Sitting of 18 May 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that brevity in questions and answers is a blessing for us all?
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    ENVIRONMENT

      House Building
      Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest housing figures, public and private; if he is satisfied with them; and if he will make a statement.
      The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The figures for March show that, in Great Britain, there were 12,100 starts and 14,500 completions in the public sector; private sector starts were 10,300, with 10,500 completions. These figures are an improvement on the low February figures and I hope that that improvement will continue.
      Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to get an even greater improvement we shall need to renegotiate the cuts that were agreed with the IMF, especially the so-called £300 million cut which is due to take effect in the next financial year? Does he accept that we must also look again at the cuts of last July, which are now affecting house building, especially in the public sector? Does he agree that pressure should be put on the building societies to reduce mortgage interest rates in order that in the private sector, too, there can be a surge of house building in order that we can have as many—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. If everyone takes as long as that we shall be lucky to reach Question No. 6.
      Mr. Freeson: There seem to be six questions incorporated in that one, but I shall do my best to answer them. On the public sector side, I favour increased allocation of resources for house building and other housing investment as soon as the economy permits. As for the current situation, while the moratorium imposed as a result of last July's controls has caused a slow-down in the number of starts coming through for approval on tender, that of itself would not account for the recent slow-down in the figures, a slow-down about which my right hon. Friend and I have expressed concern in the House before.
      I hope that the provision that we have made, which will allow for about 150,000 housing starts in the public sector, will be implemented by the local authorities which have immediate responsibility in this area.
      Mr. McCrindle: Does the Minister think that the greater availability of mortgages will lead to an increase in the number of houses in the private sector, and is not that greater availability being made possible largely because the building societies have not brought down their interest rates further?
      Mr. Freeson: The hon. Member puts his finger on a rather delicate point of balance concerning the timing of changes in interest rates in relation to the inflow of moneys to building societies which enables them to maintain their outflow. I hesitate to give a full reply about the direct effects of this factor on the rate of new building in the private sector. It is important to consider profit margins, the state of the market and price levels of all new building as well as the outflow of moneys for general lending purposes.
      Mr. Rooker: What pressure is my right hon. Friend putting on local authorities to get the correct mix of dwellings? Is he aware that it is no good building vast numbers of houses, for example in Birmingham, if the mix is wrong? There, elderly couples are destined to live the rest of their lives in three- or four-bed-roomed houses that they cannot look after and that the council will not repair. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to get the correct mix of dwellings, so that such people may be more suitably housed?
      Mr. Freeson: This is an important point, to which we have given a great deal of attention in the last two or three years. We have had results, but they are not sufficiently good yet. There needs to be a switch in emphasis, in the public and private sectors, in the type of housing being provided. Far too many three-bedroomed houses are being provided when there is a much greater need for small units. We are using our best endeavours to influence a change in that direction, and with some success.
      Mr. Greville Janner: What does my right hon. Friend say about a Tory-dominated council, such as that in Leicester, which has an acute housing shortage in an area regarded as a stress housing area but where the council, with absolute disregard of the needs of the population, has sliced the housing programme in half?
      Mr. Freeson: I can only express the hope that there will be a change of view in Leicester and that the local authority will change its policy on house building. On the general point, it is particularly important in areas with stress, such as the one my hon. and learned Friend referred to, that an overall strategy and programme be developed which will relate not just to new building generally but to new building for down-market occupation and other aspects of housing such as rehabilitation, conversion and the provision of the right mix of dwellings referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
      Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister confirm that the target that has been reduced in Leicester was a figure that was clutched from the air by the previous Socialist Administration? Does he not wish the local authority in Leicester to use its own judgment about priorities in housing and how the money should be spent? This is in conformity with the latest declaration by the Secretary of State about independence in local housing?
      Mr. Freeson: I have no evidence whatever to support the hon. Gentleman's claim, and I suspect that he does not have any, either. Leicester, like a number of other authorities, has been included as a stress or priority area in housing. We expect such authorities to use their judgment
      428
      with honesty, and to study and analyse the situation. We expect them to use their judgment in preparing an overall strategy for housing problems. If Leicester has welcomed and accepted its listing as a stress authority—as no doubt it has—it should proceed with investment in house building.

      Greater London (Population)
      Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had about reducing the population of Greater London.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): None, Sir.
      Mr. Goodhart: Will the Secretary of State talk to the Minister for the Civil Service about this matter? For years London has been steadily losing jobs. Therefore, it does not make sense to press ahead and spend £500 million or more on moving thousands of civil servants out of Greater London, with all the resulting domestic and administrative upheavals. Will he think again about this matter?
      Mr. Shore: I understand the hon. Member's point, but I have been trying to give emphasis to inner city revival in examining the dispersal plans. These plans can play a very important part because, while I am concerned about the inner city areas in London, I am also concerned about the inner city areas in other parts of the country. It would be wrong to lose sight of the balance that needs to be struck. It is relevant to look at the time scale over which these planned dispersals are designed to take effect.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: Is the Secretary of State aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) does not need to worry too much about this problem? I received an answer to a parliamentary Question which showed that the sum total of Government activity on the Hardman Report was that 0·001 per cent. of civil servants were being moved to development areas.
      Mr. Shore: The hon. Member has made the point that I was making about the time scale being very relevant to this issue.
      Mr. Onslow: Is the Secretary of State saying that he wants civil servants living

      429
      on the outskirts of London to have their jobs moved to deprived areas of the country so that they can live in inner cities there?
      Mr. Shore: We want to strike a balance in the distribution of office and Government employment in different parts of the country. We are acutely aware of the present problems in London, but we must look at this situation over a considerable period of time and adjust the balance, which in the past has been heavily centred on London.

      Housing Policy Review
      Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will set out in full in the Official Report, giving references and dates in each case, every official forecast made in the House by either the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State or other Ministers at the Department of the Environment on the publication date of the Housing Finance Review, subsequently renamed the Housing Policy Review, since that review was first announced, including his current forecast.
      Mr. Shore: Yes. The Green Paper on the Housing Policy Review is to be published just as soon as it is ready.
      Mr. Durant: Does the Secretary of State accept that there has been an extraordinary delay over this report, for which house builders have been asking for some time because it affects their policies? Can he give a firm indication instead of a waffle answer?
      Mr. Shore: The first part of the hon. Member's question discourages me on this occasion from giving too precise an answer. That is why I carefully couched my answer in the terms I did. I do not accept that there has been an unnecessary delay. On the contrary, it indicates the considerable importance that we attach to getting the housing policy right.
      If the hon. Member reflects on two of the major housing White Papers and Acts that were produced by his own party in the post-war period—the 1957 Rent Act and the 1972 Housing Finance Act—he will be bound to conclude that the case against being over-hasty is immense.
      Mr. Frank Allaun: When the review is published, will the Secretary of State
      430
      resist the Conservative clamour to slash council house building and subsidies, thereby increasing rents? When rents are increased, trade unionists regard it as a reduction in their real wages. Will the improved financial situation encourage the Secretary of State to restore the cuts that have been made in housing?
      Mr. Shore: The second question is one on which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has just commented—the possibility, as the situation improves, of doing more in house building. On rents, it is my hope that in terms of the Housing Policy Review, when the whole matter will be laid before the House, we shall be able to bring forward proposals that are seen to be sensible and fair.
      Mr. Heseltine: Will the Secretary of State explain why he has totally failed to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), requiring references and dates of repeated promises of publication of the Housing Policy Review? This is not a question of being over-hasty. The fact is that the conclusions of all the experts are incompatible with and unacceptable to this Government. That is why the review has not been published.
      Mr. Shore: We shall see how unacceptable the conclusions are. We shall see—I hope it will not be long—just how right or wrong the alleged experts are. I counsel the hon. Member to be more patient. In relation to the dates, I was asked to put an answer in the Official Report and I am doing so.
      Following is the information:—
      The following list contains references to statements made in the House on the publication date of the Housing Policy Review.

      15 January 1975: Secretary of State (the former right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland)), Vol. 884, col. 100 (Written Answer).

      12 November 1975: Minister for Housing and Construction (the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson)), Vol. 899, col. 703 (Written Answer).

      14 January 1976: Secretary of State, Vol. 903, col. 371.

      15 March 1976: Minister for Housing and Construction, Vol. 907, col. 382 (Written Answer).

      30 June 1976: Minister for Housing and Construction, Vol. 914, col. 168 (Written Answer).

      14 July 1976: Secretary of State (the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore)), Vol. 915, cols. 634–5.

      431

      4 August 1976: Secretary of State, Vol. 916, col. 1693.

      3 November 1976: Secretary of State, Vol. 918, col. 1391.

      9 November 1976: Minister for Housing and Construction, Vol 919, cols. 105–6 (Written Answer).

      8 December 1976: Secretary of State, Vol. 922, cols. 431–3.

      19 January 1977; Secretary of State, Vol. 924, cols. 314–6.

      27 January 1977: Prime Minister, Vol. 924, col. 1697.

      16 March 1977: Secretary of State, Vol. 928, cols. 189–90 (Written Answer).

      Council Houses (Cost)
      Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current average cost of a newly-built council house, including land, in England and Wales.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The current average cost of a newly-built local authority dwelling, including land, is £13,000.
      Mr. Jessel: In view of the size of that figure, does the Minister accept that it would be far cheaper for the Government to help less-well-paid families to buy their own houses—which they would prefer—than to build more council houses for them?
      Mr. Armstrong: I would not accept that allegation. The truth is that a great number of people do not wish to buy their own homes and there are others who cannot afford to do so. Each local authority has a duty to see that these people are adequately housed.
      Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will the Minister explain why Conservatives so often bash council houses, ignoring the all-party role which in the past regarded assisted housing as the most important of all social services, basic to all other social expenditure?
      Mr. Armstrong: I would not dream of trying to explain the philosophy of the Opposition. That is not my job, thank goodness. Housing is a great social need which calls for a community responsibility as well as an individual responsibility.
      Mr. Rossi: Can the Minister tell the House what the average cost of £13,000 represents in terms of annual subsidy from ratepayers and taxpayers? Inas
      432
      much as the figure is an average one, what are the minimum and maximum figures for council house building costs in the country at the moment?
      Mr. Armstrong: If the hon. Member wants details—and he has every right to them—he should table a Question. I shall then answer it. The average subsidy from the central Government rate fund for council dwellings is running at £212 and the average tax relief and mortgage subsidy per mortgagor is £214.
      Mr. Heseltine: Will the Under-Secretary answer the question? What is the subsidy on new council house building in the £13,000 average cost?
      Mr. Armstrong: If the hon Gentleman thinks he knows more than the experts, I suggest that he tables a Question, when I shall given him a detailed answer.

      Commission for the New Towns
      Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current capital value of (a) the commercial assets and (b) the industrial assets of the Commission for the New Towns.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): Regular revaluation of the commercial and industrial assets of the Commission for the New Towns does not take place, but a provisional estimate by the Commission of their capital value is of the order of £100 million. This figure does not take account of reversionary values and should be treated with considerable reserve. The true figure is likely to be higher.
      Mr. Jones: I recognise the Minister's carefully chosen words, but he will recognise that current values are substantially in excess of historic valuations. If my memory serves me right in regard to the resources available for inner city areas, the Secretary of State was prepared to consider the sale of new town assets. I see that the right hon. Gentleman assents to that remark. Is the Minister prepared to make a statement and to let us know what progress has been made in this respect?
      Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend said that he was considering the matter, but the House must bear in mind that these assets appreciate in value and represent

      433
      a sound investment of public money. Such consideration is taking place on that basis.
      Mr. Newens: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he has not lost sight of the fact that the Labour Party conference went on record in favour of the transfer not merely of housing assets but of industrial and commercial assets, subject to conditions to preserve the national investment, to appropriate local authorities? Will he give an assurance that we shall not regard the early wind-up of development corporations, the transfer of assets to the Commission, and, thereafter, their possible sale, as being of advantage in terms of local democracy?
      Mr. Barnett: I know that my hon. Friend recognises that these assets have been financed by the Exchequer, and ultimately by the taxpayer. He will also know that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to examine whether in due course local authorities should be able to acquire these assets if they have the resources to manage them. Those matters are being carefully considered, but I am well aware of the Labour Party view and policy on this matter.
      Mr. Sainsbury: Is the Minister aware that in the new towns there exist over 96 million sq. ft. of industrial space, over 12 million sq. ft. of office space, and 12½ million sq. ft. of shop space? Will he accept that the figure he gave the House is a gross underestimate of the current market value of that space, which amounts in total to 120 million sq. ft.? Does he not accept that the real value is more like £1,000 million? Therefore, will he obtain an early valuation of these assets?
      Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman is inviting me, as are other Conservative Members, to indulge in unnecessary expenditure. It would be an expensive job to undertake a full revaluation of assets. The purpose of revaluing them presumably is to sell them. That is not the Government's present intention. Therefore, I do not see the purpose in proposing it.
      Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend tell the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he needs telling, that it would be a classic example of muddle-headedness even to consider flogging off profit-making
      434
      public enterprise in the new towns? Will he also consider the fact that if these industrial and commercial assets are to continue to be controlled by the Commission for the New Towns a directly elected element should be put into local committees, which as now appointed are accountable to nobody?
      Mr. Barnett: I can only repeat that this is a sound investment of public money. In that respect I would be totally opposed to the sale of such sound investments.
      On the other point, I am very well aware of demands for people in the new towns to have a full democratic say in the future of these assets. Obviously we are considering the way in which this might be achieved.
      Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next Question, I wish to point out that a number of hon. Members have now come into the Chamber who did not hear my earlier appeal for brief questions and answers.

      Heathrow (Fourth Terminal)
      Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will cause a public inquiry to be held into the proposal of the British Airports Authority to establish a fourth terminal at Heathrow Airport.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: In the light of the views being received from the local authorities which have been consulted, my right hon. Friend is urgently considering whether it would be expedient for him to make or approve a direction to make the BAA's present proposal the subject of normal planning control. This would be an essential first step towards any statutory public planning inquiry.
      Mr. Bell: But an Article 4 direction does not necessarily produce a planning inquiry, does it? It is not the necessary preliminary to a planning inquiry, is it? Therefore, will the Minister use his inherent authority to order a public inquiry, or will he employ his statutory authority, following an Article 4 direction, to ensure that there is a public inquiry into a development of this magnitude, which has aroused such strong reservations in all the surrounding areas?
      Mr. Barnett: I beg to differ with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The possibility of building a fourth terminal lies within the general development area of the British Airports Authority, but it is open to any of the local authorities—of which there are a number involved—to make an Article 4 direction, or it is open to my right hon. Friend to do so. But before my right hon. Friend determines whether to make an Article 4 direction, we must see that each local authority concerned is properly consulted. We are expecting to take in those views shortly. On that basis, and on that basis alone can the question of a public inquiry arise. At that stage, it becomes part of the normal planning process.
      Sir Anthony Royle: The Minister talks of local authorities having to be properly consulted. Is he aware that there is grave concern about the fourth terminal in Outer London, and that no consultation whatever has taken place with the London borough of Richmond upon Thames? Will he explain why that has not occurred?
      Mr. Barnett: There are a number of local authorities whose planning powers are directly involved. Those are the planning authorities which have been consulted. I wish to make clear that two of those authorities are the Greater London Council and Surrey.
      Mr. Jessel: Further to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle), is the Minister aware that the London borough of Richmond upon Thames, which includes Twickenham, is very near to Heathrow but does not touch it? If the purpose of planning consultation is to ascertain whether people will be adversely affected by any development, it must be right that people who will be heavily overflown by additional aircraft that might result from the fourth terminal should be consulted through their local authority? Will he bear that in mind in deciding whether to hold a public inquiry?
      Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that we are talking of an Article 4 direction. It is open to certain authorities to make such a direction. That is the reason why, pre-eminently, they are being consulted. The boroughs
      436
      to which reference has been made obviously can make their views known through the GLC.
      Sir George Young: Will the Minister assure the House that the Secretary of State will reach his decision on this matter by the end of June?
      Mr. Barnett: I am not my right hon. Friend, but I am sure that he will make his decision as expeditiously as he can.
      Mr. Arthur Jones: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

      Local Authorities (Direct Labour)
      10. Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce new legislation on local authority direct works.
      Mr. Armstrong: The Local Authorities (Restoration of Works Powers) Bill was given a Second Reading yesterday. Unfortunately, comprehensive legislation on local authority direct labour organisations is not possible at present.
      Mr. Canavan: As the Government agreed to emasculate the original Bill in return for Liberal support, and as most Liberal Members did not bother to turn up last night to vote for the Liberal version of the Bill, does it not mean that the Liberals have broken their side of the bargain? Does this not justify the Government in telling the Liberals "We have had enough of any pact with you"? Is it not time to return to our original Socialist commitment and to tell the Liberals that they are a bunch of skivers?
      Mr. Armstrong: We have not gone back on any commitment. The Government are committed, and in due time will bring in legislation to enable efficient direct labour organisations to expand. That will be done. As for the hon. Gentleman's comment about the Liberals, that matter is not within my responsibility.
      Mr. Michael Morris: Has the Parliamentary Secretary had a chance to reflect, since last night's discussion, on the extraordinary statement that was made from the Treasury Bench that the Government agreed with the CIPFA recommendations—as, indeed, does the whole House—but refuse to include them in the Bill?
      Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman, who was present throughout yesterday's debate, must have heard it stated categorically that bringing in the CIPFA recommendations for those 25 authorities with which the Bill is solely concerned was not a practical proposition.
      Mr. Heseltine: Why, then, did the Government not bring in the CIPFA regulations for all direct labour training? That would have been perfectly acceptable to both sides of the House.
      Mr. Armstrong: If the hon. Gentleman had not approached our proposals for direct labour organisations in such a biased way, and if he had read them carefully and made an objective appraisal of the situation, he might have been in favour of the original Bill.

      Urban Blight
      Mr. Anthony Grantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources he plans to make available for relieving urban blight in areas other than those included in the partnership arrangement.
      Mr. Shore: As I said in my statement on 6th April, outside the partnership arrangements authorities will be able to prepare inner area programmes, and the Government will consider linking urban grants to those programmes, though necessarily on a modest scale in the early years.
      Mr. Grant: While not in any way wishing to increase public expenditure, may I ask whether the Minister is satisfied that he has the policy right within existing proposals? If one takes London as an example, is the Minister aware that I could take him to half a dozen areas in which there is greater deprivation than in Lambeth? How far have the Government viewed the recommendations of the Community Development Project—which cost about £5 million—in formulating this limited and unfair policy?
      Mr. Shore: I note what the hon. Gentleman said about public expenditure, and that is welcome. He seems to have joined the growing ranks of converts on both sides of the House. In reply to the first part of his question, I must point out that so far we have made only a preliminary
      438
      determination. The areas that we have announced are firm, but I have made it clear that we shall be discussing with local authorities the possibility of including a limited number of additional areas in the partnership arrangements.
      Mr. Loyden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme is gaining support among local authorities, particularly in the areas already referred to? Does he further agree that the degree of flexibility that is being applied to the problem in some areas offers exciting possibilities of co-operation. Will he pursue this line in the areas that have been designated for these purposes?
      Mr. Shore: Yes. On the whole, the response has been good and local authorities have certainly been attracted by the number of proposals that we have been able to make so far. I hope that as we work out the ideas in partnership and through the other arrangements there will be a possibility of achieving something of great benefit to the people of inner cities throughout the country.
      Sir W. Elliott: Does the Secretary of State accept that the reception of the proposals in Newcastle upon Tyne was bad? Will he take it from me that the exclusion of that great city from the list of those in the partnership agreement was badly received locally, and will he seek to rectify the omission?
      Mr. Shore: I understand the feeling there. Indeed, it has been indicated to me by a number of hon. Members who represent that city. I have said that I am willing to receive a deputation from Newcastle to discuss the scheme with them, and I hope to do so soon.
      Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend utterly and decisively reject any proposal to divert money from Lambeth to Harrow?
      Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir.
      Mr. Eyre: I understand the limitation on resources, but does the Secretary of State recognise that there is genuine concern about the criteria that the Government have used in establishing priorities? Will he particularly remember that there are decayed areas in outer areas of cities, as well as blighted regions, in the Black Country and Midland towns and in the

      439
      industrial areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire, that will not share in the arrangements? Does he realise that these areas feel neglected?
      Mr. Shore: I understand that, but the House must face this problem realistically. I am prepared to broaden the criteria as soon as the House as a whole is prepared to give me more money to spend to deal with the problem of urban decay. To the best of my ability, I am applying to the areas of greatest need the inevitably limited resources now available.

      Local Authorities (Partnership Schemes)
      12. Mr. Mackayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications for the local authorities concerned of the partnership arrangements recently announced by the Government.
      Mr. Shore: The partnerships will involve local authorities, Government Departments and agencies in drawing up and implementing joint programmes of action. Extra help will be available through main programmes and from the enlarged urban programme. I hope to discuss in the near future the arrangements with the authorities for the areas announced in my 6th April statement.
      Mr. MacKay: Is the Secretary of State aware that the local authorities concerned are worried that the Government will spend the £100 million that has been granted purely on building new houses, while the local authorities feel that most of the money should go on refurbishing and renovating existing houses in order to preserve intact the character and the communities of the inner areas?
      Mr. Shore: I should be surprised if there were genuine anxiety. There ought not to be any, because the areas that I have already designated as partnership areas are ones of housing stress. There will be no interruption in their new building programmes. As for the allocation of the money, I am most anxious to hear the views of the local authorities on that matter. I shall not impose on them any preconceived ideas about how the money could best be spent.
      Mr. MacFarquhar: In his consultations with the partnership areas, will the
      440
      Minister not forget those small urban areas that are not included in the scheme? Will he instruct his officials to look sympathetically at the relatively small demands for housing and other such relief of urban deprivation that may be requested by such areas—especially in view of the fact that towns such as Swadlin-cote, in my constituency, do not have the advantages of the big cities but have just as much urban deprivation?
      Mr. Shore: I understand the concern about this, but I shall not forget about the smaller urban areas. Following the transfer of the original urban programme to my Department, I shall be looking at that programme to see how far I can help other areas as well.
      Mr. Raison: Will the Secretary of State say whether the partnership arrangement for the London docklands will be with the local authorities or the joint committee? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if the arrangements are made separately with the local authorities the chances of effective action will be diminished?
      Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. There is a special arrangement in dockland and I hope shortly to discuss with dockland representatives the appropriate arrangement for partnership in that area and with the special organisation.
      Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Secretary of State realise that he could help in a major way in the inner city areas without spending a penny of Government money? Is he aware that in these areas there are vast amounts of disused dockland and railway land, some of which has not been used for 10 to 20 years and the current use value of which is nil, in spite of which the local authorities are being asked £20,000 or more an acre for this desperately needed land?
      Mr. Shore: I agree that there is much disused land in inner city areas, particularly land that is no longer needed for port operations that have ceased. I am most anxious that such land should be released. However, one must take account of the authorities that hold that land. For some of them it is important collateral for their own financial arrangements, but I shall be anxious to encourage them

      441
      to release at an early date land that they do not need.
      Mr. Eyre: In view of the Secretary of State's answers to this question and a previous one, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the need for a rapid and urgent programme for the sale of commercial and industrial assets in the new towns so that resources may be speedily released to help deal with these serious problems?
      Mr. Shore: I must warn the hon. Gentleman that he is exaggerating this possibility. I was asked whether it would be possible to raise money on some of the assets of the Commission for the New Towns and whether we could use those resources for other public expenditure purposes in inner city revival, and so on. I said that I am prepared to look at the possibility, and I shall do so.
      Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his White Paper on partnership schemes for inner city areas.
      Mr. Shore: In the next few weeks.
      Mr. Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement that £17 million will be available for investment in the London docklands has been welcomed in East London? Bearing in mind his announcement today that he will seek discussions with the Docklands Joint Committee on the body through which that money should be spent, can he indicate the nature of the items on which it could be spent and the time scale involved, assuming that the discussions are satisfactory and quick?
      Mr. Shore: Now that the £17 million has been allocated to docklands, it is for the dockland authorities to establish their priorities for expenditure. They can start spending the money as soon as they have agreed on what they wish to spend it. As the authorities are linked in the dock-lands arrangement, I think that they will wish to consult each other and, as far as possible, make the spending proposals fit into the general context of the dock-land strategy.
      Mr. Hal Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman make plain in the White Paper what steps he is taking to ensure that inner city areas are making use of their increased rate support grant that has been taken from county areas? Since the
      442
      county areas have suffered this deprivation, may we be satisfied that the money is not being used just to hold down the rates, but is actually doing something for these inner city areas?
      Mr. Shore: I certainly hope that the inner city areas that are partnership areas will look at the extra resources available to them, not only through the enhanced inner city grant but through the rate support grant. It would be irresponsible if the authorities regarded cutting back the rates as an alternative to getting on with inner urban reconstruction.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: As it seems that we shall not reach Question No. 21, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman—?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. That would be a very bad precedent.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I was just making the point, Mr. Speaker. Will the White Paper on inner city areas cover the problem of empty properties? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a recent public inquiry two inner London areas, one of which was Lambeth, were shown to have more than 4,000 empty properties? Should not local authorities be encouraged to co-operate with housing associations to get these properties occupied?
      Mr. Shore: I do not have details of the authorities to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but better use and improvement of the housing stock in inner city areas is an important part of our general strategy.
      Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the initiative taken in the London borough of Brent, where my council recently called a conference on unemployment and has this week held a conference on the development of the Park Royal estate? Will my right hon. Friend consider, in the White Paper, giving encouragement to local and other authorities that are trying to participate with the Government, business and trade unions to secure solutions to the inner city problems?
      Mr. Shore: I am pleased to hear of the initiative being taken in Brent and I believe that initiatives have been taken by many other authorities in the last two years. I hope that the White Paper will be completed fairly shortly and I hope

      443
      to indicate in detail what we meant by extending the powers of local authorities to give assistance to firms in their areas.
      Mr. Heseltine: As the right hon. Gentleman continually stresses how little money, relative to the problem, is available for inner urban development, why did his Under-Secretary say earlier that the Government were not even prepared to undertake a valuation of new town assets so that the House could have a real dialogue on whether priority should be given to the sale of those assets and their rolling over into inner urban areas?
      Mr. Shore: I do not see any contradiction between what my hon. Friend has said and what I said a short time ago. I said that I had received a proposal from the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who, as we know, puts forward proposals in a most serious way. I have replied by saying that I shall consider it. I am not prepared to take the matter any further than that at present.

      Improvement Grants
      Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will increase the eligible cost limits for improvement grants.
      Mr. Freeson: I have no plans for an immediate general increase in eligibile cost limits for improvement grants, but I shall consider increasing the limits in particular areas to enable essential rehabilitation to proceed. I shall consider, too, the case for increases in the rateable value limits in areas where rateable values are particularly high.
      Mr. Sainsbury: Is the right hon, Gentleman aware that his answer will be profoundly disappointing to many thousands of occupiers of older properties? Is he aware that it is more than two and a half years since the limits were increased and that during that time of Socialist Government the cost of living and the cost of building have increased by more than half? Does he realise that his refusal to increase the eligible limits must be damaging the programme of rehabilitation?
      Mr. Freeson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my answer. He must have come prepared with a supplementary question to an
      444
      answer that he did not get. I said that we had no immediate plans for a general increase, but in the meantime I shall be prepared to consider increasing the limits in particular areas to enable essential rehabilitation to proceed and to consider the case for increases in rateable value limits in areas where those values are particularly high. I should have thought that that was a helpful answer. We shall consider the general question at another time.
      Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will be very welcome, particularly if, as I hope he will ensure, it is applied to Liverpool? Is he aware that I hope that it will be implemented at the earliest possible opportunity in areas such as Liverpool, because it will help the many thousands of construction workers who are now unemployed? Will he consider a limit of more than 75 per cent. in some cases and up to 90 per cent-in special cases? I realise that there would then have to be arrangements about rents.
      Mr. Freeson: I should clarify one point made by my hon. Friend. I shall consider applications from Liverpool and elsewhere along the lines that I have indicated, but my answer related not to the percentage of grant aid but to actual cash limits. Grant aid is already running at 75 per cent. in housing action areas and 60 per cent. in general improvement areas. As to future developments and the possibility of assisting repair work and the installation of amenities, I should prefer to await the outcome of our Housing Policy Review, because this matter is being looked at in the review.
      Mr. Evelyn King: Why did the right hon. Gentleman's answer refer only to particular areas? Do these particular areas include Dorset? If not, why not? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are getting increasingly suspicious of references to "particular areas", because rural areas are always left out when that phrase is used?
      Mr. Freeson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is incorporated in my original reply. I said that I shall consider the possibility of increasing the limits in particular areas to enable essential rehabilitation to proceed. That related to the original question about the costs incurred

      445
      in those areas being somewhat higher—and sometimes sharply higher—than elsewhere. Similarly, rateable values are much higher in some areas than in others. We are prepared to look at individual applications, but we are not making a list of areas. We are awaiting applications and we shall consider them.
      Mr. Rossi: As this is a matter of great interest to the House and great anxiety outside, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he will be able to make a positive statement on the limits to which he has referred? Will he stop coming to the House every six months and saying that another six months are required before the housing policy review can be completed?
      Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman has got the import of my answer a little wrong. I said that we shall be prepared to consider applications along the lines indicated in my original reply. It is not a question of my coming here to make a statement listing a number of authorities that will be included. Individual requests will come to us and we shall have to look at them carefully because we are operating under tight public expenditure constraints. We shall receive the applications and, on the basis of the information given to us, we shall make our judgments. Some people will be disappointed, but I hope that we shall be able to help others.
      Mr. Sainsbury: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

      European Community Regulations
      Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many EEC regulations and directives have been imposed upon the areas of work covered by his Department since 1973.
      Mr. Shore: The Council has adopted 21 directives and regulations on matters for which my Department has a major responsibility.
      Mr. Marten: What is the cost of implementing these regulations and directives, and how many extra public employees are involved? Does the right hon. Gentle
      446
      man agree that it is important to watch the breeding capacity of the Brussels apparatchik in over-creating further civil servants in this country?
      Mr. Shore: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's attention to this aspect of Community affairs as they affect this country, and especially my Department. Without notice, I cannot give him a detailed answer on cost. However, I can assure him that I am conscious of the general tendency to extend Community competence and the dangers that this may pose for us in terms of additional costs and burdens and the diminution of our legislative authority. We look upon all such proposals most carefully and critically.
      Mr. Jay: On balance, does my right hon. Friend think that the regulations and directives have done any good?
      Mr. Shore: In my area they are, by definition, of a somewhat different character. They are concerned mainly with environmental pollution. In that area, where increasingly the problems of pollution cross national frontiers, there is the possibility of coming to commonsense agreements and arrangements that we would have wished to conclude whether or not we had joined the Community.
      Mr. Welsh: How many of these regulations has the right hon. Gentleman initiated, and how many have been initiated in Europe and imposed upon the United Kingdom as part of the process of standardisation?
      Mr. Shore: I am not aware of having initiated any, but I am aware of having been caught, as it were, in the onward flow of proposals that emanate from Brussels. I have done my best to cope with that flow and to ensure that no proposals are accepted unless they accord with the interests of this country and with the general rule of common sense.
      Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to rule that Question No. 18 is hypocritical or ironic, in view of the fact that it comes from a member of the Opposition.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is guilty of the sin for which he is confounding others.

      Local Authority Mortgages
      Dr. Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he or one of his Ministers will make arrangements to visit the Royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead in order to discuss the effects of the reduction in money available for local authority mortgage loans.
      Mr. Armstrong: No, Sir. I am aware of the difficulties that many local authorities are experiencing as a result of the further reduction in their mortgage lending quotas, but the additional funds that the building societies are making available under the support arrangements will enable the Royal borough to maintain its lending broadly at the 1976–77 level. In addition, the new arrangements, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 6th April, will enable it, if it wishes, to switch up to £500,000 to lending from other programmes.
      Dr. Glyn: I am grateful to the Minister for that full answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a real problem—namely, that building societies are reluctant to lend money on older property? Does he appreciate that the reduction from £2·4 million in 1975 to £620,000 in 1977–78 is having a real impact on those who wish to buy older property? That is reflected by the amount of money that the building societies are prepared to advance.
      Mr. Armstrong: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has said. We have indicated to local authorities and building societies that we want the money to be allocated to the special priority categories, which include the very ones that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
      Mr. Lipton: Has my hon. Friend calculated the amount of money that is being spent by building societies in Windsor and Maidenhead on decorations for the Silver Jubilee? They are spending a great deal of money on such decorations—money that could be devoted to more useful purposes.
      Mr. Armstrong: No. I am afraid that I have not spent time undertaking that calculation.

      Building Societies Association
      Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has
      448
      had recent discussions with the Building Societies Association.
      Mr. MacGregorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes to meet representatives of the Building Societies Association.
      Mr. Shore: I met the chairman and the chairman-designate of the Building Societies Association on 6th May. I am ready to meet the new chairman again whenever the need arises, and my Department maintains continuing contact with the association.
      Mr. McCrindle: Is it not now clear that if the building societies had yielded to Government pressure three months ago to reduce their lending rates to the level likely to prevail after next month, the amount of money available for new mortgagees this summer would be substantially less than it is now likely to be? In those circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the building societies must keep a balance between investors, existing borrowers and new borrowers? Is that not an indication that less Government pressure on the building societies in future would be welcome?
      Mr. Shore: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, in that there is clearly a need for a balance of considerations in the building societies' policy on mortgage interest rates. I do not know where he gets the idea of the building societies yielding or not yielding to Government pressure. I take the opportunity of making plain my own view. I believe that mortgage interest rates should be determined, and are bound to be determined, by the building societies. I cannot do that. However, my wish is to see determined as quickly as possible the lowest level of rates consistent with a flow of funds sufficient to meet the demand for mortgages in the foreseeable future.
      Mr. MacGregor: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that good enough liaison machinery exists between the building societies, the monetary authorities and himself to ensure that building society rates do not get too far out of line for too long? In that context, what advice is he now giving building societies about interest rates for the next six months?
      Mr. Shore: Views are exchanged on these matters. The building societies are

      449
      conscious when they are out of line with competing monetary rates. If they are out of line one way, they suffer a considerable loss in the inflow of funds. If they are out of line the other way, they have a considerable influx. They take account of both those situations in determining their interest policy.
      Dr. M. S. Miller:Does my right hon Friend agree that the wide discrepancy between general interest rates and mortgage rates, which adversely affects many of those who want to buy a house, indicates clearly that the crazy system that the building societies operate should make way for a nationalised system in which local authorities, or Government agencies, may lend the money on a more equitable and reasonable basis?
      Mr. Shore: I did not really follow my hon. Friend's argument, which inevitably was advanced in a terse form, as it was put in a supplementary question. I am not clear in which respect he thinks that the system is insane. As long as housing finance rests largely on one group lending money and another group borrowing it, clearly interest rates will have to take account of the interests of both. That is what building societies do. We can argue about the practices of building societies, and we have had many such exchanges. The House knows that I am anxious to get the building societies to take a more positive view, especially in helping those with lower incomes and avoiding the practice of red-lining.
      Mr. Heseltine: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the practices of the building societies are totally influenced by the climate of the Government's financial performance? Is he aware that there have been about 52 changes in minimum lending rate in the past four years? Does he accept that earlier this year the Government were offering 8·78 per cent. net of tax interest, which took about £150 million that otherwise would have gone to the building societies?
      Mr. Shore: I am not sure that I can confirm that. Obviously we want to encourage a certain stability in the building societies' lending policies, both in terms of the quantity of money that they have available to lend and the interest rates that they are charging. That is a different consideration from the inevitably shorter-term movements of MLR.
      Mr. Lee: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principal fault of the building societies is that they are always reluctant to reduce rates when interest rates are down and only too willing to raise them when they are on the way up? Does he also agree with the criticism of many hon. Members who represent inner city areas that the building societies are reluctant to lend money on older properties?
      Mr. Shore: I understand and agree entirely with my hon. Friend on the second point.
      On the first point, the House should remember that in 1973, under the mismanagement of the Conservative Government, the building societies suffered from a serious mortgage famine, which was far more disruptive to would-be owner-occupiers and, indeed, to the house construction industry than if they had pursued a policy that maintained their lending rate in a more orderly way, even though interest rates have had to go up.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the House on the discussions in the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 16th–17th May, at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown)—represented the United Kingdom for the discussions on fisheries. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary represented the United Kingdom for the discussions on agriculture.
The Council considered a proposal by the Commission for a regulation to govern fishing for herring in the waters of member States in the period 1st June to 31st December 1977. The United Kingdom supported the Commission's proposals for a continuation of the temporary ban in the North Sea until the end of the year and for a system of quotas for the West of Scotland stock under which the United Kingdom would receive over 70 per cent. of the total allocations. The majority of delegations, however, despite the scientific evidence, favoured

451
the allocation of quotas in the North Sea for the remainder of the year. This was not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
Eventually it was agreed to extend the North Sea ban until the end of June, except for a small special quota for the Netherlands to enable her to meet the requirements of her traditional June festival. It was also agreed to introduce a ban on herring fishing off the West of Scotland for the month of June. The latter measure will not affect United Kingdom fishermen since they normally do not start fishing for herring off the West of Scotland until the late summer.
The Council agreed to meet in Luxembourg on 27th June to decide on herring conservation measures for the period after the end of June and to consider all aspects of the internal fisheries régime. The Government are determined that real progress should be made then towards the adoption of definitive arrangements that adequately reflect the importance of the fishing industry to the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend told the Council that the calculation of monetary compensatory amounts on pigmeat must be adjusted to remove the difficulties to which they give rise. The Commission has now tabled a proposal which, if agreed, would allow the Commission to reduce MCAs on certain products, including pigmeat. It is intended that the implications of this proposal should be clarified urgently at official level with a view to the Council taking a decision on it at its next meeting on 20th-21st June.
The Council agreed to a directive on pure-bred cattle. This will remove obstacles to intra-Community trade, subject to the necessary animal health rules. I am confident that, as a result, our exports of pure-bred cattle will be benefited in due course.
The Council also discussed measures on wine, and on the so-called butter ships, operating mainly from North German ports, which offer cheap butter to their passengers, but final decisions were deferred until the next meeting.
In view of criticisms that had been made against him by some Ministers earlier in the meeting, Commissioner Tugendhat approached me and asked me to allow him to make a statement to the Council and to answer questions. I
452
acceded to his request and I gave him the opportunity to make an opening statement, to hear criticisms, and to reply.
Mr. Peyton: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition give him their whole-hearted support for the robust attitude that he has taken in favour of conservation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a serious matter, despite the levity displayed by Labour Members. We believe that if greedy policies on the fishing grounds are allowed to continue, we shall be left with nothing to argue about tomorrow.
Is the Minister further aware that we support him in rejecting unenforceable quota arrangements? These are totally unsatisfactory. We also support his determination that progress be made towards arrangements for a sensible definitive régime which recognises this country's interests.
My last point relates to pigmeat. I am pleased that the Commission has at last awakened to the seriousness of the problem and has put forward proposals. Is the Minister yet in a position to tell us whether the Commission's proposals carry some promise of substantial relief to this hard-pressed industry?
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support for the stand that we have taken on fishing. This is absolutely vital. Like him, I have for some time taken the view—perhaps a little longer than the right hon. Gentleman, because I was occupying this position before he adopted his Shadow rôle—that we were the best judges of what conservation measures were necessary in our own waters.
The House must remember that I tabled the proposals about pigmeat to the Commission within the first week of becoming Minister in September. This was the first time that the Commission had laid them on the table for discussion by the Council. A number of technical matters need to be settled. Many countries, while in principle supporting the Commission, want to look more clearly at the implications from their point of view. Needless to say, some countries were not perhaps as happy with the Commission's proposals as we were. In principle, we are very much in favour of these proposals. The details are being worked out. I wish that I could tell the

453
House at this stage exactly how they will work out, but this is rather novel.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I appreciate the positive aspects which have so far come out of the fisheries discussions. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the industry is facing a serious future? Does he accept that death by a thousand meetings is totally unacceptable? When are we to get firm action on a secure future for the industry?
Mr. Silkin: I am aware of these facts, and I am as keen as my hon. Friend to see that we get the right answer, and get it soon. That was why I pressed strongly, and eventually—it did not happen immediately—got the Council to accept that we should have a separate day for fisheries matters—27th June—on which we would discuss the definitive regime. Unfortunately, because the herring ban is only temporary, we shall have to discuss that matter as well. No doubt we shall discuss that within the main context, which seems to be the basic principle that we have to satisfy.
Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear on 27th June that if this nonsense is not ended soon, there is support on both sides of the House for unilateral action on a 50-mile limit?
Mr. Silkin: If I had not made it clear, there were about 120 people, led by a piper of distinction—I am not an expert in judging how well he was playing, but I am sure that he was playing well—who would have drawn it to the attention of the Council and the Commission. Of course, there were hon. Members from all parties also present on that occasion.
Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in order to gain the confidence not only of the anti-Marketeers but of the whole fishing industry—
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend voted to go in.
Mr. Johnson: Order, order.
Mr. Skinner: It is true. He voted to go in.
Mr. Johnson: Order, Order.
Mr. Speaker: I often feel like saying that myself. The hon. Member for Bolsover
454
(Mr. Skinner), should let his hon. Friend proceed.
Mr. Johnson: If the Minister is to get the total confidence of us all he must see that there are no loopholes. The Danes, for example, are being allowed, under this herring agreement, to fish in extenso off the Kattegat and Skagerrak. In view of the Danes' record of industrial fishing, how does the Minister feel about that?
Mr. Silkin: That is one of the issues that must be settled at the 27th June meeting. My purpose at this stage was to see that there was a ban in the North Sea and, as far as possible, a ban off the West Coast of Scotland. The House should remember that a ban has been achieved off the West Coast of Scotland at a time when our own fishermen do not fish there.
Mr. Powell: In view of the slowness and the obduracy of the Council and the Commission in understanding, let alone meeting, the minimum requirements of the British fishing industry, would it not now be perfectly fair and reasonable that we should withdraw the compromise proposals of a fishing limit of up to 50 miles which we put forward in expectation of genuine negotiations and table our minimum requirement, which is a 50-mile limit all around our coasts?
Mr. Silkin: Those questions will come up on 27th June. We have told the Commission that we are going to make new proposals. They are not so much proposals as a list of matters to be discussed. Undoubtedly the whole question will come up at that time. By then I shall have had to put a definitive view to my partners on this matter.
Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Norway, having stayed out of the EEC, has obtained a 200-mile exclusive zone? Since we have gratuitously thrown that away, thanks to the Opposition, can the Minister assure us that he will stand firm on the 50-mile zone, at least, for this country and, if necessary, enforce it unilaterally?
Mr. Silkin: I have believed for some time that this is one of the difficulties of my hon. Friend's variable belt scheme which was intended to show where all the fish were but did not quite do so. Fifty

455
miles is a more sensible allocation, because everybody knows what 50 miles or 80 kilometres is. The important question is not necessarily exclusivity of fishing, because one will want to do some trade-off on fishing, for example with the Norwegians, who fish in our waters. We are talking of exclusivity of control.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Am I correct in saying that the more pressure that is put on, the better the Minister is satisfied? Does he accept that part of that pressure comes from the Scottish fishing industry, 112 members of which went to Brussels this week to demand a 50-mile—and not a millimetre less—exclusive zone? The Scottish Under-Secretary in charge of fishing made a reassuring statement in a meeting which I attended. He said that if there was not to be justice for the industry we could be assured that the Government would not hesitate to take unilateral action. Does that include the unilateral declaration of a 50-mile limit, or is it just talk?
Mr. Silkin: The hon. Lady is right. I need the support not only of hon. Members on this side of the House—although I know that I have their support—but of all those who are concerned with fisheries. We have shown our good faith. The Government made it clear during the speedy passage of the Fisheries Limit Act when I or my hon. Friend pointed out that we have that right within the Bill.
Mr. Torney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is pleasing to see that the Opposition now realise that the fault in the pig industry lies with the Common Market and not with the British Government? Can he assure us that action will be taken to renegotiate or reorganise the common agricultural policy, because it is of no use to the British farmer or the British consumer?
Mr. Silkin: The pigmeat situation is a little more complicated than my hon. Friend implied. The fact remains that measures that clearly are legal, or were legal in the United Kingdom before we joined the Community, can at least now be questioned. Let us put it no higher than that. I am bound to tell the House that I do not regard the CAP as the best policy that has ever been evolved for agriculture.
Mr. Kimball: Does the Minister appreciate that the salmon stocks in this country
456
now need the same protection as he is giving to herring? Will he draw the attention of the EEC to the need for it to preserve a ban on drift netting for salmon? Will he put our own house in order by asking the British inspectorate to ban the landing at our ports of salmon which have been caught in drift nets, which is illegal?
Mr. Silkin: I should be grateful for more information on that subject. All the conservation questions are bound to come up at the meeting.
Mr. Corbett: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the most alarming reports that the Council is turning itself into a Star Chamber and that Commissioner Tugendhat is having to face charges of being a Left-wing extremist? Is this likely to continue? If it is, is the heretic, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), also to be summoned to explain his objections to the CAP?
Mr. Silkin: I cannot answer for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). He must answer for himself. That is precisely the way in which I thought Commissioner Tugendhat might care to arrange matters. He was not harangued, as has been reported in the Press. He asked me whether he could make a statement. I told him "By all means. You can hear the criticisms and answer them at the end. "I do not believe that it was for me to answer for the former hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South about whether he is a Left-wing extremist. I am in agreement with some of his statements but there are a number with which I do not agree. I do not believe that the matter deserved as much moment and importance as it appeared to get.
Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British fishermen have no confidence that the system of quotas either has been or can be properly enforced? What steps are being taken to ensure that the small derogation granted to the Netherlands is absolutely accurately observed? Would this not be a test case for someone to prove whether a quota system can be operated effectively?
Mr. Silkin: I accept that a quota system alone is not effective. There is something in what the hon. Member says. This is intended to be a token

457
amount. The Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office, who was at that time leading the United Kingdom Government delegation, suggested to the Netherlands delegation that it might transfer to haggis rather than herring, but that was not accepted.
Mr. McNamara: The House will have been intrigued about these butter ships. Will my right hon. Friend say whether they float upon lakes of wine, and whether they are likely to be wrecked upon submerged reefs of beef? As this is an interesting sort of precedent, is it possible that Her Majesty's Fleet, which is in mothballs, might be taken out, and that we could have one big jamboree to celebrate Jubilee Year outside the zones, buying cheap beef, butter, milk powder, wine and all the other surpluses?
Mr. Silkin: The second part of that question would be more properly addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
The first part of the question arises in this way. There are ships which sail outside the territorial waters, mainly of Germany, and which come into harbour and pick up hungry housewives complete with shopping baskets, who then buy butter off the ship very much cheaper than they can buy it inside their own countries. The reason why they buy it is that it is Eastern European butter. I leave the House to consider what the cycle may be on this occasion.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Was the important matter of a regulation on sheepmeat discussed, and did the Minister fight for it?
Mr. Silkin: That subject did not arise at this Council meeting.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend accept from us our thanks for his gallant efforts? Nevertheless, is not the position that we, as a Government, make a firm stand, we are then pressurised by our European partners, we then reach a compromise, and the British are worse off as a result just because we are in the Common Market? Is it not time to say to our partners that we are ending the CAP commitment from right now?
Mr. Silkin: Let us see how we go. It looks to me as though we have not made a bad start in making some rather important
458
improvements. We have a long, long way to go. About that I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Bulmer: Is the Minister aware that some pig farmers in my constituency have gone bankrupt in recent weeks and that others are in grave difficulty? Did anything come out of his meeting which would lead him to advise such farmers to seek further credit from their bank managers or, indeed, their bank managers to grant such credit?
Mr. Silkin: I think that I made the position fairly clear. It is that although my proposals were tabled early in September, this was the first time that they were discussed in the Council. The proposals were sent urgently to officials for official discussion of the details of them, and they will come back at the next Council meeting. I should have thought that any decisions that need to be taken would perhaps best be considered in the light of what might arise out of that. I cannot say what will come out of that Council meeting. I can only say that this is the first time that there has been some move.
Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend may have seen reports in the Press about the statement by Commissioner Tugendhat to the effect that the cost of the agricultural package is now much greater than was originally thought. Can my right hon. Friend give the cost which is now given by Commissioner Tugendhat, and say whether any agriculture Ministers other than himself also represent the interests of the consumer in the Council of Ministers?
Mr. Silkin: As to the second half of my hon. Friend's question, I believe that I am the only Minister there for agriculture, fisheries and food, but I suppose that all of my partners would say that in one way or another they represented the consumers as well. As to the first part of the question, I cannot give the cost without notice, but I certainly shall do so.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: When the Minister atend the June meeting, will he take the oportunity not merely to criticise the CAP, which certainly needs reform—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but to put forward some specific, practicable and acceptable proposals for its reform?
Mr. Silkin: Yes, Sir. On a number of occasions I have made such suggestions. I have made them in the House. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consider them, I shall send him the references in due course. However, I quite agree that what is needed is to take this issue head-on. One of the proposals that I have for when my European colleagues come over here—they will be doing so next week when I shall be their host—is to suggest to them how we might arrange for such a discussion.
Mr. John Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are still real problems in respect of pigs? Despite his undoubted achievement, not least in educating the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to the fact that the trouble lies with the formula for the MCAs, will my right hon. Friend make it clear when he renegotiates that there are those of us in the House who fully supported him when he took his unilateral stand, for which he will be going to court, and who will apply pressure for him to be in exactly the same position and will back him to the hilt if we again take arbitrary action to look after our pig industry?
Mr. Marten: Although I do not think that I can yet claim to represent the majority of Opposition Members as regards the Common Market, will the Minister realise that if he sticks firmly to a 50-mile limit and no compromise, he will have the support of the great majority of Opposition Members? Secondly, is there any relationship between that 50-mile fishing limit and what might be on the bed of the sea? Has it any subsequent follow-through to wider negotiations?
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. As to the wider negotiations, I should not have thought so. It arises out of a common fisheries policy which, frankly, the Six agreed very hurriedly and speedily before we made our application. I am glad, as always, of the hon. Gentleman's support in this matter.
Mr. Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that every time he comes to the House and delivers another load of this Continental nonsense, there seem to be fewer and fewer people who can be clearly identified as pro-Market? As a result
460
of the robust attitude that he has taken in the Common Market, it can now be perceived that the Opposition on the Front Bench, and indeed the Liberals, are now trying to steal my right hon. Friend's anti-Market clothes. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is only one way for him now to travel, and that is to get closer and closer towards those who have taken a strong anti-Market position and to declare himself along with the idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), and to argue the case for getting out of the Common Market?
Mr. Silkin: Putting the matter in perspective, what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said was that we should scrap the CAP. I do not think that he went quite so far as to say that we should go any further than that at this stage.
Concerning the CAP, I think that I have from time to time noticed a certain shift in opinion, not only on the part of the public but even in this House.
Mr. Watt: As Mr. Gundelach has failed in his negotiations on our behalf with Iceland, has failed in his negotiations on our behalf with the Faroes and appears to be failing in his negotiations on our behalf with Norway, does not the Minister consider that it is time that he adopted the saying in the Scottish bothy ballad which says,
"Never trust the middle man,
But do your work yourself"?
Mr. Silkin: I have been trying to do a little work myself for the past few months—not always, incidentally, with the full support of the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), judging by some of the speeches he has made about the CAP, but perhaps he can discuss that from time to time with his right hon. Friend. However, I think that we shall keep to the line that the House recognises, and the fishing industry recognises, is the right line to take.
Dr. McDonald: Did Commissioner Tugendhat's statement to the Council of Ministers include any hope of the abolition of the levy on isoglucose, which at present is costing jobs in Tilbury and Greenwich?
Mr. Silkin: Not that I know of.
Mr. Grimond: As the right hon. Gentleman has specifically asked again for support from the Opposition side of the House for his valiant efforts in Brussels, may I ask whether he has drawn to the attention of his colleagues there the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), which would impose a 50-mile limit? May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we on the Liberal Bench will support his efforts to get that limit and that our support will be implacable?
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. Liberal support these days is very unusual, and I know that my hon. Friends and I very much appreciate it, particularly as we happen to be in the right on the fisheries question.
Mr. Welsh: Noting the statement "clarification at official level" regarding MCAs, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that such clarification will also include the NFUs and other such bodies? Is he aware that half of Scotland's pig production comes from the North-East? Will the voice of those pig producers be heard in such discussions?
Mr. Silkin: It will indirectly, but the truth of the matter is that when I referred to official discussions I meant the official committees, such as the Special Committee on Agriculture, and, where it comes into it, the Committee of Permanent Representatives.

