mrs. Margaret Bain: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and I was greatly impressed by his argument about a mandate for a Government. When the next General Election comes and the Scottish National Party emerges as the major party in Scotland, I hope that he will support our demands to set up a Scottish Government.
  Mr. Thorne: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that I believe that we should have a system of proportional representation for the election of the Scottish Assembly. If we do, I am not too sure that her party will emerge with a majority.
  Mrs. Bain: If the hon. Gentleman has not done so already, I hope that he will sign the Early-Day Motion urging the adoption of a system of proportional representation.
  Mr. Thorne: I have already done so.
  Mrs. Bain: There was another point in the hon. Gentleman's speech, and it echoed that made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), on which I wish to comment because my party agrees that, if there is one situation that we do not want to see continued, it is uncertainty about this Bill.
  People outside will notice that SNP Members deliberately did not vote against the Government's procedural motion. Our reason is that we feel quite definitely that there is nothing to be gained by putting the Bill into limbo for another six months. It is disappointing that all the official Opposition Members who came into the Chamber for that debate have not seen fit to come in for this one.
  Mr. Lambie: I know that the hon. Lady is new to the game of being her party's industrial spokesman, but may I remind her that, if she and her hon. Friends had voted for the Government in the spring of last year, this Bill would have been passed six months ago and the Scottish firms in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries would have been nationalised and assured of a good future. It is strange to hear this deathbed repentance now.
  Mrs. Bain: That is the only speech tonight that the hon. Gentleman has not made from a sedentary position. If he and his hon. Friends from Scotland had joined us in trying to put pressure on the Government to set up a Scottish entity, they could have had this Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows the arguments perfectly well. There is no need for me to reiterate them now.
  I know that I am speaking for the first time in this debate but I have followed it with great interest because many of my constituents work in the shipbuilding industry and have spent most of their lives in the industry. They, like me, feel that there has been a certain immorality and unreality about this debate in recent months. There is an immorality in the threats we have had that if the Bill is not passed jobs will be lost.
  Representatives from all parties have challenged the Department of Industry time and again to give a guarantee of no redundancies and no closures but we cannot get such a categorical assurance. I am not convinced that somehow or other the passage of this Bill will guarantee jobs in industries which are under a severe threat and severe pressure. I cannot accept that one can just wave a magic wand and everything will be solved.
  I see that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has returned to the Chamber. He is always present when a Member of the SNP speaks. It is very flattering. He would love to see a situation where there were redundancies in the privately-owned shipbuilding and aircraft industries in Scotland so that he could blame the Scottish National Party. He could use this as a political argument because the other political arguments of the Labour Party in Scotland are ineffective. The

  1047
  Labour Party is looking for some weapon to stop the SNP in its tracks.
  What further intrigues me is that we are told that somehow the workers are the only people interested in nationalisation. Some of the people who are keenest to see nationalisation in Scotland, particularly in shipbuilding, are the managers, because they want compensation from the Government when they close down the yards and men are made redundant.
  I wish that Labour Member would try to take a more balanced attitude on the whole question and not sacrifice jobs on an ideological altar.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the hon. Lady explain what she means by managers looking for compensation? As I understand it any worker made redundant is entitled to redundancy pay, provided that he has worked for the qualifying period. That would be the case whether or not the industry is nationalised. Does she mean compensation for the owners, the managers or the men?
  Mrs. Bain: I am talking about compensation for capital equipment and all the rest—for owners. Redundancy money is paid anyway as the hon. Member knows. That was a silly intervention.
  The hon. Gentleman also knows the kind of rumours circulating in Scotland about what the Organising Committee has been saying. The rumours circulate because there is no categorical assurance that the three yards will continue.
  Over the weekend members of my party received telephone calls indicating which yards would be closed down. These came from someone highly placed in the trade union movement. I find this extremely worrying. Unless the Government can give a guarantee that jobs will be preserved I cannot see why on earth they are insisting on bringing back this Bill time and again.
  If we are concerned about jobs in those industries we should be looking at alternative ways of helping them. I draw attention to what has been happening in Norway, a country to which the SNP frequently looks. Norway has just announced measures to help the shipbuilding industry. Provisions will be made
  1048
  in the Norwegian Government's budget next year for the purchase of ships to help the hard-pressed shipbuilding industry and to protect employment. The sum being talked about is 157 million kroner. Also, on an interim basis, there will be 50 million kroner for immediate use in connection with coastguard vessels, 49 million kroner for construction of defence ships, 37 million kroner for repair work and naval vessels, and 19·3 million kroner for the fisheries budget, for lighters, tugs and so on.
  This is a more constructive approach to the industry. If the Government are genuinely concerned about protecting employment I hope that they will look at what is happening in Norway.
  No matter what happens to the Bill there will still be problems in the shipbuilding industry. I hope that the Government will give the kind of guarantee for which we have asked, that they will order ships and operate a Norwegian system of preference. We shall be consistent tonight in our vote. Obviously we are concerned about jobs in Scotland. But my party is not convinced that the Government are doing anything to preserve jobs in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries in Scotland, and until such time as we hear to the contrary we shall continue to vote against the Government.
  9.50 p.m.
  Mr. John Evans: I am sure that the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) understands why the Government and her party part company. I think only of shipyard workers—Clydeside shipyard workers, Tyneside shipyard workers, Merseyside shipyard workers or Wearside shipyard workers. Where they work is immaterial. They are all interchangeable, and all can work in one another's yards and on one another's ships. My party's concern is not particularly for the Scottish shipbuilding industry, the English shipbuilding industry, or even the Welsh one. Our concern is for the British shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.
  Mrs. Bain: I think that the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) will accept that I am frequently on record as saying that I am concerned about unemployment and poverty wherever it occurs. But I belong to a party which seeks alternative solutions to our problems in Scotland.

  1049
  At the same time, I can accept that there are problems elsewhere and I shall do anything I can to help.
  Mr. Evans: That was a long intervention. The workers in the industry, whether on Clydeside, Tyneside, Wearside or Merseyside, want the industry nationalised. They are not seeking to create the divisions for which the hon. Lady cries.
  I think that the House will agree that this must be the longest-running Bill in the whole history of the House of Commons. I wish that hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies would quieten down and allow a mere Englishman to address himself to the Bill.
  It is all very well for parliamentarians to exchange pleasantries or insults, but these great industries are sliding down the hill and unless action is taken quickly shipbuilding will slide into oblivion. The problems of that industry are not exclusively British or Scottish problems; they are ones which face the industry throughout the world.
  Something which struck me as peculiar, particularly during the debates at the end of last Session, was that everyone—the House of Lords, the Conservative Party and the minority parties—agreed that the Government should be allowed to nationalise the shipbuilding, marine engineering and aircraft industries if only they would let go of the ship repairing industry. It was easy to see that these groups were able to swallow the camel of nationalisation of major parts of the industry but were straining on the gnat of the minor part.
  It is difficult, after 12 months of debate, to find anything new to say, but I draw attention again to the fact that the shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering industries are major employers in developing regions of the country and that many thousands of jobs are at stake. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East referred to the fact that there were no guarantees that there will be no redundancies, but she has been in politics long enough to know that she can never be given such assurances, because of the many problems facing the shipbuilding industry throughout the world. I shall not, as she did, refer to Norway. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) earlier drew attention not to the dangers of self-protection,
  1050
  but to the fact that in the last two weeks, according to Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the United States of America has moved into second place in the world shipbuilding league, although it has undoubtedly the highest-cost industry in the world. The reason for the United States moving up behind Japan is their protective measures.
  It causes considerable concern, not only to shipbuilding workers but to many other people, to learn that British ship owners, who have been given substantial grants from taxpayers' money, are going to Japan, Korea and other parts of the world to have ships built, while British shipbuilding workers are unemployed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will note that in future we expect British ship owners to place a little more emphasis on patriotism and a little less emphasis on profit. There have undoubtedly been many instances where other countries have adopted strange tactics to win orders. British ship owners are prepared to admit that fact.
  It is a matter of concern that while the industry is facing a bleak period, British ship owners, who have been given considerable sums of taxpayers' money, are still placing orders abroad.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be convenient if any urgent conversations could take place outside the Chamber, so that we might all hear what the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) is saying.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen said about the necessity of the Government taking part in EEC discussions to work out protective action against Japan. I hope that in these discussions the Government will bear in mind that British shipbuilding has a prime place in the shipbuilding industries of the Western world and will ensure that our industry starts on an equal footing with the rest of the world's producers.
  Even if we had very well-organised industry, it would be difficult for us to compete against some of the low-cost, low-wage industries. One of our terrible problems has been the lack of investment in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.

  1051
  On Tyneside, workers in many yards are attempting to build ships with cranes which were installed in the Second World War. Workers in other parts of the world not only have new cranes but new yards, with new techniques and technology. If we want a modern industry in this country we must ensure that our workers at least have an equal chance to compete with workers in the rest of the world. Until that investment takes place—I recognise the financial difficulties and problems faced by the Government —and we are put on an equal footing, we must have protective measures to ensure that we retain a shipbuilding industry.
  Great Britain is one of the greatest trading nations in the world, and we must retain a domestic shipbuilding capacity. It would be the height of criminal folly to allow that industry to slide into oblivion and to rely on other countries, particularly in the Far East and South America, for our shipbuilding capacity. We could run into very grave difficulties if we allowed that to happen.
  Many speakers, particularly in another place, have referred to the fact that the ship repairing industry is a separate entity. Of course, some of us have tried to answer that repeatedly, but unfortunately our words seem to have fallen on stony ground.
  The two things these industries have in common are ships, and the men who build and repair ships. The workers are joined with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Trade Unions—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Second Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 256.

Division No. 6.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Allaun, Frank

Cohen, Stanley

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Anderson, Donald

Coleman, Donald

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Archer, Peter

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Armstrong, Ernest

Concannon, J. D.

Flanney, Martin

Ashley, Jack

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Corbett, Robin

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Atkinson, Norman

Cowans, Harry

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Ford, Ben

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Crawford, Douglas

Forrester, John

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Crawshaw, Richard

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Batas, Alf

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

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

Bean, R. E.

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Freeson, Reginald

Beith, A. J.

Cryer, Bob

Freud, Clement

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Bidwell, Sydney

Davidson, Arthur

George, Bruce

Bishop, E. S.

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Gilbert, Dr John

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)

Ginsburg, David

Boardman, H.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Golding, John

Bottomley, Rt Hon Albert

Davis, Clinton (Hackney)

Gould, Bryan

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Deakins, Eric

Gourley, Harry

Bradley, Tom

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Graham, Ted

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dempsey, James

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Doig, Peter

Grocott, Bruce

Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

Dormand, J. D.

Harper, Joseph

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Buchan, Norman

Dunn, James A.

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Buchanan Richard

Dunnett, Jack

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Eadie, Alex

Hatton, Frank

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Edge, Geoff

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton amp; P)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Heffer, Eric S.

Campbell, Ian

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Henderson, Douglas

Canavan, Dennis

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Hooley, Frank

Cent R. B.

English, Michael

Hooson, Emlyn

Carmichael, Neil

Ennals, David

Horam, John

Carier, Ray

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Cartwright, John

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Evans, John (Newton)

Huckfield, Les

Clemitson, Ivor

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Small, William

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Miller, Dr M. S (E Kilbride)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Mitchell, R. C (Soton, Itchen)

Snape, Peter

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Molloy, William

Spearing, Nigel

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Moonman, Eric

Spriggs, Leslie

Janner, Greville

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Stallard, A. W.

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

John, Brynmor

Moyle, Roland

Stoddart, David

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Stott, Roger

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Strang, Gavin

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Newens, Stanley

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Noble, Mike

Swain, Thomas

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Oakes, Gordon

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Ogden, Eric

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Judd, Frank

O'Halloran, Michael

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Kaufman, Gerald

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Thompson, George

Kelley, Richard

Ovenden, John

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Kerr, Russell

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Padley, Walter

Tierney, Sydney

Kinnock, Neil

Palmer, Arthur

Tinn, James

Lamble, David

Pardoe, John

Tomlinson, John

Lamborn, Harry

Park, George

Tomney, Frank

Lamond, James

Parker, John

Torney, Tom

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Pendry, Tom

Tuck, Raphael

Leadbitter, Ted

Penhaligon, David

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Lee, John

Perry, Ernest

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Prescott, John

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

Lipton, Marcus

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Litterick, Tom

Price, William (Rugby)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Loyden, Eddie

Radice, Giles

Ward, Michael

Luard, Evan

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Watkins, David

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Reid, George

Watt, Hamish

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Weetch, Ken

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Weitzman, David

McCartney, Hugh

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Wellbeloved, James

MacCormick, Iain

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Welsh, Andrew

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Robinson, Geoffrey

White, Frank R. (Bury)

McElhone, Frank

Roderick, Caerwyn

White, James (Pollock)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Whitlock, William

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

MacKenzie, Gregor

Rooker, J. W.

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Mackintosh, John P.

Rose, Paul B.

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Maclennan, Robert

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Madden, Max

Rowlands, Ted

Wilson(Alexander (Hamilton)

Magee, Bryan

Ryman, John

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Sandelson, Neville

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Mahon, Simon

Sedgemore, Brian

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Mellalieu, J. P. W.

Selby, Harry

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Marks, Kenneth

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Woodall, Alec

Marquand, David

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Woof, Robert

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Meacher, Michael

Sillars, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Silverman, Julius

Mr. James Hamilton and

Mikardo, Ian

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Joseph Ashton.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Britian, Leon

Corrie, John

Alison, Michael

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Costain, A. P.

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Brotherton, Michael

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Arnold, Tom

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Crouch, David

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Crowder, F. P.

Awdry, Daniel

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)

Baker, Kenneth

Budgen, Nick

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Banks, Robert

Bulmer, Esmond

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Bell, Ronald

Burden, F. A.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Drayson, Burnaby

Kenyon, W.

Carlisle, Mark

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Berry, Hon Anthony

Carson, John

Dunlop, John

Bitten, John

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Biggs-Davison, John

Churchill, W. S.

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Blaker, Peter

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Elliott, Sir William

Body, Richard

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Emery, Peter

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Clegg, Walte

Eyre, Reginald

Bottomley, Peter

Cockcroft, John

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Falrgrieve, Russell

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Cope, John

Fell, Anthony

Braise, Sir Bernard

Cormack, Patrick

Finsberg, Geoffrey

1054

1055

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Lamont, Norman

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Renton, Tim (Mid_Sussex)

Forman, Nigel

Lawrence, Ivan

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Lawson, Nigel

Ridley, Hon

Fox, Marcus

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Ridsdale, Julian

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Lloyd, Ian

Rifkind, Malcolm

Fry, Peter

Loveridge, John

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

McCrindle, Robert

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Gardner, Edward (S Fyide)

McCusker, H.

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Macfarlane, Neil

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

MacGregor, John

Royle, Sir Anthony

Glyn, Dr Alan

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Sainsbury, Tim

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Goodhart, Philip

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Goodhew, Victor

Madel, David

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Goodlad, Alastair

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Shepherd, Colin

Gorst, John

Marten, Neil

Shersby, Michael

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Mates, Michael

Silvester, Fred

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Mather, Carol

Sims, Roger

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Maude, Angus

Skeet, T. H. H.

Gray, Hamish

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Griffiths, Eldon

Mawby, Ray

Speed, Keith

Grist, Ian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Spence, John

Grylls, Michael

Mayhew, Patrick

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Hall, Sir John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Halt-Davis, A. G. F.

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Sproat, lain

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mills, Peter

Stainton, Keith

Hampson, Dr Keith

Miscampbell, Norman

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hannam, John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Stanley, John

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Moate, Roger

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Hastings, Stephen

Molyneaux, James

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Havers, Sir Michael

Monro, Hector

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Hayhoe, Barney

Montgomery, Fergus

Stokes, John

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Heseltine, Michael

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Tapsell, Peter

Hicks, Robert

Morgan, Geraint

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Higgins, Terence L.

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Hodgson, Robin

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Tebbit, Norman

Holland, Philip

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Hordern, Peter

Mudd, David

Thomas, Rt Hon D. (Hendon S)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Neave, Airey

Townsend, Cyril D.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Nelson, Anthony

Trotter, Neville

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Neubert, Michael

van Straubenzee, W. R

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Newton, Tony

Vaughan, Dr Gerald

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Normanton, Tom

Viggers, Peter

Hurd, Douglas

Nott, John

Wakeham, John

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Onslow, Cranley

Welder, David (Clitherae)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

James, David

Osborn, John

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

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

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Wall, Patrick

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Page, Richard (Workington)

Walters, Dennis

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Weatherill, Bernard

Jopling, Michael

Parkinson, Cecil

Wells, John

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Pattie, Geoffrey

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Percival, Ian

Wiggin, Jerry

Kershaw, Anthony

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Nicholas

Kilfedder, James

Pink, R. Bonner

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Kimball, Marcus

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Young. Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Younger, Hon George

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Kirk, Sir Peter

Raison, Timothy

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rathbone, Tim

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Knight, Mrs Jill

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Mr. Michael Roberts.

Knox, David

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Question accordingly agreed to.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. John Evans: I was saying before the Division—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask those hon. Members who intend to
1056
withdraw from the Chamber to do so quietly and those who have urgent conversations to conduct to hold them elsewhere.
Mr. Evans: I was saying before the Division that some have alleged that these industries are separate. I was pointing out that the workers in the industries are combined in their trade union movement and the employers in the industries are combined in their employers' association. There is no

1057
point in my repeating this if it is to fall on deaf ears, particularly the deaf ears of those who know nothing about the industry. I can only say that it is a fact and that the workers and employers in the industry know this.
Others have alleged that the reason the ship repairing industry should be left out of the Bill is that it raises a question of dynamic marketing. Those who allege that the industry as it is to be taken over will not have dynamic marketing are talking nonsense. One of the important criteria which have been introduced in the Bill is that the industry will be organised on a regional basis. That is something that we on this side welcome, and I should have though that the Scottish National Party would have welcomed it because it will bring a Scottish dimension to the industry.
We all know that the main cause of many of the problems we have had with the Bill in the House was the very skilful and expensive campaign conducted by Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited. The workers in the industry were conned by the management. I point out now, as I did on the last occasion, that the strategy in ship repairing is that there will be a major repairing establishment on every major estuary in the United Kingdom. That strategy is common sense.
The Bristol Channel is one of the major potential areas of growth for ship repairing. It must be, otherwise the managing director of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited would hardly have made application to the Government for a very substantial loan to enable him to extend his facilities. That is something that the workers in Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited will take on board as the future unfolds and they will recognise that they are in a very great potential growth area.
It is nonsense and, indeed, dangerous to suggest that the Government will direct work away from the Bristol Channel to areas of high unemployment. We have said many times that there is no power in the Bill to do this and that the Government have no intention of doing it. The Government would be foolish to try to do so. Shipping is an international business. Those who own and run ships are free to send them anywhere in the
1058
world and if anyone tries to direct them to send their ships to a place to which they do not want to send them, they will take their ships away.
On the question of the continued employment of workers in the industry, there can be no guarantee that jobs will be saved. We have these very serious problems. The shipyard workers themselves are well aware of the problems. Throughout their working lives they have faced problems of redundancy and layoff. They know the industry and the state of the order books. They know where the orders are going and the reasons why some of the orders are going there.
Shipbuilding and ship repairing in Britain have an assured future only when we adopt a national strategy and have a coherent policy for the industry. The greatest mistake that the Labour Government made was in 1968 when, after the Geddes reorganisation, they did not nationalise the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.
There is one consolation. Workers and management have learned the lessons of that reorganisation. They will not make the same mistakes again. Many mistakes were made and millions of pounds of the tax-payers' money have been poured down many drains because of the inherent faults in the Geddes reorganisation.
The continued success and existence of the industry is vital. Some Members in this House do not take a nationalist view and attempt to protect the jobs of one group of workers. I hope that I can claim to speak not on behalf of Merseyside workers, nor on behalf of my ex-Tyneside colleagues, but on behalf of all shipbuilding and ship repairing workers throughout the United Kingdom. Our concern is for all workers.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East is not in her place. I should like to quote from yesterday's Glasgow Herald which carries the headline:
"Nationalists lost us 230 jobs—union man."
The union man concerned was James Ramsay, a Clyde district delegate of the Boilermaker's Society at the Alexander Stephen's ship repair yard. He said:
"These men"

1059
who are to be laid off on 4th January,
"are the first victims of the failure of the Bill to get through Westminster … I blame the Scottish Nationalists and those bloody old fools in the House of Lords. They have created this situation by their failure to support a necessary piece of Government legislation. There were plenty of potential buyers but now they are shying away because of the uncertainty over the yard's and the industry's future. If this is an example of the SNP's policy of attracting or keeping jobs in Scotland, then God help us."
Mr. Douglas Crawford: As an ex-employee of the Glasgow Herald, I never thought that I should hear a Labour Member endorse
1060
what it said. If the hon. Gentleman believes what the Glasgow Herald says, he will believe anything.
Mr. Evans: I was quoting Mr. James Ramsay, the Clyde district delegate of the boilermakers' society.
I finish on this note. We have had a great shipbuilding and ship repairing industry. We have got a great shipbuilding and ship repairing industry. Unless the Bill goes through, and unless it goes through the other place in the near future, we shall not have any industry, never mind a great industry.
10.23 p.m.
Mr. Neville Trotter: The fundamental fact about the future of the shipbuilding industry is that it has no future at all unless it is efficient. The chairman of the Organising Committee, in speeches which he has made throughout the country, has made it clear that this is an international industry. He recognises that there is no captive market and that, if we cannot compete in a difficult world market, there will be no future whatever for this industry.
We should look at the Government's proposal against the fundamental requirement: will State ownership make the industry more efficient or not? Looking at the record of every nationalised industry, I cannot see how any rational person can say that State ownership is the way to salvation for the shipbuilding industry.
What do we find in the existing State-owned yards? We find the worst tales of inefficiency in the country. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) referred to the taxpayers' money going down drains. I suggest that some of the biggest drains are the State-owned yards. About 87 per cent. of all the State money which has gone into the industry has gone down the drains in those State-owned yards.
Mr. Harry Selby: Is it not a fact that a large proportion of the money given to the yards has been spent on modernising them because the previous owners took out all the profits?
Mr. Trotter: It is a sad fact that the Public Accounts Committee greatly criticised the Govan yard for its inefficiency and continuing failure to meet productivity targets which were set when millions of pounds were poured into the yard. The tragedy is that enormous sums have been spent on capital equipment without the hoped for improvement in productivity and there have been continuing losses at the end of the day.
One of the most worrying features about the proposal to nationalise the industry is that the efficient yards—the Swan Hunters of this world—may be in danger of being cut back as a result of these sacred cows—the present State-owned yards—being continued in future.
1062
This is a great worry to some of us on Tyneside. Indeed, one sometimes wonders why the Government are so determined to put the industry's headquarters on Merseyside. They have not so far said where they will put it but the feeling is that it will be on Merseyside. Is that because there is no future on Tyneside, and is that why the industry's natural site for a headquarters is being ignored? Communications from Merseyside are not good. Just about the only place to which one can take a plane from Liverpool is the Isle of Man, and there is not much shipping there. There is no reason to put the headquarters on Merseyside except perhaps that there is to be no future for the industry in the Tyne and Wear area.
The real reason for the nationalisation proposals is of course dogma. There are those on the other side who do not believe in private ownership. There are others who believe in a mixed economy but they are prepared to do a bargain to prolong their period in office. That is what is happening on this Bill as with so many other of the Government's proposals.
The only positive act by the Government has been to cut back naval orders. But more naval orders is one of the ways in which the industry could have been helped. It would have been better to increase the size of the navy. That would have helped the shipbuilding industry.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member has a great knowledge of the industry and Tyneside. Without the through-deck cruiser that we have ordered and the other orders that we have placed on the Tyne the position of the people working there would be much worse than it is today. Of all people—and he has both integrity and knowledge—he is not a man fitted to make an allegation of that kind.
Mr. Trotter: Before coming to the Chamber I consulted Hansard. In answer to a Question that I asked about how many jobs would be lost as a result of the naval cut-back, the then Minister of State for Defence said that 11,000 jobs would be lost to the shipbuilding

1063
industry. Of course it is true that the building of a particular ship produces jobs, but what about the cuts? There has been a one-seventh cut in destroyers, a one-seventh cut in frigates and a one-third cut in Royal Fleet auxiliaries, which were often built on the Tyne. This is a time when the Soviet Navy is expanding and there is therefore a sound case for increasing rather than cutting naval expenditure.
The main indictment of the Government is that after nearly three years in office, after 1,000 days, they have no plans for the future of the industry other than to take it into public ownership. That is irrelevant to the industry's future. There are no plans, and we have no idea of what the future holds. In all the numerous debates no Minister has enlightened us about the future structure, strategy or size of the industry.
I suspect that many men in the industry are under the delusion that their jobs will be maintained through this change to public ownership. An hon. Member opposite spoke of the optimism, confidence and security for the future. But Mr. Graham Day, Chief Executive of the Organising Committee, said that if we do not contemplate the fact of an inadequate number of orders, many more people will get hurt than is necessary. It is inevitable that there will be some contraction in the shipbuilding industry. But after three years in office the Government have not issued a word about their plans. They still try to pretend that there is no need for jobs to be lost. That is not the case.
Why have the Government not informed us of the facts of life for this industry? The world's shipyards are capable of turning out 50 million tons of shipping a year. The Japanese alone can turn out 18 million tons and the world demand is only 12 or 13 million tons a year.
The Minister of State and I travelled round the world in opposite directions this summer but we turned up in the same places. He saw, as I saw, the new yard in Korea. I do not know whether the statistics that he was given were quite the same as mine. My recollection, however, was that they were working some 60 hours a week. I went around
1064
the yard on a Saturday afternoon. Beforehand I suggested that that was a funny time to be going around a shipyard, but the people there replied "Why? There are 19,000 men hard at work." That was so. A Saturday afternoon was no different from any other day. These 19,000 men were working for about £20 a week and turning out the same standard ships as built by Govan Shipyard on the Clyde.
Hon. Members may laugh. They may not be pleased to hear that, but it is a fact. They may think that factor laughable, but it is a fact of life, and that is the true competition faced by Govan and other British merchant shipbuilders. The Minister must have found, as I did, that it is competition which even the Japanese have found very worrying. That is the true competition facing our industry.
It is a considerable indictment of the present Government that after 1,000 days in office they have put forward no plans whatever for the future of this industry. They have deluded those working in it into thinking that by putting it into public ownership their jobs will be made secure, when the only thing that can achieve that is efficiency. It is a very strong indictment against the Government that they cannot give any answer to the question of the size, strategy and structure of this industry in the future. Either they are determined on secrecy, which is disgraceful, or else they have no plans. I hope that in winding up the debate the Minister of State will advise us which of those alternatives is the truth.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Terry Walker: The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) will not expect me to follow up his remarks on shipbuilding. I want to speak mainly about the aircraft industry, which is of concern to my constituents in the Bristol area.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) seemed to treat this whole matter as an academic argument about nationalisation and about the rôle of the House of Lords. I was sorry that he brought in the argument about the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) because it detracted from the quality of his speech. Certainly the style of presentation of the hon. Member for Oswestry is markedly removed

1065
from the flamboyant style of his predecessor in Shadow office, the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). During the last General Election campaign, the hon. Member for Henley came into the West Country trying to solicit the votes of aircraft workers and tramped the country trying to talk to them about the Opposition's policy on the aircraft industry.
This is not an academic argument about nationalisation. The position of the British aircraft industry is now too grave for that. Without public ownership our aircraft industry as we know it will collapse, because there are very few plans for the future.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has visited Bristol to talk to shop stewards, with me, and to talk to the management of BAC about future plans for the industry. I think that he was there on one occasion when we were told by the BAC management that there were virtually no plans for the industry. We were told then "You do not fill up the petrol tank if you are going to sell the car." If that is the position, the nationalisation of the aircraft industry is the only thing that will save the workers' jobs.
What we are talking about tonight is not an academic question but the matter of men's livelihoods and the livelihood of their families. That is what is at stake. Cities such as Bristol have been far too relaxed about aircraft production over the years. Many of us have been fearful about the prospects if something happened. We have suffered uncertainty for several decades. The things that have happened to this Bill, both in the hybridity sense and in the sense of the action taken in the other place, have resulted in grave uncertainty, which in turn has put men's jobs in jeopardy. The delay will eventually mean the loss of jobs and job prospects for the workers.
People at the BAC plant at Filton are objecting, and the management and shop stewards are worried about the situation. They ask what will happen to the factory if the Bill does not go through. The delay in implementing the plans that were initiated by this Government has been disastrous for job prospects in the industry.
1066
Successive Governments have over the years given millions of pounds to the British aircraft industry, and it has been reliant on that money. Now is the time for greater accountability in the industry because, as has been said by many of my hon. Friends, there has been a lack of investment by private enterprise firms in the aircraft industry, and that cannot be contradicted.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred to the rôle of Sir Arnold Weinstock. As he has been mentioned, I think I should tell the House of the worries of the workers about what Sir Arnold Weinstock has said in the past. He has given the impression that if BAC is not nationalised he would have it withdrawn from civil aviation altogether and concentrate on more lucrative elements of production.
Bristol relies on the aircraft industry, and the site at Filton, which is heavily dependent on the Concorde project, is one of those things about which a decision is needed now. Decisions have to be made by the new Corporation, and one reason for the consultations that some of my hon. Friends and I have had with Lord Beswick has been to secure something for the workers so that we can tell them exactly what is to happen.
The decision that the House has taken about this Bill on a number of occasions has strengthened the resolve of those in the trade union movement to see this industry brought into public ownership, because decisions have to be made now about the future of the Concorde project as a whole. These decisions need to be made in the context of the new Corporation. They cannot be made by people who may be relinquishing their responsibilities in a few months' time.
Decisions have also to be made about a possible 150 to 180-seater aircraft for use in the 1980s. The HS146 is one plane that is still on the shelf, and a decision will have to be made about that. A decision is needed also on the BAC 111. Hon. Gentlemen say that more BAC 111s are being produced, but that is because of the guarantee that has been given by the Government for the financing of this aircraft. I went to Filton and saw these planes being made, and it is the Government who have to take all the flak in these matters.

1067
The message that I want to hear going forth from this debate is that the Bill is going forward again. If there is any further delay it will mean that of the three BAC factories at Hum, Weybridge and Filton, one will have to close. If there is further delay, the question will be, which one? I do not want my constituents who work in Filton to be thrown on the scrap heap, and I am sure that those hon. Members who represent the other places I have mentioned take the same view. We need an end to the uncertainly, a decision one way or the other. That is why I hope that we shall proceed tonight; otherwise, one of these factories will come under the axe.
The delay has meant that time is now running out. The birth of the new British Aerospace must not be longer delayed. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his great resolve in pressing ahead with the Bill against all the opposition. I hope that he will be rewarded by seeing it on the statute book early in 1977.
10.41 p.m.
Mr. F. A. Burden: When the Bill was amended by the other place in a way unacceptable to the Government, the Secretary of State said that it was the Tory Peers only who had defeated it. That was uncharacteristic and ungenerous. In fact, six Independents, 16 Liberals and at least 44 others who took no party Whip voted against it—including former Labour Cabinet Ministers. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman on reflection will want to withdraw that statement, which, as well as being uncharacteristic and ungenerous, was misleading —and that is something that we have not learned to expect from him.
Will the Bill ensure the survival and virility of the aircraft and shipbuilding and repairing industries? If it is to ensure that those working in the industries retain their jobs, it must produce orders for ships to be built and repaired. The Secretary of State admitted tonight that there had been a worldwide decline in the demand for new ships and that it would be difficult to ensure that the yards were kept busy. He could give no promise that that would happen.
We all know that change of ownership, from private to public, will not provide one extra order from overseas shipowners
1068
for a ship to be built or repaired here unless price and delivery are competitive with those of ships built abroad. Indeed, as the Secretary of State agreed earlier tonight by nodding his head, we must also take into account countries new to shipbuilding, which will be competing with us for the first time.
When I asked the Prime Minister recently how many existing shipyards would be kept in operation after nationalisation, he made it clear that he could give no promise. I asked him whether, if orders were not forthcoming from overseas, the Government would build ships themselves, and if so, what they would do with them and how they would pay for them. I asked whether he could ensure that the present workers would retain their jobs. He said that there must be some rationalisation. The Secretary of State knows that, unless we can obtain orders in competition with overseas companies, there will be a cutback. I hope that the Minister will admit it.
Many hon. Members opposite are under the delusion, as are perhaps some workers in the shipyard and ship repairing industry, that the mere act of nationalisation and State ownership will ensure that they keep their jobs and that they will prosper. When I asked the Secretary of State where the orders would come from he said that British shipowners would be encouraged to place their orders in this country.
Will the Minister of State tell us what encouragement will be given to them? Will sanctions be imposed on them? If so the Government must take into consideration that if British shipowners are forced to purchase their ships in British yards, if those ships cost more than they would cost in foreign yards and if they take longer to deliver, it will make the operating costs very much higher. The Government must also consider that the loan charges on such high capital cost equipment will enormously increase the cost and the difficulties of operating them profitably if there are long delays in delivery.
How do the Government intend to keep the shipyards in this country open? How will they ensure that those yards will continue to employ the men who are already working in those yards and to expand the labour force?

1069
What will happen if the British shipyard cannot get orders from abroad? What will happen if the Government are not prepared to put down orders? What will happen if the Government do not force the British shipowners to purchase ships in this country? Considering the decline in tonnage over recent years I would suggest that the Government will have to bring pressure upon the British shipowners and impose sanctions on them. If they intend keeping yards open and if we get all their ships built in British yards, do the Government really believe that that will be enough to keep the existing number in full employment and full operation? These are things that we need to know.
I questioned the Minister of State a few days ago about ship repairing, which has caused me considerable concern. I pointed out that in the past practically all the repairs to naval vessels have been done by the Royal Naval dockyards. They have had the power to undertake these repairs. Can the Minister of State give a categorical assurance that the nationalisation of the private yards will not mean that in the future the Royal Naval dockyards will have taken away from them the repair and refit of Royal Navy vessels upon which they depend for their very existence?
Does anyone really believe that State ownership brings efficiency to any industry? As the threat of nationalisation has grown, why is it that our industrial efficiency, as expressed in world trade, has declined so dramatically and so drastically? This is a fact which is there for all the world to see.
Many Government supporters are at issue with the Prime Minister in that they do not want a mixed economy. They want nationalisation right across the board, and, if they were honest, they would say so. The Prime Minister will have a very hard battle to ensure that there is a mixed economy. But, with the constant erosion of it by more and more nationalisation, it becomes less effective and more dependent upon the Government and upon the nationalised industries which serve it.
This is not the way to ensure the future prosperity of Britain. It is the way to further industrial decline, and I am sure that time will show that this
1070
act of nationalisation of the aircraft, shipbuilding and ship repairing industries will not bring one additional aircraft, one additional order from overseas for ships to be built here, or one additional ship built abroad for repair in this country.
Nor will this Act ensure that the people already working in our shipyards will stay in employment. As soon as the Bill is passed and the industry is looked at, I believe that there will be a cutback in the number of people working in our shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.
10.51 p.m.
Mr. David Lambie: I want to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) in hoping that this Bill will now reach finality. I spoke in the Second Reading debate on the original Bill, I took part in the 58 very long sittings of the Committee, and I participated in the debates on Report and Third Reading. I looked forward to vesting date on 1st June, 1st July, 1st August, 1st October and 1st January 1977. Now I hope that the vesting date really will be 1st February 1977. We need some finality to this Bill, and I hope that we shall reach that stage, if only for the sake of those who work at Scottish Aviation and live in my constituency.
Scottish Aviation is one of the firms included in the nationalisation proposals. Scottish Aviation, with only 5 per cent. of the total work force in British Aerospace, will go to the wall unless it is nationalised. At present, it is being squeezed out of existence. During the past two years, its labour force has dropped by 50 per cent., from 2,600 to 1,300. This small unit on the periphery of the British aerospace industry will fail if it is not nationalised.
I speak tonight on behalf of the management and the workers—the shop stewards' committee—of Scottish Aviation, because I can tell my Scottish nationalist Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"]—that both sides of the industry in Scotland want it nationalised.
Mr. Michael Grylls: When the hon. Gentleman speaks about vesting dates, would not he do well to remember that the delay was the fault of the Secretary of State? It was

1071
he who lost his temper and refused to accept the Lords amendments. If he had not done that, he would have had vesting. He is to blame, because he lost his temper and, with it, the Bill.
Mr. Lambie: It is always a mistake to give way at this time of night. Interruptions halt the flow of thought. I was making the point that the workers and management at Scottish Aviation want the firm nationalised because unless it is properly dealt with it will go to the wall.
This has been an unreal debate. On Monday, and yesterday, shop stewards of Scottish Aviation were asking me "What will happen. The Government have a majority of one. Will you win?" I can remember earlier debates when senior members of the Opposition got so heated that they lifted the Mace and threatened innocent Labour Members. We had arguments about hybridity and equality of votes and we had Mr. Speaker giving a casting vote. Now the whole country is watching, wondering what will happen. Yet during the whole of this debate I could have counted the number of Opposition Members present on the fingers of one hand.
Mr. Michael Marshall: The hon. Member should look behind him.
Mr. Lambie: I am not interested in that. We do not need to be here now because we want the Bill to get through. Our Whips are telling us not to speak. There is one saying to me now "Do not speak. Let us get on with the vote." During the Divisions we have had majorities of 20 and 40—
Mr. Michael Marshall: Would the hon. Member care to confirm and place it on the record that there are 17 Labour Members present compared with 32 Opposition Members?
Mr. Lambie: The hon. Member came in to the debate at nine o'clock. It began long before then.
I was interested to note that the Scottish National Party had a new industry spokesman. I must say that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) is better looking than the old spokesman. The hon. Lady made as good a speech tonight on industry as she usually makes on education.
1072
We heard that there was a palace revolution last week in the SNP parliamentary party and that Margo Macdonald, the party's vice-president, came down, hell-bent on dealing with some of the SNP Members of Parliament. She knocked on the door and was told that she had no locus here and that she should get out. She had to leave. I thought, when I saw the hon. Lady replacing the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), that the palace revolution had been successful and that the Socialists inside the SNP had won—
Mr. Crawford rose—
Mr. Lambie: I am coming to the hon. Member. He should sit down for the present. Although the SNP has changed its spokesman the same speech writer is being used. He was sitting beside the hon. Lady telling her what to say when she deviated. We know the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) from the past. The hon. Member challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) when he was reading from the Glasgow Herald and said that it was a reactionary paper. He used to write the speeches for the Tories in Scotland. Now he is writing the same speeches for the Tories in the SNP. We have not had a palace revolution, as I had hoped.
Mr. Crawford: I am amused by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I did not realise that he actually read The Times. If he believes everything he reads in it he will believe anything. If The Times can so garble the events and happenings in a small party such as the SNP, with 11 members, I hate to think what it does to reports of meetings of the Cabinet and the Shadow Cabinet.
Mr. Lambie: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire should be honest and admit that he wrote speeches for the Scottish Tories and he is now writing the same speeches for the Tories in the Scottish National Party. He should be honest and not put up this camouflage about stories in The Times and the Glasgow Herald. The only thing I read in The Times today was a defence of Sir Hugh Fraser who stole £4 million from shareholders and gave part of it to the gamblers in Monte Carlo and another part to the Scottish National Party

1073
to fight the Labour Party. I do sometimes read both the Glasgow Herald and The Times. The Scottish National Party had an opportunity tonight to vote for the Government and to give us that secure majority which will allow us to nationalise the shipbuilding and aircraft industries in Scotland and give some guarantee of security in those industries.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East used the example of the Norwegian shipbuilding industry and said that it was one that we should follow. But we are following it. If the hon. Lady knew anything about the Norwegian shipbuilding industry, and had not just read the Tory speech prepared by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, she would also know that the industry is very nearly nationalised.
Mrs. Bain: I should like to assure the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) that I am quite literate and can write my own speeches. The real difference between the Norwegian Government and our Government is that the Norwegians are not bankrupt and crawling on hands and knees to others for money. A Scottish Government, with access to resources, could build the sort of industry that we need.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that a short time ago the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) declared that it was stupid to give way at this time of night.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect, does it not seem that the Deputy Speaker sometimes intervenes when my party happens to have the floor?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I strongly resent that accusation against the Chair. I was merely reminding the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire of what he had said earlier. It was nothing to do with the Scottish National Party or any other party.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: It happens all the time.
Mr. Lambie: It is very difficult to pin down the Scottish National Party on anything because, whenever one takes up a point with its Members, they do not answer it but move on to another point.
1074
I repeat my earlier statement to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East. If she knew anything at all about the Norwegian shipbuilding industry, she would know that it was a Government-controlled, nationalised industry.
During the spring of this year I visited a major shipbuilding yard near Stavanger in Norway. We were told that the Government were going to take it over and to supply the necessary finance. I would like to see the Norwegian example followed here. That is why I support nationalisation and believe that the Government should be given control over the direction of investment in the shipbuilding industry.
I say to Members of the Scottish National Party that this Bill would have been on the statute book nine months ago but for their failure to support the Government. It is all very well for them to say that they did not vote on the procedural motion because they want to see some finality. We could have had that last May if the Government had had the guaranteed support of the Scottish National Party. But what were Scottish National Party Members doing?
Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): They were boozing.
Mr. Lambie: They were tearing up telegrams they had received.
Mr. Crawford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) asked what SNP Members were doing, I distinctly heard the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) say that they were boozing. Is that a parliamentary expression?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I did not hear that remark.
Mr. Lambie: The SNP Members were tearing up telegrams from the shop stewards in shipyards on the Clyde and from the joint works committee of Scottish Aviation. That is how they were representing Scottish workers.
I hope that the Government push through the Bill. My only disappointment is that we are not also considering a Bill to abolish the House of Lords. I hope that the Government push ahead

1075
with the nationalisation of these industries. It is the only way to provide a secure future for them and the workers in Scotland.
11.6 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: As a member of the Committee which sat on 58 occasions to consider this Bill, I could be forgiven for thinking that we had deployed every possible argument on the measure.
The recent altercation between this House and another place has focused attention on the weakest plank in the Government's platform. There have been many references in recent months to the urgent need for this measure. Time and again, Ministers and their supporters have said how terribly urgent it is that the shipbuilding industry should be taken into public ownership.
Tonight we have heard quotations from The Times, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) saying what a shame it was that the SNP did not support the Government earlier this year and the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) saying that his constituents who work in a BAC factory—as do some of mine—are anxious to know the outcome of the Bill because there is great uncertainty and they are worried about their future.
When the Government took office in February 1974, they were saying that it was urgent to get these industries—which have been put together in one Bill for reasons which no one with any sanity can understand—taken into public ownership. If it were so urgent, why did it take from February 1974 to the first few days of December 1975 before we had the Second Reading of the Bill? This was supposed to be so urgent to the future of the industries and the workers, yet we had to wait not six weeks or six months but 22 months for a Second Reading. Even after the Bill left this House, there was a delay of five or six weeks before another place started to consider it.
Last week, when the Bill had finally finished its ricocheting between the two Houses, the Government were still bleating and trumpeting about it being a desperately urgent measure and that the workers were anxiously awaiting the out-
1076
come. The Government had their chance to have the Bill, but they chose to do the other thing. We should be delighted to know the reasons for that decision.
The BAC, Hawker Siddeley, the shipbuilding and aircraft industries are saying that the Government could have had them in public ownership last week were it not for the fact that they were afraid to introduce a separate Bill to cover ship repairing. Consequently, we have to go through the whole thing again.
That is the question, and I have never yet heard an answer to it. That is the way in which uncertainty would have been ended and urgency would have been acted upon, but still the workers are waiting for an answer. Are the Government going to answer? They cannot have it both ways. They are very fond of telling us that. Is this matter urgent or not? If it is, why did they not nationalise these industries last week?
11.11 p.m.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) in an intervention gave us an interesting insight into the objectivity of the British Press, especially the Glasgow Herald, when he told us that he would be very surprised if we ever found anything in it worth quoting which was favourable to the Labour Party. I have news for him—we have known that for a long time. We knew long before he told us of the bias of the British Press, including the Glasgow Herald.
Anyone who has been in contact with the shipbuilding industry recently, be it with the Shipbuilding Organising Committee, the unions involved in shipbuilding, or the management—whether they are for or against nationalisation—knows that in principle there is complete unanimity about one thing. That is, that a decision must be taken whether the industry is to be nationalised.
I do not expect, and I do not think that anyone would pretend, that on vesting day suddenly the future of British shipbuilding becomes miraculously better and changed. Until, on and after vesting day, the industry will face the same problems as it faces now—problems of capacity and orders. What then, is the rationale behind the way in which the Shipbuilding Organising Committee will operate in