COUNCIL HOUSE TENANTS (SECURITY OF TENURE)
4.0 p.m.
Mr. John Watkinson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide security of tenure for council house tenants; and for connected purposes.
The first point that needs to be made is that council house tenants are the most significant group of occupiers in our society who do not have security of tenure. The owner-occupier has always enjoyed a large measure of security. Parliament has extended that security to tenants of furnished and unfurnished accommodation and recently extended it to those living in agricultural tied cottages.
462
It is not as if council house tenants were a small minority in our community. There are more than 6 million tenants in council houses, and many more if one includes their families. As the law stands, these tenants can do little to resist an application from a council for eviction.
I do not think that it is necessary to deploy general arguments to justify the need for security of tenure. It is basic to any civilised society that people should feel secure in their own homes. The drive for home ownership and the struggle in Parliament for the extension of security of tenure bear adequate testimony to the need for security in home occupation. The time is ripe to extend security to council house tenants.
It has been and will be objected that council tenants are not in the same precarious position as tenants in the private sector formerly were. It can be argued that in fact tenants already have security of tenure in so far as councils rarely use their power of eviction unfairly, and if they do so, they run the risk of a blaze of adverse publicity. But such orders are not as rare as some people believe. Last year more than 30,000 such applications for possession of council property were considered in the county courts.
The vast majority of these cases stem from rent arrears. Other causes arise, such as nuisance or under-occupation, but the principal problem is that of rent arrears. I do not wish to belittle this problem. I emphasise that in bringing forward the Bill I am not offering a charter for rent avoiders. Security of tenure would be on the same basis as exists in furnished and unfurnished tenancies, and thus non-payment of rent would be a ground for eviction.
But at the same time I urge on the House the need for a deeper consideration of the whole question of rent arrears. It is as well to remember that in many instances of rent arrears we are dealing with the poorest of the poor. It is a question not only of rent arrears but of failure to take up benefits to which people are entitled.
The basic requirement is to adopt systems which can help to identify the non-payer and take early action before the debt becomes too large and eviction is ordered. Fortunately, we have moved on from the time when an order for

463
possession could be made in the magistrates' court at the drop of a hat. Now county court proceedings have to be taken. But the brute fact is that in law a council can seek an order for possession and, ultimately, the court has no option but to grant it. This situation should be changed.
A measure to extend security to council tenants is timely and warranted for the following reasons. First, it will limit the unfettered power of councils to obtain eviction orders. It will not stop their getting an order if a case can be made out, but it will mean that the tenant can put his case and know that there is a genuine option available to the court. At present courts are largely enforcers in this sphere, and anyone who has seen, as I have, the sausage machine of eviction orders in the county court knows that the present procedures are unsatisfactory.
Secondly, the measure should force the Government and local authorities to reconsider the problems surrounding rent arrears and the issuing of notices to quit. Notice to quit must remain, but it is vital that tenants be given the clearest indication of the consequences of their actions.
Thirdly, extension of security of tenure could lead to a more productive relationship between tenants and councils. It should remove what seems to me to be a nineteenth-century relationship, and I hope that it will produce a more equal partnership between councils and tenants. It should lead to a review of the sometimes bizarre and humiliating conditions that council tenants have to accept and breach of which could technically lead to eviction. Too many of these agreements contain, as Lord Denning has said in the Court of Appeal, paragraph after paragraph of the obligations on council tenants and not a word about the responsibilities of the councils themselves.
464
Fourthly, it will answer a call that is coming increasingly loudly from tenants' associations. Indeed, at a recent meeting in London of the National Tenants' Conference the delegates placed security of tenure as the first of their goals.
Fifthly, by this measure we shall protect people from unfair and unwarranted eviction. I do not claim that councils use their powers in a punitive manner—far from it—but there are instances of unfair eviction, and Parliament has always sought to protect the weak against the strong.
In bringing forward this measure I know that I am knocking at an open door as far as the Government are concerned. It could hardly be otherwise when one considers that this commitment was entered into in the 1974 manifesto. I hope that that commitment will be inserted in the long-awaited housing policy review.
The Bill is a reminder and a goad to the Government to follow through the undertaking given to the electorate in 1974. It has the added attraction that it should not cost a great deal of money.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Watkinson, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. J. W. Rooker, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth and Mr. Arthur Latham.

COUNCIL HOUSE TENANTS (SECURITY OF TENURE)
  COUNCIL HOUSE TENANTS (SECURITY OF TENURE)
  Mr. John Watkinson accordingly presented a Bill to provide security of tenure for council house tenants; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15th July and to be printed. [Bill 121.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
[18th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HELSINKI FINAL ACT (BELGRADE MEETING)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ashton].
  4.8 p.m.
  Mr. John Davies: The Opposition have decided to use one of their Supply Days today to bring forward on a motion for the Adjournment consideration of the Belgrade Review Conference on the Helsinki Final Act. They do so in the belief that there are many in the House who would like to express their views on a wide variety of matters arising from the conference, views which may go wider than the specific meeting which is to take place from 15th June. If we were to limit ourselves to that meeting, the debate in the House would necessarily be narrow, and that is certainly not the Opposition's wish.
  The truth is that the framework of the Helsinki Final Act embraces, implicitly or explicitly an extremely wide variety of matters concerning the relationships between the West and the East. The Opposition believe that there should be the opportunity for these to be fully ventilated today by all those who are interested in so doing before the preparatory work begins.
  It is realised, of course, that the meetings on 15th June represent a preparatory phase and that the discussion and representation will no doubt be at a relatively low level, but later in the year, in October, it is expected that, as a result of the preparatory work at a ministerial level, the conference will be resumed and will then turn its attention to the real implementation of the Helsinki Final Act and look at what has happened in the intervening period. On that basis, therefore, I should like to treat this debate as a focus for all aspects of confrontation or tension which may exist in the East-West relationship.
  Drawing from the broad paragraphs of the Final Act itself, I believe that that
  466
  review can best concentrate on three separate sections. The first is the humanitarian aspects of our relationships. The second is the commercial aspects. I refer particularly to the fact that the European Community is clearly involved in defining a joint approach by the member States to his wide range of considerations.
  The final section is the political and military aspects of these relationships. However, I know that the Final Act itself made specific reference to the fact that the military relationship was primarily the concern of the discussions of mutual and balanced force reductions and that therefore the military aspect of the Final Act was somewhat restricted in its range.
  I turn first to the humanitarian issues. Largely through the efforts of President Carter, the human rights aspects of that wide range of humanitarian considerations have been thrown into highlight. In his address to the United Nations on 17th March, the President said:
  "No member of the United Nations can claim that the mistreatment of its citizens is solely its own business."
  That is an important declaration that will obviously affect the whole context of our discussions of these matters with the Soviet Union and other countries.
  Today of all days, when we have been confronted by the awe-inspiring contents of the report by the International Commission of Jurists on what has happened in Uganda, one cannot but be struck by the appositeness and topicality of President Carter's remarks. It would therefore be wrong not to make it abundantly clear that we on this side—the Foreign Secretary has already said this for his side—stand beside and behind President Carter's remarks in this relationship.
  Of course, there is a strong Soviet counter-argument—that one of the basic principles of the Helsinki Conference was that intervention in the internal affairs of member States should not be a matter of consideration. But the Carter declaration has largely answered and rejected that argument as it affects human rights of citizens and the general concern that we must all have about the treatment of people as individuals, worldwide, without discrimination and without double standards, even about ourselves.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: It is not only a question of what President Carter has said. It is clear from the terms of the Final Act itself that the argument for the insistence on the observance of human rights in other signatories is not contrary to the principle declared in the Act of non-intervention in the affairs within their domestic jurisdiction, because the parties have all contracted inter se. It is a reciprocal obligation, which is enforceable throughout.
  Mr. Davies: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. That is a clarification which can only be useful in the circumstances. My particular reference to President Carter's remarks relates to the fact that his insistence upon it so recently underlines the very undertakings given at the time of Helsinki.
  I therefore believe that the question allows us, as a result of the conclusion of the Helsinki Final Act, to regard it as a matter of world concern on every individual country and Government not only to be concerned with the maltreatment, perhaps, of individuals, the lack of consideration of their interests, which may be prevalent in other countries, but to look searchingly at the treatment of their own citizens, so far as that may equally give rise to concern.
  However, when one comes to the overt handling of the issues, it is inevitable that the individual countries will deal with these matters differently. It is normal to imagine that the very difficult judgment to be arrived at, as to whether a specific and overt method of handling complaints and disagreements with the treatment of individual citizens exists, may be regarded by some countries differently from others.
  An evident case in point is the problem that the Federal Republic of Germany has in relation to the German Democratic Republic and the problems of securing the best interests of the respective citizens of those two countries. Therefore, although the principle is undeniable, the application is subject to specific considerations of individual countries.
  It was not only human rights issues which arose in the humanitarian field of consideration. There were other and very important ones, relating to such matters as cultural exchange and particularly the communication of ideas among countries. As one looks back over the period since
  468
  the Helsinki Conference and the signature of the Final Act, one sees that there is room on all accounts to express real anxiety and concern about what has happened.
  Do not let us forget that it was a European initiative that promoted this area of concern into consideration at Helsinki. It was picked up subsequently by other States, notably the United States of America, but it was primarily a European initiative that promoted that proposition. Looking at the matter with European eyes, we must register the fact that on all those counts the performance on the other side has been manifestly inadequate in comparison with the reasonable expectations arising from the signatories involved.
  We must, therefore, charge those who now move into the discussions at Belgrade at their various levels with expressing the degree of concern we have about that slow movement and inadequate development in these fields and demand that the examination of implementation should very much demand and seek a much more determined application of the principles to which we all subscribe.
  I turn next to the commercial area of concern. I happen to believe that the extension and development of commercial relationships between ourselves and the Western countries generally and the Soviet Union and the other Eastern countries is a desirable development. It is a hard issue to argue. It is very difficult to find compelling reasons to substantiate my feeling on the subject, but, having been engaged over 12 or 13 years now in intensive discussions in this area, particularly with the Soviet Union but also with other countries, I feel that the maintenance and development of these commercial relationships are a profound and important factor in the lessening of the causes of tension and the lessening of the real remoteness which otherwise creeps into the relationships and damages the possibility of lessening those tensions.
  However, there has to be a great balance of judgment about these matters. To some degree, that balance of judgment is provided for within the provisions of the COCOM arrangements, whereby specifically the transfer of capabilities which would be damaging to the security of the West is already put aside.
  But the matter goes much deeper. When I visited Moscow some years ago,

  469
  it was explained to me by the planning organisation how the system was worked out whereby a substantial number of individual and major projects were set aside in the planning activity within Gosplan to see whether they could be realised without a call upon the Soviet resources themselves. They were not authorised to be developed, that is to say, until they could be shown to be developed without a call on Soviet resources within the five-year planning period.
  The very fact that that kind of consideration is given to the development of such very major projects quite clearly makes it evident that, if they are proceeded with without a call being made on the resources of the Soviet Union, they represent a specific improvement of its total resources at no cost to itself, at least in the short term. We have to give very serious consideration to the wisdom in times of great difficulty of sustaining the resource development of the Eastern countries in this way.
  This equally applies, I believe, in the whole area of the transfer of technology, out with the questions covered by COCOM. The fact is that we have to watch and keep very carefully under appraisal the wisdom of transferring technology which at times may indeed represent such a deliberate accretion to the capability of the Soviet Union as to be something of a danger to ourselves.
  There are, of course, counterparts to this. I have frequently observed in the development of major projects in the Soviet Union that the inserting of a technology developed in the West automatically tends to lead to the continuation of the up-dating of that technology as time goes on. This obviously has advantages in terms of the broad commercial relationships to which I have referred.
  Equally, we have to be very concerned about credits. It is hardly rational to believe that for a country in our particular economic circumstances to raise money on international markets at high rates of interest and then to accord enormous credits to the Soviet Union at very low rates of interest is a particularly intelligent thing to do. One has therefore to call into question whether the commercial advantage of ourselves and the
  470
  West generally is served by such arrangements.
  The same consideration applies equally to what are called compensation deals. We have seen today in the newspapers the announcement of two massive new methanol plants to be installed in the Soviet Union at very high cost, with a compensating factor in terms of the supply of the material produced by the plant as the method of payment for the plants themselves. Here, again, it may be that the advantages lies in so doing, but they must be the subject of very careful reappraisal.
  While agreeing to the broad concept of the improvement and extension of our commercial relationships, I believe that our ability in this country on our own, but more generally in the West as a whole, to reappraise from time to time the direction in which we are going, the extent to which we are committing ourselves, and the advantage we are conferring, should be very much more acutely watched than is currently the case.
  As to the military and political aspects of the problem, I have been on record several times, notably in this House, as expressing very grave anxiety concerning the fragmentation of the military dialogue. It seems to me extraordinarily unwise for the strategic arms limitations talks to be conducted without very careful interlocking with the discussions on mutual and balanced force reductions, and equally with the whole question of the manoeuvre of notifications which are implicit in the Hensinki Final Act. I believe that our present capability of seeing that the best general advantage in terms of our military balance with the East is secured is not adequately assured by the means of co-operation and co-ordination which currently exist.
  I believe that we must pursue the question of détente as a whole. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has quite recently visited China, where undoubtedly the view is that the whole idea of detente is in itself an illusion and that we are dealing with a body which cannot in any sense wish to respond to our desire to lessen tension, except in the sense of taking advantage of our concessionary attitude in order to try to out manoeuvre us. We do not believe that that can be the attitude for this country to adopt. With all

  471
  the difficulties, we believe that it is essential to find areas of improvement in any of these fields and in others.
  Mr. James Lamond: Was not the philosophy that the right hon. Gentleman has just outlined exactly the same philosophy as the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition used in her speech at the very time that the Helsinki Final Act was being signed?
  Mr. Davies: No. I do not think so. If the hon. Gentleman will look at my right hon. Friend's speech and compare it with what she said most recently when she was in Peking, he will find a very great similarity between the two. My right hon. Friend underlines the very real areas of disagreement and tension which exist between the two sides, but she clearly maintains the need to seek rational, fair, and balanced improvements. That has been very clearly her view, and I entirely endorse it. I believe that it represents a contrast with the view she found in China, but I sustain very strongly the need to find such areas of detente as may exist.
  I return to the belief that the whole question of détente is in itself indivisible. The Foreign Secretary has reiterated that view in a recent speech in this House, and I hope that he will say the same again today.
  In my own rather particular dealings with the Soviet Union I have been faced with areas in which the inter-relationships of issues arising in totally different fields of consideration are none the less enormously co-ordinated in the Soviet Union with a view to securing maximum advantage. I remember very well, as will many hon. Members, the period in 1972 when it was found necessary to call for the departure from this country of a certain number of accredited representatives of the Soviet Union. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that that determined action called into being a restriction on the trading relationships between Britain and the Soviet Union of a quite definite character. I am certain that this restriction existed, and I am equally certain that it has taken a very long time to override it.
  Another perhaps less evident case, but nevertheless one of great importance, is the approach of the Soviet Union to the
  472
  use of apparently purely commercial issues in support of major methods of affecting—damagingly at times—the interests of the Western economy. I refer to the development of the commercial marine in the Soviet Union on a basis of use outside the normal transport requirements of that country and at rates of freight which are clearly damaging to the conduct of the normal marine operations in the Western countries. The same can be said of the use of the Soviet Union land mass as a land bridge for the conveyance of goods between Western Europe and the Far East.
  In the Soviet Union it is a matter of normal policy to try to draw maximum advantage from the inter-relationship of quite separate issues which may be under consideration. That has been my personal experience. There is a general strategy in relation to the Soviet Union's total undertakings and discussions with the Western world, all of which is centred upon the major purpose of securing the balance of advantage to the Soviet Union as between the various issues concerned.
  This is very much part of the whole framework of what is referred to by the Soviet Union as the ideological struggle. The truth is that the ideological struggle is the centre of the Soviet Union's purpose. It has a system which it wishes to see dominating the system of the West.
  It seeks that domination by every means that it can find within the compass of its manifold activities and relationships with the Western world. My great concern is that we on our side have no such capability. I see that, for instance, in the way in which we have been so deeply concerned in this House recently, and will continue to be, with regard to the intervention of the Soviet Union—a kind of devolved intervention through the media of Cuban forces, guerrillas, or whoever it may be—in the affairs of Southern Africa. That is part of a concerted planning system which seeks to draw advantages in general from the disinterest of our own side.
  The same is true of the subversion activities that we have seen in many countries. They are justified in the broad belief that whatever one may say in the Helsinki Final Act, or whatever one may agree in the broad principles to which one adheres, the basis of the ideological

  473
  struggle and the supremacy of the Soviet system and its need to be implanted is the primary concern, which will not be abandoned on any account.
  I have little belief in the bringing about of a head-on conflict with the West by the Soviet Union. The means of achieving the ends not through a head-on conflict is something with which we have to be deeply concerned. I do not see any evidence of a wish to compromise. On the contrary, I see evidence of a wish to assert a basic purpose pursued with relentless determination with which we have very little capacity to compete. Indeed, I see on our side a very fragmented response to that concerted effort.
  If there is any real improvement that has to be considered at this stage with our allies and friends throughout the world it is the need to take a total view of our relationships with the Eastern countries. We have failed to do so. It seems to me that the corollary to President Carter's call last week to NATO for a greater effort and a more concerted view of the requirements and the reasons for NATO is to be found in the absolutely essential need to find some method of bringing together the totality of these relationships and examining them with the same ruthless determination not to concede our interests which the other side has deployed in order to seek the interests of the Eastern countries.
  Unfortunately, the detonators which could lead to explosions are widening all the time. The truth is that the territorial limits of NATO were set without adequate regard to the areas from which the dangers to the very purposes it seeks to achieve might arise. These undoubtedly are greatly widening.
  We have to aspire to the will to prevail over what is a continuously expanding infiltration of the Western social order. The Foreign Secretary's remarks the other day in the debate on foreign and Commonwealth affairs left me with some cause for concern. He seemed to be admitting too readily that the presence of the Soviet Union in Africa was entirely and acceptably a reasonable purpose. I find that a worrying concept simply because it adds still further force to this tendency to compromise away our interests.
  474
  I simply hope that the purpose of this debate will be served in trying to underline the essential need to move to a much better co-ordinated method of handling what otherwise could be a grave threat to our interests for ourselves and for our children.
  4.37 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): In less than a month's time, on 15th June, representatives of 35 nations will assemble in Belgrade in order to discuss the preparations for a meeting later in the year to follow up the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which was concluded by the signature of its Final Act in Helsinki in August 1975. The purpose of the meeting, to quote the Final Act, will be
  "to continue the multilateral process initiated by the Conference…by proceeding to a thorough exchange of views both on the implementation of the provisions of the Final Act and of the tasks defined by the Conference, as well as, in the context of the questions dealt with by the latter, on the deepening of their mutual relations, the improvement of security and the development of co-operation in Europe, and the development of the process of detente in the future."
  I admit that is quite a mouthful. Like most multilateral documents, the Final Act can hardly be distinguished by the crispness or by the clarity of its prose. But there can be no doubt as to the importance of the Belgrade meeting.
  Its task of assessing the progress which has been made along the road which was charted at Helsinki is vital. The Government greatly welcome this opportunity for a full debate on the United Kingdom's approach to this very significant and important European occasion.
  I also pay tribute to the fact that the Sub-Committee on Defence and External Affairs of the Expenditure Committee—I am glad to see the Chairman of that Committee, the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), present—has examined this very subject. Its report is coming out very shortly and I hope that this, as well as the debate, will help us in forming views for this important conference.
  I greatly welcome the fact that the Select Committee has examined this area. I hope that the Committee feels that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has

  475
  given it all the help that it can in evidence. I am glad to see that the Committee took its evidence from a wide range of opinion.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself attended the final stage of the CSCE at Helsinki together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who was one of the 35 Heads of Government who put their names to the Final Act. I do not share, and have never shared, the doubts which from time to time have been expressed in this House as to the potential value of that document.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: How can my right hon. Friend reconcile his support for détente with yesterday's dismaying agreement at NATO to aim for a 3 per cent. increase in spending? Will that not deliberately heighten international hostility? Does not my right hon. Friend think that this will cast doubt on the sincerity and the professions of the NATO leaders to secure agreement? I warn my right hon. Friend that this will be bitterly opposed by Labour Members, and Labour men outside, particularly at a time when the Government are cutting arms expenditure and when negotiations are taking place to stop this. It is going in the opposite direction.
  Dr. Owen: I have made my views on defence expenditure perfectly clear in this House and they remain the same. I believe that no one wishes to keep up the current level of defence expenditure unnecessarily or to keep it if there is a real chance of reducing it. But the fact has to be faced, and my hon. Friend has to face it, that throughout the last few years there has been a constant increase in the percentage of GNP devoted by the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries to defence expenditure. I wish I knew the reason for that very remarkable increase over the last few years. As my hon. Friend knows, I am dedicated to trying to get serious progress on disarmament. I look to a serious agreement at the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and, certainly, I look for real progress at MBFR, which have taken a long time. I shall deal with some of the other aspects. But it is a one-sided coin to look only at our defence expenditure. It must be compared in fairness to the substantial increase that has gone on over the last few years by the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries.
  476
  I was talking about the potential value of the Final Act. I stress the word "potential" because the CSCE Final Act is and will be of value only to the extent that its provisions are implemented.
  The Government look to Belgrade not in any spirit of false optimism but with the firm intention of using this follow-up meeting to make a clear and honest assessment of the progress that has been achieved so far and to do what we can to develop and build upon the undertakings given at Helsinki. We shall, of course, not be satisfied until all the provisions of the Final Act have been put into effect by all the States which subscribed to it. We intend to play a full and active part in reminding all its signatories of the commitments into which they have entered, and of their duty to fulfil them, and I note the interpretation of the Final Act by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies).
  The CSCE was and remains a product of détente, not its origin or mainspring. It remains true that the original source, and continuing test, of détente lies in the effort to avoid nuclear confrontation and to reduce the armaments which make such a confrontation more likely. But the conference of 35 European and North American nations in Geneva and Helsinki was part of a wider trend in East-West relations which resulted from the general recognition of the dangers of confrontation and of the possibilities for co-operation in a world in which mutual interests were coming increasingly to be recognised.
  Elements of confrontation between East and West of course remain, as they are bound to do between two political systems professing philosophies which are in many respects irreconcilable. But, as a result of policies pursued by the Governments of both East and West, the areas of co-operation have been enlarged and, especially in Europe, contacts of all kinds and at all levels between Communist and non-Communist societies have been very substantially increased during the past decade.
  In these circumstances, it proved possible for 35 nations to discuss and, after a long and extremely difficult negotiation, to agree upon a code of behaviour which would be appropriate to the new political climate in Europe, and to which they could all subscribe. This code of behaviour and the specific results which

  477
  should flow from it are set out in detail in the Final Act. As I have said, the Act itself does not make exciting reading, but the aspirations which are embedded in its wordy and convoluted clauses are exciting since they delineate the more secure, more tolerant and more humane Europe towards which its signatories are committed to work.
  These aspirations could not be brought to life in the form of concrete results simply by the act of signing the Helsinki document. What the 35 Governments did was to commit themselves to observing certain ground rules in all their policies, both internal and external, and to implement the many specific provisions which go to make up the document.
  It was clear from the start that some participants would have much further to travel than others in giving full effect to the Final Act's provisions. I do not think that any participant could honestly sit back and say that he had no distance to travel at all, and no Government have so far been accused of doing so. But it is obvious that such provisions in the Final Act as those which affect freedom of movement and the free exchange of information require a greater degree of change from those societies which have placed and continue to place restrictions on such freedoms than from those which do not.
  Even before the signature of the Final Act, Pravda could be bought on the Charing Cross Road. The number of Western newspapers freely available for sale in Moscow remain pitifully small, but since 1975 the Soviet authorities, I am glad to say, have permitted the import of 18 Western newspapers which were previously excluded. What we shall be looking for at Belgrade is sufficient evidence of progress in these areas, as in all areas covered by the Final Act, to establish the sincerity of the Governments concerned in committing themselves to its provisions. In many areas—and here I agree with the right hon. Member for Knutsford—progress has been painfully slow: in some, it has been non-existent. But there has been some indication of movement and change. Our task at Belgrade will be to maintain its momentum and to increase its tempo.
  478
  We and other Western Governments have been accused by the East of adopting an unbalanced or one-sided approach to the implementation of the Final Act. It is said that we stress the importance of Basket III—that part of the Act which concerns co-operation in humanitarian and other fields—to the exclusion of everything else.
  This is not the case. It is of course natural that the part of the Final Act which has the most direct bearing on the lives of ordinary individuals should attract keener interest on the part of public opinion in the West than those parts of the Final Act—Baskets I and II—which are of greater direct concern in the first instance to Governments, institutions and companies. It is also natural, both prior to Belgrade and at the Belgrade meeting itself, that those parts of the Final Act in the implementation of which there has been the least progress should demand the most attention and discussion. The Government, nevertheless, see the Final Act as a unified whole and intend, at Belgrade, to review its implementation in this spirit. That is my response to the quite correct claim by the right hon. Member for Knutsford that the process of detenté is indivisible.
  We shall be concerned, in the area covered by Basket I, to work towards a clearer agreed interpretation of the principles which are set out in that part of the Act. It is worth recalling, incidentally, that the most important reference to
  "human rights and fundamental freedoms"
  to be found in the Final Act occurs not in Basket III but in Basket I in the seventh principle.
  We shall be concerned to rebut any arguments to the effect that any one of the 10 principles, such as that concerning "non-intervention in internal affairs", can be invoked to override or cancel out another, such as that for
  "respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms".
  Since the Act states that all the 10 principles it sets out are all of the first importance and must be equally applied, there can be no question of any one principle overriding any of the others. It may be necessary at Belgrade vigorously to reassert this truth.

  479
  The Government also attach importance to another item in the first basket, namely "confidence building measures". We shall be concerned to review the progress which has been made in applying these and actively to consider, with our partners and allies, the possibility of developing them further. We believe that the growth of confidence across the frontiers of the two European alliances, on which European security must in the last resort depend, can only gain from the more active application not only of the letter but also of the spirit of confidence-building measures concerning, for example, the notification of military manoeuvres and the exchange of observers, and we shall press for this. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that it is these sorts of measure which can create a climate for genuine disarmament.
  The Government will be concerned to review at Belgrade progress in the implementation of the provisions of Basket II of the Final Act, which concerns co-operation in the economic field. Economic co-operation and the normalisation of East-West trade are I agree with the right hon. Member for Knutsford, important ingredients of détente in Europe, and the Government are concerned to make a reality of the Final Act's provisions for the improvement of facilities for foreign business men—particularly for those representing one economic system on the territory of another—and for improving the availability and exchange of economic and commercial information.
  Again, some progress has been made but we wish to see more. With our partners, we have played and will continue to play an active part in the work of the Economic Commission for Europe which, as the Final Act recognises, is the appropriate forum for multilateral efforts to promote and deepen economic co-operation in Europe as a whole.
  As I have said, parliamentary and public opinion in the West has very largely been focused on the provisions of the third basket of the Final Act since the signature of the Act nearly two years ago. We should not forget the Acts other important provisions which I have mentioned. The Final Act firmly placed on the international agenda, for the first time, important issues affecting the daily lives of ordinary people which, although they
  480
  are in this Government's view an essential element in détente, had not previously been given the parity with the more traditional elements of the inter-State relations which they deserve.
  The Final Act accords such parity to issues such as freedom of movement, the reunification of families, the free availability and exchange of information, the improvement of working conditions for journalists and greater individual as well as institutional contacts in the fields of culture and the sciences. All these are now legitimate and proper items on the international agenda, and this Government propose to keep them there.
  As to humanitarian cases, since the signature of the Final Act, the Government have been especially concerned to press for the implementation of the Act's provisions on family reunification and marriage cases. Our persistent approaches to the Soviet and East European authorities on these matters have produced some limited results; in the case of Romania, where such problems until recently existed on a considerable scale, I would describe the results as encouraging. But in general there has not been nearly as much progress as we should have wished.
  We shall continue to emphasise to the Governments concerned, both bilaterally and at Belgrade, the strength of feeling that exists in the United Kingdom about cases of this kind, and to stress our view that detente will not be credible or complete while families remain divided, or young people are prevented from marrying, by political or national frontiers.
  It remains the Government's view that progress in resolving cases of this kind is more likely to result from confidential negotiation and discussion than from public remonstrance and recrimination. Public expressions of feeling and concern, whether by groups or individuals, and in or outside Parliament, have an important and legitimate role to play. Societies must express and defend their values freely, forcefully and openly. The role of Governments, however, must sometimes be less spectacular if practical results are to be achieved; but a difference of approach by no means implies any difference of objective.
  The signatories of the Final Act have promised to facilitate wider travel by

  481
  their citizens and in particular to simplify and to administer flexibly the procedures for exit and entry. They have promised to respect the freedom of religion or belief. They have promised to respect the right of persons belonging to national minorities to equality before the law. The relevance of these provisions to religious and ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union, such as Jews and Baptists, is clear.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: I am very interested in what the Foreign Secretary is saying. Recently I wrote to the Soviet ambassador making what I would call "soft" representations about the treatment of certain Jews and families of Jews in the Soviet Union. I said that I was sure the Soviet Union did not wish to be misunderstood by the world for the way in which it is treating these citizens. I received a reply from the ambassador saying that the Soviet Union did not require me to tell it how to manage its internal affairs. How does this accord with the Helsinki Conference?
  Mr. Greville Janner: My hon. Friend was lucky to get a reply at all.
  Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend has raised a serious and important issue, but I think that we can draw some encouragement from the fact that a large number of Jews have been permitted to emigrate from the Soviet Union during the past few years. Although the rate of emigration has dropped, which causes concern, I understand that it has still been averaging about one thousand departures a month over the past year.
  Nevertheless, it is right that we should be deeply concerned about those Soviet Jews whose applications to leave have been denied and—perhaps more important—about those who, in present circumstances, have not felt able to incur the risks involved by applying. The present situation of Jews in the Soviet Union is a matter on which many Members of this House feel deep anxiety, as the signature by 143 hon. Members of a letter in The Times on 8th May testifies. I met some of those Members privately on 24th March: they will know that it is a question to which I have been paying close attention.
  482
  Since December a Jewish Cultural Symposium has been suppressed; serious allegations have been made against well-known Jews in a television film and in newspaper articles; and two of these leading Jews were arrested in March, though they have yet to be brought to trial.
  It is understandable that these and other events should have caused alarm within the Soviet Union and abroad. I think everyone would agree that we must, in view of past history, be extremely vigilant. But after a careful assessment, I do not believe that the present evidence justifies assertions that the Soviet Government are mounting a deliberate and broad anti-Semitic campaign, which some have compared with the events of the 1930s. The individuals against whom action has been taken have taken a strong and courageous stance on a matter of great sensitivity; but the moves which have been taken against them do not so far appear to constitute a campaign on a mass scale directed by the Government against all Jews.
  Mrs. Millie Miller: I am loath to interrupt my right hon. Friend but I was particularly interested in this point. I have just received a letter today from the son of an elderly Jewish man, aged 77, who, together with his wife, was given permission by the Soviet Union to leave on a date between 1st April and 22nd April this year to join his son and family in Israel. The elderly man's name is Boris B. Gutman. After permission had been given and Mr. Gutman had been retired for two years from the Pulp and Paper Institute of the Soviet Union, he made arrangements and began to dispose of his assets and to acquire the money to go to Israel. He told his son that he was about to come. On 8th April he received a telephone call to say that permission had been withdrawn owing to some technical objection from the Pulp and Paper Institute. This denies what my right hon. Friend has just said. The Soviet Union does not act merely against those who take a positive stance. Elderly, inoffensive people are also subjected to this kind of treatment.
  Dr. Owen: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I said that the rate of emigration had dropped recently and that this was causing concern. It is important

  483
  that in the way in which we handle these issues I should not comment on individual cases. I shall help my hon. Friend in any way in this particular case, and I am ready to discuss it with her.
  As I was saying, these individuals have been singled out not because they are Jews but because they are activists. It is part of their tradition of radicalism that many Jews are activists on these very issues, and this is one of the reasons why they are very greatly respected in this country. I shall continue to watch developments with care and concern and shall not hesitate to speak out if I see any evidence of a deliberate campaign. But, as I have said, I do not see such evidence at present.
  At Belgrade it will be right for the Government to bear in mind that the area covered by Basket III of the Final Act is—since it calls for the progressive modification of internal regulations and practices—one of the most sensitive aspects of détente. Understandably, it arouses stronger emotions—on both sides—than the more institutional or technical aspects of relationships between countries. By adopting a balanced approach between the legitimate expectations of public opinion on the one hand, and the potential dangers of confrontational polemics on the other, we hope to use Belgrade to ensure that the very modest progress so far achieved in the field of human rights and of Basket III is carried forward at a more encouraging tempo in the future.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way. He has been very patient and courteous and the House is in his debt. We do not want Belgrade to break down into a series of recriminations or, on the other hand, to be just a series of platitudes. Some of us are horrified that the committee set up under Professor Orlov to monitor the working of the Helsinki Agreement in Moscow has been virtually disbanded by exile for some of its members and imprisonment for others. Is this the sort of question that the Government feel they have a duty to raise?
  Dr. Owen: I have told the House that there are cases which cause concern, and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has highlighted one of them. I think the individual way in which we deal with cases will have to be decided
  484
  in the period immediately prior to the Belgrade Conference. I do not wish to take a firm position. I wish to strike a balance—it is a difficult thing to do—between not making recriminations and not just talking platitudes. It is a hard task. I see this as part of a process which not only will take place in Belgrade but which will be carried on continuously so that we may make progress as rapidly as hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: If I may take up the point mentioned in the intervention by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the House might wish to know that the all-party Human Rights Parliamentary Committee wished to send an observer to Professor Orlov's trial and that I have been asked to attend. In view of the commitment to greater movement among people within the Soviet Union and other countries, will my right hon. Friend do something to persuade the Soviet Union to permit the lawyers and observers to monitor and attend Soviet trials? When seeking to attend such trials for Amnesty and other organisations I have been refused such requests three times. I cannot get into one Soviet trial. Since that action contravenes the spirit of Helsinki, and the wording too, will the Foreign Secretary seek to raise that matter?
  Dr. Owen: I am trying scrupulously to avoid being drawn into individual cases. However, I shall bear in mind what my hon. and learned Friend has said and I shall speak to him about the matter.
  Headlines on the front pages, however, gratifying politically, are not necessarily best calculated to assist the fortunes of the uncelebrated individual people—or even the celebrated—whose happiness we are seeking to promote. We shall not hesitate to speak out at Belgrade in identifying shortcomings and calling for their remedy. But if we are to achieve results from the Belgrade meeting, our approach in these matters must be seen to be constructive even when it is critical. We must seek to achieve a balance in these matters and it is a constant task.
  It will be clear from what I have said that the Government see the review meeting at Belgrade as only the first checkpoint along what will inevitably be the long road towards realising the vision of

  485
  Europe which the Final Act contains. As the Final Act requires us to do, we shall be looking to the future as well as to the success or failures of the past. The agenda for the meeting will include not only evaluation of the implementation of the Final Act—an evaluation which we are determined to make both comprehensive and honest—but also possible new ways of improving security and developing co-operation. The Final Act also require us to consider the possibility of further similar meetings, or of a new conference.
  We must use Belgrade as an opportunity to inject new life and momentum into the CSCE process. For this, new ideas will be needed. But we must be careful not to be distracted by new proposals which could either distort the careful balance of the Final Act or divert attention from it. The Final Act must remain the centre and focus of multilateral co-operation throughout Europe; and the new proposals put forward at Belgrade which this Government are most likely to sponsor or to welcome will be those designed to secure more effective implementation of the Final Act. We shall listen carefully to suggestions made in this debate directed towards implementation of the Final Act. We shall consider carefully whether we can take them up.
  So far as further meetings are concerned, we hope that the experiences of the 35 Governments at Belgrade will be such as to encourage them to establish a second such checkpoint, perhaps in about two years' time. But this time, if the Belgrade meeting meets our expectations, we should perhaps consider whether it should be at Foreign Minister level. I must admit that it came as some surprise to me to find that I am not able myself to attend Belgrade. But my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, the Minister of State, will attend.
  I made at the outside a brief reference to the preparatory discussions which are to open in Belgrade on 15th June. I think it is important to see these discussions in the right perspective. The Final Act lays it down that the purpose of this preparatory meeting is to
  "decide on the date, duration, agenda and other modalities"
  486
  of the main meeting which is to follow. There can be no doubt that these apparently purely procedural issues are issues of real political importance if the main meeting is to be a success.
  But we shall continue to resist suggestions, which have been advanced by some Communist Governments, that the task of the preparatory meeting should be to construct a political framework for the main meeting by laying down, for example, understandings on the "atmosphere" in which the main meeting is to be conducted. There is no reason why the preparatory discussions should stray into issues of political substance. We see no need whatever for the elaboration of any "political concept" of the main meeting going beyond the perfectly clear provisions of the Final Act on follow up.
  One of the most heartening features of the process both of negotiating and following up the Final Act of the CSCE has been the proof which it has given of the effectiveness of political co-operation and consultation between Western Governments. I am confident that my colleagues in the Nine and in NATO would agree with what I have said to the House today. I am confident because these matters have been discussed a great deal. This gives us firm grounds for confidence in our approach to Belgrade. Far from weakening and dividing the West, the CSCE has had the contrary effect. The close co-operation of the Nine and of the members of the NATO alliance, which was one of the dominant features of the CSCE in Geneva and Helsinki, has been maintained at the same high level since the signature of the Final Act.
  We have also engaged in a great many discussions on CSCE with the neutral and non-aligned countries, both bilaterally and in the Council of Europe, as well as with the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe. I have enjoyed my meetings with Foreign Ministers from Eastern European countries. We have played a full part in the multilateral CSCE follow-up which has been taking place in UNESCO and the Economic Commission for Europe. When all this is taken together, Belgrade must have a good claim to be considered one of the best-prepared meetings in history.
  But this domestic success, in Western terms, must not blind us to the essential limitations of the CSCE process. We

  487
  must remind ourselves of the signal lack of progress towards making Europe a safer continent. The Soviet Government's recent tendency to combine professions of eagerness to talk about peace and disarmament with its assiduous improvement in the quality and quantity of the armaments at its disposal has been and remains deeply disquieting.
  The confidence-building measures agreed at Helsinki and enshrined in the Final Act constitute a small step in the right direction. But the Government are all too conscious of the fact that they are insignificant beside the crucial issues involved in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and the MBFR negotiations in Vienna. Anything that is achieved in the CSCE context will be of strictly limited value unless parallel progress can be made in the military sphere.
  We are, therefore, under no illusion about the CSCE process. It must be viewed realistically and in its proper perspective. The Final Act must still be described as having a greater potential than actual value. But its impact in European affairs so far is not negligible. The publication in the countries of Eastern Europe of the commitments into which their Governments entered at Helsinki has had a profound effect on the peoples of those countries and has inspired in them new hopes for the future.
  The Belgrade meeting now offers us a valuable opportunity to give further impetus to the movement which it has set in train towards an improved quality in European relationships. This is an opportunity of which we intend to take full advantage. Our approach to Belgrade will be balanced. We shall be conscious of the need to fit it into the broader context of detente; but determined to impart new momentum and vitality to the process initiated at Helsinki nearly four years ago, on 3rd July 1973. In my view this debate will be of great help to the Government in formulating their final position.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: I am heartened by the Foreign Secretary's approach to this issue. What is supremely important about the Belgrade meeting is the mood in which the delegates assemble and the purpose for which they gather. It is of the utmost
  488
  importance that they should be there determined to do all they can to make some progress, however modest. If the conference were to degenerate into a shouting match between both sides bent on securing political points, as it could easily do, it would be a disaster. The whole prospects for peace in Europe would be set back long before the conference proper began.
  It is important to stress again and again the sheer practical danger of modern weapons involved in a conflict between East and West. However much we may hate many features of the Soviet system, we must learn to live with them. The alternative is to die with them. The problem is as simple as that.
  Detente means essentially living with the Communist world in peace but not necessarily in agreement. The latter is too much to hope for. I feel deep concern about those who seem to want to destroy detente and to declare it folly. They want to dance on the grave of detente but they may be dancing on the grave of civilisation. Some say that Helsinki was a hand-out from the West to the East, but they are totally wrong, just as wrong as those who are inclined to say that all that has happened since Helsinki has been concessions by the West. That is not true. There have been precious few concessions on either side and in so far as there have been concessions about disarmament on our side, they have not resulted from Helsinki but from the folly of our own Government and the Government's failure to recognise how essential defence is for security and peace.
  Helsinki itself obviously solved no problems. It was a precious opportunity—that we must cherish—to move ahead with the solutions that will take an enormous time to become effective. There was no cause after Helsinki to stand down a single Western soldier and no reason to expect great changes in a short time. Those who expected any rapid change in Russian attitudes were extremely naive. A vast nation does not change the whole form of its policy in the space of one year. The Russian people are remote, withdrawn and suspicious and have lived with tyranny throughout all their history. Lenin did not introduce tyranny to Russia; he merely institutionalised it on the basis of a new dynasty. We shall get nowhere by shouting at the Russians. We

  489
  must exercise infinite patience and, in Sir Winston Churchill's words, "Never weary, never despair". That must be the fundamental spirit in which these negotiations and discussions must be conducted.
  There are two main issues involved—that of defence against military and political aggression and that of human rights. As the Foreign Secretary rightly said, progress on disarmament will result not from Belgrade or Helsinki but from the SALT talks and MBFR, because this is basically an American-Soviet issue since disarmament now is a matter not of quantity but of quality. The whole picture has changed. The stupendous destructive power that science provided for modern weapons outstrips any number of men, tanks, aircraft or infantry. Hon. Members may have seen a story in The Guardian today about a new radiation weapon that has been developed by the Americans—a horrific and terrifying weapon. No doubt the Russians are engaged on similar research and experimentation.
  In considering the balance of forces on each side, we must look not only at the quantity of arms but at the quality of their destructive power. We must achieve some balance between the two. Imbalance is the greatest danger. One is not attacked because one is strong enough to defend oneself but because one is thought to be too weak. It is imbalance that creates danger, and it is on balance that our security will continue to rest. That is the great principle in military negotiation.
  The other form of aggression that must be viewed against the background of detenté is political aggression, and this is continuing. It has taken a new turn in Southern Africa—which all of us deeply deplore and find extremely worrying—but it was naïve to expect that Helsinki could mean an end to political aggression. Political aggression will stop at the end of the detenté process, not at the beginning, because it is part of the insurance that countries have against the failure of detenté. Just as Helsinki did not justify our standing down a single soldier or the disposing of a single piece of equipment by either side, nor did it justify either side in relaxing the political struggle, because that is an essential defence.
  490
  The Russians will certainly continue to take any chance offered to reduce our influence in any other part of the world, and I profoundly hope that we shall do precisely the same thing, particularly in the Middle East. Political disarmament is like military disarmament. It is a process of hard-headed negotiation—slow, persistent, and, above all, wary. Helsinki has not solved the problem but just created an opportunity. However, it is a precious opportunity because the collapse of detenté would mean goodbye to political disarmament.
  One thing is certain. There can be, and should be, no truce at all in the war of ideas. We must admit no restraint at all on our freedom and will to advance the cause of freedom and democracy. However, if we justly claim that right, we must expect the Russians to demand the same freedom in advancing what they genuinely believe to be right—although we consider it to be wrong.
  I come now to Basket III. I agree that developments in this have been extremely disappointing. It was in this matter of the movement of people and freedom of ideas—in which we have many hopes and to which we attach much importance—that the Russians could have done much at relatively little cost. It is profoundly disappointing that they have not made more progress. However, they have made some progress and our object must not be to deride what has not taken place but to build on what has taken place and to try to improve on it. We must remember that there are great difficulties.
  The Helsinki Final Act was pretty ambivalent. I listenened with interest to the intervention that was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). It is true that the obligation to respect some principles is overriding, but so is the obligation not to interfere in other people's business, and the interpretation of those principles in any given country cannot be the subject of intervention by other Governments. That is why the Foreign Secretary was quite right in saying that the proper public expression of disapproval in this country was by strong public protest about individual cases. However, the

  491
  Foreign Secretary is also probably right in saying that Government intervention is more likely to be counter-productive than effective in the long run.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) for his reference to my intervention during that speech. Surely the reconciliation of those passages in the Final Act is that while it is true that according to the Final Act there must be no intervention in matters that fall within the domestic jurisdiction of the participating State, if all the participating States respect the other declaration, if they observe human rights and fundamental freedoms—which is a reciprocal obligation contracted inter se—there would then be no question of interference arising. A State, by definition, would be observing its contractual commitments, and no intervention would be called for. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that reconciliation explains the wording of the Helsinki Final Act.
  Mr. Maudling: I see some difficulties in intervention in individual cases. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) wanted to be present at trials in the Soviet Union but could not. I have a feeling that a Soviet political presence when we were discussing Agee and Hosenball might not have been entirely acceptable to hon. Members. We must accept the technicalities in this matter. The Foreign Secretary was right in saying that public pressure about human rights is correct but that diplomatic pressure or the exercise of Government influence might not necessarily, in the long term, be in the interest of the people concerned.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that comparing such cases—which are, happily, rare—as those of Agee and Hosenball with those occurring almost daily in the Soviet Union is an absolute travesty? Is it not right that in this country—fortunately with only the rarest exceptions—our courts are open for anyone from any country to appear and listen? Is it not right that lawyers from any country are welcome to come and observe? It would be disastrous if this Government or any other took the view that intervention on behalf of individuals would do those individuals harm. The individuals concerned,
  492
  including one named Josif Begun, who was put on trial today, and another called Sharansky, who has been held for two months without trial, are relying on this Government and every other Government to let the Russians know that they are watching individual cases and to demand decent treatment under the Helsinki Agreement.
  Mr. Maudling: We have the same objective in mind. The difference is over the approach that we should adopt, and this is a matter for argument.
  What I am saying is not designed to condone the tyrannical and oppressive features of Communist rule. I am concerned about how to do something about that. Shouting at the Russians will not help anyone. Persuading them, in the long run, will. Condemnation is not enough. We must continue to show absolute determination to fight effectively, if challenged, in the defence of freedom and we must show, as we have not necessarily so far done adequately, that our form of freedom is always worth fighting for. This is a task that we have not yet accomplished in the Third World.
  We must continue to press for and exploit freedom of communication in the battle of ideas that must never be restrained, but in the end the aim must be peace, and the key to success is perseverance.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. William Whitlock: The Helsinki Conference covered a wide variety of matters and it is obvious that we shall cover the same wide variety in our debate, but I wish to concentrate on the issue of human rights.
  At the opening of the Helsinki Conference in July 1975 my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who was then Prime Minister, said that the real test of the conference would be not in the undertakings signed there but in the progress in fulfilling them. The conference represented no more than a beginning, he said, and he pointed out that détente meant little if it were not reflected in the daily lives of the people whose leaders were gathered in Helsinki. My right hon. Friend said in the House:
  "The actual undertakings must be the subject of continuous monitoring and, finally, the test of Belgrade."—[Official Report, 5th August 1975; Vol. 897, c. 234.]