1077
future? The Chairman, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, and the Chief Executive designate Mr. Graham Day, both say that the rationale of the new Corporation is to provide the healthiest and most viable industry of maximum capacity, which will not go into business on the basis of saying which yards should be shut down and which should keep going. They want to go into the future by drawing up a plan for the whole country on the basis of a secure future for the biggest industry possible. That is very different from saying that there is a guarantee that there will never be any redundancies. I do not think that anyone could give that guarantee for any industry in this country.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), because members of her Party go about the country giving cast-iron guarantees about what would happen to Scotland if they had their way. If they were more honest and truthful about the difficulties the whole country is facing, people might take them more seriously.
If we do not have nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, what shall we have in its place? Conservatives say that we have the Industry Act, and that money can be provided for the industry by this means. That is true, but one of the recognised defects of that Act is that it does not allow any planning of the industry in a national sense. If an individual company applies for assistance under the Industry Act and meets the necessary criteria, it gets the money, but there is no structural plan or arrangements for forecasts for the future. The alternative to nationalisation is to allow the industry to drift, to allow shipyards to close down, and to allow shipyard workers to be callously thrown out of work. After three or four years we would have a decimated industry. Only then would we begin to pick up the pieces and plan for the future.
If we are right in our forecasts, in four or five years' time perhaps shipbuilding orders will be accelerating. That would be the wrong time to begin to try to plan the future of the industry. That is why we must plan now so that, when there is an upturn in the world economy, we are able to take advantage of it and can see where to make investment to the best advantage.
The hon. Lady the Member for Dunbartonshire, East said that she had heard
1078
a rumour at the weekend twin a high union source to the effect that there were definite plans to close yards—I think she meant in Scotland. Admittedly this is second-hand, but I can say that I have an assurance from the Organising Committee that it does not intend to approach the business in the way of shutting down yards.
There are many rumours circulating. There is a first-class shipyard in my constituency. The workers there were worried because they had heard a rumour to the effect that it was the intention to concentrate all the new investment and all shipbuilding on the Wear, the Tyne and the Clyde. I took that matter up, and it was denied.
If I may give some advice to the hon. Lady—I hope that she will not think me patronising—she should go and see the Organising Committee. If she does so, I think that she will come away with a totally different idea from that which she now has. I wish that she had gone there earlier. If she had done so, perhaps she would not be advising her party to vote against the Bill tonight.
I believe that the most secure future for our shipbuilding industry lies in nationalising it. I accept, as I believe the workers in the industry accept, that there is no guarantee that there will be no redundancies. However, I do not take the view taken by the Scottish National Party. The hon. Lady said that the main reason she and her hon. Friends will vote against the Government tonight is that we cannot give a guarantee that there will be no redundancies—that not one man will lose his job.
The hon. Lady is prepared to put in jeopardy thousands of jobs in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries because she cannot get that guarantee. If she shares our desire that workers throughout the whole of the United Kingdom—not just in Scotland—should have the maximum opportunity to build a secure future —perhaps not entirely free of redundancies, but certainly free of the total uncertainty from which they have suffered for so long—I believe that she will, even at this late stage, get her party together and persuade her hon. Friends to support the Bill so that we can get it on to the statute book and get things moving, because things have been delayed for far too long.
11.18 p.m.
Mr. David Mudd: The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) began his address by saying that he wanted to talk about the aircraft industry rather than about ship repairing. This is why tonight, almost a year after the Second Reading of the last Bill, we are still dealing in the House with the question of the nationalisation of this industry. Throughout last year's deliberations and throughout today's debate, all too few Members on the Government side have been prepared to discuss intelligently or justify their case for the nationalisation of the ship repairing industry.
The various reassurances and nods that we have had from the Government side must fill the shipyard workers at Falmouth with great apprehension. We were assured that there would be no direction of work within the ship repairing industry in the interests of helping areas of high unemployment. Falmouth has a ship repair yard in a town which has a high local level of unemployment. We were assured that there would be ship repairing on every major estuary. Falmouth, alas, happens not to be a major estuary.
We were given assurances to the effect that Royal Naval work would remain in the Royal Naval dockyards. We are fearful that Royal Fleet auxiliaries and NATO refits will move from the civilian yards in the ship repairing sector into the Royal Naval dockyards.
The whole question of the future of the ship repairing industry seems to depend upon the Government's Freudian fear of the effect of the Japanese in this market. I accept that the Government have a great deal to fear as the potential owner of the ship repair industry. If they take up the glossy brochure of any Japanese ship repair firm, they will find a marked contrast with the publicity material of British yards. The photographs of the Japanese industry will show the swing towards mechanisation, automation and, above all, a slim-line work force. If we pick up the brochure of the average British ship repair or shipbuilding company we find, alas, far too many employees spending far too much time looking at the photographer rather than at the job they should be doing. If there is to be a transfer to Japanese
1080
manpower methods, the Government will have to accept mechanisation, automation and a slim-line work force.
Secondly, the Government must face an important political decision linked with back-up for the shipbuilding industry. One of the great reasons for the Japanese domination of the industry is that it has provided back-up facilities for the ships that it is creating. It is no coincidence that the Kawasaki Corporation now has agency refit agreements in Gothenburg, Hamburg, Rotterdam, Lisbon and Genoa—namely, the terminal or turn-round points of the ships made in the Kawasaki yards.
If we are to have a situation where British Shipbuilders has to compete on equal terms with Kawasaki and the Government will have the political and economic courage to acknowledge here and now that they are prepared to set up outposts for the corporation in Chile, Greece, Taiwan and South Africa. That is the only way in which the interests of the two sections of the British shipping industry—construction and repairing—can be developed. It is the only way in which Britain can begin to compete in the world market, which at present is held, quite rightly, by Japan.
11.22 p.m.
Mr. Peter Walker: The last three Labour Members to speak in the debate said that under nationalisation there would be less redundancy and more investment. In the six years of Labour Government from 1964 to 1970 there were 408,000 redundancies in the nationalised industries. There was never a period in which there were more redundancies in the railways, the steel industry and the coal industry.
The steel industry was nationalised nine years ago, and in 1972 I announced the biggest modernisation programme. This Government have been in power for three years and they have deferred the whole of that investment programme for those three years. That is a reflection on the reality of nationalisation.
11.23 p.m.
Mr. Norman Lamont: I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill and I feel rather like a stranger arriving on a cratered battlefield potted with the

1081
verbal ammunition that has been fired by both sides.
I do not have the experience of some of my right hon. Friends of the aviation and shipbuilding industries. Perhaps that is a personal advantage because the arguments that have been rehearsed to me at least had a certain freshness, although I can assure the House that I do not intend to go over the arguments at great length.
I want to make one passing reference to the interest that my constituency has in the Bill. Kingston was the place where the original firm of Hawkers was first founded. It is today the headquarters of Hawker Siddeley Aviation Limited. I think that the House will understand that not only Conservative politicians but many people in my constituency will regret the passing of the identity of Hawker Siddeley into the anonymity of the nationalised corporation.
It has been said that the Bill deals with two, three and possibly four industries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has said, it is an unmistakable fact that the aircraft industry has been extremely successful. It is the largest and most comprehensive aircraft industry outside the United States. It exports half of its turnover.
"If every industry exported half its turnover, we should have no problems. … That is truly remarkable growth."
The House may be interested to hear that those words are not mine, but those of the Secretary of State for Energy who recognised the tremendous achievements of the British Aviation industry.
It seems astonishing—almost unbelievable—that people can say "The industry's contribution in the past has been excellent. If every other industry had done as well, we would have no problems. If we nationalise it, it will do even better. It will do brilliantly." If people believe that, they will believe anything.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to the industry's contribution to the community. We are told that if we nationalise an industry, in some mysterious way it makes a contribution to the community. I have always thought that the best contribution that an industry can make to the community is to pay corporation tax on its profits.
1082
The astonishing fact is that the aviation industry has paid more money to the Treasury by way of taxes on its profits than the whole of the nationalised industries during their entire existence. Why, when we have economic and industrial problems, should we want to destroy a successful and outstanding industry? Why should we throw away the best?
The shipbuilding industry presents a very different picture. It has many problems. It is significant that, although we have two industries with contrasting problems, the Government's answer is always the same—to nationalise regardless of the problems.
The British shipbuilding industry's share of world markets has declined as it has with other traditional industries in this country. If the industry had been nationalised, I do not believe that that could have prevented or reversed that decline.
There is the problem of over capacity in shipbuilding all over the world. There is the problem of new low-cost producers —the Brazilians, the Japanese and the Koreans—building ships at prices with which it is extremely difficult for us to compete. Nationalisation will not help us to overcome the threat of competition from those countries.
There are successful firms in some parts of our shipbuilding industry. Naval shipbuilding yards have increased employment in recent years. They have provided the only real jobs which count—jobs provided not by subsidies but by profitable companies selling goods which world markets want to buy.
The Secretary of State said that ship repairing had declined. It has declined, as it has done throughout Western Europe. However, I should make the point that we increased our share of the European market during the period of decline.
We firmly believe that ship repairing is totally unsuited to nationalisation. The industry consists in many cases of small companies. Some yards, which are to be nationalised under this legislation, employ fewer than 100 people, others even fewer. It is almost as though, because a Government were going to nationalise the motor car industry, they therefore felt that they had to nationalise the garages as well.

1083
Ship repairing is an industry which, above all, depends on speed and performance. It is a service industry. It is totally unsuited to nationalisation. Above all, ship repairers cannot treat their customers with the same contempt as the GPO and the electricity boards appear to treat theirs.
I hesitate to touch on the vexed subject of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. Not having been a member of the Standing Committee. I know that the mere mention of that name is likely to arouse considerable controversy and that the Minister of State is likely to jump up. So I shall confine myself to one circumspect comment. Whatever else we may think about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, looking at that company's industrial relations and record of worker participation—I speak as someone who is sceptical of worker participation—we must admit that the company is innovative, experimental and unusual. The tragedy of nationalisation is that experimentation and innovation of that kind will be stamped out.
The argument presented by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) was that these industries have been the recipients of large amounts of public money. In the case of both industries one has to recognise that a large part of the money has gone to cover special situations. In the shipbuilding industry 70 per cent. of the money has gone to yards that are already within the public sector.
In the aircraft industry a large proportion of the money has gone into Concorde and the RB-211 projects which the Government encouraged the private sector to undertake. It is hardly fair for the Government to present projects which the industry may not want to undertake, to pressurise and encourage the industry to undertake them, and then suddenly, in the middle, to turn round and say "We are paying for this and therefore we should own the industries."
The civil side of aviation has had little Government aid outside the two projects that I mentioned. Hawker Siddeley has received little aid. If the argument is based on aid for civil projects there is no case at all for Hawker Siddeley being included in the Bill.
1084
The other argument is that the Government are the biggest customer and should therefore own the industries. That is not true for the aviation industry. The Government are not the biggest customer. The argument that because someone goes into a shop and pays a proper price for something, he must own the shop would lead, in this case, to the British aviation industry being owned by a lot of foreigners. It seems to me curious to argue that because one buys something one should own the industry which produces it. The Government are the biggest buyers of medical equipment, bricks, cement, timber and paper—above all, paper. Are they proposing to nationalise those industries?
The real argument is the reverse. If the Government want to get value when putting money into a project, they are more likely to achieve that if the industry concerned is privately owned and competitive. We know that there is elaborate machinery at the Departments of Defence and Industry, and there is the Public Accounts Committee. These bodies can do their work best at arm's length from private industry. As the Public Accounts Committee found, it can be difficult to delve into the inner workings of some of the nationalised industries. If we want value for Government money, let us keep these industries private.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) argued that the industries should be nationalised because of the uncertainty within them. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) said, the Government have been extraordinarily leisurely in their progress over the Bill. They introduced it in 1974 but did not proceed. Last Session there was a long gap between the Bill's introduction and the Second Reading.
It is an extraordinary argument to say that a Government can introduce a bad Bill, create a lot of uncertainty and then turn round and say, "We must have this Bill quickly to end the uncertainty we have caused".
Apart from the situation in each particular industry, one must pay attention to the implications for the economy as a whole of expanding the public sector. The performance of State industries has varied from the mediocre to the disastrous.

1085
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) said, nationalised industries have not provided secure jobs. Often they have delayed the inevitable and increased job losses. In the end redundancies have come. It is an illusion that nationalisation prevents job losses.
By enlarging the public sector we are enlarging that area of the economy which is subject to political pressure and interference and which will drag an otherwise admirable Civil Service into managerial and entrepreneurial decisions for which it is totally unsuited.
Nationalisation is not wanted by the public. Some workers may want it, because they are under the mistaken impression that it will give them job security. They will soon find out the bitter truth, which is that the Bill will turn thriving industries into bureaucratic bumbledoms. Some hon. Members on the Government Benches may think that that is a small price to pay for the unity of the Labour Party. It may be a small price if they place small value on their own consciences.
Once again the interests of the Labour Party are being placed before those of this country. For that reason, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion tonight.
11.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): The industrial case for taking these industries into public ownership has been compellingly put forward in the debate by my hon. Friends, just as it has been put forward consistently during the past year, since the Bill originally had its Second Reading on 2nd December last. Since then, while we have been preparing for nationalisation, we have been well served by the two Organising Committees. It is our sincere hope that both these Committees will carry on their excellent work.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) pay tribute to Sir Anthony Griffin and his Organising Committee, and I would link with that the excellent work done by my noble Friend Lord Beswick for British Aerospace.
My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen asked two important questions. The first
1086
was about the role of the specialist warship builders. I can tell my hon. Friend that we have made it clear that the Ministry of Defence will continue its policy of increasingly concentrating warship orders with the three specialist warship builders—Vosper Thorneycroft, Yarrow and Vickers, although the requirements of the Navy may mean that from time to time warship orders will be placed with other shipbuilders, as I told the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter).
My hon. Friend also asked about the future of the HS146 project. I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)—a Member of Parliament, as he told us, for an area in which a Hawker Siddeley factory is situated—brought out the extraordinary canard that Hawker Siddeleyand BAC, too did not rely on Government money for its civilian projects, because the HS146, about which my hon. Friend asked, would be a dead project today if the Government had not placed the holding contract. Last year Hawker Siddeley came to us and told us that it would have to kill that project unless the Government would fund it 100 per cent.
The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) is the last person to talk about employment prospects in his constituency because he knows that if, last July, I had not announced a £3 million Government underwriting of five more BAC 111s about 1,000 redundancies would have taken place since that date at BAC Wavertree. So hon. Members on the Opposition Benches should not talk about the independence of the civil air craft industry from Government money.
The case for public ownership has been supported overwhelmingly by the representatives of the workers in the aircraft, shipbuilding and ship repairing industries, and during the past few days we have been inundated by demands from the workers' representatives that this Bill should be urgently enacted. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) has given me a letter from the workers' representatives at Hawker Siddeley Dynamics at Lostock. That far from revolutionary publication Lloyds List yesterday devoted much of its front page to such demands. Workers' representatives on Tyneside, Merseyside and

1087
Clydeside—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) has already referred to some of the remarks of Mr. James Ramsey, the boilermakers' Clyde delegate. I think that Lloyds List was one of the newspapers that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) told us that we should not believe. He says that we must not believe The Times or the Glasgow Herald—advice that we shall take to heart.
Mr. Cyril Smith rose—
Mr. Kaufman: I know what the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene about, and I shall come to that.
Mr. James Ramsey, the boilermakers' Clyde delegate-[Interruption.] I am coming to Austin and Pickersgill. Mr. James Ramsey, the boilermakers' Clyde delegate, was reported in Lloyds List yesterday as saying
"There is a feeling of depression among the workers that such action should be taken by the House of Lords and the SNP. We need to educate the SNP or kick them out next time."
That is a workers' representative from the Clyde.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was quoted by his hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) as having paid a visit to Austin and Pickersgill at Sunderland. He has done it rather belatedly. I paid a visit rather earlier this year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) are far better representatives of the views of workers in the Sunderland shipyards than the hon. Member for Rochdale after a butterfly visit.
Mr. Cyril Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. Is he aware that yesterday morning I met all of the shop stewards at Austin and Pickersgill, alone, in the works canteen there? The shop stewards of that company told me that neither of their Members of Parliament had asked them for their views on the Bill, and, furthermore, that they, as shop stewards—30 of them were present—were totally opposed to the Bill.
Mr. Kaufman: I am not at all surprised that the hon. Gentleman chose the canteen in which to meet the workers. My right hon. and hon. Friends the two Members for Sunderland have had regular meetings with the workers there. I have attended some of them myself. While the hon. Member for Colne Valley was showing his lack of interest in the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill by his consistent absenteeism from the Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North was a regular attender and spokesman for his constituents.
Mr. Frederick Willey: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) went to my constituency without the courtesy of telling me that he was going there. I can tell him quite brutally that what he has said is an absolute lie.
Hon. Members: Oh !
Mr. Cyril Smith rose—
Mr. Norman Tebbit rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know what has been bandied about across the Chamber. I was not able to hear because of the noise.
Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) accuses me of telling a deliberate lie. On my word of honour. I have told the truth. The shop stewards may have wrongly informed me. I am not saying that they have wrongly informed me but that they may have done so. However, the statement that I have made to the House tonight is absolutely true. The shop stewards told me that neither of the Members for Sunderland had ever asked for their views.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Member for Sunderland. North (Mr. Willey) accused the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) of telling a lie, I must ask him to withdraw that.
Mr. Willey: I shall repeat what I said, namely, that what the hon. Gentleman. said was a lie.
Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have heard the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) not only call the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith)—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North to withdraw the word "lie".
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Wiley: Before I do so I would just say this to the hon. Gentleman. He says that what he was told may be a lie. I am saying that what he has stated in the House is a lie.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that.
Mr. Willey: If the hon. Gentleman believes that this is a reflection on him personally, of course I shall withdraw the word, and say that I give him notice that I intend to raise this matter when we discuss the Bill further next week.
Mr. Kaufman: We have been talking about the industrial case for nationalising this industry, and the case has been made repeatedly, but only once in the past year has the Tory Party put forward any alternative policy. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in his regular tirades, which we shall in future miss—very thankfully—did not once tell the House how his party would preserve and encourage a merchant shipping and civil aircraft industry.
Mr. Burden rose—
Mr. Kaufman: I shall not give way, because the House wants to come to a decision.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Henley has not once told the House how the Tory Party would preserve and encourage a merchant shipping and civil aircraft industry in this country, and the Marine Week, speaking of the hon. Gentleman, described him as having
"patently little knowledge of, and sympathy for, what the industry really required (even if it was not nationalisation)."
Mr. Burden rose—
Mr. Kaufman: No.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), for all his acknowledged originality of thought, was unable today
1090
to be more forthcoming, but at least in putting forward no policy whatever he achieved in a fortnight what it took his hon. Friend the Member for Henley a year to do. The hon. Member for Oswestry fell below his usual standards in what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire). What the hon. Gentleman said did him no credit and disappointed many hon. Members. He spoke about my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone being persuaded to vote for this Bill, but he should be aware of the integrity with which my hon. Friend has resisted the corrupt attempts to get him to vote against the Bill.
The only Tory spokesman who has made any positive proposal on this matter is Lord Carrington. Addressing the massed shipyard workers of the Wessex Area Young Conservatives in that industrial citadel the Kelvin Hotel, Bournemouth, on Saturday 20th November, he said that the Government
"… can help both the shipbuilding and aircraft industries in exactly the same way as they have shelled out hundreds of millions of pounds to bolster up British Leyland."
That, if they have one at all, is the Tory Party policy for aircraft, shipbuilding and ship repairing. The party which believes in massive public expenditure cuts proposes vast public subsidies to private enterprise—if one can call it enterprise—with no accountability whatever. That Tory proposal makes to the hilt the case for nationalisation as unanswerably as any argument advanced from this side.
If the Conservatives so passionately oppose the Bill without any true alternative of their own, we must—
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Reading.
Mr. Kaufman: Yes, but at least my speech was not written for me by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire.
We must ask why it is that not only the Tory Party but the whole of the establishment in this country have strained every nerve and exerted every ounce of misplaced ingenuity to defeat the Bill. No one could call it a revolutionary Bill. By any standards it is a mild one. Some—but not I—have called it a milk and water Bill. Yet it has been opposed with a passionate and unscrupulous malevolence unparalleled in any recent

1091
political controversy. The reason is clear —because the Bill makes an attempt, and a determined attempt, to transfer economic decision-making from a small and unrepresentative minority to the workers in these industries and to the nation as a whole.
Such a transfer, on however limited a scale, is truly repugnant to those who have grown so used to running this country for their own benefit that they will stop at nothing to prevent it. It is as simple as what we promised in our manifesto, to bring about
"… a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families."
Mr. Patrick Corniack rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Mr. Deputy Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. Kaufman: Those who have long regarded industry in this country as their own private power base cannot abide it.
I give them this warning, and I offer it in particular to the House of Lords. Should the Bill be carried in this House and go to the other place for consideration, they have it in their power not only to delay the Bill, and in doing so to damage these industries irreparably. They also have it in their power to damage irreparably the democratic process itself.
For 70 years the Labour Party has successfully persuaded those who support it that economic, industrial and political change can be achieved by peaceful consent, through the democratic process. That is and will remain our passionate conviction. But our powers of persuasion can
carry conviction only if change can indeed be achieved by consent through the parliamentary process.
If Parliament is seen to fail to provide such change, as endorsed by the nation in general elections, then those twisted and dangerous people outside Parliament, outside the main parties and outside the democratic process will have had handed to them the weapon they are seeking—the weapon which will enable them to tell the people of this country that change cannot be achieved by consent and through Parliament and that therefore they must resort to other and less savoury processes.
That is the fire with which the Tory Party is playing. That is the box of matches that the House of Lords will have in its hands. If that box of matches were to consume the House of Lords itself, not everybody would be sorry. Our democracy, though powerful and enduring, is not so strong that it can survive those who would be able to say that repeatedly-expressed decisions of the House of Commons to enact laws do not ensure that laws reach the statute book.
This debate is, of course, about this extremely important Bill. I very much trust that this House will support its Second Reading tonight. But because of the actions of the Tory Party, because of unscrupulous outside interests and because of the irresponsibility of the House of Lords, it has also become a debate about the very basis of our democracy. For that reason, too, I ask the House to support the Government in the Division Lobby.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 279.

Division No. 7.

AYES

[11.56 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Bishop, E. S.

Campbell, Ian

Allaun, Frank

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Canavan, Dennis

Anderson, Donald

Boardman, H.

Cant, R. B.

Archer, Peter

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Carmichael, Neil

Armstrong. Ernest

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Carter, Ray

Ashley, Jack

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Cartwright, John

Ashlon, Joe

Bradley, Tom

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Clemitson, Ivor

Atkinson, Norman

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

Cohen, Stanley

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Coleman, Donald

Bates, Alf

Buchan, Norman

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Bean, R. E.

Buchanan, Richard

Concannon, J. D.

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Conlan, Bernard

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Bidwell, Sydney

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Corbett, Robin

Cowens, Harry

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Price, William (Rugby)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

John, Brynmor

Radice, Giles

Crawshaw, Richard

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Cronin, John

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Crowder, F. P

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Robertson, Join (Paisley)

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Judd, Frank

Robinson, Geoffrey

Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)

Kaufman, Gerald

Roderick, Caerwyn

Davidson, Arthur

Kelley, Richard

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Kerr, Russell

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Rooker, J. W.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Kinnock, Neil

Rose, Paul B.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Lamble, David

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Deakins, Eric

Lamborn, Harry

Rowlands, Ted

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lomond, James

Ryman, John

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Sandelson, Neville

Dempsey, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Sedgemore, Brian

Doig, Peter

Lee, John

Selby, Harry

Dormand, J. D.

Lester, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Dunn, James A.

Lipton, Marcus

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Dunnett, Jack

Litterick, Tom

Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

Eadie, Alex

Loyden, Eddie

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Edge, Geoff

Luard, Evan

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Siliars, James

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Silverman, Julius

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Skinner, Dennis

English, Michael

McCartney, Hugh

Small, William

Ennals, David

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

McElhone, Frank

Snape, Peter

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Spearing, Nigel

Evans, John (Newton)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Spriggs, Lestle

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

MacKenzie, Gregor

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Mackintosh, John P.

Stoddart, David

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Maclennan, Robert

Stott, Roger

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Strang, Gavin

Flannery, Martin

Madden, Max

Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Magee, Bryan

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Swain, Thomas

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Ford, Ben

Mellalieu, J. P. W.

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Forrester, John

Marks, Kenneth

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Marquand, David

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

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

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Tierney, Sydney

Freeson, Reginald

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Tinn, James

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Tomlinson, John

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Tomney, Frank

George, Bruce

Meacher, Michael

Torney, Tom

Gilbert, Dr John

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Tuck, Raphael

Ginsburg, David

Mikardo, Ian

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Golding, John

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Wainwright, Edwin (Dennis V)

Gould, Bryan

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

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

Gourlay, Harry

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Graham, Ted

Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Molloy, William

Ward, Michael

Grant, John (Islington C)

Moonman, Eric

Watkins, David

Grocott, Bruce

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Weetch, Ken

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Weitzman, David

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wellbeloved, James

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Moyle, Roland

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

White, James (Pollok)

Hatton, Frank

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Whitlock, William

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Newens, Stanley

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Noble, Mike

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Heffer, Eric S.

Oakes, Gordon

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Hooley, Frank

Ogden, Eric

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Horam, John

O'Halloran, Michael

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wilson(Alexander (Hamilton)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Ovenden, John

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Huckfield, Les

Owen, Et Hon Dr David

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Padley, Walter

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Palmer, Arthur

Woodall, Alec

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Park, George

Woof, Robert

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Parker, John

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Parry, Robert

Young, David Bolton E)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Pendry, Tom

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Perry, Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Janner, Greville

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Mr. Joseph Harper and

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Prescott, John

Mr. A.W. Stallard.

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

1094

1095

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Alison, Michael

Goodhart, Philip

Mills, Peter

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Goodhew, Victor

Miscampbell, Norman

Arnold, Tom

Goodlad, Alastair

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Gorst, John

Moate, Roger

Awdry, Daniel

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Molyneaux, James

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Monro, Hector

Baker, Kenneth

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Montgomery, Fergus

Banks, Robert

Gray, Hamish

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Beith, A. J.

Griffiths, Eldon

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Bell, Ronald

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Morgan, Geraint

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Grist, Ian

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Banyon, W

Grylls, Michael

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hall, Sir John

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Biffen, John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mudd, David

Biggs-Davison, John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Neave, Airey

Blaker, Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Nelson, Anthony

Body, Richard

Hannam, John

Neubert, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Newton, Tony

Bottomley, Peter

Hastings, Stephen

Normanton, Tom

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Havers, Sir Michael

Nott, John

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Hayhoe, Barney

Onslow, Cranley

Bradford, Rev Robert

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Braine, Sir Bernard

Henderson, Douglas

Osborn, John

Brittan, Leon

Heseltine, Michael

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Hicks, Robert

Page, Richard (Workington)

Brotherton, Michael

Higgins, Terence L.

Paisley, Rev Ian

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hodgson, Robin

Pardoe, John

Bryan, Sir Paul

Holland, Philip

Parkinson, Cecil

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hooson, Emlyn

Pattie, Geoffrey

Budgen, Nick

Hordern, Peter

Penhaligon, David

Bulmer, Esmond

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Percival, Ian

Burden, F. A.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Pink, R. Bonner

Carlisle, Mark

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Carson, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hurd, Douglas

Prior, Rt Hon James

Churchill, W. S.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Raison, Timothy

Clark, William (Croydon S)

James, David

Rathbone, Tim

Clegg, Walter

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

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Cockcroft, John

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cope, John

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Reid, George

Cormack, Patrick

Jopling, Michael

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Corrie, John

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Renton, Tim (Mid_Sussex)

Costain, A. P.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Kershaw, Anthony

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Crawford, Douglas

Kilfedder, James

Ridsdale, Julian

Crouch, David

Kimball, Marcus

Rifkind, Malcolm

Crowder, F. P.

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knufsford)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Kirk, Sir Peter

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knight, Mrs Jill

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Drayson, Burnaby

Knox, David

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lamont, Norman

Royle, Sir Anthony

Dunlop, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Sainsbury, Tim

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Latham, Michael (Melton)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Elliott, Sir William

Lawson, Nigel

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Emery, Peter

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Shepherd, Colin

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Lloyd, Ian

Shersby, Michael

Eyre, Reginald

Loveridge, John

Silvester, Fred

Fairbairn, Nicholas

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Sims, Roger

Fairgrieve, Russell

McCrindle, Robert

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fell, Anthony

McCusker, H.

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Macfarlane, Nell

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

MacGregor, John

Speed, Keith

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Spence, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Forman, Nigel

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Madel, David

Sproat, Iain

Fox, Marcus

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stainton, Keith

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Marten, Nell

Stanbrook, Ivor

Freud, Clement

Mates, Michael

Stanley, John

Fry, Peter

Mather, Carol

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Maude, Angus

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Gardiner, George (Relgate)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Mawby, Ray

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stokes, John

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Mayhew, Patrick

Stradling Thomas, J.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tapsell, Peter

1096

1097

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Wakeham, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Tebbit, Norman

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Winterton, Nicholas

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Thompson, George

Wall, Patrick

Young. Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Walters, Dennis

Younger, Hon George

Townsend, Cyril D.

Watt, Hamish

Trotter, Neville

Weatherill, Bernard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Wells, John

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Welsh, Andrew

Mr Michael Roberts.

Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to the Order this day.
Committee this day.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified
Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of two bodies corporate to be called British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for making payments to either of them by way of public dividend capital and the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to either of them, subject to the following limits—

(a) the aggregate of—

(i) the amounts for the time being outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of money borrowed by British Aerospace and each of its wholly owned subsidiaries, other than money borrowed on excluded loans, and not including commencing capital, and

(ii) the sums paid to British Aerospace by way of public dividend capital, shall not exceed £250 million;

(b) the aggregate of—

(i) the amounts for the time being outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of money borrowed by British Shipbuilders and each of its wholly owned subsidiaries, other than money borrowed on excluded loans, and not including commencing capital; and

(ii) the sums paid to British Shipbuilders by way of public dividend capital, shall not exceed £300 million;

(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required to fulfil guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of loans to British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders;

(3) the charge on the National Loans Fund, with recourse to the Consolidated
1098
Fund, of the principal of and interest on government stock issued by way of compensation in accordance with provisions of the said Act of the present Session and the issue out of the National Loans Fund of any sums necessary to meet expenses incurred in connection with the issue or repayment of any such government stock and payments of interest on amounts of compensation prior to the issue of such stocks;

(4) the payment out of money provided by Parliament, subject to the conditions specified in the said Act of the present Session, of any sums other than public dividend capital required by the Secretary of State for making payments to British Aerospace or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries for the purpose of promoting the design, development or production of civil aircraft, subject to the limit that the aggregate of the sums so paid less any sums received by the Secretary of State (otherwise than by way of interest on money lent) in pursuance of the terms and conditions on which any such payment was made shall not at any time exceed £50 million;

(5) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) remuneration allowances and expenses to any individual appointed in pursuance of the said Act as a stockholders' representative;

(b) remuneration and allowances to members and officers of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal established under the said Act of the present Session and other expenses of that tribunal; and

(c) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the said Act;

(6) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of the said Act;
and for the purpose of this Resolution—

(a) a loan is an excluded loan in relation to either of the bodies corporate established by the said Act of the present Session if—

(i) it consists of money borrowed by one of its wholly owned subsidiaries either from that body or from another of that body's wholly owned subsidiaries or of money borrowed by that body from any of its wholly owned subsidiaries; or

(ii) it is a loan under section 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 or a loan in respect of which payments are authorised

1099
under paragraph (4) above, or a loan under section 8 of the Industrial Expansion Act 1969 or section 7 or section 8 of the Industry Act 1972; or

(iii) it is a loan guaranteed under section 10 of that Act; or

(iv) the purpose of the loan is to pay off the whole or any part of that body's commencing debt; or

(v) the purpose of the loan is to pay off a previous loan which was itself an excluded loan by virtue of sub-paragraph (iv) above of this sub-paragraph;

(b) 'commencing capital', in relation to British Aerospace or British Shipbuilders, means such amount as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine under the said Act of the present Session;

(c) 'commencing debt' means that part of the commencing capital which is not to be treated for the purposes of the Act as public dividend capital.—[Mr. Varley.]

12.14 a.m.
Mr. Michael Grylls: I make no apology except to my hon. Friends for speaking at this late hour. I think that the House is fully entitled to an explanation from the Financial Secretary about the amount of money that has been spent by the Organising Committees for British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders. I put down a Question on this two days ago and the Answer was £393,000—nearly £400,000 in 364 days. That is pretty fast spending even by this Government. It is about £1,000 a day, spent by the Organising Committees, since the Second Reading debate.
We are in a very special position because that was during the last Session and the Bill fell. I think we are entitled to ask where that money will come from. The Bill is now proceeding in this Session of Parliament, and most Conservatives believe that sooner or later the Bill will fall again, thanks to the continuing opposition of the House of Lords, of Lord Shinwell and the Cross-Bench peers. If that happens, where will the money come from? The House is entitled to ask on what authority the money has been spent. I understand that when industries are nationalised, the Organising Committees have no authority to spend this money. I wish that the Secretary of State would pay attention to what I am saying.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I appeal to right hon.
1100
and hon. Members to keep their conversations very low. I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) is saying.
Mr. Grylls: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We want to conclude this debate quickly and the more the Secretary of State listens to what I have to say, the quicker we can dispose of the resolution.
With what authority have Ministers encouraged the committees to spend this money? They may be putting the accounting officer in the Department of Industry in an embarrassing position. About £400,000 has been spent and the Comptroller and Auditor-General may have to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to explain on what authority it has been spent. This is not a question of petty cash. We know that the petty cash till at the Department of Industry is big, but it does not extend to sums of this size being paid without the authority of Parliament.
It is an intriguing situation and the House is entitled to ask, even at this late hour, how the money has been spent. I seek information from the Financial Secretary. The Secretary of State has washed his hands of the matter. He is not even listening. He and his fellow Ministers are a disgrace to Parliament. My hon. Friends and I may speak from the Opposition Benches, but we are as entitled as anyone else to ask about public expenditure.
Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The whole House except the Secretary of State and one of the newly-appointed members of the Government is listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls). The Ministers are carrying on a conversation and utterly disregarding my hon. Friend who has specifically been directing his remarks, through you, to the Secretary of State. Is the right hon. Gentleman's action not a great discourtesy to the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair has enough responsibilities without directing hon. Members to pay attention to what is being said or to conduct their conversations quietly.
Mr. Grylls: I take the point of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the Secretary of State is now probably deliberately carrying on with his conversation. I hope that he is not doing so in order to be disrespectful to what the Chair has just said.
Mr. Grylls: Ministers have the opportunity to listen. Let the country judge them for not listening. They do not care twopence for the fact that tax-payers' money is being thrown away in this disgraceful fashion.
The Financial Secretary has some responsibility in this matter. He may be listening, though it does not look as if he is. However, he is a courteous Minister and I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he is listening.
Has the money been spent on first-class travel, cigars and wine for the committees? I do not know and we ought to know. Has it been spent in their boardrooms-if they have boardrooms? We have not been told. Has it been spent in their offices? Judging by their addresses, the committees are not pigging it. The committee for the aircraft industry is in Victoria Street and the other committee is at 12–18 Grosvenor Gardens, a respectable and rather expensive address which it shares with the National Enterprise Board. If the members of the committee are nesting in Lord Ryder's office, how much rent are they paying him? We do not know that, but we do know that a great deal of this money is being spent on salaries. Certainly these salaries are not chicken feed.
The Chairman, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, is receiving £23,300 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] There is a lot more to come. The Chief Executive-designate, Mr. J. Graham Day, a distinguished Canadian business man I presume, is being paid £19,300. His situation is more serious, because we are told that he is on the verge of resigning. He said on Saturday in the Press:
"Things are very difficult, and I am thinking what my position is. I am sure that applies to everyone on the Organising Committee."
He went on to say how unhappy he was about the situation.
Mr. Peter Rost: Perhaps the Secretary of State would explain what these people are doing to earn these salaries. One
1102
assumes that the businesses have not been nationalised yet.
Mr. Grylls: That is a very positive point. However, I can report on what one of these generals has been doing—Lord Beswick, the Chairman of the Organising Committee of the British Aerospace Corporation, who is paid the modest salary of £23,000 a year. He, at least, has been partially involved in sitting on the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords earlier this year on the Lord Ampthill paternity case. Therefore he has been well employed. I do not know whether he drew his salary while he was sitting on that case. It does seem rather a strange occupation.
I can report on one other general—Mr. Leslie Buck, a distinguished trade unionist, who is President of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, and General Secretary of the National Union of Sheet Metal Workers, Coppersmiths, Heating and Domestic Engineers. He is a busy man, but there has been no incomes policy for him. He has had £16,000 a year since the Organising Committee came into being, so he has not been pigging it either.
If, as we believe, this Bill falls again, are these gentlemen getting compensation? What are the terms of their service agreements, and what will be the cost to the taxpayers of paying them off when they are no longer wanted to run corporations which are no longer there? The House and the country are entitled to know. It is obvious that the £400,000 of expenditure up to 22nd November 1976—the date of the Answer to my Parliamentary Question—is only the tip of the iceberg. When this Bill finally falls there will be a lot of compensation to pay. There is no doubt that there has been a gross misuse of this amount of money in the past 12 months. To coin a phrase of the Secretary of State for the Environment, it is a gross act of folly to spend this sort of money.
If we do not get more detailed anwers tonight on how the money is being spent and the commitment of the taxpayers' money in the future, we should firmly vote against this Money Resolution because it is one more example of this spendthrift Government.
12.24 a.m.
Mr. John Nott: I had hoped to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against the Money Resolution immediately. It seeks approval for very large sums of money. However, as Labour Members do not seem to take the simple item of expenditure of £400,000 seriously, I think I should, instead, fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) and continue to press the point that he has brought to the attention of the House.
What my hon. Friend is complaining about is that nearly £400,000 has been spent on an Organising Committee that so far has nothing to organise. This is a proper matter for the House on a Money Resolution of this kind. Of course we can accept—my hon. Friend will agree with me—that the Organising Committee has had a function to pursue a little purposeful planning, but it has had no physical function to perform other than some relaxed thinking while the Bill has been proceeding through Parliament. It has had the duty of indulging in some dining, wining and entertaining of visitors from overseas who might be interested in our industry, but it is hard to believe that in these austere times this thinking, dining and entertaining can have added up to £393,675 in just one calendar year.
I hope that the House will not carefully that, in reply to my hon. Friend's question, the answer was not that the amount was, say, £350,000 or £395,000. The answer was that the actual expenditure was £393,675, which means that someone in the public sector, possibly someone in the Treasury, is watching, counting and adding up precisely what the Organising Committee has been spending.
I know that my hon. Friend would not be so impertinent as to inquire into the petty cash and entertaining expenses of these highly paid, albeit elderly, gentlemen who are now chairmen of these organising bodies—Lord Beswick and Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin.
But we in the House have an obligation to show that we are ever vigilant about expenses in the nationalised industries now that Lord Short is taking over the chairmanship of Cable and Wireless and Lord Balogh has, at the age of 70,
1104
moved to the British National Oil Corporation.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is my hon. Friend right in saying that the former Lord President of the Council has now been sent to another place?
Mr. Nott: I am not sure whether he has actually arrived there yet, but clearly if his arrival there will enable him to draw this sum of money—nearly £400,000 —for presiding over a nationalised industry, or indeed an Organising Committee without anything yet to organise, we wish to ask the same questions in relation to the future Lord Short as we now ask in relation to Lord Beswick.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Edward Short has not been made a peer because it is not entirely certain that the Government can rely upon him to support this measure like all the other measures?
Mr. Nott: Possibly, like others of his friends, Mr. Short will find the remuneration as Chairman of Cable and Wireless rather more satisfying than the attendance allowance in the House of Lords and for that reason, and perhaps other reasons, he is quite satisfied with the post he has received.
It is possible that there is a simple explanation for this sum, but I should like the Financial Secretary to say precisely where this sum of money will fall. First, when I knew that this subject would arise I had a brief look at the relevant Estimates and Supplementary Estimates to see to what extent this expenditure was exceeding the provision which had been made for it, but no Estimate exists. I understand from an answer given by the Secretary of State for Industry that this expenditure of £393,675 is to fall directly on the Contingency Reserve, to be reimbursed subsequently if the corporations are established.
This is quite interesting because it seems to be in conflict with Clauses 14 and 15, which make it clear that the capital of these industries shall amount merely to the compensation amounts being paid out for the underlying industries. But more than that, the Contingency Fund has never been intended to

1105
provide these sums for Organising Committees that have been delayed in performing their functions as a result of legislation taking rather longer than was anticipated in the House of Commons.
I ask the Minister to provide information on the following items. First, what is the breakdown of the expenditure of £393,000? How has it arisen? It cannot have arisen solely on Lord Beswick's salary of £23,000 and on the salary of the admiral. It must have arisen to a large extent by taking extremely expensive premises. In last Sunday's Press the Chief Executive of British Shipbuilders—I quote from what he is alleged to have said—appears to have said:
"When the Bill fell in Parliament, the appointments technically lapsed, though there is, of course, an ongoing employment relationship,"
That was Mr. Day, who is the Chief Executive of British Shipbuilders. I understand that he is receiving nearly £20,000 a year. Have the appointments lapsed, or are they still in being?
Are the expenses to be transferred from the Contingency Fund, which we have always understood from the Chancellor is to be examined in detail by the Cabinet? We understood that that was one of the new rules applying to the Contingency Fund but when will the transfer be made from the Contingency Fund to the capital of these industries? Under Clauses 14 and 15 it is not clear how these debts, which have been incurred outside the underlying companies which are being acquired can be transferred to the industries.
Finally, may we know what will happen to this sum if the Bill were to fall in another place? Would it then appear on a departmental Vote—namely, the Vote of the Department of Industry? Perhaps the Minister will answer those questions. They are serious questions that relate to the financial procedures of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West has raised a small but interesting point on a significant sum incurred by a body that as far as we know has not been statutorily established, a body that is to organise something that does not yet exist. These are all matters of importance to the House, even though it is late at night.
12.34 a.m.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: There is one small point on which I should like the Minister's help. I make it plain at the outset that I am not particularly in the game of knocking those who have the job of running a nationalised industry, which is an extraordinary difficult job to do. Many of them are presently considerably underpaid for the responsibilities that they take. Many of them undertake difficult jobs in a manner that is quite exemplary, especially considering some of the stick that they get for the jobs that they attempt to do.
Mr. J. W. Rooker: From the hon. Member's side—
Mr. Tebbit: From both sides. We have heard some criticism of Sir Frank Mcfadzean recently that has been totally unjustified.
The point is that £400,000 has been expended on the Organising Committees. It would appear that a substantial amount of it must have been spent on salaries. As I look at the list of those who have been appointed to posts on the Organising Committees I notice that most of them are already in employment elsewhere. Certainly Lord Beswick is not in that position. I do not think that there is anyone else who could be found to employ him these days, but most of the others have other jobs.
The intriguing point is that the Government's view is that, under the social contract, in assessing whether a person's salary is limited by the £8,500-a-year cut-off from any further increases in emoluments, one should aggregate the total of his salaries from all employment. That makes the matter much more interesting.
For example, as I look at the composition of the Organising Committees for British Aerospace I find Lord Beswick, who has no other job; Mr. Allen Greenwood, the Chairman of the British Aircraft Corporation; Mr. George Jefferson, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Guided Weapons Division of BAC; Mr. Eric Rubythorn, the General Manager of Hawker-Siddeley Aviation; Mr. John Stamper, the Technical Director of Hawker-Siddeley; Mr. Leslie Buck, the President of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions; and

1107
Dr. Austin Pearee, the Chairman of Esso Petroleum. [HON. MEMBERS: "All good men."] I am not disputing their merit. However, it is unlikely that any one of them is paid very far under the £8,500 limit. So where has the money been expended?
I hope that the Minister will tell us how much of the money has gone on salaries for members of the Organising Committee. It may be that it was all fair and above board. It is to be expected that it was. But it would not be right if those who have to abide by the pay limits of the social contract were left with any doubt in their minds about whether everybody else was abiding by them, too. The Minister should readily and easily be able to tell us how much of the £390,000 has been expended on the salaries of the members of the Organising Committee.
12.38 p.m.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I hope that the House will understand that I am not opposed to retired admirals receiving excellent salaries which they thoroughly deserve. I want the Minister to answer one important question when he replies to the debate. Why did he not make honest men of these retired admirals and others? Why did not the Government take the 95 per cent. of the loaf in their grasp and then introduce a short, sharp Bill to add ship repairing afterwards? Was it because they knew that trouble was coming in the shipbuilding industry and they wanted to pin the fault for that on the Opposition? [Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to say anything? Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that I heard the Minister say "Why the bloody hell" something or other that I did not catch.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman anticipated my rising to ask what that has to do with the motion before the House.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: That is exactly what I want to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the answer: nothing whatsoever.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Perhaps the Minister will tell the House and the
1108
country why the Government did not take the 95 per cent. of the Bill and add the bit about ship repairing afterwards. That is what we want to know.
12.39 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I have listened carefully to the contributions which have been made in this short debate. I do not think that any of them have done anybody any credit. I refer particularly to the speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) who, as far as I can recollect, until now has not made any contribution during the whole of the debates on the Bill. For him to come in at this late stage and make a point which has been carefully rehearsed several times today displays a contempt not only of the House, but of his own party.
Tonight we have heard some of the most squalid personal attacks and insinuations that we have heard in the Chamber for a long time. Those attacks have come particularly from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I hope that some of the people whom he has attacked and who are in no position to answer back will take careful note of the squalid and personal way in which he has made his remarks tonight.
The Secretary of State has already paid tribute to the excellent and hard work being done by both Organising Committees. That is particularly relevant
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Huckfield: I shall not give way because the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), who never attends the debate, is always intervening.
Those who have been involved in the Bill throughout its various stages, unlike those hon. Members who have contributed tonight, know that both the Organising Committee for British Shipbuilders and the Organising Committee for British Aerospace have been undertaking a long, detailed and intensive series of studies on the future of both industries. Hon. Members may not know that the Organising Committee for British Shipbuilders has personally visited nearly every shipyard in the country. The

1109
Organising Committee for British Aerospace has taken part in a number of initiatives with our possible collaborative partners in future projects. Those who have met members of the committees and those who have participated in discussions can testify to the hard and unstinting work done by members of the Organising Committees.
If hon. Members want to know where some of the money has gone, I can tell them that it has gone in paying the salaries of members of the committees and of small staffs, and in paying rent. The pity of it is that hon. Member have tonight attacked members of the Organising Committees some of whom have given their services free.
Considering that the committees represent the best way of saving the two industries and the best way of saving hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the country, the Opposition should be praising instead of attacking them for their work.
Mr. Michael Marshall Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel): rose—
Mr. Huckfield: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) because he is an intruder into these debates.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Give way.
Mr. Huckfield: The expenditure by both—
Mr. Michael Marshall: Give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) knows full well that if the Minister does not wish to give way, he does not give way.
Mr. Huckfield: The expenditure by both committees is carefully controlled. It has not been excessive, bearing in mind their arduous work. If hon. Members are really worried about the amount spent by the Organising Committees, they have the answer in their own hands. Had they not deliberately delayed this Bill so much, the period for which the Organising Committees have had to work would not have been so long.
I also want to refute the suggestion made by the hon. Member for St. Ives that something underhand—in his kind
1110
of language—appears to have taken place, because all that is happening—
Mr. Michael Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order at this late hour for the Minister to talk about this blanket sum and not to give a breakdown?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no control over what the Minister says, except in respect of parliamentary language.
Mr. Huckfield: Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches know that it is a perfectly normal and usual convention for Organising Committees for future nationalised industries to be set up after the Second Reading of the relevant Bill and for their expenses to be defrayed from the Contingencies Fund.
Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches know that the Second Reading of this Bill took place in this House a year ago and that the Second Reading has just taken place once more to resolve any kinds of doubts. We are dealing with exactly the same Bill, for the purpose of the Parliament Act, as we dealt with a year ago. I do not think that any kind of convention has been abused, or any kind of impropriety has been committed.
Mr. Grylls rose—
Mr. Huckfield: If hon. Members—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that hon. Members would like to hear the Minister's reply, because the debate will finish in a few minutes.
Mr. Huckfield: If hon. Members—
Mr. Grylls rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that I shall not have to call again upon hon. Members to resume their seats when the Minister does not give way.
Mr. Huckfield: If hon. Members opposite—and particularly the hon. Member who spoke first—had any doubts about the continuity of the Organising Committees, they know that those doubts have been resolved by the vote of the House tonight. We are merely following once more the convention whereby Organising Committees continue after the Second

1111
Reading of the Bill. For the hon. Member to make the kind of comments that he did shows that he simply does not understand the way that these matters work.
As I say, this is quite a normal, customary convention, about which my right hon. Friend has been perfectly above board and open. In fact, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said in an answer on 31st March—and I shall quote what my right hon. Friend said for the benefit of those hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who keep asking questions from a sedentary position—
"such expenditure as the Committees may incur on the necessary preparatory work to enable the two Corporations to exercise their statutory functions after Royal Assent to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill shall be met from the Contingencies Fund. The fund will be reimbursed by the two Corporations concerned when they are set up."—[Official Report, 31st March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 507.]
We have written undertakings to that effect from the two Corporations.
Mr. Grylls rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to respect the Standing Orders of the House. It is my duty, as a servant of the House, to see that the Standing Orders are observed.
Mr. Huckfield: I want to say again—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Come on.
Mr. Huckfield: Obviously the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). with all his wisdom and experience of the shipyards, needs to listen to debates such as this. He ought to know, as I have said previously, that he has had many opportunities for making points such as those that have been made tonight, as have his hon. Friends. As I say, the practice that has been adopted for the funding of these two Organising Committees—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
Mr. Huckfield: —was made clear—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am most grateful to him.
Mr. Huckfield Mr. Huckfield rose—
Hon. Members: He has given way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I observed the situation, the Minister thought that I was rising to ask the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to resume his seat. Mr. Huckfield.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
Mr. Patrick Mayhew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has complained that my hon. Friends are asking questions from a sedentary position. When they rise, the Minister refuses to give way and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, tell them to sit down. Will you tell the Minister that his behaviour is provocative and ought not to be repeated?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members on this matter. There are only a few minutes left for the debate. Let us part peacefully early in the morning. The Standing Order is specific about the conduct of hon. Members. When they rise to make an intervention, if an hon. Member who has the Floor of the House refuses to give way, they must resume their seat. If on being called upon by the occupant of the Chair to observe the Standing Order an hon. Member refuses to do so, he has to take the consequences.
Mr. Grylls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in a debate on a Financial Resolution, when the Minister refuses to say how the money that has been spent in the previous Session is accounted for, he can continue refusing to answer when the House quite clearly wants an answer to that and how the money is broken down? That is what we are here for.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Huckfield: I hope that the House will take note that the main interrupters in this short debate have been precisely those people who never contributed to any of the previous debates on this subject. I hope that their hon. Friends will note who is making the interruptions and who is preventing me from giving this information to the House. I hope that their hon. Friends will take very careful

1113
note of who are the Opposition Members who are preventing me from giving the information which I seek to give to the House.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have been urging the hon. Gentleman to give it for the last half hour.
Mr. Huckfield: We get quite used to the schoolboy tones of the hon. Member for Macclesfield. We knew him when he was in Warwickshire. We got rid of him from Warwickshire, and very soon the people will get rid of him from Macclesfield.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
Mr. Huckfield: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. As I have been—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to refer to an hon. Member repeatedly and then refuse to give way to him?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing in the Standing Orders that gives any powers to the Chair to compel the Minister to give way.
Mr. Huckfield: What I keep trying to get through to one or two, perhaps unhearing, hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the Government have made their procedures clear from the beginning over the funding of these two Organising Committees. It was made utterly clear beyond all reasonable doubt in the answer that was given by my right hon. Friend to which I referred. I repeat that the answer is at column 507—
Mr. Tebbit rose—
Mr. Huckfield: I assure the House that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is the last person to whom I shall give way.
All that we are talking about tonight is a Money Resolution that is identical
in all significant respects to the one that the House passed a year ago.
Mr. Nott rose—
Mr. Huckfield: No. The only slight change that has been made reflects an amendment that was passed on Report in this House in relation to Clause 11. The amendment added to the excluded loans mentioned in Clause 11(9) loans guaranteed under Section 10 of the Industry Act 1972. The Money Resolution has been amended to cover that point. All that hon. Members are exercising themselves about tonight is a Money Resolution that is in all significant respects identical to the one that this House agreed to a year ago.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Answer the question.
Mr. Huckfield: I do not understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite are asking the kind of questions that they have asked, when I have already given to the House the main heads of information that they seek. I have already given a breakdown of the expenditure, and I have tried to tell the House how the money has been spent by the two Organising Committees.
I have already tried to tell Conservative Members about the hard work that has been done by these Organising Committees, and tribute has been paid to them and to the chairmen for the work that they have done. I believe that the money that has been provided for these Organising Committees represents the best chance of saving the industries. I believe, too, that it represents the best chance of saving hundreds of thousands of jobs.
It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 261.

Division No. 8.]

AYES

[12.58 a.m.

Abse, Leo

Atkinson, Norman

Bishop, E. S.

Aileen, Frank

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Anderson, Donald

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Boardman, H.

Archer, Peter

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Armstrong, Ernest

Bates, Alf

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Ashley, Jack

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Ashton, Joe

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Bradley, Tom

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Bidwell, Sydney

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

O'Halloran, Michael

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Buchan, Norman

Hefter, Eric S.

Ovenden, John

Buchanan, Richard

Henderson, Douglas

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Hooley, Frank

Padley, Walter

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Horam, John

Palmer, Arthur

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Park, George

Campbell, Ian

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Parker, John

Canavan, Dennis

Huckfield, Les

Parry, Robert

Cant, R. B.

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Pendry, Tom

Carmichael, Neil

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Perry, Ernest

Carter, Ray

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Cartwright, John

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Prescott, John

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Clemitson, Ivor

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Price, William (Rugby)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Radice, Giles

Cohen, Stanley

Janner, Greville

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Coleman, Donald

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Reid, George

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Concannon, J. D.

John, Brynmor

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Conlan, Bernard

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Corbett, Robin

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Cowans, Harry

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Cronin, John

Judd, Frank

Rooker, J. W.

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Kaufman, Gerald

Rose, Paul B.

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Kelley, Richard

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Cryer, Bob

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Rowlands, Ted

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Kinnock, Neil

Ryman, John

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Lambie, David

Sandelson, Neville

Davidson, Arthur

Lamborn, Harry

Sedgemore, Brian

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Lamond, James

Selby, Harry

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Leadbitter, Ted

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Lee, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Deakins, Eric

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Lipton, Marcus

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Dempsey, James

Litterick, Tom

Sillers, James

Doig, Peter

Loyden, Eddie

Silverman, Julius

Dormand, J. D.

Luard, Evan

Skinner, De nis

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Small, William

Dunn, James A.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Dunnett, Jack

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Snape, Peter

Eadie, Alex

McCartney, Hugh

Spearing, Nigel

Edge, Geoff

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Spriggs, Leslie

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

McElhone, Frank

Stallard, A. W.

Ellis, John (Brigg & Spun)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Stewart, Donald (Western les)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

English, Michael

MacKenzie, Gregor

Stoddart, David

Ennals, David

Mackintosh, John P.

Stott, Roger

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Maclennan, Robert

Strang, Gavin

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Evans, John (Newton)

Madden, Max

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Magee, Bryan

Swain, Thomas

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Mallal eu, J. P. W.

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Flannery, Martin

Marks, Kenneth

Thompson, George

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Marquand, David

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Tierney, Sydney

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Tinn, James

Ford, Ben

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Tomlinson, John

Forrester, John

Maynard, Miss Joan

Tomney, Frank

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Meacher, Michael

Torney, Tom

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

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Tuck, Raphael

Freeson, Reginald

Mikardo, Ian

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

George, Bruce

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

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

Gilbert, Dr John

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Golding, John

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Gould, Bryan

Molloy, William

Ward, Michael

Gourlay, Harry

Moonman, Eric

Watkins, David

Graham, Ted

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Watt, Hamish

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Weetch, Ken

Grant, John (Islington C)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Weitzman, David

Grocott, Bruce

Moyle, Roland

Wellbeloved, James

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

White, James (Pollok)

Harper, Joseph

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Whitlock, William

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Newens, Stanley

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Noble, Mike

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Oakes, Gordon

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Hatton, Frank

Ogden, Eric

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

1116

1117

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Young, David (Bolton E)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Woodall, Alec

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Woof, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mr. Tom Cox and

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Mr. Frank R. White

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Alison, Michael

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Mawby, Ray

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Glyn, Dr Alan

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Arnold, Tom

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Mayhew, Patrick

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Goodhart, Philip

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Awdry, Daniel

Goodhew, Victor

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Baker, Kenneth

Goodlad, Alastair

Mills, Peter

Banks, Robert

Gorst, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Beith, A. J.

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Bell, Ronald

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Moate, Roger

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Molyneaux, James

Benyon, W.

Gray, Hamish

Monro, Hector

Berry, Hon Anthony

Griffiths, Eldon

Montgomery, Fergus

Biffen, John

Grist, Ian

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Biggs-Davison, John

Grylls, Michael

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Blaker, Peter

Hall, Sir John

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Body, Richard

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Morrison, Hort Peter (Chester)

Bottomley, Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mudd, David

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Hannam, John

Heave, Airey

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Nelson, Anthony

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hastings, Stephen

Neubert, Michael

Braine, Sir Bernard

Havers, Sir Michael

Newton, Tony

Brittan, Leon

Hayhoe, Barney

Normanton, Tom

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Nott, John

Brotherton, Michael

Heseltine, Michael

Onslow, Cranley

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hicks, Robert

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Bryan, Sir Paul

Higgins, Terence L.

Osborn, John

Buchanan-Smith, Ailck

Hodgson, Robin

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Budgen, Nick

Holland, Philip

Page, Richard (Workington)

Bulmer, Esmond

Hopson, Emlyn

Paisley, Rev Ian

Burden, F. A.

Hordern, Peter

Pardoe, John

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Parkinson, Cecil

Carlisle, Mark

Howell, David (Guildford)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Carson, John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Penhaligon, David

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Percival, Ian

Churchill, W. S.

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Hurd, Douglas

Pink, R. Bonner

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Clegg, Walter

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

James, David

Prior, Rt Hon James

Cope, John

Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wansl'd & W'df'd)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Cormack, Patrick

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Raison, Timothy

Corrie, John

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Rathbone, Tim

Costain, A. P.

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Jopling, Michael

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Crouch, David

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Crowder, F. P.

Kershaw, Anthony

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Kilfedder, James

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Kimball, Marcus

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Ridsdale, Julian

Drayson, Burnaby

Kirk, Sir Peter

Rifkind, Malcolm

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Dunlop, John

Knight, Mrs Jill

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Knox, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lamont, Norman

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Elliott, Sir William

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Emery, Peter

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Eyre, Reginald

Lawrence, Ivan

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lawson, Nigel

Royle, Sir Anthony

Fairgrieve, Russell

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sainsbury, Tim

Fell, Anthony

Lloyd, Ian

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Loveridge, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

McCrindle, Robert

Shepherd, Colin

Fookes, Miss Janet

McCusker, H.

Shersby, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Macfarlane, Neil

Silvester, Fred

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

MacGregor, John

Sims, Roger

Fox, Marcus

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Freud, Clement

Madel, David

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Fry, Peter

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Speed, Keith

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Marten, Neil

Spence, John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Mates, Michael

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Gardner, Edward (S Fyide)

Maude, Angus

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

1118

1119

Sproat, Iain

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Walters, Dennis

Stainton, Keith

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Weatherill, Bernard

Stanbrook, Ivor

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Wells, John

Stanley, John

Townsend, Cyril D

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Trotter, Neville

Wiggin, Jerry

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Winterton, Nicholas

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Stokes, John

Viggers, Peter

Younger, Hon George

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wakeham, John

Tapsell, Peter

Welder, David (Clitheroe)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Wall, Patrick

Mr. Carol Mather

Tebbit, Norman

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of two bodies corporate to be called British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for making payments to either of them by way of public dividend capital and the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to either of them, subject to the following limits—

(a) the aggregate of—

(i) the amounts for the time being outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of money borrowed by British Aerospace and each of its wholly owned subsidiaries, other than money borrowed on excluded loans, and not including commencing capital, and

(ii) the sums paid to British Aerospace by way of public dividend capital,

shall not exceed £250 million;

(b) the aggregate of—

(i) the amounts for the time being outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of money borrowed by British Shipbuilders and each of its wholly owned subsidiaries, other than money borrowed on excluded loans, and not including commencing capital; and

(ii) the sums paid to British Shipbuilders by way of public dividend capital, shall not exceed £300 million;

(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required to fulfil guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of loans to British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders;

(3) the charge on the National Loans Fund, with recourse to the Consolidated Fund, of the principal of and interest on government stock issued by way of compensation in accordance with provisions of the said Act of the present Session and the issue out of the National Loans Fund of any sums necessary to meet expenses incurred in connection with the issue or repayment of any such government stock and payments of interest on amounts of compensation prior to the issue of such stocks;

(4) the payment out of money provided by Parliament, subject to the conditions specified in the said Act of the present
1120
Session, of any sums other than public dividend capital required by the Secretary of State for making payments to British Aerospace or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries for the purpose of promoting the design, development or production of civil aircraft, subject to the limit that the aggregate of the sums so paid less any sums received by the Secretary of State (otherwise than by way of interest on money lent) in pursuance of the terms and conditions on which any such payment was made shall not at any time exceed £50 million;

(5) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) remuneration allowances and expenses to any individual appointed in pursuance of the said Act as a stockholders' reresentative;

(b) remuneration and allowances to members and officers of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal established under the said Act of the present Session and other expenses of that tribunal; and

(c) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the said Act;

(6) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of the said Act;
and for the purpose of this Resolution

(a) a loan is an excluded loan in relation to either of the bodies corporate established by the said Act of the present Session if—

(i) it consists of money borrowed by one of its wholly owned subsidiaries either from that body or from another of that body's wholly owned subsidiaries or of money borrowed by that body from any of its wholly owned subsidiaries; or

(ii) it is a loan under section 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 or a loan in respect of which payments are authorised under paragraph (4) above, or a loan under section 8 of the Industrial Expansion Act 1969 or section 7 or section 8 of the Industry Act 1972; or

(iii) it is a loan guaranteed under section 10 of that Act; or

(iv) the purpose of the loan is to pay off the whole or any part of that body's commencing debt or

(v) the purpose of the loan is to pay off a previous loan which was itself an

1121
excluded loan by virtue of sub-paragraph (iv) above of this sub-paragraph;

(b) 'commencing capital', in relation to British Aerospace or British Shipbuilders, means such amount as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine under the said Act of the present Session;

(c) 'commencing debt' means that part of the commencing capital which is not to be treated for the purposes of the Act as public dividend capital.

NATIONAL INSURANCE SURCHARGE BILL
Ordered,
That in respect of the National Insurance Surcharge Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Coleman.]

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second reading read.
To be read a Second time this day.

PROCEDURE (SESSIONAL COMMITTEE)
Motion made,
That the matters of the calling of second amendments, the method of raising points of order during divisions, voting on Opposition motions on Supply days and motions relating to the Business of the House which direct the Chair to bring specified business to a conclusion at certain times, be referred to the Sessional Committee on Procedure.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
Hon. Members: Object.
To be considered this day.

SOUND BROADCASTING (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Motion made,
That the Lords Message of 25th November relating to the Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the implementation of the Resolutions of both Houses in favour of the establishment of a permanent system of sound broadcasting of their proceedings, be now considered.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
Hon. Members: Object.
To be considered this day.

LONDON MEDICAL SERVICES (RESOURCES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
1.11 a.m.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am pleased to raise on the Adjournment the subject of the allocation of money to London hospitals and the threat that this will carry to medical services in central London and even to the teaching hospitals themselves.
The House will know that all health authorities are being asked to trim their expenditure. I am not complaining about that, and London must take its fair share of the cuts. But I believe that London is being asked to take too high a proportion of the cuts as a result of the working paper called "Sharing resources for health in England", the Report of the Resource Allocation Working Party, which was published earlier this year. The working party says that National Health Service resources should be shared round the country, and it means, in effect, that the four regional health authorities which meet together in the centre of London will all have substantially less, and this will affect the services in central London.
The case of this document is that the London area is over-provided for, and I can see that there is some strength in this argument. But it is a totally exaggerated strength. I accept that the population of London is declining and, therefore, that the services available to London in the health area and even more significantly in the educational area, as any London Member knows, will have to be reduced over the years. But I object to the damaging effect that will result in the London hospitals if the proposals in the document are implemented on the scale and in the time scale recommended.
Many parts of the document are ill thought out, and I suspect the philosophy behind it. There is a feeling running through the document that London is just one huge champagne belt which is rich and prosperous, when any London Member knows that this is not the case. There are areas of considerable social deprivation in London. One has only to drive through North Kensington, Paddington,

1123
my former constituency of Acton, Shepherds Bush, or Hammersmith, or to cross any of the bridges outside this House and go through the boroughs of Bermondsey, Southwark, Brixton, Lambeth and Wandsworth to realise that these are areas of social deprivation judged by any standard. Many of these areas have a high level of unemployment. The general level of unemployment in the London area is just over 4·3 per cent. but unemployment in Poplar, Stepney and Deptford is in the region of 12 per cent.
These are the classic inner city areas where there is poor housing, poor job opportunities and declining services. It is these areas which the Secretary of State for the Environment is saying ought to have more resources devoted to them. Yet the Secretary of State for Social Services is saying exactly the reverse.
What would be the consequences of the recommendations of this working party for London? In a letter to The Times today Sir Francis Avery Jones, the chairman of the medical committee of St. Mark's Hospital, said that if the recommendations were implemented they would have the effect of reducing purchasing power for the London regions by an amount just over £100 million a year. My constituency lies in the region of the area health authority for Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster—the North-West Thames area. If anyone was asked to name the three most prosperous parts of London I dare say that he would name those three areas. That would be totally erroneous.
A report prepared for the Department of the Environment was underaken with a view to identifying the worst areas of urban deprivation in Great Britain and promoting a partial test of the appropriateness of area-based policies of positive discrimination. An analysis was made of areas of urban deprivation. It was found that of all the local authorities in the country Kensington and Chelsea ranked sixth from the top of those suffering the worst urban deprivation. Westminster was fourteenth in terms of total population affected. I hope that I have shown that London is not a glittering jewel which can be plundered and the resources spread over the rest of the country.
1124
If those recommendations of RAWP are implemented, my area health authority fears that there will be the loss of one teaching hospital. In the area health authority of which my constituency forms a part there are six centres of excellence as they are called. There are four teaching hospitals, Charing Cross, Middlesex, St. Mary's and Westminster. There are also the post-graduate school at Hammersmith and the clinical researeh centre at Northwick Park. Institutions like these are unique. Not only are they the envy of the rest of the country; they are the envy of the world.
I have mentioned only six of the teaching hospitals in the area health authority with which I am concerned but there are 22 such centres of excellence in central London. I ask the Minister to give an absolutely categoric assurance that not one of these will be closed down as a result of the RAWP report. I want a complete assurance that not one will be lost.
Why do I ask this? I have already referred to the letter written by Sir Francis Avery Jones. He goes on in that letter to say that if these proposals are introduced:
"We believe that a reduction of this order must mean closing major hospitals as well as small ones. If so, within a few years London's position as a leading international medical centre and as an important invisible export would be jeopardised. No longer would London be able to maintain its key rôle in higher specialist training for the whole country."
On Monday, Professor Kinmouth, also writing to The Times from the Department of Surgery at St. Thomas's Hospital Medical School, just across the river, argued that this dispersal of medical excellence was wrong for medical reasons. He spoke of where this had happened in the past and said:
"We have only to look at medicine in the world as a whole to see where it leads. To the cast we see several countries which have adopted this policy of devolution and dispersal of resources. The chief of them has produced no notable advance in surgery since the war. To the west we see America where excellence is encouraged. This year workers in American centres won all of the Nobel prizes for medicine."
I am convinced that a loss of any of these centres or a significant run-down in any of them would be highly damaging to the medical services, not only of London but of the whole country.

1125
If the Minister says "We shall keep all these centres of excellence", the implications for the rest of the medical services of the area health authority are significant. Other hospitals might have to be closed, other services reduced. In my own area there is a serious danger that St. Charles Hospital in Ladbroke Grove will be closed. The House probably heard last week about the weekend closure of St. Bartholomew's. At the Hackney Hospital, which is in a deprived area—I suppose that is the buckle of the champagne belt—two general wards and one children's ward are to be closed. There is St. James's Hospital at Balham and St. Nicholas's Hospital at Plumstead; the sword hangs over them all.
The Minister will know that in central London the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital is about to be closed as well as St. George's at Hyde Park Corner. I believe that this working party did not take two special factors into account. The first is London's floating population. At the Westminster Hospital, just across the road, two out of every three patients do not live within the district of the area health authority. I dare say that half their patients do not live in London. Yet London has to pay the cost of the hospitals from which the rest of the country benefits. The district of area health authority of which my constituency forms a part has a population of 420,000 people, but the authority estimates that it has to provide medical services for a million people.
I have already mentioned the second factor, which is that this document does not take social deprivation into account. There is also the technical argument, important in medical circles, that the report depends too much upon mortality rates rather than morbidity rates.
I hope that I shall get an undertaking from the Minister this evening, because there is a great deal of anxiety about what the report will mean to London. If the Minister wants savings, he should not look for them in the teaching hospitals and centres of excellence, or in the small local hospitals which serve our communities. Most of my constituents, and probably those of any other hon. Member, prefer to go into small rather than large hospitals. Let the Minister look for savings in the enormous scale of administration in the Health Service.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Sociel Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): It was the hon. Member's own Government who imposed this administration upon the Health Service.
Mr. Baker: That is the point that the Minister always makes, but he is now responsible for the administration of the Health Service. It is a national scandal that over the last 10 years the number of administrators has increased by 31,000 and the number of doctors by 11,000. That includes the years before the reform came into effect. I quite accept that the administration is far too top heavy and should be looked at again. There are many features that we could look at in the structure of area health authorities and regional health authorities. We should, perhaps, abolish the regional health authorities. The Government must think again about this proposal. They should not introduce a panic measure that will do irreparable damage to services and hospitals that have taken centures to build. We are still the world capital of medicine and it is absolutely absurd to destroy something which the rest of the world envies. I hope, therefore, that, this matter having been brought to the attention of the House, the Minister will give a categorical assurance that this report will be put on the shelf and the dust allowed to accumulate upon it.
Mr. Michael Stewart rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I did not know that the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) wished to speak. Has he the agreement of the hon. Member who initiated the debate? That is the custom.
Mr. Stewart: I do not have the agreement of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) object to the right hon. Gentleman's taking part in the debate?
Mr. Baker: As I told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, two of my hon. Friends asked to take part in the debate. I have no objection to the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) also taking part.
1.25 a.m.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) for

1127
the opportunity to support the case which he made so eloquently. It is difficult to oppose the general case that one should try to equalise the resources available to the National Health Service throughout the country, but there are reasons for treating the working party's report with suspicion.
First, it would be almost impossible to implement the recommendations in London. I have a letter from my area health authority which says that the report would almost inevitably mean the closure of one of the major hospitals in the area. Yet yesterday, we were given an assurance by the Minister that no major hospitals would be closed. The authority in my area wants to know how it is to achieve economies totalling £30 million without closing one of the major hospitals. In practice, it will be impossible to implement the recommendations of the report in London.
What the Minister is trying to do goes clean against the work which is taking place in the Department of the Environment where, at long last, it has been recognised that the plight of inner cities needs urgent attention and that resources must be switched to them. The Secretary of State for the Environment is trying to arrest the flow of population and resources from the inner cities, but his belated efforts are being negated by what the DHSS is trying to do.
If we are to equalise resources within the NHS, it can be done only at a time of economic growth. Trying to do it during a period of nil growth or recession would be suicidal. I urge the Minister to look again at the report and to announce that it will be implemented only in the context of economic growth, thereby avoiding the traumatic decisions which will otherwise have to be taken in London, particularly West London.
1.27 a.m.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) for the opportunity to take part in this debate.
I remind the Minister that he recently received a petition signed by 16,000 of my constituents calling for the retention of the Eltham and Mottingham Hospital. Will the Minister remind the local area
1128
health authority that if it wants to save money, it cannot afford a new health centre in the grounds of a hospital which it means to close because of lack of money?
One-third of the people in my constituency do not have cars and if this proposal is implemented they will have to take three buses to get to the nearest general hospital.
1.28 a.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: The Secretary of State assured us yesterday that no teaching hospitals in London will be closed. Indeed, he put it even wider than that. It is difficult to see how that undertaking can be met if the principles of the report are put into operation. I trust that what my right hon. Friend said yesterday means that the Government will not go ahead—or will go ahead only slowly—with the ideas in the report.
May I make a special plea for the Charing Cross Hospital which is in my constituency? It is unique among recently-built large hospitals in that it was completed within the time originally scheduled for construction and that it cost less than the original estimate.
The hospital is doing unbelievably good work as a teaching hospital and for the people in the neighbourhood. I beg the Minister to make clear to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State how deeply felt are the anxieties about this and other hospitals as a result of recent reports. We look to him to allay these anxieties and to give us reassurance.
1.29 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I am glad that we have had this debate. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) has raised a matter of equity and in doing so has revealed a number of the current misconceptions about the working party's report. It gives me the chance to comment on them and refute them.
The subject which the hon. Gentleman has raised is an alleged unfairness in the distribution of money within the National Health Service. What is being opposed is my right hon. Friend's policy of achieving greater fairness in that distribution, a policy which has been accepted by Governments of both colours for many

1129
years, but to which we are now giving new emphasis.
No one would dispute that historically there have been great inequalities in the facilities, the levels of finance and hence the levels of service available in different parts of the country. The four Thames regions have been better endowed than the rest, particularly in hospital provision. Excluding the cost effects of the teaching hospitals the scales used by the Resource Allocation Working Party show current expenditure per capita in London as North-East Thames £85; North-West Thames £84; South-East Thames £78; and South-West Thames £76. This compares with a national average of £72, and expenditure per capita of £64 in the Trent and North-Western Regions.
I do not need to be reminded that costs and wage levels are different in London, nor that the London medical schools train one third of the country's doctors and that this imposes extra costs. But I should be astonished if anyone were to argue that they alone justified present disparities, although it is admitted that there are areas of acute inner city social deprivation in London, and I shall mention these later.
I hope, however, that no one will suggest that we shall solve the problem by pumping in more money to raise the standards of the lower regions to the best. That will mean an extra £600 million. If hon. Members opposite are proposing that public expenditure should be cut by £4,000 million to £5,000 million, that option is out.
A year ago the Government established the Resource Allocation Working Party, which has issued two reports. Its first and interim report was used as a basis for allocation of money in 1976–7. Its final report, which came out a couple of months ago, is still out for consultation. The working party's task was to recommend the criteria upon which long-term allocations of money should be based. Application of those criteria naturally shows what imbalances there are, but it does not show how quickly they should be corrected. That is a matter for political decision. As my right hon. Friend said on 25th November:
"The tighter funds become, the more difficult it is to make a rapid shift."—[Official Report, 25th Nov., 1976; Vol. 921, c 319.]
1130
My right hon. Friend has not yet decided whether to accept the working party's report. If he does, that will not commit him to a particular timetable for implementation. In any case the pace of progress will be a matter for discussion by the Government and by health authorities each year. For planning purposes it is necessary to make assumptions for several years ahead, but that does not imply firm commitments. The working party itself recognised that it had not dealt fully with cost differences and recommended various subjective adjustments pending further investigation.
We have introduced into the NHS a new planning system. This is the first year of its operation. All health authorities are reviewing their services and producing strategic plans for their services over the next decade or so and operational plans for next year and the two succeeding years. The planning process includes widespread consultation.
We are now at the stage when some regional health authorities have formulated provisional redistribution proposals—I emphasise proposals, not decisions—and when some regional and area authorities have drafted plans and have put them out for consultation and comment. These plans are intended to be realistic, not just a set of aspirations. Obviously they depend very much on the resource assumptions, and particularly on the assumed extent and pace of redistribution.
I have already said that redistribution is partly to be determined by planning. The interplay of the two is a sophisticated business and it is not to be expected that it can be got right first time. So, even after the plans are put out for consultation and debate, there will be checking and re-checking and the opportunity for adjustment, and that process could take two or three years.
There have been wild stories that famous teaching hospitals in London are threatened with wholesale and imminent butchery. The hon. Members for St. Marylebone and for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) made a particular point of this. This is nonsense. All that is known at present is that, if a particular pattern of redistribution was carried through within a predetermined and fairly short timescale, that could have fairly considerable implications for some of those

1131
hospitals. No one is going to work in that way. It will not happen that way, because it will take a considerable time to get this policy into operation.
Mr. Baker: Do I understand that the Minister is giving a clear and categorical guarantee that none of the 22 centres of excellence in the London area will be closed? Will he answer "Yes" or "No"?
Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to make a prediction about the next 10 or 15 years. I cannot do that. I repeat that it is absolute nonsense to think that there are plans for the imminent shutting down of major London teaching hospitals. I am not saying that there will be no closures. There will be closures of hospitals, because, as well as the re-allocation policy, there is the necessity to rationalise provision in London.
Some area health authorities have already put out formal proposals for closures and changes of use in accordance with the prescribed procedures for consultation. These are to be distinguished from the forward strategic plans. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) mentioned one circumstance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) mentioned other circumstances. I am only too happy to reiterate the statement made by my right hon. Friend at Question Time yesterday.
These other plans are designed to indicate the intended line of development and cannot lead to closures or major changes of use except through the prescribed procedures, which mean consultation with interested parties and the community health councils. There is a procedure for bringing in the regions and ultimately my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Ultimately there is a right of appeal to him if the community health council objects. That is why I cannot comment on particular plans—because there may well have to be an appeal to my right hon. Friend on the particular circumstances of a case and he would have to adjudicate. I should not like to prejudice his decision.
I should like to make five general observations about the strategic plans.
1132
First, they are intended to indicate possible lines of development over a long period—10 years plus. Consequently, any strategic closures which are suggested may be many years away. Secondly, they are necessarily very tentative at present. It is bound to take several years to put them into proper shape. Thirdly, they are the subject of wide consultation, which is intended to be effective. Fourthly, and crucially, they are based on assumptions about resource availability and distribution which are not yet decided upon. Fifthly, we have no intention whatever of allowing major resource allocation decisions to become a matter simply for mathematical formulae. The formulae, if accepted, will be our tools, not our masters.
Finally, I turn back to something I said at the beginning. We recognise that there are areas of acute social deprivation in inner London. Not only do they share problems common to the rest of the country, but they have many difficulties peculiar to big city life. I do not need to be told about them. Such areas exist in the London borough which I represent and in which I live. They are areas where the older housing is likely to be poor, with outside toilets, multi-occupation, suffering from damp and other deficiencies. There is a problem of heavier unemployment there than in other areas. They are areas where there is overcrowding with a shifting population, which is not a population upon which it is easy to found ideas of community care for our handicapped and long-term sick. They are areas where many of the active young are leaving for fresh opportunities and challenges elsewhere and such stable population as exists is probably an ageing one that needs more than its fair share of care.
Because inner city areas lack the amenities of life, very often medical and social care is provided on the basis of social and medical workers and doctors who live elsewhere and who enter the areas for the working day and leave at the end of it. I am aware that this encourages a tradition of hospital medication to grow up. As an example, we have already given the highest priority to building a nucleus hospital in Newham where the existing hospital service is demonstrably inadequate for the needs of this densely populated borough. It is

1133
inconceivable that a Labour Government would allow any major redistribution of hospital resources away from these parts of London without bearing in mind the need to solve problems existing in the social services and primary care.
Dr. Gerard Vaughan: The Minister will appreciate the very
1134
great anxiety that exists about this matter. Can he give us a firm assurance that no centre of excellence will be closed in the near future?
Mr. Moyle: Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Air Weapons
  Air Weapons
  Terrorism Prevention
  Terrorism Prevention
  Excluded Persons
  Excluded Persons
  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Voluntary Service Councils (Financing)
  Voluntary Service Councils (Financing)
  SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS
  SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS
CIVIL SERVICE
  Peers (Allowances)
  Peers (Allowances)
  Postage ("Official Paid" Envelopes)
  Postage ("Official Paid" Envelopes)
  Ministry of Defence (Wales)
  Ministry of Defence (Wales)
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rudolf Hess
  Rudolf Hess
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Sperm Banks
  Sperm Banks
  Fluoride
  Fluoride
  Drugs (Testing)
  Drugs (Testing)
  Geriatric Beds (Southend)
  Geriatric Beds (Southend)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Hospital Costs (Essex)
  Hospital Costs (Essex)
  Occupational Pensioners
  Occupational Pensioners
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Lymington Hospital
  Lymington Hospital
ENVIRONMENT
  Council Estates
  Council Estates
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
  New Palace Yard (Porch)
  New Palace Yard (Porch)
  Football Grounds
  Football Grounds
  Otters
  Otters
  Gatwick (Injurious Affection)
  Gatwick (Injurious Affection)
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Rates
  Rates
  Tax Offices
  Tax Offices
  M1-A1 Link Road
  M1-A1 Link Road
ENERGY
  Conservation
  Conservation
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Local Education Authorities (Employees' Pensions)
  Local Education Authorities (Employees' Pensions)
  Local Administrative Staff
  Local Administrative Staff
  Local Authority Employees
  Local Authority Employees
  Policy
  Policy
DEFENCE
  Fisheries Protection
  Fisheries Protection
  Admiralty Compass Observatory, Slough
  Admiralty Compass Observatory, Slough
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Excluded Persons
  Excluded Persons
  Terrorism Prevention
  Terrorism Prevention
  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Prisoners (Transfers)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Poultry Meat (Inspection)
  Poultry Meat (Inspection)
TRANSPORT
  Motorways (Public Inquiries)
  Motorways (Public Inquiries)
  Policy (White Paper)
  Policy (White Paper)
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Lorry Drivers
  Lorry Drivers
  A23 (Bolney)
  A23 (Bolney)
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  National Freight Corporation
  National Freight Corporation
  Railway Fares
  Railway Fares
  British Railways Board (Chairman)
  British Railways Board (Chairman)
  Road Schemes (Investment Appraisal)
  Road Schemes (Investment Appraisal)
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Railway (Finance)
  Railway (Finance)
  Mudflaps
  Mudflaps
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  British Railways (Accounts)
  British Railways (Accounts)
  Coaches (Safety)
  Coaches (Safety)
  Railway Sidings
  Railway Sidings
  M40 (Gerrards Cross)
  M40 (Gerrards Cross)
  Pigeons (Carriage)
  Pigeons (Carriage)
  M63 (Stockport)
  M63 (Stockport)
  M42 (Bromsgrove)
  M42 (Bromsgrove)
  Nationalisation
  Nationalisation
  Tyne and Wear Metro
  Tyne and Wear Metro
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Water Transport
  Water Transport
  M11
  M11
  Lewes (Traffic Congestion)
  Lewes (Traffic Congestion)
  Robert Cooke's Bridge, Godmanchester
  Robert Cooke's Bridge, Godmanchester
  London (Rail-Road Services)
  London (Rail-Road Services)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Wolverhampton Orbital Road
  Wolverhampton Orbital Road
  Car Registration (Cherished Numbers)
  Car Registration (Cherished Numbers)
  A57 (Anston and Todwick)
  A57 (Anston and Todwick)
  Vehicle Exhausts
  Vehicle Exhausts
  Vehicle Bumpers
  Vehicle Bumpers
  Tyne Metro and London Fleet Line
  Tyne Metro and London Fleet Line
  Drinking and Driving
  Drinking and Driving
  M25
  M25
WALES
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
EMPLOYMENT
  Health and Safety Commission and Executive
  Health and Safety Commission and Executive
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Universities
  Universities
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Economic Prospects (Forecasting)
  Economic Prospects (Forecasting)
  Taxation (Prosecutions)
  Taxation (Prosecutions)
  Unpaid Taxes
  Unpaid Taxes
  Unpaid Taxes
  Unpaid Taxes
  Voluntary Savings Movement
  Voluntary Savings Movement
  Tourism
  Tourism
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Noise
  Noise
  List D Schools
  List D Schools
  Local Government Staffs
  Local Government Staffs
INDUSTRY
  Planning Agreements
  Planning Agreements
  Government Aid
  Government Aid
  Government Ownership
  Government Ownership
  Shareholdings (Inquiry)
  Shareholdings (Inquiry)
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
TRADE
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  Anti-Dumping
  Anti-Dumping
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

SPAIN AND MEMBERSHIP OF EEC OR NATO
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will confirm that they will welcome and support any Spanish application to join the EEC or NATO as soon as Spain has a democratic form of government.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the question of Spanish membership of the EEC or NATO has not yet arisen, and Her Majesty's Government are not solely responsible for the formation of Community or NATO policy towards Spain. But I am sure that once genuine democracy has been achieved in Spain, any application by the democratically elected Government to join either organisation would receive sympathetic consideration from Her Majesty's Government and other interested Governments.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that encouraging Answer. Will he agree with me that anything that can be done to encourage the Iberian Peninsula countries to join with the Western Powers is to the good of Europe, and that it might ease, though not resolve—because only time will do that—the Gibraltar situation?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Baroness's question is definitely, yes. In answer to the second part, one greatly hopes that such an arrangement in Europe would help to stabilise the Gibraltar question.