  493
  We are now approaching that test, and the continuous monitoring which the Foreign Office has undertaken must have provided information about the progress or lack of progress towards the recognition of human rights in the countries concerned. The lack of progress that has been observed by the Foreign Office must be raised at Belgrade.
  It would be wrong to expect any massive improvements in the granting of human rights since the signing of the Final Act in those countries where, for so long, they have not been observed. We must not be too impatient, and must not be seen to peer too sharply or critically into the internal affairs of other nations. We must, in our relations with other countries, concentrate on those areas on which we agree, and not on the areas on which we disagree, so that we may eventually widen the areas of agreement, but to do that constantly and continually is a counsel of perfection, where there seems little evidence that some nations are making any progress whatsoever towards the observance of human rights.
  I doubt whether the Foreign Secretary has seen any favourable changes in the Russians' attitude towards human rights within their own territories since the Helsinki Conference. Certainly I have not been able to observe any such changes.
  In our foreign affairs debate on 10th November 1975 I spoke about the political prisoners in the USSR, most of whom are Ukrainians. There are thousands of these people, and they have committed no crime against the State or society, yet they have been tried, unconstitutionally, thrown into prison and made to endure many hardships that do not apply even to criminals. They are not murderers, swindlers, hooligans or thieves, yet they have been transported, often vast distances, from their homes and forced to do work for which many of them are not physically equipped. They have been subjected to physical and mental suffering, divested of every aspect of human dignity and denied elementary rights in every way.
  They are people whose only crime is that they believe that their religion, language and culture must not be stamped out. They have been committed to the terrible conditions that I have described
  494
  despite the fact that their rights are guaranteed by the constitution of the USSR, by the constitutions of its individual States, by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, more recently, by the Helsinki Agreement.
  The Russian constitution grants many freedoms, and the Russian leaders cheerfully sign scraps of paper while pointing smugly to their own constitution which seems to enshrine the freedoms written on those pieces of paper. It is not, however, the law of the Russian constitution that has sat in judgment upon these thousands of prisoners of conscience, but the internal law of the USSR, which nullifies the rights set out in the constitution. Let any man dare to believe in the sanctity of constitution, let him lay claim to the rights that it supposedly guarantees to him, let him act as the Helsinki Agreement says that he may, and he will find himself unconstitutionally denied those freedoms by his rulers.
  As the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, these things have been going on in Russia for so long under the Communist and Tsarist regimes that one would have thought that the Russians would have learned certain lessons. Apparently, they have learned nothing. The resistance of so many brave men and women in the various States of the USSR is a proud indication of the fact that one cannot wipe out the desire for freedom in a nation, even by the most savage oppression over many long dark years. One cannot remove from the minds of men and women the longing and the need for a national cultural heritage no matter how ruthlessly every manifestation of that feeling is stamped out.
  Ought we not at least to be reminding the Russians of their errors and telling them that we expect them to make some progress towards the observance of those human rights which, on paper, they recognise? The House and the whole British people condemn the terrible crimes being committed in Uganda. It may not be as spectacularly monstrous slowly but surely to destroy a human being by shutting him up in a psychiatric insitution merely because his convictions happen to be at variance with the leaders of the Communist Party in Russia, but surely it is just as heinous and savagely inhuman as that which is taking place in Uganda. I believe that it is. I believe

  495
  that we cannot fail to tell the Russians how we and the British people feel about these things. We look to them to ensure that there is progress in the treatment of their own people.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: There has been pressure from both sides of the House for this debate. I believe that it will be useful not because it will show great divergences between the two sides of the House but because it will demonstrate that there is an enormous degree of agreement on what we want to try to achieve from Belgrade.
  I do not dissent from the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maud-ling). If he will allow me to say so, he made an interesting, moderate and realistic speech. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the degree of intervention in one country compared with another. For example, the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) was refused permission to go as an observer to a trial whereas in this country we have only to consider the recent case before the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. First, Britain agreed to submit itself to the jurisdiction of that international court in respect of allegations against this country that have yet to be determined concerning Northern Ireland. Not only were the Russians allowed to be present, but it must be remembered that the Russian Press corps provided the largest individual corps in the world.
  That is the comparison that must be made. We expect others at least to accord to us what we are prepared to accord to them. We follow a long and honourable tradition going right back to the Alabama claims. Britain was one of the first countries that were prepared to refer a controversial issue to international arbitration. It agreed in advance to be bound by the result.
  I think that the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) were correct to remind us that, despite our interest in Basket III, we are also dealing with other matters of security and economic co-operation. What I found particularly interesting, and what I crave leave to support, was President Carter's tremendously exciting declaration
  496
  for human rights all over the world. He implied that there was still a quite separate initiative required for disarmament. He said that disarmament was not to be bargained against human rights. That is to say that disarmament is something in its own right that should be negotiated and worked for and that we should not say to the Soviet Union that we shall not move to disarmament unless and until we see certain progress in the realm of human rights. I think that the President was right.
  I do not believe that the issue of disarmament is negotiable against any other prospective benefits, but I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the MBFR and SALT negotiations, which fall largely within the purview of America and the Soviet Union, will be the real determinants in resolving whether we shall get world disarmament. There will be the special session of the United Nations, but that will largely reflect the success that the two super Powers have had.
  Like ourselves, the Soviet Union is interested in disarmament. It is interested for two interlocking reasons. The first reason, apart from the obvious one of living in a safer world, is the cost to both sides of the arms race. The second reason is the need for an expansion in East-West trade. I believe that that is of greater importance to the Soviet bloc than to ourselves. For example, COMECON is indebted to the Western world to the extent of about $40,000 million for capital equipment. That illustrates the enormous importance that the Soviet bloc attaches to trade, especially in respect of industries such as those dealing with computers, chemicals, shipping and motor industries. For example, there is the need for imported circuit breakers for high voltage transmitters, which are vital for the development of its energy. This indicates a continuing dependence upon European countries and upon the West.
  I say unashamedly that I believe that economic expansion and progress should be dependent upon progress in other spheres. I am not prepared to bargain disarmament against any other consideration. I believe that it stands on its own. Any nation that took that course would be playing with fire. The expansion of credit and the export of technology and capital equipment should be partly

  497
  influenced by the progress that we make in other spheres. I believe that that was President Carter's message. It was a great relief to hear a Head of State make a speech in which economic considerations and mammon were not the first priorities. It is a difficult argument when we face great unemployment in the West, but it is a moral argument and the right argument. I believe that military matters stand on their own and that economic matters must be judged against progress in other spheres.
  I turn to the issue of human rights. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) said, we are sickened by the ICJ Report on Uganda. We are also sickened by the hypocrisy in the world in failing to deal with it. I speak as Chairman of the United Nations Association in this country. I am appalled and sickened by the hypocrisy of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which is not prepared to tackle the problem. I do not believe that that is attacking the United Nations. It is an attack on the member States that fail to live up to the spirit of the charter.
  We are entitled to ask about the progress that has been made in respect of human rights since Helsinki. The paradox is that in some ways it has toughened up the nations of Eastern Europe. On the other hand, it has given encouragement to those who find themselves in disagreement with their regimes. That is an extraordinary paradox.
  In Czechoslovakia we have seen the first protests in that country since the massive Soviet invasion. We have seen the Manifesto Group issuing Charter 77 and some 300 prominent intellectuals calling for a restatement and restoration of basic civil rights. They are being locked up, but we are seeing the flowering of dissidents, if that is not a contradiction of terms. We have seen that such people have been encouraged. Perhaps it is dangerous encouragement, but that is something that we must face. The fact is that encouragement has been given to those who are fighting for freedom.
  In Poland last June we saw workers' strikes and riots as a result of increased food and other price increases. The Workers' Defence Committee was set up to give legal aid and assistance to those
  498
  in imprisonment. Workers, intellectuals, Communists and non-Communists and the Roman Catholic Church have come together and are demanding the end of police brutality.
  In Eastern Germany we have seen expressions of dissatisfaction with the system. That has led to about 100,000 people applying to renounce their citizenship. We witnessed the reaction when Wolf Blermann, a singer and poet, had his passport withdrawn when he was in the West. He was virtually exiled from his own country.
  In the Soviet Union we have seen one of the most startling and unexpected developments. The Orlov committee in Moscow has been monitoring the results of Helsinki. There have been similar groups in action in the Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania and Armenia. We have also seen the support of individual liberties across frontiers. We have seen the Polish Workers' Defence Committee joining Sakharov and Hungarians to support the movement for freedom in Czechoslovakia and East Germany. We have seen the Russian movement to support the Poles and the Poles and Hungarians supporting the Czechs. It is not insignificant that we have seen Communist parties in the West, especially those of France and Italy, protesting that people are being imprisoned without trial for political offences.
  That is one side of the coin. We have seen a real increase in the demand for individual freedom and liberty in Eastern Europe. We are not being selective when we say that Belgrade is basically about Europe. It is about freedom in Europe, with the welcome addition of our allies from the North Atlantic.
  What is the reaction? The reaction has been different in different countries. In Poland people are still locked up. There is the suggestion by Mr. Gierek that there will be an amnesty for workers who took part in the June strike. We have seen a statement that no action will be taken against the Workers' Defence Committee. The reaction in East Germany has been somewhat ambivalent. In the Soviet Union we have seen perhaps the harshest reaction to Professor Orlov and six other members of his committee. Professor Orlov was arrested on 10th February and others were arrested subsequently and

  499
  have to date been held incommunicado. Their offences consist of having sought to monitor the agreements to which their country was a party.
  When we consider Professor Orlov's report, we see allegations of torture through hunger of prisoners in punishment cells, the abuse of psychiatric hospitals, the expulsion of Catholic children from schools for attending church services, the harassment of former political prisoners, the interruption of international postal and telephone services and the destruction of the homes of Crimean Tartars who try to return to their historic homeland—the Crimean Steppes. All these allegations have been made by Professor Orlov and given to the West.
  I ask, what offence has that man committed against not only the spirit of Helsinki but the criminal law of the Soviet Union? When is this man to be charged? Why is he denied the services of a lawyer who sought to advise him from this country? Why to date has it been impossible for him to have an observer or to see anybody—not even a lawyer or his wife—since he has been held in prison?
  I believe that those are questions of the kind that we are entitled to ask at Belgrade, not in order to relapse into recriminations but to establish clearly that, when the West talks of human rights, it means it. If that means that the Soviet Union brings up charges against this country of alleged brutality or malpractices in Northern Ireland, very well, let us say that it is entitled to do so and that we in turn will deal with them on their merits.
  What I find somewhat depressing about the position of those who protest in the Soviet bloc is that we can encourage them, we can publicise their cases, we can do almost anything, except intervene to assist.
  There are those who say "Whatever happens, you must not publicise their cases because it makes matters more difficult". One point came out pre-eminently when I met Mrs. Alexseyva, the secretary of the Orlov committee. She said that, to her knowledge, no case in the Soviet Union had been made more difficult by publicity and that publicity was the one thing that the Soviets feared. One of the statements in the ICJ Report
  500
  on Uganda pointed out that, after publicity about the mass slaughterings, they reduced somewhat in scope. Therefore, we must appreciate that matter.
  When Soviet citizens come to this country, the one piece of advice which I try to give them—I gave it to Mr. Bukovsky and to Mrs. Alexseyva—is "Whatever may happen, do not get caught up with any one political party when you arrive in this country because you do not understand their power structures. You want to appeal to them all." This is not a one-party political issue. I believe that there is some danger of Right-wing groups hijacking Soviet dissidents, and immediately their value is debased. They should be totally independent. If after six months, having seen our crazy system in operation, they find, miraculously, one party to which they are attracted, it is for them to decide. I hope that that slight remark will be taken to heart by the National Association of Freedom and its Right-wing supporters in this House.
  We must tell the Soviet Union that we are genuine. We passionately believe in and want to see individual freedom. We cannot, for example, accept or understand how Professor Orlov could be imprisoned and held without trial simply because he sought to monitor the Helsinki Agreement which the Foreign Secretary will discuss in Belgrade.
  We must go much further along the road to freer travel. In some cases it is almost impossible for a person to rejoin a partner whom he or she has married. It is better for these matters to be negotiated privately rather than for them to be given banner headlines which—although loved by the Press—do not necessarily product results.
  We should not be frightened to tie economic considerations to human rights considerations. I believe that they are inter-related. We should not be frightened of giving publicity to cases. We should not be frightened of campaigning for the release of individual prisoners or groups of prisoners. We cannot sit back and enjoy our freedom. We must use all the freedom and economic power that we have to influence events and the lives of people in other countries. I do not believe that is interference. If it is, it is

  501
  rightly allowed under the Helsinki Agreement. Therefore, I intend to continue to do that for many years to come.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: The question of détente does not begin and end with Helsinki. The process was in operation before Helsinki and we hope that it will continue after Helsinki.
  The main object of this exercise—this has been outlined by several speakers in the debate—is the survival of humanity. It is a question whether the arms race, the multiplication and further sophistication of weapons capable of greater and greater destruction, is to continue, with the inevitable result, if it goes on, of the end not only of detente but, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maud-ling) said, of civilisation. I am sure that that is what primarily concerns not only the Soviet Union and other Eastern European nations, but the West, in pursuing this agreement.
  I do not know the relative strengths of the Soviet and Western forces; it is difficult for the layman, ill-informed about military matters, to make his way through the propaganda that he hears from both sides about the size of each other's armaments, but there is no doubt that the race is proceeding and that the quality and dangers of that race are enormous. The arms race consumes a vast proportion of the resources of the nations of East and West. It consumes many times the aid given by the West to under-developed countries. If we could reduce arms expenditure by 50 per cent., the resources released would provide a real possibility of ending poverty throughout the world. There is no doubt about the burden that is imposed on us, and there must be a similar burden on the Soviet Union and America.
  The object of Helsinki was to prevent, or, at any rate, to diminish, confrontation—a situation in which each bloc looks at the other as a potential enemy and prepares for the eventual clash. That is an object with which most of us agree. There have been various talks—SALT and the Vienna talks. In my view, it is a matter of extreme urgency to proceed with these agreements. Again, it is difficult for the layman to find his way through these
  502
  talks and to decide who is right and who is wrong or whether both sides are right or wrong. Disarmament should be regarded not as a long-term project, but as extremely urgent.
  I now turn to Basket II which deals with trade. I am sorry that I absolutely disagree with the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) who suggests that this can be used as a political instrument. That is mistaken. I shall give one example, which concerns credit. The amount of credit which the whole of the Soviet bloc—consisting of about 350 million people—owes to the West is equivalent to little more than two years of the public sector borrowing requirement of this country. To suggest that it is a major factor in Soviet calculations is a serious error.
  Mr. Thorpe: I wholly concede what the hon. Member has said, but the significance is not the cash value but the technological hardware. That is what they need. That is the hardware that we can either supply or not supply.
  Mr. Silverman: In that the right hon. Member is also mistaken. I do not think that it would be possible to get agreement between all the Western countries to deny a certain amount of hardware to the Soviet bloc.
  Mr. James Lamond: Would not this method of attacking Socialist countries also be contrary to a section in the Final Act signed at Helsinki which says that economic coercion must not be used to obtain any advantage over another country?
  Mr. Silverman: I am sure that it would but it would fail and be counter-productive.
  The credit offered to the Soviet Union amounted to between £900 million and £950 million. Only £200 million has been taken up. That has been the subject of a complaint by the Prime Minister and other people in this country. Complaints have been made to the Soviet Union that in that respect the promises have not been fulfilled. It shows that there is no burning urgency in the Soviet Union to receive these credits and that they are not vital. They may be useful to the Soviet economy, but they are not vital. It would be mistaken and counter-productive if we began to use trade as a political weapon,

  503
  particularly since it would not secure that which is intended.
  We are disappointed about the trade aspect, although other countries in the Helsinki Agreement have come off better. I am chairman of the Anglo-Soviet Group in the House. We have made frequent representations to the Soviet people that it would help the process of detente if they would use the credits and buy more goods from this country. Nothing is more likely to produce a better effect for detente than the provision of jobs for workers. There has been some improvement recently, but, frankly, we are somewhat disappointed so far. We should tell the Soviet people about that.
  I know that they say that our salesmen are not sufficently aggressive—that they are not as aggressive as the Germans, for instance. They say that our prices are often too high. Whatever the reasons, the situation is disappointing, and I hope that there will be an improvement. It would make a contribution to detente. It would not have the opposite effect.
  I now turn to Basket III. The Soviet Union is not a liberal democracy—and that applies to other East European countries. The Soviet Union does not pretend to be a liberal democracy. Whatever Basket III says and whatever interpretation is put upon it, it is naive to expect that by our representations we can convert the Soviet Union into a liberal democracy.
  We regret many of the events that occur there, but they are part and parcel of the system. If there are dissidents under a non-democratic and, in this respect, repressive system, it is obvious that those dissidents will be persecuted. That is part of the system and cannot be dealt with separately.
  I am disappointed that over the last 60 years a country which is now firmly based politically should not have made more advance in that direction. I am disappointed that it cannot absorb its Bukoveskys and Solzhenitsyns or allow their criticisms. I think it was Dr. Kissinger who said that one could not change the system overnight. An alteration will come, but it will come through the dynamics which exist in that country. There are in that country many features which will lead, whether painfully or painlessly, to some alteration.
  504
  Indeed the country is rapidly changing. The Soviet Union is now becoming an urban society with an advanced system of education and industrialisation. Foreign languages are taught in every school. Whether or not the leaders of the Soviet Union will it, these are likely to produce a change in the political atmosphere. It will not come overnight, but it will come—although I am disappointed that it has not arrived as yet.
  I was pleased about the approach of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to this problem. We can do a great deal in Helsinki provided that we do not expect too much too soon. Representations can be made without public denunciations even by a Government, provided that they do it in the correct way. Some of the decisions that are taken in the Soviet Union and with which many of us are concerned are not politically, centrally decided. They are decided by the bureaucracy of that country.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Although most of us are disappointed at the progress that has been made, will my hon. Friend tell the House that any further progress is not helped by stupid, silly and completely inaccurate comparisons between the treatment of dissidents in the Soviet Union and the behaviour of the Nazis in the 1930s.
  Mr. Silverman: I entirely agree. Obviously there is no comparison.
  One must bear in mind that there have been some developments in the Soviet Union since the mid-1960s and before. For instance, it is interesting that today there are dissidents. There were no dissidents 15 years ago. That movement itself arises from the relaxation of the system. One of the symptoms of the relaxation is the emergence of dissidents. Many changes have taken place, and this is one of them. There is, for instance, the fact that over 100,000 Jews have been allowed to leave the Soviet Union. Before the mid-1960s one could not get one Jew out of the Soviet Union. Germans have been allowed to go from the Soviet Union. There is the fact that people who would formerly have been put in prison or in a concentration camp are exiled instead of being dealt with in a much more drastic fashion. One finds on examination that there has been a change. It has not been

  505
  sufficient but, none the less, it has been in the right direction.
  I agree entirely that Belgrade should not be a matter of denunciation and of always bringing up these matters. If there are denunciations—a proclamation on one side and a proclamation on the other side—that will be exceedingly damaging to the whole of what we desire to achieve concerning Helsinki.
  Many things were achieved before Helsinki. For instance, with regard to East Germany, notwithstanding the war it is a fact that every year about 8 million people from West Germany alone travel into East Germany, and that about 1 million people—admittedly, older people—are allowed to travel in the other direction. There is a vast gap in the Iron Curtain. There have been many interchanges. I am glad that these are being promoted under Basket II—I think—of the Agreement. I hope that there will be a continuation of these things.
  Finally, I am not pessimistic about Helsinki, provided that we do not expect too much too soon, and provided that we adopt the approaches that have been outlined today by the Foreign Secretary.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Sproat: I am glad of the opportunity to speak after the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman), because although we do not always look at political matters from the same viewpoint, we shared not so long ago a very instructive, enjoyable and hospitable visit, as parliamentarians, to the Soviet Union. I think that we both learned a great deal from that visit, particularly with reference to Helsinki and Belgrade.
  I want to direct my speech mainly to how we ought to behave ourselves at Belgrade and the way in which we ought to approach the main conference. However, before doing that, I should like to set out certain of my background thoughts on the whole question of détente, the Final Act and the review conference.
  First, I have always approved the moves that were made towards Helsinki when the Conservatives were in Government, I approved the signing of the Agreement by the Labour Government, and I now
  506
  approve a continued pursuit of those ideals that were enshrined in the Final Act. Perhaps it is clear from that statement that I do not go along with the over-optimism mentioned by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and, equally, that I would reject the views of certain of my hon. Friends, which we heard at Question Time the other day, who say that they do not think that it is worth going to Belgrade at all. Certainly we have to pursue a middle course.
  However, having said that, and having said that we must, therefore, pursue a balanced approach, I do not think that very much has been achieved, except a certain semantic simplification. After all, no one goes to a conference with an unbalanced approach, or saying that he has an unbalanced approach. Therefore, although it sounds fine for the Foreign Secretary to say that we are pursuing a balanced approached, I do not think that means a great deal unless it is qualified a good deal further.
  Having said that, I do not agree with those of my hon. Friends who have felt that Belgrade was a complete waste of time. I should emphasise, of course, that I believe that détente can be no substitute for defence. Also, I am under no illusions that, so far as the Government of the Soviet Union is concerned—if I may mangle an old maxim—détente is merely the continuation of the cold war by other means.
  I have also no doubt that the aims of the Soviet Government in détente, of which Helsinki and Belgrade are a part, are, first, to weaken and to divide the West; that is, to divide the United States from Western Europe and, indeed, to divide the countries of Western Europe among themselves. The second aim is to consolidate the Soviet Union's hold on Eastern Europe. The third aim is the general aim of reducing for itself the risks in Europe as a whole.
  The Soviet Union is pursuing this policy in the light of the great and growing problems that it has itself. They are social problems—dissidents have been mentioned—problems and technological problems, and there is also, of course, the threat of China on the Soviet Union's eastern frontier.
  Having made that bow, as it were—it is a sincere bow—to certain of my hon.

  507
  Friends, I must also say that although that is certainly the view of the Soviet Government, we need to remember that there is an even more important distinction, perhaps, between the views of the Soviet Government and those of the Soviet people than there is between the views of the British Government and those of the British people, as a necessary corollary of our electoral system.
  If anyone in the House or in this country thinks that the endless repetitions by the Soviet Government of their yearning for peace do not reflect a very great yearning for peace by the Soviet people, I think that he is wrong. The people of the Soviet Union are in my experience very conscious of the need for peace and of the evils of war. I attribute that to their history, which includes the loss of 20 million people during the last war, including 6 million in the siege of Leningrad, and all the rest of it. That is true. However, the aims of the Soviet Government and of the Soviet people should not necessarily be confused.
  Secondly, I say to those who argue that these are evil aims of the Soviet Union, or the most objectionable to ourselves, that those may indeed be what the Soviet Union wants but it does not mean that it is what the Soviet Union will get. It is precisely the aim of our diplomacy, very often, to use the same conferences and the same atmosphere of détente to pursue quite different aims. I certainly accept that is what the Foreign Secretary is trying to do.
  The third point that should be made as a background thought and a qualification—this is a subject for almost infinite qualification, if one had infinite time—is that it is quite wrong to speak about Helsinki and Belgrade as though it is us, the goodies, on one side and them, the Soviet Union, as the badies, on the other side. There are almost infinite variations between the Soviet Union's aims and the way in which they may be interpreted at Belgrade, and those of Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania and so on. We ought continuously to remember, in thinking of the approach that we ought to take, the great differences and variations that exist between the different countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself.
  508
  The last background thought that I put is that naturally, because this is called the Belgrade Review Conference, we are all thinking of the conference as one of reviewing what has happened in the past two years. However, I consider this conference much more than merely a review. The conference, of itself, is possibly the most important part of the whole process of détente that we have had since the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in August 1975. It is not just a review. It is a vital part of the continuing process of detente.
  I shall now deal briefly with how we should behave at Belgrade. All the speeches so far have been middle-of-the-road speeches. Some hon. Members were keeping left and some a little more right. There were two approaches. One was the rather mild approach that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) adopted, which seemed to me even milder than that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. There was also what I might tactfully describe as the not-so-mild approach.
  When I speak of a mild and conciliatory approach, I do not use the phrase in a pejorative way. There are very good reasons for not putting the Soviet Union in the dock at Belgrade, to use a current phrase. I shall later give my own views whether they are the dominant reasons. First, there is the argument that I think the hon. Member for Erdington put forward by implication, that we should not push the Soviet Union to move too fast because in the end it will then not move at all. That is a respectable argument for which evidence can be found in the history of the past 30 years or so.
  Moreover, anyone who has visited the Soviet Union would have been very struck by how counter-productive it is in private conversation ever to criticise Russia—I say "Russia" as opposed to "the Soviet Union"—because the Russians are extremely patriotic. If one breathes any criticism of their country, even if they themselves have just said something which might appear critical of their own Government, they will at once clam up. Every hon. Member can recall the feelings in all parts of the House when Senator Edward Kennedy appeared to boost the IRA at the expense

  509
  of the British Government. Every hon. Member said "What does this man Kennedy think he is up to? He knows nothing about it." Whatever our views on Northern Ireland, we consolidated around our own Government. This applies to the Soviet Union as much as it does to us.
  I do not want to pose as a great expert on how the Soviet Union works, but my experience of Soviet bureaucracy is that, even when it wants to try to move fast, it can only move slowly because it is the most cumbersome bureaucratic machine I have ever come across, however marginal and on the surface my experience is. We should not expect it to move with the same amazing rapidity as we sometimes see—perhaps not very often—in our own Civil Service and Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
  There is another respectable argument that one tends to hear from people one meets in the Soviet Union. After a couple of drinks they say "Of course, we understand what you are saying. I am a liberal, but don't push it too hard because we have many hardliners in the Government. If you make too much fuss you will just strengthen the hand of the hardliners against those of us who are more liberal and are easing towards a more liberal form of Government." I am sure that that argument has weight, but how much weight is one of the key decisions that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, his advisers and the House must decide for themselves.
  I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet that the Soviet Union—the Russian people, the Georgians, the Armenians, the Ukrainians—are, like us, a product of their history. Their history happens to have been particularly tyrannous and undemocratic. We cannot expect them to appreciate the democratic virtues with the same sharpness and speed as we do. They often find it hard to understand exactly what we are driving at and why virtue must necessarily reside in our process as I am sure it does. They have not lived in a democracy for hundreds of years and it is not easy to appreciate democracy immediately.
  510
  One argument for going easy at Belgrade is what is known as the Northern Ireland argument—that if we start being heavy on concentration camps in Siberia the Russians will clobber us over Northern Ireland or, as my right hon. Friend suggested, Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball. I do not accept that argument, but it is one that I often hear and we should know that it exists, even if only to destroy it or take little account of it.
  The last reason for being relatively conciliatory at Belgrade, for not putting the Soviet Union too obviously in the dock, is that there certainly have been some signs of improvement. I use the word "improvement" as it would be defined by most hon. Members. I do not say that those signs are great, but the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has already mentioned the 18 foreign newspapers now available in the Soviet Union which were not previously available. I think that there are only about 150 copies of The Financial Times on sale there each day. It is difficult to obtain. It is under the counter, and usually three or four days late. But the fact that it is available is an advance, and there are other advances.
  I have been trying recently to secure a better flow of non-political novels and literature generally between the Soviet Union and this country, though I cannot say that I have any signatures on documents from the Soviet Union. But the Russians are talking about it- There is a possibility. In a number of areas there are signs that, although things may be bad, they are better than they were.
  Those are some of the reasons upon which those who advocate taking a conciliatory attitude at Belgrade would place some weight. But there are arguments for taking a rather tougher line, arguments which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned. I single him out only because he is the person who has put the matter best in the debate so far. I should be sorry to see too mild a line taken by the Government and our allies at Belgrade. I know from my own personal experiences that many people in the Soviet Union and the other countries of the Eastern bloc look to us with hope. They are saying "Stand up for what were the ideals of Helsinki". If we fail to do

  511
  so, they will lose faith in us and in the power and will of the democratic countries to push forward their own democratic ideals.
  Another, perhaps obvious, reason for taking a rather less than mild line is the fact that the Soviet Union has breached, in both the spirit and the letter, many of the points which it freely signed. Nobody forced it to come to Helsinki. For years, starting with, I think, Stalin in 1953, the Russians have been urging the Western countries to make just such a signing. The Russians signed freely. If a man, an institution or a country signs a document freely, I think it fair that he should be asked at the end of the day why he has not fulfilled what he freely promised to fulfil.
  We should examine the position closely and, if necessary, criticise. It is possible to be critical without being acrimonious, as all of us good-tempered people in the House know so well. If we do not criticise, what is the basis upon which we are to build in the future? If we do not say to the Soviet Union "You have not carried out what you promised before", what earthly reason is there for the Soviet Union to carry out in the future what it might promise at Belgrade?
  There is one other very powerful argument against not putting the Soviet Union in the dock. I use that expression although I think that all metaphors in political terms tend to be misleading. I use it merely as a shorthand phrase. When I was last in Moscow I was lucky enough to spend several hours with Professor Sakharov, who gave me many details of cases to back up his conviction that the more row we made in the West the more successful would be the liberal movements in the Soviet Union. He told me how, about nine months previously, there had been a trial in, I think, Lithuania, at which a man had been sentenced to 10 years for merely writing a sentence or two criticising the Soviet Government—the sort of thing we do all the time. Six months and a whole lot of publicity from the West later, another man received only five years for exactly the same thing. In other words, the power of criticism in the free countries of the West had halved that sentence.
  Thus, although it is necessary to take with a small grain of salt the vested
  512
  interests of people like Professor Sakharov, Mr. Bukovsky and Mr. Amalrik and so on—they are dissidents, and the way in which they look at things is not necessarily how we should look at them—we should take strong account of the fact that they, who are up at the sharp end, say, "Fight as loudly as you can: that is what we in the Soviet Union want." It would be foolish to undervalue that.
  The main reason that we should take a less than mild line is that we have a good story to tell. At the end of the day, we have nothing greatly to be ashamed of. We may make mistakes here and there, at times we may have done things that we should not have done in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, but at the end of the day we should have faith in our democratic processes and believe that if they are placed alongside the way in which they manage things in the Soviet Union, any fair-minded and objective person will come down on our side.
  That is why we have nothing to fear. So if I had to make the judgment which the Foreign Secretary had to make, whether to be mild or less than mild, I would say that our maxim should be to show more concern for making the truth known and less about offending the Soviet Union.
  As for what that means about exactly how we should behave when we get to Belgrade, I believe that we should make it clear that we regard Belgrade as a most important diplomatic occasion, not as a mere follow-up to some diplomatic curiosity. It is often said that the Helsinki Final Act does not mean much, that we should not push too hard, that it will not happen overnight. All these phrases are true, but they are not the whole truth.
  We must make it clear that this is a major diplomatic occasion. I am very sorry that the small print apparently forbids the Foreign Secretary himself to go. I have a high regard for the noble Lord who it is intended should be in charge of our negotiations, but it is ridiculous not to send the Foreign Secretary to a diplomatic event of this stature. I should prefer the Prime Minister to go. If it was good enough for the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who was then the Prime Minister, to sign the Final Act, it should be good enough for the present Prime Minister to go to Belgrade with the Foreign Secretary.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): The Foreign Secretary made it clear that if it was in his own power to decide this matter, he would be only too pleased to go. The fact that it is laid down specifically in the Helsinki Agreement that it should be someone whom he appoints is the reason why he has appointed my right hon. Friend to attend Belgrade on our behalf.
  Mr. Speaker: May I ask that no one else interrupts the hon. Gentleman, who has been talking for 21 minutes already?
  Mr. Sproat: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the Minister, I said that I knew that that was the case, that it was the small print which forbade our acting in the way I would prefer, but in that case perhaps the Foreign Secretary could appoint the Prime Minister—or perhaps the June conference could change the small print.
  In any case, I hope that our presentation will be as strong as possible and that we shall give it the maximum publicity. I should like to see the conference televised, if anyone is interested in watching. The Foreign Office has been monitoring all the breaches of Helsinki. I should like it to publish those breaches—not so that they can be flung about polemically or acrimoniously, but simply to see what the truth is. If the Soviet Union wishes to accuse us, fair enough.
  I hope that all sessions, or 95 per cent. of them, will be held in public, that they will be at a political level for the most part and not at Civil Service level. I hope that we shall ask for explanations of what we consider to be clear breaches, like the disbanding of the Orlov committee, the fact that we have not seen the free exchange of peoples and ideas that we were looking for.
  I agree that we do not always want Governments to interfere and take up individual cases, but in this instance we should not be afraid to bring up any individual case. I hope that we shall publish these cases and raise them at the conference. I hope that generally we shall ensure that Belgrade is of a diplomatic stature commensurate with the importance of human ideals.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Henderson: Unlike my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), I shall try to be brief and keep to the points that have come up. This is the only time that I have ever welcomed a speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. I thought that he made a stimulating and constructive contribution, and I only wish that he would follow that practice in other areas.
  I am sure that the Foreign Secretary welcomes the opportunity presented by this debate to hear the views and obtain the support of all sections of the House in the important task in which he and his fellow Ministers will be involved. I was particularly pleased that he devoted so much of his speech to human rights. That shows his own concern, which I am sure his colleagues share.
  I want to confine myself to human rights, and particularly the position of the Jews in the Soviet Union. Conservative Members sometimes accuse Labour Members of having double standards, of denouncing some regimes while saying nothing about the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. Today, the boot is on the other foot. If we intend to criticise the treatment of human rights, particularly those of the Jews in the Soviet Union, we should also be clear that we can criticise dictatorial regimes of the Right. Any comments that we may make to the Soviet Government will be greatly enhanced if we also have a reputation for denouncing the destruction of human rights in countries such as Chile. This is a universal concern, and we should not take a one-sided attitude.
  I was also glad that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South took to task some of his hon. Friends, who I am afraid seem to want to wage an anti-Soviet crusade, enrolling us all in some sort of holy war. Anyone approaching this conference or the Helsinki Final Act or any other such moves in that spirit will not achieve his objects of a greater loosening and freedom for the people in those countries.
  A complex point was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)-that of trying to reconcile the inherent

  515
  contradiction within the Final Act—between the desire for freer communication and movement on the one hand and the respect for the internal affairs of other countries on the other.
  Ever since the signing of the United Nations Charter, one of the defences used by many countries—not the Soviet Union but South Africa and many others—has been along the lines "This is a matter within the domestic jurisdiction or our State; therefore, you cannot say anything about it." As one hon. Member said, if one writes the Soviet Ambassador a letter about one of these cases, one gets a nasty reply back: "We are perfectly capable of looking after our own affairs, thank you very much."
  The Belgrade meeting must try to reconcile and clarify the importance that the participants place on the other part of the Final Act—the provision that all the principles are of primary significance and will be applied equally and unreservedly. The Helsinki agreement—many hon. Members may have forgotten some of its items—was intended to bring a general loosening and relaxation of restrictions on various people. It aimed to implement travel and contacts on the basis of family ties and the reunification of families. According to the information coming to us from the Jewish people in the Soviet Union, one of the most depressing things is the way in which they are treated when they try to take that provision at its face value.
  It is incredible that on applying to leave they are required to surrender their papers, they then cannot get a job, and are accused of being parasites on the State. Although I think that the Foreign Secretary was quite right today in refusing to comment on individual cases, I hope that the principle will be made clear at the Belgrade meeting and that if anyone attempts to exercise his rights, held out in prospect to him under the Helsinki agreement, this will not penalise him in any way. There might be a legitimate reason for refusing an application, but there should be no victimisation of people on the ground simply that they have made an application.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Josif Begun, who is on trial today in Moscow, is charged with precisely this offence? Having been
  516
  robbed of his job when he applied for his visa as long ago as 1971, and forced out of work, he is now, on the very day that we are debating this subject, on trial for being a parasite. He cannot get a job because he is not allowed to have one.
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has anticipated what I was about to say. I could not agree more with the very clear example that has been brought out by him. This man had done nothing that in any way conflicted with the Soviet civil code, yet his papers were removed, he lost his job, he was then accused of being a parasite, and he went on trial today.
  It may seem almost incredible that this kind of thing can occur in any State. Surely this is the kind of redefinition that is needed in order to protect the rights of people such as Mr. Begun. I hope that the intervention of the hon and learned Gentleman and the attention focused on the case in the House today will be noted in the Soviet Union. I hope that the Soviet Government will realise how concerned, anxious and indignant we are that any human being, should be treated in this way.
  Then there is the question of the reunification of families and the problems arising out of that. Young men who have applied for visas are called up for service in the army and compelled to serve the obligatory two and a half years. They can be compelled to remain for a further five years. No one is suggesting that people should be entitled to evade a legal requirement for military service, but it is strange that this seems to happen immediately they apply for a visa to leave the country. This is the type of problem that has arisen, and I am sure that the Minister will take note that great indignation has been shown by all of us on this issue. These are the kinds of matters that we thought had been put behind when the Helsinki agreement was signed, but instead the position has become worse.
  The Foreign Secretary made some comments about the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union. The figures suggest that since Helsinki the situation has deteriorated dramatically. The figure for 1973 was 35,000. For' 1976 it was 14,100. The number per month is so consistent that one question that might

  517
  be explored in Belgrade is whether there is an exit quota—a fixed number of people whom the Soviet Union is prepared to allow to leave the country. Perhaps there are other reasons for this, but the question ought to be examined. The figures raise the suspicion that a quota has been established. We note that it is a consistent figure of just over 1,000 a month. This matter ought to be raised.
  The Foreign Secretary said that he was satisfied that the Soviet Union is not mounting an anti-Jewish campaign, but there are some ugly signs. Anti-Zionist films are being shown on Soviet television. There are reports of the desecration of Jewish cemeteries and of ugly and unpleasant cartoons appearing in Soviet papers. The Foreign Secretary may have been strictly correct when he said that the Soviet Union was not mounting this campaign, but many of the people within the power structure in Soviet society must be aiding or abetting it, otherwise it could not happen.
  The Jews are only asking for the right to their own cultural existence, which is guaranteed in the Soviet constitution. They want the right of recognition and the right to have their own cultural identity. They want the right to be free from vicious attacks of this kind. I hope that these matters will be dealt with when the Minister of State goes to Belgrade.
  Information concerning individual cases will help the Government to put forward their views, but what is urgently needed is a redefinition of many of these sections in the Helsinki agreement. We should try to achieve a further loosening. The Foreign Secretary obliquely commended the efforts made by hon. Members in this House and by people outside in mobilising public opinion in aid of those who are, quite candidly, being persecuted, particularly the Jewish people in the Soviet Union.
  I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) expressed very forcefully the view, with which I agree, that the best insurance policy that we can give these people is the strength, clarity and persistence of our own voice.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Bryan Magee: I was lucky enough to be a member of the Inter
  518
  Parliamentary Union delegation which was in the Soviet Union only three weeks ago. We spoke about many things over there. The chief subjects which concerned us were trade, disarmament, Africa and the run-up to Belgrade. We had the opportunity to discuss these subjects with people in the Soviet Union up to the very highest level, including, on our last day, a two-hour session with the Head of State, President Podgorny.
  One feature of the delegation was that, although it consisted of equal numbers of the two main parties in this House, we were of one mind in our approach to the main issues. There was no dissension on our side, and no important gap of any kind in the front with which we faced our Soviet opposite numbers. We talked extremely frankly and plainly on all the subjects we discussed, including human rights; and it is to the subject of human rights that I particularly want to devote my remarks now.
  It is to one of those subjects to which the quotation applies—
  "there is no power on earth that can stop the march of an idea whose time has come."
  I think that in some special way, in just the last year or two, the idea of human rights has captured the imagination of people throughout the world, in particular the European Communist world.
  I believe that the authorities in the Communist countries are confronted with a tide that they will be totally unable to stop. This will be one of the most significant features in European politics, not just between now and the Belgrade meeting, but for a very long time thereafter. But we have to face the fact that the Soviet authorities—and, indeed, all Communist régimes will not simply lie down and admit guilt. They will not say: "Yes, you are quite right. We are behaving in a disgraceful way." Their policy is to counter-attack; and if the human rights campaign is to be pursued successfully, we must know what their arguments are and be prepared to meet them.
  It is worth devoting a few minutes to examining the arguments on the other side which were encountered by the delegation in Moscow three weeks ago. First and foremost there was the straightforward counter-attack about Northern Ireland. Our Soviet opposite numbers said to us "You are now coming up on trial

  519
  in front of the whole world at The Hague for the use of torture against political prisoners. How can you come here and lecture us on the way we treat political dissentients in our society?" In their putting of that argument there was repetitive use of the word "torture" and of the term "political prisoner".
  They also put to us the argument that the campaign on human rights does not represent feeling held by the mass of people in the West. They said that this is something which has been got up by Governments in the West expressly to embarrass the Soviet Union. "We have noticed", they said, "that every time there is a crisis in the capitalist system the ruling circles there try to create a diversion by launching an anti-Soviet crusade." What is more, they said—and we heard this over and over again—"any campaign from the West is an unwarrantable interference in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union."
  We also heard a great deal of abuse of individual dissidents. We also found ourselves met with the argument that the Soviets held a quite different conception from us of human rights. They said, "What we regard as fundamental human rights are the right to a job, the right to a decent education, and the right to proper health treatment when one is sick," and so on. They added, "We see in your Western capitalist countries endemic inflation and high unemployment. What about the neglect of human rights that that situation represents?"
  These are the arguments which will have to be met, gone over, and won by us. We cannot just assume, in our approach to Belgrade, that we shall have an easy ride. I believe profoundly that the balance of the argument is on our side. That was the experience we had in the Soviet Union when we argued these things through at very great length.
  The Soviet Union claim that the human rights campaign launched by President Carter is simply one launched by Governments to embarrass the Soviet authorities is manifestly disproved by the fact that even Communist parties in the West are publicly embarrassed by the rough treatment of dissidents, and publicly dissociate themselves from it. So there is no way the Russians can sustain that argument. I represent a constituency that contains people at the opposite end
  520
  of society from the "ruling circles". It is a poor East London constituency where many people are unorganised, un-unionised, unskilled and underpaid, and yet among that section of the population I find genuine concern about the repression of dissidents in the Soviet Union, and the refusal of the Soviet authorities to allow Jews, in particular, to emigrate. There is no doubt that this campaign does represent genuine popular feeling.
  The Soviet argument that the campaign represents an interference in its internal affairs does not stand up any better. All our Governments have pledged themselves to treat individuals in certain ways by signing international agreements. The Soviet Union, like the United Kingdom, did it first of all when the United Nations was formed; we all signed the Declaration of Human Rights, which was specifically endorsed at Helsinki. What is an international agreement to mean if one party can refuse to carry it out, and then complain, if the other signatories make representations, that they are interfering in its internal affairs? International agreements cease to have any meaning at all if that is allowed as a good argument.
  I give these simply as examples of the fact that the Communist arguments, which will be used over and over again, can be effectively countered. They will certainly have to be met.
  There is one respect in which I think the difficulties we confront have been underestimated. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) made a point that is often made, but with which I find myself unable to agree. It goes "Why do the Russians not allow more human freedoms? They could so easily do so without it really costing them anything, or losing them anything." I wish that were true. But I am forced to the conclusion that the Soviet régime is so repressive in detail, so repressive right across the board of personal life, that it would be impossible for it to allow anything like the kind of human freedoms that we take for granted and still hold together.
  Let me give a dramatic example. In 1968 the Soviet authorities made what, from their point of view, was a correct judgment about Czechoslovakia. They judged that it would be impossible to allow the Dubcek reforms to proceed and

  521
  still preserve a Communist hegemony. I think that view was correct. And that is the nature of the problem in the Soviet Union, where it exists on a colossal scale.
  We cannot look for any rapid or early liberalisation of the régime in the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, I think—partly for that very reason—it is essential for the West to keep the pressure on all the time, unremittingly, and never let up. My experiences in Russia and here have convinced me that for us to continue our protests on behalf of individuals, as well as our general protests, does nothing but good. The dissidents themselves say so with one voice. We must do all we can to force the Soviet authorities along this road that is so hard for them to travel.
  But we must not underestimate the change that has occurred. Since Helsinki, there have been substantial improvements. Perhaps the biggest one, apart from the fact that the Soviet authorities now allow about 1,000 Jews a month to emigrate, is the fact that they have stopped jamming Western broadcasts—at least the BBC and Voice of America. We discovered three weeks ago that almost everyone we met in the Soviet Union was listening to one or other of those networks. Even our Russian Foreign Office hosts would come in to breakfast and say "Did you hear so-and-so on the BBC at 7 o'clock?" Everyone we met was listening to these broadcasts. Every Russian now has an alternative source of information and comment to the official source. This is a factor of enormous importance. Although it is a new one we could see for ourselves that it is already widespread in its effect.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: One welcomes the fact that the Soviet authorities do not jam our broadcasts, although they still jam some of the others. But surely that change did not follow Helsinki but happened before it. One of the reason may be that the more one jams broadcasts the more attractive they become to people.
  Mr. Magee: It would be difficult for the Russians to listen in greater numbers to Western broadcasts than they do already. One point that was put to me there was that they listened not primarily to find out what is happening in the rest
  522
  of the world but to find out what is happening inside Russia, because it is only from foreign sources that they can rely on getting truthful information about their own internal affairs.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the BBC's broadcasts to Eastern Europe, does he not regret the cuts in the budget of the Foreign Office for the external services of the BBC, and will he not urge them to be restored?
  Mr. Magee: I do regret them, and I have already urged that they be restored.
  Over the long term, the improvement that is happening in the Soviet Union is so enormous as to be almost sensational. Twenty-five years ago, if one was even suspected of being a possible dissident, one disappeared, and was shot in the back of the head, and that was that. The distance we have come from those days has been tremendous. By our standards, it is still an intolerably repressive society—far more repressive than the great majority of the people in the West realise; indeed, more repressive than the great majority of Conservatives, let alone Socialists, realise. Nevertheless, over the long term it is improving almost out of recognition. Change is occuring, and in the right direction. We should do everything we can to hasten the Soviet Union along that road.
  6.48 p.m.
  Sir John Rodgers: Two years ago, when representatives of 35 nations put their signatures to the Helsinki Final Act, it was agreed that in 1977 there should be a meeting in Belgrade to see how the Act had been implemented and how best it could lead to improvement of security and co-operation in Europe, a deepening of mutual relations, and the continuation of detente in the foreseeable future.
  Alas, I find the phrases "a policy of detente" and "the process of detente" worrying, because they are liable to great misunderstanding. I was a little concerned today when the Foreign Secretary said that we must continue this policy of detente. No one has yet defined what the policy of detente is. It can mean one thing to one country and another thing to another country. In Europe it can mean something different from what it means

  523
  in America. Part of the trouble is that the word "detente" has no direct translation either in Russian or in English.
  My sympathies are entirely with former President Ford, who, when this question was discussed at Helsinki, said "I shall not use the word ' detente '. I do not know what it means and I do not think anyone else does." The nearest English translation that one gets of this word, which is French, would be: "A reduction of tension in international relations." But, alas, in the East and the West the word "detente" has been associated with policies that have included aims other than the mere reduction of tension. To the Americans it means the imposition or adoption of human rights, but to the Russians that is an interference in their internal arrangements. The Americans think that detenté has something to do with disarmament and an agreement between the two sides. Somehow we must soon define exactly what we in this country mean by a policy of detente. We have not yet done so.
  For a long time the Soviet Union has preached the gospel of co-existence, but to the Soviets that means avoiding any real confrontation that might lead to war until, inexorably, according to the Communists, the capitalist system has been destroyed by its inability to resolve its internal contradictions. To the Communists co-existence must be practised until such a time as the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries have been sufficiently strengthened to be able to abandon the concept of co-existence, since by then, they believe, there would be no danger of a war that would embroil the Soviet or its satellites.
  To the Soviets, peaceful co-existence is merely an extension of the class struggle to the international arena—a political, economic, ideological struggle, but certainly not a military one. To the Soviet leaders detente helps to diminish the risk of a third world war, as can be seen in Mr. Brezhnev's speech to the Soviet Communist gathering last year.
  I should like to read a short extract from that speech. Mr. Brezhnev said that:
  "communists take as their starting point the general laws of the development of revolution and of the building of socialism and communism…. In our time, when detente has
  524
  become a reality, both in the international workers movement and amongst its opponents, there often arises the question how it influences the class struggle. Some bourgeois politicians express astonishment and create a fuss about the solidarity of Soviet communists and the Soviet people with the struggle of other peoples for freedom and progress. This is either naiveté or, most probably, the deliberate befogging of peoples' brains. For it is as clear as can be that detente and peaceful coexistence relate to interstate relations. This means that disputes and conflicts between countries must not be solved by means of war, by the use of force or by the threat of force. Detente does not and cannot in the least degree rescind or change the laws of the class struggle…. Strict observance of the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other states, respect for their independence and sovereignty—that is one of the prerequisites of detente. We do not conceal"—
  I emphasise this—
  "that we see in detente the path to the creation of more favourable conditions for peaceful socialist and communist construction."
  That is exactly what the Soviets are doing at the moment. Having read those words one might well ask "When is intervention not intervention?" The only answer there can be is "when it is practised by the Soviets".
  The use of the word "detente" is at the moment indefinable. That is one of the reasons why the Soviets interpret the Western insistence on human rights and fundamental freedoms and the freer flow of information and persons between all countries as an interference in their own internal arrangements. Many people, especially in the United States, have been dismayed and outraged at the repressive habits of the Communists in Russia and the satellite countries by those who took the Helsinki accords seriously enough, as, for example, did the Charter 77 signatories in Czechoslovakia. They are now suffering for what they believed to be a right given to them by the Helsinki agreement.
  Like other speakers, including the Foreign Secretary himself, I believe that we must remember that the Soviet system is the successor of centuries of tyrannical and dictatorial repressive Governments. The Foreign Secretary is quite right to make clear that the pace at which the Soviets can advance in terms of human rights must differ entirely, for example, from the conditions in the United States or in our own country, where freedom has been a distinguishing mark of our

  525
  society for a long period. That does not mean that we should abandon our desire to see that fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, information, assembly and travel between all countries should be vigorously promoted when we get to Belgrade. But on no account should we approach Belgrade in the spirit of trying to put the USSR, or any of the Warsaw Pact countries, in the dock, behaving as though we had a moral right to make accusations and expecting the Communists to enter a defence. Belgrade is not a court of law and cannot be seen in that context. To adopt such a pose would be inimical to our own interests and the interests of the West.
  At Belgrade we should seek further ways of increasing security and improving co-operation between the countries of Eastern and Western Europe. The CSCE by no means created a new Europe, but it did at least confirm the acceptance in principle of a material understanding that differences of interest should not be disregarded on either side but that, on the contrary, these differences should be recognised and an attempt should be made to find ways of subordinating them to the common cause of security and peace. Indeed, it might be argued, and easily argued, that Helsinki brought in a new form of diplomacy based, for once, on pragmatism. That is a new and important element in East-West relations.
  The great advance at Belgrade is that it is now perfectly legitimate for any of the signatories to ask questions and to demand answers. This is also the privilege of the Soviets and the satellites. The great difficulty of international gatherings up to now has been that one could ask questions but could not be sure of getting answers. I hope that the negotiators from the West will not feel inhibited in asking such questions as why the Soviet Union is spending so much of its GNP on armaments and armies, why it is producing more and more tanks, ships, submarines, nuclear weapons, and so on, and against what Power it is rearming to such an extent. We should ask why the Soviets feel it necessary to spend all this money, which would be better spent on social services and the raising of living standards.
  It must be recognised that there has been virtually no progress whatever in
  526
  certain of the baskets. For example, there has been no progress on disarmament, no development in the talks on strategic arms limitation and no advance in the talks on mutual and balanced force reductions. Why, I ask the House and particularly the Government Front Bench, should we continue to use the words "policy of detente" without defining what we mean? To the Soviet Union those words mean anything it wishes them to mean. It is rather like the character in "Alice in Wonderland" who, when asked what a certain word meant, said that it meant exactly what he wanted it to mean, neither more nor less. "Detente" is the in-word, which we should either define or abandon.
  The Communists use the word "detente" whenever they want to embarrass the West. While the Soviets present themselves as the champions of oppressed peoples outside Europe, particularly outside Eastern Europe, they make no attempt to promote liberty, equality or justice in their own country or in the satellite States.
  In Helsinki Governments subscribed to certain principles and gave certain undertakings about East-West co-operation which should guarantee respect for fundamental freedoms, increased human contacts and a fuller flow of information. Since the Soviets interpret President Carter's views on this matter as interference in their internal affairs, surely we should raise the question of Soviet interference in, for instance, Hungary, Czechoslovakia or, more recently, Angola or Mozambique. Now, obliquely through the intervention of Soviet allies, there is a Cuban presence in Eritrea and Ethiopia.
  Surely these non-interference agreements are not confined to the 35 signatories of Helsinki. This is another point to be taken up at Belgrade. If we talk about non-interference in the internal affairs of countries, that should extend to the Third world, to Africa, South America and elsewhere. We should seek clarity and clarification of that issue.
  It must be admitted that the advances of the last two years would appear to favour the Warsaw Pact more than us. If ever the Soviet Union were to conclude that the forces of the West were so weak that Europe no longer contained the germ of a potential third world war, the so-called policy of detente would be

  527
  used to enslave the whole of Europe. That is our dilemma. We must actively pursue the quest of reduced tension between East and West, but on no account should we pursue the so-called policy of detente at the expense of our defence. I believe that the old adage is one to which we should pay heed now
  "Let him who desires peace, prepare for war."
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. Greville Janner: One of the great joys of this country is that there are very wide areas of agreement spread out between those areas of disagreement which enliven the debates of this House, sometimes more than the agreements which unite us tonight. However, within the areas of agreement, that concerning human rights is pre-eminent. As the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, we disagree not on what we are seeking to achieve but on the tactics by which we are seeking to achieve it.
  I should like to consider one or two of the tactics and to ask the House to listen to views that I know some of my friends in the Soviet Union would dearly love to express were they here and to put to hon. Members who go to the Soviet Union. I know how much the efforts of hon. Members on all sides to assist are appreciated, and how much appreciation there will be for the words which have been expressed on all sides today, whether from the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies).
  It is only through words such as those which go far beyond this House that these people have any hope of attaining the freedom that we enjoy and take so much for granted. It is only because we are able to magnify the cries of those who are stretched on the rack of persecution that those victims have any hope of being released. I pay tribute to those hon. Members who work on the all-party committee for the release of Soviet Jewry, which has been labouring for the past seven years, and to the current chairman, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury).
  528
  Efforts to help have been made by hon. Members on all sides, in this country, in Brussels, on visits to the Soviet Union and when Soviet parliamentarians come here, and these efforts are tremendously appreciated by those who are not in a position to express their appreciation.
  The question is; what we should do at Belgrade? There is room for all sorts of instruments in any orchestra from the top brass down to the tiny piccolo. Equally there is room for both the quiet approach and for the open protest and demonstration. Those who meet the Soviets in private are able to express the views of the British people. But all sorts of demonstrations are required provided only that they are lawful. Every kind of protest is useful, provided only that it is not the sort of protest that the Soviets do not want to highlight—that is, the protest which comes outside the law of this country, where protest is free and proper.
  Quiet moves made by Government are also important. The words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary giving his assurance of continued support will be enormously appreciated. I am sure that when he said he had to resist the temptation to name individuals he meant the temptation to name them publicly, not privately. We all know that the private naming of individuals has saved lives and achieved freedom. Certain public protests have been very successful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), when he was Prime Minister, called for the freedom, for example, of the Panovs and they were released swiftly thereafter.
  One of the differences between the Soviet Union and the Nazi régime is that the Soviet Union listens to protests while the Nazis did not. These protests must continue to be made in this House and to echo throughout the free world. The naming of individuals is of great importance. The argument that I regard as vicious, unfair and pusillanimous is one that is sometimes put forward by those in our own ranks who say that it is "counter-productive" to name individuals because to do so will harm them. That is a shocking and cowardly argument.
  I always recall the cries of the people who were incarcerated in Auschwitz and who demanded that their camp be

  529
  bombed because that was their only hope of getting out. They said that if they were killed in the process they did not care. The Americans retorted that they could not bomb innocent people, that they had no right to do so, and so the victims of Auschwitz died in its gas chambers.
  We must listen to the voices of those who cannot be here. They know best what will save their lives and get them out of prisons. They are the people who will suffer, not us. We, thank God, are free; they are in chains. They say "Name us, because if you do so we have a chance of getting the freedom you enjoy", and that for them is freedom in the United States or Germany or, in most cases, freedom to rejoin relatives in Israel.
  "Parasitism" was referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East. Josef Begun has been mentioned in the debate today. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) raised another case that has come to her attention and I asked her to name him. It is by naming these people that we can help them most. The Soviet authorities know that if a person is named and then he or she disappears, this House will be on guard and will take action. When a man like Anatoly Sharansky is in prison and he is named, there is hope for him. His wife comes to this country and says that we should name him, but some people in this country say that we should be quiet, because naming him will harm him and be counter-productive. It is not our right to say that; it is our duty to do as she asks.
  There are many names that are familiar in this Chamber. Some are in prison: some are not, and it is no secret that their freedom is due to the fact that they were named not only by hon. Members in this House but by Senators, Congress men, French and Belgian Deputies and leaders in many parts of the Western world who will judge the Soviet Union not so much by the way it treats its millions but by the way it treats individuals.
  It is much easier to picture individuals than millions of people. We have heard that President Amin has slaughtered between 90,000 and 100,000 human beings. That was in a report by the International Commission of Jurists, published
  530
  yesterday. But people here are more likely to remember that he strangled, murdered and burned the body of one aged lady. We can picture one elderly lady but we cannot picture 90,000 people. We could not picture 6 million Jews who died in the gas chambers.
  The individuals tell us to name them, and therefore we must name them. The individuals say that they are being held to ransom as an example to others, and if their freedom is achieved not only will others get out as well but the situation as a whole will improve.
  Many Jews are afraid to apply for visas because they think that they will suffer the same fate as others have done in the past. I thank the Foreign Secretary for drawing attention to the fear of those people who would like to apply to leave Russia but do not dare to do so.
  Whether there is a broad campaign of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union is a matter of dispute—even among Soviet Jews. Many believe that there is. Fewer young Jews are allowed into universities. Compared with 10 years ago there are very few in high places, although there are a few tame Jews who are paraded on ceremonial occasions. But it is very difficult for Jewish people to apply to leave the Soviet Union.
  The Soviet authorities take in tax 70 per cent. of funds sent in to provide sustenance for people who have applied to leave. The number of visas has been cut down, as the Foreign Secretary said. There are more trials, persecutions and more harassment, and, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East rightly said, whether or not this ill-treatment comes from the Soviet Government, the fact remains that the Government certainly do nothing to stop it, as they could if they wished—certainly in areas of the Press.
  The Foreign Secretary and I may disagree on the question whether there is a direct campaign of anti-Semitism but we do not disagree that the increase in anti-Semitic activity must be stopped. Nor must we be fooled at any level by what the Russians say publicly.
  What is heard in this House is important. What is heard on television and radio is much louder. Consider what may seem a fairly trivial example of this.

  531
  A very well-known broadcaster, Jimmy Young, went to the Soviet Union. He is my favourite disc jockey; he plays music that is right up my street. He went to Moscow and he was told he could talk about anything he liked. He interviewed a prominent apologist for the régime who said that everything in the Soviet Union was marvellous and that nobody was persecuted. That interview was broadcast not in the Soviet Union but in this country. We must not be conned. I challenge Jimmy Young to allow me to give the other side publicly in a country where people are free to speak. He should have asked Josef Begun, Academician Levich, Vladimir Slepak or Ida Nudel, or any other person who has been named in this Chamber, to say what he or she thinks about the freedom that Jimmy Young is prepared to accept exists in the Soviet Union.
  We have the right and the duty to speak out for human rights in every part of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) said that we must accept the positon as it is. I do not agree. We must constantly campaign with patience, care, courtesy and understanding, in a way best suited to our particular personality, to obtain freedom for these persecuted Soviet people who are among the most courageous that I have known.
  I am not allowed into the Soviet Union, like some other hon. Members who have spoken today. The people that I have named are not allowed out. I hope that the echo of our voices here today will bring them warmth, comfort and good cheer. I hope that our voices will be heard again in Belgrade, and will ultimately secure the freedom of the enslaved.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Amery: The Foreign Secretary said that there was no evidence yet of a broad-based, anti-Semitic campaign in the Soviet Union. I hope that he is right. But his words brought back to me the memory of similar words—and I am sure he could find them if he looked in Hansard—said by Conservative Ministers about events in Germany before the last war. I hope that he will hearken to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) because this is the best way of ensuring that nothing similar happens,
  532
  if it is still within our power to prevent it from doing so.
  I was a student when I met Mr. Neville Chamberlain between the time of the Munich agreement and the occupation of Prague. I asked him about his policy of appeasement and he replied that we must give Hitler the benefit of the doubt. But how long do we give people the benefit of the doubt? At what stage do we decide that confrontation is safer than compromise or concession? Had we decided to stand up to Hitler earlier we might have saved the peace.
  This meeting at Belgrade must not be treated as if it were an academic exercise in which points are scored one way or the other. It must be looked at against the background of mounting rearmament by the Soviets in Europe, and in the skies and on the seas all over the world. The war clouds are gathering in Africa, not only Southern Africa, which gives most concern, but in places like Libya and Algeria and in the Horn of Africa. This is a year of decision for France and Italy. This is not an academic debate—the Belgrade Conference is taking place at a critical period in the evolution of East-West relations.
  Regarding Basket III, we have not had much change out of either the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact Powers, although I was very glad to hear the Foreign Secretary say that he was able to make an exception of Romania. That country has had a very tough régime but it is good to hear that it is expressing independence by being more independent on human rights than other countries. At the end of the day in Europe the question of Basket III will stand or fall by the Berlin Wall. As long as the wall is there, there is no real prospect for human rights.
  This is not a European matter alone. I appreciate that the Helsinki Agreement referred only to Europe, but in this matter all men are brothers. The worst breaches and offences against human rights declarations have taken place in the last few months in Libya, Ethiopia and Uganda. All three are supported diplomatically by the Soviet Union. In the case of Ethiopia the support is financial, but Soviet instructors run the police in Uganda and the Soviets equip the Ethiopian armed forces.

  533
  The recent report by the International Commission of Jurists suggests that the situation in Uganda is not merely the responsibility of its barbaric President. He would not stay in power without money from Libya, an ally of the Soviet Union, nor would he stay in power if it were not for instructors sent by the Czechs, Cubans and East Germans to train his armed forces, or if he did not have a bodyguard drawn from the extreme Left wing of the PLO.
  Is there any greater breach of human rights than an act of terrorism? Should there not be protection against crimes of murder in other countries? Yet on this matter the Soviet Union is ambivalent. The attitude of the Soviet Union appears to seek to dignify terrorists with some sort of combatant status.
  In regard to Basket II, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), I have done my best to promote trade with the Eastern bloc countries. But they now owe us in the West $50 billion collectively—a very large sum of money. Despite the good credit rating of most Eastern European countries, there seems to be some anxiety in financial circles whether that liability can be discharged. Certainly there is no political pay-off, The Soviet Union has said publicly that detente means no diminution in the ideological struggle, nor does the borrowing of great sums of money from us mean any pay-off or improvement in relations on that account.
  What has been the impact of the money we have lent? If they had not had that money, they would either have had to cut their defence budgets or tighten belts still further. With the aid of the money, they have been able to increase their defence expenditure without any added hardship to the considerable hardship which their people are already bearing. We must face the fact that we might as well give them—or sell them—weapons at a cut rate as to conclude the kind of deal into which we have entered. It would give the same advantages in terms of jobs and pay packets, and it would produce the same result overall. How right Lenin was to describe a capitalist as a man who sells you a rope with which you intend to hang him!
  I turn to the crux of the matter—Basket I. In disarmament there has been no progress
  534
  in SALT or at the Vienna talks on force reductions. The Soviets are stronger now in Europe, in the Indian Ocean, in Africa and in the Atlantic.
  The position in Africa is interesting. On the east coast of Africa, from the Horn of Africa to the South African border, the only part of the continent that is not in Soviet hands is the Kenyan coast. All the rest of the territory offers facilities to the Soviet Union. On the west coast, the Soviets are well established in Luanda and in Guinea-Bissau, and to the north, in Algeria and Libya, they are offered all they want. Indeed, in Libya they appear to be stockpiling arms—not for the Libyan army, but for their own. In addition, the Soviets are masterminding guerrilla armies against South-West Africa, Rhodesia and Zaire, and with the support of Soviet instructors, aided by Cuban mercenaries.
  What has been the Western response to the falling of the bastions of Western influence? It is difficult to characterise it in any other way than by use of the word "appeasement". The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, made a speech in Maputo yesterday which was well reported in this morning's Press. What was the burden of his speech to those assembled there—a largely Left-wing dominated or Moscow-dominated audience who were baying for blood? The Minister said "Do not fight. We shall give it to you without the necessity for you to fight." That was his message. It was clear that he was not concerned to ensure that the majority should decide what happened but that he would take very much into account the claims of the guerrillas, whether in South-West Africa or Rhodesia. He and his American friends are working in concert. They are not concerned with principles.
  When Zaire was attacked, not a word was said by the present British Government. There was no word of support for Morocco and Egypt or for the efforts made by President Giscard d'Estaing. What of Uganda? All we have had has been a condemnation in general terms. There is no question of any sanctions or any action to be taken against Uganda, and this is because it has the backing of the rival super Power.
  I hope that the Foreign Secretary will not take it amiss if I remind him that President Podgorny said the other day

  535
  that a black Smith in Rhodesia would be unacceptable to the Soviet Union. If a moderate black regime were to come into power in Rhodesia or in South-West Africa, would the Foreign Secretary urge the West to defend it against continued guerrilla attacks? I do not believe he would. I believe that the policies on which the Foreign Secretary and his American friends have decided involve avoiding confrontation with the Soviet Union at any price. They want to feed the crocodile in the hope that it will not chase us further.
  I come back to where I began. How long do we give the Soviet Union the benefit of the doubt? How long do we go on pretending that the situation is not approaching a crisis point? How long do we continue to appease? It is on a par with the staircases one finds in Venice. There is a fine head to the staircase, with marble banisters, but when one tries to climb down it the steps begin to crumble—and if one is not careful one loses one's hold and falls. The Munich agreement led to the Second World War; the Yalta agreement led to the cold war, as well as to the Korean and Vietnamese wars. Will Helsinki lead to a Third World War? Belgrade must be the place where the buck stops. We should stop giving the Soviet Union the benefit of the doubt. Does that mean that I am saying that war is inevitable? No; it does not, but it will become inevitable if we continue to appease and to give ground in the way we are now doing.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. James Lamond: I lay in my bath the other morning listening to the radio and was dismayed to hear the BBC announcer refer to "the forthcoming Belgrade conference on human rights". I was not surprised because it is little wonder that even the well-informed journalists who compile the BBC news were not aware of the contents of the Helsinki Final Act.
  At the beginning of the exercise, we, along with the other 34 signatories, were supposed to publicise the results as widely as possible in our countries. Obviously, we in the United Kingdom thought it sufficient publicity to issue a White Paper costing 75p, with a print order of a few thousand. We believed that that was sufficient publicity for what
  536
  the Foreign Secretary has described as a document containing many exciting ideas.
  In the Socialist countries, the full text of the Helsinki Agreement was published by the million. A friend of mine who led the Polish delegation and handled the negotiations in the years leading up to the Final Act told me that the section of the Final Act calling for full publicity to be given to the Act had been insisted upon by representatives of Western European countries because they thought that the Socialist countries would not wish to publish the full text. In the event, the reverse took place. The text was published and it was possible for the many millions of people in the Socialist countries to read it, but in this country only a few thousand people can have read the full text.
  Indeed, a friend of mine, Mr. Gordon Schaffer, in an attempt to publicise the Helsinki Agreement, drew up a document putting all the main points of the agreement. It was published by the London co-operative movement and sold quite a number of copies. It was also translated into several European languages. That demonstrates to my satisfaction that we did not carry out even the first requirement of the Helsinki Agreement.
  As a result of that, most people in this country believe that the Helsinki Agreement was concerned only with human rights. If those people listened to "Today in Parliament" at 11.15 p.m. tonight or "Yesterday in Parliament" at 11.45 a.m. tomorrow—provided that programme carries an accurate précis of the speeches that have been made here today—they will still be mistaken because most of the speeches today have been concerned with only that aspect. That is why I was glad that the Foreign Secretary indicated that there are many other aspects that he wishes to pursue in Belgrade. To give him his due, the Opposition spokesman also made that point. However, since then the speeches have almost totally concentrated on human rights and centred particularly on Jews.
  I have no complaint about such speeches. Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to make speeches about what they see as the most important aspect of the matter. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for

  537
  Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on behalf of those people for whom he has compassion. However, it is easy to be critical of other people and other countries and to forget what happens in our own country. One of my hon. Friends touched on this subject because he said that there are the questions that will be asked of us if we use the Belgrade Conference as an instrument for attacking the Soviet Union about human rights.
  What about the Irish situation? We must answer on that. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, yet hon. Members were quite satisfied, for a number of years, to sit back and allow internment without trial. Admittedly that has now been stopped by this Government, but it went on previously. If any hon. Members are as interested in human rights as they appear to be, I suggest that they read the document that has been prepared by the Northern Ireland Civic Rights Association. That association is independent of any Catholic or Protestant influence. The document simply sets out to show those cases where innocent bystanders—men, women and children in Northern Ireland—have been killed and for whose deaths no one has ever been found guilty. People have been brought to trial but there has never been a conviction that has stood up in the appeal court. We have something to answer for.
  We talk about the unification of families. I have many immigrants in my constituency from the Indian sub-continent and I have heard many harrowing tales of people who have had to wait between two and seven years for their families to join them. These people are permitted to have their families join them but there is often a long wait. Therefore, we have things to answer for.
  We should remember in going to Belgrade that although we may point the finger at other countries—and not just Socialist ones—we cannot be satisfied that we have a completely clear conscience about what happens here.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): Of course nobody can have a entirely clear conscience about what happens here, but there is a fundamental difference. In this country. Parliament is available so that grievances can be aired and, as far as the House can achieve it, redress obtained. There is no such
  538
  redress or free Parliament in the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Lamond: I certainly accept that, but the method of organising society is different in the Soviet Union.
  We have heard a little today about how the word "detente" should be defined. There are many different definitions, but there are also various definitions of the phrase "human rights". It is all very well for hon. Members to boast that the citizens of the United Kingdom have the right to travel within the EEC and to other countries quite freely if they wish to do so. One can say to an 18-year-old boy or a 16-year-old girl who has just left school, who has no job and cannot find one, "I am sorry that there is no job for you in our society. I do not know whether you will ever be trained for a worthwhile job but you may have social security of £9 to £10 a week and you may travel the world if you wish because you have that freedom." If one says that, one is likely to be told that it is rather a curtailed freedom because of the lack of money.
  Should we not be concerned about rights and freedom in our own society when we are unable to provide employment and a proper standard of living for our citizens? We must exchange ideas on these matters with the Soviet Union and with other countries, but we must not go to Belgrade with the idea that everything that we do is correct and everything they do is wrong.
  As for Jews, the Foreign Secretary said that after a careful examination of the facts he was not satisfied that there was a campaign aimed at the Jews, as such, in the Soviet Union—at dissidents, yes, but at Jews, no. Those who cry out so loudly about the Soviet Union's attitude to Jews—notwithstanding what the Foreign Secretary has said—should remember that 20 million citizens of the Soviet Union were killed in a war that was fought to ensure that there were some Jews left alive in Europe. They should recall that if that war had not been won by the allies—the Soviet Union, ourselves and the United States together—there would be no Jews who could emigrate from any part of Europe to Israel.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that the Soviet

  539
  Union signed a non-aggression act with Germany at a time when the Jews were persecuted there, and that the reason why the Russians fought and lost so many people was that they were invaded by Germany?
  Mr. Lamond: That is a point of view, but it is also true that this country had a pact with Germany at a time when Jews were persecuted. Under the guidance of Chamberlain, this country was prepared to sign a non-aggression pact. If the Soviet Union did that, it did no worse than we did ourselves.
  The facts are unarguable. Without the fight that the Soviet Union put up against Nazi Germany the Jews would have been anihilated. I do not mind hon. Members suggesting to the Foreign Secretary that he should concentrate on this matter in Belgrade but, important as human rights are, it is much more important to ensure that we develop that part of the Final Act which is concerned with disarmament, because we cannot claim that there has been the slightest progress in that direction. In fact, it was announced only the other day that we had agreed, on the insistence of President Carter, that we and our allies should step up the amount of money spent on arms by another 3 per cent.; that is, another £200 million contributed by this country each year.
  It has been suggested that we should improve our readiness to meet the increasing power of the Soviet Union, but is the power of the Soviet Union being increased? If we ask anyone in the Soviet Union, he will say "No". I have heard the suggestion made in the House on many occasions, but it is always without documentary evidence and I do not wait until I come to the House to ask about these things.
  Only last week we had at the British-Soviet Group two military experts from the Soviet Union who were passing through on their way from the United States. The hon. Members who show so much interest in these matters obviously missed the announcement in the Whip, but I went to the meeting with three other hon. Members and told the Russians that I wanted to ask them two questions. I asked why they were spending so much on arms and increasing their arms expenditure and why they were persecuting Jews in the Soviet Union.
  540
  They answered that they were not increasing expenditure on arms and that there was a real fall in the amount being spent on arms in the Soviet Union.
  One of them, a lieutenant-general in the Red Army, said that he did not know much about my second question, but he was a Jew and had never been subjected to persecution of any kind. That bears out what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said. As a Jew, that man was not persecuted. If he had been a dissident he might have been persecuted.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will have read his own Government's White Paper on defence. Is he saying that the information compiled by the British and American Governments and the NATO intelligence system that is summarised in the White Paper is eyewash or does he believe it could be true?
  Mr. Lamond: I think that it is subject to further verification. Successive defence White Papers have said that there is no concrete evidence of any aggressive military intention by the Soviet Union against the West.
  The Foreign Secretary is not going to Belgrade, but I am satisfied with the person he has appointed to represent us. I hope that in the conference that takes place on 15th June the rôle of the British delegation will be constructive. We should point out the errors of the ways of other countries and we could ask the Turkish Government why they have troops occupying the sovereign area of another signatory to the agreement. Such questions could be asked of all 35 countries participating in the conference, but we should not look upon the conference as another instrument in the continuing political war between the East and West on the lines of the despondency that ran through the speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). He denied that he believed in the inevitability of war but that was the only conclusion that one could draw from his speech.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Luce: I was interested in the references of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) to information given to him by two people from the Soviet Union to the effect that the defence budget had been reduced.

  541
  With the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee), I was a member of the IPU delegation that went to the Soviet Union about three weeks ago. We pursued a number of matters, including defence, where we came up against the problem of different interpretation of statistics.
  The Soviet Union claims that last year it reduced its defence budget by 7·2 per cent., but the Government's White Paper and other evidence available in the West that is based on pretty objective information suggests that Soviet defence forces have increased, in real terms, by 5 per cent. a year over the last five years and now represent 12 per cent. or 13 per cent. of the Soviet Union's gross national product.
  Even allowing for misunderstandings about statistics—there is a need for long discussions with the Soviet Union about the interpretation of defence statistics—the evidence in the White Paper about the preponderance of the Warsaw Pact in conventional terms in Central Europe, the growing strength of the Soviet Union's northern fleet and the dramatic expansion of the Soviet navy to all parts of the globe was not denied in the IPU discussions.
  The hon. Member for Leyton set out our discussions in the Soviet Union fairly and accurately, and I did not disagree with any of the main impressions that he formed on our visit. I wish to say one or two words on the Helsinki Final Act and detente and to incorporate my experience of that visit in my remarks.
  We discussed thoroughly the Act and the progress that could be made under it. I reached the firm conclusion after our visit that if we are to persevere with negotiations for peace, it is essential to talk to the Soviet leaders and to seek more of an understanding with them and the Soviet people than we have at present. This should be mutual, and there should be far more exchange between our countries and between the Western and Eastern worlds. We must go on talking and talking because, in the words of Mr. Vorster, the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.
  I got the impression that Soviet leaders respect blunt speaking and, unfortunately, strength, and these are factors that we
  542
  must understand in our relationship with the Soviet Union.
  I believe that the Final Act could be a long-term instrument—and I stress "long-term"—for building peace between East and West. The Belgrade conference provides an important first opportunity to evaluate progress under the Act and to review how things are going in a frank and straight manner.
  It would be wrong to make Belgrade a polemical occasion, since the Russians are genuinely frightened that we may turn it into a crusade and use court room procedures. That would be counter-productive, and everything would come to a halt. However, if we are frank, straight and objective in our assessment of the progress made under the Act, steps may be taken in the right direction.
  In our assessment of human rights and Basket III, it is natural that we should discuss the Soviet Union, because it was one of the main signatories to the agreement. However, when discussing human rights it is essential to avoid the danger of falling into the trap of double standards. The Soviet Union is rightly a topic of interest in the debate, but we must be equally concerned with human rights in many other countries. Uganda, South Africa, Chile, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Cambodia and Czechoslovakia are but a few examples.
  It is essential that we should be impartial and objective in our approach. We must be prepared to answer charges made against us in the West about our standards. For example, during our visit to Moscow the Northern Ireland issue was raised. We must point out that the difference in our procedures is very marked. We must make it clear that we have an open procedure and that when allegations have been made about human rights they have been taken to the European Court of Human Rights. We have an open procedure, and the Russians can come and observe it if they wish, whereas in the Soviet Union we do not believe that there is a fair system of trial. Although by no means do we have a perfect system, it is in marked contrast to the system in the Soviet Union.
  The United Nations machinery has been demonstrated to be utterly farcical by the terrible situation that has developed, for example, in respect of Uganda.

  543
  The Human Rights Commission of the United Nations was set up to maintain standards of human rights in every country of the world. In fact, it has been biased, and it has been impossible to get effective action when required. I have in mind the allegations that are being made in respect of Uganda. I agree entirely with the view of President Carter that the Human Rights Commission needs to be strengthened and given teeth. In the Helsinki Final Act we have a basis upon which we can make some progress between East and West in Europe on the subject of human rights.
  We found in the Soviet Union—it is quite understandable, because of our different systems—that we came up against a problem as a result of misunderstandings in the interpretation of human rights. What do we mean by human rights? Probably every one of us in the Chamber has different views on the matter. We found in our talks that the Russians were always wanting to put emphasis upon human rights as they saw them—for example, the right to full employment, the right to have a free health service and the right to free education. Incidentally, many Russians did not realise that we have a free health service and a free education system. That highlights an incredible lack of understanding of what goes on in the Western world. In contrast, we were putting emphasis on the freedom of conscience and the freedom of worship and thought. There is bound to be disagreement, when Lenin himself said that
  "Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice."
  We are bound to be looking at human rights in a different light, because of our history, experience and philosophical beliefs. The Act itself seems to interpret human rights in the broadest possible sense. At least this provides a basis for discussion between East and West.
  I now come to the argument that when certain matters are raised in respect of the Soviet Union it is said that our interest in them represents gross interference in the Soviet Union's internal affairs. They pointed out that the important 10 principles include the inviolability of frontiers and non-intervention in other people's affairs, but we lay stress upon the seventh principle, which highlights the importance of human rights and respect for them.
  544
  It is important to point out to the Soviet Union and other countries that the need to uphold human rights is enshrined not merely in the United Nations Charter but in the Final Act. Therefore, it is a valid basis for discussion between our two sides. It is essential—we did this when in Moscow—to highlight that we in the West, as part of our democratic system, pay respect to public opinion, and that when public opinion feels strongly, as it does, about human rights, that is bound in turn to have an effect, directly or indirectly, on inter-State relations. That is another factor that it is important for the Soviet Union to understand.
  We come to the issues that have been raised about the development of human rights in the Soviet Union. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who said that we must understand that the history of the Soviet Union is very different from that of this country. Indeed, the people of the Soviet Union do not view freedom in the same way as we do. They have known virtually nothing else in their history—whether under the Tsars or under Communist régimes—than authoritarian rule. When we consider the issue of human rights in the Soviet Union, we must do so with that perspective in mind.
  Nevertheless, it is a matter of international concern that the Jews in the Soviet Union should be permitted to emigrate to join their families in Israel or elsewhere if they wish to do so. It seems that there are still about 280,000 Jewish applicants wishing to emigrate. That is an important factor. Although we do not know the precise number, we know that there are a great number of political and religious prisoners. Amnesty International says that there are 10,000, whereas the Economist recently stated that there are 1½ million. That is another factor for concern.
  We are concerned, rightly, about the treatment of so-called dissidents. The Russians told us that they are criminals and hooligans. Very well, if that is what they feel, surely they should have fair and open trials, so that their own people and the Western world may judge whether that is really the case.

  545
  We observe the treatment of people such as Professor Orlov, who was trying only to operate with a group of people in Moscow who were monitoring the progress of the Final Act. What could be more reasonable than that? We observe the fact that Professor Orlov has been arrested and has not yet been given a fair trial. In other satellites—Poland and Czechoslovakia, particularly—we see similar repression and abuse of human rights.
  It is essential that we should concentrate on Basket III and regard it as important in the Belgrade review. It involves the question of the Jewish emigrants, the reuniting of families, and freer travel for those who live in the Soviet Union. Under Basket III there is a need for a much stronger understanding between our countries, so that we may dispel the ignorance that exists on both sides of our different positions. In that way, by means of continual dialogue, we can enhance the prospect of peace.
  I end by touching briefly on the general question of detente, which is of the greatest importance. A great many people in the Soviet Union—I am sure the majority of those who actually live in the country—and the majority of those in the Western world, want to see a relaxation of tension and an improvement of relations, but not on Russian terms only. We are entitled to ask—we should be doing ourselves a disservice if we did not—whether it is real and genuine detente if we try to reach an agreement with a chap on one subject and find that on another subject he stabs us in the back.
  I welcome increased trade between the Soviet Union and Great Britain. That is an important development. We want more trade and more exchanges, but we must point out that if the Soviet Union wants our technology it is not right—indeed, it is dangerous—that it should divert some of its resources to undermine the position of the West, whether that is by the expansion of its defence force or by creating a more difficult situation for us on the African continent. We cannot help but observe that it is trying to make the situation more difficult for the West in Angola and Mozambique and that it is developing an offensive capability in their
  546
  defence forces. At home it is still persecuting and imprisoning.
  I come to the conclusion that the best chance for long-term peace for our country and for the West in general is for the West to show greater resilience and determination in its relationship with the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Richard Nixon, during a broadcast last week, paraphrased in his own language one of Lenin's instructions:
  "If you encounter mush, proceed. If you encounter steel, withdraw."
  I maintain that there has been too much mush in the West for too long. What we need from the West is a steely determination to maintain, for example, the military balance, and to warn the Soviet Union that if it tries to undermine our position we must feel bound to respond. If the Russians want an improvement in the situation, we shall be only too ready to respond if they demonstrate that wish by practical action.
  Whatever the motives of the Russians, we must warn them that we are prepared to react to any undermining of our position. They must understand that we believe in our own kind of freedom, that we are prepared to fight for our own kind of freedom, and that at the end of the day—they can judge this best from our history—we are prepared to die for our freedom.
  I believe that this new Western resilience which is now required could lead to a realisation in Russia that it would be in the Russians' self-interest to coexist with us peacefully. Surely, at the end of the day, détente will flourish only when that massive insult to mankind—the Berlin Wall—is dismantled. When that happens, I believe that we shall have a good chance of making progress towards peace.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I remind the House that approximately one hour remains for nine hon. Members who have been present throughout the whole of this excellent debate to speak. I should like to accommodate them all, but I have no power to limit the length of speeches. I leave it entirely in the hands of hon. Members
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: As you have correctly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this has been an excellent and interesting debate.
  I do not believe that we can have double standards in terms of human rights. Therefore, when I criticise the Soviet Union, as I shall, I should make it clear that, were South Africa or Chile signatories at Helsinki, I should also criticise them. The standards that we use must be the same—they must be objective standards.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Old-ham, East (Mr. Lamond) was, in my view, propounding an unusual argument. If, for the sake of argument, he and I were fond of kicking people as they lay on the ground and one day I came up to him as he was kicking a poor man on the ground and said "Why are you kicking that poor man on the ground?" and he replied "Why say that to me when you kick people on the ground?", that would be no solution to the poor man lying on the ground whom he was kicking.
  My hon. Friend's argument, that if we can show that in other countries there is injustice, that therefore prevents the criticism of injustice elsewhere, would stultify criticism of Chile, South Africa and Uganda as well as the Soviet Union. I do not accept that argument. It is possible for those in this House who criticise our actions in Ulster or elsewhere to use the opportunity of debates on those issues to criticise the Government.
  I spent a lot of time with the Russians from 1946 to 1948. I was trained by the Army as a Russian interpreter. I have since taken some interest in Russian affairs. I can fairly easily read Soviet newspapers and literature.
  I am not inspired by any desire to knock the Soviet Union. However, I am inspired by a desire to improve the dignity of individuals and to ensure that they have more freedom wherever they live. The fact is that in the Soviet Union—one of the signatories to the Helsinki Agreement—there are matters of criticism in those areas.
  The first point that I should like to make relates to trials in the Soviet Union. I make a personal point. The International Commission of Jurists, which has
  548
  just published its report on President Amin, has from time to time published reports on other regimes. When it is critical of South Africa, as it often is, the South Africans say that it is a Communist organisation, and when it publishes attacks on the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union says that it is a Fascist organisation. That is the hard road that a human rights crusading organisation such as that has to tread.
  The ICJ sent me to South Africa and South-West Africa to observe trials. What I found did not please me, and I criticised what I saw.
  I have made three attempts since 1967, on behalf of Amnesty International and other organisations, to enter the Soviet Union for the purpose of acting as an observer, as a lawyer who knew some Russian and as a British Member of Parliament, at the trials of Soviet citizens.
  We have an open system of attending trials. It seemed to me that the Russians might have paid me the compliment of assuming that I would report what I had observed in as detached a way as I could. In fact, this enormous empire, this huge and powerful State, seems to regard itself as insufficiently strong to permit a solitary British Back-Bench Member of Parliament, or indeed any other observer, to witness a Soviet trial.
  I have been to the Soviet Union on one occasion. That was with an Inter Parliamentary Union delegation in 1968. That had nothing to do with issues such as human rights. All the delegates were asked what they would like to see in particular. I asked to see a Soviet court. After a pause, that was agreed to. But somehow or other it was always delayed. There was always something else happening, and I was not taken to see a Soviet court.
  I do not know why the Soviets are so nervous. If they have nothing to hide—one hopes that they have not—they should be prepared to open their courts to foreign observers. If they say that there is no denial of human rights to dissidents, Jews, Christians or Tartars, one way of disproving the charge, one way of bringing in the fresh air that they need to prove their innocence of the charge, is to allow foreign observers to

  549
  attend trials. They do not allow that. One hopes that when an attempt is made to send an observer to the trial, whenever it should take place, of Professor Orlov, they will at last decide on a change of policy.
  It goes against the spirit of the Helsinki Agreement to deny entry into the Soviet Union for the purpose of attending court proceedings. The Soviets must learn that it does not show ineradicable hostility to the Soviet Union to want to observe what goes on there in order to make an independent judgment. I am not prepared to accept from two Soviet officers, as I should not be prepared to accept from two United States officers or two Ugandan officers, what they say about what goes on in their country about freedom, levels of expenditure or anything else. It is better to have an open society.
  I hope that the Soviet Union will gain the necessary self-confidence in the end to run an open society. So far it does not seem to have achieved that confidence. The Russians react with hostility so that when one asks to observe a Soviet trial one is not permitted entry. The first time that I asked to be allowed to observe a trial in the Soviet Union, in 1967, I received a reply. Latterly I have received no replies to my requests for entry for that purpose.
  Reference has been made to the separation of families. This morning I received a letter from Bradford about a man in the Soviet Union called Lev Gen-din who, in 1970, applied for exit from the Soviet Union. His wife left the Soviet Union with permission in 1972. He has not been permitted to join his wife. At various times he has spent 160 days in prison. I know of no comparison in British practice to that, despite the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Old-ham, East. This man lost his job as an electrical engineer and he has been doing rough work or been unemployed. All that man sought to do was to join his wife outside the Soviet Union.
  The Helsinki Final Act states that the signatory States shall deal in a positive and humanitarian spirit with applications of persons who wish to be united with members of their families and that such cases shall be dealt with as expeditiously
  550
  as possible. That man has been waiting seven years and has been suffering from persecution. Surely it cannot hurt the Soviet Union to release people of that kind. Such actions have led to the suspicion that people are prevented from leaving and are persecuted simply to keep down the number of applications from citizens who wished to leave.
  If a country considers that its system is sound and that it can stand comparison with other systems, it should have the courage to allow its citizens free movement. The European Convention on Human Rights and other documents concerning that subject stress that there should be free movement out of a country.
  The Soviet Union could ease the hostility towards it if it dealt with and reformed its psychiatric practices in relation to those who offend politically. It is unfortunate that the Soviet Union has found a method of avoiding putting dissidents on trial. The Soviets have avoided putting on trial literary people and others who may have committed no offence under Western law but may have committed an offence under Soviet law. They are declared insane because of a psychiatric illness. For instance, practising Christians are regarded as being psychiatrically unstable because of their belief in God.
  Unfortunately, they tend to run up against the Serbsky Institute in Moscow, which is run by the MVD and the KGB—the Ministry of Internal Security and the State Security Committee. Once a man is certified as insane, either on the grounds of paranoic behaviour or of schizophrenia, he is regarded as being unfit to plead. Once he is regarded as being unfit to plead, he cannot stand trial because he is held to be not responsible for his acts.
  If one can get a man certified by a KGB psychiatrist, often in uniform, one can avoid putting that man on trial and avoid unpleasant publicity. One can also avoid people from the West observing a trial and foreign journalists standing around the court. That happened to Bukovsky and others.
  Soviet medicine had a high reputation. It is a tragedy that Soviet psychiatrists should behave in this way. One psychiatrist, a Mr. Gluzman, revolted against the system and was sent to prison. One

  551
  has to be very courageous in the Soviet Union to buck against the system.
  It could be said that if one makes this criticism of the Soviet Union one is bound up in some imperialist game, that one is being manipulated in some way, just as if one attacks America one could be accused of playing the KGB game. If we see the oppression of and injustice for human beings it is the duty of all of us to speak out, as we speak out against General Amin and what is happening in Chile.
  As one of the great nations of the world, the Soviet Union must lose the inferiority complex which makes it so sensitive to criticism. It must have more confidence in its régime, if it is as good as its leaders think it is, so that its people may have choice and its dissidents may be treated with more dignity.
  I have never taken the view that criticism of human rights in the Soviet Union should concentrate only on the Jews. One is entitled to raise a voice in protest against its treatment of writers, musicians, engineers, dancers, Christians, Tartars and atheists. If there is repression it is the duty of those who can see it and have the opportunity to speak, to speak out. I have been a member of Amnesty International for many years. I do not come to this debate simply to wallop the Soviet Union.
  I am disturbed when I hear Opposition Members attacking the Soviet Union and saying nothing about South Africa and Chile. It is also disturbing to hear some of my hon. Friends attacking South Africa and Chile and saying nothing about the Soviet Union. The prime responsibility of hon. Members is to defend democracy itself. Democracy must mean the defence of human rights. It must mean upholding human rights and dignity, standing up for habeas corpus and encouraging freedom. We must speak everywhere in the world, no matter what annoyance that causes to members of one's own party, to other parties or to the States concerned.
  I believe that the Soviets have listened. They now listen to decibels of protests if they are long and loud enough. That is why I have taken the opportunity to speak in this debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There seems to have been a misunderstanding about my
  552
  appeal to hon. Members earlier. I appealed for brevity in speeches.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) has done a service to the debate by widening the definition of the violation of human rights. He has brought in a new dimension about which he is an acknowledged authority in the House.
  The House has done well to stick to its tradition by emphasising Basket III of the Final Act—the human rights issue. I shall do the same. Before I come to that, I want to repeat what has been said from both Front Benches and other parts of the House. That is that the Helsinki Final Act is only a part—though it may be an important part—of the whole purpose of this House, this country and the West. It is only part of the job of trying to bring about a more stable East-West relationship.
  The other part, of course, must be the mutual and balanced force reductions between the East and the West. That is perhaps even more important than Helsinki, because that is where the real fear lies—in the vast increase in Soviet arms expenditure. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) about this. He accompanied me, with other hon. Members, to Moscow the other day. This is the question that the Soviets will not answer. What is the purpose of this massive build-up in offensive arms? They are not merely purely defensive arms in order to maintain a balance with the West but massive offensive weaponry and maritime forces that can be used only in circumstances other than the defence of the Soviet Union.
  Having said that, I must stick very briefly to the question of Basket III, the human rights issue. It is very important that this issue should stand alone and on its own merits, because this is not part of the great ideological war between the East and the West. Human rights stand above that war. I think that it has come out in the House today extremely well how these are issues about which all of us in the House and the people we represent feel deeply.
  This is not part of a massive campaign in order to undermine the stability of the

  553
  Soviet Union. It may be, of course, that freedom of speech would undermine the stability of the Soviet Union. I believe that that is what the Soviets think. Nevertheless, we here feel that a greater degree of freedom and an end to the obvious violation of human rights in that country, as well as in other countries, stand out on their own and must be supported and discussed absolutely on their own merits.
  As our arguments were countered by the Soviet leaders in the Kremlin a week or two ago, undoubtedly the same arguments will be put forward in Helsinki—that this emphasis on the individual human rights of people living within the Soviet Union or other countries is part of a great campaign in order to bring down the whole philosophy of Marxist-Leninist Communism, or whatever one calls it. Though that may well be the long-term effect of it, the whole purpose of our speaking out and of individuals in the West speaking out is in order to help the people who are affected deeply in Soviet Russia by any violation of the basic human rights as we see them. Therefore, this has been an extremely useful debate in bringing this point home.
  I was privileged to raise these issues, as frankly but as courteously as I could, with the Soviet leaders the other day, with my colleagues. I emphasise and underline what other hon. Members have said—that we have to speak out about these issues fearlessly and firmly on every possible occasion. It is no use pussyfooting and trying to pretend that the Soviets respect us if we do not say the things that we really mean and about which we feel deeply.
  Although I can fully understand the view of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the need of the Government not to take governmental action on individual cases openly—because that could be harmful to the individuals concerned—I think that it is right for private individuals, Members of Parliament and associations in this country to express abhorrence of violations of human rights whenever they occur.
  I entirely agree that there should not be double standards in this matter. We have got to be prepared to stand up to criticisms, from wherever they may come, of what happens in this country and what
  554
  happens in countries for which we have been or are responsible. We shall have those attacks. We shall have to expect an attack from the Soviet Union on the high level of unemployment in this country. That is natural. We shall have to expect an attack on our activities in Northern Ireland. That is to be expected. But we must answer those attacks openly and clearly, and in doing so we must show up the need for other countries, such as the Soviet Union, to answer the attacks upon them when we accuse them of violations of the normal human practices, as we have done today.
  Helsinki was the beginning of what will be a very long, slow process of trying to ease the tension between both sides. It cannot be expected to work in a matter of two or three years. I do not believe that the Soviet Union intends it to work other than at the Soviets' own pace, the pace of its choosing. I believe that the more we try to hammer at the Soviets to rush into some of the proposals to which they agreed at Helsinki, the less likely it is that the Belgrade Conference will be a success and the more likely it is that there will be increasing tension between the East and the West. We must try to continue the steady pressure to get a change in relationships between the East and the West, but we cannot expect it all to happen overnight. We should go into these negotiations realising that the amount of progress that we shall make is limited but yet whatever progress we do make is worth while, and it is only one more step on a very long road.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Lee Williams: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that he was rather surprised to discover that he was not actually invited to the Belgrade conference because it is a meeting of Heads of State—although a Minister of State would be there. Perhaps I misunderstood that. However, it seems to me that the really crucial issue facing us is that of the preparations for the conference rather than the conference itself. That may seem a rather strange thing to say, but in my view the preparations for this conference, to be started on 15th June, seem to be the most critical part of the arrangements.
  As for the Belgrade conference itself, I think that on present form it is likely

  555
  to be a rather frustrating and, on the whole, rather disappointing affair. I do not say that in a knocking spirit. I hope that many of the aspects mentioned so eloquently by my hon. Friends, particularly the human rights aspect, will play a very important part in the conference, but I think that on the whole it will be a frustrating affair, because the Russians now feel very uncertain about Belgrade.
  The House will recall that it was the Russians' propaganda offensive which led to the idea that there should be some kind of pan-European conference and which eventually led to the Helsinki accords. The Soviet Union used a great deal of its influence through indigenous Communist parties and its diplomatic machinery to bring about such a conference, because it hoped and believed that it would yield great results and great rewards for the Soviet system. Of course, the Russians wanted some lasting arrangement with the West because they wanted credits and access to Western technology. That much we know. We know that the Russians were prepared to pay a price, I believe a reasonably heavy price, for access to that technology. But what they completely underestimated was the profound political implications of Helsinki, which I believe the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) underestimates.
  I believe that the Russians are profoundly worried by the growth of Euro-Communism. That may be thought a strange thing for me to say. Why should a Democratic Socialist like me say something like that? From a Western point of view, we have our own concerns about the growth of Euro-Communism. However, that is not the point. The interesting thing is to look as far as one can at the Russian assessment of Euro-Communism.
  An analysis of anything the Russians have said, of any of the statements they have made about the Portuguese, Spanish, Italian or French Communist Parties, all adds up very clearly to one message—that the Soviet Union does not understand how to react to Euro-Communism. The Russians look with deep suspicion on its growth and think that it is all tied up with the Western campaign on human rights, and aimed at them. They think that at Belgrade they will be attacked not only by the Western Powers
  556
  —obviously, for human rights lapses, and so on—but by Western Communist Parties, which will all issue hostile statements before the conference.
  One can imagine the situation. The Russians will have to contend with that. I do not believe that we in this country, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in particular, have given sufficient thought to that aspect, which will put the Russians in a very defensive mood.
  It seems to me there are minimum demands that we must make and have met in Belgrade. I hope that it does not turn out to be the frustrating occasion that I expect, because there are a number of vital matters that must be at least stated and conceded in Belgrade. But there will be a great deal of trouble.
  We have concentrated on Basket III, but I should like to say something about Basket I, where it seems to me we shall have the greatest difficulty, because there will be a great argument about interpretation of the sixth principle, dealing with non-intervention in the affairs of other States. The Russians interpret that not as non-intervention but as non-interference, a much broader interpretation than non-intervention, where I think we have much more in mind a military intervention. The Russians have a much broader conception in their argument about non-interference. That is why they are mounting a campaign against Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. They look upon those radio networks as interfering in the legitimate affairs of the Soviet Union. They have not attacked the BBC, but that is always on the cards.
  Therefore, it seems to me that the question of the access of material to the Soviet Union, freedom to get not only newspapers but the written and spoken word into the Soviet Union, is critical to the whole question of detente. We should get information across to the wider public in the Soviet Union and not just to the dissidents. Much as I believe that it is right to concentrate on the dissidents, I think that it is wrong to concentrate narrowly on them, because there must be a larger segment of the population inside the Soviet Union who have no desire to leave but who are dissatisfied with the amount of information they are given and the simple lies that they are told on issue after issue.

  557
  The critical matter in Belgrade is to make sure that we do not move one inch on this issue. If we can maintain that the Russians' interference with Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty is an attempt to negate the whole idea of Helsinki, the whole exercise may be frustrating, but in the long run it will be worth while.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mrs.Lynda Chalker: To many hon. Members this may seem strange ground to hear me upon, but it is strange only in this Chamber. All of those who had the chance to spend some of their studying years abroad, as I did, and any who were in Berlin in 1961, will know well why I feel particularly fervent on this issue. Having been in East Berlin just a few days before the wall was built and having brought elderly ladies' bags across in the train late at night, when we all knew that things were up, one is left with a completely ineradicable memory of what that wall has done between East and West Berlin.
  Even this year and last year, the tearful partings at Checkpoint Charlie, as elderly and not-so-elderly people went back into the eastern part of Berlin, were enough to remind everyone of the reality of the situation of that part of the division in Western Europe. Even more dramatic, perhaps, is the area known as the three corners of East Germany, West Germany and Czechoslovakia, where years ago I saw farm houses and normal farming scenery behind the wall. That ground has now been flattened by the bulldozer into a completely straight strip.
  People in this country and in the world at large should be more aware not simply of what happens between East and West Germany, or just in the Soviet Union, but worldwide, on the issue of human rights and human freedoms.
  Two years ago the Helsinki Final Act was viewed with some scepticism, I think, but we view with a little anxiety the steps that may be attempted at the Belgrade preparation conference on 15th June. We know how vital those stepping stones will be towards the October discussions.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said that the real cause for concern was the inadequate progress of nations towards achieving
  558
  human rights. I should like to say why I think that, in the context of Belgrade, it is important to voice our fears about what has gone on in the two years since the Act was signed.
  Basket III contains political aspirations rather than any legal intention towards the freer movement of people, ideas and information. That is a legitimate reason for concern for people throughout the world. It is no accident that the Foreign Secretary spoke today about "standing up for democracy". It is only by developing democracies that tyranny, whether in Chile or in the Soviet Union, can be combated.
  It is often said that there are too many armchair democrats around. I fear that unless we continue to speak out there is a danger that there will be more armchair democrats—people who pay lip service to, and value, what we have in this country, but who do not look beyond our shores or beyond those of Europe.
  I was amused, and in one way saddened, about the Jimmy Young show broadcast from the Soviet Union this week. The carefully selected Vladimir Pozner said on that programme, to 6 million listening United Kingdom citizens, that there was religious freedom in the Soviet Union. He denied that there was official persecution of critics of the Kremlin or persecution of the Jews.
  However, when the Controller of Radios 1 and 2 was asked how people were chosen to take part in the programme, he said:
  "We told them"—
  meaning the Russians—
  "the areas we were interested in and asked them to provide experts who could speak fluent English. We had tremendous co-operation from the Soviets."
  I am not surprised, because the Soviet intention obviously is to put over the story that they want believed.
  But we have a duty to look behind the curtains. We have a duty to know what has been going on. We have never expected quick change, in spite of Helsinki. However, we had hoped not to see any steps backwards. Yet in the two years 1973 and 1974, 54,000 Soviet emigrants went to Israel, compared, on the available figures, with only half that number—fewer than 28,000—in 1975 and 1976. In the two years following the Final Act,

  559
  about half the number of exit visas have been issued. That does not seem to be progress.
  We also have to remember that the fee for an exit visa has been dropped from 400 to 300 roubles for people wishing to leave the country, but anyone wishing to go to Israel has to pay an additional 500 roubles for an exit visa. That goes against the spirit of Helsinki.
  We now know that a stricter interpretation is being used of the definition of "family" for emigration purposes. This has very serious implications for reunification.
  The Soviets have tightened their rules on incoming gift cash, and that is detrimental to prospective emigrants. They have increased the duties on gift merchandise and have put a stricter limit on the number of items that can be sent to relations in a single package. This is very unfortunate in terms of so-called progress, although that is not to deny that there has been some progress, particularly in the satellite States.
  But it is not just for those people who wish to leave the Soviet Union or the Eastern bloc countries that I am concerned; it is also for the freedoms of those who wish to stay and to live freely in the Soviet Union, their home country, and to worship as they would wish.
  Many people are trying quietly to assist. Some are more outspoken. But we do not concentrate enough on those who wish to remain and for whose freedoms within the Soviet Union there needs to be consideration in the deliberations at Belgrade.
  We know that there is a major risk to anybody applying to leave the Soviet Union. We heard of the seven "refusniks" who, on 4th March, following a newspaper article, had a simultaneous raiding of their homes. This sort of act is not what we expect to see following the Helsinki agreement.
  We know, too, that documents have been wantonly destroyed, and we can cite case after case where the Soviet Union has created a big problem for itself, because actions of this sort, by restricting freedom, bring about a greater demand to leave the country. The suppression of ideas can do nothing but lead to a greater undermining of freedom, and perhaps a
  560
  stricter enforcement against those people who wish to speak out within the Soviet Union.
  In the West we believe in the defence of individual freedoms. Normally we do not indulge in the practice of attacking those who are unable to defend themselves. As I have said, there have been improvements, but many of the people for whom we speak in this House and in a wider sphere have seen none of these freedoms.
  We can cite the case of Ida Nudel, who in May 1971 applied for an exit visa and in January 1972 lost her job. She then learned that she was supposed to have State secrets. She had been a food hygienist, and said that the only secrets she had were those of the mice who ran round the shops in which she had tried to control food hygiene.
  These are the realities that did not come over in the radio programme from Moscow that we heard in Britain this week. The reality of what is happening within the Soviet Union is not known to many of the people there. We have a duty and a major responsibility to see that, through the discussions leading up to the conference in October, we make sure that the reality of the situation is faced and help the Soviet Union to realise what it is doing against the interests of peace and not even in the interests of pursuing its own great might and power.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr.Julian Critchley (): All speeches should start with a resounding statement of the obvious, and many of them do. My opening statement is no less important for being obvious. It is that human rights and fundamental freedoms are the foundation of a free and democratic society—Basket I. So, too, is the unity of the family—Basket III. President Carter is quite right to strive for the recognition of these rights of human beings everywhere. But the question not yet posed, which should be posed, is: how far this can be advanced within the limits of foreign policy?
  President Carter is using human rights as an instrument of diplomacy, and human rights is now the most visible element of American foreign policy. If one asks why it is the most visible element of American foreign policy, one explanation is the obvious one of Watergate, Vietnam and

  561
  all the other trauma, and thus the need for Mr. Carter to inject into American foreign policy a high moral content—and there is nothing that the Americans like more than a high moral content. So, clearly, Mr. Carter has a constituency in the United States which wishes very strongly to emphasise human rights as such.
  But diplomacy is the art of what one can achieve, the art of the possible. The United States has the power to stop financial aid to those States of which it disapproves—for example, some States in Latin America, including the Argentine, although it has not yet stopped financial aid to Mozambique, where there is a great deal of repression. But what means has the United States or the United Kingdom or the West to induce the USSR, or any other members of the Soviet bloc, to stop arresting intellectual opponents of the régime, those who, within the Soviet Union, demand the observance of the Helsinki Agreements?
  The answer is that we have none, because the Final Act of Helsinki is not a treaty. None of the undertakings contained within it is enforceable in any sense. The Soviet Union is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. If it was, we would all have marched the Soviet Government to Strasbourg years ago.
  The Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Marshal Brezhnev—he has made himself a Marshal of the Soviet Union and is bedecked with more medals than one can imagine—regard the Carter policy as being actively hostile to the interests of the Soviet Union and as threatening the legitimacy of the Soviet State. On this point they are more sensitive than any other, because they are illegitimate in the proper sense of the word, having seized power in 1917 by an act of revolution, and the human rights isue underlines to the world the essential illegitimacy of the Soviet regime itself.
  Marshal Brezhnev has described the human rights attitude of President Carter as
  "intervention, direct or indirect, individual or collective, in the internal or external affairs falling within the domestic jurisdiction of another participating State…"
  562
  —quoting Basket I of the Final Act. He has further declared that any interference in the affairs of the Soviet Union is "intolerable", and that such intervention, of course, will make normal international relations quite impossible.
  This, no doubt, is largely bluff, because the USSR on balance has gained more from detenté than have the United States and its allies. More importantly, Basket II will speed up the process whereby the Soviet Union has access to our grain and our machinery, and loans at lower than the market rate, and it is this which is so important to the Soviet Union, which, although it is a military super-Power, is not yet an economic super-Power, and will never become so until or unless we in the West are able to supply it with grain, machinery and the know-how which will enable it to do so.
  Clearly, whatever Brezhnev says, it is highly unlikely that the Soviet Union will stop the SALT negotiations with the United States by which the nuclear stalemate is maintained simply because of the nuisance caused by the external support for intellectuals within the Soviet Union, which its police can most easily contain.
  Whether we like it or not, the Soviet Union is a highly stable society. Whatever Jimmy Carter may say, or whatever we may feel about the negation of human rights, the Soviet Union is stable enough to be able to cope with that particular matter. The absolute control over the individual on the part of the State, to the exclusion of all spiritual and other loyalties, is fundamental to the Communist system, and nothing short of a major upheaval will be able to lessen it. It is very difficult to see in what way the United States and its associates might bring this about. The immense Soviet military superiority in Europe is a sufficient deterrent to prevent any active American attempt to change the nature of Soviet society.
  The only lever that the West has—it is a strong one if the Western OECD nations are united in their resolve to use it—is to stop or reduce the flow of economic aid to the Soviet Union. While that is desirable in itself, for reasons of security, I do not really think that the West is sufficiently united to come together to restrict the flow of economic

  563
  aid to the Soviet Union and impose an embargo. For example, even if some of us could agree, the French would be the first to undercut that agreement and re-affirm their so-called "national independence" by making a bit of money on the side.
  What can be done? Quite clearly at Belgrade the West must make the most of a good case. It must remind the world of the negation of human rights in the Soviet Union because, to a certain extent, the Soviet Union is sensitive to that kind of criticism. By suggesting that the Soviets negate human rights we make it harder for the Soviet Union to make an appeal to the Third world and to compete against the West itself. On the level of Government, and to a lesser extent as Members of Parliament and individuals, we must go on helping individuals within the Soviet Union. But the real question is how we measure the success or failure of a foreign policy which is based upon human rights and which uses human rights as a weapon of diplomacy?
  What are the measurements? The first measurement is surely the extent to which the Soviets relax, or make very more severe, what happens to those people within the Soviet Union who are courageous enough to oppose the régime. That must be the first measurement. It might well be that the Carter policy is counter-productive. We must watch that very carefully because it is easy for us to luxuriate in indignation, but we do not have to show the courage that they do in the Soviet Union.
  The second measurement is equally important, perhaps even more so. So far no one in the debate—I have not been present throughout and I may be doing a grave injustice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—has stressed the remarkable instability within Eastern Europe itself. It is easy to assert that the Soviet Union is a stable society. That is not true of Eastern Europe. Look at each country in turn. Look at Warsaw and the Poles. A combination of Christianity, of Roman Catholicism, a feeling for independence and an economic recession has made the situation in Poland highly volatile. As a country it still looks westwards, as do the Czechs and Hungarians. The Soviet Union does not look westward in this
  564
  sense whatever. Eastern Europe has lost its freedom. Russia has never had it.
  We must be most careful about the extent to which we use human rights with regard to Eastern Europe because the situation there is volatile and highly dangerous. Indeed, the instability which might result from a revolt in Poland, or the Soviets having to decide yet again whether or not to intervene, as in 1968, in another revolt in Czechoslovakia or East Germany, is the sort of circumstances which are more likely than any others to cause the outbreak of the third world war.
  Hence the obvious apprehension of Chancellor Schmidt, who has disapproved all along of the American President's new policy based, as it is, upon human rights. Herr Schmidt has felt, not unreasonably, that he has a special interest in preserving what relationships there are between the Federal Republic and East Germany and Eastern Europe. He, sitting in the centre of Europe, knows the dangers that a globally-designed moralist policy might induce in central Europe.
  Human rights are all very well. It goes without saying that we all favour them. However, they have this added advantage for the purposes of this debate: the Right in politics seizes upon human rights in order to tease the Soviet Union. The Left seizes upon human rights in order to cover itself with a warm glow of moral rectitude. It is this combination together with all our good will and our good nature which makes us want to help people who need to show courage where we need to show none. We must never lose sight of the simple fact that we are playing with fire, and this factor has to be measured all the time.
  One of the most interesting developments to come out of the London Summit was that President Carter is now soft-pedalling on human rights. At the end of the 100 days there is a return to a more realistic view of what American and Western foreign policy should be.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: It is to the credit of the House and the debate that nearly every speaker who has contributed to our most interesting discussion has made human rights his principal theme. There may have been slightly different

  565
  messages from right hon. and hon. Members, but the theme throughout has been the same.
  There is nothing new in this, because history provides various examples of concern for human rights, particularly concern in one country for a national or religious minority in another country, perhaps leading to regrettable upsets. Mr. Gladstone conducted a very famous campaign on an issue which would now be called human rights.
  Human rights are not a new dimension in international affairs. What is new is the increased awareness by more people of conditions in other countries. Today's debate has reflected that increased awareness, and that fact is to be welcomed and encouraged. This increased awareness and concern is the very best reason—better than any of those advanced so far in the debate—for linking Basket III with Baskets I and II when we consider at Belgrade progress on the Helsinki Agreement.
  If detente and co-operation in Europe is the objective, all our constituents will require progress on Basket III from the Eastern bloc. After all, the West's contribution to Helsinki was made at the conference at Helsinki in the sense that we then subscribed to the declaration giving international approval to the Soviet Union's post-war boundaries. The Russians' contribution to the Helsinki Agreement was to come mainly in human rights. This debate has shown that we are, unhappily, all too aware that that contribution has been very slow in materialising.
  I refer briefly to two aspects of human rights, and I will not take up the time of the House with details. On various occasions we have referred to religious freedom, and there is absolutely no doubt that it was part of the Helsinki Agreement. The Final Act of that conference said:
  "Within this framework the participating States will recognise and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practise, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience."
  That is absolutely clear.
  I have no doubt that there are great and grave restrictions throughout the Eastern bloc on the practice of religion.
  566
  I will not enumerate them, but they include the training of priests, the harassment of religious communities, the prevention of instruction to young people, and the fact that priests are forbidden to have radios. If the Foreign Secretary would like any further information for our representatives at Belgrade, there are very many people, including myself, who will be prepared to give it.
  There is no doubt that throughout the Eastern bloc there are great impediments to the freedom of worship. The position of the Jewish community has been described by many other hon. Members particularly the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson). Because of the increased harassment, many of the Jewish community—perhaps 2 million to 3 million—want the right to leave. It is not just a question of the reunification of families. It is because of the signs of growing anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union.
  The subscribers to the Helsinki Agreement gave their support to the principle of the Charter of the United Nations and to other international obligations and agreements, such as the convention on elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. The right to leave any country, including an individual's own, and the right to return to his country are basic in the two conventions on human rights. There is no doubt that any subscriber to the Helsinki Agreement subscribed to the right of any individual to leave his country and go to another.
  I hope that our representatives at Belgrade will take the opportunity to remind the Soviet Union of these points. This can be done without recrimination. I do not wish to see any recriminations. We should look forward, not back, at the Belgrade Conference. It has been confirmed by the debate that the British people expect that the opportunity will be taken to remind the Soviet Union of these matters.
  Finally, I suggest that we should take the opportunity at Belgrade to emphasise to the Soviet Union and all Eastern bloc countries the essential link between progress on detente and progress on human rights. I hope that we shall take the opportunity to press for regular and frequent reviews of the progress of the Helsinki Agreement. I hope that we shall consider the possibility of establishing a