PRESS REPORTS
2.39 p.m.
Lord COTTESLOE: 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 there is any truth in a report that appeared in the public Press on 20th November 1976 that a proposal is under consideration to close the Royal Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith Hospital and the Clinical Research Centre at Northwick Park.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords; there is no truth in the Press report to which the noble Lord refers. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science assures me that there is no proposal whatever to close the Royal Postgraduate Medical School and the Clinical Research Centre. Nor is there a proposal to close the Hammersmith and Northwick Park Hospitals with which they are associated. The report appears to have originated from fears expressed by the North-West Thames Regional Health Authority that rapid implementation of some of the recommendations of the Resource Allocation Working Party could lead to the closure of one or more of the six major centres of teaching and research in that region. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is consulting health authorities and other interested bodies on the recommendations of the Working Party.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that reply, and ask him whether he is aware how much satisfaction it will give to those at Hammersmith and Northwick Park to know what he has said?—because there have been very widespread fears and alarms as a result of this Press report.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those comments.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this medical school occupies a quite unique position in the

273
field of medical research, and that if economies are being contemplated, it would be worth making them in other directions, rather than sacrifice any of the superlatively high standards which have been consistently maintained at this hospital?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend is fully aware of the importance of the contribution made by both of these hospitals, and would obviously take that contribution into account.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of the very misleading stories that have been appearing in the Press recently, regarding the closure of hospitals, are causing great distress to people who are employed in those hospitals? Can he therefore do one of two things: either issue an official statement for publication, showing which hospitals are under consideration for closure; or, alternatively, provide a document for the guidance of newspapers so that they will not go astray in future?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, I would remind your Lordships that I have said that consultations will take place between regional health authorities and other bodies involved. My right honourable friend has asked the regional health authorities to let him have by the early part of next year a statement of the needs of each regional health authority over the next 10 years; and, as I said, no action will be taken without consultation. In reply to the second part of my noble friend's question, I understand that the misleading article in the Daily Telegraph was printed without clearance with the regional health authority, and that, I believe, is largely why it was made.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, arising out of the Government's reply regarding the original Question on Hammersmith Hospital, has the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, anything to add on the rebuilding aspect about which he replied to a Question put by my noble friend Lord Cottesloe on 29th July, 1975? It would add to our confidence in the rest of his reply if the noble Lord could say something about that aspect.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, at this stage I am not in a position to make any further comment, apart from the one that I made on that occasion.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, although I do not want to prolong this Question, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the fact that it is not only the two hospitals mentioned in this Question which are the subject of newspaper stories? Stories about the wholesale closure of hospitals in all parts of the country have been run not only in the daily newspapers but in almost every local newspaper that one cared to pick up.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the whole purpose of the Resource Allocation Working Party is to consider the needs of the country as a whole. We have to face the fact that hospital services and facilities in the South of England, and particularly in London, are far better than they are in other parts of the country. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is looking at the needs of the country as a whole, which may well mean that certain services in both London and the South of England will have to be re-evaluated and that certain steps will then have to be taken. It has been known for a long time that there are certain hospitals which, by virtue of their location and of the fact that they are under-used, could be closed. This is one of the factors at which we are looking so that we can offer a far better service in those places where the need is greater.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in view of his exhaustive reply, upon which he ought to be complimented, it would be advisable for his Department to send a letter to the superintendents in charge of the hospitals under consideration so that it can be put up on the notice board? In view of the wrong statements which have been made in the Press, this would be a means of doing away with any form of apprehension on the part of the medical staff and others who work in those hospitals and the trade unions.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments and observations. May I repeat that whatever the final outcome of the re-appraisal of the medical services in this

275
country may be, no final action will be taken without consultation with the regional health authorities in respect of the hospitals within their areas.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that there is still a long waiting list for entrance to hospitals? Whatever the causes may be, would not the Minister agree that we should avoid taking any irreversible action regarding the closure of hospitals when the other problems which prevent people from getting into hospital promptly have not been solved? Will the Minister also comment on the fact that it seems strange that we are now closing private pay beds when the reason given for closing them was that apparently there was insufficient room for National Health Service patients in hospitals?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the second part of the noble Viscount's question, I thought it had been agreed with the medical profession that the first 1,000 beds which the Government have decided to remove within the first six months were not being used. With regard to the first part of the question, I tried to point out a moment or two ago that obviously my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is not likely to encourage the closing of a hospital or hospitals in areas where there is obviously a need and where people are awaiting treatment.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, to revert to the original Question, is the Minister aware how happy it makes me that his original reply has saved me from having to ask him a number of supplementaries which I thought I might have to ask?
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is a bad principle of government if one Department of State, namely, the Department of Health and Social Security, takes decisions about hospitals in the London area without consultation with the Department of Education and Science? Would not the noble Lord agree that it is very hard for the University of London and its teaching hospitals to balance their budgets if decisions are taken by the DHSS, without consultation with these teaching hospitals, which have a direct effect upon the bud-
276
gets of these hospitals? Would the noble Lord therefore feel that such consultation between these two Departments of State is necessary if rational decisions are to be taken?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I thought that I had made it perfectly clear in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, that there is close co-operation between my right honourable friend in the DHSS and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I think we would agree that there cannot be any decision until all the people who are interested and concerned have been consulted.

FISHERY PROTECTION: NAVAL AIRCRAFT
2.50 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: 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 number and what types of aircraft are available to the Royal Navy for fishery protection purposes.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, at present a Royal Navy Sea Devon aircraft is regularly employed on fishery protection. Other fixed and rotary wing aircraft are employed from time to time as required. From 1st January 1977, a month today, the main air support for fishery protection will be provided by the Royal Air Force who will be allocating four Nimrod long range surveillance aircraft to work in conjunction with the fishery protection ships of the Royal Navy and the fishery protection fleet operated by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he satisfied that the present fleet of only one small Sea Devon aircraft is really adequate for the task, since it is, as he says, the only aircraft permanently allocated at present for that purpose? Having regard to the fact that the limit is shortly to be extended to 200 miles, is he further satisfied that the four Nimrod aircraft, which he says are to be added to

277
the fleet in the New Year, will bring the total fleet up to strength?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, one month from now we shall have our four Nimrods on station, and a Nimrod can cover between 500 and 5,000 square miles per hour according to the density of the fishing activity. The rough average is expected to be about 2,000 square miles per hour and that, I should have thought, was a fairly adequate area of coverage.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, in view of the increased limit of 200 miles, can the Minister say whether progress has been made on any suggestion to the other countries in the EEC that some form of joint air surveillance might be arranged in the near future?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not think me discourteous if I say that this will be an important point in the speech I may make at some late hour tonight, and perhaps he will wait with controlled patience until then.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, in view of the fact that the capital cost is infinitesimal compared with that of a modern service aircraft; that the maintenance and running costs are infinitesimal compared with the running costs per hour of modern aircraft; that the semi-rigid dirigibles did invaluable North Sea patrol work with great success in World War I, and there is no reason why they should not do similar work now at a much lower cost, have the Government made a close study of the possibility of using semi-rigid dirigibles for this sea patrol work?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a most interesting point, but perhaps an Unstarred Question at a later date might produce more information.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it gives me great delight to hear noble Members of this House approaching a problem that I mentioned the other day when I suggested that it would be much cheaper if we developed the airship rather than those methods of transport they scoffed about the other day?
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, when the noble Lord refers to four Nimrods as being the allocation, does he mean a total of four, or four on task throughout the 24 hours?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it will be a unit of four constantly on duty.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government have any plans to order any ships smaller than frigates which are capable of carrying helicopters for this purpose?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that again is something we might discuss later this evening, but, as the noble Lord knows, there is the Islander class coming forward.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House where the Nimrod aircraft are to be based?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, not now, my Lords; it will presumably be with the rest of the squadron.

THE "DIRECTORY OF GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS"
2.53 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider revising the publication Directory of Government Appointments to include the names of those appointed, the estimated expenditure on salaries, fees and other essential items (apart from expenditure incurred by civil servants); and what was the total of such expenditure in the past 12 months.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): No, my Lords. The purpose of the Directory was to publish in a convenient form information about paid posts for the assistance of possible applicants. The information for which my noble friend

279
asks about expenditure on salaries, fees and other essential items is not available centrally and the cost of assembling it would be disproportionate.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not remarkable that we have these hundreds of appointments, entailing vast expense, and we do not know even the names of the persons who are on these boards and organisations, nor do we know what it is costing? Is that not a remarkable state of affairs and ought we not to know what is happening, and why have we so many of these appointments?
Lord PEART: My Lords, because we require people to do a responsible job. I am sure that when the noble Lord was a member of the Cabinet he adopted the same attitude.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I inform my noble friend that I never did anything of the sort. Is he aware that this is a development which has taken place over recent years and nowadays everybody expects to be appointed to something? Where is this thing going to stop and when will my noble friend see to it that we get the requisite information to which we are entitled?
Lord PEART: My Lords, if the noble Lord likes to table a Question to a Departmental Minister he can get the information. I was often questioned about appointments when I was the Minister for Agriculture. All I am saying is that this has been the usual practice for a very long time. The Directory is a valuable document, and added to that there is the White Paper, which covers salaries and appointments to boards of a commercial character.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, does the noble Lord not find it surprising that he and his Government continue to ask industry for the answers to questions quite regardless of the cost to industry, while he is still able to get up from the Front Bench and say that information is not available because it costs too much?
Lord PEART: My Lords, it is a good reason.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL MEETING
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making a Statement in another place today about the European Council Meeting. Following discussions with the usual channels it has been agreed that it would be convenient for the House for the Statement to be made available in the Official Report. With the leave of the House I will arrange for that to be done.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on the meeting of the European Council which I attended in The Hague with my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 29th to 30th November.
"The meeting reviewed a number of important questions of concern to all the Member Governments of the EEC. Some of our conclusions were recorded in agreed texts, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.
"We had a full discussion on economic and monetary matters, where we looked at the present state and prospects of the Community in relation to the rest of the world. Most of our partners share, in varying degree, our own concern with problems of inflation, employment and balance of payments. There was common interest in trying to ensure that the growth of activity, both in the Community and in the rest of the world should not slow down, and in finding constructive ways of tackling our common problems in a Community framework. A number of colleagues joined me in stressing that, whilst those countries which, like the United Kingdom, are still faced with problems of inflation, unemployment, balance of payments and inadequate investment in productive industry must take all possible steps to help themselves, there are also helpful steps which others in the Community could take. In particular, as the Commission brings out in its report which the Council approved, the stronger economies have an important part to play. There was some measure of reassurance about the prospects of continuing recovery. But all member countries were concerned about the serious potential effects of any further increase in oil prices.
"The second major subject of discussion was the North/South dialogue and the range of problems relating to international economic co-operation. The European Council examined the questions which are currently under discussion in various international bodies, and reaffirmed the importance it attaches to making a contribution to the economic development of the developing countries, while keeping in mind the problems posed by difficulties in the Community's own economy.
"We were able to complete our work on the Tindemans Report. There was a warm expression of the Council's thanks to the Belgian Prime Minister for undertaking this task. The European Council endorsed the general lines on which Ministers for Foreign Affairs have been working, and emphasised the importance to be given in the next phase of the Community's development to

281
combating inflation and unemployment, to drawing up common policies for energy and for research, and to developing a genuine regional and social policy in the Community. The European Council will have a yearly look at the progress achieved in various fields.
"We discussed trade relations between the Community and Japan, and drew attention to the problem created by the deterioration in the trade situation and the difficulties which have arisen in certain industrial sectors. The Council agree that these relations should be developed to the advantage of both the Community and Japan. Urgent consideration will be given to various trade problems by the Community institutions; and the Council called for substantial progress to be made before its next meeting. We expressed satisfaction at the indications we have had of Japanese willingness to co-operate with the Community.
"There was an exchange of views on agricultural problems in the Community including the question of monetary compensatory amounts. While some Member Governments sought to focus attention particularly on matters arising from changes in currency relationships, I emphasised that these must be seen as only one part of a wider problem—the need to improve the agricultural policy and particularly to eliminate costly surpluses.
"The Council approved the nominations of each of the Member Governments to the new Commission, and agreed that my right honourable friend the Member for Stechford should now be formally appointed as President. The appointment of the honourable Member for the City of London and Westminster South as the Second British Commissioner, was also confirmed. The Council noted that the Commission would be reviewing its organisation and procedures, and looked forward to hearing in due course an account of the conclusions reached.
"This meeting once more made clear that many of the problems which we in this country face are shared by others in the Community. It also showed that the institutions of the Community are not sufficiently developed to provide common solutions to these problems which are intensified by the growing divergence between the economies of various Member States. Nevertheless, the exchange of views which we held during the Council Meeting will be helpful in our efforts to resolve them."

BILL OF RIGHTS BILL [H.L.]
Lord WADE: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to declare the inalienable rights and liberties of the subject. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Wade.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
2.57 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principles and on other questions to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:—

Brimelow, L.

Chelwood, L.

Cobbold, L.

Diplock, L.

Hinton of Bankside, L.

Inglewood, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Mais, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Phillips, B.

Pritchard, L.

Raglan, L.

Rhodes, L.

Seear, B.

Sherfield, L.

Tranmire, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.(Chairman.)

Vickers, B.

White, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that two be the quorum of such Sub-Committees and that they have power to appoint their own Chairmen.
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a Sub-Committee;

283
That the Committee and any Sub-Committees have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the Committee or any Sub-Committee appointed by them have leave to confer and to meet concurrently with any Committee of the Commons on European Secondary Legislation &c. or any Sub-Committee of that Committee for the purpose of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and have leave to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any such meeting; and
That any Lord requested by the Committee on Secondary Legislation &c. of the House of Commons to attend as a Witness before them or before any Sub-Committee appointed by them shall have the leave of this House so to attend, if his Lordship think fit.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this session:—

Airedale, L.

Alport, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cathcart, E.

Champion, L.

Derwent, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Goschen, V.

Henley, L.

Hood, V.

Listowel, E.

Maybray-King, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

284

Segal, L.

Shannon, E.

Strang, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.58 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Lord Wallace of Coslany—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, today's debate will be devoted to the defence and foreign affairs aspects of the gracious Speech. My noble friend who speaks for the Ministry of Defence and who will wind up the debate will concentrate, naturally, on the subject of defence, as he did last year, and I therefore propose to concentrate on foreign affairs, although I shall of course refer to defence matters.
My Lords, we are an island, but part of Europe, and facing the Atlantic, and traditionally outward-looking. Over the centuries Britain's outlook on the world has therefore developed three distinct strands: insular, European and international. As an island we have established a democratic system and a tradition of political stability of which we remain justifiably proud. It is in large part thanks to our position as an island that we have in the past been able to develop, relatively unmolested, a way of life which is not only one of our most valued national assets but also a long-standing and continuing source of influence on Europe and the world. But our insularity has never meant isolation.

285
It is today even less possible to rely solely on the natural advantages of our insular position to safeguard what we value. With the development of communications, the advent of air power as distinct from sea power, and the increasing growth of world inter-dependence, we in Britain find ourselves increasingly limited in our ability to protect our interests on our own. We are not unique in this. Indeed, today no nation, however powerful, can fully assure its prosperity and security in isolation.
While we should never forget our own qualities and resources, and our need and duty to husband and develop them, it is what links Britain to the wider world, not what separates us from it, which matters today. The Government therefore start from the premise that Britain's role is that of a major European Power with wide-ranging international interests and responsibilities which we share with our partners inside and outside Europe, including other members of the Commonwealth.
My Lords, Britain is a leading member of the European Community. The gracious Speech stressed the intention of the Government to play a full part in the activities and development of the Community. Our tenure of the Community Presidency in the first half of next year will focus afresh our commitment in Europe. We are also a central pillar of the Atlantic Alliance and a major contributor to NATO, with special responsibilities in Germany and Berlin, the exercise of which is vital to stability in Europe. We are, moreover, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We play a leading part in various international economic organisations. As I have said, we belong to the Commonwealth and shall next year host in London a meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government.
The influence that we derive from our international position helps us greatly to pursue the fundamental objectives of British foreign policy—the safeguarding of national security and the pursuit of national prosperity and the promotion of international agreement. Indeed, those objectives are linked. Our ability to play our proper role in the world—and it is considerable—depends first and
286
foremost on our own economic recovery. Equally, we shall find the task of national economic recovery formidably more difficult unless we have the right international conditions for export-led recovery. This we cannot hope to see without an orderly and sustained growth in world trade.
That is why the gracious Speech stresses the Government's intention to participate actively in international efforts to promote a more stable world economic order. For if there is one lesson to be learned from British history it is the abiding importance of overseas trade for our national wellbeing. We have always been a leading mercantile nation, and today we are one of the countries most heavily dependent on overseas trade. Our exports of goods and services represent over 30 per cent. of our gross national product. We import about half of our food, and even more of our raw materials. We are second only to the United States in the value of our overseas investments.
My Lords, these are the reasons why the Government attach paramount importance to working very closely with the other industrialised democracies. Unemployment, inflation, recession do not respect national frontiers. The measures which each country takes to curb inflation or to tackle unemployment can and do affect the prospects of all the others. The overriding preoccupation of the major industrialised countries is to achieve sustained economic growth without refuelling inflation, and at the same time to reduce unemployment. We shall only achieve these objectives if international co-ordination complements sound domestic policies. It is co-ordination of this kind between our national and international preoccupations which the Government are actively seeking to promote in, for instance, the OECD, the IMF and, of course, in the European Community. We saw at the Kingston Conference how the Commonwealth can make a vital contribution to international thought and action.
In today's world the interdependence of nations is more evident than at any time in the past, and nowhere has interdependence taken more sophisticated shape than in the European Community. We are full and active members of the

287
Community. This gives us the advantages of acting as a member of one of the wealthiest and potentially most economically powerful groups of the world. At the same time, with our traditional overseas links, we are in an especially good position to help shape the development of the Community's policies and, through the Community, to help shape the future of Europe itself, and through Europe, to contribute to world security and peace. There is no advantage to Europe in introversion, any more than there is in nationalism, and it is fair to say that Britain's accession to the Community has already helped to bring about changes of emphasis in Community attitudes to overseas countries.
It is clearly in. Britain's interest that the Community as a whole should prosper. We shall therefore continue to participate fully in the Community's activities so that we can help promote realistic and attainable policies which respond to the needs of the people of Europe. It is in this way that we can most effectively live up to the commitment, made in last year's White Paper, to work for a new and wider Europe, and always with the object of strengthening the European contribution to the creation of a more stable world.
It is in that spirit that we look forward to our tenure of the Community Presidency next year. This will be the first time that the British people will have had a close view of the Community in action. We are well aware of our responsibilities as Community President and we have been making careful preparations for some months. Our aim as European President will be to live up to the high standards set by those who preceded us, by discharging business as impartially and as efficiently as possible. We shall not pursue grandiose and ill-defined targets, but we shall seek to create the right conditions for productive debate leading to practical solutions.
One such practical step, admittedly in regard to procedure, was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich in his speech on the first day of this debate, when he referred to the Government's intention to introduce legislation to provide for direct elections to the European Parliament. A number of noble Lords, I know, are interested in the possible enlargement of the Community. It was
288
raised effectively at Question Time today by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. On the question of a wider Europe, I will merely say that Greece and Portugal have moved in recent years from dictatorship to democracy. Her Majesty's Government hope and trust that Spain will follow them along the same path and take her place among the democracies of Western Europe. As in other fields, so in the dialogue, in the discussion, between developed and developing countries, Britain and the other Member States of the Community can make a more constructive contribution together than if they were acting on their own.
The House will be aware that at the Conference on International Economic Co-operation, the Community functions as a single unit, and its influence is undoubtedly much greater as such. I say this because it is of great importance that the Conference should be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, like the work programme set in train by last May's United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Since 1974 the world recession has aggravated the deteriorating economic balance between the richest and the poorest countries. The situation is not only morally unacceptable; it is also a source of instability in international economic and political relations. The lesson of the last three years is that no one, developed or developing, North or South, has anything to gain from confrontation, certainly not confrontation between demanders and conceders. We all have a vested interest in working together to set up a fair and rational world economic system based on common sense, common justice and common interests. The Government will, with their partners in the Community and in the wider world, work for a new relationship between the developed and developing countries based on those principles.
I believe the Commonwealth, with its links between the developed and developing countries, has an important role to play in this. As I say, at the invitation of Her Majesty's Government the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting will be held in London from 8th to 16th June next year. This will be the first meeting of its kind to be held in London since 1969, and I and my colleagues look forward with keen pleasure to welcoming to our shores the leaders

289
of this unique association. It will offer opportunities for friendly and informal discussion between representatives of a wide variety of different interests and regions, a cross-section in fact of the world community as a whole. Only in this way, by a free and relaxed exchange of views, can that kind of mutual understanding develop, leading in turn to constructive and fruitful action. We look forward to a rewarding and successful meeting.
My Lords, I have dwelt somewhat on the international economic issues of the day because of the degree to which they have come to the forefront of our foreign policy. But, of course, our foreign policy is still very much concerned with what might be called the traditional issues, the problems of war and peace and security. Membership of NATO is the cornerstone of Britain's security; the Organisation has first call on our defence resources. We have invited the North Atlantic Council to hold its spring meeting in London. So long as the Warsaw Pact countries continue to build up the strength of their armed forces, the cohesion and vigilance of NATO remain crucial to the security of the Western World. The Government are, of course, committed to policies of détente; but détente without security is a contradiction in terms. Our contribution to the alliance is a very substantial one. We alone of the European members contribute forces to all three elements of NATO's deterrent strategy—conventional, theatre nuclear and strategic nuclear forces. We maintain in Germany a highly professional army and a strong tactical air force, and in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel area we provide the greater part of NATO's readily available maritime forces. My noble friend, when he replies, will no doubt expand on these matters in the light of what is said in the debate.
But, my Lords, security is not only a matter of defence. We must continue to work for a genuine relaxation in tensions between East and West and, to this end, for a genuine implementation of all the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, to which we, like 35 other countries, are fully committed. Next year's Belgrade Conference will provide us all with the opportunity to make a thorough review of the progress made by them. We are working positively for mutual balanced force reductions in the Vienna negotiations
290
to reduce forces in central Europe, and we are working hard in various international fora to bring about disarmament and to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I shall give a few more details of this later on.
The Government are also concerned to act, where we can, to eliminate tensions in those areas of the world where a local conflict could escalate into a more perilous and widespread conflagration. The situations in the Middle East and Cyprus immediately spring to mind. We shall continue, with our friends and allies, to work for just and lasting settlements in both areas. It is a thoroughly sound principle in such situations to do everything we can, in collaboration with our friends, to encourage solution by agreement among the disputants directly involved.
This is perhaps particularly so in Southern Africa. There the failure to eliminate tensions could lead to violence that might spread far beyond the region. However, in Rhodesia a peaceful settlement may at last be in sight. The conference we have convened in Geneva is now well under way, and, although progress has not been dramatic, useful work has been done and agreement reached on the first main issue to be tackled, namely, the date for independence. However, major items of substance still remain to be discussed. They will need to be considered with urgency and with good will on all sides if the conference is to complete its work by the target date of 20th December. We for our part will do everything in our power to achieve an early and successful conclusion to the conference, and I remain cautiously optimistic that we shall succeed. It is important that we do so: the consequences of failure could be disastrous. A further extension of the guerrilla war would be in no one's interests and would bring with it the danger of introducing new complications, new sufferings for the African people, and new opportunities for externally promoted mischief making. Agreement, however, would provide not only a secure future at last for all the people of Rhodesia, but would also serve as a major contribution to the peace and security of Southern Africa as a whole.
I said I would enlarge a little on what I said earlier about arms control and

291
disarmament. I do so because the subject is one of my own particular responsibilities in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Disarmament is in the forefront of the Government's policy and we are negotiating and working to this end in the United Nations, in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, and in the Vienna negotiations on force reductions. We are fully committed to seeking the total abolition of nuclear weapons by multilateral negotiations and agreements. We believe the non-proliferation treaty of 1968 remains the best available means of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons and of nuclear explosive technology.
Meanwhile, in February we introduced a resolution in the International Atomic Energy Authority to allow States which are not parties to the NPT to accept IAEA safeguards on all their civil nuclear facilities. Furthermore, although we are not required to do so by the Treaty, we have voluntarily submitted to the IAEA safeguards those parts of the nuclear industry in Britain which support our civil nuclear programme, subject only to exclusions for purely national security reasons. Officials from a number of countries which have decided to harmonise their nuclear export policies held a further meeting on 11th and 12th November under United Kingdom chairmanship. We have not sought the chair at these meetings, but by general agreement Britain has been seen to be the most acceptable occupant of the chair. We are glad on those terms to assume it. The purpose of these meetings is to ensure that nuclear exports do not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear explosive devices. The Governments concerned will continue to keep in close touch.
We have also tabled a comprehensive draft Convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons. We did so at the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament on 12th August. We hope that when the Conference resumes its work in Geneva in 1977 all delegations will be ready with detailed discussions on the British draft. These are important initiatives undertaken by the United Kingdom. But equally we stand ready at all times to consider carefully and practically any proposal for arms control and disarmament emanating from any source.
292
I should not like to end today without saying something about the important European meeting which took place on Monday and Tuesday of this week. This meeting once again underlined the similarity of many of the problems faced by Member States and the importance of finding common ways of dealing with them. We have no illusions that self-help must come first: we must tackle our own problems with resolution. But those other Member States which have healthier economies undoubtedly can help —and the Council approved the report of the Commission which underlines this. We all want to see that the growth of economic activity both within and outside the Community does not falter, and we want to see the problems we all face dealt with within the machinery of the Community.
The Council also dealt with the Tindemans Report and approved the direction of the work which the Community Foreign Ministers have been doing. The Council will in fact take stock of progress every year. The important fields for the next period will be, above all, the need to fight inflation and unemployment, to work out a real regional and social policy and to develop common policies for energy and research. Perhaps I might repeat that. The important fields for the next period will be, above all, the need to fight inflation and unemployment, to work out a real regional and social policy and to develop common policies for energy and research.
The Council also reaffirmed the importance it attaches to the wide range of problems relating to international economic co-operation and therefore to the CIEC. It underlined the willingness of the Community to make as positive a contribution as it can to the extent that developments in its own economy permit. This links with something I said about the need to get away from a too rigid attitude to a new world economic order based simply on a confrontation between demanders and conceders. It is necessary to consider what can be done partly at least in relation to the capacities of those who are deemed most likely to be able to help.
The Council examined the whole range of issues which are at present current in the CIEC.

293
Noble Lords will have noticed that a good deal of attention has been paid in the Press to the difficulties arising from fluctuations in currency exchange rates for the Common Agricultural Policy, and it is quite true that some Member Governments wished to focus attention on this. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it quite clear that this issue could not be divorced from the very much larger problem of improving the Common Agricultural Policy itself, and preventing the build-up of expensive surpluses.
Finally, the Council also looked at the problems posed by trade imbalances between the Community and Japan, particularly in certain important industrial sectors. While noting with pleasure that the Japanese Government wishes to co-operate with the Community, the Council asked that the Community institutions should look urgently at these problems and should pursue vigorously this important aspect of the common commercial policy in discussions with Japan. The Council expects that substantial progress should be made before the Council meets again.
My Lords, in his speech to this year's Session of the United Nation's General Assembly, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary identified four great challenges which today confront the international community: the search for peace; the establishment of a proper economic balance between developed and developing countries; the promotion of human rights; and the maintenance of the rule of law. My right honourable friend gave, on behalf of the Government, an unequivocal pledge of support for the efforts being made to meet these challenges and thus for the work of the United Nations itself. I reaffirm this pledge today. In this way the Government believe that they can best serve the interests not only of the British people, but of the international community as a whole.
3.32 p.m
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will, as usual, be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for his thorough-going speech and for the
294
usual common sense that he spoke. Your Lordships will be looking forward to the two maiden speakers who will address the House this afternoon. We await what my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein has to say with great interest; his distinguished father used to be short, dramatic and always right, so we expect great things of him.
It is perhaps significant that there has been no debate on foreign affairs, nor indeed on defence, in the House of Commons during the debate on the Address. It is certainly true that visitors to this country, or at any rate those to whom I talk, are increasingly finding us preoccupied with our own affairs and less and less concerned with what happens elsewhere. Though that is much to be regretted, in a way it is understandable, since we have a great deal to be preoccupied about, as our debate yesterday and on Thursday showed. It is equally and sadly true that the influence of a country in a very weak economic situation is undermined. One has only to look at the decline in British influence over the last years to realise that. If we intend to recapture the position we once held—and we must try to do that—we have to do it with a strong economy and a resolute people, and Lord Goronwy-Roberts said exactly that. If we do not, then we shall increasingly lose the influence that we now possess.
Perhaps until then we should as a country moralise less about the attitudes of other Governments, and when we do moralise we might perhaps try to moralise rather more even-handedly. There seems to be a rather disturbing tendency on the part of some people to be selective. Oppression is oppression, whatever the politics of the oppressor. Nor am I always clear what exactly the purpose of Her Majesty's Government is on the occasions when they take a moral stance. For example, what exactly was the object of withdrawing our Ambassador in Chile? Of course Chile is not a democracy. Of course the Opposition there is harassed, to say the least. Dr. Cassidy was very badly treated by the Chilean authorities. But there are several thousand British subjects in Chile and one of the purposes of diplomatic representation is to protect one's own nationals. Yet at a time when it became more and more clear that protection for British subjects was needed,

295
the Government withdrew the Ambassador, and there is still no Ambassador in Santiago. I raise this point only to ask in general terms what is the object. What benefit do we seek to get from the action of withdrawing an Ambassador whose presence does not denote approval of the régime but, rather, serves a British purpose?
Equally, I find it difficult to understand why in August this year Her Majesty's Government established relations with Cambodia. It is of course difficult to be precise about what is happening in that sad country, but from all accounts several hundred thousand people—the figure is usually put at 800,000—are believed to have died since the civil war. either from starvation or as a result of the systematic campaign of liquidation carried out by the new rulers, an atrocity on a truly appalling scale and little commented on in the Free World. What did we expect to gain from such a move as recognition? It was surely not to signify approval of that régime, as apparently the removal of the Ambassador in Chile was to express disapproval. In short, why degrade representation in Chile, where we need it at every level, and then establish relations in Cambodia where there is no need?
I am not one of those who believes that cutting off relations is likely to change people's minds. On the contrary, personal contact is much the best way to influence people and change their views. But let us be clear, when we seek to influence Governments and people, that we are against oppression, against imprisonment without trial, against political trials, against the denial of those freedoms which we in this country take for granted; we are against all of that, whether it comes from Right or Left.
There is at any rate one thing, whether we are a rich or poor country, on which we can all agree, and in this I follow Lord Goronwy-Roberts in what he said; that is, the increasing interdependence of all the countries in the world. We have only to consider our own sophisticated economy to realise how dependent we are on the raw materials and markets of other countries. And what is true for us is true in its own way for everybody else; we cannot do without the lesser developed countries any more than they
296
can do without us. It is nonsense to suggest, as sometimes well-meaning people do suggest, that the combined and sustained economic growth of the West is bad for the rest of the world, that capitalism is the major problem of the world economy, or that the lesser developed countries should detach themselves from the present system; for without economic growth in the West there can be no improvement in living standards anywhere. Three-quarters of the exports of the lesser developed countries go to the industrial countries. We are totally dependent one upon the other.
It does not seem to me—this is not a criticism of the Government—that there is a sufficiently planned and coherent strategy for tackling the problems which arise from all our different needs, but I believe that at last there is beginning to be an understanding that there are problems. To put it at its very lowest, if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer there will not be much stability in the world, let alone justice and fairness. We have made a start, I think not a bad start, with such things as the Lomé Convention, the UNCTAD proposals, the talks in Paris and, as Lord Goronwy-Roberts said, the talks in the Commonwealth Conference at Kingston and the part the Commonwealth can play. But I am sure that something more is needed, a much wider package of trade reforms and institutional devices, and I am sure that something like the International Resources Bank is needed.
The disagreement in the Hague yesterday seemed to me to be more about tactics than about the substance of what the Nine should do, and if it means that the Plenary Session of the Conference in Paris will be delayed for some months, I do not think that matters. What matters is the genuine intention of the Nine to make it a success. To leave things as they are—and I believe that if anything they are getting worse in the sense that the gap between the developed and lesser developed countries is growing—would be to jeopardise peaceful progress, and there are some countries which are only too willing to take advantage of the discontent, jealousies and bitterness that will grow up unless we are firm in our determination to create greater stability in world trade.
Of course, grave problems face us quite apart from that theme, though they

297
are in a sense part of that theme. I do not intend to say anything about Africa. We had a debate on Rhodesia not so long ago and I believe that all your Lordships felt, as I still feel, that, while the Conference is going on in Geneva, there is nothing useful that can be said and much that might be said which could be misconstrued. Nor do I want to say anything about Europe, because my noble friend Lady Elles will no doubt have much to say on that, though I should like to make one point. There will be no one in this House who does not wish Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Tugendhat well in their task, and no one who knows the dedication that Mr. Jenkins has shown to Europe over a very long period who will not expect great things from him and who will not support him in every way possible. One of the things that I hope will happen is a much greater move towards a concerted European foreign policy than has been evidenced in the last few years.
What I wanted primarily to say this afternoon was a few words about the Middle East. Though the Arab-Israeli conflict has been relatively quiescent over the last year, there are signs of restlessness—perhaps understandable restlessness—on the part of the Arabs. I said this time last year that there would be very great difficulties unless there were further agreements between the Arabs and the Israelis and that, though individual problems might be solved by a step by step approach, the Arab-Israeli dispute was something that had to be considered as a whole. I still believe that to be true. The situation cannot be left where it is, nor is it possible to leave it where it is. A new peace initiative is now more urgent than it was. However, as in all things at the present time which have to do with foreign affairs, we have to await the appointment of a new American Secretary of State and, indeed, we have to wait to see what will be the policy of President Carter. Mr. Carter very sensibly did not commit himself in specific terms in the field of foreign policy during his election campaign, so none of us knows.
Before we shrug off the old and welcome the new, it would, to say the least of it, be ungenerous not to pay a tribute to Dr. Kissinger. It is fashionable at this moment to decry his achievement. I suppose that that is the lot of all politicians
298
and most people in the public eye at some time or another in their career. I, for one, should like to go on record as saying that he, and he more than anyone else, has been responsible for the peace—even if it has been an uneasy peace—that has prevailed in the Middle East since the Yom Kippur War. He, an American Jew, uniquely won the confidence of the Arabs without losing the friendship of the Israelis. In doing so, he prevented the total polarisation of that dispute into an East-West conflict in which the Arabs would have become identified with the Soviet Union. If Dr. Kissinger had done nothing else—and he has done a great deal more—he would, with that achievement, have rendered a very great service to the whole of mankind.
However, the fact is that, in spite of that, Security Council Resolution No. 242 is not at the moment complied with. The Israelis have not withdrawn from the occupied territories, nor has any security been given to them within their guaranteed borders. If no solution is found to these problems, we shall, once again, have the danger of polarisation and of renewed conflict. I believe that it is true that Soviet influence has waned in the Middle East in the last few months, but there is opportunity for its re-emergence if no progress is made in solving the problem.
For the Arabs and for the Israelis in particular, the present situation is economically appalling. It slows down their economic development and much too much of their gross national product is spent on armaments. For the West, there is always the danger that war or threats of war may bring with them the renewed use of the oil weapon and the economic disasters of three years ago. Certainly Arab diplomacy is expecting a new initiative by the American administration, though I imagine that they will not expect such an initiative until the spring of next year. President Sadat has claimed that a new initiative was part of the Sinai agreement. We can see that the reconciliation between Syria and Egypt, the settlement in the Lebanon and Syria's prompt renewal of the United Nations mandate are all part of that process. It appears that the PLO is under pressure from the Arabs to take a more moderate line. It was interesting to note that Mr. Farouk Kaddoumi, who is the head of the PLO delegation at the United Nations, stated in a recent

299
interview that the PLO was ready to accept a Palestinian State in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan.
All that is to the good, though the latter statement leaves a good many things unclear. It is good that at long last the civil war in the Lebanon has come to an end. Those of us who have been to the Lebanon will have been appalled by the destruction of Beirut and of the basis of prosperity which the Lebanese people have created for themselves. We hope that the settlement will enable them to rebuild their prosperity and their country.
We should therefore be expecting demands for a full-scale conference in Geneva next year and we should be prepared for them. President Sadat has said so in an interview with Mr. Henry Brandon in the Sunday Times. Certainly, some initiative of this kind must take place if momentum is to be maintained. Of course, the position of the Israelis is more difficult. The Israeli Government is in a less strong position than it was a year ago and it will be facing an election next autumn. Nevertheless, the Israeli Government has said that it is ready for direct talks at any time. Your Lordships may have seen a very interesting article in the Financial Times, in which the proposals of Mr. Allon are summarised. Broadly speaking, what Mr. Allon says is that Israel can afford to compromise on territory but it cannot afford to do so on security. It therefore requires defensible borders. Those of us who know that part of the world or who have been there will realise how militarily indefensible would be the position of Israel if the West Bank were returned to the Palestinians. The southern tip comes within a few miles of Tel Aviv. There must be assurance for the Israelis in terms of their security and no settlement of this problem is possible if the Israelis believe that the terms that they are asked to accept are worse than the alternative of sitting it out or fighting it out. Equally, they must and do understand what Mr. Allon has called the "extreme asymetrics" of the situation—the 134 million Arabs and the 3½ million Israelis.
The Israelis have much to lose and so have we. We must hope that Mr. Carter and his new Secretary of State will put their minds to this problem as their first
300
foreign priority. We must hope, too, that Britain and the European Community will play a more active role than they have done hitherto. After all, the Community has been able to adopt a common position on the Arab/Israeli dispute at the United Nations. Let the Government then press for direct Community help in this settlement of the most potentially dangerous problem today.
My Lords, this debate is also about defence, and I here feel a good deal less bipartisan. I have made so many speeches to your Lordships about defence that I feel reluctant to say in essence the same thing over and over again, but I cannot sit down without expressing my alarm about what the Government have done to our defence Forces and my fear that they may well be going to do even more damage. I hope that the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House means that they are fighting in the Cabinet that this should not happen.
I do not know whether your Lordships realise quite how much Her Majesty's Government have cut from the defence programme: £460 million in 1975: £578 million this year; £853 million next year; just under a billion pounds in 1978; and £1,100 million in 1979. I am afraid that I must say to noble Lords opposite that in my judgment they have singled out defence cuts not because they believe that we were spending too much on defence, nor because they believe that the international situation is sufficiently favourable to enable them to do this; one has only to read the speeches of Mr. Roy Mason to know that he, at any rate, believes no such thing. They have singled out defence because in political terms it is easier for them than cutting out anything else, and it preserves the unity of the Labour Party. It is the easiest way out of the problem.
If they are going to cut defence once again as part of the reduction in public expenditure called for by the International Monetary Fund, then in the judgment of Mr. Mason and Field Marshal Sir Michael Carver, and a great many others, and not least myself, they will seriously be putting at risk the security of this country. I see nothing in the relative strengths of East and West which can conceivably excuse the Government's policy; rather the reverse. In the meantime, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and his colleagues that we shall on these Benches,

301
in so far as we can, harry them, and oppose them, and show them up as irresponsible and unconcerned with the security of this country if they seek further to reduce the already inadequate defence Forces of this country.
I said at the beginning that I thought that personal and political contacts are essential if we are to influence events, and it is equally true that contacts are necessary between East and West. Whatever the problems of détente—and we have discussed that often enough in this House—there is no one who would not wish it to succeed if it were genuine and lasting. Helsinki was a start, though I think that all of us, wherever we sit in the House, had our reservations. There is an opportunity to review the progress of the Helsinki Agreement at Belgrade next I year. I very much hope that the Government will use that opportunity thoroughly to examine what has happened. We should not balk at asking awkward questions, not to undermine what has been achieved, but to reinforce the need for more effort and greater will on the part of all of us to relax tensions.
I hope the Government will not let Belgrade be a minor event, non-ministerial, where difficulties are swept under the carpet and we talk of the Security Conference only in terms of a worthless agreement. Treaties are words unless the participants genuinely mean to carry out the obligations they have undertaken. It would be idle to deny that we are disappointed, so far, at what has happened. Perhaps there was too much optimism, but that is not a reason for not seeking a genuine détente between East and West, for to remove the menace of a global war which hangs over the civilised world is perhaps the greatest prize of all.
3.54 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I shall devote my few remarks today almost entirely to the question of defence, leaving it to my colleague Lord Banks to deal with other aspects of foreign affairs, such as direct elections to the European Parliament, Rhodesia, and so on. But, first, I should like to associate myself, and indeed those of us on these Benches, wholeheartedly with the tribute which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, paid to
302
Mr. Roy Jenkins upon his appointment to the post of Commissioner in Brussels, and to express all our hopes for his success in that very important job. I should like also to associate myself with the tribute which the noble Lord paid to Dr. Kissinger who, I agree, has been a very remarkable and, on the whole, a very successful Secretary of State in the most difficult circumstances imaginable.
Every year we debate the foreign affairs and defence aspects of the Queen's Speech. Every year we are effectively told, in what I think I may not improperly describe as rather bland language, if not by Her Majesty herself then at any rate by Her Ministers, that though the position in the world of this country as a second-rate State of the first order of importance, or as a first-rate State of the second order of importance, or whatever the mystical formula may be, has not exactly altered for the better, there is still hope that, through our own exertions, and more particularly perhaps the beneficent effect of détente—to the attainment of which of course Her Majesty's Government have attributed so much—we shall be able to play our full part in world affairs, even if our defences are cut to the bone as, year after year, they invariably are.
Naturally, I should not dissent from—indeed I greatly welcome—the statement of objectives so eloquently put forward just now by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, especially his firm declaration in regard to Europe, which I am sure all Europeans will greatly appreciate. But I myself, speaking more particularly about defence, will probably introduce, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, introduced, a rather more disturbing note into our discussion. I suggest in effect that the general effect of Governmental Statements on these questions year after year is to give the public the impression—I say only that the public get this impression—that there is no really fundamental danger inherent in the great and increasing Soviet military preponderance, since after all, for so long as détente persists, why should they make any evil use of their colossal strength, and, in the second place, that if our defences have so often been cut to the bone without any apparently dire result, why should not the process go on without any distressing consequences? I do not say that this is the right conclusion, but this is a

303
conclusion at which I believe a great part of the public in this country arrive.
But the sad fact is that, as was only to be expected, d½tente has been shown to be a delusion. The follow up to Helsinki, whatever people may say, has been to all intents and purposes negligible, and there must, in the nature of things, be a point at which the vast Soviet preponderance of power will, unless it is somehow corrected, become so overwhelming that it will be made use of to obtain political advantage, to the grave detriment of our free societies, more particularly in this part of the world. We do not of course want to hear such gloomy prognostications, with which we feel unable to cope. We have to reduce our general expenditure anyhow, apparently, if we are to prevent our standard of living from falling below that of Italy, or even perhaps one day below that of Portugal or Greece. Thus, we say to ourselves, we can only shrug our shoulders and hope vaguely for some miracle.
In the meantime we must naturally (as the Government so eloquently say) press ahead towards general and complete disarmament; lead the world in our efforts to assist the underdeveloped countries; support the United Nations; unite against apartheid; deplore aggression; recommend moderation, and, generally speaking, behave in a sensible and civilised way. Unfortunately, the profession of such excellent sentiments does little to disguise the fact that, largely for economic reasons, our actual influence on international events, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said, is now very small, and that the serious ambition of one of the super-Powers, whose influence on events is, after all, all-important, tends in very different directions at the present time.
One might have supposed that, since our condition is so obviously parlous, thought would nevertheless have been given before now to the possibility of getting together more closely with our fellow members of the EEC in order to see how best we could form a more powerful and, above all, a more efficient unit in the Atlantic Alliance by pooling our research and development, rationalising the production of conventional armaments and considering the possibilities of an entirely new form of con-
304
ventional defence in conjunction, of course, with our American allies. One might indeed have thought so. The European Parliament recommended our doing precisely this over a year ago. So did Mr. Tindemans, the main proposals of whose report (although perhaps the Government may think differently) seem to be in process of being consigned, page by page, to the dustbin—or, rather, to consideration in the remote future.
There may, it is true, have been some slight move in the direction I have been suggesting. A year ago a body known. I think, as the European Programme Group, was formed, consisting of the directors of armaments of the nations represented in the Eurogroup, plus France—a very good thing⁁in order to consider whether there was any prospect of harmonising the production in Europe of certain armamemts. So far, nothing has been heard of the labours of this group. I think it is very unlikely, but it would be interesting if the Minister who is to reply could give us some slight indication of what, if anything, is going on. I am pretty certain he will not, but I think he should. Unfortunately, there is little reason to think that, though the constitution of this group is at least a sign of grace, it will ever achieve anything. unless it is given some kind of political directive from the top.
Then there was the plan attributed not long ago to Mr. Vredeling, the Netherlands Minister of Defence—now, I believe, nominated to the Commission—for some new defensive system in Western Europe coupled with the possible creation of a nuclear-free zone. The difficulties in the way of such a system are, as we all know, very considerable. But what happened to it when and if it was discussed by his fellow Ministers? These things should not be shrouded in mystery; they should be openly debated. Presumably silence has concealed the fact that Mr. Vredeling's colleagues were embarrassed even by the idea of discussing such matters at all.
There has also recently been a meeting in London of the NATO Nuclear Planning Group. Was there any indication of the Ministers of the Community considering a common line at that meeting? But presumably there is no question of Her Majesty's Government taking any initiative in this matter at the present time.

305
All they can do is to try desperately to keep their heads above the engulfing economic tide.
We are not, I understand, discussing the Statement made a few minutes ago in the House of Commons regarding the last meeting of the European Council, which I have had time only to glance at and not even to read; but my general impression, though I hope I am wrong, is that it was probably, in its essentials, the biggest flop since Copenhagen. In any case, there was no question of the crucial matter of defence being considered at that particular conference. Why? Why could not Her Majesty's Government consider making any such move? Because, apart from anything else, to raise it there would be to alienate the affections of their Left-Wing supporters, whose assistance, so we are told, is essential if the Social Contract is to be observed, and renewed, and the whole country saved from chaos, bankruptcy and general impotence.
Why do the Left-Wing members of the Labour Party object so strongly, as they do, to any move designed to strengthen our conventional defences, and at the same time save some £3 billion by pooling our research and development and rationalising the production of armaments, or at the least to arrive at what is now called the "interoperability" of certain essential weapons? No doubt, my Lords, for ideological reasons and for a strong inclination not to displease the Russians, who have indeed repeatedly said that any such effort would be inconsistent with détente (as defined by the Soviet Government), and in any case incompatible with the objectives of the conference on MBRF in Vienna. Interpreted, what this means is that since, by definition, all the free societies of the West are in what the Communists call the imperialist camp, they must not be in any position to defend themselves until they have broken with America, accepted a directed, or Marx-Leninist, form of economy, and consequently come into the all-embracing fold of the so-called popular democracies. There are undoubtedly some people in this country—and indeed some prominent in our politics, though perhaps not many—who would subscribe to these ends, even if not overtly: and not only in this country, of course, but elsewhere in Europe.
Timidity about defence is not only evident among those who are afraid of
306
provoking the Left: it is also shared by those who are dubious about taking any initiative which might question the continuing willingness of the Americans to station their forces in Europe. The first objective I have already dealt with. If we are ever to be dominated by Left Wing thinking on foreign affairs and defence, then, frankly, we are finished, and will end up, if we are lucky, with something like the Deutsche Demokratische Republik. But the second is an understandable, if, as I think, misguided, apprehension. For nothing would probably please the United States Government better than some decision on the part of the members of the EEC to strengthen their collective defensive effort, and indeed to initiate serious proposals for what is called a "two-way street" for the production and supply of armaments. In any case—and this, I think, is something which I think my colleagues on these Benches would particularly feel—the ugly scramble for armaments orders among the larger members of the Community is becoming something of a scandal. How can you arrive at a common foreign policy if one member of the Community is arming country A and another its great rival, country B? Markets should surely be shared out in accordance with some main political plan, and this should be discussed at the highest level, presumably in the European Council.
To illustrate the necessity for standardising armaments, let me give your Lordships one quotation from an excellent pamphlet by a certain Mr. Gardiner Tucker, who was, I believe, a member of the NATO staff. It was published recently by the Atlantic Institute, and here it is in resumé. He says:
"The first major consequence of 'de-standardisation' is the dissipation of research and development resources. The ACE Mobile Force (AMF) consists of units from seven member countries. These units train and operate together and would be the first integrated NATO force on the scene. With seven nations contributing there are seven different types of combat aircraft; six different types of recoilless rifle; four different types of wire-guided anti-tank weapons; three different types each of mortar, rifles and machine guns. Moreover, each of the seven national units must maintain its own logistic personnel and establish its own logistic support. Thus they cannot draw on host country supplies but must bring in their full supplies with them from the start. In sum, and apart from anything else, the absence of standardisation means that it takes twice as long to deploy the force than would otherwise be the case".

307
My Lords, you may well be appalled by such revelations but it is only one small example of our disarray. Most national airfields, for instance, can supply and reload only the types of aircraft in the air force of the host nation. There are no common IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) systems. In NATO there are 100 different types of warships of destroyer class or larger; 36 different types of radars; 40 different types of guns and consequently of ammunition; and so it goes on. If your Lordships still question the fearful situation produced by "de-standardisation" you have only to read the excellent article by Mr. Julian Critchley in last Monday's The Times. It is difficult to imagine how we could even begin to hold up, by conventional means, any conventional assault by a highly trained and standardised force about three times as powerful as ours. It is a grim thought that by our feckless improvidence and ingrained nationalistic prejudices we are, month by month, widening the fatal nuclear threshold.
There are, of course, practical difficulties in the way of proceeding in the direction suggested, notably the hesitant attitude of France towards co-operation with anybody in the field of defence and the strongly nationalistic stance of both the Gaullist and the Communist Parties. There is also a lurking, if seldom expressed, fear on the part of the Germans that they may one day perhaps be deserted by their Western European partners and have to rely on a straight German-American alliance. And perhaps that any conflict, even a conventional one, could in view of the rapidly increasing urbanisation of the Federal Republic only have fearful consequences whatever the result might be.
My Lords, the best way to overcome all these fears and place the alliance on a sounder and more durable foundation would be for the British to raise the whole question of European defence within the framework of the alliance in the European Council. However, for this we shall probably have to await—if events allow us to wait so long—the arrival of some kind of broadly-based government in this country and some consequent resurgence of national confidence and initiative.
Perhaps I could end with a few words on détente. Nobody in his senses wants war, either hot or cold. But the sad
308
fact is that for so long as the Soviet Union bases itself on the postulate, as it does, that capitalism, or imperialism, or the bourgeoisie or whatever the name they give to the system which we know as democratic and pluralistic is something which must be overthrown and undermined by all means short of war—and even in the last resort, and if necessary, by warlike measures—"tension" must continue. That is on the assumption that our free societies resist the efforts made to transform them into "popular democracies", by which is meant directed economies in which all personal freedom disappears. There is not the slightest good thinking that you can somehow persuade the rulers of the Soviet Union to abandon this stance by the exercise of reason or even by the exercise of pressure. These men believe—and I should say that they genuinely believe—that the capitalists, the imperialists, the bourgeoisie and so on are on the way out, betrayed by their own inner contradictions and corrupted by their luxurious and permissive mode of life. I must say that sometimes I can hardly blame them; for if we go on as we are going on now, failing to discipline ourselves, failing to make collective sacrificies and, above all, failing to unite, we shall certainly deserve our fate.
So I can only once again express the ever-diminishing hope that the Governments of the Community—and more particularly Her Majesty's Government during the period of the British Presidency—will make a real attempt to make the institutions of the Community function. It is arguable that the one hope of achieving this end is to elect directly the Members of the European Parliament and then allow them to bring the necessary pressures to bear on those nationalist elements all over Europe who seem determined to see to it that we all hang separately. But while this may well be so, it is not impossible that even before the European direct elections this nation will be so shaken by internal and external events that it will throw up a leader who will understand where our European destiny lies and persuade not only his countrymen but also our immediate neighbours to walk towards it.
4.14 p.m.
Lord WEIDENFELD: My Lords, the distinguished contributions from the Front

309
Benches have had the immediate effect upon me to want to shorten my speech and to lighten the burden of listening because some of the points made were those that I should have liked to make, although without the eloquence and authority of experienced, indeed great, Parliamentarians. None the less, I feel that I may have to draw heavily on your Lordships' good will when, addressing you for the first time, I ask you to share some thoughts and findings on our relations with Europe. I say "findings" because, as a publisher, I have to be in continuing touch with European opinion and opinion makers and have just returned from a trip to the Continent where I talked to some political leaders and people in business, in industry, in the universities and the arts, trying to discover something about their attitude towards us and their present mood.
Of course, the state of Britain is in the forefront of discussion everywhere and causes deep concern, but all sensible Europeans agree that what is fashionably described as the English malady is, deep down, a European ailment. It is an Irish, Italian, Danish, French malady. Even the affluent Germans are uneasy and, like Wagnerian Nibelungs, they sit on their Rhinegold in fear that the heroic cycle might end with the "Twilight of the Gods". All Europeans have at various times and in varying degrees shared such symptoms as inflation, stagnation, self doubt, apocalyptic prophecies of doom. Yet what is striking about our neighbours, or some of them, is that even when they are in trouble, even when they are in conflict with one another, when they pugnaciously or obstreperously fight for their national interests (as they have done earlier this week), they tend to think at the same time in both a national and European way. Yet they think and feel that we in Britain tend to see our problems somewhat in isolation and do not reach out spontaneously for European understanding as well as help. It is still felt that Britain may have joined the club but has not quite entered the family.
This thinking is not confined to our European neighbours. I should like to recall a constructive intervention by my noble friends Lord Northfield and Lord Vaizey in your Lordships' House when they argued that we should go to the
310
Governments of the Community as members of a tightly-knit family and do everything we can to develop and harmonise our financial and industrial policies with the Community. We should have no inhibitions about speaking plainly and forcefully for while today it may be our turn to approach them, tomorrow it will be their turn to seek our help in the same ringing tones of urgency. While everybody expects Britain to remain attached to her world-wide and especially her trans-Atlantic links, her friends in Europe hope that she will add to that sense of world co-operation an increasingly effective sense of her European ties; in other words, a European dimension.
My Lords, another strong impression that I gained abroad is that there is a marked difference in attitudes between the older and the younger generations towards the European Community. On one level, the EEC is an established fact for all, a working proposition. It may be humdrum, cumbersome, at times maddening and impersonal, but it is a fact of everyday life. Yet among the young there is none of that enthusiasm and faith which inspired European youth in the 1940s and 1950s. Worse, there is today a crisis of confidence in Europe which often goes hand in hand with a deep malaise and scepticism about democratic institutions and Parliamentary government in general.
There are few torches lit now for Europe in the streets and on the campuses. At the same time, the Third World seems to be able to rally and mobilise tens of thousands of young people in support of many of its political movements and social causes. Some of these are worthwhile and are not in conflict with the ideals of the Community. After all, Europe contributes an enormous amount of aid to the Third World. But social injustice, poverty and squalor are not only to be found in the desert and the bush. Just as David Livingstone, when he went to Africa, left behind the jungle of Clydeside, there are still distressed areas of Europe, pockets of grinding poverty and want. Surely here is real scope for the crusading zeal of young Europeans. Here is scope for experienced voluntary effort, and this is perhaps where our country may take the lead. Britain has an unrivalled world reputation with the expertise and progressive nature of its voluntary bodies.

311
She has a right and a duty to encourage the European Community to tap the resources of an unofficial European network in domestic and external fields of social welfare. In fact, this network of voluntary organisations throughout Europe might well be a third social partner, working alongside employers and trade unions.
In this context, what are the specific initiatives that our representatives in Brussels might take? I think they could work for the extension of the existing "Pilot Projects Against Poverty Programme", now restricted, alas!, to two years. They could work for the development of a true social fund to be used widely and not just for problems connected with employment. They could aim at bringing together all bodies using volunteers to discuss the possibilities of a Community programme which could cope with natural disasters and longer-term social problems. Perhaps in time it could form the nucleus of an international emergency corps, to which both the United Nations and NATO could turn. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, speak about this topic yesterday at Question Time.
In spite of our economic priorities, we must not fail to continue and extend our educational and cultural exchanges. All exchanges within the Community, even when they are bilateral, strengthen the Community as a whole. I was very struck by a recent poll conducted in Germany and France when people under 30, over a wide social spectrum, were asked which foreign nation they admired and liked most. The largest number of French named Germany, and the majority of Germans named France. This is quite clearly the result of a systematic purposeful policy of Franco/German youth exchanges.
Finally, my Lords, the sphere in which, in the opinion of most Europeans I talked to, the British ingredient is expected to be felt most positively and effectively, is our active role in a directly elected European Parliament. Everyone agrees that this country, with its centuries of tradition in constitutional government, its instinctive rather than studied approach to free speech can make a decisive contribution to a democratic Europe.
A positive European policy at this juncture has an added relevance: during
312
the coming months, Britain's visibility in the European counsels will be high, for the new President of the Commission and the next Chairman of the Council of Ministers will come from this country. We can all be sure that Mr. Roy Jenkins and Mr. Anthony Crosland will excel in competence and efficiency. I simply urge that they bring vision and vigour to their task; that, undeterred by the strains of acrimonious debate and transient conflicts, they do not forget the cause of European solidarity, which may yet prove the hardest currency of all.
4.25 p.m.
Lord TREVELYAN: My Lords, your Lordships' debate this afternoon is remarkable for having a sandwich in it inside out: an old, rather stale piece of bread and, on either side, a liberal helping of jam. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, is a publisher with a most distinguished list who has been enlightening us for a very long time. I do not hold it against him that he declined to accept a manuscript of mine on the somewhat curious but, I have no doubt, fully justified grounds that it was too short. I congratulate him on his lively and stimulating speech. We are looking forward greatly to the speech of the next speaker, the noble Viscount who holds a name famous in our history.
I should like to support, with the utmost brevity, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on three points. First, what he said about our Ambassador in Chile. I thought that the principles that he annunciated on where to place ambassadors were those which we had adopted, certainly throughout my career. I am sure that if we had decided to have ambassadors only in places having Governments of which we approved, I should have been en disponibilité for the whole of my career. I should like to support his tribute to Dr. Kissinger whose three great achievements I might describe as, first, getting his priorities right; second, understanding the Russians and the Chinese; and, thirdly, making more progress in the Middle East than anyone could have believed possible. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, also on his view—which I hold—that at this point the only course to take in the Middle East is to

313
establish a conference at Geneva as soon as possible. That is mainly a responsibility of the Americans; but I feel sure that we can do a great deal in our relations with the Americans.
I shall confine myself this afternoon to some observations on Western negotiations with the Soviet Union. A good definition of what we ought to mean by détente is the management of our relations with the growing Soviet power for the purpose of helping to secure the peace and making our relations with the Soviet Union somewhat easier without weakening our defences. Diplomacy is, of course, a permanent process, not a matter only of ad hoc conferences, and no one can have any doubt that we must be in permanent negotiation with that mighty Power which shares with the Americans the ultimate responsibility for the destiny of this planet.
The framework of the peace is the nuclear balance between the two super Powers, as we all know, even if we do not always admit it. It is, if you like to call it such, a balance of terror. In India recently I found a disposition to regard this as a new and perilous stage in world history which should and could be surpassed in the foreseeable future. I believe this to be a mistaken concept. Perilous it is, but we cannot get rid of it and we should remind ourselves that the peace has often been kept by a balance of forces and destroyed by their imbalance. We must learn not only to live with it, but must help in whatever way we can to support it and make it firm, which will require constant effort. It will remain for a long time the basis of our existence, and the emergence of new centres of power such as China will not alter the basic situation for a long time to come.
The most important diplomatic negotiations will therefore remain the American-Soviet talks—permanent talks—on the limitation of strategic weapons. I am no expert on nuclear weapons, but the most superficial knowledge of the new generation of weapons, such as the cruise missile, relatively cheap and with, I read, an accuracy of 100 feet in a range of 1,500 miles, makes one realise that we are approaching a most dangerous stage when weapon control will only be achieved in the face of most formidable difficulties.
314
In our relations with the Soviet Union we in this country are more directly concerned in other aspects of disarmament. I believe we should continue to cast doubts on the perennial Soviet proposal, recently renewed by Mr. Gromyko, for a world disarmament conference. How can such a conference avoid becoming a battle ground for conflicting propaganda? It is surely better to concentrate on more limited objectives which give a chance of practical results—notably the efforts to prevent atomic weapons getting into the hands of any Government which might be tempted to use them—and the talks in Vienna for the limitation of forces in Central Europe. The talks in Vienna seem to me to be making little if any progress, and we must be prepared for a long slog over many years. We must never give them up; but they will not get anywhere until the Russians confirm that they no longer insist on maintaining the existing relative positions after the reduction in armaments.
Ideally, we should be pursuing other regional agreements for the limitation of arms supply by Governments and for the control of private arms sales. The great increase in arms supplies to the smaller and newer States is appallingly dangerous and criminally wasteful of resources required for economic development, but I see little hope of much progress towards such agreements until there is much more confidence between the Communist and non-Communist Governments and, in particular, a relaxation of the ideological struggle.
We face vast Soviet forces on land and sea and can never wholly discount the risk that some Soviet leaders might be tempted to use them in a way which they might calculate would not involve nuclear weapons. The proposal made at the last Warsaw Pact meeting does not make for confidence in this matter. But the present Soviet leaders, at least, are not any more than the Americans, likely to cross the fairly well-defined lines beyond which encroachment involves unacceptable nuclear risks. We can accept that they are sincere in their policy of détente in so far as it means that they want to diminish the danger of widespread nuclear destruction. Their public line on their relations with the United States is in accordance with this position, in spite of their periodical grumbles about a bloc of

315
enemies of peace and détente. But Soviet policy has another face. It is, they declare:
"a class policy, because it proceeds from a realistic understanding of those profound differences which make competition between the two systems and a battle of ideas objectively inevitable".
They maintain the right to intervene in any part of the world in support of any contestant in a local struggle for power who they think can be brought to their side. This is what they call "a national liberation struggle". They demand that we should not object. We are to see no inconsistency between the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference and the maintenance of the ideological struggle; and the struggle should not, they declare, affect their bilateral relations with other countries. The two aspects of Soviet policy, the maintenance of the nuclear balance and the peace, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the ideological struggle, are to be kept in separate compartments.
I do not suggest that the Western Powers are paragons of virtue in their international conduct. So long as the ideological struggle continues, the Americans and their allies will act in support of people fighting for their independence against Communist infiltration, in much the same way as the Russians act in their efforts to promote the Communist ideology; and if the Russians accuse the West of still conducting the Cold War, because we neither accept their ideology nor remain inactive in the face of their efforts to change people's political systems, we should remind them that they are explicitly conducting a struggle of ideas and should not give bad names to others who are doing the same.
How, then, can we tackle this problem? We cannot accept that the Russians can have it both ways, that détente is divisible to suit their ideological and diplomatic requirements. But, on the other hand, we do not want to relapse into hostility, which will endanger the foundations of the peace. We have to accept that the ideological struggle exists and will continue to exist. But we can at least attempt to get an understanding, if not explicity, that the game should be carried on in accordance with rules which will ensure that it will neither unduly embitter inter-State relations nor endanger the peace. The first rule must be restraint, and the next example over which we shall expect
316
restraint from the Russians concerns Rhodesia—particularly if we are left with an awful mess—about which some intemperate articles have recently appeared in the Soviet Press. On our side, we shall respond to evidence of Soviet restraint, although we must at the same time hope that Mr. Carter can prevent the United States Congress suffering from a fit of pique and advertising to the opposing team that they will leave the field clear for their opponents to shoot as many goals as they like.
Another important negotiation will be the review of the Helsinki Agreement by the Foreign Ministers in May 1977. I leave aside the commercial and economic questions in basket 2, important though they are. Apart from the limping negotiations between the EEC and Comecon, they are largely in the shape of bilateral agreements for economic and technical co-operation—the Russians being, perfectly fairly, concerned to pick up Western technology on the cheap, and the Western negotiators being concerned to secure profitable contracts in competition with each other.
There will doubtless be a long wrangle over the contents of basket 3, in the sphere of social and cultural relations. Here again the Soviet politicians are equivocal in their declarations. A Soviet writer declares,
"the relaxation of tension presupposes an extension of cultural relations, the expansion of Soviet policy and of contacts between individuals and the exchange of information".
So far so good; but then he goes on to say:
"Our country has signed many agreements and is going to carry them out scrupulously, but we have not agreed to facilitate actions designed to harm Socialism. Plans of reactionary circles that are connected with this have no bearing on the relevant sections of the document signed in Helsinki".
We have recently seen how that is interpreted. The customary crop of exchanges under cultural agreements which we welcome—librarians, language teachers, dentists and so on—will be carried out with precision; but if the BBC broadcasts a statement of a Soviet citizen expelled from his country, the Director-General will not be given a visa. We do not agree with this dichotomy, but it will not help to stand in a corner and sulk.
The whole social system of the Soviet Union is not going to be changed, whatever

317
the terms of the Helsinki Agreement. We must continue to press for a freer exchange of ideas and peoples, insisting that while our Press and radio are free to attack, Soviet, and indeed British and American policy of all kinds, we are not trying to destroy the internal Soviet system, whatever we may think of it, but we are trying only to make peaceful co-existence mean what it says, both ways.
I have recently had the opportunity to visit the Soviet Union as a member of a party under the auspices of Chatham House, for a general discussion of political and economic questions, known as the Anglo-Soviet Round Table, with a Soviet party under the auspices of the Soviet Institute of World Economy and International Politics, which is a branch of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. My colleagues were, I think, a strong delegation, including, unbeknownst to us, a shadow Foreign Secretary and an EEC commissioner.
The intellectual quality of this Russian party was in every way the equal of theirs. The Russians have developed an interesting system of academic institutes covering the world, alongside the normal machinery of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs. One goes to these meetings wondering whether they will prove to be anything more than the exchange of well-worn formulae. But this meeting was, in my opinion, well worthwhile because the Soviet participants were prepared for frank discussions of all aspects of political and economic importance to an extent which I had not hitherto experienced—even to an exchange of views on the relations between Soviet and Western European Communism, Soviet relations with the developing countries and the issues about which I have spoken this afternoon. I am confirmed in my view, strongly held, that we must be in permanent negotiation with representatives of the Soviet Union at all levels, and that these negotiations should be regularly supplemented by unofficial discussions with the Soviet academic institutes such as we in Chatham House are now undertaking on an annual basis. Contact with power must be maintained.
4.39 p.m.
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEIN: My Lords, as this is the first
318
time I have addressed your Lordships' House, I ask your special indulgence. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has been very kind in advance, and I hope he will be so afterwards. He has already made my task more difficult, but I can assure him that I shall be short. However, I doubt whether I can comply with the other two adjectives.
I should like to start by thanking the many noble Lords from all sides of the House who took part in the Defence debate in April this year, for the very generous tributes that they paid to my late father. I have read the Report of the debate with great interest, and the kind remarks were very much appreciated by myself and by my family. It is rather difficult to follow such an extraordinary man—better to pursue an entirely different course in life. Those who knew him will not be surprised to hear that he agreed with this philosophy.
Turning to the subject of foreign affairs, I should like to say a few words about Latin America which has been, and unfortunately still is, somewhat neglected by this country. The last time that your Lordships' House occupied itself with Latin America at any length was in January 1972, in a debate initiated by the late Lord Cowley, who was very sadly taken from us at an early age at the start of a promising career. In speaking on this subject I must declare an interest, and possibly even some prejudice, as I have myself been closely involved with the Latin American scene for the last 22 years, and advise British companies on the promotion of business in and with that Continent.
There is no doubt that the majority of the 20 Republics are stable, their economies are sound and the people are friendly and only too willing to do business with us. Inevitably, this is a sweeping generalisation, as there are many differences in detail, but this is not the right occasion to go further and there is not time. The important point remains that great good will exists towards the United Kingdom in all the Latin American countries, and we should be taking greater advantage of this favourable position.
There was a time, towards the early part of this century, when Britain was the principal overseas trading partner and

319
accounted for a major part of the total foreign trade of the area. This position has been gradually eroded by competition, and other circumstances, to the extent that we now account for only about 3 per cent. of total Latin American trade. I think it is important that we realise how our competitive position in Latin America has changed in the last few years. In 1972, British exports to Latin America amounted to £339 million, whereas by 1975 they had risen to £686 million. This is a very important quantitative increase and reflects great credit on all concerned.
However, the key fact is that the export figure for 1972 represented about 5 per cent. of total Latin American imports, whereas the increased value for 1975 comprised only about 3½ per cent. This will give your Lordships some understanding of the spectacular growth rate of the Latin American countries, and the consequent growth of export opportunity. It àlso shows—and this is not quite so good—that we are not keeping pace with their growth rate, and that we are losing our proportionate share of this valuable and growing market. Your Lordships may feel that these trade figures—nearly £700 million—are not very significant in terms of total Biritsh trade, and represent only about 3 to 4 per cent. of our total overseas trade. This is quite true, but it is the future that matters and the growth rate in the countries concerned.
Although it is presumptuous of me to say this as a new boy, I believe that your Lordships' House as presently constituted—and I hope it will stay this way—should be occupying itself with long-term strategic matters. In this context, Latin America should figure more and more in the deliberations of Her Majesty's Government. There are some other encouraging signs, such as the increasing volume of business visitors in both directions. In May this year, we had a most welcome State visit by President Geisel from Brazil, and last week an equally important official visit from the President of Venezuela. We need to have more visits of this kind and, at the same time, more visits by British Ministers to Latin America. I recommend to Her Majesty's Government that, although we are moving in the right direction, we are still not doing nearly enough. We are continually
320
reminded—as if there were any need—of the importance of exports and overseas trade. Here are the opportunities. I hope that we will take them.
4.45 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to welcome to this House the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. We all knew his father extremely well, chiefly in your Lordships' House. Of course, we soldiers knew him otherwise. As well as winning a series of battles of great importance to this country, he had the great gift of making a big problem seem small so that we fellows could understand it. I detect the same spirit in the noble Viscount. He was very careful to pursue an entirely different line from that of his father, with which, apparently, his father agreed, and talked to us about South America. Not many of us know a great deal about South America and it was a very good subject. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, has great experience of Europe and I hope that both he and the noble Viscount will speak very often indeed.
I should like to speak about the possibility of cuts in the Defence Vote, which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke about. I do not have the figures, but the noble Lord read them out and they made our spines creep. If the cuts go on like this, they will have a very great effect, not only through weakening the Defence Services, but also on morale. Morale is not something that one can talk about; it is just there. It is difficult to estimate, but it is a serious matter. To take an example, the 1975 cuts in NATO were fairly bad, and we in the House of Lords Defence Study Group talked in Brussels to the Head of the Military Committee, who spoke roughly as follows. The British had a difficult time in February, 1975—this was January, 1976, by the way—getting their own cuts reluctantly agreed by the Allies, particularly in regard to the Northern flank in Norway. As Head of the Military Committee, he had naturally not contacted the Ministry of Defence, but he considered NATO, which he represented, to be on the edge of a precipice. Furthermore, he said, now that the Soviets have a superiority of 2½ to 1, and their previous disadvantage of quality—we used to think that we had an edge on them in quality—has disappeared,

321
any more cuts will mean NATO going over the edge of the precipice. I think that that is very serious. The Queen, in Her gracious Speech, said the following:
"My Government will continue to contribute modern and effective forces to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation".
That is quite short, of course. As NATO is the linch-pin, and admittedly so, let us all hope that this will be so. In my opinion, it is high time that education, health, roads and local government had to bear their share of the cuts. Defence has been cut more than enough.
To that we must add the following four facts. First, we must add Northern Ireland, which is a continuing drain on the Army and the Royal Air Force. Secondly, we could not even spare a small warship to go to the Seychelles for their Independence celebrations. This showed that we were short of ships. Thirdly, for years we have been unable to send a brigade group and the Royal Navy, and the Royal Air Force, in suitable forces, to any overseas emergency. Fourthly, one-third of the strength of the Royal Air Force Transport Command has been cut. I do not like to speak of their morale.
On top of these facts, the Supreme Commander, General Haig, who recently addressed both Houses of Parliament, has warned the NATO allies that they cannot reduce their forces without very serious risks. The Supreme Commander was only repeating President Ford when he said:
"Defence spending provides no benefit except the most precious benefit of all, the freedom of our country."
I think that this applies to the United Kingdom as well as to any other ally.
One more effect of the weakening of our defences and the fact that we have no force at all is the effect upon British Embassies overseas and visiting Ministers. They are negotiators who have no force behind them. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned this when he said that the British voice in Europe is remarkably small.
I have taken six examples—Singapore, the Persian Gulf, Rhodesia, Cyprus, Angola, Vietnam and Cambodia. Dealing first with Singapore, we cut out live frigates East of Suez, a battalion in
322
Singapore, a squadron of Nimrods and a few helicopters. For the sake of £10 million annually, we gave up not only a military presence in South-East Asia, which is bad enough, but also a military promise to our friends in Australia and New Zealand. I want to say only a word or two about the Persian Gulf. Britain had only small forces there, and since our withdrawal the Persian Gulf has been quite peaceful. Incidentally, the rest of the Middle East has been far from peaceful since the British withdrew from the Canal. However, in my opinion, the theory that small British forces can be replaced by British Embassies has yet to be proved.
Turning to Rhodesia, since UDI we have always made it clear that we would not use force. Now, with the possibility of continuing war with guerrillas, who are openly supported by the Communists, we may soon face the dilemma (although I hope that we do not) of whether we should assist a British territory, however illegal, against a Communist supported régime. I feel that we ought to give up straight away aid to Mozambique. Cyprus is admittedly a horrible problem which has been with us for 30 or 40 years. The Treaty of Guarantee of 1960 was engineered by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. I think he was a marvellous man. Under that Treaty, we were one of the three guaranteeing Powers and we:
"reserved the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty".
When Mr. Callaghan was questioned upon it by the Select Committee of the House of Commons he admitted that we had a legal obligation to do so, but he did not accept the moral obligation and made it clear that the British Government were concerned principally with safeguarding British families and holidaymakers. In other words, we should never have become a guaranteeing Power if we had no intention of acting. This is a good example of Britain's word not being worth anything overseas. May I remind your Lordships that on this occasion Britain was acting less as a Colonial power than as a loyal member of NATO.
If I may deal next with Angola, can noble Lords imagine Angola happening before World War II, or even quite a short time ago? Leaving out the local effects, the fact remains that the Soviet

323
Navy has a friendly port in Luanda—it is quite a good port, by the way; I have been there—and we are making it easier for the Soviets by abrogating the Simonstown Agreement. In other words, they have a free run around the Cape. We must expect more Soviet bases in West Africa; we must not be a bit surprised. Turning to Vietnam, as a result of the Communist victory in South Vietnam and Cambodia, the balance of power has changed in favour of Communism; yet this is the moment when, for the sake of £10 million, we pull out. Ought we not, observing many of our essential raw materials, quite apart from our old friends, to stiffen our resolve to fight Communism wherever it goes against our interests?
In conclusion, while we have saved money, this raises the question whether we ought to have saved it. Even if we stick to the present economies we must not make the situation worse. We regard NATO as a linch-pin, yet we have helped our allies to the edge of a precipice. In the overseas world—not wishing to be a world policeman; we gave that up years ago—our word, not backed by the threat of force, already means little. I am very sorry for British Embassies abroad; it must be very difficult for them. Successive cuts, made mostly by this Government, are very bad for morale in the three Services, and they must stop. Apart from weakening our defences, we risk three things: First, the British will have no "say" in the world overseas; second, the morale in the three Services may drop to a low which we cannot afford, and, third, our foreign policy will collapse.
5 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, will not expect me to agree with him in what he has been saying to the House. He will find, however, that during the course of my speech I shall be commenting upon many of the issues which he has raised. I should like to join with others in welcoming the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, and the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. They both spoke from personal experience of the problems which they raised in this House and I am quite sure that your Lordships will greatly welcome further contributions from them. I should like to make an
324
apology. I regret very much that this evening I am fulfilling an important engagement for an honourable Member of another place and I shall not be able to stay for the whole of the debate. It is perhaps one of the advantages of this Chamber that we can get away to such engagements, when in another place there is only a majority of one and a departure might be fatal.
I want to begin with a reference to something which is not strictly within the sphere of foreign affairs but which nevertheless is very concerned with the issues of war and peace. It is to pay a tribute to the women of Northern Ireland who, in a remarkable way during these past few weeks, have revealed the desire of the thousands of their fellow citizens for peace in that violence-dominated area. It seems to me amazing that two ordinary housewives in Andersonstown, outraged by the murder of children, should have been able to create this kind of movement in Ireland. Thousands marching, the bells in the churches ringing, the international recognition which they have obtained. If some of us have refrained from identifying ourselves with the movement it is because we have been involved in Northern Irish affairs and wish to respect their neutrality, but I am perfectly sure that those who take a different view about Irish affairs will wish to express their appreciation of the courage and imagination of those women and the hope that the initiative they have taken may bring peace to Ireland.
The area of foreign affairs covers a very wide field. One would like to speak of the gulf between the rich and poor nations. I welcome what the Prime Minister said in the City of London on this subject and what the Minister of State has said today in his remarks. One would like to speak of the dangers in the Middle East. I find myself in the unusual position that I think I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said upon that subject. But if one is to be effective one must concentrate upon particular issues and I turn to the other area of the world where I believe there is the greatest danger of conflict today; namely, Southern Africa.
Rhodesia is the immediate issue. I welcome the fact that at Geneva the deadlock about the date of independence has been postponed. I hope that advice

325
I have given may have influenced that a little. I do not think it possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, for us to discuss in detail the problems which are now raised at Geneva. I think one can only lay down certain principles and the first principle that must be recognised is that Britain has responsibility for what is happening in Rhodesia. It remains a British Colony; it has had an illegal government for 11 years but in the last resort it is our responsibility. But I want to accept this, that in the present situation it is tremendously important that any initiative which the British Government take in Rhodesia shall have the support of the rest of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations and it is only if we internationalise the problem of Rhodesia in that way that we are likely to have the strength to reach a satisfactory solution.
Rhodesia is only the fringe of the problem of Southern Africa and I think we have very clearly to face an issue to decide what our conduct should be. The issue is this: which is the greater motive—is it the fear of Communism in South Africa or is it a belief in African democratic rights? I raise this issue particularly today because of an article which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, contributed to The Times on 22nd November. I have given the noble Lord notice that I was going to raise this issue. The article was under a five column heading "When will the West remove its blinkers and see what is happening in Africa?" His argument was that the Soviet Union is taking over Southern Africa and that our majorconcern should be to prevent it from doing so.
I always read the articles written by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in The Times. I am tremendously interested in them. I do not pretend to be able to discuss the military problems which he raises, but I do know something about Africa and I am absolutely amazed that anyone should write on that subject with the influence of leading pages of The Times and reveal so much ignorance of the subject.
I take two instances. He includes Tanzania with two other African countries as—and I quote "firmly within the Russian orbit". The Russian orbit of three countries out of 32 States in Africa, and he includes Tanzania! He might have had some authority for suggesting
326
that Tanzania was influenced towards China. China has built its great railway, though in fact Tanzania has resisted every effort to put strings to any aid that has been given. But to suggest Tanzania is in the Soviet orbit! Does not the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, remember that great speech of President Nyerere of Tanzania in which he said that the real issue in the world today is not between East and West, but with the rich and the poor nations of the world, and in which he included the Soviet Union among the rich nations to which he was opposed? That anyone should include Tanzania in the Soviet orbit in Africa is a revelation of great ignorance about the subject.
My Lords, I take a second, almost unbelievable, example. The noble Lord names Nkomo, now engaged in the negotiations in Geneva as,
"Moscow's official nominee as leader of the black majority"
in Rhodesia. Nkomo is the most moderate of the representatives at Geneva. He is, indeed, being attacked as a representative of the West and of Britain. Yet in this article there is a suggestion that he is the tool of the Soviet Union. As one might expect, the article emphasises what has happened in Angola, which has been reflected in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, due to the fact that in the struggle which took place Russian arms were provided and Cuban troops were present. I have been against all foreign intervention in Angola or anywhere else—Russian or Cuban. But one must remember that there was CIA intervention in Angola before that of the Soviet Union, or the presence of Cuban troops. One should remember that in fact Cuban troops entered Angola only after the invasion by South African troops.
There was a remarkable article in the Guardian of 25th November, analysing the present position in Angola. It demonstrated that Soviet claims to have bases there have been rejected by the Angolan Government. It points out that the constitution of Angola forbids the presence of bases there. There is quoted a statement by the Minister of Information that Angola will not invade Namibia with its own troops, or allow Cuban troops to do so. So far from Angola becoming part of the Soviet system in

327
Southern Africa, its socialism is distinct. I would say it was a combination of Algeria and Tanzania, and I know President Neto. I know how dedicated he is to an African socialism distinct from either the Soviet Union or from China. I know how dedicated he is to the cause of non-alignment.
My Lords, the other subject with which I wish briefly to deal is that of the present position of détente between East and West. Détente is now theoretically accepted by the West, by America and by the Communist countries. Yet now there is a very great danger of a new cold war campaign. It was illustrated in America by Mr. Reagan when he stood for the Presidency. He did not win, but politically the Republican Party endorsed his views. Even President Ford said he would not use the word "détente" again; he would use only the phrase, "peace through strength". This has been illustrated in this country by the speeches of the Leader of the Conservative Party, Margaret Thatcher. In the Soviet countries, they gave her the name of the Iron Lady. I would call her the Iron Curtain Lady, because I believe her speeches will have the effect of lowering the Iron Curtain again. The whole effect of this propaganda is to suggest that the Soviet Union is insincere and is deluding us when it seeks disarmament in the world.
I have tried to look at this objectively because I am no friend of totalitarian rule in the world. But I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that a Government, and the spokesmen of a Government, can so continually, in every utterance, urge the cause of disarmament and détente, that their newspapers can be flooding their country with this propaganda, without there being sincerity behind it. At one time, I had the fear that the suggestion of détente in Europe was that they might be stronger in their opposition to China, but that fear is now being removed by the actions of reconciliation which the Soviet Union has been taking towards China in recent weeks.
My Lords, I want to urge upon this House and upon this Government that if the Soviet Union are insincere, let us call their bluff. When they are proposing disarmament, when they are urging a world disarmament conference, when they
328
are making proposals for the ending of all nuclear tests, when they are putting forward the proposal that all nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction should be destroyed, when they are proposing progressive disarmament leading to complete disarmament, let us call their bluff. The Minister representing the Government has said that our Government have all those objectives, too. but there must be verification, and there must be inspection. The Soviet Union have now accepted both verification and inspection. They did it in the communique after the visit of the Russian Foreign Secretary to this country. They have said in the declaration made by the Warsaw Pact countries, that they will accept inspection. The last reason for refusing to consider these proposals has now gone.
I want to ask our Government to appreciate, as the gesture of the women of Northern Ireland shows, that among the common people of our country and of all countries there is this great desire for peace, that threats of renewed cold war should be met by challenging assertion of the dedication of our Socialist movement for peace in the world. I believe if that could be done we should find a response among our people which would surprise many of those who are sceptical today.
5.21 p.m.
The Earl of GLASGOW: My Lords, may I first add my congratulations to both the maiden speakers who spoke this afternoon, and particularly for the originality of their contributions. I hope we shall hear both of them many times again.
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, I had also taken note of that particular sentence from the gracious Speech:
"My Government will continue to contribute modern and effective forces to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation".
I do not know whether I am right in assuming that this sentence expresses an intention to check the steady and insidious rundown of our Armed Forces. I sincerely hope it does. But so far as the Royal Navy is concerned—and I think I can safely say the same for the Army and the Royal Air Force—this rundown has already gone too far.