  567
  standing committee of the signatory countries to review progress of individual cases on a continuing basis. If we do these things, we shall not have betrayed the desire of many of the people whom we represent to make progress on human rights, which means progress toward real detente.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Blaker: I think that the high standard of the debate shows that the Opposition were right to choose this subject for discussion today.
  The House has been right also not to limit itself to discussing the nuts and bolts of the conference next month but to look at the wider issues lying behind that conference and the one that will take place in the autumn.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Seven-oaks (Sir J. Rodgers) said that the meaning of detente was unclear. I believe it is important that we should try to clear our minds on what detente means. I do not agree that its meaning is unclear. What is important is that it means different things to the two sides. To us, in the West, it means something permanent—a genuine relaxation of tension. To the Soviet Union it is a tactic and means something temporary. It is intended, as I read it, to exploit to the utmost the genuine longing of the West for a reduction in tension. It is intended to lull us into complacency.
  The House will remember the fable of Aesop about the competition between the north wind and the sun to see who could first get the traveller to remove his coat. The north wind blew hard and the traveller drew his coat round him tighter and the more it blew the more he wrapped himself up. Then it was the turn of the sun, which shone more and more warmly on the traveller, and off came the coat.
  In my view, the object of detente on the part of the Soviet Union is to divest us of our protective clothing. At the same time those in the Soviet Union reserve the right to themselves to continue to build up their armed forces, to continue what they describe as wars of liberation in the Third world, to continue subversion in Western countries, while nevertheless expecting to benefit from trade with us, from our technology, grain supplies and credits.
  568
  The curious thing is that the Soviet Union makes no secret about its objectives. Not too much is said about these things in writings for the outside world, but much is said to the people in the Soviet Union in seeking to assure them that the objectives of the Soviet Union have not been abandoned.
  If detente is a tactic, what is the strategy? My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—whose speech I regret I did not hear—asked, as I understand, how long we should give the Soviet Union the benefit of the doubt. I do not have much doubt about the strategy of the Soviet Union. Its strategy is described by the Soviet Union as peaceful co-existence. I shall not go into the Russian definition of that term, because it is immensely long and appears to mean exactly the opposite to what it does mean, which is often the case with Marxist language. But if I may paraphrase its meaning, it involves seeking to change the balance of world power in favour of the Soviet Union by all means short of a third world war.
  The Soviet Union has made considerable progress in that direction. The House does not need to take my word for it; it can take that of Mr. Gromyko. He said in 1975:
  "Henceforth the forces of peace and Socialism"
  —by which he meant Soviet power—
  "will be able to prescribe the navigable channels of international relations."
  That is a striking and graphic phrase and it means that the Soviet Union has already succeeded to a substantial extent in reducing the options for the West. Although Mr. Gromyko said that in 1975, he could not have said it in 1965. That is a measure of the progress that the Soviet Union has made in those 10 years.
  This advance cannot be attributed solely to détente itself. It is due in large measure to the failure of the West to understand what the Soviet Union is about—and the failure of the West to persuade its own people to take the necessary steps to counteract the Soviet version of détente.
  What is required in the West is a new posture—a more robust posture—vis-à-vis the Soviet Union which would encourage that country to modify those of its policies that are a danger to us. I

  569
  shall return later to what that posture should be.
  How, then, should we approach the Belgrade Conference? First, we must recognise the limits on the scope of the Helsinki Final Act. There is nothing in the Act about defence. That is not surprising, because many of the parties to it were neutral countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said that detente is no substitute for defence. He was absolutely right. Maintaining our defences is a condition of maintaining détente. When the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) complained about the NATO agreement, announced yesterday, that defence spending is to be increased by 3 per cent., he had exactly the wrong point. The hon. Gentleman regarded that as a danger to peace. In my view it is a reinforcement of peace, because the greatest danger to peace now lies in the weakness of the West and the impression that the Soviet Union has what we lack—the will to look after ourselves.
  We must remember that Europe—and that is what we are talking about today—would be a major prize for the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union can dominate Western Europe the balance of power throughout the whole world will irrevocably turn in the favour of the Soviet Union and against the United States. It is important that the Soviet Union should not attain strategic superiority, because if it did so we do not know what the Soviet Union would do with it. However, we have only to look at what happened in Angola to realise that we should be unwise to allow temptation to be put in its way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ham (Mr. Luce) made a point—with which I entirely agree—that was based on his recent visit to the Soviet Union. He said that the Soviet Union has a great respect for power. Conversely, it has contempt for those who lack power. Stalin said at Potsdam that policies should be based on the calculation of forces. It was also Stalin who asked, in relation to the rôle to be allowed to France after the war:
  "How many divisions has de Gaulle? "
  While defence in the military sense is important, arms alone are not enough, because over the past 60 years we in the
  570
  West have been militarily stronger than the Soviet Union. In spite of that, the Soviet Union has steadily increased its influence in the world. There is something missing from Western policy apart from arms. That thing is will. There is a lack of will. We have recently given the impression of moral confusion, boneless-ness and lack of belief in our own values.
  We should also study carefully the right way to approach the Soviet Union at Belgrade. Too many of us have accepted too readily what I call the Dr. Spock policy—that is that we should treat the Soviet Union as Dr. Spock used to advise parents to treat difficult children. He said that parents should not impose discipline, never be firm, and never say "No", and that if parents went on in that way the child would grow up to be a worthwhile member of society. However, it is notable that Dr. Spock has recanted, and it is high time that we recanted from that policy in relation to the Soviet Union. Firmness, frankness and consistency are required.
  I was interested in the remarks that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). He found during a recent trip to Moscow that it was better to speak bluntly because in that way one evoked more respect from one's interlocutors on the Soviet side.
  Another lesson in negotiating with the Soviet Union is that one needs patience. I am confident that the NATO and EEC countries have learned that lesson because the first conference on security and cooperation in Europe, which was expected to take a few months, in fact took several years. It had what I regard as a successful result with the Helsinki Final Act. We achieved that only because we were not in a hurry. As soon as the Soviet Union feels that we are in a hurry, it presses its bargaining position harder.
  There is another lesson that we must learn and this was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) when he opened the debate. We must look at all our policies with a single eye. Foreign policy is no longer, if it ever has been, a separate compartment. In the British Government, as in every other Western Government, it should be understood by the Secretaries of State for Trade, Energy and, of course, Defence and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they have functions that

  571
  are relevant to our foreign policy, our posture vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, and our survival. They understand that very well in the Soviet Union. They remember that Clausewitz said that a country needs an effective total policy towards the outside world. In the Soviet Union every important foreign policy decision is taken in the Politburo.
  The EEC and NATO countries must work together in as close co-operation this time as they did before the Final Act was signed. I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary say that this was happening.
  It was implicit in the Foreign Secretary's speech that we should regard this year's two conferences as part of a continuing series. That affects the way in which we play our hand. We want to make sure that the other parties are prepared to continue the series. I am doubtful whether we should be seeking any new arrangements at this year's conferences. I hope that the Minister will deal with this in his reply. I think myself that we have enough in the Final Act to last not just for these two review conferences but for many more.
  We shall have to consider all sections of the Final Act, but there are some points to which we should attach special importance. First, we must say to the Soviet Union that we do not regard the way in which it interprets detente as consistent with the Final Act. The Soviet Union keeps saying that its objective is to overthrow our way of life. We cannot be expected to accept that if we are to continue a dialogue with the Soviet Union. Obviously the Russians will not change that policy in the short term, but our long-term objective must be to persuade them that this attitude is unacceptable to us.
  We must also make clear that it is not acceptable that the Russians should continue trying to encourage wars of liberation in the Third world. That is their admitted objective, and they encourage these wars by subversion, the supply of arms and the use of proxies, as we saw in Angola.
  We must regard detente as world wide. Although the document that we are discussing relates to security and cooperation in Europe, the preamble refers to detente being universal in scope. We
  572
  must make it clear to the Soviet Union that this interpretation should be accepted. No amount of legal quibbling by the Soviet Union that it went to the aid of a party in Angola that represented the Government will convince me that its action there was consistent with detente.
  We should tell the Russians that we regard their encouragement of the use of force in Africa as one of the most dangerous factors in the world today.
  We should also raise the question of freedom of information. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) said about the effect of the Jimmy Young show. I agree with what she said. It confirms what happens when the handling of information is given to a governmental body rather than an individual.
  I think that we should refer to the treatment of journalists. That is an important issue in the context of the Final Act. I recognise that there have been changes in this respect in the Eastern bloc countries, but they have been uneven. I should like to see us press for greater equality of performance by them.
  The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) referred to the BBC Overseas Service, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty and the importance that he attaches to them. I understand that it is a fact that the expenditure by the Eastern bloc on jamming the last two stations now exceeds the total budgets of those two stations put together. I cannot believe that that is consistent with the Helsinki Agreement. I welcome what the Prime Minister said yesterday in answer to questions about the importance of the BBC overseas services. I hope that the Government will continue to give them every support.
  The last two topics to which I shall refer are trade and human rights. In this connection we must insist that the Final Act be taken as a whole. I suspect that the Russians will want to talk about trade and will be reluctant to talk about human rights. After all, more trade, more credits and more technology are some of the objectives of detente from their point of view. We must insist that we go into the human rights issue.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford that it is high time that the free industrialised countries

  573
  should reappraise their policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) was rather pessimistic about the results. He felt that we could not succeed in stopping our economic aid for the Soviet Union. I do not think that it is our object to do so. The object is to concert our guidelines for the supply of technology, credits and grain to the Soviet Union, so that we can ensure that we are not giving permanent benefits to the Soviet Union at our expense, and so that we can ensure that we can use trade and finance as a means of persuading the Soviet Union better to perform its obligations in other respects.
  Mr. James Lamond: Surely that is in complete contravention of the Helsinki Agreement?
  Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman made that point earlier, and it is a totally false one. I am prepared to see the Final Act performed completely if the Soviet Union is prepared to follow every part of it. I am not content if the Soviet Union picks and chooses and says that it will perform the economic sections of the Act but not the human rights sections.
  We have now a situation in which the British Government are providing a £950 million line of credit for the Soviet Union for the purpose of building up its industry. Among other things, the result will be that in due course products from the new factories that we shall be building will come back to this country. I look forward with some trepidation to the reaction of the people of Yorkshire and Lancashire when the textiles from the new factories begin to come into places such as Oldham. Possibly the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) will have the same reaction when the time comes.
  The £950 million line of credit is a good bargain for the Soviet Union. Among other things, it enables it to move more resources into armaments. As Andrei Amalrik has pointed out, it helps to reinforce and maintain its police State. It is a bad bargain for us. According to reliable calculations that have been made for me, it is likely to cost the British taxpayer over £200 million if fully taken up. That is something of which the British taxpayer is not yet aware.
  574
  The hon. Member for Oldham, East said that it provided jobs. That is true. But could not the same number of jobs be provided by putting an equal amount of effort and money into exports to some other country which is not dedicated to our overthrow?
  I hope that the free industrialised countries will tackle the problem soon. I observe that President Carter suggested that there should be a review of East-West relations conducted by NATO. That could possibly be the forum in which this process could be begun.
  On the question of human rights, practically every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has quite rightly expressed concern. Of course, we are going to be attacked on this subject. The Soviet Union will not simply sit back and allow us to criticise its breaches of human rights. It will attack us over visas, unemployment and Northern Ireland.
  We should not be afraid to discuss these matters. If there is a mote in our eye, there is certainly a beam in the eye of the Soviet Union. We can make two points. First, in this and in other countries in the West these matters are subject to free discussion and some are even referred to international tribunals. Secondly, we can say that in some cases the practices criticised have stopped and that in other cases it is our policy to make progress to improve the situation. If the Soviet Union were able to make those two claims, the problems of the world would be a lot less serious.
  I believe that President Carter has done the world a service by raising human rights to the level that he has. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) that when we get to Belgrade we do not want a shouting match. We want a sober, rational consideration of human rights, how the various countries have performed and how they can perform better.
  I agree with those Members on both sides of the House who have pointed to the need for finesse in handling the issue of human rights. We must make it clear that the object of raising the question of human rights is not the overthrow of Soviet society. We must also make it clear that this matter has to be discussed

  575
  in depth if only for the reason mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury)—that our public opinion expects it.
  I hope that the European Economic Community as a whole will give broad support to President Carter's position on human rights, as the Foreign Secretary rightly did in his speech on 3rd March, and I hope that he will encourage the Prime Minister to take a similar line. The arguments for our doing so are overwhelming.
  First, the Final Act describes human rights as an essential factor for peace. Secondly, the Soviet Union claims that it will continue the ideological struggle. Hitherto, the ideological struggle has been very one-sided. All the weapons have been in the hands of the Soviet Union. At last we have something with which to reply.
  It is objected from some quarters that our use of the human rights issue amounts to interference in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union. That certainly will be said by the Soviet Union at the conference.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) made a good point about the participant countries having accepted reciprocal obligations when they signed the Act. The Foreign Secretary made the point that it is agreed in the Act that all the principles are of equal value. But there is yet another reason why we cannot accept that to discuss human rights in the Soviet Union is an unjustifiable interference in that country's affairs. It is, quite simply, that Moscow Radio, Pravda and other organs of Soviet opinion are continually attacking us—for example, over human rights, as they describe them, in Northern Ireland. It is not unusual for them to refer to us as bastions of Fascism or bloodthirsty forces of world imperialism. If they are able to do that under the Final Act, surely we are entitled to discuss human rights in the Soviet Union.
  One of the leaders of the human rights movement in Czechoslovakia, the Charter 77 movement—Professor Jan Patocka, who died recently after interrogation by the security authorities—said:
  "We thus have to report that people are again aware that there are things for which it is worth while to suffer; that the things for
  576
  which one may have to suffer are often those that make life worth living."
  We cannot fail to respond to courage such as that.
  What do we expect to achieve at the end of the series of conferences? What is our long-term objective? We are not asking for a complete internal change in the Soviet Union. We are asking for stability and peace. We are asking that instead of trying to overthrow our society by all means in its power the Soviet Union should do all that it can to live in accord with us and our allies. That is an ambitious objective. But the Foreign Secretary was even more ambitious. He said that he looked forward to the day when the whole of the Final Act would be performed. Let us hope that that day comes.
  I ask the House to cast its mind back to the wars of religion in the Middle Ages. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it was assumed that the wars and hostility between Protestants and Catholics would continue for ever. But in the middle of the seventeenth century, by the Treaty of Westphalia, they came to an end.
  I am not saying that we should look to one treaty, but we can have a long-term objective—that after long negotiations we can persuade the Soviet Union to change its attitude to the West. We can achieve that by being patient, firm and strong, and by telling the world—and going on telling the world—that we have something better to offer than anything that the Soviet Union can provide—and that is freedom.
  9.33 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) took credit on behalf of the Opposition for having asked for this debate on such an important subject. I hope that he will also give some credit to the Government for accepting and welcoming the debate. We thought that it was important that the House should have the opportunity to discuss this vital topic before the first of the Belgrade conferences.
  We think it right that the Government should have the benefit of hearing the views of hon. Members on all sides of the House. It is right that we should go

  577
  to the conference knowing that we speak with the authority of the House and knowing its views, which have been clearly expressed on this subject.
  This debate has shown at least that the matters that we have been discussing today are not matters of inter-party dispute. A wide variety of views have been put forward and different aspects have been stressed in the speeches of different hon. Members. But these have not demonstrated any great difference of view between the parties and the debate generally has demonstrated a surprising unanimity of view in this House on the essential points.
  May I first try to list some of these points of agreement? First, virtually nobody has expressed dissent from the general aims of the Helsinki Final Act. That is a welcome change, I may say, from the situation two years ago. Nobody has suggested that we should not, therefore, take part in an active and positive way in the successor conference at Belgrade. There is, I think, a widespread belief in the value of détente, even if we might differ on the way that concept should be interpreted. Most people accept too that the Helsinki Agreement represented a small but useful step in promoting détente and a better modus vivendi between the Powers of East and West. It would have been surprising if anybody were to oppose that general objective; there can be few people anywhere who welcome or approve a state of tension between East and West and the military threat and instability which may accompany it.
  The main purpose of the Helsinki Agreement was to provide a framework within which hostility and tension might be reduced. The doubts and objections that have been expressed, therefore, are not about the aim of détente itself. The concern has been that the benefits should not be confined to certain particular aspects of the Agreement at the expense of any others, that, as one or two speakers have said, détente should not be used as a smokescreen which may persuade some to drop their guard while others arm themselves even more strenuously than before so that the balance of forces is disturbed.
  578
  Secondly, I think that most speakers in the debate have accepted that the Helsinki Final Act itself—the hon. Member for Blackpool, South specifically mentioned this point—represented a carefully framed balance of commitments and undertakings which we have to accept as it is, as an interrelated whole. The balance represented the outcome of long and difficult negotiations and reflected the lowest common multiple of what the participants at that time would accept. If we could have dictated the terms ourselves unilaterally, we would no doubt have produced an entirely different document in which the balance would have been quite different. But we have to accept the Agreement as it is.
  In any case, I think that we all accept that there is something of value in all of the various parts—Basket I; in the proposals for reductions of military tension; in closer economic and commercial links, as Basket II provides; and above all—at least for those of us in the West—in the promotion of freer contacts and more unrestricted freedom of movement for people and ideas between East and West, as provided for in Basket III.
  So, while we may each find particular parts of the Final Act to which we attach special importance—and a number of speakers in the debate have shown which is the aspect which matters most to many of us in this country—we cannot and should not seek to destroy altogether the balance between the parts, since in seeking to diminish the importance of the parts that matter to others we might in effect forfeit the willingness of other parties to implement those sections which matter most to us.
  Thirdly, the view has been expressed by a number of speakers—and I entirely endorse this view—that this is a matter on which we cannot be content with words alone. There is little value in the signature of an agreement, however carefully drafted, however laboriously negotiated, unless its effects are felt in concrete terms in the lives of ordinary men and women in East and West alike. Our concern at the present stage particularly, two years after the signature of the Agreement, must be to ensure that it is fully and fairly implemented—in other words, to make sure that words are in fact followed by deeds.

  579
  This, of course, is one of the main purposes of the Belgrade Conference. Our task there will be to try to ensure that the Helsinki Final Act is better implemented in the future than it has been in the past. On that point we would agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool, South that the conference should not be taken as a single, once-and-for-all act for scrutinising the performance in implementing the Helsinki Agreement. We certainly hope that there will be future conferences, or even some continuing mechanism—that is possibly the ideal solution—on an East-West basis for examining the performance so far in implementing the Agreement.
  Fourth, many speakers in the debate have recognised that the Helsinki Final Act, whatever else it represents, has not brought a final end or even a truce in ideological and other conflicts between East and West. Indeed, several Opposition Members, the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) in particular, deplored this fact. I do not think that I would agree with that view.
  It is true that Mr. Brezhnev has said that the ideological struggle must continue, but I do not share the opinion that this represents in some way a violation of the Helsinki Final Act, and far less that it is a statement or a threat of which we in the West need to be afraid.
  I would willingly accept the challenge that Mr. Brezhnev has laid down. I have not the slightest doubt that the West and the ideas for which it stands can more than hold their own in any free competition aimed at winning the hearts and minds of peoples all over the world. All that we ask is that such competition takes place on genuinely equal termini other words, that our ideas should enjoy the same opportunity to be heard in the countries of the East as their ideas enjoy in the West.
  The final point of fairly general agreement that I would note is that the Belgrade Conference represents an opportunity of special importance for the future of relations between East and West. Some of us feel that one of the main problems of Europe over the last two or three decades has been that contact and communication between the two halves of Europe have been so inhibited, because of various reasons that we
  580
  all know well, that hosility and tension have been exacerbated.
  In both blocs, largely because of these barriers, an image has been built up of the other party as a dark, dangerous and threatening force. The unknown is always fearful, and it is almost always feared. The two halves of Europe have been far too unknown to each other for far too long. One of the hopes that we had of the Helsinki Agreement was that by promoting communication and contact it would help to alleviate this fear of the unknown on both sides and promote more genuinely trustful and warm relationships between them.
  Our regret is that so far the Agreement has not done enough to facilitate contact and communication to achieve this. This debate has shown that most of us still share the hope that ultimately this might be at least one of the outcomes of Helsinki. We in this country still hope and expect that the proceedings of the Belgrade Conference will ensure that in the next year or two expectations on this and other matters are better fulfilled than they have been so far.
  May I now reply to some of the specific points raised in the debate? A number of speeches have reiterated, perhaps not surprisingly, a single theme, namely the feeling, very widely shared in the country as a whole, that, whatever the merit of the Helsinki Agreement, progress in implementing it has been far too slow. That is a point made by many speakers who were referring particularly to implementation by the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries.
  I cannot conceal that we in the Government share this sense of disappointment. Achievement so far has been very much less than we had hoped. That is one reason, perhaps the main reason, why we attach such importance to the forthcoming Belgrade Conference. One of our main aims is that it should be the means not only of scrutinising the record of achievement so far within all the signatory States—we must not forget that the aim of the conference is to examine the performance of Western countries as much as that of Eastern bloc countries—but of considering how performance may be improved.
  It is widely felt that the provisions of the Final Act have not been implemented

  581
  in the way or to the extent that was hoped. That is the feeling, at least in the Western nations and in many of the neutral countries that will be represented. We should not forget that the neutral countries are an important factor, that this is not simply a conference between nations of East and West but that a considerable number of important neutral countries will be bringing their influence to bear. That feeling of which I have spoken extends to all three of the so-called Baskets of the Act.
  One of the provisions of Basket I mentioned by only one or two speakers concerns prior notification of major military manoeuvres. Unfortunately, in the Helsinki Agreement this was confined to major manoeuvres involving more than 25,000 men, although in addition the signatory States had a discretion to notify "other military manoeuvres". Unfortunately, so far we have had to note that only six military manoeuvres have been notified by the Warsaw Pact countries, against the 13 manoeuvres which NATO countries have notified during this time.
  We have to ask whether that fully reflects the balance of military activity by the two sides. Obviously, the small number of manoeuvres notified reflects the fact that it is confined only to the largest ones. We should like to see a more general practice of notifying manoeuvres even though a much smaller number of people was involved—for example, any involving more than 10,000 men. I hope that that issue may be discussed at Belgrade.
  The Helsinki Agreement also provided that notification of major military movements—in other words, other than those occurring during manoeuvres—was to be further considered by the participating States. It would obviously do much to promote a greater sense of security in Europe if all such movements were notified in advance, and I hope that one outcome of Belgrade will be further progress towards that.
  But a still more important objective in this part of the Act was the provision that the participating States might invite observers to attend military manoeuvres. That would surely do more than any notification to promote confidence on both sides. Western countries have issued such invitations, but, unfortunately, they have
  582
  not been accepted. No such invitations have so far been made to Western countries by the Soviet Union to send observers to Warsaw Pact manoeuvres. That is another matter that we hope to see discussed further at Belgrade.
  Similarly, the record in the field of Basket II, concerned with promoting economic, scientific and other exchanges, has been somewhat disappointing. At first sight, this is an area where one might hope for most, where there is the greatest degree of common interest. Whether or not the Final Act had been signed, both East and West would have wished to trade and co-operate with each other in economic and technical affairs, as Basket II provides.
  Economic co-operation has certainly expanded considerably since 1975, although it is not easy to say how much of the process has resulted directly from the Final Act. However, a part of what we hoped for in this respect has not been attained.
  We have attached great importance to the provision for improving facilities and contacts for business men and to greater availability of economic and commercial information. There has been some progress in relation to facilities and contacts—Eastern countries are now more aware of the legitimate needs of visiting and resident Western business men—but I am afraid that the position on economic and commercial information is still unsatisfactory. Little progress has been made there. That is another point that we shall wish to pursue at Belgrade.
  Mr. Amery: It is no business of mine to speak up for the Soviet Union, but truth is more important than anything else in our debates. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that we have twice been invited to send observers to Soviet manoeuvres and that on one occasion not we but, I think, the Turkish Army was invited to some manoeuvres in the Caucasus. Whether they did send observers, I do not know.
  Mr. Luard: I am relying on the advice that I have received. The right hon. Gentleman may be referring to a different invitation, but I am reporting what I have been told. Perhaps I could look at the matter and write to the right hon. Gentleman about it.

  583
  In relation to Basket III also, and perhaps especially there, there is a widespread sense in the West that not as much has been done as we had hoped and expected when the Final Act was signed. There are still divided families. We have notified a considerable number of such cases in which we hope that steps will be taken to enable people to leave their countries to join other members of their families elsewhere. In a few cases that has been allowed, but in many others it has not.
  Nor has the aim of securing a greater exchange of information been implemented in the way we had hoped. For example, the number of Western newspapers on free sale in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe remains deplorably low. I believe that today there are still only three British newspapers available for sale anywhere in the Soviet Union—The Times, the Financial Times and the Morning Star. Except for the last of these, which is a rather special case, only 200 or 300 of these papers are normally sold. I believe that the position is similar in the rest of Eastern Europe Since the Soviet leaders have called for ideological competition, they surely cannot fear that such newspapers can represent any threat to them, and it is difficult to understand why they cannot be made more accessible to their population.
  There are also difficulties in expanding opportunities for tourism, or for meetings among young people, and, indeed, human contacts of all kinds. Most of us hope that in all these areas we shall see much more substantial progress if the Final Act is to be implemented in the way that we assumed when it was first signed.
  Perhaps the issue raised most insistently in the debate has concerned the protection of human rights, above all in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries generally. Mention has been made of a considerable number of aspects of this question, such as the position of Jewish people in the Soviet Union, and of the so-called dissidents, writers and human rights workers. Mention has been made of Mr. Orlov and the human rights committee and of a number of other groups which find themselves in some difficulties in the Soviet Union. The Government fully share the concern which has been expressed about all these groups and all these matters.
  584
  I agree also with what the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said about the need to speak up clearly and boldly on this matter. It was also mentioned by my hon. Friends. I think, however, that the House will recognise that there is some difference here between the position of ordinary citizens and groups of citizens in this country and that of the Government. The fact that the Government do not speak out quite so loudly and clearly on matters of this kind does not necessarily mean that we have not just as strong feelings on the question as have hon. Members.
  We have to consider what is likely to be the most effective method of bringing about results in questions of this kind. I hope that hon. Members will therefore understand and forgive us if we do not always speak in quite such bold and heroic terms as other people do, I am glad to say. It does not mean that the Government are inactive or not concerned. We have to consider carefully what is the right way to proceed. We have taken up a number of cases of precisely this kind in confidential discussions, and it is our general judgment that this is more likely to be productive of results than making some of the more strident calls that are sometimes asked of us.
  It is sometimes suggested that the Helsinki Final Act has been concerned primarily with contact between East and West and with matters affecting relations between East and West in the military, cultural and political fields, rather than with the policies of individual signatory Governments in relation to their own populations. It is certainly true that the former questions have been particularly stressed in the Act, but in fact very clear undertakings concerning human rights are also made under the Agreement.
  In the Declaration of Principles which comes at the beginning of the Final Act, the signatory States undertook very specifically that they would
  "respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion".
  They also undertook that they would
  "promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free and full development".

  585
  To many, these undertakings in the field of human rights are at the very heart of the Agreement. It is clear, therefore, that when the implementation of the Act generally is considered at the Belgrade Conference, it will be open to all who take part to consider the implementation of these undertakings concerning human rights.
  Perhaps particularly significant was the undertaking made in the same set of principles that the signatories confirmed
  "the right of the individual to know and act upon his rights and duties in this field".
  One of the significant developments over the last year or two in Eastern Europe has been that the Helsinki Final Act and its undertakings have themselves become very well known to the populations of these countries, and have been quoted by those of them who have been calling for an extension of their rights in one field or another. This is a very important development. Those who take part in the Belgrade Conference will be hoping that they will be able to obtain further assurances that the rights which are so clearly laid down within the Act are made fully known to all those who are expected to enjoy them under the Act.
  May I put one final point about the conference and about the whole process of detente between East and West and the way it can best be promoted? As I have said, and as has been indicated in many speeches in the debate, East and West have somewhat different views of the Final Act. I think that that is the underlying cause of some of the difficulties we have had with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe over our view about the way it should be implemented. The Soviet and Eastern European Governments have tended to stress different aspects of the Final Act and to underplay those aspects, particularly Basket III, of greatest concern to most of us in the West.
  But I suggest one point at least on which it seems to me there could exist a common view concerning the whole process of detente, because it reflects a genuine common interest between East and West. Both sides, whatever else they hope for, want to see an increase in mutual understanding. The Communist
  586
  States want us to see, hear and know more about their views, ideas and feelings, just as we want them to know more about our views, ideas and feelings on all the many questions which arise between us. This is a task in which the Final Act can be of great assistance if we use it in the right way.
  I will mention, for example, a measure which I would have thought that both sides might strongly welcome to this end—that is, an exchange of television programmes comparable to the scheme by which Western European television channels exchange programmes. Such programmes should be not merely of the kind already mentioned in the debate—semi-comic programmes which do not go deeply into affairs which mainly concern us—but should include current affairs programmes which would genuinely contribute to a greater interchange of ideas about vital topics of the day between our countries. If peace in the world is to be more securely based than at present, and the dangers of war and hostile feelings between East and West are to be reduced, an increase in mutual knowledge and understanding of this kind can surely only be of the greatest possible benefit.
  That, at least, is the type of initiative, one of the possibilities, that should be considered and discussed at Belgrade. Delegates from this country and other Western countries will listen carefully there to the proposals put forward by our Eastern colleagues and consider them in a sympathetic and constructive spirit. These include, for example, Mr. Brezhnev's ideas for European conferences on various subjects, although we shall wish to examine carefully the question of the right forum where such topics should be discussed. In return, I hope that Eastern delegates will be willing to look at any ideas that we may put forward, including the sort of proposal I have just described, in a constructive and helpful spirit.
  We shall not approach the Belgrade Conference in any polemical frame of mind, nor with any idea of scoring points or winning propaganda victories. We believe this to be a serious conference, which should be approached in a serious spirit. We believe that our Soviet and Eastern European counterparts will approach it in the same way. We do not believe that either side should seek to

  587
  take advantage of the occasion to try to score points off each other.
  Let us hope that, on that basis, we can at the conference undertake an effective survey of what has been done so far to implement the Final Act. Let us hope, in addition, that we shall there be able to examine what more may now have to be done to promote further the high aims which all had in mind when the Final Act was first signed—that is, the aims of
  588-600
  stabilising the security of Europe; of promoting further co-operation in many areas, such as commerce, science and technology; above all, of ensuring a better quality of life, a fuller enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms, for all the people of our Continent, where-ever they may live.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION)
  10.0 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of EEC draft proposal R/540/76 on Health Protection Standards for Sulphur dioxide and suspended particulate matter in urban atmospheres and R/90/76 on the Sulphur Content of fuel oils, and the relevant Government explanatory memoranda dated 2nd April 1976 and 9th March 1976 respectively.
  These two Commission proposals arise from the first Environment Programme. Sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates—in simple English that means "smoke"—are included in the list of pollutants for priority action.
  A directive on the sulphur content of gas oils has already been agreed, and was implemented in this country last December by regulations under the Control of Pollution Act. The two proposals before the House are the next steps aimed at further reducing the emissions of these pollutants. The two documents contain a draft resolution and directive on health protection standards, R/540/76, and a directive on the sulphur content of fuel oils, R/90/76. Both proposals would require the United Kingdom to work to air quality standards for sulphur dioxide and smoke, standards which we would be required to achieve by specified dates in the mid-80s.
  Coal and oil both contain sulphur, and so produce sulphur dioxide when they are burnt. If they are burnt ineffciently, they also produce smoke. The House will remember that during the smogs of 1940 and 1950 many people died from the effects of these pollutants, which lower resistance to throat infections and to bronchitis. About 4,000 extra deaths were recorded in London during the Great Smog in December 1952. However, since the passing of the Clean Air Act 1956, which introduced smoke control, there has been considerable progress. Over 5,000 smoke control orders have been made, affecting some 7·5 million premises. Ground-level concentrations of both smoke and sulphur dioxide in urban areas have been radically reduced.
  602
  I am glad to say that the results can be seen. What a fine sight it is to look out across London now that we have controlled our smoke pollution. We have now cleaned up our buildings, and London produces one of the most pleasant aspects of any capital city in the world. We have led the world as a result of the smoke control activity which this House and local authorities have followed. What has happened in London has happened in many other cities, as I know from my own city of Birmingham and the success story of Sheffield. We should note that in passing, as we rarely discuss this aspect of environmental health matters. Smoke control has brought great physical and aesthetic benefits.
  There is no doubt that the worst of the problem is long gone. But there are many areas which can still benefit from smoke control. Nationally, local authorities have completed some 60 per cent. of their self-imposed targets, so in their view about another 4·5 million premises still need to be brought under control. There are a variety of approaches across the country and varying rates of progress. But there is no doubt that smoke control still has a valuable part to play. I shall enlarge on this later.
  The health protection standards resolution lays down criteria specifying the effects on people of these two pollutants, and selects long-term and short-term exposure levels which the Commission is suggesting should be the basis for Community action. This is the procedure laid down in the environment programme. The resolution does not itself carry any obligations. It simply provides an agreed basis for action when the time comes to formulate directives. The criteria are based on the best available scientific evidence. Here again we can take some satisfaction, because the evidence is largely based on British work. It has been collected by an expert group under the auspices of the World Health Organisation, and published in its report No. 506. It is probably the most complete evidence on medical effects available for any air pollutant.
  Discussions on the resolution have started in Brussels between officials, and we hope to reach agreement on it before long. Obviously, however, we shall pay

  603
  particular attention to any views expressed in the House this evening, and we shall be delighted to consider them in full.
  The health protection standard directive is based on the levels in the resolution. It requires member States to monitor for sulphur dioxide and smoke, and to take action to reduce pollution below the specified levels by 1982, with some exemptions allowed until 1987.
  This approach is acceptable in principle to the United Kingdom because it allows us to take whatever measures are appropriate in any particular area under our policy, which has the support of both sides of the House, of adopting the "best practicable means" to achieve our objectives. There are, of course, some points of detail which we shall seek to amend. In particular, we shall need carefully to consider the figures in the annexes.
  There are matters of principle which I must draw to the attention of the House. The use of air quality standards to be achieved by a stated time represents a new departure for us. But there are no legal penalties involved for individuals. It is left for us to determine how we would meet the required standard, and, provided that our negotiations at working level are fruitful, appropriate means of so doing are available to us in our existing legislation through the Clean Air Acts, the Control of Pollution Act, the Alkali Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act.
  We anticipate that in most areas smoke control would be the means of implementing the directive. Particularly in view of the present scarcity of resources, I think this would mean our giving priority to pushing forward with smoke control in areas which did not meet the standard. In a few areas—for example, London and Sheffield—where smoke control is complete but there might still be a sulphur dioxide problem, regulations under Section 76 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 could be made to limit the sulphur content of fuel oils.
  The proposed directive on the sulphur content of fuel oils is a rather different matter. It is brought under Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome, which deals with barriers to trade, rather than Article 235, which is the one normally used for environmental measures.
  604
  The directive would require member States to designate areas in which the pollution levels in the annex are exceeded to be termed "special protection zones". Oil-burning installations inside these zones would be required to use low-sulphur oil, although plants with tall stacks or using flue-gas scrubbing could be exempted. Domestic oil users would not be affected by this directive as they use other grades of oil and not fuel oils. We believe that it is unlikely that it will produce a significant improvement in air quality, and so the Government will oppose it.
  Also, large oil-burning installations, wherever sited, and groups of installations outside a zone but which contribute to pollution inside a zone would be required to monitor air pollution and to maintain a stock of low-sulphur fuel. When high levels of pollution have been recorded for 24 hours these installations would be required to switch to low-sulphur fuel until pollution levels fell.
  We are opposed to these provisions since they would contribute very little to reducing pollution but would impose considerable costs on industry. It is feared, for example, that the CEGB particularly would have to incur a heavy increase in its costs, which could only be passed on to the consumer. I think that that would be unacceptable to the House.
  The basic fault with the Commission's proposal for fuel oil is that it deals with one fuel, whether or not it is responsible for sulphur dioxide pollution in a particular area. Also, the directive will be superfluous in part if the health protection standards directive is accepted. This is the one that we propose to support. Once the air quality standards in that directive have been achieved, there probably would be no special protection zones. In any case, in areas where sulphur from fuel oil is a problem, action would be taken under the health protection standards directive. In our view this would be most appropriate and more relevant to the problem. Therefore, we propose to oppose this sulphur content of fuel oils directive in Brussels.
  I have some notes on the cost of these directives which I shall give later. I promised to be brief, and I hope that I have achieved brevity.
  I conclude by asking the House to support the Government's line that the

  605
  health protection standards resolution and directive are acceptable in principle subject to amendment in detail, and that the fuel oil directive should be opposed.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: Unhappily, we are familiar with the practice of reaching matters of this sort at a rather late hour and towards the end of the parliamentary day. The House will recognise the importance of these matters and is aware that we are in a period when the Secretary of State is the Chairman of the Council of Environmental Ministers.
  It is a matter of regret that we shall be half-way through the last month of the Secretary of State's term of office as Chairman before the meeting of the Council takes place. As recently as 9th May the Secretary of State admitted in a Written Answer that the precise date for the meeting was not yet fixed. All he could say about the agenda was that it would include those items left unsettled at the last Council meeting in December.
  We are concerned about the programme of action on the environment by the European Community. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State at Question Time today, replying to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), drawing attention to the valuable contribution our membership of the EEC is making towards the improvement of the quality of the environment. I hope that the Secretary of State will show more enthusiasm by convening more frequent meetings so that progress is more rapid.
  The right hon. Gentleman displays an alarming lack of interest in environmental improvement programmes in the United Kingdom. The fifth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, published in January 1976, made important recommendations on measures to control emissions into the atmosphere from industrial sources. On 9th May I was told that the Secretary of State was not yet able to report on the consideration of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. That scarcely seems to me to denote pressing attention being accorded to a subject which is of not inconsiderable importance.
  Against that background, I welcome this brief debate and the Minister's comments.
  606
  I also welcome his approval in principle to Document R/540/76, because this matter has been the subject of a great deal of scientific research. There has been some criticism of the detail of that research and even criticism of the list of sources given in the document. However, I wish to say how much we welcome the inclusion of an annex of documents, which should be more frequently seen in these environmental proposals from the Commission.
  These matters are of critical importance. Perhaps we do not appreciate how critical they are to the health of many people. I suspect that the Minister has read the evidence given by Professor P. J. Lawther from the St. Bartholomew's Hospital environmental hazard unit to Sub-Committee G of the European Communities Committee in another place. It is frightening to see evidence of how people—particularly those who suffer from lung damage; for example, pneumonia—can suffer from the effects of sulphur dioxide, or, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, smoke.
  In the light of evidence given to that Committee in another place by the Greater London Council scientific branch, it can be seen that the scene in London is not as lovely as the Minister appears to find it when he contemplates it from his seventeenth floor office.
  Mr. Denis Howell: It is on the fifteenth floor.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I thought the Minister had risen higher than that.
  Mr. Howell: I was on the eighteenth floor until the Transport Department took over and occupied the building. I have now moved down to the fifteenth floor.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I suppose the Minister can now see a little more of London from the fifteenth floor than he could from the eighteenth. I am sure that he can see a great deal more of London following the passing of the clean air legislation brought in by the late Sir Gerald Nabarro, to whom we should give a credit.
  Because we can see a little further, that should not be taken to imply that all is well with the situation. Implementation

  607
  of the EEC proposals—this was clear from evidence given by the GLC scientific branch—would reduce the annual sulphur dioxide emissions in the Greater London area from the figure of 212,000 tons to 182,500 tons with a 2 per cent. sulphur limit and 123,000 tons with a 1 per cent. sulphur limit.
  Before we take the view that everything is all right, we should bear in mind the fact that sulphur dioxide is a major pollutant. Most importantly, it pollutes people, animals and plants. It is also a matter of major concern because of its effects on our architectural heritage. Throughout Europe sulphur dioxide or sulphuric acid in mild solution have eroded the stonework of buildings and sculptures. This must have effects on the architectural and artistic heritage of Europe. Europe must try to act together in this matter. We should remember that progress made in the Community countries to reduce the amount of sulphur dioxide is progress made towards the longer retention of our architectural heritage.
  I welcome the Minister's approval in principle for the first of the two documents. I agree with his comments and his opposition to Document R/90/76, which is a somewhat defective document. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) will be able to explain the matter in more detail because he has been involved in discussions on this matter in the European Parliament.
  One point that I should like to put to the Minister is about the principle of "polluter pays". Does the Minister agree that it follows from that principle that absolute emission standards must be inappropriate. I do not see how one can argue both that the "polluter pays" principle should always apply and that one should have absolute emission standards. It is not absolute emission standards that worry people, that damage plants and harm buildings. It is the environmental quality that affects those things. Surely the Minister should argue with our European colleagues that environmental quality standards should be examined. That is relevant in determining whether pollution is damaging the environment.
  I have already referred to the report of the Select Committee in the Lords. It is an extremely valuable document. It draws attention to the doubtful value
  608
  of concentrating on oil fuel as a pollution source. Indeed, there is evidence from the Greater London Council's scientific branch that the assessment of the 1974 sulphur dioxide emission in Greater London demonstrated that fuel oil was responsible for 147,400 tons of pollution but that solid fuel was responsible for 49,500 tons. It does not make sense to concentrate solely on one source of pollution, particularly if by doing that one increases another source. We might end up much worse off.
  I also agree with the Minister that there seems to be doubtful value in trying to avoid high sulphur dioxide levels occurring on only one day a year. One could end up spending large sums of money in order to avoid a brief, high level of concentration that will, I understand, be extremely difficult to avoid in practice because such levels are almost entirely the result of a combination of meteorological circumstances that must produce adverse effects however low the emission standards may be.
  Perhaps most important of all, as the Minister said, there seems to be a profound lack of full economic assessment of the energy implications in Document R/90/76. I therefore support the Government's view that the document, in its present form, must be opposed in Brussels.
  More attention should be paid in both the European and the United Kingdom contexts to environmental improvement programmes, and I hope that there will be opportunities for the House to give attention to those matters. The European dimension is of great importance in these programmes, but it must allow, if it is to be meaningful, discretion to member States about the methods employed to achieve the agreed standards. A fragmented approach that is concerned with only one source of pollution cannot make sense. Attention must be paid to both the action and the research programmes, because one can conclude from these documents that there is not yet sufficient agreement about the best methods of research. I do not think that there is any agreement at all on any standards for assessing and monitoring environmental pollution. I hope that the Council of Environmental Ministers will be able to pay attention to this when the promised

  609
  meeting of the Council eventually takes place in mid-June.
  The more that one considers the environmental and economic implications of sulphurous emissions from coal-fired and oil-fired power stations, the more attractive nuclear power generation becomes as the means of bringing about environmental improvement. Many people are not as aware as they might be of some of the environmental attractions of the nuclear power programme—or of its safety attractions.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Some people would take a robust line on a draft directive on this subject from the Commission and say that the Commission should not meddle in matters that are essentially of domestic concern with the only implication for other member States being any barriers to trade. That is the ground on which the second directive—the first in time—is brought forward.
  Coming from an area of older industry where people's health has suffered for decades from the effects of industrial pollution, I welcome this external pressure group on the Government in environmental matters. Like the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), I detected just a note of complacency in what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said about air quality controls in this country.
  We have a proud record in regard to clean air Acts and so on, but much needs to be done. The external pressure group that was also involved in the debate on lead in petrol seems to have persuaded the Government to go a little further than they intended along the road that they were travelling, and this has had beneficial effects for this country. However, a balance must be struck in each case between the environmental advantage that will accrue from the adoption of any measures and the cost to our industry and its competitive basis that will result.
  I was also glad to see the Government's pragmatic decision to view the draft directives on their respective merits. They have, by and large, accepted one and rejected the other.
  The first draft directive on health protection standards is clearly useful and acceptable. It is flexible and will allow
  610
  member States to use appropriate means, according to the methods at their disposal, to meet the requirements and objectives. There is an element of choice. It should not be made consistent with the traditional British practice and approach of the best practicable means.
  The new statutory standards in the draft directives will provide a basis for guidelines and allow the continuation of existing policies. It is puzzling that there should be two directives. Why did the more general directive not supersede the earlier and particular directive relating to fuel oil?
  It is odd in principle that we are invited to take action on fuel oil when this might not, in particular cases, be the polluting element. Domestic smoke control may be a more effective means in some cases.
  The Central Electricity Generating Board is opposed to the fuel oil directive for several reasons, not least on the grounds of cost and effectiveness. The Board says that there is a vast amount of experimental evidence to show that power stations are negligible contributors to air pollution in urban areas and this conclusion is supported by the Warren Springs laboratory. The Board says that the power station contribution is least when urban air pollution levels are at their highest. By requiring control on power station emissions, the directive would not succeed in substantially reducing air pollution. As the hon. Member for Hove said, there may be times when pollution incidents are of relatively short duration. However, to meet such incidents substantial costs could be incurred by the oard, not only administrative costs but costs involved in stockpiles and machinery in preparing for what could be relatively short pollution incidents. It has estimated that acceptance of the fuel oil draft directive would involve it in costs in excess of £20 million. The fuel oil draft directive should be opposed on the ground that it is ineffective and costly with little or no environmental benefit. As my right hon. Friend has argued, it is largely superflous as the aims it sets out to achieve can be achieved by means of the adoption of the generalised first directive.
  Against that background we are forced to ask why we should single out fuel oil. The only plausible explanation that I have

  611
  heard is that a number of other member States want to burden our industry with the same costs as they have imposed upon themselves. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will say whether within the Commission plans are lurking to single out other elements. I am told that the CEGB is concerned about possible measures in respect of coal. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will deal with that issue when he replies.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I endorse the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury.) I thank the Minister of State for the advice he gave me when I was appointed rapporteur for the Energy and Research Committee of the European Parliament. This was my first experience as rapporteur. I assume that I was given the assignment because the parliamentary committee officers thought that the issue was non-controversial. I assured them at the time that they did not know what they were talking about, for in my view this was perhaps the most volatile issue that they could have given to a new member of the European Parliament.
  I am not certain whether this issue has gone through the European Parliament. I did my best to block it, but if one happens to have a minority view it is difficult to press that view, which a rapporteur is entitled to do, against a committee that includes Members from other nations with other interests and against other committees.
  I was making a report for the Energy and Research Committee. I found that when Members on my own side—that is, right of centre—put on an environmental hat they could not go with me. I entered the Chamber a little late in the Minister of State's introduction but I understand that this issue will soon be before the Council of Ministers. Is this not a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted? I was dealing with the matter about 18 months ago. Last June I managed to persuade the Chairman of the Assembly of the European Parliament, through Mr. Schwartz, acting for the rapporteur for the Environment Committee, Mr. Muller, that there should be a postponement. I suspect that this measure passed through the Assembly later without debate because I had already made my objections in the Assembly.
  612
  I support both Front Bench spokesmen in treating health and the amount of sulphur dioxide and suspended particulate matter as one issue and sulphur in fuel oil as another issue. As so often, the issue is two-fold. Obviously there are Members of all Parliaments in the European Economic Community who are aware of the need to provide energy and power for industry and heat for our homes. Equally, there are those who are conscious of sulphur dioxide and other particulate matter than can affect our atmosphere and our health—namely, Members concerned with the environment and public health. Therefore, I was faced with a problem when these issues came before the Assembly.
  There have been many conferences on pollution. Last June there was one in Oslo. There is no doubt that Members of Parliament from different countries had to have sympathy with clean air and the environment if they were to seek re-election in their own countries. Certainly elections were due in Germany at that time.
  The Parliament had produced two reports—the rapporteurs were Mr. Kater and Mr. Rosati—on the desulphuration of fuels and on the proximation of the laws of the member States relating to the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels. Those reports resulted in a sulphur and gas oils directive going before the Parliament. That seemed reasonable at the time.
  My view is that individual States are endeavouring to improve the atmosphere. Britain had the Clean Air Act 1956. The then hon. Member for Kidderminster, the late Sir Gerald Nabarro, and the then hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside, Mr. Winterbottom, had much to do with that. One of the essentials is to establish how much sulphur dioxide and particulate gives rise to and constitutes a health hazard, and under what conditions. Another is to establish uniform monitoring conditions throughout the Community. Britain has a wealth of experience based on work at Warren Springs and elsewhere. I am sure that other member States have similar experience.
  I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Coal in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Leicestershire has a relatively high sulphur content compared with

  613
  the lignite and brown coal of Germany, which is relatively sulphur-free. Therefore, if sulphur in gas oils and in liquid fuels is considered without looking at solid fuels, there is a danger of evading the issue.
  As I mentioned earlier, I had some difficulty because, although I belonged primarily to the Energy Committee, I found there were different views and contributions by different countries. I wanted to reject the proposal for sulphur in fuel oils outright. I had immense difficulty, as rapporteur, in expressing that as the view of the committee to which I belonged. But this is the result of the interchange between Members of Parliament of the Nine on different issues.
  The key conclusion in my report of 31st March 1976, as revised, was:
  "The introduction of a measure such as the present proposed Directive could have serious consequences for the equilibrium of the energy market. In certain areas fuel oil would be placed at a disadvantage in relation to solid fuels."
  In support of that I maintained that the directive did not refer to solid fuels:
  "In some cases these can contribute significantly to suspended particulate matter and sulphur dioxide pollution levels, and this should increase if there is an increase in the use of solid fuels."
  The fine performance in terms of clean air in the industrial and urban areas of Britain has been due to the lack of the use of solid fuels. Natural gas has certainly improved conditions—namely, clean air—in Sheffield for instance.
  "The proposal thus appears to be discriminatory since, if taken at its face value, pollution caused by the combustion of coal would have to be compensated by stricter pollution control measures on fuel oils. Although for large users of coal, particulate removal technology, though extremely costly, is available, it can be understood that until some commercially economic method of removing sulphur dioxide from coal combustion (for example, flue gas desulphurisation, gasification) is available, the inclusion of solid fuel in the proposal could have serious consequences for the use of such fuel."
  It is important to point out that the British Central Electricity Generating Board has estimated that a future directive similar to the present proposal by the Commission, but aimed at solid fuels, in which emissions from high stacks were not exempted, would imply capital expenditure of well over £1·500 million—at 1976 prices—for the CEGB plants likely
  614
  to be affected, which, together with substantial running costs, could increase the price of electricity from coal by between 15 per cent. and 30 per cent. Since then there has been an important programme, and even a directive from the Commission, to assist those who generate electricity to move from oil to solid fuel. However, the point at issue is the removal of sulphur from the atmosphere. There is more sulphur in solid fuels than in liquid fuels. To pass a directive for liquid fuels without concentrating on a measurement of standards puts the cart before the horse rather than the horse before the cart.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Does my hon. Friend agree that Commission Document R/75/77 which we debated yesterday was intended to encourage Commission countries to use coal generation for electricity and that that is nonsense unless it also provides for low sulphur emission from the use of coal when looked at in conjunction with these documents?
  Mr. Osborn: I could not agree more. The Minister must be careful about this because already his Ministerial colleagues appear to be representing their country as one which is out of step with other European Community countries on too many issues.
  The Minister knows my views from records of the committee and the Assembly, which put forward those of the Economic and Social Committee, which is basically the third parliament. It has different views from those expressed by politicians, where motives are more inclined to preserve the environment.
  There is a problem facing the House. It is right to pursue standards, to determine the criteria about dangerous levels of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere, but the draft directive relating to sulphur must imply that the Commission has got it wrong. I hope that it is possible to persuade the Ministers to look at the real issues, and accept that the Commission is leading them down the wrong road in this respect.
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I express my appreciation to the House and hon. Members who have spoken for their support of the Government's line, which I announced earlier. I appreciate it because

  615
  it will be helpful if when we meet I can say that I have the whole House with me when accepting one directive and opposing the other.
  That brings me to a question asked by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). We believe that there is not much point in holding meetings of the Council of Ministers unless there is something effective to discuss. Work has been going on since December on certain issues on which we could not reach agreement then, and on others that are being brought forward. I am glad to say that we have fixed the date for the next meeting of the Council of Environmental Ministers under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It will be held on 14th June.
  I think that this will be the first time in the history of the EEC that there has been a meeting of this Council in the first half of the year. If their chairmanship has fallen in the first six months of the year, most countries which have had the chairmanship of the Council have not convened a meeting. Therefore, rather than expressing apprehension about this matter, the hon. Member for Hove might congratulate us on having broken new ground in this respect.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I have no hesitation in congratulating the Secretary of State on breaking what appears to have been a rather bad run of performances by the chairmen of this Council. However, I hope that the Minister of State's other remarks do not indicate that he or his right hon. Friend feel that there is nothing that needs doing, that no action programme is required and that no direction on priorities requires to be coming forth from the Council. I hope that the Minister agrees that there is plenty for the Council to do and that he blames previous chairmen for not calling meetings more frequently.
  Mr. Howell: I have been attending the Council over the last three years and I have found European Ministers most agreeable to deal with. I think that I can claim that most of them are now personal friends of mine. Whatever happens in other parts of the EEC, I am glad to say that on environmental matters there is a very happy and constructive approach.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) rightly drew our attention to
  616
  the fact that he was dealing with these matters 18 months ago and was seeking to oppose, very properly, that proposal which the Government now intend to oppose. I deal with that point immediately. The situation is that these questions do not come before Ministers until they are brought before them by the Commission. The Commission takes advice. No doubt it gets conflicting advice from different countries, which have their national interest with which to concern themselves. When these matters gets on our agenda, we deal with them. We are still dealing with the first environment programme, as the hon. Gentleman will know. Therefore, it is not a question of fixing a programme or determining priorities for the next environment programme.
  We have had one or two troublesome matters. On the last occasion on which we met, just before Christmas, I found myself in isolation from my eight colleagues, as the House will remember, on one matter concerning discharges, on which I felt it right, on behalf of British industry, to claim that we could reach the same standards in our industry as they were attempting. I could not accept that additional expenditure should be loaded on to British industry when that was unnecessary.
  It is interesting that the second of the directives that we are now discussing does not emanate from the article dealing with environmental matters but, as I explained in my opening remarks, from the article dealing with competition in trade. This is a very important point, and I am glad of the opportunity to comment on it. The fact of the matter—and this is why I have paid attention, though not in a complacent way, to what we have achieved in clearing up pollution in this country—is that we are way ahead generally of almost every other country, whether it be in discharges to the atmosphere or to rivers and waterways, in our pollution legislation.
  I think that our legislation on the control of pollution, for example, is in advance of anything that I have heard of in any other country. In many ways we are ahead of other countries. British industry on the whole has already accepted the costs of clearing of pollution, and this is an important factor in my thinking and the Government's thinking

  617
  We should not impose further costs on industry following a specific line of development on the ground that production might be distorted if we did not do so.
  That argument has often been put to me in Brussels. My answer has been that we have already accepted these costs and that we are already ahead of our European partners. I am glad that our partners are now tackling their problems with new vigour, but that in itself is not sufficient reason to impose additional costs on British industry. This is an important principle for the House to bear in mind when we deal with such pieces of EEC legislation.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I hope that at the meeting of Environmental Ministers there will also be Ministers concerned with industry and competition policy. I have outlined to the Minister the following problem. An hon. Member who is concerned with the energy industry, as I am in this case, and who tries to ensure that we produce energy economically and keep down the cost to the housewife is in conflict with hon. Members who are concerned with cleaning up the air for all our citizens. I hope that the meeting will not be attended only by Environment Ministers.
  Secondly, one of my difficulties was in convincing my European parliamentary colleagues that Britain, after the 1956 Act and the experience we have had over 21 years is ahead of the rest. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find the same difficulties when the Ministers meet in Brussels next month.
  Mr. Howell: I have never suffered from any difficulty in proving that we are ahead of our colleagues in this matter. I had a piece of good fortune once when I was seeking to prove that we were ahead in cleaning up our rivers. I delivered an eloquent dissertation on what we had done with the River Thames, and on the same day a salmon was caught in the river for the first time, which was clear evidence of the results of our activities in clearing up pollution.
  Mr. F. A. Burden:Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that it was a salmon? Some years ago it was reported that a salmon had been caught in the
  618
  Medway, but the photograph showed that it was a dirty old pike.
  Mr. Howell: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the species to which I referred was a salmon, not a pike.
  I come now to some of the other points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Hove asked me about sulphur dioxide in London. I entirely agree with him that this is a problem, particularly in London, but tackling sulphur dioxide on its own is not the first matter with which we should deal. In most cases smoke is still the problem that should be tackled first. However, we should bear in mind that we have nearly halved the concentration of sulphur dioxide in the air in London in the past 10 years, which further strengthens my argument.
  I turn now to the fifth report of the Royal Commission. The Government attach great importance to this report. We are having the fullest possible consultations about it. Hon. Members can be sure that we are giving every consideration to it, and we shall give our view on it as soon as we can.
  I confirm that the principle that "the polluter pays" is still Government policy. But if the hon. Member for Hove means a uniform emission standard, irrespective of the varying environmental circumstances, some factories will be bearing unnecessary costs. I am sure that he would not wish that. I agree that this is not strictly in accordance with the "polluter pays" principle, which we accept, or with our principle of applying the "best practicable means" approach.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I was arguing that it followed from the "polluter pays" principle, with which I think both sides of the House agree, that absolute emission standards must be wrong. The damage is not done to man, beast, the environment or architectural heritage other than by the environmental quality, and therefore it is environmental quality that we must look at if we accept that the polluter pays, because the polluter should pay for the environmental quality which results from what he does.
  Mr. Howell: I think that that is absolutely right, and it is our approach. It is the environmental quality standards to which we must hold and to which we attach a great deal of importance.