329
I want to make only three points today, and I shall be very brief. First, our naval strategy: I believe as strongly now as I ever did that we are wrong to call in our warships from the oceans of the world and concentrate them in home waters and on the NATO coast of the Eastern Atlantic. I particularly deplore our withdrawal from the Mediterranean at a time when the allied posture in that area is far from stable. It has had a most demoralising effect on our allies. The trade routes, and particularly in the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean, are of vital importance to ourselves and to Europe. As the largest NATO navy on this side of the Atlantic, we must be prepared to play our part in their defence, and our allies would expect us to do so.
Secondly, I read in the Press that the Government are considering closing down one of the four naval dockyards in this country. I am not in a position to know whether this would be a wise economy; it might well be. Nevertheless, I feel fairly certain that the trade unions would strongly oppose any such decision and would probably win the day. I would infinitely prefer to lose a dockyard than to see any further reduction in the size and composition of the seagoing fleet. My Lords, it is the ships' companies and their officers in the first place who make a navy. I only wish they had a more powerful voice to speak for them.
Thirdly, I want to say a word about Polaris submarines. For a number of years now I have been imploring successive Governments to build the fifth Polaris submarine which was planned in the original building programme. From the operational point of view, the difference between four and five ships in any class is far greater than between, say, five and six, or even three and four. It appears that the crunch has now come. I am told that the "Resolution" goes in for long refit next year, which will keep her in dockyard hands for at least a year. With only three remaining submarines, it is likely that there will be periods when we have no Polaris submarine on patrol at all. As these ships now provide our only strategic nuclear deterrent, this is a very sorry state of affairs. I do not pretend to know the answer to this problem now, but I sincerely hope that it is being given the serious consideration that it deserves in high places.
330
Finally, may I say that I support every word that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on defence. I am deeply conscious of the importance of the Welfare State, of the social services, housing, schools and hospitals, but of what use are these if we cannot defend them? The defence of the realm must be the first priority of any Government. However tempting it must be for a Socialist Government to spend our limited resources on other and more popular needs, we must be prepared to provide what is necessary for the security of an island kingdom.
5.27 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I discover by arithmetical calculation that we appear to have reached the period of half-time in this game. I must confess that, not having found it exciting, I almost felt inclined to leave the ground and repair to the dressing-room, but I have overcome my disappointment. For, after all, there have been some compensations. Two new players have been introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Wiedenfeld, in the course of a most interesting and constructive speech, dealing very largely with a subject which I sometimes find repugnant, namely the Common Market, implied that if the countries of the Nine had the common sense to telescope their efforts, particularly in the sphere of social well-being, removing all the unsightly slums not only in this country but throughout Europe, it would be to our advantage. That was a constructive suggestion of which I hope note will be taken. I congratulate him on his appearance, and have no doubt we shall hear him again.
As for my noble friend (as I shall call him) Lord Montgomery, how much I appreciate his presence, how much he reminds me of my old friend and colleague the Field Marshal, whose humanity I have sought from time to time to portray and applaud despite senseless criticisms. You have got to know men, understand them, work with them, live with them, in order to discover their essential qualities. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, will develop in due course the theme which he embarked upon in the course of his speech. It seemed to be extraneous, exterior, to the theme which is developing; but he did indicate something with which I fundamentally agree, that whatever country it be, whoever

331
the people are, whatever their ideology, we have to try to understand them and divest ourselves of our prejudices. On that theme we can have discussions on some other occasion, no doubt.
As for the remainder of the players in this game, I must confess that the two centre forwards disappointed me. My noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts referred in his oratorical, pleasant fashion to the desire of Her Majesty's Government to use every endeavour; all their best endeavours, he suggested, to ensure that we would always do the right thing. I have heard it all before. It simply gets you nowhere. It is Foreign Office stuff, and it is that kind of material, that pabulum—I am not blaming my noble friend but the Foreign Office—that has frequently, as a result of its so-called diplomacy, its appeasement, weakened our influence in the world. I regard it with distrust.
As for the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, he made his usual excellent speech. But, if I may say with great respect, there were some imperfections. For example (and I use merely an illustration), he explained things—and how right he was in explaining them—but provided us with no escape from the dilemma. Even when he referred to the Middle East imbroglio he spoke, if I may say so, with wishful thinking. Of course everybody would welcome peace in the Middle East except, I think, some of the intransigent Arabs from Saudi Arabia. But I had better be careful and not say too much derogatory about Saudi Arabia or the price of oil may go up, and we cannot afford that. We must be careful.
I do not believe that it is likely in the foreseeable future—and apart from the foreseeable future I can play no part in this game; in the remote future I shall be silent—that there is going to be peace. That is why the Israelis, despite their desire for it and security, and also readiness to negotiate—how often has that been illustrated?—keep their powder dry. That is sensible. Keep your powder dry; you never know what is going to happen; let it be effective when it has to be used.
Defence and foreign affairs have to be telescoped. There is a close relationship. There has been rather too much in this debate about foreign affairs and too little
332
of defence. The relationship exists because if we can develop close, friendly and durable relations with other countries, despite their ideological disadvantages according to our point of view, that will condition our decisions on defence. For example, if the Russians decided to implement everything they said at Helsinki, and all they have said from time to time about the desire for détente, obviously we would not require to spend £5,000 million, or thereabouts, on defence. We could cut it down.
However, despite the speech I listened to from my noble friend Lord Brockway—who has had to leave; I do not complain about that—I am sceptical about the Russians. I wish it could be otherwise. If only we could believe that they say what they mean, life would be much more pleasant. But I do not believe that they say what they mean. It is as simple as that. May I indulge in a digression which you may think is irrelevant but it just occurs to me. As noble Lords are aware, we have in the House of Lords achieved after many years a Defence Study Group, and we have invited several notabilities to come and speak to our group; for example, as referred to by the noble Lord, General Lord Bourne, General Haig, the Supreme Commander of NATO, and we have asked others. Recently I thought it might be desirable to ask the Russian Embassy to send somebody to come and talk to us because we ought to know their point of view, but they never even replied to the letter. I telephoned them the other day, hoping I could make a personal approach; and I notice what the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, said, that we must have contacts. I 'phoned them in the most friendly fashion. I used the softest and most muted tone of voice. I said, "We don't want you to bother too much about defence: you could talk about foreign affairs", but they ignored me completely. There was an opportunity for contact to tell your Lordships about what they have to say about defence, but on, so we have to look elsewhere.
Strangely enough—and noble Lords may be surprised because of the speeches I have made on this subject before—I was attracted to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. This was not because of his unqualified support for the Common Market, but because he said that if you are going to have the EEC, this

333
combination of countries, it must be effective not only in economic and financial affairs and in the building up constructively of industry and the like but also in defence; and that is common sense. There is something to be said for that: to implement NATO, to give it a bulwark, a support, a booster. It is very necessary indeed.
I do not want to dilate unnecessarily tonight. I want to come to what I regard as realism in this debate. With the greatest respect and meaning no offence to any of those who have taken part in this debate, may I say, Let us be realistic. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, came near when he said to the Government, "We cannot afford to cut down defence". That was realism. Of course the Government are in a difficulty financially and everybody knows that, but even if the Government could escape from their financial difficulties you can be sure that they would not increase defence expenditure. You have to face the fact.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, offered the reason. He said that it was the Left Wing. I am not dominated by the Left Wing, or anybody for that matter, but I do not believe that it is entirely the Left Wing. It is simply because there is not the interest, the enthusiasm, any passion at all for defence. It is almost the last word in the programme. I do not believe we can afford to let it be the last word. It is true that Mr. Brezhnev, Mr. Gromyko, or somebody speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union said the other day that they would like to come to some arrangement about nuclear weapons, and so on. It is just poppycock. I am going to say something that my noble friend Lord Brockway would not like if I said it in his presence, but he will learn about it and read about it.
In the same way, all the talk about disarmament is poppycock, and I speak from experience. I remember the talk about disarmament before the First World War. Even Lloyd George, in 1911, before he became Prime Minister in 1915, did not want to go to war with Germany; he talked about peace and disarmament and many others spoke in the same vein. There was much talk about building up an international peace keeping force and I remember a Lord Davies—perhaps my noble friend is a descendant of his—
334
talking about it in those days. During the First War there was talk about peace by negotiation and much the same talk went on after 1918. There was a great deal of talk about disarmament and there were disarmament conferences here, there and everywhere.
That sort of thing is all very fine, but we have had more wars this century than ever before, with the exception perhaps of the One Hundred Years' War. It is all very well to talk about disarmament, but as I listened to my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for whom I have a very high regard and affection, I thought that he was speaking as though one only had to talk in that way and appeal for peace and it would be achieved. I wish that were true. Unfortunately, it is not, and the plain fact is that we must defend ourselves because one fine day we may have to face trouble. I hope that will not be the case, but the way things are now I fear that we may have to defend ourselves.
I will give the House a few illustrations to show what I mean, and several other noble Lords have referred to these issues. Consider, for example, Rhodesia. I dismiss all the talk about an illegal régime there because Her Majesty's Government have now accepted it; they are taking part in it, so it is no longer illegal. What will happen there? I wonder whether noble Lords listened the other night to what Mr. Mugabe said. That nationalist leader was asked what he would do when he gained power and he said, in effect, "We remember the exploitation. We remember what they did to us. We will get our own back". In fact, he went so far as to suggest the people would be put on trial. What a blood bath there will be at the end of the day! I see no peace there. I am sorry to say that, but it is my view.
That brings me to the issue, because it is an issue, of who we should recognise; who are our friends in the world. Is it the Russains? I answer by using an expression regularly used by Molotov—"in the negative". Even the United States is sometimes lukewarm in relation to defence. They sometimes talk about withdrawing their forces from NATO. Sometimes they say they should not do so. It is sometimes this and sometimes that, but remember that there are elements in the United States who do not like us

335
or our power and who dislike our traditions, our great past. We must be mighty careful.
We are in the sphere where operations might commence. That being the case, what should we do? I can only utter a word of warning: Let us be mighty careful. Of course we must go on talking. Talk is all very well and Churchill once said, "Jaw, jaw, rather than war, war". Nevertheless, we must build up our defences. The remarkable thing is that there is not a country in the world that is not doing precisely that nowadays. I was looking at a document produced by NATO stating military balances and statistics for every part of the world and was surprised that not one country—even some with such a small number of people that one wonders why they consider they need any defence at all—is without a means of defence. Small or large, they all feel that they must have some measure of defence. Why is that? Probably for very small countries it will not help their security. Nevertheless, they feel that it is right to have some form of defence because it gives them a feeling of strength. Last century John Bright said, "Force is no remedy"—but it is a fine thing to have if one is negotiating. It is clear that, whether or not we like it, we must be strong.
I wish that we as a country could spend more on defence and I hope that eventually we will. But if we cannot spend more, we must, even if some of us are reluctant about it, accept what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, suggested, and utilise the countries of the Nine. I recognise difficulties in Italy, Turkey and Greece, but let us utilise their power and strength and their military potential. That would be a useful asset if we must engage in negotiations with the Russians or anybody else. That is my warning to noble Lords.
We have had these debates time and again and one begins to despair. We seem to be getting nowhere because we just talk round the subject; it is a sort of vicious circle and is not good enough. We either believe in defence for the purpose of our security or we do not believe in it. If we believe in defence, then we must be adequately defended, otherwise it is not worth while. That observation may be obnoxious to many people but I make it
336
because I sincerely hold this view and, having expressed it, leave the matter in the hands of your Lordships.
5.47 p.m.
Baroness NORTHCHURCH: My Lords, I can think of nothing more difficult than to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the speech which he just made. I was a little comforted to hear him say that he was completely ignored when speaking on the telephone, and that gave me heart to make these few brief comments. I seldom speak in your Lordships' House, but I am anxious to do so today for two reasons. The first is to congratulate noble Lords who are speaking for the first time, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, who made an excellent speech—we welcome him and are glad to have him with us—and also the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld.
The second is to remind noble Lords of a speech I made in this House four or five years ago when, as today, foreign affairs was the main subject under discussion. I had been pressed to bring to your Lordships' attention the ever increasing importance of our trade with the South American Continent. If I remember aright, the late Lord Cowley introduced that important subject and in his speech, an excellent one which I have just re-read, be concluded by saying:
"I feel that these countries will play an increasingly important role in world affairs and should not be written off as an area of the world suffering from revolutions."
It is sad for all of us that we no longer have Lord Cowley with us. He was a great asset to the House and was doing great work, particularly from the point of view of South America, an area which was always of great importance to him. However, the importance of trade with the countries of South America has increased rather than diminished in importance, and it is vital to this country to see that we do our best in this regard.
I am thankful to say that Canning House, which is 2 Belgrave Square, was started by my husband when he returned from what to all of us, and to me especially, was a very anxious time. He had been sent to South America by the then Government to tour as much of that Continent as he could. I am referring of

337
course to the period 1939/45, right in the middle of the war. For many months we did not hear anything of his activities and, as I say, it was an anxious time for us all. He was there during quite the worst period of the war, but when he returned, I am glad to say safely, he was able to provide the Government with much valuable information and I know that they greatly appreciated what he had to tell them. I remember so well his deep anxiety as to what was happening, and what would happen unless we could build up some form of centre here in London and by that means increase the interest in, and the necessity of, increasing trade between ourselves and that great continent of South America when the war ended.
I think that people were beginning to realise the importance of it, as I have said, and it was then that Canning House was started. I think that one can claim that it has been going from strength to strength, although it has been going through very difficult times. Now it is under the presidency of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I hope that he will be able to tell us something of the most excellent work that he has been doing since he became president there. He realises, as we do, how necessary it is to make the ordinary public realise, despite all one hears, as is the case with most countries in the world today, that there is a great opening of trade with that great continent and we must not lose any possible opportunity.
I am not going to attempt to say very much more because we have listened to such a good speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. As I hoped, he gave us some idea of what we were at the moment losing financially in our trade with South America, and he spoke of the necessity of what ought to be done to increase it as soon as possible. Now I can hand on to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
5.51 p.m.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the two noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches in your Lordships' House today, the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, and the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. I regard them both as valued friends and they
338
have in different ways laboured with me in various parts of the dusty vineyards of international affairs: the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, in connection with Europe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, in connection with Latin America. It is a very great personal pleasure to me to see them both here in your Lordships' House, to congratulate them upon elegant and impressive maiden speeches and to express the hope that we shall often hear them both again in your Lordships' House.
I fear that I shall not be able to accept the invitation of the noble Baroness to talk about Latin America this evening. Like her I believe that the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, was an excellent appeal and a rallying cry to the Government for a more active trade and foreign policy in Latin America. I should like myself to concentrate, as I believe it is necessary in debates of this kind to concentrate on one specific subject, upon the question of Southern Africa. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in his excellent speech that it would be wrong to discuss too closely the detailed issues that are at present in front of the Constitutional Conference in Geneva, and that I shall not do. However, I should like to speak briefly in a broader context.
It is impossible to do so without referring first to the somewhat remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, whom I am sorry to see is no longer in his place, had the courtesy to inform me that he was going to refer to an article of mine in The Times. There it seems his courtesy ran out because in his speech I felt that he was, to say the least, intemperate, and it seems to me that to accuse someone of ignorance of a subject because his views differ from one's own is an unusual form of debating, to say the least. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has different views about the sphere of influence into which one might place the ruler of Tanzania or Mr. Joshua Nkomo. These are very largely matters of opinion and matters of the sources to whom one refers for one's information.
But if one says, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, that Angola is not under Soviet influence—when he refers to a country in which practically all the

339
military advisers are either Russian or Cuban, to a country which has close commercial, military, and political ties of a formal kind with the Soviet Union, to a country in which the president is a Moscow-trained Communist and a former member of the Communist Party in Portugal, a country in which there are 15,000 to 20,000 Cuban troops fighting against the Unita forces which are in confrontation with the Government—and that that country owes no allegiance to, and is not under the influence of, the Soviet Union, if he says that its president is passionately committed to the cause of non-alignment, then I think that some of us may have some doubts about whose ignorance of this continent is the more profound.
I have not suggested, nor do I suggest now, that what is happening in Southern Africa is a Communist conspiracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is happening in Southern Africa is a manifestation of African nationalism, and in many cases an understandable revulsion against oppressive policies and more especially the humiliations of apartheid. But what is true is that the frictions and the bloodshed that will inevitably be caused by these aspirations and these resentments among the black people of Southern Africa will be exploited by those outside, and are being exploited now. Again it is not a question of morality. It is not wrong that the Soviet Union should wish to extend its power and its political influence in the world. But I believe that we in the West must recognise quite clearly that that is what is happening; and to dismiss articles, or speeches, or statements about the growing power of the Soviet Union in Southern Africa is simply to bury one's head in the sand. I have said already that there are 15,000 Cuban soldiers fighting at this moment in Angola, and that Angola itself is virtually dominated by the Soviet Union, which incidentally if the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, were here I should like to assure him, was aiding the MPLA in Angola in 1968, long before any other super-Power in the world had any influence or interest in the area.
But let us move on to Mozambique. I doubt that anyone would contest that Mozambique is a Marxist-Leninist State. If they do, then they are contesting it with the leader of Mozambique himself, Mr. Samora Machel, who has declared
340
that his country is a Marxist-Leninist republic. This is a fact of life, and it is a fact of life that we must take very clearly into account, when we look at the future of Rhodesia, the future of South West Africa, and the future of the Republic of South Africa itself. I say this because what is happening, whether we like it or not—and we are not doing very much about it—is that the Republic of South Africa is very gradually being encircled. Internally, the Republic is heading for a crisis of the most appalling dimensions. I was in Pretoria recently and I had a long talk with the Prime Minister of South Africa, Mr. Vorster, and I found him depressingly inflexible about his policies. He showed no sign personally that there was any room for manoeuvre in the policies even of petty apartheid, much less in the larger principle of separate development.
At the other end of the political spectrum in that country there are now black extremists—some of them, not all of them, Communists or Communist trained—whose aim is not majority rule, is not a share in the Government of South Africa. It is the expulsion of the white man and the taking over of the country. I do not say that that is the aim of all black South Africans, but it is certainly the aim of some of the extremist leaders.
The confrontation which is taking place there, and which I believe is heading almost inevitably for a disaster, is of great significance, my Lords, for the West and for this country. Quite apart from the general arguments about the balance of power (whatever that might mean these days), there are very real interests for us in that continent and in the seas around it. If we in the West can be denied access to the precious mineral resources of Southern Africa; if the ports of the Continent of Africa can be denied to us, either in peace or in war; if the oil routes along which we bring our precious oil from the Middle East to this country and to much of Western Europe can be cut off, then we shall suffer economically and militarily. This is not only a question of the erosion of our economic prosperity in peacetime: it is a question of placing us in a situation of the profoundest danger if we should ever go to war.
Of course, most of us would agree, I think, that political reform is urgently

341
required in South Africa. No civilised person, I believe, could defend the policies of apartheid or at least the petty apartheid—the small but oppressive humiliations that go with the policies of separate development. No one could defend that. No one, I believe, would want to defend the Immorality Act or the legislation on mixed marriages in South Africa. But there are white people in South Africa who want to see this changed, too, and in my view it is not enough simply to utter stern and pious moral judgments about it. We cannot apply, without some kind of adjustment, the standards and the principles of Western European liberal democracy to a country like South Africa. They have problems of a very special kind which it is very difficult for us, brought up in our own traditions, to understand.
What I think is much more important than the simple utterance of pious platitudes is to understand that much of the economic prosperity of the West and much of its security in peace and in war is at stake in Southern Africa. What we need are intelligent, practical policies. What we in this country need to do, I think, is to work with our partners in NATO and in the European Economic Community to evolve and work out some really imaginative, intelligent policies which will take into account, not only those things about which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is rightly concerned—the racial conflict, the appalling humiliation suffered by certain sections of the population in South Africa and in other African countries as well—but the interests of the West and the security of the West; the interests, economic, political and social, of our own people. I believe, as other noble Lords have said this evening, that we should be taking more of a lead in this than we are at the moment.
Some of the reasons, perhaps, why we are not taking a lead were reflected in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about double standards—the double standards of criticism of the internal régimes of other countries. It is true, as the noble Lord has said—and it is impossible to deny—that too often in this country, if there are stories of oppression in Chile, in Iran or in Southern Africa, the outrage and the outcry is immediate, shrill and loud. But let similar oppressions take place, similar cruelties be
342
reported, in the Soviet Union, in Ethiopia or in Cambodia, then the outcry is somehow strangely muted—and it may be for that reason. I think there has been an even more vivid example of this recently. Your Lordships will recall that a handful of miserable British mercenaries in Angola attracted the scorn and vituperation of a great number of people in this country over a long period. Yet today there are 15,000 Communist mercenaries fighting in Angola, and how much outcry do we hear about that? Very little. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, oppression and cruelty are oppression and cruelty whether it is of the Left or of the Right. There should be no such double standards.
In that context, I think we must recognise that, whatever revulsion we may have against the policies of apartheid in South Africa, we and the Republic of South Africa have many long-term interests in common. I believe we should realise that if South Africa—Southern Africa as a whole, but South Africa specifically—goes down in a blood bath or becomes involved in a long and bloody war as a result of the guerrilla activities which are now going on, and are likely to be intensified, in Rhodesia, then it will not be only the white people of South Africa who will be the losers. Black Africa will suffer, too, and will suffer appallingly. So will we in the West: and so above all, my Lords, I think, will we in this country, because this is where a good deal of our future is going to be decided. We cannot afford any longer, in my view, the simple luxury of distant moral superiority. We have to combine a realisation of the social and political issues which are real and pressing in South Africa with a serious and intelligent realisation of where our own interests lie.
6.7 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, we have been privileged this afternoon to hear two excellent maiden speeches, and I should like to add my own congratulations to those already expressed, on all sides of the House, to both speakers on two speeches of rare quality. Lord Weidenfeld gave us, I thought, an exceptional speech, and I am sure will prove himself a very valuable accession to this side of the House. Those of us who were privileged to serve under

343
the distinguished father of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, in the Western Desert are delighted to see the noble Viscount occupying almost the very same seat, certainly the same row, that his father occupied when his presence graced your Lordships' House.
My Lords, in this foreign affairs debate I wish to refer to only one sentence in the gracious Speech—that which deals with the Middle East. We have all noted with a deep sense of relief the recent improvements in the Middle East situation, especially a ceasefire in Lebanon which shows every sign of enduring. We have also noted the recent overtures from President Sadat to Israel, and his call for a return to the Geneva Conference—and I was very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, devoted the major part of his speech to a very balanced and able review of this extremely difficult situation. It is only natural that suspicions arise in Israel, because there the risks are so much greater. Here in Britain we can accept that President Sadat is genuinely seeking peace, and can readily support his initiative; because in Britain we have everything to gain and nothing to lose. We can rely implicitly on his good faith. Indeed, the economic situation of Egypt today, with her vast external debt, can hardly favour another war, although according to President Sadat that risk cannot he entirely ruled out.
But the risks of a further war to Israel are enormous. Their fear in Israel is that, with further territorial concessions in Sinai, the Egyptian troops may edge nearer and nearer to the old Israeli borders, so that Israel appears now to have developed a kind of "Trojan Horse" complex. There, the risk they run is no less than the complete extermination of the Jewish State. Against that, they have the solemn word of President Sadat, which I can accept in all good faith. But the Palestinians only recently had implicit faith in the good word of Syria, and that has resulted in their virtual extinction as a military force—a blow inflicted on them by their staunchest friend and ally. We have seen how in the Middle East—and this has unfortunately happened only too often—the friend of yesterday can become the foe of today. I believe profoundly that the reverse can also be true
344
in the Middle East, and that the Palestinians' worst enemy of today may yet prove to be their best friend of tomorrow.
The problem remains, How can Israel be convinced that Egypt is genuinely ready to make peace? This is especially difficult because of the painful memories of the Yom Kippur War, when a whole nation at prayer was attacked on the holiest day of the Jewish year. How can the wall of suspicion be broken down and replaced by an attitude of complete trust on both sides? I believe that complete trust can be established, and I shall go on to explain how I think this can be achieved and how Britain can play the part of an honest broker towards both sides, to draw them closer together in peace and understanding. Once the principle of co-existence has been accepted by both sides, territorial adjustments will fall into their proper perspective and Egypt could well be agreeably surprised by the large amount of Sinai—if not the whole of Sinai—that Israel would be prepared to give up, once peace had been established in the fullest sense of the word.
Let us try to find a parallel in what has happened between Soviet Russia and the Iron Curtain countries on the one hand, and Western Europe on the other. For many years there has been military confrontation with NATO troops stationed on German soil and, even today, the Russian military and naval build-up is more ominous for the Free World than ever before, as so many speakers have pointed out this afternoon. Vast territorial adjustments still hang in the balance. Yet this ominous situation has not in any way prevented a close cultural relationship from developing between the countries behind the iron Curtain and ourselves. For many years now the Great Britain-East Europe centre, under the able direction of Sir William Harpham and his devoted colleagues, has been doing magnificent work in promoting cultural exchanges between the Iron Curtain countries and our universities inviting visiting professors in science, medicine, technology and agriculture to come to this country, and sending out to them our own visiting professors in exchange. The gain to both sides has been enormous and, if measured in terms of goodwill and mutual understanding, almost incalculable. We have only to

345
recall the visit of the Bolshoi ballet to this country to realise what untold good these emissaries of art can achieve in so many directions.
Why cannot similar steps be undertaken today between Israel and Egypt? Already, in fact, much steady progress has been made. Jews who are known to be Zionists—for, after all, apart from a few freaks, the terms are synonymous—have already been invited to visit Egypt. Sir Ludwig Guttmann, of Stoke Mandeville fame, who has saved many hundreds of valuable lives in this country, including those of Members of your Lordships' House, was invited to Cairo to help in the treatment and rehabilitation of paraplegic Egyptian soldiers, wounded in the Middle East wars. He carried out the same healing work on paraplegic Israeli soldiers wounded in the same wars, and was instrumental in bringing Egyptian and Israeli teams to compete together in the Olympic Games for Paraplegics that have been held in England, Tokyo and Montreal. At the Middle East Institute of St. Antony's College in Oxford—founded, incidentally, through a legacy of Antony Besse, a merchant from Aden—visiting graduates and professors from Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Israel have for many years been living and working together under the same roof, discussing problems of mutual interest to their own countries, and to the Middle East as a whole. More recently still, Jewish scholars have been invited to Cairo to assist the Egyptologists there in deciphering some of the hieroglyphics recently unearthed near the Step Pyramid of Sakkara.
Out of all the tragic events of the civil war in Lebanon there came one hopeful development—the establishment of an open frontier between southern Lebanon and Israel, where hundreds of Arab refugees were welcomed across the border daily and given medical treatment and regular work in Israel. It is to be hoped that even after the ceasefire has finally been established, this work of rehabilitation and reconciliation will be allowed to continue and a peaceful frontier allowed to remain open.
One small incident that I saw recently on the West Bank is symbolic of the good work that can be done. It occurred in the Christian Arab city of Ramallah,
346
some twelve miles North of Jerusalem. A professor of paediatrics, an old friend of mine from the war days—Professor Russell from the Hadassah hospital of the Hebrew University—was doing his weekly clinical round with Arab Moslem doctors, in the only children's hospital in the whole of the West Bank. It caters for some 1 million Arabs—Christian and Moslem alike—and draws patients from as far afield as Hebron in the South to Jenin and Tulkeram in the North. Waiting for him in out-patients was a bright-eyed Arab boy of eight years old, who proudly displayed an insulin syringe in the breast pocket of his blazer. This little boy had been brought to the hospital five months earlier completely moribund and in a state of deep coma. His parents and doctors had despaired of saving his life, but when his urine was tested at the hospital it was found to be loaded with sugar. A prompt injection of insulin saved his life, and his parents have been glad to have him maintained on insulin ever since. They were overcome with gratitude and beamed happily as the youngster produced his syringe and had his regular check-up from Professor Russell. Similar instances could be repeated endlessly, and many other extraordinary cases of healing were shown to me in Ramallah that afternoon.
I believe profoundly that no single act by President Sadat could do so much to create good faith between Egypt and Israel and to dissipate the "Trojan Horse" complex that now seems to bedevil all their negotiations, as the establishment on an official basis of cultural relations between the two countries. This step need not await territorial concessions or military withdrawals. It should indeed precede them. It could be acted on today. The effect would be instantaneous and the repercussions tremendous all over the Middle East. If, for example, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem would invite a visiting professor from El Azhar University in Cairo to lecture on Koranic Law, he would be delighted at the welcome that he would receive. If, in return, the Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, which has a unique reputation all over the Middle East, were invited to send a team of paediatricians, ophthalmologists or orthopaedic surgeons to the teaching hospitals of Cairo and Alexandria Universities, how- many valuable lives could be saved and how much

347
suffering and misery could be avoided! If the Agricultural Research Institute of Rehovot were invited to send out a team of agricultural experts to the Goumouriyah Province or the desert villages of Upper Egypt to demonstrate the simple techniques I have seen carried out successfully in the kibbutz of Ein Gedi in a remote part of the Jordan Valley, how much help and sustenance could be given to the teeming millions of Egypt's rural population! The whole relationship between Egypt and Israel would undergo a dramatic change, and a new hope created for peace in the Middle East. What an escape that would be from all the sterile polemics of the last few years into something creative and constructive at last !
Cannot Britain, with our ancient tradition of culture and goodwill, act as an honest broker in this respect? We all know the dedication of my noble friend on the Front Bench to the cause of peace. We believe that it is shared equally by his right honourable friend in another place, the present Foreign Secretary. Can we not turn to President Sadat, who is in the happy position of being married to an Englishwoman— as I am in the no less happy position of being married to a wife from Egypt—in the hope that he may be able to take this new and dramatic step, and open up cultural relations between Egypt and Israel? The response would be instantaneous and overwhelming, and would bring, a measure of untold good to both sides. Such a step could well open up a new chapter of real hope in the age-long history of the Middle East.
6.21 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I believe that we in the West are facing a great and increasing threat to our survival by Soviet imperialism. I think that they have an overwhelming superiority of conventional weapons in Europe and nuclear parity. But I think it is realised by every country now that the atomic threat is stalemate, with as much damage to the country that uses it as to the one that is attacked. I cannot see any possible likelihood of nuclear war. But why should Russia ever wish to use their conventional weapons in attack to attain the objective of overwhelming the West when they can achieve their object by less risky
348
alternatives. Therefore, I feel that land defeat of the West is no longer necessary from the Russian point of view and therefore the whole threat comes from the sea lanes and war by proxy.
We all know that the Red Fleet now has bases in Aden, Somalia, Angola, Cuba, Mozambique and many other places. They now constitute a terrible potential challenge to our trade routes and, in particular, to the vital raw materials route running around the Cape to Western Europe, USA and Japan. Since the Cuba affair in the 1960s, they have created a navy which is the greatest challenge that the West has ever seen since the birth of the Soviet Empire. I think that ships now have priority in Soviet thinking over tanks. They have grasped the meaning of the command of the sea and realise that confrontation with the West is shifting from land to sea. They see naval power as closely allied to foreign policy and that it can be used as an ever-ready threat. They demonstrated their strength two years ago when they carried out the famous Okean 75 exercise throughout all the high seas as a huge rehearsal.
One wonders whether the oil countries would ever have risked their restriction policy if they had not had some Soviet backing. Moscow realised that the Arabs had succeeded in precipitating a crisis and disunity where they themselves had failed. It was an economic war carried out by proxy with the support of their fleet. The Western countries, to some extent, view navies as the weapons of yesterday—certainly we, with our small navy, seem to do so—whereas the Soviets believe them to be the weapons of tomorrow. We all know the Soviet navy is now vast and has far more submarines than Germany ever had and that it is a navy designed for offence and is far in excess of their need for defence. Moscow realises that their fleet gives them a new field of action and allows them to indulge in military and political subversion at a great distance and the fleet allows them to outflank the West European bridgehead. This naval capability reduces the value almost to nil of any agreements in Vienna for troop reductions.
The key point, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said, is South Africa which commands the Cape route. Without this trade route the industries of the West

349
would grind to a halt. Until recently, it does not appear that adequate importance has been attached to South Africa. We have heard nothing but verbal attacks; but South Africa is vital to the West and to the Western World. If it becomes Communist or if it were to lose its white people (as has been mentioned as a possibility) it would be a disaster for the West. The vacuum in the South Atlantic is an ever-growing temptation to the Soviet Navy to fill. They have their bases in Cuba and are building a naval and air base at Conakry and are able to make a complete stranglehold of the wasp waist of the Atlantic if they so wish.
But South Africa is still an inconvenient obstacle to the Soviet offensive plan. I believe that South Africa is on their list as an objective. It is therefore in the defensive interest of the West to give them every possible support and I believe that that support should take precedence over any racial theories or any other dislikes we may have of that country. It will be suicide for the West if South Africa were allowed to be Sovietised. I think we must look to our own strategic security and co-operate in every way with Southern Africa. If we can build them ships, we should do so because in addition to supporting our own trade routes, the trade would strengthen and with that would come the influence that we may wish in order to combat those aspects of South Africa that we do not like.
The Soviets have a strategic policy, which I think is known to all, that by 1984 they believe they will have taken over South Africa, the Middle East and all Europe. Then they believe the USA will not be able to resist them. We do not perhaps wish to believe this; we do not want to face it; and, in fact, President Ford did not even believe that Poland and Rumania were in the clutches of the East. The Soviet had plans for the period 1960 to 1972. Their strategic objectives were to promote disunity in the West, to promote social dislocation in the capitalist world, to exploit the fear of a German resurgence and to detach France from NATO. They wanted the unions and the young to exploit industrial and social unrest and so on. We can judge for ourselves to what extent that has been a success. We must not dismiss the possibility of the success or partial success of this current strategic policy.
350
My Lords, turning to the land of Africa, we know that President Neto supports revolutionaries in his neighbouring countries and it has already been mentioned that the Minister of Defence in. Angola is controlled by the Russians and that the Cuban advisers fill most of the appointments. It is run largely by Mr. McBride, as UN representative, an ex-IRA gun runner, whose hatred of South Africa is intense since South Africa refused to help him over his IRA cause. He would like the country governed by SWAPO, which consists mainly of unelected Ovambos. Not only are they unelected, but the elected Ovambos have demanded that SWAPO should be outlawed, as they are Marxists and terrorists.
Angola provides the Soviets now with valuable ports and facilities from Mogadishu to Lobito and these bases virtually encircle the South Atlantic and South Africa. In Mozambique they have control of the harbours and airfields, and there are masses of Russians instructing teenage guerrillas so that they can form the spearhead of any thrust into Rhodesia. The next targets from the Russian point of view must be Rhodesia and South-West Africa with all their mineral resources. We all want to see a settlement reached in Rhodesia on multi-racial lines. I will take advice and not talk about that, but it is not very reassuring to hear Mr. Mugabe say that he will fight on if he is not successful, particularly when one would imagine he will be supported by the 15,000 Cubans who are available for him. The possible outcome of this is fairly obvious.
China has warned the West repeatedly of the Soviet plans and asked what the West are planning to do to remedy their military weakness. They are increasingly writing the West off as hopeless, and one reads that they may well possibly be switching their policy as a result. I believe that we must realise that we are subject to a strategic garrotte being applied on the African trade routes. We must listen and react to the Soviet's declared aims and intentions, and support South Africa of necessity, regardless of their internal policies. We can also support actively such organisations as UNITA in Angola and expose the Soviets for the colonial and empire builders that they are. They are certainly no friends of

351
the blacks. We should support Jonas Savimba's UNITA, because he commands the support of two million Ovimbundas, which are about 35 per cent. of the population of Angola. He succeeded in denying the use of the Benguela Railway to the Cubans, holds the granaries of Angola and has some Cuban prisoners. He is reported as moving closer to Luanda, and surely everything should be done to support this movement with arms, money or whatever else they may wish.
What do we do? It seems we hardly do anything to stop the Soviet expansion. We even lent them money at low rates and supplied them with corn to hide the inefficiency of their own agricultural system, so they can divert more resources to their military effort. Brezhnev in 1968 said:
"If we want to win we cannot achieve our goals without strong military forces. Did we ever say we would not use force if necessary to support progressive movements; for example, in Britain, France, Sweden?"
That speaks for itself. He was made a hero in the Soviet Union in 1966 for outstanding merit in strengthening the defence capability of the USSR. One can compare that with the image presented to the West in directing a peace offensive. He was recently referred to officially as "Vozhd", which is the Russian equivalent to Fuehrer or Duce. That has an ominous ring. We have been able to read Mein Kampf which set out a policy. We preferred to put our heads in the sand in that period. The dangers are much greater now, yet we disarm and ignore these warnings. I believe that we do this at our peril.
6.35 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I want to start by saying a nice thing or two about my noble friend Lord Weidenfeld. The House are lucky to have him with us for many reasons. He not only knows the Continent of Europe, but knows it from a professional point of view, which cannot be said of those of us who are merely professional connoisseurs of the Continent of Europe. It is in exercising a profession around other countries that you truly learn them. Moreover, he is not even of British origin. An increasing number of your Lordships are not. I welcome it and believe that this is a factor tending
352
towards internationalism which can balance, to my knowledge, the lower percentage of persons not of British origin who sit in another place. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, was equally as good, but I could not hear him because I was called from my place.
I am going to talk poppycock, as my noble friend Lord Shinwell calls talk about disarmament. I wish that that antique spirit of ancestral combat were in his place to hear what I have to say. I might affect his views, though it seems unlikely. Disarmament is a difficult subject to talk about anywhere in this country because of the low general level of knowledge about it which affects even public debate in the Press, on television and in Parliament. This low general level has been compounded by the passionate simplicities of those whose perception that social service spending is more pleasant than defence spending blinds them to the necessity of the unpleasant. Not one of the present disarmament negotiations are of any great use or interest to the United Kingdom or the world at large. This is because the potentially useful ones are carried on in darkest secrecy, and those carried on openly are pointless and sometimes even dangerous.
Let us look round the disarmament scene which becomes more thickly planted with institutions every year. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks—SALT, for short—have been secret from the start. Their modest achievements and potentialities have disappeared in the rising welter of new weapons that the two participants have been developing: Cruise missiles, anti-satellite satellites; mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles; multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles, (so that by 1980 each side will possibly have over 10,000 nuclear warheads) and laser beams, perhaps.
I will remind the House that Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty says that we will all undertake not to proliferate nuclear weapons, whether by receipt or by diffusion, provided that the super Powers get on with disarmament. That was how SALT began. Having first appeared as an attempt to fulfil Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the SALT talks were then effectively decoupled when

353
neither the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament nor the United Nations General Assembly were invited to examine or comment on their first results, the 1972 Treaties. The talks on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions in Europe, which began sensibly enough, are closely geared to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Helsinki. Indeed, their opening was made a condition of the Helsinki Conference beginning. But they were soon separated off and allowed to become secret. They are now, of course, completely stalled.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty itself, the main sections of which were bilaterally negotiated between America and Russia—in secrecy of course—has not lived up to its name so far, despite 100 signatures. It is now being superseded by negotiations yet more secret in a Nuclear Supplier States' Club, known as the London Club, which is now, not surprisingly, being blown open by those who feel their interests to be threatened. Many of your Lordships who follow these matters will have been impressed by an exceptionally well-informed article in the Observer ten clays ago, which did precisely that.
Yet again, there are proposals whereby apparently the nuclear weapons States would be exempted from the inspection imposed upon the rest. Meanwhile, the rest are allowed to use their infant gums on such nonsensical pap as the proposed treaty to ban environmental modification for military purposes. It is nonsensical because it is environmental modification, as such, that needs agreeing about, not just that which is openly admitted to be "hostile" or "military". Certainly we need a system for examining the international environmental impact of certain national programmes. The Soviet Union's transformation of Nature programme is one such—especially, perhaps, that part of it which reverses the flow of the great rivers flowing into the Arctic Ocean for which, as we all know, they are using nuclear explosions. But these programmes have nothing whatever to do with arms control or disarmament. They are for the United Nations' Environmental Programme, and not for the Conference on Disarmament.
We may well be at a turning point in international affairs. There are new personalities in Washington and in Peking,
354
as well as in London. In Moscow, Mr. Brezhnev may be feeling the draught as he sees the United States recovering from the traumas of Watergate and Vietnam. The present weapons systems are being overtaken by a new generation, some of which will be far less "élitist", if one can use that word, than the last. Some of them will not be nuclear at all, and some will clearly scupper the present set-up altogether. These, too, are alarming to the Soviet Union. Soon the existing SALT agreements will look like bridges over Ox-bow lakes whence the stream of the river has moved away. Perhaps all this is what has led to the recent Soviet propaganda barrage—because there has been a new and marked propaganda barrage about arms control by the Soviet Union, leading up to the declaration of the Bucharest Summit, and also since that time. The main item in that barrage has been the proposed new treaty between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, whereby countries belonging to either will undertake not to use nuclear weapons first against each other—and against each other only. That is new, because it has never before been proposed by the Soviet Union that there should be a treaty, declaration or agreement limited to alliances.
There are two difficulties there: first, the obvious and familiar one that no doubt the West would be very willing to consider such a thing as soon as the East agrees to come down to conventional parity with us, but not before. The second difficulty is the question of China. It is well known that China is the only nuclear Power in the world to have stated unequivocally and unconditionally from the very beginning that she would never be the first to use nuclear weapons against any country. Russia has not said this; nor America; nor have we, nor has France and nor has India. China has said it, and we now have in our minds the unilateral and unconditional Chinese declaration, and the proposed limited treaty between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. One can see very well who is and who is not free to use nuclear weapons against whom.
I should now like to quote to your Lordships something which it is good to bear in mind. We have this Soviet propaganda barrage on disarmament. Let us listen for a moment to a domestic voice in the Soviet Union. I shall go

355
rather fast here because it is extremely boring. The Hansard writers need not worry: I have the text and will give it to them. Listen to General Gorchakov, who is head of the Political Directorate of the Strategic Missile Troops, speaking for internal consumption on the Soviet radio:
"An unrestrained arms race is continuing in the USA and the other NATO countries. In these conditions, the Communist Party and the Soviet Government, in their conduct of a consistent foreign policy of peace, are forced to show constant concern for strengthening the defence of the country and improving the combat readiness of the Army and Navy …
"The missile and artillery troops see their task as persistently mastering military equipment and weapons, tirelessly improving their military skill and constantly raising the combat readiness of units and sub-units. Celebrating their festival, the missile and artillery troops, engineers and technicians, workers of the defence industry, the creators of mighty missile and artillery weapons, give an account to the Communist Party and the Soviet people of their immense hard work to strengthen the defence capacity of the USSR and the socialist countries.
"The Soviet people and their military personnel express their profound gratitude to the CPSU, under whose leadership in the postwar period the fundamental revolutionary transformations of our armed forces have been carried out, raising their strength to a new level. Qualitative changes are shown first and foremost by the setting up of the strategic missile troops and in the equipment of all the armed forces with nuclear missiles. Since their foundation, the strategic missile troops have advanced along a short but glorious path of development. At present they are the principal component of the Soviet armed forces and basically determine the defensive might of our State.
"The missile units are equipped with the latest missiles, capable of carrying warheads of colossal power over any distance, inflicting a precise and devastating blow on the aggressor wherever he may be. The firepower and striking power of the ground forces has increased; their basic striking force is operational-tactical and tactical missiles with nuclear warheads. At the same time conventional and rocket artillery will not lose their significance as an important means of striking the enemy on the field of battle. The armament of our artillery units now include powerful new systems of gun, howitzer, anti-tank and rocket artillery".
And so on, and so on, minute after minute, hour after hour, week after week, every day, generally three times a day, on the Soviet Union internal radio. I should like the House and the people of this country to be able to carry that as a kind of bumbling background noise in their heads when they read the external Soviet proposals—the ones directed towards us.
356
Our country is in an unsatisfactory position about arms control: we are never sure whether we are hare or hound. We were the first proliferator, but we are also the enthusiastic backer of bilateral Soviet-American anti-proliferation policies even at their most implausible. We should be well placed, if we were courageous enough to speak out, to influence the course of events and do the world some good. I am not suggesting that we should be an example to the world by unilaterally disarming: nothing could be more irrelevant. The principal point to be clear about is that arms control negotiations, as organised—topics, tempo, participation—by the United States and the Soviet Union, are, and are bound to be, ineffective. The arms race is a world problem, not a bilateral one; and only if it is treated as a world problem is there any hope of controlling it. The Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament provides the opportunity. It should be a high priority for the Government—I hope it is—to find out what are China's deep objections to this Session, and then to do what is possible to remove them.
The first change that is needed, and that is possible, is to move the whole topic out into the open: the darkness, within which all serious negotiations have taken place, was conceded by the Americans to the Russians when they recognised secrecy as a Russian strategic interest at the time of massive American preponderance. Even the principle of proper verification for arms control measures was given up by Mr. Johnson when he was so keen to get the Russians to SALT while the Vietnam war was going on that he abandoned this fundamental world interest in his efforts to get them to the table. The fact that the United States can to some extent verify by satellite what the Soviet Union is doing, is of small interest to a world which is not allowed to share the information. An international arms control verification system is necessary and we should take steps to set it up: seismic monitoring would be an excellent beginning, but satellite surveillance is an urgent next step.
The second change that is needed is a proper, logical, honest and open link-up between SALT, MBFR and CCD. If CCD—the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament—were to move to Vienna, as the Austrians want, this would make that easier, because then all three