  619
  I accept the approach of the hon. Member for Hallam and appreciate his support, particularly as he is the rapporteur of his group. Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) raised important questions about the effect of possible subsequent developments of these policies on the CEGB. I think that the hon. Gentleman spoke of a £1,500 million capital programme if coal were singled out as the next substance to have a treatment by directive, and he suggested that the cost to the consumer of electricity would be between 15 per cent. and 30 per cent. I can confirm that we are well aware of the situation and that we understand the CEGB's concern. This is an additional reason why we should oppose the second directive, because it is wrong in principle and would lead us into wrong practices, with unfortunate financial results.
  It is the total quantity of pollution that must be dealt with, the total standards of emissions into the environment. The cause of the unsatisfactory rise in emissions needs to be analysed to find the source whether coal or oil, from which the sulphur dioxide is emanating. That is our approach. Therefore, it would be wrong in principle to accept what would be major financial impositions upon the electrical industry.
  I do not think that I shall have an Energy or Industry Minister with me when I go to the Environmental Council, but the hon. Gentleman need not worry on that account, as they are never far from my elbow—or, more accurately, they are never far from the telephone, which is always at my elbow when I attend these Environmental Council meetings. We are naturally in frequent communication.
  The hon. Member for Hove and my hon. Friend referred to Sir Gerald Nabarro's part in the passing of the Clean Air Acts. I am delighted that hon. Members have recalled his name in connection with that legislation, as well as the name of Mr. Dick Winterbottom. I would wish to be associated with what they said. I was very much involved, because I was chairman of the committee of the Birmingham City Council that passed the first smokeless zone control order. When I came here in 1955, the
  620
  first major Committee on which I served was that considering the Clean Air Bill. I therefore know how much we owe to Sir Gerald and to Dick Winterbottom and others. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) also served on the Committee, I believe.
  That was a happy instance of cooperation on major and, in those days, pioneering environmental legislation. Twenty years on, I am glad that the House is still co-operating on this important area. Some of our detractors think that we look for arguments in this place, but our co-operation in this respect has achieved lasting benefits for the British people. It is in that spirit that we shall go back to Brussels and face these directives.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of EEC draft proposal R/540/76 on Health Proection Standards for Sulphur dioxide and suspended particulate matter in urban atmospheres and R/9/76 on the Sulphur Content of fuel oils, and the relevant Government explanatory memoranda dated 2nd April 1976 and 9th March 1976 respectively.

  POST OFFICE BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Post Office Bill now standing committed to a Committee of the whole House be committed to a Standing Committee.—[Mr. Coleman.]

  HOSPITAL SERVICES (MEDWAY TOWNS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Bean: In the Strategic Plan for the South-East, issued in 1971, the Medway towns were designated an immediate growth area. Because the area has first-class railway services to London and relatively cheap housing, many young families have moved there. Over 30 per cent. of the population is under the age of 15. The Medway Health District has the highest birth rate in the country—4,336 births last year. No other health district in the South-East exceeded 3,000 births.

  621
  Future trends are even more alarming. It is forecast that by 1981 the number of children under the age of 4 will decline throughout the South-East, with the sole exception of the Kent area. It is expected that the increase in Kent will be 23,000 and that 45 per cent. of them will be in the Medway Health District.
  The hospitals in the Medway area cannot cope with that increasing pressure, and, despite promises, little appears to be happening. The district has a total of 1,027 hospital beds, but that figure is 9,000 short of the last DHSS recommendations. The district has many major deficiencies in the maternity, acute surgery, geriatric and psychiatric services.
  I have mentioned the increasing pressure on maternity services, but the immediate problem is the special care baby unit at All Saints Hospital, Chatham. Although the district's requirement in the unit is a provision of 32 cots, the unit is allowed to hold only 16 because of the risk of infection.
  The unit is housed in an old building and, because of its style of construction—it has exposed steel beams, with old-fashioned radiators and pipes—it is impossible to keep it clean. There is no artificial ventilation, and, as a result, dirt and pollution come in through the open windows. There are no changing facilities. The 28 staff regularly have to change from their outside clothing in the sterile area of the ward itself. There are no isolation or resuscitation units.
  Last year 34 babies had to be taken to other hospitals in the South-East and 19 of them could have been cared for at All Saints if the facilities had been available. They were transferred to hospitals in the London area, at least 30 miles away. I have been told by the staff of All Saints Hospital that two babies lost their lives last year because no London hospital could be found to take them and All Saints did not have the facilities to deal with the crisis.
  One doctor told me that he had to hand-resuscitate a baby for six hours while his colleagues were frantically telephoning London hospitals to find accommodation for the child. I am pleased to say that, despite all these difficulties, thanks to the diligence and devotion
  622
  of the staff of All Saints, Medway has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the region.
  Another area of concern is acute surgery. Medway Hospital, at Gillingham, is the accident centre for the district, serving a population of some 330,000. The hospital, however, has only 50 surgical beds. Because of the pressure on these beds, patients have to be moved to other hospitals for convalescence, perhaps before it is medically prudent. Last year the length of stay by the average patient at Medway Hospital was just over six days compared with the regional average of over nine days.
  I think that the most surprising statistic that I have found in investigating this matter is the length of time a bed is unoccupied. In the South-East Region the average time between a patient leaving and another coming into a bed is about 2·7 days, but in the Medway area it is one-tenth of a day. Perhaps one can claim that this is a saving of cost because beds never get cold!
  This movement of patients is a matter of some controversy locally. One prominent surgeon has said that patients are at risk as a consequence of moving between hospitals. Medway Hospital is the former Chatham Naval Hospital. It was modernised in the 1960s, although only 213 beds were provided. Administrative facilities and other services were built to cater for a hospital of nearly 800 beds. At present only two operating theatres are in operation, and emergency cases have to wait up to six or seven hours before receiving treatment.
  Medway's geriatric problem is no greater than those elsewhere in the region, but we have problems, because in the Medway area we have a large percentage of houses built 60 or more years ago. These older houses have little or no heating in their bedrooms and often have outside sanitation. As a consequence, general practitioners tend to send older patients to hospital whereas normally they would be dealt with in the comfort of their own homes. When I last made inquiries into the subject of psycho-geriatric cases, I found that there were some 15 urgently waiting to be admitted to hospital, and many of these patients were a danger not only to themselves but to the relatives trying to care for them.

  623
  The problems of Medway Health District are exacerbated by being in the comparatively rich South-East Thames Region. The lion's share of the resources are given to the three teaching hospitals and the other prestige hospitals in the London area. This is to the detriment of Kent in general and Medway in particular. I have pressed the Minister many times on this subject, and last year, my right hon.. Friend the then Minister of State, now the Foreign Secretary, assured me:
  "The Regional Health Authority are fully aware of the problems facing localities such as Kent, and are taking steps to start correcting the imbalance which has been allowed to build up in the past."
  That promise has not been kept. This year Medway's capital allocation has been slashed by the region. It has been reduced so that it is only 66 per cent. of the previous year's total, and a mere £50,000 has been granted when it is estimated that Medway needs £1½ million to make up its deficiencies. The Medway district has some £66,000 to spend on small works. If the district were allowed to forgo this sum and roll over the money into future years, this would be one way of accumulating capital, but under the present rules of the Department that is not allowed.
  Although I am only a layman in medical affairs, I am convinced that a crisis situation exists in the Medway hospitals and that emergency action must be taken to remedy the neglect of the past. One solution that has been suggested is that at the Medway Hospital itself, where we have a great deal of space, the ward accommodation should be increased by the erection of industrialised buildings. These might not be up to the Department's standards, but they would save a great deal of time in construction. I should like the Minister's observations on that suggestion.
  But the real problem in the Medway area is the sheer shortage of money. The region is aware of the situation, but is dogged by the continuing problem of having to serve the ever-increasing designated area of the South London teaching hospitals and the prestige hospitals, particularly in Greenwich. What is needed is not just a mere statement of policy by the Secretary of State but a determination on his part to see
  624
  that his policies are carried through. I would also welcome an assurance that in the future years policies will be observed and that a monitoring system will be set up to see that areas such as Medway do not lose out.
  I notice that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is present. If he would like to come in at this juncture, I am willing to give way.
  11.11 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bean) for allowing me time to speak, because this is a matter going far beyond party politics. We have argued for our constituencies, both of which are affected, on the broad basis that we want to get something done.
  The Minister knows from his files that for at least three years I have been pressing for urgency in this case. Indeed, he is also no doubt aware that I sent the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), then Secretary of State, a series of extremely good articles, well researched and factual, produced by one of the local newspapers after I had formed a small committee, including consultants, doctors and others interested in operating and in the National Health Service generally. They all expressed the utmost anxiety about the situation that was developing.
  This was followed by representations to the present Foreign Secretary, then the Minister of State responsible. He was good enough to say that he agreed that the situation in Medway was extremely critical and that he recognised the point that the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham has made.
  One of the most important features of this whole situation was the growth in population and the additional strains that imposed on the Health Service. The then Minister of State said that he hoped that this would be taken into consideration in dealing with the problem. He also insisted—and this was the crux of the matter—that the shortage of money was such that it was extremely difficult, indeed, probably impossible, to go as far as he would like.
  I also took the matter up with the chairman of the South-East Region, Mr. Donne. I felt that was necessary since he had the duty of dispensing the moneys

  625
  made available by the Government to the particular areas that he represents—Kent and, I presume, part of South-East London. It was a very wide area. He has a very difficult task, but I felt it was absolutely essential to point out the problems that existed and that would grow in intensity and become even more critical.
  He accepted that view of the situation. Although he implied that the services were inadequate, he said they were only kept at the standard they were at because of the dedication and hard work of the nurses and others involved. Unfortunately, since then there has been a deterioration, not least because of the growth in population, to which the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham had referred and for which there has been no compensating improvement.
  Indeed, a very eminent consultant wrote a letter to Her Majesty drawing attention to the problem in the town. He is a surgeon who is operating in the wards that carry out the whole of the emergency operations and he said that his ward was frequently more like a casualty-clearing station on a battle field than a hospital ward in a civilised country. Those are very strong words for a consultant. It is almost unprecedented for a surgeon to speak in that way. He also made those observations to the Press. Another surgeon in a hospital in the Rochester and Chatham constituency made similar observations.
  We are in a position in which these factors cannot be disregarded. I am sure that the Minister will not wish to disregard them. I know that he will say that the finances available make it difficult to provide for any improvement. If a certain sum of money is available for the whole area, I believe, as I told the chairman for the area in 1975, that Medway must be treated as a special case.
  The money that goes to areas that do not experience the population growth found in Medway must be siphoned off from those areas and put into Medway. In no other part of the area have there been such complaints as have been made in Medway. That part is unique for the expressions of anxiety and dissatisfaction made about it.
  The consultant told me that last Saturday there was only one qualified nurse for
  626
  the ward that has to deal with all the emergency operations and that has 50 beds. She was the ward sister. On Sunday the only qualified nurse was a staff nurse.
  I know the Minister fairly well and I know that he will not attempt to gloss over this problem. I know that he will realise that something has to be done, and I hope that tonight he will tell us just what will be done.
  11.19 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I feel sure that the people of Medway will appreciate the continuing efforts of their Members including my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bean) and the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), in drawing attention to the state of hospital services in their district, the latest being my hon. Friend's admirable presentation this evening. In fact, those efforts have continued for several years, as the hon. Member for Gillingham said, and involved approaches at local and regional as well as national levels.
  I can well understand the serious concern which has been expressed but I know that the relevant health authorities neither deny nor disregard these very real problems. In present circumstances, however, when we must for the next year or two move slowly and deliberately towards a fairer distribution of resources, even long-standing inequalities may take some time to be righted. But the fact that fewer immediate improvements are evident than one would like to see certainly does not mean that the authorities are not already taking the first difficult steps essential for a fairer future.
  As hon. Members will well know, my right hon. Friend has reiterated the commitment of this Government to a fairer distribution of the financial resources of the National Health Service in relation to health care needs. He has also stressed that redistributing resources to help deprived neighbourhoods in better provided regions is just as important as helping equally deprived parts of less well-off regions. But the pace at which redistribution should go—whether between or within regions—is constrained by such practical considerations as the historic pattern of hospitals and other capital stock which could not be fundamentaly changed without a

  627
  programme of investment greater than we are likely to be able to afford in the foreseeable future.
  There has, I suspect, been some misunderstanding over the nature of the equalisation "targets" calculated on formulae proposed by the Resource Allocation Working Party, which was set up in May 1975. I should therefore make clear that the task of that working party was—namely, to recommend the criteria on which long-term allocations of money should be based, not the speed at which inequalities emerging from application of these criteria should be corrected. This is a matter for political decision, just as the practical problems of redeploying resources within a region or an area are for local consideration and decision.
  In its first interim report the working party interpreted the underlying objective of its terms of reference as being to stress that there should eventually be equal access to health care for people at equal risk. I stress that this was to be the eventual result. In its full report last September the point was expanded. It said in paragraph 1.5:
  "Resources allocation is concerned with the distribution of financial resources which are used for the provision of real resources. In this sense it is concerned with the means rather than the end. We have not regarded our remit as being concerned with how the resources are deployed. This must be a matter for the administering authorities and is essentially part of their policy-making, planning and decision-making functions in response to central guidelines on national policies and priorities. Resource allocation will clearly have an important influence on the discharge of those functions and be the most critical guideline within which they have to be discharged."
  In pursuit of these objectives, the resource allocations made to the regional health authorities in 1976–77 and 1977–78 have been related to equalisation "targets" broadly based on the RAWP formulae and have taken a modest step towards those targets. My right hon. Friend has on more than one occasion commented on problems faced by the relatively richer regions, including those based on London, which have, for example, particular problems in meeting the needs of an ageing population. We are beginning to get to grips with a major redeployment of hospital resources including the closure of small hospitals that are no longer viable, and, above all, we need some room to
  628
  manoeuvre to permit redeployment of services to meet the hitherto neglected priorities identified in the consultative document. With these problems in mind, marginal additions in real terms were made to the allocations to the Thames regions so that none should find its resources at an absolute standstill. We have freely acknowledged that keeping within the cash limits set would still not be easy, but this is an essential discipline.
  The letters informing regional authorities of their cash allocations for the current year also advised them of the criteria each would be expected to observe in the complex task of breaking down the total figure between their constituent areas. The provisional assessment of resource targets was recommended, at least for areas, but preferably for districts as well, to provide some measure of relative need. Generally, a limited movement towards the "targets" should be possible. Exceptionally, this might be delayed to enable other areas to rationalise services and thus have funds in order to enable more rapid progress to be made elsewhere in future years. A wide range of factors would have to be taken into consideration—including, of course, those which have been instanced at Medway and are already well known to the South-East Thames Regional Health Authority. The Department will monitor closely the national level of progress in implementing RAWP principles and RHAs will be informng us of their intra-regional allocations and the basis on which they were decided.
  The South-East Thames Regional Health Authority had already been giving a great deal of thought to this question and had set up an internal resource allocation working party. Broadly speaking, it had accepted the necessity for redeploying resources from the London end of the region to the periphery, particularly to Kent, and had indeed taken a modest step in that direction in 1976–77. However, it felt that in 1977–78 a breathing space was needed to deal with various special commitments, including the expenses of running new facilities resulting from capital expenditure previously agreed and in particular overspending by areas which had not had time to take essential measures of rationalisation. Inner city areas, for example, may appear to have an excess of acute hospital beds, but it is not possible to

  629
  switch such resources immediately to remedy the gaps in, say, primary care. I accept that my Department has a clear monitoring rôle here. I hope that this will reassure my hon. Friend. To exercise this rôle we shall require proper reports from the authorities. These must, however, await the outcome of further discussions between the RHA and its AHAs on what is now proposed.
  Although the very existence of the targets proposed by RAWP marks a significant advance, such targets for use both by the Department and by health authorities are admittedly subject to further refinement. For example, the need for health care is affected by social factors that are the province of other programmes—housing, for example, employment, environmental health, even transport. The NHS cannot remedy deprivation in these fields, but it has to respond to the effect on health services to which such deprivation may give rise.
  Mr. Burden:The point that I wanted to put was simply that we have been struggling for two years with the South-East Thames authority and others. The best monitoring that the Minister could do would be to come to the Medway towns himself. I understand that the hon. Gentleman will possibly do that and I hope that he will now give a categorical assurance that he will come and monitor the position himself.
  Mr. Deakins: I shall come to that point in a moment.
  Again, the pace of change in the future will be influenced not only by the national availability of resources but by the capacity of health authorities to plan ahead for rationalisation and improvements of services. With all this in mind my right hon. Friend has indicated that authorities should plan their redistribution with the influence of the growth rate on the time scale very much in mind and take account of those factors that cannot be quantified—just as he has done nationally. Thus, while one must expect that inequalities between areas in the South-East Thames authorities and even between districts in the Kent area will persist for some time, those inequalities might not be so marked in reality as might appear from a straightforward comparison of resident populations
  630
  because of the need to take account of a variety of modifying factors. The RAWP report itself comments on a number of these and I shall not elaborate them here. To take one example, London weighting and the extra cost of medical education are other factors that must be taken into account.
  However, I can well imagine that the comparisons that the average patient makes are only indirectly concerned with allocations. He is interested in what facilities are available to him, whether, for example, he has to wait longer than similar patients elsewhere. Here the real problem is in ensuring that like is being compared with like. Different hospitals treat different mixes of conditions, for example. There is no absolute yardstick by which the adequacy or otherwise of a particular level of service can be judged. However, I am not aware that patients in the Medway district, wait longer for treatment than patients in other districts in Kent, although comparison is difficult.
  However I agree that the details of acute in-patient services at Medway Hospital on the face of it demonstrate that the hospital is using its facilities to the best advantage. Bed occupancy is high and the turnover interval low. Incidentally the turnover interval for general surgery is in fact 0·9 days. I am certainly not seeking to pretend that services are not under pressure in Medway, but one interpretation of the facts is that at least they are being operated most efficiently and I pay tribute to the staff.
  If the Medway Hospital can apparently make such intensive use of its facilities, there must surely be room for improvement in other hospitals. It was this kind of improvement, after all, that the Department was hoping for when it recommended in last year's consultative document on priorities that in future there should be a switch of emphasis from the acute to the geriatric, psychiatric and community services. A recent letter from the district management team shows that it feels bound to attach greater priority to schemes for providing additional geriatric and psychiatric accommodation than for the improvement of baby care and surgical facilities. Also, the last year's report from the community health Council shows a properly wide-ranging concern with all aspects of primary and secondary care.

  631
  My hon. Friend has also mentioned capital funding. In due course we shall also be discussing with the South-East Thames Authority its capital cash limit for 1977–8 and assumptions for the two following years. The Department had to calculate these figures in a very complicated manner which owed much to the level of ongoing commitments—such as building schemes in progress—in different parts of the country and relatively little so far to RAWP principles. The RHA has publicly protested about its low level of capital funding compared with others and this has attracted local Press headlines throughout the region.
  It must be noted, however, that even if its figure of £12 million capital had been set at, say £15 million—which is about the national average—it would still pale into insignificance beside the region's revenue allocation of £352 million. In fact, it is within the authority's discretion, if desired, to bring about that kind of improvement itself by transferring up to
  632
  1 per cent. from revenue to capital purposes.
  The requirement to make better use of resources is one of the cardinal features of the new planning system that is just getting under way. It might help if I dropped a line about this to the hon. Member for Gillingham and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham. I have been invited to examine the Medway situation for myself and I shall be glad to take up this invitation when the opportunity arises.
  In the meantime, I accept that in future years additional resources available must increasingly be directed towards remedying deficiencies in health services in such districts. We shall be carefully monitoring this process year by year and discussing with the authorities the appropriate rate of change.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.

  Second Reading Committee

  Wednesday 18th May 1977

  The Committee consisted of the following Members: Sir Stephen McAdden(in the Chair)

  Berry, Mr. Anthony (Southgate)

  Parry, Mr. Robert (Liverpool, Scotland Exchange)

  Brotherton, Mr. Michael (Louth)

  Davis, Mr. Clinton (Under-Secretary of State for Trade)

  Prescott, Mr. John (Kingston upon Hull, East)

  Dodsworth, Mr. Geoffrey (Hertfordshire, South-West)

  Ridsdale, Mr. Julian (Harwich)

  Steen, Mr. Anthony (Liverpool, Wavertree)

  Johnson, Mr. James (Kingston upon Hull, West)

  Viggers, Mr. Peter (Gosport)

  Lloyd, Mr. Ian (Havant and Waterloo)

  White, Mr. Frank R. (Bury and Radcliffe)

  McMillan, Mr. Tom (Glasgow, Central)

  McNamara, Mr. Kevin (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

  Wigley, Mr. Dafydd (Caernarvon)

  Woodall, Mr. Alec (Hemsworth)

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY CONVENTION) BILL [Lords]

  10.30 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee rcommend that the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  The Bill was introduced in another place on 8th March and received its Third Reading there on 28th April. It has now come before this House for consideration, and I trust that we shall give it as smooth a passage it as received in another place.
  The purpose of the Bill is to permit the United Kingdom to ratify the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. The convention is the fifth in a line of conventions on safety of life at sea—often known as SOLAS Conventions for short. Indeed, they go back to 1914, when the first convention was adopted under the shadow of the disaster of the "Titanic" two years previously. Unhappily, that came to noth
  634
  ing, due to the outbreak of the First World War. There were a series of subsequent conventions leading up to the 1974 convention.
  The existing SOLAS Convention was drawn up in 1960. We gave effect to it by the Merchant Shipping Act 1964, and the convention came into force a year later. It is adhered to by more than 80 countries, including all the world's leading maritime nations, and is the principal international instrument governing marine safety.
  Nevertheless, the 1960 convention, however excellent, cannot stand for all time. Our unflagging resolve is to learn from experience, constantly to improve standards of safety on ships and to equip ourselves with the right machinery to be able to adapt quickly to and, indeed, to anticipate the demands of the new and constantly unfolding technology. The members of IMCO—the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation—which is the United Nations

  635
  specialised agency concerned with maritime affairs and is responsible for SOLAS Conventions, recognised that the 1960 convention stood in need of improvement. Accordingly, an IMCO conference was held in London in 1974, largely at the initiative of the United Kingdom, the purpose of which was to draw up a new convention.
  That conference had two main objectives. The first was to incorporate into a new convention all the amendments to the 1960 convention which had yet to come into force. Some of these amendments were up to eight years old and were designed to fill the gaps which had emerged since the convention had been originally framed. The amendments were clearly needed to improve safety, yet under the terms of the convention they could not come into effect until there had been a large number of positive acceptances by individual Governments.
  This led to the second objective of the conference. Apart from the need to implement past amendments, it was plain that action was needed to quicken the pace at which future amendments would come into force. The conference therefore agreed to adopt a so-called "simple SOLAS" method of amendment whereby the updating of the convention could be accelerated.
  Having laid out the background to the convention, I turn now to the Bill which implements its provisions for this country. The IMCO text of the convention was laid before Parliament last April in what was unquestionably and unavoidably a long and complex technical document. In comparison, the Bill appears to be short and simple. The reason is that existing statutory powers are adequate to implement the vast majority of the requirements imposed by the convention. As I have already said, the existing 1960 convention was implemented by means of the Merchant Shipping Act 1964. The convention before that, of 1948, had been put into effect by the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act 1949. These two Acts, the 1949 and 1964 Acts, provide powers broad enough to carry out most of the requirements of the 1974 convention. All that is needed is to translate the existing references to the 1960 convention in the two Acts into references to the 1974 convention. Clause 1 of the
  636
  Bill makes the provision by having these two Acts apply to the 1974 convention. However, there are a number of comparatively minor provisions in the 1974 convention where existing powers are inadequate and, accordingly, the Bill has to make provision for them.
  The convention lays down, for the first time, rules on the oil fuel used in machinery on board ship by prohibiting fuel which is liable to ignite at low temperatures. We are not empowered at present to make the regulations needed to meet the terms of the convention in this respect. Subsection (4) of Clause 1 therefore makes minor amendments to the 1949 and 1964 Acts to enable the necessary rules to be made.
  Secondly, in that part of the convention dealing with the carriage of grain, which has been substantially revised, there have been two extensions of coverage. On the one hand, processed grain, which can be as hazardous a cargo as natural grain in that it is equally liable to shift and disturb the ship's stability, is made subject to the grain regulations which currently apply only to natural forms. On the other hand, the regulations will bite on all ships carrying grain, regardless of the volume of the cargo in relation to the size of ships, replacing the present position under which only ships whose cargo of grain exceeds one-third of their tonnage are affected. Subsection (5) of Clause 1 provides the powers to make rules in respect of those two developments in the grain regulations.
  The third and final area where further powers are needed to implement the convention relates to nuclear ships. Nuclear ships axe not a new matter for SOLAS Conventions. The 1960 convention dealt with that subject. However, at that time the building of nuclear ships was still under debate. The United Kingdom reserved its position on nuclear ships by indicating in its instrument of accession that, while we agreed with the requirements on nuclear ships, we should implement them only as soon as it became necessary to do so. In our view, that time has now come with the construction of a small number of ships meeting the convention's definition of a ship provided with a nuclear power plant. Though there are still very few such ships, and none on the United Kingdom register, there is, because of the special safety

  637
  hazards that they pose, a need for effective regulation. The convention lays down the terms which this regulation should take, and Clause 2 allows us to make rules in accordance with them.
  I shall next deal with the question of future amendments to the convention, which is covered in Clause 3. I have already stressed that the conference which framed the convention was concerned to accelerate the pace at which amendments came into force. The procedure which was eventually adopted is contained in Article VIII of the convention. I shall not go into the complexities of the new amendment procedure, but the aim is clear—to accelerate the introduction of amendments needed to maintain up-to-date safety standards consistent with the fullest possible consultation between contracting Governments. No Government would be bound to accept or implement any amendment to which it objected, so there is no question of a loss of national sovereignty. Furthermore, under Clause 3 we should implement amendments by means of Orders in Council subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Parliament, therefore, will have a proper opportunity to scrutinise future amendments.
  Finally, I underline the urgency with which the Government view this measure. Naturally, we are anxious that all those who go to sea should be protected by the highest possible safety standards. On that score alone, we should now wish to ratify the convention. However, beyond the needs of the moment are longer-term considerations.
  The large number of tanker accidents off the United States coast which have occurred recently has precipitated a call in the United States for immediate unilateral action to control all ships trading with that country. Pressure for unilateral action is particularly strong in the Senate and is backed up by a powerful environmental lobby. I well understand the call for higher safety and pollution standards. Indeed, not only I but everybody in the Committee and the House would share this aim. However, to achieve that aim, we believe strongly that the best method is to get uniform standards accepted through international IMCO regulations and not by unco-ordinated action by individual States. While the adoption of unilateral measures may have some short-term
  638
  attractions, they would rapidly have the effect of undermining the framework of international regulations built up over many years.
  We therefore place the utmost importance on ensuring that the urge for higher safety and pollution standards in the United States and elsewhere is channelled through established international machinery. It is most encouraging that President Carter indicated in a recent statement that he wanted to see international agreement reached on improving safety and pollution prevention. It is therefore important that the international route can be shown to be effective.
  Already IMCO is beginning to face up to the challenge. Its programme of work over the next 12 months has been stepped up with the aim of holding a special conference next February on tanker safety and pollution, which will enable full consideration to be given to recent United States proposals. This country, as one of the leading members of IMCO, will be playing its full part in these events.
  Along with developing new standards, IMCO is applying itself to enforcing those conventions which are already in force, as well as working to bring into force all outstanding conventions. It is important that the United Kingdom can be seen to be in the van in ratifying the latest convention.
  First, we hope shortly to seek powers which will enable us to ratify the 1973 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Second, we need to ratify the 1974 SOLAS Convention with the powers this Bill would give us. In order to come into force, SOLAS 1974 needs to be ratified by at least 25 States, whose combined merchant fleets amount to at least 50 per cent. of the world's gross tonnage. The convention takes effect 12 months after the necessary number of ratifications has been received. To date, six countries have ratified and IMCO is urging member Governments to ratify so that a target date for coming into effect by July 1979 can be met.
  Our ratification will not in itself bring the convention into effect. I want to make that clear. This will happen only 12 months after at least 25 States with a combined tonnage representing at least 50 per cent. of the world's gross tonnage have ratified the convention. However, because of the size of our merchant fleet

  639
  —currently third in the world—it is bound to have a powerful effect on other countries to try to meet the target which has been set. I hope that this will be the result of our action in this regard.
  I think it would be wrong to allow this opportunity to pass without referring to further legislative proposals which we intend to put to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. I have in mind a far longer Merchant Shipping Bill, which will cover such matters as discipline on board ship, safety standards, pilotage, limitation of liability to seafarers and to passengers. The Bill is in the course of preparation and is a candidate—I hopefully say a strong candidate—for inclusion in next Session's legislative programme. Suffice it to say that, while I should have liked to proceed with a Bill of this character this Session, the disciplinary provisions are much more complex than those concerning the ratification of the convention.
  Moreover, parts of the Bill will not be ready until the summer, and I do not think that it would have been susceptible to Second Reading Committee procedure in any event. In these circumstances, it was not considered appropriate to advance the introduction of the Bill into the present Session. When the time comes, I am sure that it will be seen that that was the right decision.
  The Bill that we are now considering is supported by our ship owners and seafarers here in the United Kingdom. I submit that it is an extremely important step in the international context. I trust, therefore, that we shall give it full support.
  10.46 a.m.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: Perhaps I should begin by declaring what is essentially, in the context of this Bill, an academic interest, in that it is well known that I have connections with the shipping industry. But as I am told, and no doubt the Committee is aware, the shipping industry wholly supports the convention and the Bill, that interest is purely academic.
  Next, I declare my support for the Bill as presented, and I thank the Minister for his studiously objective and interesting discussion of its purpose and content. I wish, however, to make a
  640
  few comments on the procedure involved today and on the contents of the convention, because it seems to me that although what we are doing is, perhaps, unavoidable—one might think of another way to do it—Parliament is being asked to ratify what one might describe as a package deal by international conference.
  The Safety of Life at Sea Convention is a substantial document. I have the volume with me. While most of it is not in any sense politically controversial, it contains a number of interesting and important regulations which I should have thought it would be constructive for us to comment on occasionally, if only because such comment could be fed back to future discussions of possible amendments to the convention. Such comment could be made available to our delegations who, apparently, have the sole right, in practice, to modify and change the convention.
  I want to look at the convention itself, particularly at the parts which, as the Minister himself said, are new and affect new spheres of shipping. I start with Chapter VII Class 2, dealing with gases. Regulations are put forward to deal with
  "Gases: compressed, liquefied or dissolvd under pressure".
  What interested me about this was the requirement in Regulation 3 that the packing of dangerous goods shall be
  "capable of withstanding the ordinary risks of handling and carriage by sea".
  What disturbed me here was the implication of the term "ordinary risk". It was this which led me to delve more deeply into the convention. As I saw it, in this context the phrase "ordinary risk", if ever taken before a court or an international court, would be subject to interpretation as broad as it is long. One group of scientists, one group of mariners, one group of shipping companies, one country or another, could have different concepts and standards of the term "ordinary risk".
  Therefore the definition here—
  "capable of withstanding the ordinary risks"
  seems to me hardly worth putting into the language chosen. Who is to judge what is an ordinary risk? Who is to define what is an ordinary risk? Who is to draw the boundary—this is perhaps the most important matter of all—between an ordinary risk and an extraordinary risk?

  641
  In this context, the Committee may be interested to hear that at the moment the Burmah Oil Company is building, at the General Dynamic Shipyard in the United States, two vessels—there are two on the stocks but there will be more—of the size of the Queen Elizabeth, each of which will carry five 800-ton tanks each of which will be filled with several thousand tons of liquid natural gas.
  The risk at sea represented by a ship of that kind is, to my mind, at least equal to that of a minor nuclear explosion, because the amount of energy contained in five tanks of that size in a vessel nearly 1,000 feet long is enormous, and the risk of a collision at sea with such a ship, particularly in narrow coastal waters, is of almost indefinable magnitude. I use that phrase advisedly because the last experience we had of a major disaster with liquid natural gas was, I believe, in Cleveland, Ohio, when a train carrying probably one-fiftieth or one-hundreth of the natural gas that is likely to be carried in one of these ships blew up. On that occasion about 330 lives were lost. So this is a new area of risk of gigantic proportions which is barely touched on in the convention. I should like to have seen in the Convention a much more serious attempt to get to grips with precisely the character, size and dimension of the risk involved with such ships.
  We are told further that the
  "Cylinders…shall be adequately constructed, tested, maintained and correctly filled."
  Here again, who is to define "adequately"? What does the word mean? What is "correctly filled" in this context? Is there a precise technical definition of either of those phrases? The Convention gives no indication that there is any technical parameter. In the event of, say, a major claim against the operator of such a ship who rested his defence of safety on the fact that his cylinders or receptacles were "adequately constructed" and "correctly filled", it would be up to him to produce his own criteria of adequacy and correctness. As I interpret the convention and the way it is applied, no one would seriously challenge that. There are similar phrases throughout the Convention, not merely in this area, and I find that disturbing.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I concede that the hon. Gentleman is more familiar than I am with these technical matters, but it occurs to me that a court, in construing what is negligence—as courts are constantly required to do—must depend upon precedental experience and its own construction of what is careless or not. So I wonder whether these matters to which the hon. Gentleman quite rightly refers are susceptible to closer definition. Can he indicate whether, in his view, that is possible? Does not the convention have to be drawn in this way, subject of course, to the anomalies that could arise and to which he has referred?
  Mr. Lloyd: There is, I believe, no fundamental disagreement between us on this. The contrast that I was about to draw was with those parts of the convention where there is, perhaps for some good and understandable reason, a very precise defintion of the safety parameter. I give as an example Regulation 18, on page 43 of the Annex to the Convention, where the diameter of the bilge main is defined by a very precise mathematical formula.
  Perhaps that precise defintion is something on which it was easy to get international agreement. It could be that the definition of the correct form of construction and insulation of the liquid natural gas tank was something for which international agreement would be very difficult. That would be justification for vagueness on the one hand and precision on the other.
  This vagueness and lack of precision goes right through the convention. I shall give some other examples, which I have found a little disturbing and which I think it worth putting on record. But, before doing so, I turn to the next area, Attachment 3, in Chapter VIII dealing with nuclear ships, in which there is similar vagueness of language. Recommendation 2(b) states:
  "The reactor installation should be designed to prevent an uncontrolled chain reaction…".
  One knows that no one in his right mind anywhere in the world would build a reactor which in any sense whatever would incur the risk of an uncontrolled chain reaction. No group of engineers setting out to build such a reactor would be

  643
  allowed to get very far. That seemed to me, therefore, to be redundant language.
  Next, on the question of radiation limits, the convention gives us very little idea; it simply states that the radiation limits shall be acceptable. In naval vessels, we have experience of a large number of marine reactors. We know what radiation limits have been accepted in nuclear submarines. We know what radiation limits have been accepted in the "Otho Hahn" and in the "John F. Kennedy". There are about 300 nuclear naval vessels afloat now, but only three or four merchant nuclear ships. But, surely, out of this vast experience of nuclear reactors in naval vessels some idea could have been given of an acceptable level of radiation so that the convention would not merely have to say that acceptable radiation limits will be agreed. Once again, there is a problem of precision versus non-precision.
  Let us turn now to the more conventional areas of the convention. In Regulation 32(c)(i) the provision of fire hydrants is dealt with. These shall be provided
  "to the satisfaction of the Administration".
  That is all. But about 30 administrations are involved, and each could have a different degree of satisfaction with the provision of fire hydrants.
  The same criterion of the satisfaction of the administration is applied to the provision of portable fire extinguishers in Regulation 32(e).
  Regulation 21 on page 84 deals with
  "the number and disposition of the means of escape".
  Here again, the Convention speaks of such numbers as the administration may deem sufficient, and the 30 or more administrations could deem satisfactory entirely different systems.
  If the variation is to be so great, if national discretion is to be so wide, and if all we are putting down here is a counsel of perfection in some form, why should we bother to do it at all? An international convention has far more bite and effectiveness when, as it does in the case of the formula for the diameter of a bilge main, it defines very precisely a limit, a minimum or a maximum. After all the discussion and controversy has taken place, the international convention should give one something to go on,
  644
  telling one precisely what has been said and done and what standard has been set.
  Over and over again, one reads that the administration may pemit relaxations. On the design of watertight doors—a fundamental safety requirement at sea—we are told only that this must be
  "to the satisfaction of the Administraton".
  Each of the 30 different administrations could have a different idea of the right design of a watertight door.
  The more I looked into the convention, the happier I was that I had not been involved at a much earlier stage, because I felt that I should have been a robust critic of some of the things which were said and done. I do not in any sense criticise the objective. Safety of life at sea is an internationally agreed objective among all nations and parties. But one sometimes wonders how effective the methods chosen to achieve that objective are, and whether this enormously costly process of international convention is worth while merely to achieve—to use a contradiction in terms—precise vagueness. That is all that some of these regulations provide.
  I come now to another point which is worth discussing at this stage. What is the effect of a convention of this kind on maritime operating costs? No one knows. I imagine that the participants at the conference will have had an idea that if they upgraded a particular requirement, if they increased, shall we say, the number of fire extinguishers per deck or per passage, that would give rise to a precisely definable cost. But the overall cost of upgrading maritime safety in relation to the costs of operating all types of ships throughout the world is something upon which no one has endeavoured to put any sort of figure. I refer to it simply because it is another example of a phenomenon that I believe to be of increasing importance and significance in the twentieth century, that is, inflation by legislation.
  There is an imposed increase, agreed by international convention, of real costs of an almost indeterminate amount. That is something to which Parliament should pay more attention, as we carry the overall responsibility for the nation meeting the bill through increased costs of shipping and carriage by sea.
  There are two imponderables here. On the one hand, there is the degree of

  645
  acceptable risk—an attempt to quantify the risk to life in money terms, which is always disagreeable and very difficult to do. On the other hand, there is an almost unquantifiable and indefinable increase in real costs that cannot just be swept under the carpet and ignored.
  I make one final point about the convention, after which, having made one further qualification, I shall sit down. I was surprised to see in Regulation 16 the requirement for rigid liferafts. I read that with great attention because it is a subject in which I have taken a special interest. I was astonished to read that, among the regulations for rigid liferafts for all forms of merchant ship, one vital requirement is not specified. No liferaft is likely to be effective in Northern waters unless it has a double bottom. That is well known and well understood. It is not specified in Regulation 16. It may be specified in the national regulations for British liferafts. I believe that it applies to merchant ships, if not to smaller craft.
  I was astonished, however, to see that the requirement was not accepted internationally. Clearly, a liferaft launched in Northern waters that does not have a double bottom will not preserve the lives of its occupants. I feel that the least I can do is to draw attention to what I believe is an obvious deficiency in the new convention which, in general rightly, we are seeking to ratify.
  Finally, I feel that I should be failing in my duty if I did not draw the Minister's attention to an article which was published in New Scientist on 12th May of this year on the problem of safety and prevention of hazards. That, of course, is what the Committee is debating. One of the authors of the article is the professor of safety and hygiene at Aston University. It deals with the problem of safety in a general sense and does not concentrate specifically on maritime safety.
  The article considers the philosophical analysis of safety, and whether the concept of acceptability of risk is one on which we should continue to base all forms of safety legislation. I believe the analysis to be of the greatest importance and it deserves the attention of all those concerned with safety. Indeed, I am bound to bring the matter before the Committee, because Professors Atherley and McGinty state:
  646
  "Neither Labour nor Conservative Governments have any declared overall policy to guide decisions on risks taken by their Departments or agencies."
  That is a serious criticism. It may not be wholly sustained, but it is made of both Governments. I think that the analysis and the philosophy which the authors set out in a serious and carefully considered article deserve the closest attention of our representatives at future conferences on the safety of life at sea.
  11.5 a.m.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I wish to make a few random points following the Minister's workmanlike introduction of the Bill. Apparently 67 countries signed the convention but so far only six have ratified it. I note that in the House of Lords debate it was said that at that time only four had ratified. May I ask the Minister why, after two and a half years, so few countries have ratified the convention, and what estimate can he make of the progress in ratification?
  I am particularly concerned to note that, of the four countries mentioned in the House of Lords, none is a member of the European Community. I think that we are entitled to ask our colleagues in the Community whether they are with us on this international matter. After all, if the European Economic Community is to be a meaningful body, it should be meaningful on precisely this kind of subject and, in my view, there ought to be European guidelines which should be accepted by all members of the Community. I suggest that we are entitled to ask the Minister the extent to which we may expect our European colleagues to ratify the convention by the target date.
  Secondly, following the observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd), I was impressed by his detailed knowledge of the regulations, which I certainly cannot hope to emulate, but I note that in the debate in the other place the noble Lord Lord Oram, in introducing the Bill, said that there was a risk that if nations were not fast enough to ratify the convention there would be unilateral imposition of regulations. He referred to the fact that the United States was contemplating, and even bringing in, its own regulations to govern safety at sea.