357
sets of negotiations would be in the same city. We desperately need a comprehensive negotiating structure.
The third change that is needed is comprehensiveness in the matter to be negotiated. The American interest in strategic arms limitation may be limited to the Soviet Union's intercontinental range weapons. The other nuclear weapons States—very much including us—are interested, to no lesser a degree, in shorter range Soviet weapons. It is the explosive scale of the weapons, not their range, that makes them strategic.
For 16 years now, I have been asking in this place and elsewhere that somewhere in some negotiation, the Soviet intermediate range ballistic missiles stationed in Western Russia, which can hit Western Europe but not America, should be taken into account in disarmament talks; should be negotiated about, should be got rid of. Usually, I have received no answer from successive Governments. Sometimes I have received the answer "They are old. They are soft. They are on their way out. Do not worry. Time will see to the problem". We now know that these IRBMs are being succeeded by the SSX20s—highly invulnerable, extremely new and sophisticated and with MIRV'd warheads capable of hitting us, but not capable of hitting the Americans. In the 16th year, I ask the Government: who will talk about it, and where? This is an interest, incidentally, that we share with China—not with America.
There is a temptation, particularly within Whitehall, not to rock the SALT boat, to try to exclude from discussion in the international fora, in the CCD and in the General Assembly, the bilateral negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union. This would be the greatest possible mistake. If control of the arms race is serious, and it is, all tools must be used to achieve it. One of the most useful tools the international community has is the floodlight. I believe that it is not in keeping with the American spirit and tradition that the United States should have got bogged down, as it has, in a series of negotiations carried on in Kremlin-type conditions of secrecy.
It may be argued that the Soviet Union will never agree to anything else. The Soviet Union will certainly not agree to openness, if the West accepts Soviet
358
demands for secrecy. But should we go along for another 15 years with a method of negotiation which simply does not work? At the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, in its third session—UNCLOS III—a conference which the Soviet Union long opposed, they have given up position after position because, in the light of day, in the sight of all, they could not justify what can only be called maritime imperialistic practices. In the light of day, the Soviet Union will not be able to justify an arms build-up and arms expenditure which are at once dangerous and tragic—dangerous for peace, and tragic because of the waste of resources.
Let me praise the Government. I should like to praise the Government, and my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, in particular, for his initiative on chemical arms control and disarmament. I do not know how many of your Lordships will have noticed the reported remarks of the present head of the American Defence Intelligence Agency, General Daniel Graham, who said that a large proportion of Soviet missiles and bombs in Eastern Europe are tipped with toxic gas, because the Russians have not been able to build up nuclear warheads as fast as they were building missiles. Without derogating from my main thesis, which is that we must try to do everything at once, I should still like to praise the Government for having singled out this matter which is becoming intensely urgent. But it is not enough. Let us now link it altogether.
The new Administration in the United States is pledged to greater openness, as well as to new initiatives in arms control. There is, in fact, no reason whatever to suppose that the new President would not welcome from this country, from Western Europe, proposals and policies that will help break up the private log-jam in the dark that he has inherited. The rest of the world has not in any way accepted that the bilateral arms control strategy of the nuclear Super-Powers is satisfactory. At the time the Russians and Americans, supported far too obediently by the British, were producing their non-proliferation treaty there was another arms control strategy being proposed—one supported far more widely. To that strategy, abandoned when we were blown off course by the powerful but irrelevant collusion of the nuclear Super-Powers, I think we must now return.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down after his absorbing and valuable speech, may I ask for one point of clarification which I think might cause confusion if left as it is? In the context of the nuclear weapons Powers, he referred to Britain as the first proliferator. Did he mean that we were the second country to achieve a nuclear weapons capability, or was there something more significant in that remark?
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I meant precisely that we were the third country to achieve that capability after the United States and after the Soviet Union. The House surely needs no reminding that the wartime atom bomb was developed by America, Britain and France, with some help from Canada, and that, due to the oddities of the American Constitution, the Hyde Park and Quebec Agreements were not kept by the United States Government, because the incoming President did not know about them, and that then became the American atom bomb. The Russians followed suit and we then—because, as France now, we did not trust America always to come to our rescue—developed our own. So that, strictly, one could say that the Soviet Union was the first proliferator and we were the second. But I think an easier picture to understand is that there was America, there was Russia and then proliferation began, and we were the first proliferator.
6.58 p.m.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I am not going to seek to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his extremely learned and interesting discourse on disarmament. I think it is extremely appropriate that he should have brought this intensely intractable subject into this debate, and I am sure we are all grateful to him for doing so. If I may just make one comment, I have, in my unscholarly and simplistic way, written to the effect that if only, somehow, Communist States could give up being conspirators and this passion for secrecy, the dramatic developments in the disarmament field are hardly to be believed. But how to get them to do it seems to me to be the absolute basic of this problem. The noble Lord hopes that if the Americans broke away this would happen. I am not so sure.
May I add to your Lordships' tributes to our maiden speakers a statement of
360
my own? I should like to say that the arrival and the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, appeal to me very much on three points. The first is the noble Lord's very close connection with the late Sir Harold Nicholson, whose perceptive and charming comments on diplomacy are something that all people in that profession—and many people outside—read with such delight. The second point is that he attributed to his speech a Wagnerian style—fortunately, not a Wagnerian length—and my reply to him would be that his theme seemed to be, Europa erwach' noch langem Schlaf, which means, "Europe awake after long sleep". That is only one word different, I think—but the noble Lord will no doubt correct me in writing if I am wrong—from the text in the second Act of Siegfried. The other point of the noble Lord which appeals very much to me as I am involved in the voluntary organisation movement, relates to his appreciation of what voluntary organisations can do to help government. We appreciate such a comment because there is a certain trendy propensity to nark at voluntary organisations, whatever they may be doing. This does not apply to the Government, with whom we cooperate very happily.
May I also go on record as congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, on his first personal reconnaissance of the terrain of your Lordships' House. It was delightful. I was very happy that the noble Viscount mentioned the late Lord Cowley, whom we very much miss. In his absence it is good to have with us a new expert on Latin America.
I should like to add one further tribute with which I do not think any of your Lordships would disagree. During the year the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has consistently dealt with our questions on foreign affairs with patience, thoroughness and expertise and with a certain style which is unique to him, and perhaps also to his country. We all owe him a great deal for what he has been able to do for us.
Last year the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who made such a forceful speech this afternoon, expressed regret that it seemed to be impossible to have as an item on our

361
agenda in this House a great debate on foreign and Commonwealth affairs. We always seem to stray into particular paths. I sympathised with the noble Lord and said that I thought that such a debate was impossible. With your Lordships' permission, I am now going, in some degree, to daunt the impossible a little because it seems to me that it would be helpful if I tried, in a limited way, to go a little beneath the surface of the individual items that we speak about, and make some reflections upon general political situations and the role that we should and, indeed, should not try to play. I think noble Lords will appreciate that I have sought to discipline myself in the length of my interventions in this House, but I must warn them that this one will last perhaps a little longer than my average; and if they feel thirsty for something other than diplomatic discourse after a time, I shall not be offended.
May I begin with the matter of ideology, to which considerable time has been devoted this afternoon. I have been somewhat puzzled by the fact that in the middle of this year I met so many people and read so many articles which suggested that the trouble with the world is economic—the world's economic troubles are indeed formidable—but there was a nagging feeling at the back of my mind that I had heard this before. Then I remembered the context in which I had heard it preached as a gospel. That was in the summer of 1968, just before the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact stepped in to destroy the Dubcek-Czechoslovak "springtime". Therefore I grew very suspicious of this gospel. I think that it had the intention of distracting us from the matter which, despite what anybody may say, remains the top item of importance in world argument and world practice. I do not necessarily intend to preach against Soviet practices and performances in different places. That is not the point. The point is that this doctrine exists, persists and continues to be a menace to us all.
Perhaps I can illustrate this best by some references to situations on our own Continent of Europe. One pattern that we find in Europe is that if there is a Social Democratic party in a democratic country which can maintain itself and which has the courage of character and the clarity of mind to understand the difference between
362
Social Democracy and philosophy such as Marxist-Leninism, then the position of democracy can be maintained. I have in mind particularly Herr Schmidt in Germany and, perhaps more surprisingly and more interestingly, the discovery by Social Democracy in Portugal of a leader who has statesmanship and leadership qualities, Dr. Mario Soares. But where social democracy of a really democratic kind does not have such a voice and where it has a rather ill-thought out inclination to combine with Communists, then there is a very distinct and dangerous menace to democratic institutions, and that is what is happening in Italy now. Of course I could extend this argument, but I might get into an embarrassing position if I did. Therefore I will stop at that point.
It leads on, however, to another point which has already been mentioned in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont; that is, the position in a case like Chile. I will not go into that question in exactly the same way as did their Lordships but perhaps I may suggest that very few people know, and possibly very few people care to know, that the Fascist régime that exists now in Chile grew out of an already extreme situation. The Allende Government not only were in the process of totally ruining the country economically; they were also aiming at control by undemocratic means. And who were found finally in the Government buildings? Cuban mercenaries. So we have the predecessors of the Cuban mercenaries in Angola, of whom your Lordships have heard much this evening. Therefore the moral of the Chilean story is not so much that the wicked Fascists overcame good and virtuous democrats but that there was a position in which two extremes confronted each other. That is one of the reasons for so much of the sadness in the world today.
I should not suggest that the Communist camp does not have its own difficulties and setbacks. Much the most interesting situation now is the relationship between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. One must assume that in China there is going on at this moment a private and secret but very intense and probably widespread debate on the future of relations between China and the Soviet Union and

363
that there are small signs of a slight approach towards a limited détente.
I do not see why the other side should not enjoy the disadvantage of that very easily misunderstood word. It may be some time before it comes out which way the vote of the Chinese Committee will go. If it went in favour of détente with the Soviet Union, in some ways that would be a disadvantage for the rest of us. On the other hand, it would be an admission by the Chinese of a certain doctrinal retreat. It would also mean an admission of what I think one must consider to be the fact, that in the race for Africa in the twentieth century, the Chinese, despite the Tanzania railway, have somewhat lost out to the heavy hardware and the Cuban mercenaries, wielded by the Russians. In this state of debate and uncertainty in the Communist camp I am sure it is wise for us to pursue the policy which the Government, and I think their predecessors, pursued, which is to get as close to the Chinese as we can in terms of both commercial dealing and political content. But of course this does not go very far in the light of Chinese customs and practice. But whatever there is, I am certain that we are right to maintain our connections and our trade.
Perhaps we may now turn to the problems of the Third World. The Third World seems to divide itself voluntarily into two bodies which meet from time to time: the non-alignment grouping and the developing countries' grouping. The non-alignment grouping was an idea which I think was launched by the late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India, and I think launched with the good purpose of giving certain countries freedom of choice in particular questions. But, unhappily, right from the beginning that group had Communist country membership—and one simply cannot have a group which calls itself non-aligned and contains Communist members (as it now does) and is credible.
Now that in the United Nations we and other democratic countries are in a minority, I think that we should be less inhibited about speaking frankly on things like this than we were when we were leaders of a majority, trying to keep the world respectable. On the other hand, we must distinguish very carefully from
364
the developing world as such—the world of UNCTAD and so on—because that is a very real and genuine and important section of the world. I think it is much to the credit of Governments of both major Parties in this country that, whatever the difficulties, they have made the effort to keep the British share in aid to developing countries from lagging or dropping. There have been many temptations to do this, whether as a result of the behaviour of the countries we have helped or simply from our own financial difficulties, but we have tried to keep our aid going. I believe it to be now accepted by the Overseas Development Ministry as 2·5 per cent. of the gross national product, and even if the Government share of that is a minority, none the less the effort is commendable and I hope it will continue to be maintained even in our difficult times.
There are two small points in the passage in the gracious Speech on this subject on which I should like to ask the Minister who is to wind up the debate whether he would care to comment, and I should be grateful if he could so do. The expression "rich and poor nations" was a highly useful and emotive one when launched (I think) by Barbara Ward as a definition of the nations in stable times, and it served that purpose for perhaps a decade. Since the rise in oil prices this equation has been much more difficult to work out and it is much more fluid and unstable. I should have thought it would be better for official up-to-date purposes to use the phrase "richer and poorer nations" because there will be ups and downs in the scale, but I would not have thought that the British public at this moment very much appreciated being called a rich nation.
My other point concerns the growing emphasis on the poorest countries. I think this is unexceptionable, as is most of the gracious Speech on these matters. But would the noble Lord who is to wind up the debate be prepared to say that in the allocation of aid suitable regard is paid to the prospect that aid given to the poorest countries is practicable for use and is effectively and properly used? After all, this is the taxpayers' money, and I think the taxpayer, just like the subscriber to a charity, likes to have some assurance that the aid he is giving can be properly used.

365
While we are on the subject of the position in the developing countries perhaps I may turn for a moment to Rhodesia. I have no special knowledge of this problem, nor any expert things to say, but I should like to say that the impression one has from outside is that this is a very difficult Conference—indeed a supremely difficult Conference, and it is being handled by Mr. Ivor Richard with very considerable skill. He is accused far too often by "media" persons of either not getting on fast enough or not being explicit enough, or this or that. I think it must be one of the most difficult conferences anyone has ever had to handle and I feel that we should be grateful to him for the efforts he is making.
Rhodesia leads on to South Africa, about which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has spoken so eloquently. Perhaps I may add one idea. In your Lordships' House on one occasion I suggested that we should give up simply abusing Mr. Ian Smith in Rhodesia and concentrate on arguing with him that it was time for him to accept the inevitable. This was not received with any great pleasure, but I am now going to suggest it again. I do not think that if we wish to influence South Africa we can do it by just being rude, but I think we might make some progress in applying influence if we could hammer home that it is inevitable that something will change in a big way. There may be a widening of human rights to coloured and black people, or that in the end there will be a division of that country—we do not know; but I do not think we shall carry much weight unless we switch our argument from straight criticism, which we all feel, to emphasising the notion that a change is inevitable.
Going quickly from that subject, perhaps I may just say that after 1976 we shall bask in an afterglow of happy feeling with the United States of America after the successful bicentennial, from both sides, and we shall also be encouraged by the thought of enjoying a multiracial kinship at the Commonwealth meeting of Prime Ministers next summer. Then, inevitably, we must come back to Europe and ourselves.
Again referring to the White Paper, there is just one point on which I should like the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom,
366
to answer a question. Would he feel able to amplify just a little the statement in the gracious Speech that the Government continue to study the question of Cyprus? I do not wish to comment on past decisions or indecisions, but our present position is possibly the only international responsibility of that nature which we have. When we have finished the Rhodesian Conference, for better or worse, I do not see that, except for Cyprus, we are likely to be presiding over a conference with that degree of responsibility, possibly for years to come, as a single and independent nation; so it would be useful, and perhaps encouraging, to know in which way we are hoping that the Cyprus matter may be developed through our influence and persuasion.
Now we come back very much to our own case and, as the final part of my speech, I should like to venture a few suggestions on what British Governments should and should not do in our present crisis. One has been mentioned already, but I should like to underline it very strongly. Could Ministers give us a moratorium for some time ahead in an attempt to say, either to our own people or to the rest of the world, how much influence we wield at this moment? The attitude of abroad to this country at the moment contains much compassion, much friendliness; but it really is not a question of a willingness to subject themselves to any influence that we may suppose, or say we suppose, that we have.
It really is not for nothing that the Italian Press called the recent football match between the two countries "a dual of the derelicts of Europe", or that the normally extremely friendly Christian Science Monitor in Boston put a rather tart headline in their paper, saying that the British pound needs British help. So could we, for the time being, be suitably modest about our position in the world—not apologetic, but simply modest?
Then, could we avoid another attitude, which I do not wish to pin on the Government or Ministers, but on all of us, in a sense. The Japanese make automobiles which are convenient, are adequate, and show good workmanship; they are delivered on the date for which they have been promised. They also come at an economic price from a high price economy.

367
Up to now, this has been something of a menace to our motor industry. While we have to protect ourselves, to speak of this as though delivering a good car, well made, at the right time, is a moral crime by the Japanese is really quite nauseating, and, whether in writing, speaking, or in whatever capacity, we must avoid making moral judgments about things other people do well. They are not unfair.
My Lords, I do not wish to depress your Lordships, but I think also we ought ourselves to remember that there are things which this country does magnificently. The mystery of our present condition is that we do not seem to run the whole show magnificently. I will give your Lordships a few examples at random. I will start loyally and sincerely with the Royal Family and go on to air transportation, the running of Heathrow. Then I go on to invisible exports, an activity which proceeds with much trendy "narking" all the time, and brings in 40 per cent. of our foreign exchange income. Then I can go on to individual enterprises, though I will not discriminate between industries because I know too little. But taking various activities in this country, including Marks and Spencer and the London Palladium, there are a number of things which the British do magnificently.
We have to ask ourselves: Why is it, when we have able people doing things so well, that we somehow seem at the moment not to be running our whole show as well as we should? The only definite area in which we seem to be lagging is what I would define simply as productivity over a wide front. I shall not give examples, because I have spoken for long enough already. But if your Lordships disbelieve me, may I ask you to look on page 2 of the Sun newspaper of yesterday and see some of the things going on in the wildest way in some of our more important factories. I can console your Lordships by saying that when you have read page 2, you will have your reward by looking at the picture of the lady on page 3.
My Lords, this brings me back to the beginning. There is in the world a small minority of countries which can call themselves democratic in their institutions, practices and human rights. Countries in Asia have receded; countries in Africa
368
have receded. Possibly there is an addition or two in Western Europe; there is Northern Europe, North America, the old Commonwealth. But when you tot them up, they are tragically few in number.
If, at the end, I have talked about our obligations to the world, one of them is that, whatever we do, we must never for a moment falter in our duties and obligations to the democratic group in the world. We are now a member of a small group defending these principles, and the one thing I am sure that none of us, whether in your Lordships' House or mostly round the country, would wish to do would be by apathy or cynicism, or simply by ignorance, to let go by default government of the people, for the people, by the people, which still remains the best form of government that has ever been devised.
7.26 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, after that very interesting speech with regard to the point of view about China, if the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, cares to come along to a conference we are having between the EEC countries and Europe in February, his views would be very interesting to them. May I add my congratulations to the two maiden speakers. As was the last speaker, I was particularly interested when the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, raised the question of voluntary organisations. The noble Lord has done a great deal to help them. At present they need people like the noble Lord to give them courage in many cases to carry on because there are so many difficulties. May I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, that I thought his speech was interesting and excellent. When he said to noble Lords that they ought to think in terms of long-term planning, or strategic planning, he may be starting a new era because one feels one can speak in this House and nobody takes any notice at all, but perhaps with the influence of the noble Viscount more notice will be taken in the future.
I should like to speak for a little about defence, if I may. I should like a message to go out from this House today of congratulation to all the men and women of Her Majesty's Services. They are

369
doing a splendid job in a very difficult time. They undertake their job on behalf of the country, of which they are very proud. Especially having been to Ulster on several occasions, we have to thank them for the marvellous work they are doing there. The men and women of the Services have carried on despite all the cuts. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, they are getting very worried about the cuts in expenditure because in many cases there is a lack of equipment, and a lack of proper facilities for training. It may be very nice to have a simulator to help train the troops, but it is not the same as having practical training with real weapons and ammunition. These exercises cannot really be done if one is shut up in a room. Of course it facilitates early training, but I feel that these men and women have great difficulties to face when they go out from training. Somerset Maugham wrote:
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom. The irony is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too."
This may happen to us at this period.
I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, here because we owe him a debt of gratitude for starting his All-Party Committee, which has had a quite resounding success. I should like the noble Lord the Minister to be kind enough to convey to Mr. Roy Mason, the past Minister, that we are grateful, and he should be congratulated for the fact that he made a stand. It was very brave of him to say quite publicly that we cannot cut any more, following the enormous cuts he himself had made. He has been transferred to another job. We want to know what is going to be the policy of the Government in the future, because the scene has changed. This makes us increasingly worried about whether there are to be any further cuts. I hope the present Minister is putting up a fight equal to his predecessor's. General Alexander Haig warned us on 3rd November that it was
"unwise to attempt to solve social and economic problems by reducing expenditure on defence."
In the Defence Estimates, Cmnd. 6432/76, it has been shown how much more powerful the Warsaw Pact countries are in weapons and manpower than are the NATO allies. This has been mentioned by several other noble Lords.
370
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, with whom I worked quite a lot in the WEU, stressed the question of standardising equipment. We tried over the very many years, nearly ten years, I was attending the WEU in Paris, and we were not at all successful, particularly with the French, who appeared to prefer to have their own type of weapons. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, mentioned the question of Russian bases. They have now increased, I understand, to ten in number. What worries me is that they have a base in South Yemen and another in Berber, exactly on opposite sides; so they could hold up all the ships in the Suez Canal except their own. The Command Paper which we had, No. 6432, does not show the real position as it is today.
In our Defence Estimates we have to carry the medical services, about £110 million, £70 million on education, about £95 million for housing for the married couples, and £300 million for the Services and their pensions. Also, for some unknown reason, the Estimate includes the Meteorological Office, which costs £22 million. In Germany and France these are not carried on the Defence Estimates. We also have—from the Answer to a Question I put down the other day—123,446 non-industrial civil servants. We are told that we spend so much more than our allies on defence. But in point of fact Germany spends per head £81, France £76 and the United Kingdom £63. It is said that to endanger our security or that of our friends in our concern for social justice—and I often wonder what "social justice" really means—would, if implemented, render us virtually defenceless.
I would quote Admiral Sir Terence Lewin. He said:
"I believe that by far the greatest risk lies in the part of the world where we are vulnerable and the Soviets are not, and that is at sea. The West depends utterly on freedom of sea communications. During the past six years Russia has more than doubled the number of her missile-equipped cruisers, quadrupled her nuclear submarines in the last two years and is now completing one a month."
We all remember that in the last World War, and to a certain extent in the First World War, if it had not been for our Navy bringing in the convoys of food we in this country would probably have starved. With the cuts in the Navy and

371
the increase in the Russian Navy, this is becoming more worrying than ever. Also, in intercontinental ballistic missiles they have increased from 224 to 1,600, sea-launched ballistics from 20 to 730, bombs from 450 to 2,500. I think this gives us food for thought.
I am not at all happy about any commitment of total defence policy in Europe, if this means that we are unable to take any action if required elsewhere, as Russia seems determined not to uphold the spirit of détente or keep the agreed provisions of the Helsinki Agreement. We have already lost 38,000 Servicemen and 40,000 civilians; they have already finished their service. It has been suggested that the money we save would be invested in industry but, of course, that has not happened and there are still more unemployed. It is an interesting fact that at the Conservative Women's Conference they balloted for a motion to discuss defence; it was not the motion chosen by the Committee. There were more motions on the order paper in regard to defence than anything else. I think this is because women now are beginning to realise the great importance of protecting their country. What is extremely galling to me is that Her Majesty's Government are lending money to the Soviets at a lower rate of interest than we have to pay for our own borrowings. I think this is very unfortunate indeed.
If I may go for a moment to domestic matters, I should like to ask about the Island class ships, about which questions have been asked before. Perhaps the Minister could give us some idea how they are getting on, whether they will be successful and whether they will be repeated in the future. I should also like to return to Royal Naval Dockyards, Cmnd. Paper No. 5976, which at page 76, paragraph 27, states:
"with the difficulty in recruiting and retaining labour it will be necessary to continue and intensify measures to improve recruitment."
I should very much like to know whether this is happening. At the present time, with such a small Navy, it is absolutely essential to have well-trained people who can turn round the ships in the quickest possible time. Then it was said later in the Estimates that spare capacity would come in 1977-78, and they might then have
372
to find additional repayment work. If there are not enough people now to repair the actual ships, why is it necessary to get repayment work? Then there is the question of apprentices. So many people now are cutting down on apprenticeships. Her Majesty's Government can give excellent training, both to boys and girls, and when they are trained they do not have to stay in the dockyard. They can go, and I have met them, to many very advantageous jobs all over the world.
In Cmnd. Paper No. 6432, on page 73, paragraph 5, it is said that these dockyards are going to have improving efficiency, including this Royal Dockyards Policy Board. I did ask a Question some time ago to find out what the policy of this Board is going to be. Will it be discussed with the Whitley Committee? Are the men going to know what is going to happen in the future? At every Election, and every time there is a change of Minister, naturally all these people employed by the Government, particularly on defence, are worried. There is to be a separate Estimate for 1976–77, and I should be very grateful if we could know when this is coming out. There is also to be, I understand, a new wages structure. It is being tried out at Chatham at the present moment and the trial period is now over, and we should like to know whether it is possible to implement this at other yards. May I ask after the health of HMS "Ark Royal"? How long is it before she is going to be cremated? We have heard something about her practically every year. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is not here, I should like to make inquiry about the present situation with regard to the Gurkhas. As we know, the Sultan of Brunei has offered to pay the entire cost of the Gurkhas, and I do think it is absolutely essential that he should have some answer in the near future.
I would inquire about the question of the welfare reports, because these are very important to the future of all three Services. We had a welfare report, the Seebohm Report on the Royal Navy, and there were 29 recommendations. It was stated that the period of separation for families should be reduced at the earliest possible opportunity. This was over a year ago, and I should like to know if any action was taken. Now we have had this very interesting report from the Army Welfare Inquiry Committee. This was

373
suddenly produced yesterday, having been received by the Government last December; I do not know why there has been such a delay in publishing it. However, it is very disappointing, as the Under-Secretary for the Army stated in a Written Answer yesterday, of column 77 of the Commons Official Report:
"After very full consideration, I have, however, decided not to adopt the committee's main recommendation for an Army Social Work Service."
Leaving aside, as I understand it, the fact that there are pressures on the defence budget, I find that it is likely to cost about £650,000.
It appeared in an article in The Times today that the Army is against this proposal because it fears a barrier between the commanding officer and his regimental problems. Surely if this scheme, which I personally think would be a good one, were introduced one could report direct to the commanding officer and always be in touch. Because what happens so often is that the wives are left behind in the various countries, either Germany or England, and the officers go with their men to Ulster or wherever they are being sent overseas. So he is really not there to be contacted in detail.
I should have thought that the alternative suggestions put forward by the Minister are not very good. He said that there should be improved links with the local authority social services. As the greatest problem is in Germany, this does not seem a very helpful suggestion. I also found that it was not at all realistic in the way it was approached. The Minister's reply, to which I have referred, went on to say:
"We are, however, examining two alternatives …with the Sailors' Soldiers' and Airmen's Families Association the possibility of expanding its activities…".
This is an excellent organisation, as we all know, but at the present time they are mostly voluntary workers and they would have to have a completely different set-up. Then, as I mentioned before, there are the local authority social services. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will say whether there is any chance of getting the present situation changed, because it is unfortunate that these people should not have a service recommended by a Special Committee.
374
May I just quote from the Sunday Times:
"Problems appear to be worst in Germany. 'We found there,' the report states, 'a combination of vulnerable young families living in a strange land, many of them in high-rise flats at some distance from their unit locations and often without the head of the family, and too few social workers operating without the back-up services available from local authorities in the United Kingdom. This particularly struck us as a recipe for social distress'."
It also says:
"As a Lance Corporal told the committee, 'You live with blokes all the time, in cramped dirty conditions and you live from day to day and come back depressed and in a temper. I get niggled with anything out of place and jump at my wife and say that's not good enough. I look forward to coming home and then we get niggly at one another …".
Moreover, the article states:
"Children suffer too. 'The children feel nervous of me,' one sergeant said. 'The youngest cried when I spoke to him and it took me some time to win his confidence before he would come to me. It really upset me…'."
When you look at the report you will see the length of time for which these families are separated. So can anything be done to get a change of attitude by the Minister to see whether we cannot get a proper service, because it is frightening to think that so many of these young men leave the Service. Some of them leave in a few days and some of them leave in a few months. Forty-seven per cent. of the non-privates also leave after three years, so it seems to me that things are not satisfactory. I should like the Minister to take this report seriously, which I am sure he will, and have a word with his colleagues and see whether we cannot get some change of attitude both by the Minister and by the Army themselves, because I feel it is essential that this issue should be looked into.
7.45 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, when I first joined your Lordships' House anyone speaking after about 6 o'clock prefaced his remarks with,"At this late hour …" and then he was quite often commendably short. At this late hour I will try to be commendably short, but before I ride my particular hobby-horses I should like to welcome the two maiden speakers today; the very erudite speech of the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, and the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of

375
Alamein. I was particularly interested in his speech because three-and-a-half years ago I led a Parliamentary Mission to Brazil. What has worried me most over the years (and I am now speaking defencewise) has been our lack of reserves. The greatest trouble that befell us was the abolition, or practically the abolition, of the Territorial Army by Healey. I think a lot of people do not realise how little that Army cost, how great was its potential for training the reserves and, what is even more to the point, at the time of its abolition the terrific amount of time and expertise that it had in producing the very good civil defence organisation which we had in the country at the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is not here at the moment. He spoke for the Government in the debate when we were condemning the Government's abolition of the Civil Defence organisation. It is ironic that in my part of the world just after they had been abolished, and the Territorial Army was abolished, we had some flood disasters. Several bridges on the borders of our county with Somerset were washed away. A year before the local TA engineer unit would have replaced them with a Bailey bridge in no time. In fact that has happened. At that time they had to send all the way to Essex to get a Bailey bridge to take the A303, which is the main route into the county. That is not the only point. There was a terrific amount in the Civil Defence. They abolished the Civil Defence organisation en passant. They have abolished the Civil Defence staff college, of which I was a graduate, and that was turned into a college for civil servants. I think when we look back at the growth rate of that particular industry and compare it with everything else, that is somewhat ironical in our present day and age.
The main point I should like to make about my main hobby-horse is that I think a civilian army, militia, call it what you will—I will call it a Territorial Army—could and should be our third deterrent. Doubt is now being cast on part of the what I call the second deterrent. Tactical nuclear weapons (and I admit that that depends on whether you are going to have fusion or fission) are the first deterrent. The second deterrent is our Regular conventional forces. Only by having a large civilian army, percentage-
376
wise somewhat on the scale of the Chinese or Yugoslavs, can we have a sufficient locally based third deterrent which—I am talking in the European context and not in terms of this country alone—when the initial enemy thrust takes place, can flow round its flanks, a tactic that has proved so successful in the past.
I also believe that we should re-introduce National Service. In that way not only would we get adequate reserves for our Regular Forces and our Territorial Army but it would do a terrific amount of social good, especially in this era when we no longer have the disciplines which used to come from religious beliefs and so on. If, at that formative stage of their lives, young men of all sections of society could feel that they were working for the common good, we should achieve a great deal. My noble friend Lord Hunt wrote a letter to The Times suggesting the establishment of some sort of youth service. I suggest that experience teaches us that such services can, before long, get into the wrong hands and that the only way to do it on a national basis is to have a national service on the lines we had previously. Remember, with a proper national service a large part of the time of young men can be spent doing things of a social nature, such as Civil Defence.
An example of what I mean when I say that certain youth services can get into the wrong hands is contained in a letter which I have with me from a local person who went on a course to become a youth leader. When being interviewed he was asked what sort of activities he would engage in with the youths he would be leading and he replied that he would organise football matches, hikes and similar events. The instructor—I emphasise that it was the instructor who said this—asked him, in effect, "Wouldn't it be a better idea to organise local marches with banners to the town hall protesting against this or that?" That illustrates how careful we must be when contemplating any organisation other than a national service because, to call a spade a spade, the service can fall into the hands of people who are serving the cause of political violence.
Ten years ago the equipment of our Armed Forces was second to none. While in the intervening years we have not progressed, the other side has. Following

377
the Yom Kippur War, the Soviets had a large meeting at the Malenovsky Tank Academy, and those meetings have continued ever since. At them they have studied and brought up to date the weapons of all their services, so much so that the lead we had in our equipment only 10 years ago no longer exists. Consider the Navy. I presume that most noble Lords read the article in the Sunday Telegraph. What a pathetic story it was; only one cruiser and practically nothing else. I dined, as we say in the Navy, in the "Ark Royal" at Devonport in July; I remember it well because it was during the very hot weather. The air conditioning was not working and a naval officer sitting next to me said, "We are finding things very hard. We are being skimped left, right and centre, so we had to let the air conditioning go in order to have something else". Other noble Lords have referred to the feeling of demoralisation that exists in the Services. It is caused by the fact that they are no longer the best. I hasten to add that I am talking equipment-wise only; the material we have in terms of the men is excellent.
A brief comment about submarines. We have cut down on the number of conventional submarines and this is a great worry to the Navy, first because nuclear submariners are trained in conventional submarines, and secondly because nuclear submarines cannot operate in shallow waters like the Channel or the North Sea or in other places where we might wish to use them in war time. The submariners are very concerned about the cut in conventional submarines. Equally, was it not humiliating that for the recent NATO exercise we had to hire civilian ferries to take our troops across the North Sea? All this comes back to the lack of reserves.
As for the Army, we all know what an excellent job they are doing in Northern Ireland. Let us face it, however, that we do not have sufficient men for our NATO commitments plus Northern Ireland. I tried to draw General Haig out on this issue when on our way to the airport. He was too wise a chap to answer me directly, so he turned the conversation round and said what admiration he had for the British units in Germany training for Northern Ireland, and he spoke of how well they had
378
erected a mock village and done other work. Perhaps I might mention that when he was there he was given a rifle and shown round by a Scottish major. A target appeared at a window and the General was invited to shoot at it. He fired but the target did not fall. The major shouted to the soldier in charge of the target, "Drop the target, quick! Didn't you see it was the General who shot at it!". Need I say that the General had missed? Seriously, there is great admiration for the training that is given, and the spirit of the men is obviously extremely high. I am sure that other noble Lords will comment on the question of equipment. I would only add that I gather that our best tanks are now going to the Shah of Persia.
One of our major problems is that of internal defence. The number of people advocating political violence is on the increase. To call a spade a spade, a lot of people are very worried lest the supporters of those two newspapers, the Militant and the Tribune, should take over the Labour Party. I think that that would be extremely dangerous for the future of the country. A supporter of one of those groups to whom we were talking said that he would abolish defence and the police, so I asked him as I was escorting him away what he would replace them with. "A workers' militia", he answered. I asked what he would do then and he replied that the money that would be saved would go into the factories. I asked him, "What about the fact that 70 per cent. of our food and raw materials for those factories comes round or from the Cape area?" I asked him whether he would not just be starving the people as well as the factories. That is a point that it does not seem possible to get across.
Was it not ironical, that, at the same time as the extremists were demanding that we should send troops to topple the Smith régime, notices appeared in the Press that the RAF was selling the last of its long range troop transports? Where, again, are our medium-lift helicopters? Many people have quoted the comment of SACEUR that we cannot solve our socio-economic problems by cutting down on our security. This had been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in articles in The Times and Telegraph and by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. People

379
do not seem to realise that we are only at peace now through the courtesy of the United States of America and China. Otherwise, we should already be an East European satellite. To my mind, those who demand more cuts in defence are the real fifth columnists in this country today.
Perhaps the best reform would be a reform not of this House but of the House of Commons. I feel that, if we had proportional representation, the extremists, whether of Right or Left, would come out in their own colours and we might have less danger of subversive infiltration. I believe that, if we do not act now, the defence of our country, of our trade, of our standard of living and, most of all, of our freedom will have been lost. We all know who will benefit from that.
8.4 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, we have heard very many good speeches today both on foreign affairs and on defence, and I should like to add my sincere congratulations to the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today. We hope to hear them again many times. I shall confine my brief remarks tonight to defence. There are many aspects to defence and the first and most important thing to decide is the degree of the threat of aggression. Without the feeling of any threat, one can only hope to be educated a little. My contention is that the threat is very much in evidence. Information on this is freely available from many sources, not least from General Haig, who has been widely quoted in this House today. General Haig is no scaremonger. His knowledge is second to none. He leads the NATO forces and is very closely in touch with what is going on. He has recently made two speeches in this country, one to the House of Lords Defence Study Group and one to the Air League. On both occasions he said that the threat was very severe and that there was a new, aggressive aspect to the Russian forces and equipment. Surely, one need look no further for these facts.
The facts are denied by the Russians but all the experts agree that their forces are now more offensive than defensive. So what are we to do? We must educate the public as to what it means to have an
380
aggressive potential enemy. Possibly, also, we have to continue to try to educate some of our politicians. The Government have in the past been known to use empty words, to say that they support NATO and then continue their savage cuts so that our establishment is only nominally correct while the back-up of reserves which is so urgently required is just not adequate.
The recent large-scale manoeuvres in Germany, which attracted quite a lot of attention in the Press, got very good results, but that was due to the efficiency of our forces rather than to the Government, who have continued to cut away at the heart of the Armed Forces' supplies and, consequently, at the morale of all three Services. This is a fact that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne.
I have been very fortunate, as have many other Members of your Lordships' House who have made visits. I went to NATO in January and to Germany in April, and I visited the Navy in September. All the people I talked to, regardless of rank, said that they were worried by the cuts which made them inefficient and led them, in some cases, to feel themselves a second-class force compared with most of their NATO allies. Their morale was still surprisingly good, but it was on the verge of going down. The situation is not improving.
There is another aspect that I should like to mention. The word "slippage" has crept into the vocabulary of the Forces. It is a new threat. There is delay in supplying new and vital equipment that is essential to the Armed Forces—equipment that it has already been agreed shall be supplied and on which plans have been based relying on its supply. Frequently, such equipment is being delayed. I should like to mention one or two examples. First, there is "Milan", a German-French anti-tank weapon. The restructured corps in Germany is depending on this weapon. If it is not available that will certainly jeopardise our future role. I gather that there is some argument over whether it is to be built in the United Kingdom. That is immaterial. It looks as though it will be seriously delayed.
As regards radios, there is a new generation of radios which is coming along. Here again, there is some delay, possibly

381
for technical or industrial reasons, but if this equipment is delayed it will surely cause the backbone of BAOR to be severely dislocated. It must be available in 1977 in order to keep our forces efficient. The same could be said of the helicopter anti-tank guided weapon, whose implementation is very badly needed, but I shall not go on about that.
It is said that the Russians have a 19th century strategy with 20th century weapons: surely, we cannot play our proper role without modern weapons. The Channel is, after all, only a dyke and the Third World War, if it has to come, will be won or lost in Germany. As we have heard many times this afternoon, the Russians have both the intention and the capability of winning the next battle. Their capability is growing very fast. The threat today is tremendous: tomorrow, it will be that much greater.
So we must take note of the lessons to be learnt from history and see where unpreparedness and lack of defences have led nations in the past. My father was Chief of the Air Staff from 1937 and during the Battle of Britain and I know that he had enormous battles with the Government on the supply of aeroplanes, so it is clearly nothing new. But we have the best men and some of the best military machines in all branches of the Services. Let us not make our Servicemen work with one hand tied behind their back for, if we continue to do so—and I feel that we are doing so in certain instances—we shall give this country away to our enemies. We are heading towards it politically. Surely, we shall not do so militarily as well, or there will be no Welfare State, no Health Service, no freedom of the individual, and more of our private little pieces of England will be gone with nothing left to defend them. We have to defend ourselves nationally first, then we can try to defend our individual freedoms and points of view, albeit with the stresses and strains of politics.
We cannot cut our forces any more. There is certainly no fat left. Let us once more use a single aspect of human nature—an aspect that is sadly lacking these days, particularly in Government—our plain common sense. Let us make our excellent Forces really efficient by giving them the equipment that they deserve and the means to use it.
8.9 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my compliments and thanks to the two maiden speakers who spoke today. In the course of a fairly long Parliamentary career I have listened to a large number of maiden speakers, and I think that the standard which was reached by the noble Lords today—and those who have been in both Houses for years will agree with me—was equal to, if not better than, the standard of many of those whom we have heard in the past. Of course we hope that we shall hear from today's maiden speakers on a number of occasions in the future. Their speeches were full of interesting material and they have given us cause for a considerable amount of thought.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that I want to touch on the question of the Middle East. The noble Lord, Lord Segal, commented upon some instance which had occurred in which exchanges of visits had taken place between Egyptians and Israelis and I share his hopes for the future. I have been in the Zionist movement practically from boyhood, from my university days. Weizmann, who was a very distinguished predecessor of mine as President of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, on all occasions whenever the question of Israel, the Jewish National Home, had been raised, made statements and supported resolution after resolution which were passed which gave hope that re-establishment of the Jewish State would produce effective results, not only for itself but for all its neighbours.
Balfour laid the foundation stone of the Hebrew University which was the first important action taken after the granting of the Mandate. One of the important Departments, if not the most important, was the Department of Arabic. Israel has invariably sought peaceful relations with its neighbours. There is no question at all, for example, that the thousands of Arab students who come into Israel over the borders are allowed in freely and can do what they like so far as their pursuits are concerned, provided, of course, they are legitimate pursuits, and the Arab population in Israel and the surrounding territories has never lacked anything in the nature of using its health services, social services, or correct and

383
proper treatment so far as employment is concerned: as, for example, members of the exemplary trade union, the Histadruth. I have visited Israel and, before that, Palestine, very many times and I have never yet found animus by Jews against any Arab in Israel. I defy anybody—I state this publicly—who has been to Israel to state that he or she has ever heard an Israeli use defamatory terms against individual Arabs; of course, against the Arab attackers from outside it is a different matter.
If the Arabs had only had some decency and sense at the time when the United Nations had given its assent or had re-established the ancient Jewish homeland as a recognised entity. It is nonsense for people to speak about Israel not being the Jewish homeland. One has only to go into the Robing Room here and one sees paintings of Moses and Daniel, of the farmer who put Joshua into that land. Incidentally, we are speaking on the verge of a very interesting Festival which is identified with the Jewish homeland, that is, the Festival of Lights which commemorates the feat of Judas Maccabaeus who with his army saved Jerusalem and the world from being overcome by idolators and thus from endangering religion. Furthermore, if you want to see a painting about Judas Maccabaeus in this Parliament you can see it at the side of the steps leading down to the Terrace. It is absurd for some people to suggest that Israel is not the Jewish homeland.
With regard to remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Segal, the fact of the matter is that the response by Sadat is not effectively there. It is not a question purely of Egypt. Egypt is in the hands of the terrorists at present. Everybody knows that. Anybody who understands the position at all knows very well that even when Egypt entered into an arrangement with Israel she had serious difficulties from the PLO and other terrorists. What we are faced with at the present time is this. I agree that we should make every endeavour to promote good relationships between the two countries, Egypt and Israel. Reference was made to the Sunday Times. I suggest that when we go out of here some of us who have not read the article in the Sunday Times should look at it and see what Sadat actually says. It is not, I believe, a free Sadat who speaks.
384
It is the Arab set-up which, in my view, is itself terrorised by the terrorists. What we have to consider is what is in fact the position in the Middle East at present.
Everybody agrees that there should be a meeting again in Geneva, and everybody who has any sense agrees that the people who should meet each other are the parties who themselves have to settle the issues. But what does Sadat say at home to his newspapers? I think this is because he fears other forces. The statements he makes in those papers are not the same as he makes outside. So we are faced with a very considerable difficulty. The Prime Minister of Israel is prepared to meet heads of Arab States at any time whether it be in Egypt or any of the others. His approaches have been turned down. Golda Meir, who is admired throughout the world, made offer after offer to go to meet the opponents of Israel to make peace. It would be a mercy not only for the Middle East but for the world if the situation was settled peacefully, particularly for the Middle East itself, because, say what you will, the high culture and the kind of developments in all peaceful pursuits which have taken place in Israel is a most remarkable example to the world at the present time. Since it has been a State, Israel has shown itself anxious to bring proper education and culture to every one of its citizens—Arab and Jew alike. I myself happen to be a governor of one of the many universities, which is acting in conjunction with the Arizona University, not for the purpose of making arms and not for the purpose of offence except in one direction; that is, offence against the ravages of nature. That is what Israel is doing. Israel is concerned with benefiting her population. Jews have been scattered over the world but Israel has always had a Jewish population. Israel has integrated 80 different groups from all over the world. Israel has problems of integration, of course, but it is overcoming them very much better than most other nations who have integration problems.
So I think that what we should try to do—and I would put this to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and his colleagues—is to see what can be done to prevent the kind of thing that is happening at the present time. In my view there is—and I speak in plain language—a

385
Machiavellian plot on the part of many sections of the present enemies of Israel to destroy Israel. My Lords, Israel will not allow itself to be destroyed. Can anyone blame her? Is there any reason why, when four wars have been fought against her, she should lie down? No, my Lords; a large number of the Jewish people who are in Israel today have had the devilish treatment of the concentration camps. Israel is not going to allow such oppression any more. They will protect themselves against enemies to the bitter end, and they are indeed a gallant and heroic people.
Let me give your Lordships an illustration. What is the latest move that has been made at the UN? I think it will be useful for your Lordships to know what was said about that latest move in which, I am happy to say, our Government took a proper stand against those who, in my view, were taking a further step towards planning the destruction of Israel. We know, of course, what our Ambassador at the UN said, and I think he played a significant role. But let us see what was said by somebody from another country. A report was being considered. Incidentally, that report was prepared by those who had no diplomatic relationship with Israel at all, and it was accepted at the United Nations; in itself a disgrace to the United Nations. This is one of the things which is really bringing opprobrium upon what should be, and what must eventually be, a forum which does not depend on terrorism or on Mr. Arafat standing up and threatening the peoples of the world that if they do not do what he wants he is going to use the gun, but the kind of international body which it was intended to be, according to the Charter, and which, if the Charter was observed, could and would produce tremendously beneficial results for the world.
This is what Ambassador Scranton said, talking about issues which were left out of the report—and this is only a few weeks ago. This is not a matter of past history; this is what happened recently. He said that "absolutely essential issues" were not dealt with, and he went on:
"I shall name but a few. There is no mention of the right of an Israel to exist in the Middle East. The need for the Palestinians to accept the legitimacy and reality of the State of Israel is utterly ignored … Moreover, nowhere in the recommendations is there the stipulation that the
386
Arab States as well as Israel must join in ending the state of war and in arriving at a peaceful settlement in the area."
Then he said:
"There is one further very basic flaw in the report. In large measure the Committee's recommendations pre-judge the outcome of negotiations … any individual or State involved in international negotiations"—
this is Scranton, not me—should have an opportunity to meet each other.
My Lords, it is a longer accusation, but I want to cut it as short as I possibly can. Let me say this about the PLO. Incidentally, a few days ago the BBC produced a propaganda film which was full of untruths and half-truths. Who was it publicising? The PLO—roof cover for assassination, for hi-jacking, for evils with which the world has been confronted, violence and everything else. The BBC was used in order to give an opportunity to an organisation supporting the PLO to present a film which in my view, and I think in the view of anybody who knows Israel, who has ever visited Israel or who knows anything at all about the history of the whole of the Middle East, was very misleading.
I think it would be interesting, too, to know what Gadaffi, who is now trying to get closer to Sadat, says. The Sunday Observer said:
"I cannot speak for Arafat, but I believe the reason he and some other Palestinians now welcome the principle of a mini-State is that they think it will result in the ultimate destruction of Israel."
And so it would, my Lords. Sixty per cent. of the Palestinians are in Jordan. Such a State would be a menace to Jordan; it would be a menace to Israel; it would be something which, eventually, would create a state of affairs similar to that in the State of Lebanon, which is a clear example of the kind of State that Arafat and the others who are threatening have in mind, and which they call a secular State.
I think that it might be of interest if I gave some of the replies to vilification of Israel on the UN report. They said:
"Israel is condemned for trading with South Africa. In fact the Jewish State accounts for one half of one per cent. of South Africa's foreign trade, prompting the delegate of the African State of Malawi to accuse some of his Third World colleagues of 'double-faced hypocrisy' for singling out Israel while ignoring South

387
Africa's massive commercial and arms traffic with the rest of the world, including Arab and Communist States."
This is the kind of argument we are hearing now put forward by the enemies of Israel. The report continues:
"UNESCO condemns Israel's educational policies in the West Bank and accuses Israel of 'cultural assimilation'. In fact, the curriculum, teachers and administrators in West Bank schools are all Jordanian. When the Arab States proposed an investigation by UNESCO, Israel agreed. The Arabs then reversed themselves and UNESCO voted to condemn Israel without an investigation.
"The General Assembly adopts a resolution calling on Israel to empty out the modern homes and apartments built for the Arabs of Gaza and return them to the slums and hovels in which they were forced to live for nearly 20 years under Egyptian rule. In fact, the Arabs of Gaza are buying the homes Israel has built for them—buying them with earnings from jobs made possible by Israel's success in ending unemployment in the Gaza Strip".
Where is the sense in the United Nations raising vile accusations against a State which is an example to the world? I say that with pride because I, as a Zionist, have had some, albeit a very humble, part in attempting to create the State. I hope that what I have said has caused some concern to those in this House and that it will spread elsewhere to counteract the millions or possibly billions of dollars, petrol dollars, being used in order to deceive the world through the media.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will know the position. He has done his best. I hope that not only we in our Parliament but other Parliaments will strengthen his arm in an attempt to bring real peace, where Israel will be recognised in the same way as the Arab States and where harmony will come to the Middle East.
8.34 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, we have had an interesting and very wide-ranging debate today in which a considerable and varied expertise has been deployed. The noble Lord who has just spoken has spoken from long experience and a depth of feeling. I should like to join in offering congratulations to the two maiden speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, spoke of the lack of enthusiasm for the European Community which he found among the Community
388
itself. I think that the European concept has to be presented in terms of idealism. Pragmatism is not enough; there has to be vision. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, reminded us of the importance of Latin America which, as he pointed out, is very often neglected in our discussions.
I should like briefly to refer to four sentences in the gracious Speech. The first sentence is this:
"My Government will continue to play a full part in the activities and development of the European Communities, and look forward to holding the Presidency of the Council of Ministers in the first 6 months of 1977."
I had seen it written in the Press that the motto of the Government during the period of their presidency was going to be, "Business as usual", and that the emphasis was going to be on the efficient conduct of the business combined with the maintenance of a low profile. This I found rather disappointing; but I was encouraged a little by the use in that sentence that I have just read of the phrase "development of the European Communities", playing "a full part in the … development of the … Communities".
I wonder what development the Government have in mind. There are those of us who feel that, faced with unemployment, inflation, balance-of-payments problems, North-South dialogue, East-West confrontation, the nations of the Community should pool their resources and act as a unit. The question arises as to whether this can best be done, as I have said to your Lordships on a previous occasion, by the members of the Community acting as a group of nations working together when they can and going their own way when they feel they cannot, with or without apology; or, on the other hand, whether we need a tighter supranational organisation. I think experience is proving that we need the latter.
Nearly a year ago the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Tindemans, put forward in his report some modest proposals which were designed to take the Community a few steps further along the road towards that tighter supranational organisation. Among the suggestions that he made—and, of course, it has been made by many other people as well—was that the Council of Ministers, as soon as can be arranged,

389
should move to qualified majority voting where the Treaties provided for this. It seems if the Community is going to be enlarged (as is a possibility) within the next year or so that it will be impossible to get decisions; that there will be deadlock and paralysis unless the system of qualified majority voting is used.
Of course it means, using that system, that there will be occasions when each nation has to accept unpalatable decisions. If the summit meeting of the European Council which has just been held in The Hague had been subject to qualified majority voting—although I appreciate that it is outside the structure of the Community—then West Germany would, I think, have had to accept a degree of support for the concept of a common fund to stabilise commodity prices and the United Kingdom would have had to accept some measure of devaluation of the Green Pound. You cannot please everybody all the time, but if you are going to run the Community efficiently then I believe the nations have got to learn to accept the principle of qualified majority voting.
While I realise that the British Government are not the only Government that want to go slowly on this in the Community, I think we should pay a tribute to those countries, Holland, Luxembourg and Belgium, which have tried to move the Community further along the road of political integration and I am alarmed to see from the Press today that the Tindemans Report, it would seem, has been pigeonholed. I know there is to be a regular report on what is happening with respect to political integration, political union, but that report could well be that nothing very much is happening. The great consolation is that the Community is committed to direct elections in 1978, and that is a very significant event from the supranational point of view. I hope that the Government feel confident that all the arrangements they are making would enable this country to play its part in those elections on target in 1978.
The second sentence from the gracious Speech on which I should like to make a comment is this:
"My Government will continue to take part in international efforts to promote a more stable world economic order, and a fairer distribution, within an expanding world economy, of the world's wealth between rich and poor nations".
390
This is an area in which it is clear that the European Economic Community should be united. They were not united at the recent UNCTAD Conference and during the last two days it seemed that West Germany were still standing out on the question of the common fund.
At the UNCTAD Conference the United Kingdom did not accept the common fund, but afterwards made it clear that they were prepared to go along with discussions about the possibility of such a fund. It would seem now that they have moved further and that they give some approval to the concept. I should be interested to know how far the Government have moved towards accepting that there should be a common fund as part of the machinery for stabilising commodity prices. Such a fund and also some concessions on the question of debts, are essential if the North-South dialogue is to come to a successful conclusion.
Obviously, this will involve a transfer of resources; that is implicit in the sentence which I read out from the gracious Speech. It is much better that it should take place in an orderly manner by agreement of all concerned rather than in the way in which it took place for oil, as we well remember. I realise, also, that the degree of further oil price increases is very much connected with the success or failure of this dialogue. Relations with the Third World also depend on political factors as well as these economic ones. It depends, for example, on events in Southern Africa, about which a good deal has been said in the course of our debate. As a country we are committed to majority rule in Rhodesia. We want to see independence and majority rule in Namibia; and I hope that it will be possible to bring that to a successful conclusion in both countries.
Once that is done, the problem of South Africa will come right to the forefront. All the pressures on South Africa and on other countries about their relations with South Africa, will become even stronger than they are now. This raises for us the very difficult problems of defence and economics to which reference has been made today; but it seems to be clear that the United States are intending to take a firm line on this, a firm line with the Government of South Africa, a firm line in their opposition to the

391
policies that are pursued there at the present time. I do not think that we will save Southern Africa from Marxism or Russian influence by seeking to bolster the South African régime with its present policies, if we seek to bolster it as a bulwark against them. I was inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, when he said that we should put a good deal of emphasis in our discussions with the South African Government on the inevitability of change, and that is what we must work for, rather than trying to bolster the South Africa we have today as a bulwark against Russia or Marxism.
The third sentence that I should like to make a comment on is this:
"My Government will also continue to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East."
Again, a good deal has been said on this subject and we witnessed in recent weeks the launching of what has been called the "Arab Peace Offensive". It would seem to me that it would be sensible to see if we can test this out by seeking the reconvening of the Geneva Conference, as was suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Trevelyan. But the difficulty is that the Arabs want the PLO to be at such a conference and Israel does not for the reasons put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. We must uphold the right of the Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza to determine their own future through their chosen representatives. I realise that there might be difficulties about applying it. If the PLO were among those chosen to represent them if the PLO were to make a clear declaration that they accepted the existence of the State of Israel, there would be a considerable move forward in the situation, and it is just possible that, chastened by their recent experiences in the Lebanon, the PLO may be prepared to modify the kind of stand which they have taken in the past.
The last sentence about which I should like to comment is this:
"My Ministers will continue to attach great importance to the further improvement of relations between East and West."
During the debate it has been pointed out that we are still faced by the continuing Russian build-up, by the preponderance of the Warsaw Pact forces in Europe
392
and by the extension of Russian influence in different parts of the world. The Warsaw Pact countries spent something like 11 per cent. of their gross national product on arms as against 5·7 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 6·7 per cent. in the United States. At the recent Summit of the Warsaw Pact countries, the proposal was put forward to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred: that a Treaty should be negotiated between the Warsaw Pact and NATO under which the signatories would agree not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.
At first sight, this seems a reasonable proposition; but if it were to be brought about I wonder whether it would become a treaty to make Europe safe for conventional war. There is also the question of the influence of precision targeting, and whether that has undermined the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons. I should be interested to know what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, feels about that. Thinking about that brings us naturally to consider the mutual force reductions where the Russians want a percentage reduction, which would leave them with a preponderance, and the West want a reduction which would leave the two sides with roughly equal sized forces. These discussions are now entering their fourth year.
About a year ago the West put forward a proposition under which some nuclear weapons would have been withdrawn from the West in return for the withdrawal of tanks from Eastern European countries. I do not know whether there is any hope for some development of that idea, breaking the deadlock, or whether we are in for the long slog of which the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, spoke. One more encouraging part of the scene has been the Helsinki Agreement. We in this House expressed doubts about it at the time. There are good grounds for still having considerable doubts about its total application. But it has led to some easing of the situation. It has led to some co-operation in troop movements, for example. We on these Benches hope that the Belgrade Conference will be a genuine investigation of the way in which the Helsinki Agreement has worked, and that its application to human rights will be carefully examined.
There is one factor which has been mentioned in the course of the debate and

393
which I do not think we should allow out of our minds: that is, the possibility that there will be some modification of the stand taken by the Chinese Government in their relations with the Soviet Union and also possibly in their relations with the United States. They may in fact want to pursue both actively and to reduce to some degree the hostility which they have been displaying towards the Soviet Union in the past. That could have a very big effect on the balance of power in the world, and must be very carefully watched and taken into account in deciding our own actions. To conclude, I would say that we must maintain the strength of the West. We must continue in all these different ways to seek understanding and agreement with the East. We must be alert to the dangers inherent in Russian strength and Russian expansionism, without taking too apocalyptic a view of them.
8.51 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, by the end of a long and important debate there is very little benefit in going over the ground which has been traversed so expertly by so many other speakers, both on particular aspects of foreign affairs and defence and on general observations. I should like first, if I may, to add my warm congratulations to the maiden speakers: the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, and my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein. They made most excellent contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, has for so long been known as a careful and judicious selector of other people's words and now for once he will be presented tomorrow with a copy of his own words in Hansard, which will be circulated throughout the country. We hope that people will enjoy reading Hansard tomorrow as much as so many people have enjoyed reading the books which the noble Lord has so carefully selected for the general public.
It is, of course, a great pleasure to congratulate from these Benches such an able speaker as my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein. He not only bears the name of someone as famous as his father but continues in the same way to fight for causes in which he so passionately believes, putting the case across in such a practical way and so much to the point, and he will, I am sure, be of great benefit to your Lordships' House.
394
Indeed, if it would not be considered too controversial and contentious a remark, I would say that we have today the proof that hereditary Peers can play a very noble and useful role in your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Carrington has covered the major foreign policy issue on a global basis and therefore I shall confine my comments to those aspects of the Queen's Speech which deal specifically with the relationship of the United Kingdom and the European Community. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is not in his place, but I must say to him—perhaps he will read it in tomorrow's Hansard—that though I am not going to cover the Middle East today, there are some people in this House who would diametrically disagree with some of the statements he made. Obviously this is not the moment to start an argument on such a controversial subject as Israel and Palestine, but I would wish to record my brief observation that I very much disagree with the noble Lord's interpretation of both history and fact.
With regard to the European Community, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for his courtesy in giving us a summary of what happened at the Council of Ministers. We have found it most helpful and I shall be commenting on one or two particular aspects of it during the course of my speech. We welcome the statement in the Queen's Speech that the
"Government will continue to play a full part in the activities and development of the European Communities."
I do not think it has so far been observed that we have, more than any other Member State, an opportunity during the next six months and beyond not only to show our willingness to co-operate effectively and wholeheartedly but also our capacity for competent and effective administration, because for the first time we shall be holding practically all the key positions in the institutions of the Community: the presidency of the Council of Ministers for the six months from January, the presidency of the Commission in the person of Mr. Roy Jenkins, the chairmanship of the Economic and Social Committee in the person of Mr. Ferranti, and we shall also probably have a candidate

395
for the presidency of the European Parliament. I think that might really be called a hat trick. We have a chance to show what we can do, and I sincerely hope that we shall make the most of it.
The development of concertation within the Community institutions, of course, enforces the need for a more democratic control of those institutions. The value of the mainly consultative status of the European Parliament will certainly be reinforced by having Members who are elected by universal suffrage from Member States. We in this House have ourselves heard something recently about the virtues, if such they be, of an elected, as against an unelected, Chamber. Therefore there is some justification to expect that the Government—and I hope in particular Mr. Foot—will be among the keenest to press for the rapid conclusion of procedures required to elect Members to the European Parliament. Implementation of the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers of December 1975, that direct elections should be held throughout the Member States by May or June 1978, is at least as important to many of us and, I think, to many people throughout the country as implementing the Manifesto.
The importance of adhering to the timetable cannot be over-emphasised. The Select Committee on Direct Elections, as your Lordships will know, sounded a warning note in their Third Report to the Government that in order to be ready by the envisaged date the requisite Bill should receive Royal Assent by the end of February 1977 at the latest. It is essential for us to stick to the timetable so that the Boundary Commission can do a proper job, openly and fairly, and have sufficient time to receive representations in an orderly manner. The required Bill should therefore be introduced without delay so that we are not in the shameful position of not being ready by the agreed date. Other Member States are pressing ahead with the necessary constitutional procedures, and Italy has reportedly already ratified the Convention contained in the decision of 20th December, signed in Brussels. Other Member States certainly will not want to be held back because we have not taken the necessary steps in due time. If that were to happen, the Govenment would be accused—quite rightly—
396
of lack of good faith, if they had not made every effort to be ready for the date set.
It would indeed be encouraging to receive an assurance from the Government that the timetable will be kept. That assurance will encourage not only us in this country but also the other Member States of the Community. The cry going up from Benches in another place for elected democratic institutions, which have precedence, priority and more power than unelected bodies, will have a hollow ring if Members do not enable, and indeed encourage, the necessary legislation to go through as quickly as possible.
So far, the concertation of Community action has been in the limited spheres of political and economic activity. I should like just to comment on one or two isolated aspects of subjects that were raised at the recent Council Meeting. First of all, with regard to the Green Pound, whereas the pre-entry discussions concerned the cost of Britain's joining the Communities, we now seem to have reached a situation where other Member States are asking how much it is going to keep on costing them to keep us in. Twenty-five per cent. of the CAP budget goes on monetary compensation amounts—now somewhere in the order of £l¾ million a day—to support the difference in the value of the pound: a difference of a staggering 45 per cent.
It is surely time to consider devaluing the pound, as indeed the Irish have already done. This, in itself, has caused a differential of 9 per cent. between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, with all the consequent difficulties of cattle transfers and so on across the Border. Of course, I do not wish to make a Party political point on this, but the situation is already becoming very difficult between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and I very much hope that the Government, regardless of the difficulties which it will raise, will consider the dangers that are paramount in this area for both the United Kingdom and its neighbour.
A contribution which Britain could make would be, at least, to start to devalue the Green Pound by a certain amount, and put forward at the same time some proposals for a restructuring of the CAP. Everybody is agreed that the CAP is not a satisfactory policy at the moment, and if we keep on criticising it it is up to the Government to put forward

397
some practical proposals. I would just point out one factor which should certainly be taken into account, and that is the change in the proportion of agricultural workers throughout the Community since the CAP was first formed in 1956. The change is so dramatic that it must require a new look, and it should be considered whether agricultural workers as such should be treated differently from any other workers, and whether social security benefits or tax rebates should help agricultural workers to maintain a good standard of living, rather than have a special mechanism through the CAP. This would, of course, have a very considerable effect on our contribution, as well as on the part of the Community Budget being spent solely on agriculture.
Turning to fisheries, here again there are negotiations going on, but we see a lack of achievement in bilateral negotiations with Iceland. It is to be hoped that the existing agreement, which concludes today, will be replaced by a successful outcome of the talks between Commissioner Gundelach, on behalf of the EEC as a whole, and the Icelandic Government. This is an example of where we have not succeeded—and everybody admits that we have not succeeded—in making satisfactory arrangements for our fishermen in Icelandic waters, and where the united strength of the European Communities negotiating as a whole may provide better conditions and an improvement in the protection of our fishing grounds, at the same time as protecting the livelihood of our fishermen. This is also an example of where concerted action by the Member States could prove to be beneficial to a group of people who were worried and perturbed at the time of our entry into the Community.
I should now like to refer to one topic which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who graphically drew our attention to our role in Cyprus. I do not think it is helpful for me to go over past failures and difficulties, or, indeed, over many of the present difficulties. But we should remember that there are grave humanitarian issues which are still unresolved, and to which the Government are urgently asked to turn their attention. The question of missing persons has not yet been resolved; the expulsion of Greek Cypriots from the North, and also (this
398
is a matter for the British Government specifically) compensatory and other rights attaching to the property of British citizens, are aspects which the Government are urged to look at, and to do something about.
It may be that a search for a concerted policy within the European Communities, together with the Associated States of Greece and Turkey, must be continued; and possibly a feasible solution will be found in a more global approach, than merely by the British Government dealing bilaterally with Cyprus. In this connection, all upholders of democracy will be looking forward to the eventual entry into the European Communities of Greece and Portugal. Both from the East of Europe and from the West of Europe, we can look forward to consolidating an area which will support the ideals of democracy for which we have always fought, and for which we continue to fight. It is certainly in the area of foreign policy, above all, where the united influence of the Member States could be effective, and could continue to contribute to the improvement of external relations.
There is one other aspect on which I should like to touch, and I hope that the Minister will not consider it too controversial. I feel that it is the duty of somebody who travels abroad a great deal, and who, perhaps unfortunately, can sometimes understand what is written in foreign newspapers, to draw the attention of the Government and of the people to what is being said abroad about this country. Indeed, the effectiveness of any Government's foreign policy may be gauged by the image it presents abroad in the foreign Press. The gunboat is no longer the visible sign of a foreign Power, and it is the newspapers, the television and the wireless which communicate the image of another country. In fact, the mass media are playing an increasingly important role in the field of foreign relations, so that what happens internationally has more influence than ever before on the domestic scene.
It is therefore not surprising that it is with a deep sense of shame that we are sometimes confronted with European newspapers which have such headlines as these—I could give the names and dates of the newspapers, but I will not bother your Lordships with such details:

399
"The collapse of the British economy would have such grave consequences that rich countries of the West have decided to support it … on certain conditions."
"England on the edge of the abyss."
"No one expects a serious revival before 1980. It is a question of stopping the situation getting worse."
"What is happening to these poor English?"
"The currency is the true image of a country. The pound sterling is only the image of a country crippled with debts, eroded by inflation, undermined by unemployment and threatened with an outburst of future claims."
"The fascinating spectacle of a people watching their own people sinking with their own island."
Those headlines have been recently printed in the Continental Press.
Of course, very largely, those Press comments are totally wrong. Either they do not understand or they underestimate the great powers of resilience and recovery of the British people. But one must ask: Is it a fact that the British Government and their policies no longer represent the true image of the British people? Certainly, the image as it is read in the foreign Press is a devastating one. But these Press comments cannot be dismissed as irrevelant, since they express the views of the electors who choose the Governments with which we are allied, and to which we are turning for help. It does not help to have these kind of comments made about us in foreign newspapers when we are asking these countries at the same time for massive loans and massive assistance. The way in which the foreign Press regards this country must affect the standing of the country and the Government.
European Community policies, which are worked out on the basis of consensus, pay regard to the contribution that each Member State makes to the development of the Community. I mean contributions not only in terms of cash but also in terms of prestige. Therefore we are lowering our bargaining position; we are reducing our powers of leverage if we cannot show that we have a flourishing economy. Indeed, how can any country take Mr. Callaghan seriously when he threatens, most ill-advisedly, to withdraw troops from Germany if financial aid is not given? Surely these are politics fit for the nursery, not for a nation which still wishes, and I believe has the right, to claim respect in the world.
400
Is this how Mr. Callaghan proposes, and I quote from the gracious Speech:
"to continue to contribute modern and effective forces to NATO"?
We must ask this question, yet it was only last month, with Mr. Callaghan's request for financial aid or, otherwise, the threat of possible withdrawal, that doubt was cast for the first time on Britain's role in NATO. How is it possible to convince our allies of our good faith and of our will to contribute to the defence of the West when the Government cannot even convince themselves? Today we heard the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, make an outstanding speech, with full assurances. I should like to know whether the assurances that he has given are backed by all the members of the Cabinet.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that, because the schizophrenic appearance of the so-called Cabinet of collective responsibility does not inspire confidence, either abroad or at home. The recent figures of defence cuts, totalling over £8,000 million up to 1983 at the 1976 survey prices, do not indicate that we are going to contribute modern and effective weapons. At the same time, we have Mr. Roy Mason—who is, after all, a member of the Cabinet, although he does not now have responsibility for defence—stating in the Labour Weekly of 11th June, 1976, admittedly a paper that is perhaps not so widely read as others:
"Any further reduction, even of much less than £1,000 million a year, would require savage cuts in the Armed Forces and many big equipment orders would have to be cancelled. Our allies would no longer regard us as allies and partners".
This comes from a Cabinet Minister who had at the time responsibility for defence.
Surely the Government's first task is to defend the nation and contribute to the maintenance of peace. World equilibrium is ensured by the Atlantic Alliance. It is only a strong system of defence, with the existence of NATO, which enables us to pursue and even to consider pursuing a policy of détente and international collaboration. We had an outstanding speech from the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, who gave us a very clear analysis of the

401
situation in relation to the Helsinki Agreement. I agree with very much of what the noble Lord said. Surely this is another aspect in relation to détente.
I should like to ask the Government what preparations they are making for Belgrade, and whether we have set up a system to monitor the development of human rights—not only to watch what is happening in the Soviet Union but to watch what is happening in Western countries. We shall have to give an answer to Belgrade and we shall be attacked by the Soviets, who will give endless examples of where human rights are being denied and broken in the West. Without such a system, we shall not be able either to reply or to attack. I hope that as the American Government have set up an independent monitoring system for the observation of human rights, the Government here will seriously consider doing the same thing in order that we shall be prepared effectively to answer at Belgrade any attack and, in our turn, be able to make the necessary observations on Eastern countries. I hope very much that the Government will take this into serious consideration.
In the same context it is the economic alliance in the West, through the European Community and its associated agreements, which has contributed to the rapid rise in the standard of living and the ability to contribute to commercial and financial developments in other quarters of the globe. If they wish to pursue an effective foreign policy, it is for the Government to show that they are capable of leading the nation, of restoring the confidence of the people in themselves and of restoring their own image abroad by taking all the necessary measures to strengthen both the economy and our national defence.
9.14 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we have had a prolonged and yet I think an extremely interesting debate from which I have profited and I hope other noble Lords have also profited. Of course noble Lords will agree that it is impossible to reply to a debate as wide and varied as this by answering every question raised, but, where I think it would be helpful, if a noble Lord who has spoken is not now present I shall write and give an answer to any important point raised.
402
Before I reply to the debate I should like first to pay tribute to our two maiden speakers who have made their contributions for the first time today. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, spoke as a man who knew Europe from within rather than without, and I think I can claim that myself. I had great sympathy with what he was saying and one point he made is absolutely valid and should not be forgotten in the middle of our present discontents. He said that the English problem is in fact a European problem; that at this moment we may be going through a particularly difficult period. But his optimism came through and he expressed the view that in due course we should pass through this period. I remember very well in 1945 to 1950 that we in this country were carrying more than our fair burden in getting Europe back on its feet. I believe that in the very near future we shall once again become a strong member of the European Community, to whom other nations will have to turn when misfortune strikes. I take a wider view of our problems than just one year past or one year to come, as did the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld.
Turning to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, in one thing he followed his father: he was factual, precise and concise. He gave us six minutes of valuable comment upon a topic which was ignored by other speakers, and when he and the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, have lost their maiden modesty we hope to see them coming in controversially to help us clear our minds on a number of world problems.
I should like to turn to the opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. He very kindly told me—and apparently with deep regret—that he could not be here to listen to me this evening, but nevertheless I feel that I should reply to one or two major points that he made, with which I was in a great deal of sympathy, both intellectually and emotionally. I welcome the degree to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was able to support what was said about foreign affairs by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts. In particular I should like to associate myself and the Government with what he said about Dr. Kissinger and his great contribution to world peace. It is easy enough to knock those who are doing the difficult jobs in this world, but

403
I am certain history will recall that Dr. Kissinger has left the world a great legacy when he retires to the pleasant life of some better university, which I expect will be his fate.
I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that Her Majesty's Government together, we hope, with our European partners will do everything they can to help progress in the Middle East and I hope that will satisfy my noble friend Lord Janner. I also agree with the noble Lord that we shall have to await the inauguration of President Carter before we can go very far. Having said that, I do not agree quite so wholeheartedly with the noble Lord in what he said about double standards in international relationships. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to adopt in any particular case the approach which they judge to be most effective in bringing pressure on a Government with which they have to deal, and in this particular case he was speaking about the present Government in Chile.
In the case of Chile we decided to withdraw our Ambassador and we have some reason to suppose that our attitude towards Chile has influenced the Chilean Government in its policies; but I should emphasise that we have not broken off diplomatic relations and that our diplomatic staff in Santiago continue to work on behalf of the large British community there. Finally, I should like to assure the noble Lord that we regard the CSCE review in Belgrade as an event of major importance and we shall not allow its significance to be suppressed. That point was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. In fact, we recognise that as President of the European Community for the first half of 1977 we shall have a major responsibility for co-ordinating the attitude of the EEC countries whose unity has been such a major influence on the progress of CSCE from the beginning.
I should now like to turn to the points made in the course of the debate. It will be a rather untidy process but it will be related to the point in the debate when various important matters were raised. First, turning to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, about the problems arising while HMS "Resolution" is in refit. The noble Earl will be glad to
404
know that there will be no gap. Operational planning takes into account the periods required for regular refits. I sympathise with the view that perhaps the fifth Polaris submarine might be a useful asset, but at present it is a marginal asset. There will always be Polaris submarines available and operational during the period of refits. The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, also raised the point that the Press had speculated that a United Kingdom dockyard is likely to close. I would not normally comment upon Press rumour, but I can confirm that there is no truth in this matter. No United Kingdom dockyard is going to close.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who, we all agree, is a gamekeeper turned poacher, made his usual powerful and common sense contribution to our debate. I thought he seemed somewhat pessimistic. He accused the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, of arguing that there was no escape from our present predicament, and there I agree with him. I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, that we are not going to escape, but are going to grow out of our present position. With him, I do not believe, as we negotiate and talk with our potential opponents, that because nothing happens quickly, this is a ground for despair. We must continue to talk and to negotiate with our potential enemies. We are not following a completely hopeless path.
We have had peace in terms of major conflict for over 30 years, an exceptionally long time and the situation at the moment is certainly not getting worse, although no one could say that the present situation is without certain causes for alarm. Nevertheless, we must continue patiently to proceed with our determination to bring into the light of day—I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who said this; he is not here at the moment—the various complex issues concerned in our negotiations. When they come into the light of day, it is more and more difficult for our ideological opponents to maintain their case in the uncommitted world. After all, we are arguing our case to a large number of nations not committed to either side. If we can win that argument, we have won the ideological conflict.
My Lords, may I turn now to what I thought was a very powerful speech made

405
by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, a speech which covered almost the whole spectrum of foreign policy. In particular, I would thank the noble Lord on behalf of my noble friend for his very warm tribute to my noble friend for the way in which he has handled foreign affairs questions in the House during his period of office. Perhaps I may touch on one important point made by the noble Lord; that is, the question of the Cyprus dispute. This was raised by other speakers also. Her Majesty's Government are naturally concerned with the continuing impasse on the resumption of the inter-communal talks on Cyprus. There is no substitute for talks under Dr. Waldheim which bring together the parties most concerned.
Neither Her Majesty's Government nor anyone else can or, indeed, should impose a solution on the parties to the dispute. This is their right, and this is their responsibility. We have been, and continue to be, engaged in strenuous diplomatic activity with our partners in the Nine, and with the Americans, both to assist in the resumption of the inter-communal talks and to encourage the development of some flexibility and content in the negotiating postures of each side. As I think everyone will agree, such efforts are best pursued in confidence. We shall continue in conjunction with our EEC partners and the United States to attempt to persuade the parties involved to be more flexible and constructive in their approach towards a solution.
We regard the apparent unwillingness or inability of the two communities' negotiators to overcome the procedural difficulties in resuming the inter-communal talks with deep concern and disappointment. We shall, of course, continue to support the efforts of Dr. Waldheim to bring the two sides together, and we are in close touch with our European partners and our American ally on how this might best be achieved.
The noble Lord also made a rather important semantic point. He queried our old classification of rich and poor nations. He is, of course, right. In the last few years we have seen a fundamental change in relationships, and the richest countries in purely monetary terms are certainly now the oil producers. In fact, the rector of one of the Arab universities said to me that the increase in wealth was horrifying,
406
and he was speaking as a wise man, because he felt that this enormous growth in wealth could in fact destroy the culture of his country.
The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, also asked whether Her Majesty's Government would make sure that the aid which they provided pre-eminently to the poorest countries was made available in such a way that it could be used in a practical way. This in point of fact is the basis of an important debate on the work of ODM. Nevertheless, I can give the assurance that what he has said is in fact the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that I was not present when she made her speech. I had to withdraw to clear my mind. She began with a gracious tribute to the men and women of all three Services and rightly praised them for doing a splendid job. I think this might be the point when we might say that although tonight we sit here and debate foreign affairs and defence, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere there are troops of our country performing in the manner that we expect of them. One can say no more than that. The noble Baroness raised a number of detailed questions about which, if I may, I will write to her when this debate is over, as I undertook to do earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, again raised an issue which I know is very close to his heart, which is, of course, the importance of the reserve forces, the value of national service, and his deep concern for the contribution that the members of the Armed Forces can give to our society as a whole. He mentioned that he feared that cuts or threatened cuts would demoralise the Armed Forces and reduce their morale, which remains high in spite of all the tribulations through which they are going. I know that he will keep a close watch on the activities of the Government of the day from the Cross-Benches. Whether it be noble Lords opposite or from this side of the House, he will doubtless watch what we are doing with a critical eye.
I should like to make one important point about Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards our troops based in Germany. During a talk on the media the Prime Minister said something which has, I think, been totally distorted and put out

407
of perspective. His statement that we might have to withdraw our troops from Europe was in no way intended as a threat. He was stressing, on the one hand, the importance of maintaining our contribution to the alliance, and the importance of our contribution is something which is universally accepted in that alliance, and on the other hand he was illustrating the very serious financial burden of stationing British forces in Germany. We all agree that the sudden collapse of the pound has increased the financial burden placed upon our country of maintaining those troops overseas.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? It was clearly understood when the Prime Minister spoke on the BBC in Panorama—and I accept that people can say things they do not mean, which is quite another matter—and I watched this programme, that unless our friends and allies were prepared to bail us out of our economic plight on his terms he would threaten to withdraw our forces stationed in Germany. I think this was as it was understood not only by those who watched but certainly in the British Press and, even more importantly, in the foreign Press.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot accept this. I can only say clearly that that was not the intention. Anybody can believe anything they read in the Press or see on television. What I am saying is that the Prime Minister was making no threat. He was stating a dilemma. It is a problem that we are facing with our Allies and which we will solve. After all, I do not think we could have stated anything more clearly than was stated in the gracious Speech about our intentions in relation to NATO. I can say firmly and clearly that whatever might have been said in a television interview is not the total policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would be very kind and make a categoric statement that the Government have no intention to withdraw any troops from Germany? I think that would then solve the dilemma.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as my noble friend reminds me, he has
408
gone on record in his opening speech in today's debate. We can hardly do more than that. I am certain that twice is three times as good as once. It is no good creating doubts in matters like this. The noble Baroness herself rightly pointed out the damage that can be done by half-informed Press comment upon the state of our nation, which we know is far stronger than the Press often wishes to believe. We really must accept the fact that our intentions are clear-cut, and this is what we will do.
May I turn to a speech of admirable clarity and conciseness made by the noble Lord, Lord Newall. He, in fact, took exactly the same time as the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein—six minutes apiece—which is four minutes within the agreed optimum size of a House of Lords' speech. He spoke about the need for educating the public, and this is entirely true. Miseducation, misinformation, is one of the most dangerous things we have to face. He commented quite rightly that one could have a splendid military exercise and, when it was all over, all the vehicles had to go back for maintenance and there were not necessarily the spares to get them back into fully operational condition within a short time. This is a matter that I know is close to his heart, and which I know he has studied at first-hand.
Lastly, he spoke about slippage. Can I say simply that slippage is a very well-known factor in military planning. With the best of intents, all sorts of things go wrong. I do not think there is very much slippage on the Milan, which he mentioned. What we did was to buy training weapons from the Franco-German consortium in preparation for manufacturing them in this country. BAC will in fact be putting this particular weapon into major manufacturing runs in the near future, and, what is more important perhaps, will be involved in the development of the next generation of weapons of this type. Radios are a problem which I agree exists. On the SS 11, we have not made up our minds about a substitute for a helicopter-borne weapon yet. I did, in fact, make a Statement in this House last September in which I gave a note on the whole of the programme.
The one area uncovered which, quite rightly, we must watch is the supply of an

409
anti-tank weapon of modern design to be carried on a helicopter. That we shall have to consider, but we do not believe that this is of such a high priority as the other weapons which we have decided to purchase or manufacture ourselves.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, before the Minister leaves the question of weapons and equipment, may I ask him to say what is the programme for bringing Milan into operational service in the British Armed Forces?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: I cannot give detail on that, my Lords. It has been decided that this shall be a standard infantry weapon. I know that material manufactured in France or Germany is being brought here for training purposes, but the mass introduction of the weapon will depend on British manufacture. It is well on its way. This is a first-class example of a common weapon shared by the French, Germans and British, with all three of us being involved in the development of the next generation of weapons of this type.
This is a success story and it answers in small part the powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, on the subject of the problems of standardisation and inter-operability. This is a theme he has hammered home over a number of years and such persistence can be nothing but helpful, but I do not want him to be as despondent as he seemed to be. We are moving slowly in the right direction. After all, any weapons system takes perhaps 10 years to produce and 10 years to be in use, so although he may have converted me and other colleagues to the need for standardisation, nevertheless he must not be too despondent if immediately we do not all turn out all carrying the same weapons and all riding in the same vehicles. It is important that as soon as possible we should have inter-operability, and we are getting that; and we get it much more simply than we can get standardisation.
The noble Lord rightly made the point about being able to refuel aircraft of the alliance on any airfield of the alliance and the need for common rounds of ammunition, and we are in fact moving towards that area under the very firm guidance of SACEUR. We are getting to the point,
410
which is to me personally more interesting, when we can get a common design of pylon on the wings of our various aircraft so that we can carry various weapons on a standard pylon. This in my view is something of great importance.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his kind remarks about my poor speech. However, would he reply to my specific question? What progress, if any, is being made in the so-called European Programme Group consisting of the members of the Eurogroup and France? Has any progress been made and, if not, what have they been up to?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: This is a very young baby in the cradle, my Lords. The noble Lord rightly said that a welcome aspect of the work of the European Programme Group was that the French were a member of it. This is absolutely of the first importance. It is about a year old and is starting to work very satisfactorily, but because of the long-term scale of the production of weapons, it cannot produce a Eurodefence industry out of a hat. The noble Lord mentioned the Nuclear Planning Group and the House will be interested to know that I have arranged for a copy of the Communiqué issued after the most recent Nuclear Planning Group meeting to be placed in the House of Lords Library. It will be there tomorrow and that information will therefore be available to noble Lords.
Before turning to my last point about the fishing limits, I should like, in this whole area of standardisation, to pay tribute during our first debate on defence since his departure to the work of my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Defence in the area of collaboration. Under his chairmanship last year, the Eurogroup was very active. The European Programme Group and all the interested European members of the alliance, including France, have made valuable progress in promoting European collaborative effort in the defence equipment field. As a group, the European Procurement Group should make an important contribution to the European side of the "two-way street" with the United States. The two-way street is the result of negotiations undertaken with

411
the Americans by the former Secretary of State, and the memorandum of understanding that he signed with the American Secretary of State is now fully operational following upon a visit to this country by officials from the American Defence Department. This thing is on its way and it is going rather well.
I should like to make one final point about the whole problem arising from the extension of fishing limits and the potential vulnerability of the various oil structures in the North Sea. I hope that noble Lords who were present at Question Time will forgive me for repeating what I said then. The arrangements that the Ministry of Defence have made to police the extended fishing limits are for five new Royal Navy ships of the Island Class and four Royal Air Force Nimrod surveillance aircraft to be provided for this purpose and for the protection of our offshore gas and oil installations. The first of the Island Class ships is operational, the second will be operational in March and I expect the remainder to enter service before the end of 1977. During the construction period, the gap will be filled by operational frigates. The Nimrod will be available from the 1st of next month. They will fly five nine-hour surveillance sorties a week and in that time they will cover a very substantial area of the sea.
Although many people criticise the type of ship chosen by the Navy for surveillance, they must realise that these ships have to stay at sea for long periods under some of the harshest conditions experienced by any navy. In fact, talking to members of the French Navy and comparing the Mediterranean with the seas off Iceland, it was clear that they were moving into a different operational world. The ships that we have are the equivalent of the policeman on the beat. They can call up either faster and larger ships bearing helicopters or aircraft from the mainland. So the ships that we are ordering and bringing into operation are really the policemen on the beat who can call up forces quickly if they note some development that they find disturbing. Of course, they will have plenty of advance warning from the Nimrods which will be sweeping the seas in front of them.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether this policing of the 200 mile zone will be done in co-operation with the other Member States' navies?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords. I am speaking from memory, but I seem to remember that, in answering a question earlier, it was explained that a conference was called in Norway a little while ago at which the various nations which had an interest in policing the whole of the North Sea from the Iceland Gap down to the Channel—and this was of course before the 200 mile zone was agreed on—were involved.
Baroness ELLES: But, my Lords, is not the 200 mile zone for European Community countries? I do not believe that it would involve Norway because Norway is outside the 200 mile Community zone. What I was asking was whether there was to be concerted police action with European Community navies in the EEC zone. I wonder whether the Minister can enlarge on that or, if he cannot, perhaps we can have a written reply some time later on?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that the point made by the noble Baroness is sufficiently important perhaps to require an Unstarred Question. But I say now that the general intention is that there should, of course, be a concerted response to the policing of the whole of this important area, which is not only agriculturally sensitive but also militarily sensitive. Well, my Lords, that is the best I can do in replying to what I have found to be an extremely interesting and informative debate. Once again I should like to pay tribute to our troops who serve us so well.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: The said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at a quarter before ten o'clock.