  647
  Is the Minister satisfied that SOLAS 1974 is sufficiently tight and meaningful in its application to prevent the development of unilateral regulations? Is the Minister satisfied, for instance, following the important comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo, that the regulation of nuclear power sources in the 1974 convention is sufficiently tight for it to be accepted as the appropriate international type of regulation to govern all nuclear ships? Or does he feel, particularly following my hon. Friend's comments, that the convention is not tightly enough drawn and that nations will unilaterally impose their own regulations? We need to know that, because if there is the chance of unilateral regulations developing perhaps the 1974 convention is not sufficiently tight and we should be pressing for tighter regulations now.
  Thirdly, can we be sure that British rules are reasonably in step with those of the competition—the competition being shippers of other countries? Can we be sure that the British regulations are sufficiently framed to take account of regulations imposed by other nations? I am fully aware that we must be extremely careful about compromising between the requirements of perfection and the commercial realities. It is not appropriate or sensible for Britain to stick its head in the sand—if that is an appropriate expression to use on shipping matters—and to impose its own regulations which result in the British merchant fleet being the best equipped and safest fleet to serve in if we then price ourselves completely out of the market.
  I can give an example of that. In the case of North Sea supply vessels—the case was put to me by a business connection—the Department of Trade laid down requirements for a number of matters which it said would be imposed upon vessels operating in the North Sea. The Department of Trade regulations were so tight that the fleet of vessels built as a result was priced out of the market.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: With great respect, either the hon. Gentleman is being selective in examining the information provided for him, or he has not properly studied the matter. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a disparity
  648
  between the earning powers of some of our competitors' crews compared with those of our own? They are earning far more. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, if he were to examine the situation for himself, he would find that the overwhelming number of crews feel that there is urgent need for a tightening of standards? Furthermore, is he not aware that these are not regulations but merely recommendations?
  Mr. Viggers: I am sorry that the Minister has taken that line. I certainly was not seeking to criticise or attack; I was merely asking questions. I was asking the Minister whether he was satisfied that the regulations imposed by Government Departments were reasonably in line with those of our competitors. Clearly we should be in the lead in safety and other matters, but it must follow that if we go too far into the lead, to such an extent that we price ourselves out of the international market, we shall be defeating our own purpose.
  Mr. John Prescott: What is the company?
  Mr. Viggers: I shall be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman afterwards. I do not think it appropriate to raise the matter here. I assure the Committee that in one case of which I have knowledge the regulations imposed were so tight that the company in question was priced out of the market. Is the Minister reasonably satisfied that we are not doing that in most cases?
  I am not seeking to criticise the convention, which appears to be admirable. Too often the British are reticent and gloomy. We have little cause to be. Anyone who travels abroad gets a better perspective of these matters. I have just returned from the United States. Britain is the insurance centre of the world. It is one of the centres of shipping and banking. It is the medical and educational centre for the Middle East, and a cultural centre for North America. It is right that we should ratify this convention—
  The Chairman: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows he is going outside the strict rules of order. He is making a speech that will, I am sure, be appreciated, but it is outside the rules of order.
  Mr. Viggers: The last thing I was about to say was that it is entirely right

  649
  that we should encourage the British shipping industry to stay in the lead in this sphere and that the Committee should give the Bill a following wind.
  11.12 a.m.
  Mr. John Prescott: I wish first to state not an academic interest but a positive interest in representing seafarers as a member of the National Union of Seamen.
  Safety at sea is a matter of great concern to us, and I put on record our appreciation of the work that the Minister has done on it. He has brought before the House a number of pieces of legislation which have considerably improved safety for seamen and fishermen. This morning he has informed us that he intends to bring forward another piece of legislation, which is keenly awaited by the industry, and we are pleased to hear him confirm it. We wish him well in bringing forward that legislation for us to discuss in the House. That is a considerable advance which we very much welcome.
  We welcome the Bill now before us. It is, as was pointed out by the Opposition, a non-contentious Bill in the industry. We all welcome advances in safety. It is also an advance in extending international standards. But one or two hon. Members have pointed out that there is some concern about how much advance can be made internationally in safety matters. Clearly there are a number of pressures working on what would be considered the most acceptable safety standards, and that does not necessarily mean the best safety standards to be imposed. There are a number of conditions internationally which lead to one having to find standards which are not satisfactory, in the main, to traditional maritime countries and are standards that could well be improved upon. But the aim has always been to achieve international agreement on certain minimum standards. Within that concept there have been a number of difficulties with which the House has had to contend.
  The SOLAS conventions have been with us for many years. We have witnessed many incidents. The Committee will recall that there have been incidents in the English Channel where, at one stage, there appeared to be tanker after tanker, ship after ship, colliding in the
  650
  Channel causing tremendous hazards and pollution and, more important, causing the death of many seamen.
  I am glad to say that the position has considerably improved, largely due to the initiatives taken by Governments of both parties—I make no party point here—in getting together with our European neighbours and attempting to enforce a standard in the Channel to prevent deaths of seafarers and to prevent pollution, both of which have caused considerable concern.
  Our action was almost unilateral, if one can talk in the European unilateral sense. We did not seek, because of the time factor, to achieve a result or solution by the mechanism of international conventions. Time is the problem and that, I believe, is one of the problems we face with all conventions.
  All the examples of conventions so far seem to show a considerable lapse of time between signing and coming into force largely because of the conditions laid down in the conventions for a minimum number of nations ratifying or for minimum tonnage represented. If I recall correctly, the Minister spoke of 50 per cent. of world tonnage and 25 nations. If my memory serves me aright, I believe that is an even stiffer requirement than we have had on conventions before. I do not believe that we have taken it so high, although from the nodding heads I see in the Committee I may be wrong. However, it is still a very firm requirement which does lead to delay.
  I wish now to give an example of what can occur, and I ask the Minister to confirm whether this is a possibility. The countries that have constantly hung back in ratifying are the flags of convenience countries, about which I have spoken a great deal in the House. I do not intend to embark on the subject again today. It is a matter of historical fact that Liberia, for example, has always hung back from signing such ratifications. As Liberia has 25 per cent. of world tonnage, it can have a substantial effect on whether the convention is ratified and how long it will be before ratification takes place and the obligations are implemented.
  Which are the six countries which have so far ratified the convention? I understand that that is two more than were

  651
  reported to the House of Lords. What is the Minister's estimate of the possibility of considerable delay being forced on the convention by some of the major maritime countries, particularly the non-traditional maritime countries such as the flags of convenience countries, not ratifying and so delaying the implementation of the convention?
  The Bill is in many ways an enabling Bill. I do not wish to make any points about grain cargoes or nuclear ships. The latter appear to be well on the way, and I only hope that we do not lose ships as we appear to lose uranium ore, as we have seen in the last couple of months, with people not declaring where they have gone. Nevertheless, nuclear ships will bring us increasing concern, as tankers did, and I have no doubt that our administration and technology will enable us to deal with those problems, difficult though they are. I am pleased, therefore, that we are taking one step towards bringing in the necessary controls and regulations on the development of nuclear vessels.
  I turn now to the improvement of procedures by which we implement any decisions that are necessary to observe the sovereignty of the House in determining legislation for our own vessels, and to make the procedures much easier so that the House, by Order in Council, can deal with these matters without having to encounter the problem of the legislative time needed to get complicated Bills before the House.
  The piece of legislation which the Minister hopes to bring in next Session is clearly one that may well reflect some of the obligations brought about by the convention, and I wish to ask him one or two questions on that matter.
  It is clear from Clause 3 that the Bill enables the Minister to take action to comply with his obligations under the convention. Presumably the Minister is required to enter—I am sure that he is—into consultation with all the parties concerned on the sort of measures he hopes to bring in by this procedure.
  Will the Minister give some indication of the areas in which he and his Department are working arising directly out of the obligations under the 1974 SOLAS Convention? In the Bill there is no
  652
  indication of the safety matters which the Minister thinks arise from these obligations. I shall now refer to one such area where the Minister is concerned with drafting orders or new legislation and with which the SOLAS Convention was concerned.
  We are involved in changing the convention to protect the safety of people at sea because we found the old convention inadequate. It was inadequate for one powerful reason, that the standards tended to reflect minimum obligations in international safety legislation, and events since then have clearly shown the convention to be lacking in this important respect.
  The 1974 convention makes clear that it is concerned essentially and fundamentally with the safety of life at sea. Indeed, that is the very purpose of the convention. But it still represents an attitude much like that of the insurance companies, to which reference has been made. I shall not embark upon a discussion on the rôle of insurance companies, except to say that their attitude was somehow to impose minimum standards for insurance purposes. Those standards related to the strength of the hull of the vessel. In other words, if the equipment and the hull were correct, the vessel should be safe. But the purpose of legislation was to prevent those old vessels from plying the seas and creating a great risk of accident and danger to life.
  Since then, many new ships with good equipment, having all the A1 classifications of the insurance companies, have been lost—they collided or sank—with considerable loss of life and pollution problems. We wondered why that had happened. All the inquiries that were made—some countries did not have them—clearly indicated that the standard of competence of the people on board the vessels was nowhere near as good as the equipment itself. It was farcical to have a vessel which complied with the most modern standards and a crew who completely misunderstood how to run the vessel and could not even keep the equipment up to the necessary safety standard that is embodied in the convention requirements.
  The kernel of the argument, therefore, which is embodied in our Merchant

  653
  Shipping Acts—I have been trying to enforce manning and competence standards—lies in the requirement that each signatory to the convention should ensure that the obligations and standards are observed within its own waters and port areas.
  The concept of the port State is very much involved in the Convention idea. Our obligations, therefore, were to see that those standards were observed, and every shipowner and country had an obligation under the convention to see that that was done.
  Unfortunately, no one defined the obligation in relation to manning. There were some arguments about certification standards, but these varied from country to country. In Liberia, legislation said that there should be these standards, but the great problem there was that there was no one to enforce them, because most of the ships registered in Liberia never went there; they merely plied the seas without any traditional systems of inspection that would enforce those standards.
  Perhaps that problem arose even for British vessels, even with our standards of safety—there are arguments for and against them, but I shall not deploy them now, although I have done so before—because under our present legislation many vessels have minimum standards. I give the example of the owner of the vessel "Festivity", who said that if we force certain standards upon him he will have to go abroad. There were no standards for his ship. One man had been at sea for four weeks, another for six weeks, and no one had any certificates of competence on what was in fact a new ship because it was below the tonnage requirements of our legislation for minimum standards. That was deplorable.
  Yet our Merchant Shipping Acts make clear—the same point is made in the SOLAS Convention—that
  "It is an offence to send or attempt to send a British ship to sea in such an unseaworthy state that the life of any person is likely to be endangered."
  But no one ever defined the minimum standards.
  I want the Minister to state the Department's thinking in these matters. If the obligation is to improve standards of safety and prevent loss of life at sea—which is what concerns us now—can the
  654
  Minister tell us what action the Department is taking to bring in Orders in Council, or new legislation to observe the obligations under the SOLAS Convention? Can he also tell us the Department's views on standards of competence on ships, manning, seamen's hours of work and so on, all of which affect the ability of men and their competence in handling ships in ever more crowded seaways? How will he seek to enforce the standards that he hopes will be adopted with the introduction of the Convention when approximately 15 per cent. of seafarers in this country work outside the federal agreements?
  Standards, in the main, are imposed by the shipping industry itself through the federation system, but there are wayward ship owners, as we know, who are prepared to ignore standards which are agreed upon by the ship owners as a body but which are not necessarily enforced by legislation. Will the Minister tell us how he proposes to deal with the large sector of shipping which escapes under the tonnage definition? What happens about ships below 1,600 tons, and all the seamen who ply in them? What happens about the many ships around our coasts at the moment which are ignoring even the minimum standards? Can the Minister give us examples of what is being done in such cases?
  The European Community aspect of this matter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). Can the Minister say how far matters have advanced with our partners in respect of obtaining common enforcement of standards, using the port State concept, to see that ship owners who are exploiting the situation do not continue to do so and are forced to face certain standards in the port States? If the port State is to be the controlling unit, does the Minister envisage that our inspectors will enforce these standards, as they have a right to do under the SOLAS Convention, on ships not flying our flag?
  I want to put on record, as the issue was raised, that in respect of North Sea operations I should prefer to have heard the name of the company about which the hon. Member for Gosport was talking, to have it put on public record so that the issue was made clear. I know of many companies operating in the North

  655
  Sea which try to avoid any standard and get out of flying the British flag to avoid taxation and the disadvantages of belonging to a country that seeks to enforce the minimum standards. The death and accident rate among North Sea mariners is among the highest in the country.
  The Minister is being pressed heavily to enforce standards. Naturally, there are ship owners who will say publicly that, if the Government attempt to force standards on British ships of the size of their vessels—I think again of the "Festivity"—they will leave the flag. I say that such owners should not be allowed to leave the flag and carry on their trade at the risk of accidents to seafarers at sea. That is against the essence of the convention. A good deal of that sort of thing is going on in the North Sea, and the only people tackling the problem are the unions, which are the only bodies the owners recognise.
  What we are asking the Minister to do—to his credit, he has been striving to do it since taking office—is to improve the safety standards of ships. I am sure that this morning's work constitutes a contribution towards helping an industry willing to improve safety standards, and I know that the Minister wants to see that the minimum safety standards are maintained both for and by seafarers in what is clearly a dangerous occupation.
  11.29 a.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: I endorse what has been said by my hon. Friends in supporting the terms of the Bill, and I shall refer to two matters which I believe to be relevant in this context.
  I was interested in the Minister's observation about trying to maintain international amity, the object being that everyone should be in step in making progress towards satisfactory safety conventions. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) remarked that nations may be in step but the result is not yet satisfactory and more progress needs to be made.
  President Carter, in his message to the Senate on 17th March, made clear that he was not at all satisfied with the present situation, and he intended to take immediate action. He referred to the fact that there had been 15 incidents over the previous 15 weeks, the last of which,
  656
  on 27th March, involved the loss of 12 lives. I suggest that that underlines that these happenings are taking place regularly, yet the issue does not seem to surface in the public mind as a problem that requires urgent and speedy attention.
  President Carter appears to have grasped that nettle. He said that, in view of the recent series of incidents and the risks attached to the job, urgent steps had to be taken. He decided to take immediate action, and I draw this to the attention of the Minister. The President said:
  "Starting immediately, the Coast Guard will board and examine each foreign flag tanker calling at American ports at least once a year and more often if necessary. This examination will insure that the ship meets all safety and environmental protection regulations. Those ships which fail to do so may be denied access to US ports or, in some cases, denied the right to leave until the deficiencies have been corrected."
  That action cannot be described as unilateral in any reprehensible sense. The leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world is saying "Action has to be taken now", and he is setting out a programme for that purpose.
  I believe that the Bill represents progress and will lead to the sort of advance we all wish for. But I have to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that we are at present achieving the rate of progress which the situation demands. On 17th March Jimmy Carter made plain that he did not think that international progress was being made at the right rate. He also listed a number of other matters to which he wished to draw attention and upon which action would be taken. He changed the deadweight tonnage classification of ships, which would have certain consequences in the regulations on, for example, segregated ballast tanks and inert gas systems.
  I am not competent to go into a technical exposé of the whole subject, but it seems to me that progress in this matter would be of great benefit to the British shipbuilding industry. Here is an activity in the interests of safety which is of interntional benefit and which could bring to British shipyards work which they are well designed and equipped to carry out. We should examine this opportunity very carefully, because we could at one and the same time make progress on safety and in our

  657
  internal interests on an international basis.
  Clause 2 of the Bill refers to the rules covering ships with nuclear power plants, and I wish to ask the Minister a question about this. There was a brief reference in the debate in the other place to the question of ships carrying nuclear waste. I should like to be quite clear in what circumstances regulations will be issued in connection with this traffic in the future, and whether there is any implication in the Bill which would assist the Minister in those circumstances. Over the coming years, it is likely that we shall see developments in this trade and activity. The routes travelled, the type of containers used, and the recovery opportunities in the event of explosion or sinking will become very serious matters. The consequences of pollution at sea could be enormous.
  Having drawn the Minister's attention to those two matters, I conclude by congratulating him on the introduction of the Bill, wishing it God-speed and wishing him well for its progress. We look forward to seeing a further legislative programme which will make a positive and constructive contribution in this field.
  11.34 a.m.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: This has been a wide-ranging, interesting and constructive debate, and for that I am grateful to members of the Committee who have engaged in it. Many of the points that have been made are worthy of further consideration, and I undertake that they will receive it. I am grateful for the reception which the Committee has given to the Bill, and I shall do my best to answer the specific points that have been raised.
  The hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd), whose constituency in its erstwhile condition I once fought without any great success—happily, as it turned out—raised in his opening argument the question of precision of terms used in international conventions. It is well that he did so since he drew attention to a point which needs to be made. But I would say in response that the more precise meanings or definitions which have to be applied subsequently, not only by national Governments but by IMCO sub-committees in
  658
  the first place, are the subject of consideration. I am informed that an IMCO sub-committee is trying to work out a code to iron out some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention.
  It seems that a wide number of permutations of interpretation could arise in relation to terms such as "ordinary risks", "adequate construction", "correctly filled cylinders" and so on. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that some terms are more susceptible of definition than others, and hence, in an international convention, those that are so susceptible are immediately defined and others that are not so susceptible are not. Then it is for a sub-committee to try to work out definitions.
  But, in putting the matter into its proper context, it is right to say that it will have to be left open to the courts—maybe courts of individual countries—to define the terms by precedent, which is the way in which our common law of negligence has evolved over many years. Indeed, even where there are stricter legal requirements of definition—in the Napoleonic Code, for instance—matters of interpretation still arise in relation to the courts.
  But experience indicates that, while in theory one can envisage a situation in which there is a vast number of different definitions, in practice this has not happened in relation to examinations of previous conventions or the way in which some countries have achieved legislative clothing for them has evolved. So, although we must not be complacent about the possibility, it does not appear to have been a practical risk in the past.
  The hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo raised a question affecting nuclear ships and the obviousness of certain assertions that are made in the convention. I should not have thought that praying in aid a precedent and the obviousness of assertions in certain conventions was at all unusual. But, in practice, the problem affecting nuclear ships is interesting, because what has happened in this area is that control over access to ports of nuclear ships gives a large measure of control over the standards of one country by another. Indeed, we were closely involved in the standards that had to be applied to the "Otto

  659
  Hahn". That was an interesting phenomenon and indicates the way in which this situation, too, can evolve.
  The hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo raised a point about the effect of the convention on maritime costs. I cannot give any indication of those. I have no immediate input with which to favour the Committee in relation to our own industry, because I think that it is much too premature to expect the General Council of British Shipping and its individual members to have undertaken much research.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the requirements for rigid liferafts, and I have noted the point. I am not in a position to respond at present, but I shall, of course, investigate the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. I shall also take careful note of the article in New Scientist of 12th May that he touched upon, and see whether the British Government—the only Government for which I can speak—are guilty of the offences that were mentioned. The hon. Gentleman will have to make his peace with the authors as far as the Conservative Party is concerned.
  I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). He raised a number of questions that were basically concerned with the rapidity with which an international régime could be brought about. The hon. Gentleman asked why so few countries have ratified the convention so far, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) touched upon in his interesting observations. Indeed, I think that it would be appropriate to mention the ratifying countries at this stage. They are Monaco, the Ukraine, India, Norway, Mexico and Tonga.
  Mr. Prescott: Tonga?
  Mr. Davis: Yes, Tonga. I think that Tonga is to be congratulated. I think that one of the reasons—I do not say that it is the exclusive reason—why other nations, including Britain, have not been able to ratify is that time has to be found for legislation. We are not the only country to suffer from that problem.
  I have learned from speaking to my French opposite number that he has a similar problem of time. Indeed, France
  660
  was unable to introduce any legislation to deal with the traffic separation scheme in the Dover Straits. That is something which will have to evolve as a result of the international convention taking effect. The United Kingdom, of course, was able to do something about the matter much earlier. It is a problem that is not unique to ourselves. I understand that the United States and Greece have said that they intend to ratify the convention shortly. By virtue of our ratification, we shall be able to exert an influence that would not otherwise have been possible. That influence can be brought to bear on our Common Market friends and, I hope, even more widely.
  The hon. Member for Gosport then asked whether the SOLAS Convention of 1974 was sufficiently tightly drafted to prevent unilateral action. I think that that remains to be seen; I cannot answer the question. I hope that the answer is "Yes" and that more countries ratifying within the target date set by IMCO will have the effect of preventing countries from applying unilateral standards, which can sometimes also be a cloak for a form of flag discrimination. The situation must be examined with great care.
  It is much better to proceed internationally, so that common standards can be applied, and that is the Government's ambition.
  Mr. Dodsworth: If I understand correctly President Carter's instructions to his coastguard service, they set a more stringent standard that the SOLAS Convention requires. For example, the convention covers, I believe, tankers of 100,000 tons and combination carriers in excess of 50,000 tons, whereas the President's instructions deal with vessels over 20,000 deadweight tons. That suggests that he has already introduced a new standard. I should have thought that that constituted unilateral action.
  Mr. Davis: It may be that in some respects the President has acted unilaterally. All I am arguing at this stage is not the detail of the position but the view, in which I believe fervently, that the right way to proceed is not for individual countries to apply their own standards but, through a method of international consultation, to build up the authority of IMCO so that the more reluctant nations can be brought into line. If we go ahead

  661
  with applying unilateral standards we shall be weakening the effect of IMCO. That is the danger which I believe the American President recognises—at least I hope that is so.
  It is advantageous that the United States said that it shortly intends to ratify this convention. Perhaps we shall be able to work together with the United States in overcoming a very difficult problem that it faces. The United States faces a domestic problem through the environmental lobby, and through its own recent experiences. But we hope to be able to suggest to the United States that the authority is the best way of proceeding.
  I was asked by the hon. Member for Gosport—I was a little sad that he raised the matter in the way that he did—about British rules possibly being out of step with the rigours of international competition. I believe that it is necessary for countries—and political parties—sometimes to take a lead when people are perhaps somewhat reluctant to come forward. Sometimes that lead can be unpopular. But we were right in asserting—I am open to challenge, of course, and I was attacked by certain people within the industry—that the first and paramount consideration must be the saving of human lives.
  Of course, one must look at the nature of the problem. One must look at the real dangers that are experienced, and at the totality of the situation before arriving at a conclusion. But I am bound to say that in the instance the hon. Gentleman raised, which is a good instance of testing this philosophy, I had before me a great deal of evidence from one side which, on examination, was shown to be unreliable—for example, on the relative pay rates of crews here and abroad and the relative conditions under which they worked. I seized an opportunity, having asserted that I had to make a decision, which I believe was the right one, and I do not believe that we have rendered our ships uncompetitive.
  Be that as it may, I also sought to back the judgment that I had formed by a visit to Scotland. I was then brought face to face with the realities by the crews. I am not satisfied that we have yet come to the right conclusions, because there are risks that people must run, but the matter is under very close examination.
  662
  Agreements will, of course, arise between myself and the industry. It does not follow that because I am a Minister in the Labour Government I shall always agree with the trade unions. That has not always happened. Nor does it follow that I shall always agree with the owners. I try to form my own judgment, and I accept that I am capable of being wrong. But if I am proved to be wrong I look at the situation again. I say that unashamedly.
  This is a matter for ministerial discretion, and a Minister must make up his mind about these matters. It is wrong to shilly-shally and it is wrong, I believe, to say that the argument about competition is necessarily right. I can assure the hon. Member for Gosport that all sorts of evidence is procured to indicate that the Minister ought to act in a particular way. Sometimes that evidence is unreliable, and never has it been more unreliable than it was on the occasion in question. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
  Mr. Prescott: The Minister has pointed out the difficulty in one area of the North Sea of attempting to make agreements on international standards because of the problem of complaints of competition and the question of the disadvantage of one company against another.
  In those circumstances, would the Minister give consideration to an argument that has been put to him by me and by such people as Harry Bygate in Aberdeen, the union official involved, who have to fight this battle in this area of the North Sea, namely, the possibility of getting Governments, when making contracts with companies, to make it a condition of the contract that they observe the British standards even if they are operating outside the 12-mile limit so that all companies, whatever flag they are using, observe the same standards?
  Mr. Davis: I have certainly examined that point, as my hon. Friend knows. Unfortunately, there are considerable difficulties arising from the application of international legal requirements and standards.
  I do not want to go further because this is a matter that the Government are currently examining and I do not

  663
  want to prejudice or prejudge the outcome of their consideration. I believe that if it could be applied my hon. Friend's philosophy is absolutely right, but there are real difficulties, and it would be wrong not to say so.
  Mr. Viggers: I am grateful for the opportunity of simply saying that I am obliged to the Minister for his comments. The point I made to him was not quite the one that he put back to me. It seems to me that the Minister should be turning his attention particularly to non-British flag operators and ensuring that there is parity by levelling up rather than by levelling down.
  Mr. Davis: I do not dissent from the proposition that one ought to consider the question of non-British flags. It is much more difficult, however, for me to have any influence in that regard.
  I do not believe the two matters can be considered in a mutually exclusive way. We have our own standards to maintain and we have at the same time to try to influence others to apply similar standards. That is what I have done. Indeed, I have engaged in a number of bilateral discussions with my opposite numbers in a number of European countries, not only within the EEC, and I do not know what influence I have been able to bring to bear. I only hope that in due course this fact will emerge.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whose knowledge about these matters is respected on both sides of the House and who has been of considerable help to me in the past three years, has raised a number of interesting points. He asked whether the requirements for the coming into operation of conventions are too stringent, namely, the number of countries that have to sign and the proportion of the world's tonnage that they have to hold.
  I am afraid there is no great comfort that I can offer my hon. Friend about that. This convention applies similar criteria in that regard to others. One has to devise some international framework within which one can work. This has been the framework.
  As for the flags of convenience, my hon. Friend says that the evidence is that they will hold back, and yet growing
  664
  importance is attaching to the flags of convenience—something I do not particularly welcome, as I have said on a number of occasions. Our attack in the international for a has been on substandard vessels. But I do not like a situation in which there are opportunities for contracting out if not necessarily from the letter of the law, then from the spirit of the law even where the letter is accepted. As a responsible shipping nation, Britain, by ratifying the convention, is seeking to use its influence in the only way possible.
  I do not think that it is right for me to offer further reflections on the question of flags of convenience beyond what I have already said.
  My hon. Friend asked me about those who had signed the convention. I have dealt with that, and also with the likelihood of others signing. I hope that we shall see results in that regard.
  My hon. Friend asked whether I could indicate the areas where we were considering the implementation of the SOLAS Convention 1974. IMCO is giving further study to bulk cargoes, gas and chemical carriers, nuclear ships, lifesaving equipment, and so on. As a result of the expedited procedure I have already mentioned we hope that it will be possible much more speedily than in the past to enact subordinate legislation covering the recommendations made by the IMCO.
  My hon. Friend went on to ask me about standards of competency, manning, and hours of work. All these are matters to be dealt with in the legislation to which I referred to be introduced in the next Session of Parliament. There will be subordinate legislation to deal specifically with many of these areas. Having worked in the Department, my hon. Friend knows that these are matters that necessarily need much discussion. We are now far advanced, but I do not think that I should be wise constitutionally to rehearse specifically what we have in mind. I am always a little concerned about whether I go too far in talking about legislation for the next Session. I do not know much about these proprieties, so I have to plead innocence, if not ignorance.
  My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Gosport asked about the influence that might be brought to bear on the

  665
  EEC. I was asked to what extent there could be common enforcement of standards to ensure compliance by reluctant owners. There is a group of North Sea States, which comprise the Scandinavian nations as well as the EEC nations, which are working out a common code for imposing international standards against sub-standard ships. I believe that that is a useful precedent, and I hope that the group's work will be productive.
  I turn to the observations of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth), who spoke about the unsatisfactory rate of development of safety conventions. That may be so. On the other hand, I suggest that it is useful to look at the other side of the coin. I agree that all these international procedures have their blemishes. But I believe that IMCO has a record, in terms of the United Nations, which is second to none in producing effective codes which have become part of the law of its constituent member States.
  We need think only in terms of the regulations relating to traffic separation schemes—there are many others—in which this organisation, and it is right to pay tribute to it, has had a major effect in saving lives through the Safety of Life at Sea Conventions and all the others. I do not think that we should simply say "It moves a bit slowly". It does, but it is dealing with a large number of nations.
  Those nations have disparate interests but, by and large, to their credit, they do not play at politics in this organisation. Is that not a useful precedent in terms of the United Nations as a whole? It is rare for the activities of IMCO to be taken up to any great extent by political posturing. IMCO gets down to a job of work, and I think that the successive Secretaries General should be complimented upon the way in which

  THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

  McAdden, Sir Stephen (Chairman)

  McNamara, Mr.

  Berry, Mr.

  Prescott, Mr.

  Davis, Mr. Clinton

  Ridsdale, Mr.

  Dodsworth, Mr.

  Viggers, Mr.

  Johnson, Mr. James

  White, Mr. Frank R.

  Lloyd, Mr. Ian

  Woodall, Mr.

  McMillan, Mr. Tom

  they have steered it along these constructive lines.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about segregated ballast tanks. I do not know the answer to his question. I shall write to him on that point.
  The position on nuclear waste-carrying ships is as follows. Clause 2 relates only to ships provided with nuclear power plants—as does SOLAS 1974. With regard to conventionally-powered ships carrying nuclear waste, these could be covered by the dangerous goods rules under Section 23 of the 1949 Act. If, as a result of work in IMCO in producing an international safety code for nuclear-powered ships and for ships carrying radioactive substances, SOLAS 1974 should be amended, then Clause 3 of the Bill provides power for making any modifications to our law which may be necessary to give effect to such SOLAS 1974 amendments. That illustrates the value of the expedited procedure, which has been commended by both sides of the Committee.
  I have done my best to answer the specific points raised in the debate, subject to the two matters upon which I have promised to write to hon. Members. This is a small but significant Bill. It will advance the cause of safety of life at sea. It is right that both sides of the Committee have commended and supported it. I hope that we shall have a speedy Committee stage and will ensure that the Bill is enacted as rapidly as possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  Committee rose at one minute past Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Rents
  Rents
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Community Land
  Community Land
  Windscale
  Windscale
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Empty Houses
  Empty Houses
  Environs (Conurbations)
  Environs (Conurbations)
  New Towns Commission
  New Towns Commission
  Inland Waterways
  Inland Waterways
  Manchester
  Manchester
  Housing Policy Review
  Housing Policy Review
  London
  London
  Urban Renewal
  Urban Renewal
  Inner Cities
  Inner Cities
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Rented Housing
  Rented Housing
  Dogs
  Dogs
  Housing Subsidy and Mortgage Interest Relief
  Housing Subsidy and Mortgage Interest Relief
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Local Authorities (Partnership Schemes)
  Local Authorities (Partnership Schemes)
  Anglian Water Authority (Chairman)
  Anglian Water Authority (Chairman)
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  New Towns
  New Towns
  DHSS Office, Kirkby
  DHSS Office, Kirkby
  Government Car Service
  Government Car Service
  Quarries
  Quarries
  Marchington (Ministry of Defence Property)
  Marchington (Ministry of Defence Property)
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Rivers (Pollution)
  Rivers (Pollution)
  Urban Blight
  Urban Blight
  Hawden Farm, Tonbridge
  Hawden Farm, Tonbridge
  Sarum Farm, Winchester
  Sarum Farm, Winchester
  Bromham Bridge, Bedford
  Bromham Bridge, Bedford
SCOTLAND
  Herring Fishing
  Herring Fishing
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Adult Education (Alexander Report)
  Adult Education (Alexander Report)
  Police (Numbers)
  Police (Numbers)
  Partick Health Centre
  Partick Health Centre
  Teachers
  Teachers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Ambassadorial Appointments
  Ambassadorial Appointments
TRANSPORT
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Bus Companies (Costs)
  Bus Companies (Costs)
  Oulton, Woodlesford and Swillington (Bypass)
  Oulton, Woodlesford and Swillington (Bypass)
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Exports and Imports
  Food Exports and Imports
  Consumption
  Consumption
  Council of Ministers (Meeting)
  Council of Ministers (Meeting)
DEFENCE
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Footwear
  Footwear
  Quarters (Marchington)
  Quarters (Marchington)
  Departmental Staff (Dispersal)
  Departmental Staff (Dispersal)
  Warships
  Warships
  Ugandan Air Force
  Ugandan Air Force
CIVIL SERVICE
  Trade Union Negotiations
  Trade Union Negotiations
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  British Film Institute
  British Film Institute
  Welsh Film Board
  Welsh Film Board
  Teachers (Mentally Handicapped Children)
  Teachers (Mentally Handicapped Children)
EMPLOYMENT
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Young People's Handicrafts (Exhibition)
  Young People's Handicrafts (Exhibition)
  Minors
  Minors
  Yeovil
  Yeovil
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Young People
  Young People
  Wages (Underpayment)
  Wages (Underpayment)
  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Caesium Discharges
  Caesium Discharges
  Taxation Policy
  Taxation Policy
  Oil Rigs (Maintenance)
  Oil Rigs (Maintenance)
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  HOME DEPARTMENT
INDUSTRY
  Plessey Company Ltd.
  Plessey Company Ltd.
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  British Aerospace
  British Aerospace
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Jubilee Crowns
  Jubilee Crowns
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Road Accidents (Casualties)
  Road Accidents (Casualties)
RICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Barristers
  Barristers
  PRIME MINISTER (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
  PRIME MINISTER (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
  AMBASSADORIAL APPOINTMENTS
  AMBASSADORIAL APPOINTMENTS
  EMPLOYMENT
  EMPLOYMENT
  Foster Children
  Foster Children
  Cigarillos
  Cigarillos
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Contraceptives
  Contraceptives
  Attendance and Invalid Care Allowances
  Attendance and Invalid Care Allowances
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Overseas Patients
  Overseas Patients
  Hearing and Speech Therapy Aids
  Hearing and Speech Therapy Aids
  Eye Treatment (Birmingham)
  Eye Treatment (Birmingham)
  Drug Companies (Publications)
  Drug Companies (Publications)
  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Agoraphobia
  Agoraphobia
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Fraud and Abuse
  Fraud and Abuse
  Sterilisation
  Sterilisation
  Speech Therapy
  Speech Therapy
  Medical Laboratories (Technicians and Scientists)
  Medical Laboratories (Technicians and Scientists)
TRADE
  Textile and Apparel Imports
  Textile and Apparel Imports
  Thwaites and Reed Limited
  Thwaites and Reed Limited
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Westland Helicopters Ltd.
  Westland Helicopters Ltd.
  Airports (Landing Charges)
  Airports (Landing Charges)
  Ugandan Aircraft (Landings)
  Ugandan Aircraft (Landings)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.
The Lord St. John of Bletso—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

EXPLOSIVES: PUBLICATIONS ON TECHNIQUES
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will restrict the circulation of publications which make available to anti-social individuals and organisations advice on the easy production of incendiary devices and bombs.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the publishers of a book written in such a way as to incite to crime are liable to prosecution. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary would be reluctant to contemplate taking powers by way of censorship of publications unless he were persuaded that such measures would make an effective practical contribution to the prevention of terrorism.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at a recent book fair organised by the literature department of the National Party, books were on sale which were composed of United States Army manuals entitled, Unconventional Warfare: Devices and Techniques? The books included information on booby traps, incendiary devices and particulars of how to make various explosives. In view of this fact, while one does not want censorship, is it not dangerous that such books should be available?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not aware of the publications to which
698
my noble friend referred, but it is a fact that, in normal technical books on explosives and explosive techniques, all the available information is already available. In the scientific world there is little that is not available in publication, and perhaps that is as it should be.

THE MIDHURST BEACON: AIRCRAFT ROUTES
2.38 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the function of the Midhurst radio beacon, and what aircraft are required to use it.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am advised by the Civil Aviation Authority that the Midhurst Beacon serves to define a number of standard aircraft routes passing through the South and South-West sectors of the London Terminal Control Area and that these routes are prescribed for aircraft inbound and outbound to both Gatwick and Heathrow, as well as for some aircraft overflying the terminal area.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, while I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, can he confirm that in terms of numbers of aircraft flying over it and numbers of air lanes, this is the busiest beacon in Europe, if not possibly in the world? Is there any good reason why, in the interests of safety on the ground, it should not be moved Southwards into the English Channel, where I think there are already in position beacons for the convenience of the services of the French Concorde?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I can confirm that it is a very busy area. In regard to the suggestion made by the noble Earl, I should like to say, first, that I appreciate his having given me notice that he was proposing to put this forward as it has given me an opportunity to make inquiries. I understand that this suggestion was put forward some time ago by the

699
Haslemere Action Group, of which the noble Earl is President. An initial examination of the suggestion showed that there would be almost insuperable technical difficulties in installing the beacon on the sea. Moreover, it is not thought that there would be any safety advantages. However, I have asked that the suggestion should be looked at further and I am glad to learn that the Group of which the noble Earl is President has now accepted an invitation to attend a meeting with the Civil Aviation Authority, which should give an opportunity for this suggestion and others to be thoroughly examined.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, in view of my noble friend's concern, can the noble Lord say whether there is at present any danger of over-capacity of this beacon; and do military aircraft use the beacon as well as civil aircraft?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have heard of no suggestion that there is overcapacity. I should need to have notice of the question in relation to military use of the beacon.

QUEEN ALEXANDRA MILITARY HOSPITAL
2.41 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: 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 are their present intentions concerning the site of the Queen Alexandra Military Hospital at Millbank.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that part of the premises which lies to the North of the Tate Gallery and contains the hospital is to be made available to the Tate Gallery Trustees. That part which lies to the South and on which stands the Royal Army Medical College is being retained by the Ministry of Defence, although the long-term use for some of it has yet to be determined.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether or not he considers it
700
rather unfortunate that yet another fine London hospital is being destroyed rather than having it leased to BUPA or one of the contributory schemes for use as a private hospital, at a time when there is so much pressure on the waiting list of nearly every London hospital?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a matter on which it is difficult to form a judgment. In fact the military requirements will be fully met by the new Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital at Woolwich, which is just opening. A decision was reached about the future of this particular building as long ago as 1969, and I see no reason why it should be changed.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, was any part of the building offered to the Department of Health and Social Security before it was decided to dispose of it in this way?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer that question; it is over ten years ago since the decision was reached.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, is it too late to reconsider the destruction of one of the last really attractive examples of riverside architecture in Central London?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, while it is a delightful hospital to be in, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and I personally would not regret its going.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, could the noble Lord the Minister tell us whether the new medical inspection room North of the officers' mess is available yet for the visiting specialists and consultants to Millbank?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a question that I cannot answer. If the noble Lord would put down a Question, I will certainly answer it.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say when the conversion of these premises as an annexe to the Tate Gallery is likely to be carried out? I can understand it if he is reluctant to give a date at the moment, but in the meantime can he give an assurance that these buildings will not be pulled down

701
and yet another derelict site added to those already disfiguring the face of London?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the site is being vacated by the end of June 1977. Part of the site will continue to exist in the married quarters, the chapel and the sisters' mess. Those will remain.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: VOTING STATISTICS
2.45 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: 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 when and where the detailed figures of voting in the recent local government elections will be published.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, returning officers are required by the Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules 1973 to publish as soon as possible the name or names of the candidate or candidates elected and the total number of votes given to each candidate, whether elected or not. This information is normally published locally. It is not collected and published centrally by the Government.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, in view of the fact that a knowledge of the workings of democracy must be one of the factors which helps to preserve democracy, would it not be advantageous—at a cost of not very much work and expense—to centralise this information so that it is available for all those who want it and need it?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not persuaded that that would be so. The collection of all local results would be time-consuming, expensive, and, in his view, the expense would not be justified. The noble Lord no doubt knows that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publish certain information relating to local elections, presumably trends, in their monitor series. The Stationery Office publish full details
702
of Parliamentary Elections and candidates' expenses, but, as I say, my right honourable friend does not see the need to go beyond that.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, before any work of this kind is put in hand, could the noble Lord make absolutely sure why it is the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, wants to know what happened to the Liberal vote?
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, could the Minister say why either the Liberal Party or ourselves should have this information for local elections, seeing that we got a hiding and they got annihilated?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I imagine that all of the political Parties in this country know precisely what happened to their candidates and the number of people who voted in the local elections.

EEC: AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Strabolgi will repeat a Statement on EEC Council of Agriculture Ministers' Meeting held on 16th and 17th May.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION: CHRISTIAN CONTENT
2.47 p.m.
Lord BLAKE Lord BLAKE rose to call attention to the lack of an adequate Christian content in religious education in Local Education Authority schools; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I begin the main theme of my argument on the Motion which is down on the Order Paper, I would make two points clear. The first is this. Although the Motion refers to the maintained sector of education it is in no way intended as an attack in general upon county schools, nor is it intended to imply that everything in the garden is perfect so far as independent schools or direct grant schools are concerned. I have confined my Motion to the inadequate Christian content of

703
religious education in the maintained schools simply because Parliament and the Secretary of State have a responsibility in that field which they do not have in the other sectors of education in this country. That, and that alone, is my reason for limiting the Motion in these terms.
My second point is that this is not in any sense a Party political Motion. The decline of Christian content in religious education which alarms me and many other noble Lords is not connected with the political colour of successive Governments. If my noble friend Lord Elton or my noble friend Lord Belstead had been on the Government Front Bench answering for the Department of Education and Science, I would have been pressing on one of them just the same questions, arguments and pleas for action which I propose to press on the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, today.
The reason for this Motion is the worry and perturbation felt by some teachers and a great many parents about the nature and adequacy of the Christian element in religious education at every age level in the maintained schools. Something of this worry was expressed on 19th March last year in another place when my honourable friend the Member for Barkston Ash, Mr. Michael Alison, moved that the House:
"recognises the need to maintain and improve the opportunities for religious education and an act of worship in schools".
A very helpful and important debate ensued. The same anxieties were stated by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in your Lordships' House on 16th February this year, when he raised the question of the supply of qualified teachers of religious education, and a similarly useful and valuable debate followed.
I ought at this stage to say what I believe the problem to be. I am convinced that there has been a grave reduction over the last 20 years in the Christian element in religious education, or religious instruction as it is called—not in all schools, of course, but in quite enough to give serious cause for worry.
Religious education is a subject which is laid down as obligatory in the Education Act 1944, along with the act of daily
704
collective worship. The only other compulsory subject is physical education. It is a strange irony of events that one of the few subjects decreed by an Act of Parliament to be a part of every school curriculum is in so many school weakest, least well taught and most perfunctorily observed of all.
We must look back for a moment at the history of the present situation. As an historian I certainly do not want to lecture your Lordships on the past. It can be a terrible bore to follow everything back to its beginnings. It was once said of Sir Robert Peel that he could not mention the steam engine without tracing it back to the tea-kettle. However, the history of the Education Act 1944 is none the less relevant in this debate. Perhaps I could remind your Lordships that until 1870 there was no State education in England at all. Education was provided in one form or another by various religious bodies which were heavily grant-aided by the State but not subject to any rules about content of curriculum.
The Act of 1870 decided that the school boards—which for our purposes are the forerunners of the county education authorities today—should have one of three choices as regards religious education: none at all, Bible reading without comment, or Bible reading with suitable explanation as long as it did not involve any catechism or formulary distinctive of any particular sect. In practice, nearly every school board or successor authority took the last of those three alternatives—Bible readings with non-denomination explanations. These are what have developed into the "agreed syllabuses" of today. In effect, the 1944 Act codified and made obligatory what had long been general practice—the formulation of agreed syllabuses in each local education authority to be produced by co-operation between the teachers, the Churches and the local authorities. "Religious instruction", as it is called in the Act, thus became a part of the core curriculum, to use a current phrase, of every county school.
This decision, historically, was a compromise between those who wanted no religious education at all and those who wanted it to be taught according to particular denominations. It was involved with the whole complicated

705
question of church schools. The passage of the Act was in this, as in many other respects, a triumph for the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. His immense powers of diplomacy have seldom been shown to greater advantage in the whole of his long and distinguished career.
The 1944 Act thus imposes a statutory obligation on county schools to impart religious instruction and to begin the day with collective worship by all pupils in attendance at the school, exception being made in both cases, of course, for parents who withdraw their children on grounds of conscience. The Act has never been amended and I for one do not want to suggest that it should be. I should not at all go along with those who wish to repeal these sections entirely or those who would like to amend certain words—for example, to substitute "education" for "instruction". It seems to me that the difference there is merely semantic.
As a budding officer in the Royal Artillery 37 years ago, I was taught by a gunnery instructor, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. However, I always felt that he educated me just as much as he instructed me and I also felt—and feel today—that instruction, whatever it means, does not entail indoctrination. I should prefer the Act to stay as it is. I know that certain noble Lords, whose sincerity I respect, would like it to be amended in the sense of abolishing any requirement at all for religious education. On the contrary, my view is that the Act should not be changed but that it should actually be carried out and implemented in the spirit in which it was intended to be implemented, though of course, with some reasonable regard for the changes which have occurred in attitudes during the last 30 years.
My Lords, there is disturbing evidence that religious education is becoming a Cinderella subject and also—and this is perhaps a separate point—that its nature is changing in one very important respect. The Christian content in many schools has over the years become less and less. Either it is being crowded out by the study of other faiths or, in the atrocious jargon of modern educationalists, it is being crowded out by what are called "stances for living"—a very misleading metaphor
706
if it comes from cricket or golf. Why not creeds or beliefs? I need not remind your Lordships of the Birmingham agreed syllabus about which—rightly—there was such a row a few years ago.
Alternatively, where the Christian content of religious education lessons is not being diminished because so much time is devoted to a "mish-mash" of comparative religions, it is being diminished for another and, I think, even worse reason—that is, that periods nominally meant for religious instruction have ceased to have any religious content at all, becoming merely a vague sort of uplift or, in some cases, a form of teaching that is almost indistinguishable from teaching civics.
I say at once that I do not regard the study of other religions as wrong or as undesirable. Without a knowledge of Judaism, for example, a Christian could hardly understand his own faith, and some knowledge of the other great world religions is an indispensable part of culture. Nor do I regard it as wrong that at the appropriate age school boys and girls should learn what Humanism or Marxism are about and the presuppositions which lie behind those creeds. However, I would ask that they should be taught those subjects as a part of the study of social and political theory, not as a part of religious education, where they have no place at all. Nor, again, am I opposed to civics as a subject, but it is not in any sense religious education. Periods laid down by law to he devoted to religious education should not be occupied by a subject or subjects which have nothing to do with it at all.
Although the 1944 Act refers to religious—not Christian—instruction, there can be no doubt what the Parliament which passed it meant. It meant Christianity. The background is clear enough. That was 1944. Britain was or regarded herself as a Christian country. After a terrible struggle at that time—and it is still not finished—at least there seemed to be the clear promise of defeating what Mr. Patrick Cosgrave, in a recent article published in the Spectator on this topic, called a:
"…pagan tyranny of unparallelled cruelty."
The light was beginning to appear at the end of the tunnel. As people reflected on the nature of Nazism, they perceived that

707
at least one element in its cruelty and barbarism was that its leaders had deliberately and avowedly turned their backs on the whole Western Christian tradition.
It is perhaps worth emphasising just what part of that tradition they had turned their backs on. They had denied the individual personality and asserted the supremacy of collective personality. In the end Hitler was saying that, just as nature, red in tooth and claw, is ruthlessly prodigal with lives in order to preserve the species, so a nation, a race or a social class must be equally ruthless towards individuals in order to preserve and advance its collective purpose.
As one of the wisest of living historians, Sir Herbert Butterfield, wrote in his book Christianity and History:
"I am not sure that there exists a firm barrier against this error save for those who hold the Christian view that each individual soul is of eternal moment and has a value incommensurate with the value of anything else in the created universe. Human souls are in this view the purpose and end of the whole story, so far as the world is concerned—not merely the servants of the species and not ever mere means to some other mundane end".
These words were written in 1949, but they reflect, I would surmise, one reason—one of the more thoughtful arguments—behind the religious clauses of the 1944 Act. Even if I am right on this and also on the other argument behind the Act; namely, that Britain was a Christian country, it is fair to ask whether these arguments are valid today over 30 years later. I am convinced that they are.
Nazism and Fascism may be dead (except as terms of abuse used by Left-Wing fanatics of anything they happen to dislike) but the principles enshrined in these doctrines are not dead at all. If half of what has been reported about the happenings in Cambodia is true, we have there a régime every bit as cruel, vile and indifferent to the individual soul as Nazi Germany. If it is the case that Christianity was needed as a defence in the 1940s against the exaltation of the collective over the individual, it is not less needed in the 1970s or in the foreseeable future.
The other question is whether Britain is still a Christian country. This is not entirely easy to answer. Were we a Christian country, and in what sense, in
708
1944? If we were then, in what respects have we ceased to be today? I should like to suggest that there has been no fundamental or obvious change. It is often said—and I am sure that it will be said this afternoon—that we live in a pluralistic or a secularist society, or in both. Pluralist, or pluralistic, I presume means in this context a society containing a multiplicity of creeds, and those who use the adjective have in mind largely the immigrants from the Commonwealth whose entry has, as we all know, created social problems.
What tends to be forgotten by those who use this argument is that a very high proportion of those immigrants are Christians and want their children to be brought up as Christians. In many ways they are more fervent Christians than a great many of those in the land to which they have come. Of course a substantial number adhere to other creeds, but in terms of the whole population this is a very small minority. We can and should try to cater for them. But perhaps we forget sometimes that majorities have rights as well as minorities. If most parents wish their children to receive a religious education in which knowledge of Christianity is the chief priority, it would be very unfair to refuse them on the ground that there are non-Christian minorities.
This leads me to the other adjective so often used as a description of society by opponents of Christian education—the word "secularist". By that, I take it, people mean that religious groups of all sorts are dwindling into insignificance and that such public religious observances as survive are vestigial relics of a by-gone era kept alive only by a combination of habit, sentiment and nostalgia. Basically, so this argument runs, the great majority of the British public are agnostic or indifferent.
It is very difficult to make provable generalisations about the public attitude to these matters. It may be true that only 10 per cent. of the population are committed and practising members of one of the Christian Churches. On the other hand, it also seems to be true that 80 to 90 per cent. identify themselves as Christians in however vague or shadowy a manner. These are figures based on public opinion surveys in the mid-1960s,

709
but there is no obvious reason to suggest any startling subsequent change.
It is also true—or was 10 years ago—that a survey in North-East England showed that 90 per cent. of parents wanted local education authority schools to continue to provide religious education even if the law was changed so that it ceased to be obligatory, and 77 per cent. wished the law to be left as it was. Very similar figures apply to the daily act of worship, which I hope will perhaps be dealt with by other noble Lords. I do not propose to deal myself with that particular topic.
It would be a very good thing if further surveys of a more up-to-date and more professional nature could be carried out, covering the whole country. But unless these produce a marked reversal of the previous trends, there seems no reason to regard Britain as having become anything like as secularist as some people maintain. The Durham Report of 1970, entitled The Fourth R, which is by far the most illuminating analysis of the problem, makes the point that Britain may have become a post-ecclesiastical society, but this is not necessarily the same thing as being a post-Christian society.
The real danger today is not indoctrination. It is widely understood that the actual process of evangelising for the Christian cause is not something appropriate to the classroom of county schools. It is something for the Churches themselves to do. The real danger is that knowledge of what the Christian religion is will gradually disappear either because religious education is interpreted as a study of comparative religions—a study which, in the time available, could only be utterly superficial—or because religious education is simply ignored. A sample survey of secondary schools in the London area carried out recently by the inter-denominational Order of Christian Unity showed many cases where this had happened and religious education had become a non-subject.
It is my view, and I believe it is widely shared, that education which excludes religion altogether is simply not education. If children are taught nothing about one of the greatest forces which has shaped the world they live in, and one of the aspects of human culture which has affected
710
people in one form or another for thousands of years, they are missing something profoundly important.
And I would go on to say that in the Western society to which we belong it is entirely right that Christianity should take priority, if only because a child simply cannot understand the cultural heritage of the Western past if he or she does not even know what Christianity is about. Religious education is justified as an educational subject in its own right, as of course are most other subjects which are taught in schools. It is not or should not be a sort of extra, only taught, if at all, because an Act of Parliament says it must be. And a predominently Christian content in that education is also justified in this country and others of our particular tradition and history.
Over 132 years ago Disraeli published Sybil, the most famous of all his political novels. It is based very closely on the Blue Books of the day, Governmental inquiries and so on which revealed among other things the ignorance of whole classes of society about the elementary facts concerning the Bible and Christianity. Disraeli makes one of his characters in a barbarous industrial slum, when quizzed about his faith, say:
"I believe in Pontius Pilate who was crucified to save our sins and in Moses, Goliath and the rest of the Apostles".
In the years that followed, an immense effort was made by the Churches to remove this kind of ignorance—and Disraeli's words were not a parody at all, they were not an exaggeration of the evidence existing at the time. It would be very sad if, in spite of all this effort, which resulted in people at least knowing what Christianity was about, we were to be moving by default back into an era of comparable ignorance. I fear that we may be.
Some of your Lordships may have read an article in the Daily Telegraph of 25th October last year by an anonymous A-level examiner:
"Many candidates"—
he wrote—
"remarked confidently that the religion of 14th century England was the worship of Mars and Venus. In several essays on Paradise Lost I encountered the remark that 'it was clever of Milton to think of having Eve tempted by a serpent'".

711
Of course it is easy to seize on examples which may be isolated or eccentric, but one of the difficulties in the whole of this field is to find out what the facts actually are.
This leads me to the first of the specific proposals which I should like to urge for the consideration of the noble Lord who will be replying for the Government. I have given him notice of these proposals. The first is to set up an independent inquiry into religious education in the maintained schools and the place of Christianity within it. The whole subject is one which is fraught with difficulty because the facts are so hard to come by. It is most important that we should know where we are in this respect, and it seems to me clear that only the Department can provide the information. It is most important we should know just where we are in this respect, and it seems to me clear that only the Department can provide the information. Such an inquiry might well include a survey of parental feelings about religious education and the place which Christianity should take in it.
The second proposal which I would urge the Minister to consider is that religious education should be a part of any common core curriculum, if such a curriculum comes into being. I understand that a Green Paper on education is being formulated at present and will probably be published during the summer. There has not been much about religious education in the Great Debate, at any rate not as reported. Perhaps it is taken for granted because of the 1944 Act that religious education would be part of such a curriculum any way. If so, I hope the Minister will be able to confirm the fact and reassert it.
My third proposal arises from the second and is that the Department of Education and Science should issue a circular to all local education authorities declaring that the centrality of Christianity in religious education, together with a study of the Bible, is in its view a clear requirement of the 1944 Act in the spirit, if not in the letter, of the law. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, himself said on the question on the supply of teachers of religious education when the matter was raised in the House by the noble Earl, Lord Longford:
712
"I think that to teach religion of any kind in the United Kingdom without intensive study of the Bible is not to be teaching religion at all".—(Official Report, 16/2/77; col. 1726.)
My fourth proposal is that positive steps should be taken to make the career of a specialised teacher in religious education more attractive. I do not want to go again over the ground covered by the debate on Lord Longford's Question in February. Among these might be the creation of a more attractive career structure; the provision of more time and more examination opportunities—it is particularly important that examinations in religious education should have the same status as other subjects in a pupil's career prospects. I would also suggest that religious education should be clearly established as a specialist subject; that head teachers should employ at least one religious education specialist; that every county authority should have a specialist religious education adviser or inspector; and that there should be proper opportunity for in-service courses in religious education.
My fifth and last proposal is that the training of religious education teachers should be improved. The shortage of religious education teachers is recognised, but the number of places available for training in religious education teaching is actually falling because of the closures of so many teacher training institutions with religious education departments. This was all discussed in the previous debate and I will not repeat what was said then. It is most important that the particular role any college plays in training religious education teachers should be taken into account when considering further closures, and I hope it will be.
I have spoken quite long enough. I know that there are many noble Lords who are much more expert in these matters than I am who will wish to give your Lordships' House the benefit of their knowledge and advice. I wish to thank in advance all those who have been kind enough to promise to speak on this very important matter. Perhaps I could particularly emphasise how pleased and grateful I am that the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, is to make his maiden speech this afternoon on this subject, with the particular experience of his own which he can contribute.
My Lords, I would end by simply saying that the danger is not so much positive hostility to Christianity, though this does not exist in some quarters. The danger is, rather, that a generation will grow up which has, not forgotten, but which has never even known, what Christianity is about and has never had the opportunity to know. I am not pressing for evangelism or for indoctrination; I am pressing for knowledge. I hope of course that knowledge will lead to belief, but it may not in every case or in quite a number of cases. What in my view would be a real tragedy would he an education which, by apathy, omission or neglect, deprived the coming generation of a whole dimension of their Western cultural heritage and left them ignorant of one of the most important aspects of human existence. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, we are all in great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, both for the words he has given to us now and for the enthusiasm which has obviously gone into the preparation for this debate; the size of numbers both in the Chamber and in the Gallery shows that today this is perhaps one of the most important matters to which we can be addressing ourselves, and in a very all-Party way. At the same time it is interesting to note that Lord Blake laid responsibility on Government and not only on the good will of each one of us in this noble House.
It is worth saying that when the word "religion" was used in the 1944 Act, predominantly Christianity was understood alongside the other great traditional religion in England, of the Jewish faith, from which, with the Old Testament and the New Testament, there are such continuing links in the Judeo-Christian tradition of our country; but the fact that agreed syllabuses automatically had to be discussed with the representative of the Christian Churches in every LEA is, in my view, enough historically to show that, by "religion", Government then and, I believe, Government now must reckon that it is Christianity basically of which we are speaking.
As a matter of precedent, I quote from the Handbook of Health Education, which
714
the Department first produced in 1968 and then revised and put out in 1973, and I speak from the later edition. In the interesting introduction to the booklet—some noble Lords quoted from this publication in debates in the House a year or so ago—it said:
"Our task is, rather, to make sure that bodily health plays its proper part in the whole education of responsible citizens, and to discharge it successfully we need a clear understanding of the nature of our civilisation and its principles. We must also have regard to realities which go beyond the merely physical. Our roots lie deep in the Christian background of our civilisation, and the things of the spirit cannot be passed over".
The introduction finished with a call for—
"…a pattern of health education in which we never lose sight of our main objective; a serene people moving from strength to strength in body, mind and spirit".
That was on the health side, but it was relating to the spiritual—again, a precedent concerning our Christian responsibility.
I suppose that historically for this major debate to take place in Jubilee Year is a reminder not that we are to wring our hands and speak of the good old days, which most of us cannot remember very well anyway, but are to speak positively of the present opportunity of making our country an even more positively Christian, caring and loving society than ever before. I notice that in his autobiography, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who I am delighted to see will be speaking later, speaks of the Coronation in terms of this situation:
"Every now and again we are taken out of ourselves, as for example when the Queen was crowned and was seen to pay homage to the King of Kings. …I do not despair for, if Christianity is the truth, it will once more in due time command the allegiance of men".
I believe that it is at the right moment that we are turning our thoughts to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, to call attention to the lack of an adequate Christian content in religious education and therefore positively to the importance of a deeper, fuller and more vibrant element of Christianity in our schools. I believe that it is the best of all bipartisan policies to present the historic faith and facts of Christianity and to allow the freedom to worship God while there are countries which deny that freedom. We

715
still have it; let us use it gladly and encourage our school teachers to teach the Christian faith to the maximum of our ability.
We come at once to the human element and the problem that every teacher will experience when he reads the account of this debate: does he or she feel adequate for it? Let me illustrate. A crowd of boys was standing round the shrine of Saint Alban in St. Alban's Abbey. A middle-aged, gruff schoolmaster was showing it to them. He turned to the boys and asked, standing there at the shrine of the first martyr for the Christian faith in England, "What is a martyr?" A boy replied, "Sir, someone who is brave enough to die for his faith." The schoolmaster said, with, I thought, sorrow in his voice, "Yes, I don't think I'd have that courage but, you see, I'm not sure I've got that faith." He was honest enough to recognise his lack of faith and yet to be willing to challenge the youngsters whom he cared for with the fact of the Christian faith. I believe that it is not in any sense intellectually dishonest to hope that teachers of all outlooks—and how few of us can say that we have a total grasp of the fullness and the wonder of the Christian faith?—will both share what faith they have and to turn people to the great facts of Christianity.
I asked the advice of my own director of education who is both director of education in our diocese and has also been a senior lecturer and, before that, a schoolmaster. He wrote to me:
"Pupils and students are often bored by endless discussions of recurring themes like apartheid, parent/child relationships, sex, marriage, leisure, money and so on, which often amount to little more than the group concerned being encouraged to pool their ignorance and air their prejudices".
Such a problem-centred approach is useful in small doses, but it cannot take the place of the careful proclamation of the great historic facts of basic Christianity found in the Bible.
Immediately, we come to our next problem: yes, but, with the quality of our theologians today and what they say on the "box", how can we be sure quite what we all do believe? Your Lordships will remember the story of the university professor, young and philosophical, who was asked to take part in a broadcast on
716
a philosophical subject and, when it was fixed up, the BBC said, in its polite way, "Would 25 guineas be suitable?" The philosophy don replied, "Yes, indeed. To whom do I make it out?" He had been looking forward to getting a chance of saying a few things on the "box".
It is easy for us to say that the Church does not always speak with a united voice. It speaks with a remarkably united voice at grass roots where my brothers the right reverend Prelates, and I are moving day by day. I shall be in four schools the day after tomorrow and shall be going right through meeting the children. Again, I was in schools last week. When one talks to schoolteachers and to children, one finds that the basic simplicities, which are also profondities, of the Christian faith make sense to a very wide proportion of people. The Order for Christian Unity has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and I am delighted to mention it again. It is doing great work here. Your Lordships will remember that it recently did a survey and that, when asked whether the Bible was to be more solidly the core of the curriculum of religious education, 3,000 head teachers said, Yes. I feel that we owe much to the Order for Christian Unity for the work that they do beavering away behind the scenes in producing material to help us along these lines.
The figures that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has given us concerning parental choice as regards religous education mean that it is very seldom that parents do not want their children to receive not just vaguely religious but Christian teaching for their children. Therefore, I believe that the Government will have no difficulty with this matter, because they will find, if they seek to follow through the five suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, that they will receive a great warmth of support.
The third problem is the idea that we may be trying to push things down the throats of gullible children when they are too young to use their abilities. We seem to expect our children to face up to a tremendous barrage and pressure of facts in every other way, in literature, on the radio, on television, yet we appear to be afraid to let them know the great facts centring in the person of Jesus Christ and outlined in the Bible. Yet,

717
when millions watched the "box" on Palm Sunday, I met a woman who was rather out of touch with religion and did not know I was a Bishop. We met in the hydrotherapy pool at my hospital, so it was not easy to see quite what I was. I was being attended for a knee which is now very well indeed. She asked me quite simply, "Did you see Jesus last Sunday?" I found that she was speaking of the programme in question. "I can't wait till Easter Day because I had never really realised the depth of the Christian faith before." Her Majesty has just received the millionth copy of the Bible Society's Good News Bible. The Bible is news and is being read again today in a new way. I see no difficulty in a positive approach to the reintroduction in a loving, sensible, balanced way of the Christian faith much more clearly in our schools. I believe that it is a freedom that our children need.
Noble Lords will know that when we Bishops get on our feet we find it very hard to sit down. I notice that I have been on for 12 minutes and my brothers here are either suggesting that I should sit down or else just having a rest for a moment till I have finished. Having said that, however, I try to ask my family about these matters because they are a great help to me, so I talked to my 20 year old daughter, who is a nurse, and told her, "I am hoping to say something next week". "Don't go on too long, Daddy," she said. I am nearly through now.
I asked whether we ought to tell children the heart of the Christian truth and open the Bible and really let them know all about the Christian faith. Her words were, "If you don't give the children the great facts of the Christian faith, then you don't give them the freedom to choose". This is not indoctrination, it is instruction and allowing the next generation of boys and girls of our country to know so many of the wonderful and glorious things about the Christian faith that they can make a responsible choice early in their lives to follow it all their days. For that reason, I particularly underline the third point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, when he said that he hoped the Government might issue a circular to local education authorities concerning what I believe he called,
"…the centrality of Christianity with the study of the Bible in the heart of religious instruction".
3.30 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, was of course perfectly right when he said that this was no Party matter. Long ago have gone the days when, if I may swap with him quotations from Disraeli's novels, Taper said:
"I am all for a religious cry. It means nothing, and if successful it does not interfere with business when we are in".
But if there is no Party division on this matter, I think it is fair to say—and I think that it would be recognised above all by historians—that there are Party traditions on this matter. Members of the Liberal Party will of course differ enormously in their reaction to the problems raised by the question at the heart of today's debate. But traditionally in our Party there is a distrust of the Church and the State getting together; there is a distrust of State schools teaching Church religion. That runs the whole way through our history, and in its own way I do not think—and I speak as a regular communicant Christian—it is at all a had thing, because it is too easy to muddle the effects of the two, to try to get the State to enforce morality, as we still do, or to try to use the Church for the purposes of the State.
Of course, this started from the reaction of the nonconformist churches to the Established Church at a time when the nonconformist churches were so strongly represented in the Liberal Party. But I think that it goes on to a day when, instead of having many Churches, which we still do—but luckily the breaches between them are on their way to being healed—we have a situation where there are many faiths in the country. If our philosophy was right then about the relationship between the Established Church and schools, it is I think possibly right now about the relationship between Christianity and schools. That is why I, for one, would not be in favour of a continuation of a compulsory act of worship in the county schools.
Of course, voluntary schools are an entirely different matter, as I wholly grant. Nor am I happy to see religious education as the one subject which is compulsory—statutorily to be taught. I think that it should be taught; not only do I think it should be taught, but I think that it should be taught better and better. But

719
this privileged position is one of which members of my Party and my tradition have been traditionally wary. I said that I think that religion must be taught, and I think that Christianity must be taught. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Blake, said, that Christianity must take precedence because it is part of our heritage, part of our European Christian heritage. Here one of the things which, as a European, I see as most hopeful is a bringing together of Christendom once more. One cannot understand our tradition, our literature, our ethics, our civics, or anything, without understanding the Christian religion. So of course it must have primacy.
One reason why it must have primacy is that, of all the great religions, it is the most complicated. I know that in some ways it is a simple religion—and I am sure that this will be said again and again this afternoon. In some ways it strikes to the heart with a simple message. None the less, the theology which arises out of Christianity is a much more complex matter from that which arises out of the other great religions. I think that that is one of the reasons why it needs more time devoted to it, and why it needs ever increasingly skilled and dedicated teachers. With great respect to the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken, I am not certain that it can be taught properly except by those who really understand it from within.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, gave an example, again from Disraeli, of the results of the lack of teaching of his time. I should like, very briefly, to quote to your Lordships from a catechism compiled by Dr. Dorothy L. Sayers. She said that if you put together what people actually believe about Christianity—the average man in the streeet—it would come to something like this; and she was writing in the 'forties:
"What does the Church think of God the Father?
"He is omnipotent and holy. He created the world and imposed on man conditions impossible of fulfilment; He is very angry if these are not carried out. He sometimes interferes by means of arbitrary judgments and miracles, distributed with a good deal of favouritism. He likes to be truckled to and is always ready to pounce on anybody who trips up over a difficulty in the Law, or is having a bit of fun. He is rather like a dictator, only larger and more arbitrary.
720
"What does the Church think of God the Son?
"He is in some way to be identified with Jesus of Nazareth. It was not His fault that the world was made like this, and, unlike God the Father, He is friendly to man and did His best to reconcile man to God. He has a good deal of influence with God, and if you want anything done, it is best to apply to Him.
"What does the Church think of God the Holy Ghost?
"I don't know exactly. He was never seen or heard of till Whit-Sunday. There is a sin against Him which damns you for ever, but nobody knows what it is".
I entirely accept that no one would actually say that he believed that, but the muddled thoughts which go on in the brains of a great many people about the Church result in various feelings which are rather like that. I do not think that Dorothy Sayers was exaggerating.
It is therefore extremely important that Christianity, if it is taught, is taught well; because if it is taught in such a way that it merely turns up answers like that it fulfils the remark made by Dean Inge: that we treat Christian education as if it was inoculation. We give children a small dose early on in life to make certain that they never catch it when they grow up. Therefore what the noble Lord. Lord Blake, is pressing for is extremely important, and I am highly impressed by the papers with which we have been circulated by the Christian Education Movement, and with what it is trying to do and achieve in raising the standards of Christian education and religious education.
I should like to add one more thing. In addition to religious education, I am quite certain that we must pay more attention to moral education. By "moral education" I do not mean the moral action which stems from religion, because that will come from the religion if a person has it. Nor do I mean—as on a previous occasion when the unfortunate noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was put up to answer about the Social Morality Council and moral education—such things as being of general good will and going out to do community work. It is much more than that, thanks very largely to the pioneer work of John Wilson and the old Farmington Trust; thanks very much to the work of the Social Morality Council—and it is a great pity that the Government, as I understand it, are not supporting them any longer. But it is

721
thanks to that very largely pioneering work that there have now been developed in this country serious tools for teaching children how to make moral judgments, for teaching them about the machinery, and giving them the equipment to make moral judgments for themselves. That is a little beyond the scope of this debate; nevertheless, I think it is a point worth putting forward.
My Lords, as I said at the beginning, I and the tradition of my Party have a slight distrust of too much mixture between Church and State, and between State schools and organised religion. But I think there is one thing on which we can all be absolutely clear; which is that it is desperately important that what is taught must be taught well. I think, therefore, that the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has put forward are, by and large, very worthy of pursuit, and I hope the Government will pay attention to them.

E.E.C. AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING
3.40 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to report to the House on the discussions in the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) on 16th and 17th May, at which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office represented the United Kingdom for the discussions on fisheries. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary represented the United Kingdom for the discussions on agriculture.
"The Council considered a proposal by the Commission for a regulation to govern fishing for herring in the waters of Member States in the period 1st June to 31st December 1977. The United Kingdom supported the Commission proposals for a continuation of the temporary ban in the North Sea until the end of the year and for a system of
722
quotas for the West of Scotland stock under which the United Kingdom would receive over 70 per cent. of the total allocations. The majority of delegations, however, despite the scientific evidence, favoured the allocation of quotas in the North Sea for the remainder of the year. This was not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
"Eventually it was agreed to extend the North Sea ban until the end of June, except for a small special quota for the Netherlands to enable her to meet the requirements of her traditional June festival. It was also agreed to introduce a ban on herring fishing off the West of Scotland for the month of June. The latter measure will not affect United Kingdom fishermen since they normally do not start fishing for herring off the West of Scotland until the late summer.
"The Council agreed to meet in Luxembourg on 27th June to decide on herring conservation measures for the period after the end of June and to consider all aspects of the internal fisheries régime. The Government are determined that real progress should be made then towards the adoption of definitive arrangements that adequately reflect the importance of the fishing industry to the United Kingdom.
"My honourable friend told the Council that the calculation of monetary compensatory amounts on pigmeat must be adjusted to remove the difficulties to which they give rise. The Commission has now tabled a proposal which, if agreed, would allow the Commission to reduce MCAs on certain products, including pigmeat. It is intended that the implications of this proposal should be clarified urgently at official level with a view to the Council's taking a decision on it at its next meeting on 20th and 21st June.
"The Council agreed to a Directive on pure-bred cattle. This will remove obstacles to intra-Community trade, subject to the necessary animal health rules. I am confident that as a result our exports of pure-bred cattle will be benefited in due course.
"The Council also discussed measures on wine, and on the so-called butter-ships, operating mainly from North German ports, which offer cheap butter

723
to their passengers, but final decisions were deferred until the next meeting.
"In view of criticisms that had been made against him by some Ministers earlier in the meeting Commissioner Tugendhat approached me and asked me to allow him to make a statement to the Council and to answer questions. I acceded to his request and I gave him the opportunity to make an opening statement, to hear criticisms, and to reply".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.46 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we will all be grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement made in another place. As regards the ban on herring, the extension of that is necessary and welcome, but it is temporary, and the meetings which are scheduled to take place at the end of June to consider further measures to conserve herring must he regarded as exceedingly important. Do the Government recognise that there is a danger of the herring becoming a rare species unless conservation measures are agreed and applied within the coming year? This would be a great loss to Britain, because herring used to be abundant around our coasts. As regards the definitive arrangements which the noble Lord mentioned, concerning the fishing industry as a whole and relating, also, to fish other than herring, do the Government include species which are not much fished for now but which we may have to he prepared to catch in future, such as blue-whiting, and which we may also have to become used to eating instead of the staple cod of the past?
My Lords, the fisherman themselves believe that a 50-mile exclusive zone is what is needed to make sure that conservation will be applied effectively. Is it still the Government's aim to try to secure such an exclusive zone for Britain? If not, nothing but a really effective alternative will be acceptable to the fishermen, as is to be seen from the fact that a delegation of fishermen went over to Brussels during the last two days. My Lords, the system of quotas which has operated in the past is suspect to the fishermen, because they cannot be certain that other countries are carrying out the system precisely.
724
As regards the rest of the Statement, I should like to comment on the pigmeat situation. There appears to be some movement now concerning pigmeat. The British industry has been going through a very difficult time, and it is urgent that agreement be reached to ease their situation if the domestic bacon producers are not drastically to reduce their operations.
3.48 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, we, too, thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is something like a fish salad, the main part being fish with various items of salad round-about. If I may comment upon one of the items of salad round-about, we would welcome the Directive on pure-bred cattle. This is a freeing of trade, with which Liberals would always be in sympathy. On the question of the fish, the ban on fishing for herring is indeed welcome. I can remember when herring was an important fish in the North Sea. I can remember when, in the 1930s, one could have walked across Wick Harbour on the boats of the herring drifters. Now you cannot buy herring in the harbour of Wick. I can remember when I had only to look out of the window at home to see a gannet dive into the sea after herring, and I do not know when I have seen a gannet in the last 20 years. This is a measure of the way in which successive Governments, if I may use the cliché, have allowed our inshore fishing and our home waters to be plundered by people from other countries, to the detriment of this country.
I must ask the Government not merely to be satisfied with progress towards definitive arrangements. The Government must assure the fishermen of Britain and the consumers of Britain that nothing less than full control of our own waters up to a 50-mile limit will do. The EEC Treaty was not a licence to plunder each other's waters, but an agreement to share responsibility for the assets within the Community; and responsibility is a matter which must begin at home. We must persuade our fellow Members of the European Economic Communities that by showing a proper responsibility towards our home waters, we are giving them a lead in conservation—conservation which will be in the interests of all within the Economic Communities.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for what they have said. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, welcomed the ban for the month of June on herring. He asked whether the Government recognised that herring may one day become a rare species. Yes, we certainly do. Indeed, the Government would have preferred to agree arrangements for the whole of this year in view of the desperate condition of some of the stocks. The United Kingdom representatives will continue to press for stringent measures to protect herring stocks and we will take whatever national measures may be necessary if no agreement is reached.
With regard to other species and the 50-mile zone, which was also mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, it may be helpful to the House if I were to repeat the aims of the United Kingdom with regard to fishing in general. First, we believe that there should be an exclusive zone of up to 50 miles for United Kingdom fishermen; and, secondly, that there should be improved conservation measures and then an adequate quota system within a 200-mile zone, effective enforcement and a substantial reduction in fishing by third countries within the 200-mile Community limits. I can tell the House that some progress has been made with the EEC since the middle of February but that these still remain our outstanding aims. I am glad that the noble Viscount welcomed the announcement about pure-bred cattle. I do not think I have anything further to say on that.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I back up thenoble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for a moment? While I welcome the ban on herring fishing off the Western coast of Scotland for June, it is an empty gesture, because, as I think my noble friend said, no Western Highland fishermen or British boats fish herring in June. Might I reiterate the question of quota allocations? Although we have, as I understand it, new arrangements, one cannot really control one's catch under a system of quotas because people will cheat. I have often pointed this out before. Although our own fishermen might not cheat, I am quite sure that some fishermen from other nations in the EEC will do so.
726
I would press upon Her Majesty's Government not to be quite so definite as the Minister implied in the matter of this exclusive 50-mile limit, and even on the question of quotas. We cannot have that, I think, because it is very difficult to check.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Viscount has said. There are great difficulties in quota enforcement and that is why I spelt out that as one of the proposals that we are advocating with the Community. There was no discussion at the meeting of a future definitive internal régime; but the Government repeatedly made it clear that the present proposals by the Commission are unsatisfactory and we will press for major changes. I think that I can tell the House that the Commission has not made fresh proposals but has produced a document which attempts to identify the major questions which have to be settled and gives some guide lines. The Government are now studying this closely and we hope that it will provide a new impetus for constructive discussions. It will be deposited in your Lordships' House as soon as possible.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, without prejudice to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Thurso, might I ask a question for information? I understand that the Government of Ireland have imposed a ban on fishing within a 50-mile limit. This limit has now been challenged by the Commission who, apparently, may take it to the European Court. In the event of its being taken to the European Court and judgment given against the Republic of Ireland, is it the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the Government of Ireland would be bound to abide by that decision of the Court?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that that is a hypothetical question. We must await the judgment of the court.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this Statement by the Government will be welcomed by those of us who regard it as being perfectly European, within the concept of the European Community, for Great Britain on occasion to stand up for her rights to the same extent that other countries have not the slightest hesitation in doing.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who is a Member of the European Parliament and who has a distinguished record in this respect.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it is unfair to describe the EEC policy on fishing as in any way a licence to plunder? Would he not agree that before we joined the EEC there was no such thing as a British fishing policy and that, indeed, our fishermen opposed the very kind of constraints that now they are asking for because they themselves liked to go to other people's waters and plunder there?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that may be so, but in those happy days there was not the intensive fishing that there is now. There was not factory fishing and the scooping up that we have and the intensive fishing; and it is over-fishing which is driving the herring into extinction, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has rightly said.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that this scooping up of fish is not new and is not something that has happened since we joined the Common Market?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, of course it is not new; but there are more and more ships doing it.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION: CHRISTIAN CONTENT
3.58 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, if anybody was in any doubt as to the deep interest that exists in the subject to which my noble friend Lord Blake today directs our attention, they have only to look at the rather intimidating length of the list of speakers which lies before the House. I am glad to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, is about to embark on these difficult waters and I assure him of the close attention that we shall all pay and of the good fortune that we wish him.
If I cut any corners in argument in the course of this debate, your Lordships will please understand that it is because of the
728
length of the list of speakers that I am anxious to reduce the length of my own contribution in so far as it in me lies. I am fortunate in having my noble friend Lord Belstead to pick up any of the larger omissions, but I must warn your Lordships that this, the Christian content of religious education in schools, is not only in itself a large subject, but that it can only be properly considered in a context which is a great deal larger and which includes not merely the other subjects which may be taken in balance with Christianity in those periods in the time-table, but also the changes in the composition and persuasion of society which has occurred in the 33 years which have elapsed since the last Act of Parliament.
Many of your Lordships may wish—and certainly some will wish—to argue the pros and cons not merely of a Christian content in a religious education periods but indeed the virtue of having religious education periods at all. They doubt whether this is the right way to approach the moral enlargement of the children and of bringing them an approach to the understanding of life and the responsibilities and opportunities implicit in living it.
That is a corner that I intend to cut in this argument. I ask you only to accept that I believe that properly-conducted religious education is a vital contribution not only to the process of growing up for the individual child but also to imparting continuity, stability and humanity to British society. Some of my reasons for this will be implicit in the rest of my argument. For the others, if this proposition is seriously challenged, there are many who are better qualified than me to take up the cudgels in defence of what I believe to be an axiomatic position, not least among them my noble friend Lord Belstead.
I believe that there is a correlation between the general tone of life in society and the moral tone of our schools. I accept that a great—perhaps the greatest—effective moral teaching is implicit in the general conduct of the staff. But I am also convinced that some of that teaching, and a vital part of it, must be explicit and properly belongs in the RE period. I do not believe that morality should be divorced from religion in the curriculum, and in this I have the support of the Report of the Commission of the Church

729
of England Board of Education and the National Society, The Fourth R published in 1971.
With another recommendation of that Commission I take issue: in paragraph 575 they suggest the deletion of a specific requirement to provide religious instruction and the substitution of a general requirement, rather on the lines of the general requirements now set out in Section 8 of the 1944 Act. Many of us were deeply disillusioned by the course of the debates on the Committee and Report stages of the Education Act last year as to the very limited protection such general requirements afford. We found ourselves totally out of sympathy with the interpretation put upon them by the Government, and I do not wish to renew that argument now. I wish to point out that, since none the less they had their Bill, it is unwise to repose confidence in the protection of particular qualities of education in general aspirational—if I may so put it—clauses of Education Acts.
If such a revision was undertaken, it would be necessary as a corollary to write in the right of parents to withdraw their children, not merely from lessons but from schools from which RE had disappeared. There would have to be means of agreeing that their assessment that it had disappeared was just, and of ensuring that some other accessible school could provide proper instruction in the subject. All that is a great deal to ask, and there ought to be a better way of setting about it.
In any case, my Lords, the idea that the essential subjects should be taught as individual schools, or even individual authorities, see fit is one which is going out of fashion. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, rightly pointed out that we are now having our attention directed to the subject of core curriculum. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the proceedings today, and I hope that those proceedings will he taken to constitute part of the great national debate which is going on in education involving how many contributors not all of us know. In that case, I hope that she will consider very carefully whether religious education should not be part of a core curriculum. She will also have to take into consideration both the present and the desirable future status of the subject, about which there is grave disquiet, and the resources
730
devoted to training teachers for it. Not least, she will have to consider the nature and aims of the subject, and to do this she will have to take into account changes in the composition of society since 1944.
This ought not to be a controversial subject. We live in a plural society, a society with significant and often cohesive groups of ethnic, social, cultural and religious origins different from that of the majority. We must recognise the fact but must not be mesmerised by it. We have an obligation to these new elements in our society equal to that of the children; but our obligation to the majority, though it may be altered thereby, is not diminished. We have to recognise that race relations are a live issue in London, Birmingham and the Midlands, that a great part of our population does not live in any of those places, and to them a different educational requirement must exist.
But society is mobile and fluid—increasingly so—and it is clear that members of it will increasingly meet other members of it socially across the ethnic and religious divide. For that purpose, it is necessary that both Christian children and non-Christian children should be grounded to some extent in the beliefs of the other so that they may see them not as entirely foreign to the society which they inhabit.
Some of your Lordships may be surprised to learn that the parents and spiritual mentors of many non-Christian immigrant children welcome their inclusion in religious education periods founded on the Christian religion. Religious education, properly taught, and with a significant Christian content, is teaching about the meaning not only of Christianity but of religion itself. Because it reveals the nature of faith, the quality of worship, the virtue of spirituality, the effects of commitment and the strength of unselfishness, many of these people, particularly those of the Islamic faith, actively welcome the benefits which Christian RE can confer upon their own children.
We come then to the nub of the matter for some of us, my Lords. That is not merely the proportion of material that should be Christian in origin, but also the use to which it is to be put. I have strong views on this. It is best at this stage in a longish debate to summarise

731
them by saying that it is the ultimate responsibility of the Churches and the parents to recruit or evangelise for specific Churches and not that of the teacher-employees of the secular authorities. This is not to say that a teacher's dedication in his faith should not be manifest: it is to say that all but very exceptional teachers are more likely to draw pupils closer to their faith by unconscious acts and implicit teaching than by a conscious attempt to proselytise, which can be—as I know to my personal cost—a very inhibiting factor for the man in front of the blackboard.
It is for the teachers to till the spiritual soil; it is for the clergy to sow the seed and for the teachers and the parents to nurture it. At this juncture, I must say that, in a fairly extensive inquiry that I have conducted—if in some haste—before this debate, it is apparent that there is a crisis of morale among the teachers of religious education, a crisis of direction, a crisis of confidence in their own futures, in their own profession and in that portion of the profession in which they specialise.
I believe that it should be a function of this debate to restore to them a conviction that the work they are doing for the children and for society is recognised as being hard and demanding, but also vital to our future. That message ought to go out—and I may repeat it before we finish—in order that it may be known to these teachers. So often there is one specialist in a large school on this subject who is supposed to represent a department by himself with a few ancilliaries brought in from geography and history part-time, and these people feel themselves to be beleaguered, and they should not do so.
I hope that your Lordships who agree with me will express words of comfort to them so that they shall know that what they do in isolation is appreciated in generality. Incidental to that, there is a role for the clergy in schools. I will not dilate on a subject about which I have no doubt the right reverend Prelate who follow s will have something to say, but I think that some attention should be take in the Church to equipping the clergy who have access to schools to make the best use of it. That is, by preparing them with a knowledge of how a school functions in its various levels, both on the
732
staff and the pupil side, and also a grounding in methods of instruction and the content appropriate to it. Many do it superbly well. Many would do it less well but what they do is illuminated by a charity and a disposition towards the children which will carry all before it. There are some who have neither of these gifts and need the benefit of help.
An important aspect of this whole field is the growth in knowledge. The way in which we think develops as we grow up. Generally, people cite the work of Piaget followed by Goldman. There are others who have expounded and gone further, both here and across the Atlantic. But the accepted philosophy of this otherwise complicated subject is this: a child can in the early stages only think in concrete terms. He achieves the power of abstract thought only by stages, which may not be complete until middle age. That is a travesty, an absurd concentration of an entire educational philosophy, but it holds the essential germ of that which affects the way people think about religious education in schools.
Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the different expressions of the nature of God to be found in the Bible from Genesis to the New Testament, may, with me, wonder whether the human child does not recapitulate the mental evolution of mankind, much as the human embryo recapitulates his biological evolution. But that is a parenthetical aside. The teaching of this philosophy, with many of its implications, has for long been unquestioningly accepted, and that has included one unwarranted assumption—whether implicit in the teaching or not, I know not, but it is effective. It is the assumption that because a child cannot express an abstract idea he cannot perceive it. As the greater part of religious thought is abstract, I fear that this can have damaging results in the silence of the teacher, in attitude or in spoken teaching, upon vital areas. Your Lordships will be familiar with the phenomenon—and I do not doubt that before I sit down I shall be struck by the phenomenon of knowing exactly what I want to say but not knowing the word that I wish to use and rejecting a succession of them. That is a clear indication that you can have an idea, crystalline and exact, in your mind and yet not be able to express it.

733
As that, I believe, is true of children and as the studied ignoring of this whole area of experience by some teachers takes place, it must at least seem very odd to the child and must confirm him in the belief that grown-ups really do belong to a different species and are not the product of a childhood such as his own; or else it must suggest to him that these supremely important stirrings of the spirit are only growing pains and that the ending of them will mark the beginning of his adult life. Surely where words are absent actions can speak as loud. Where reverence, awe and humility are beyond the vocabulary, the simple action of kneeling can proclaim their content. That is one reason why I believe that if we are to be invited to turn our attention to discontinuing compulsory corporate acts of worship, we must certainly consider the primary and secondary schools differently in this context, because I also believe their effects and the importance of assembly differ at different age levels.
There is a general disquiet—and the interest in this debate is evidence of it—about the probability of an actual decline in the teaching of religion and the guardianship of morals entrusted to our schools. Where our schools are not the sole guardians of either religion or morals, they have an important role to play in the teaching of religious education. I believe this is closely related to a decline in the status of the subject which can and should be reversed. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, referred to one approach to this, which would be in some way to enhance the career status of specialism in RE. That is a matter which we discussed in an earlier debate, and I know that the noble Lord who is to reply to today's debate has specific reservations about some of the ways in which it can be done.
It can, of course, also be tackled in the schools. In most schools, for instance—and it may seem ludicrous to your Lordships that this should be important, but I assure you it is—religious education is not an examined subject. In secondary schools, certainly, where exams are normal, it may be discontinued after the first, second or third year. Not only that, but the balance of marking is weighted against religion because it is seen as giving an unfair tilt to any prognosis to be made of a
734
child's performance in academic subjects when the marks are aggregated. I do think that religious education contains an academic as well as a spiritual content and this need not be at any very elevated level in order to be subject to testing.
It is my experience in the classroom, and that of many of my colleagues, that subjects which can be evaluated achieve greater importance in the eyes of the pupil and of course in the eyes of the staff, because the staff are themselves tested by the results. It is not, obviously, right to mark a child on whether or not it is thought that he has a right interpretation, for example, of the meaning of the parable of the good Samaritan. But it is right to mark him on the degree of intellectual effort he has put into mastering the subject. That, I think should be drawn to the attention of teachers. I believe the whole way in which the subject is timetabled and handled in schools should be the subject of an inquiry and could well be the subject of a circular by the Department, analogous to that suggested by the noble Lord, because the burden of our society and its formation rests upon future generations of teachers who are about to be drawn into this situation.
I am striving to be brief, but I cannot leave aside reference to what is going on in the training colleges. A comparison was recently undertaken by the Religious Education Council between the number of students qualifying in main course RE in June of this year and the number of places available for students to take the same course starting in September. It is applicable, of course, only to respondent colleges and departments, but that is a wide spectrum. The comparison showed a decline of 30 per cent. before the announcement of the latest round of cuts last January and 40 per cent. after they had been taken into account. That may be about par for the course for a scarcity subject, and we must take into account the overall reduction in the teacher force. But the position of the subject is already weak and there is no indication as yet of how many colleges will find their religious studies departments viable under the new conditions.
The stark fact is that even allowing for an upturn in the provision for subsidiary courses in RE of all types—and some of

735
them are pretty insubstantial—the total entry to the subject across the year will have declined from 1,128 to 880 at the most. If that is the scale upon which the teaching force is to be reduced in response both to the decline in the school population and to the present economic pressure, we have a right to see some advantage wrung from the situation and to expect in particular an increase in the standards required both of admission to courses and for certification, qualification or degree at the end of them.
The time has come to assert one other principle, which must never be lost sight of in the colleges: that is that the responsibility of the college or department of education is only secondarily to the students. Their primary duty is towards the children who will eventually be entrusted to their care, and they must not leave the college to undertake that duty until they are fit to perform it. If advantage can perhaps he wrung from this reduction of the intake of student teachers in toto, I do not see any easy way of wringing a comparable advantage from the regional impact of this policy of closure in which the Government are engaged.
A most valuable feature of the report to which I alluded is its geographical analysis of the impact of closures upon RE main and subsidiary course places. For example, in Oxford there were two respondents: the reduction was from 70 places to 35, or 50 per cent. overall, which is perhaps bad enough in itself. But it included an increase of 10 places in addition to the existing 10 on subsidiary courses, so the reduction of main course provision was from 50 to 15—a swingeing 75 per cent.—taking it, unless there are factors which we do not know of relating to the university itself, I would have thought, below the level of a viable course.
In the North-East, where there are no such contingencies to account for the phenomenon that I know of, responses came from five major towns and the provision dropped from 97 places to 23 main course and from 14 to 6 subsidiary, giving an overall reduction of 74 per cent. This must give force to the eloquent pleas against execution many of your Lordships will have received from denominational colleges in the area. It must also prompt us to ask Her Majesty's
736
Government to what extent they took into account the effects of their programme of closures on the provision of specific subjects, and what steps they intend to take to put right the damage that clearly seems to have been done, in view of the fact that most teachers tend on the whole to teach in the areas where they train.
One such step would be to introduce in-service conversion courses for the retraining of teachers, analogous to those which they are at present attempting to introduce for mathematics. But, my Lords, we want to know that they are viable and I understand that of the 20 London authorities approached in March, so far only 10 have replied and none will either agree to second a teacher qualified in another subject or to guarantee such a retrained teacher employment on his return in 1978. Therefore, if there is to he this sort of response we need to be told how it is to be made to work. Local education authorities cannot afford the £5,000 replacement that is necessary for a secondment. In some areas outside London, the recourse is simply going to a large school, taking a teacher out of it and telling his colleagues that they have to cover for him, as if he had 'flu, for six months. In others, they have re-timetabled free periods and have groups of teachers instructed by tutors from local colleges coming into the schools. But something needs to be done.
I would wish to give your Lordships many examples but I will not, because of the time. I will, however, draw your attention to one extraordinary example. Many of your Lordships interested in the subject will be familiar with Birmingham, because of the protracted and excited debate that took place about the content of the Birmingham agreed syllabus, or, at least, of the notes accompanying it for the guidance of teachers. In that area, the whole of the local education authority provision for the training of teachers, that I can discover, in local education authority institutions is borne by two lecturers. In an area where the teaching of the subject is so controversial, one can only hope that both of them do not get 'flu at the same time.
I conducted a small inquiry last week. I wrote to all the heads of colleges and departments of education, and I think the fact that by Tuesday I had had 120 replies

737
is a measure of very great courtesy on their part, and also of the concern with which they view the situation. From their replies, I discovered the very great concern that exists, not only in Church colleges, over this subject, and over the decline of morale. I also discovered from the replies to the questionnaire, that it is common for student teachers to qualify to teach principally in primary schools, without having any introduction at all to the subject of religious education—and almost all of them will have to take it. It is quite common, even, for main course students of theology and religious studies to graduate—even indeed from two Church colleges—without a methods course on how to apply their knowledge incorporated. This is something that requires investigation.
I will not recapitulate, as I had intended, the points which I wish to recommend. Those of your Lordships who are still sufficiently interested can read Hansard; those of your Lordships who are not, can heave a sigh of relief. I should like to endorse the proposals of my noble friend Lord Blake, as lie recapitulated them. I should like to see, in particular, distribution of a circular of guidance to local authorities relating both to colleges and to schools, and I take well to the idea that schools of a certain size should be required to have a teacher qualified in this subject.
But the basic question which I should have answered before, but which could not he answered out of context, is the claim to primacy of the Christian content. In a country that is founded and informed, however mundanely, upon the Christian faith; in a country in which the witnesses in every court testify, unless they object, upon the Bible before they give evidence; in a country in which the day's work in both Houses of Parliament starts with Christian prayer, read by a Christian bishop or a Christian priest; in a country in which the essential focus of the ceremony by which we invest the Head of State with sovereignty is her annointing and crowning in our chief Abbey Church by the Primate of all England, in a country in which the headship of that State is combined in one person with the supreme governorship of the Established Christian Church; in a country in which in times of mortal danger—as I clearly remember after the evacuation of Dunkirk—the churches and chapels overflow across the
738
pavements and into the very streets, as people come to prayer in times of national danger—if that is the bedrock of faith revealed when the tide of courage and fortune ebbs, then in that country, in our country, if every child entrusted to the schools maintained by the State cannot be presented with a clear and coherent idea of the principal content of Christian Holy Scripture; if he cannot be made aware of the identity of Jesus Christ and the events of his life on earth, of his crucifixion and of his resurrection as recorded in the Gospels; if he is not given an opportunity to realise from this at least some part of the nature of God, as revealed by and through Christ and the Christian faith, and if lie is not given an opportunity to put that faith in context with other world religions which he will meet in his adult life, and indeed, in his juvenile life, then something in that State is very wrong indeed, because the very taproot of its character is wilting.
I believe, indeed, that that taproot is less sound than it used to he. It is wilting, but it is not dying, and those of your Lordships—and there will be some, I fear —who suggest the end of religious education are, in fact, asking us to lay an axe to it. They are not unpatriotic, and I know that they are sincere, but what they are asking to do is something profoundly to the disservice of this country. I believe that what I have said expresses, in some measure, what most of your Lordships believe. I believe it will be supported, in some measure, by most of the people who live in this country.
We have got through the last thousand years in the knowledge of the Christian faith. A knowledge of God has been brought to us by a knowledge of Our Lord, and are these teachings which have brought us thus far to be denied by us to our children who must travel so much further in an ever more perilous world? Is Christianity to be relegated to a minor position, or even only a position of parity? My Lords, God forbid!
4.26 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this highly relevant topic at this time, and I am sure that the noble Lord will be delighted to see the very distinguished list of speakers

739
who are to take part in the debate. Also, I should like to add my good wishes to the noble Viscount who is to follow me by making his maiden speech. He could not make a maiden speech in a kinder and more receptive place.
I intervene as a Socialist and as a Christian, both of which I have tried rather hard to live up to for many years. I have never seen any conflict. Each philosophy is based on the very simple belief that all human life has a dignity, and all humans should be brothers, one to another. Today I have been at a conference of head teachers of various Church schools, in a school not very far from here, where we talked about—and this is very apt—the Church, the family and the school. It was very significant that many of the head teachers reported that, over and over again, Church schools could give testimony to the fact that their rolls were oversubscribed, in a city where the State schools have falling rolls and are often undersubscribed.
We tried to probe the reason. The parents were asked "Why do you prefer a Church school?" They were often unable to explain, except in very simple terms—they liked the discipline or they liked the atmosphere. Some said that the children were better behaved. But I think we would appreciate the fact that parents, in a society which is not notable for the attendance in Churches, have recognised that we are still a Christian community. One headmaster described a situation in which many of the parents recognise themselves as living in the decrepit areas of the inner cities—those which we debated recently—where children are subjected to every kind of temptation, and where there are not the opportunities for their vast energies to be deployed. Therefore, the atmosphere and the way of life that they found in the Church schools was, at least, some armour of protection against the society in which they found themselves.
In an age of changing standards, it becomes more and more important that the values of Christian belief are at least explained and practised in schools. Even if we accept—and we must, if we are honest and remember our own adolescence—that there is a point of rebellion, we must at least give children something to
740
challenge and something to rebel against. How does a teacher or a parent get across a message, either by precept or by behaviour, unless there is some basic philosophy which enables the message to be put across? To me, the most dangerous creature in our society is not the revolutionary. Incidentally, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, that Marxism is not so much a religion as an economic theory. The revolutionary is not so dangerous as the cotton wool person—the person who neither accepts nor rejects; it does not really matter: you please yourself. Our society is a Christian democracy. I find that both of these concepts are equally exciting and ones which children can be excited about. You find this when you take parties round the House and speak to them about the people who have died in order that they can express a vote for their peers and about those who have died in order to retain the faith which is now ours.
One of the most rewarding facts of this day and age is that we are in the grip of an ecumenical movement. I believe with the poet who says:
"I cannot hate a man because he worships at a different altar from mine".
There has been much moving discussion about the number of children who come from other parts of the world and who need instruction in their own philosophies and creeds. This problem was mentioned today at the conference. There is no conflict here; nobody would disagree with this. However, it is possible that in seeking to provide a very wide spectrum we might at the end of the day produce such a mish-mash that there will not be any clear message for anybody.
May I remind noble Lords—it is a very important point to be reminded of—that education originally came from the Church. There has never been any evidence produced that students who came from a background of religion showed any limitation in their thinking. This is true thoughout the world. As a Catholic, I have always believed that we are international. It has taken a long time to reveal to me that there is a difference if people are black. This was never a tenet of the religion to which I subscribe nor, indeed, is it a tenet held by anybody who believes in the brotherhood of man.

741
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, is correct when he says that most parents want some form of religious education for their children. If any of your Lordships have experienced the kind of proposition which is put up every now and again and which involves the destruction of a local church, they will know that the opposition comes not from local churchmen but from many people who probably have not been to church other than to be baptised. I recall one such instance in my own area. Perhaps it is a form of insurance: they want their final departure from this world to be accompanied by at least some certainty.
To those who say that Christianity has failed, may I reply that, just like Socialism, Christianity has never really been tried. We have not tried it yet. I wish to underline the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, that Christian education must be retained. May I say with the great poet that:
"All that is needed for evil men to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
How splendid it must be to be so certain of yourself that you do not need anyone to say "Thank you" to when you have a blessing or to give you consolation when you are sad. I know that I am not one of those. A quotation from another religion expresses my Christian belief. It comes from the Indian poet who says in that beautiful book The Prophet:
"Your children are not your children but our children. You may give them your love but you may not give them their thoughts, for their souls dwell in the realms of tomorrow".
That is a terrific responsibility which we must not neglect.
4.34 p.m.
Viscount ALANBROOKE: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the kind words of encouragement they have given to me. It is only with diffidence that I rise to speak in your Lordships' House, but there is indeed a great warmth and friendship that abounds here, not only from noble Lords but also from the Officers of the House and from every staff member. It is because I have been made to feel at home within the short space of 10 weeks that I feel able to attempt my first utterance. Thus I beg your Lordships' patience. I cannot present the usual credentials of competence to speak in the debate. My main claim to fame is that probably more recently than any
742
other noble Lord here, I have passed through the process of teacher training. My experience, therefore, is on an eye-toeye level with the young teacher who has just qualified.
A few of my contemporaries are young RE teachers. They are deeply concerned about the erosion of Christianity from their subject and the proliferation in it of other material. Thus, I can wholeheartedly join with the noble Lord. Lord Blake, in calling for an independent inquiry, in the maintained schools, into the current provision for the teaching of religion. To draw attention to the feasibility and importance of such an inquiry, together with some of the inherent difficulties, I should like to commend to your Lordships a regional survey executed in Cheltenham and made available on the 5th of this month. The Cheltenham Council of Churches instigated this survey as a direct result of the debate, in another pleace in March last year, that has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blake.
The survey was carried out by a Working Party of nine, headed by Martin Davis, vice-chairman of the Cheltenham Council of Churches. They set out to establish what was in fact happening in the field of religious education within the area of concern of the Cheltenham Council of Churches, and 37 primary, 14 secondary and four special schools were examined. Their facts were collected via questionnaires put to the school staffs, and their report draws up some conclusions and states some opinions. The authors are conscious that it has limitations, including a lack of "in depth" studies of samples. Of their expectations they wrote:
"One of the main hopes of the Working Party is that this report will lead to further discussion between representatives of the Churches and representatives of the teaching profession, and between parents, teachers and clergy".
One might hope that, if a national inquiry were instituted, it would instigate similar benefits on a national scale.
Regarding the content of the report, the Working Party concede that their observations raise questions of interpretations of terms. They experienced difficulty in drawing hard conclusions about what actually takes place in assemblies and classrooms, because the terms that

743
we use have so many shades of meaning. The undermining of linguistic truth, suggested by Paul Johnson in the Sunday Times 18 days ago, plays a part in obscuring from us the real content of religious education.
The Cheltenham report states that teachers themselves are uncertain about what RE should involve and that, if the 1944 Act is not scrupulously followed, it is due less to hostility to Christianity than to this very uncertainty. Thus, a national independent inquiry might, by its analysis of the current situation, help us to define our terms more tightly.
The retention of, or alteration to the provisions of the 1944 Act surelyconstitutes one of the big bones to worry in this debate. The findings regarding this Act by the Cheltenham Working Party are interesting and surely of crucial importance. The report suggests that the majority of teachers are in favour of preserving the provisions of the 1944 Act. In the primary sector, the teachers were, almost without exception, in favour of the present legal position of RE. Only four county primaries out of the 37 primary schools which were visited wished for a change. This finding appears to be at odds with other reports that state the virtual nonexistence of Christian-based religious education in some schools in the primary sector, elsewhere in the country.
I feel that a national independent inquiry would undoubtedly help us to understand the true state of religious education in primary schools. The situation is particularly critical in the primary sector where there are not many specialist RE teachers to maintain a quality control. In the majority of Cheltenham secondary schools there was expressed:
"A generally clear belief that the legal position should not be changed regarding the 1944 Act".
One wonders whether a national inquiry might show the commitment of Cheltenham teachers to the 1944 provisions to be more than just a local phenomenon. It must appear important that these facts be known, for without them the continued debate will flounder in a mass of opinion rather than centre upon known facts.
The Cheltenham Working Party did not present a questionnaire to parents. How-
744
ever, they gained, via the schools, this conclusion upon the 1944 Act:
"What parents want is far from clear—there is no evidence apart from the small but strong Humanist lobby, and those who withdraw their children for other reasons, that parents wish to see RE discontinued or the 1944 Act's provisions radically altered".
May I again repeat the call for an independent inquiry, at a national level, for surely the opinion of parents is important. Doubtless some measure of parental opinion could be gained from such an inquiry. The Cheltenham Report had to limit itself to questionnaires to school staff. Therefore no opinions from the children themselves are recorded.
I am not suggesting that a national inquiry should become in any way an organ of "pupil power" containing votes for or against religious education. But the content of new agreed syllabuses might be improved if a national inquiry could help us to know better what religious and moral concepts children can understand at various stages of their mental development. Goldman, in his work called Readiness for Religion has done valuable research in this field in the past, but Peter Lefroy Owen in his Paper Curriculum Christianity says of religious understanding in young people that:
"No more than hits and pieces of research are at present being undertaken."
I feel there is a danger of expecting too much of our children regarding their understanding of RE concepts. Also, we cannot expect children to digest and rationalise a fearful mixture of comparative religions, humanism, atheism, stances for living, political ethics as well as Christianity. Just one of these disciplines requires a well developed conceptual mental capability. To attempt to teach the children the lot in one period a week is a little too ambitious.
I feel that we have to get back to sorting out the priorities in this subject. Much of the material that now encumbers the RE period could be taught under the headings of liberal studies, social studies, history or health. A national survey would undoubtedly help in rationalising the situation. More experienced minds than mine will, I hope, argue the preeminence of Christianity and the importance of allowing our children their right to know firmly the values upon which our

745
society is built, and about the superlative nature of our ethos, which is currently and fashionably denigrated and underestimated.
I should like to thank your Lordships for your patience, and end by suggesting that if we cannot afford to have armed might we can certainly not afford to neglect the cultivation of the great spiritual and moral qualities that the 1944 Act was designed to foster.
4.44 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, it is my very great privilege to speak for the whole House in welcoming the maiden speech which we have just heard. It was of a character which I hope will encourage the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, to address us often. First, it was based on facts, on a detailed survey, and after those facts came the message which he wished to deliver, arising from them. Too often in this House we do not argue in that scientific way and I am quite sure all your Lordships will wish to join in congratulating the noble Viscount.
Several noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in order not to interrupt my argument I want to begin with a reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said from the Liberal Benches. I found it so refreshing; it reminded me of the days when I was a Young Liberal, way back in 1906, when Nonconformists were going to prison for objecting to church teaching in schools. It is encouraging to find that although the Liberal Party has gone back on so much of its radicalism it has not gone back upon that principle.
I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Blake, in his description of religious teaching in schools at the present time as being deeply unsatisfactory. He pointed out that it is one of the two compulsory subjects referred to in the 1944 Act. I find it a little ironical that the two compulsory subjects should be religious education on the one side and physical education upon the other. He said—and I noted his words—that though it is compulsory it is:
"The weakest, the least well taught and the most perfunctory of the subjects dealt with in school".
746
Indeed he described religious education in schools as the "cindereila" subject. He explained this unsatisfactory situation as arising from the reduction in the Christian content in the teaching of religion.
I do not want to be controversial in this speech. I have too much reverence for the person and the teaching of the Founder of the Christian religion; I have too much regard for the spiritual experience of Christians personally; I have too much appreciation of what the Churches are now doing in the world for the equality of human beings. I want to he constructive, I hope even conciliatory. But I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, that the unsatisfactory condition of the teaching of religion in schools is not necessarily due to his explanation but to the development and the liberalisation of thought in the last 33 years, since the Education Act was adopted.
The noble Lord referred to the last world war and to Christianity as being the opposite of the Nazi philosophy. I would say that it was the experience of the last world war which led to so much rethinking about religion. I do not regard the question as final, but many people said: "If there can be such a human disaster, how can a God have allowed it?" I think that is philosophically an unsatisfactory question, but it was often put. When the noble Lord said that the Christian philosophy was the opposite of Nazism I could not help remembering that the opposition to Nazism in Germany came much more from Socialists, and even from Communists, filling their concentration camps, than, with some very fine exceptions, it did from the Churches in Germany.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? May I remind him of the Ribbentrop-Stalin agreement of 1939? I do not think it is entirely correct to say that most opposition to Nazism came from Communism. I follow his thinking, but I think that is a rather dangerous remark to make in view of the historical circumstances.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not want to argue that in detail, but I would say that the concentration camps in

747
Germany were much more full of Socialists, and even Communists, than they were of members of the Churches. I pay my tribute to certain Christian leaders in Germany who were so courageous in their opposition.
I want to suggest to Lord Blake that the unsatisfactory condition of religious teach-in in schools is mostly due to the development of thought, to the liberalisation of thought, and that it is a reflection of a tendency which is much deeper than the explanation which he gave. Liberalisation of thought has gone on in the Christian Church as well as outside. One has to ask, if Christianity is to be taught in the schools, which Christianity—the old view of the verbal inspiration of every word in the Bible, or the accepted Church theology in creeds today of the Virgin birth, of the supernatural miracles and the physical resurrection? It is within the Church itself that there have now been doubts about that theology. Leaders both in the Anglican Church and in the Nonconformist Churches are expressing a much more rational view of Christianity which rejects those views. Which of those views is to be taught in the schools?
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, referred to the fact that we are now living in a multiracial country and, in consequence, a inulticredal country. I recognise at once that many of the immigrants who come from the Commonwealth countries are Christians—that is particularly the case with the West Indians. But does the noble Lord, Lord Blake, really believe that West Indian Christians are satisfied with the kind of religious teaching which is given by English Christians in schools?
Lord BLAKE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, of course I am not satisfied with it. That is the whole point of raising this debate.
Lord BROCKWAY: Exactly, but I am trying to put it a little differently. Has the noble Lord been to West Indian Christian services, with the laughter, the clapping of hands, the singing, the extrovert expression of their religion? When their children go to our schools and hear the kind of cold Christian teaching given there, they are not likely to be encouraged in their Christianity; they are much more
748
likely to be deterred. While there is that minority of Christians among the West Indians, among the Commonwealth immigrants as a whole, there are the Hindus, there are the Buddhists, there are the Sikhs, and their conviction and faith is just as deep as that of any Christian. To say in our present multiracial society that one kind of religion must be taught, that that must be the instruction, that it must be a reflection only of Christian content—that is a denial of the kind of society towards which we are moving.
I said I wanted to be constructive. I find it a fact that all the religions have a certain ethical code. I accept at once that the Christian ethical code is the highest of all; but it is there in all the religions, and it is there in the Humanist movement to which I belong, just as sincerely as in any religious expression. It is a universal code—the belief in truth, the belief in the sacredness of individual personality, the belief in the rights of others, the belief in honesty, the belief in service to the community, the belief in identity with all peoples, the belief in tolerance, the belief in forgiveness, the belief in compassion, the belief in equality, the belief, supremely, in love. These are ethics which we all accept. and these are ethics which should be taught in our schools. They will be taught in a biased way if they are associated with any particular religion.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, used a phrase which I do not entirely remember, but I think when he was referring to the teaching of ethics he said it would be vague and flabby; I believe that was the phrase.
Lord BLAKE: My Lords, I think not. I do not think I actually said anything about the teaching of ethics. Perhaps some other noble Lord used the phrase.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I shall read Hansard with interest. Perhaps wrongly I attached to the noble Lord an excuse for what I want to say, namely, that so far from the teaching of ethics being flabby, it can be the most exciting subject in the whole of our curriculum. Think of our own English leaders in ethics—More, Bacon, Winstanley, Paine, Godwin, Shelley, Morris. Think of those abroad who, more recently, have given us leadership in ethics—Schweitzer, with his belief in the reverence of life; Bonhöffer, and his Christ in the Community; Gandhi,

749
the Hindu, with his belief in non-violence. Fancy teaching a class ethics with that kind of a curriculum—what an inspiration! I should love to do it myself. I am sure that on that basis of ethical teaching, belonging to all the religions and to none, we can find a teaching in our schools of a morality, a community service, a dedication to humanity, which would mean that our youth would advance towards the realisation of those aims in the Britain of tomorrow.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I just mention that when he was referring to the religions of the immigrants in this country he left out, I am sure unintentionally, the Moslems. I think he would like to correct that.
Lord BROCKWAY: It certainly was unintentional if I left out the Moslems. I have a son who is a Moslem. Perhaps it was something Freudian which led to that omission.
5 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, first, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, for the excellent way in which he delivered his speech, for sharing his views and giving us some insight into teacher training at the present time. I should like to wish him success in both his careers, in teaching and in this House. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for the excellent way in which she put over her very sincere way of thinking, which I am sure will influence many people. I have had the pleasure of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, many times in another place. I appreciate his views, but matters are not quite as he suggests. One of the great things—and he has mentioned this today—is the fact that we in this country all have freedom to live our lives as we wish; we have our thoughts and are able to express them. We must be very pleased about that.
The other day I was standing at a bus stop in the Edgware Road. A West Indian came up to me and asked whether I could tell him of a church where he could go—it was a Sunday. He said that he would like me to know that he wanted a church that was full of life because he went to so many of our churches and
750
found them empty. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned that. The West Indian said: "You brought Christianity to my country. Do you still believe in it?" I had a talk with him and suggested that he went to All Saints in Margaret Street where I knew that he would find a good congregation and where he would be welcome. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that we must give freedom of thought to these people. At least in the musical Jesus Christ, Superstar we can see the cast enjoying a different type of religion which has gone down extremely well in this country. I may be exaggerating a little by giving that as an example.
It is a very difficult task to teach unless one believes oneself. There is a Church of England leaflet which says:
"No teacher of English would think it enough to teach about poetry. His task is to enable girls and boys to create within themselves that imaginative insight for them to enter into the poetic experience".
The same applies to teachers of religion; it is a very close parallel. Therefore, if one is to teach religion, one must bring the children to the point where they understand what the Christian commitment would mean.
The task of the teacher is made all the more difficult at present by the upbringing of children. Children are christened and often have godparents. I wonder how many of those godparents ever carry out their vows with regard to the teaching and looking after of their godchildren. The children then go to school and are, perhaps, confirmed. They grow up and are married in church, perhaps never having attended since they were christened or confirmed. They are then buried by the Church. Sometimes they attend services at festival times. I am very glad to say that in this Jubilee Year a great many churches are getting together and holding services, particularly in the rural areas.
I agree with the noble Lords who say that ideas have changed since the days of Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. I should also like to pay tribute to Mr. Chuter Ede, who was a very strong Unitarian and who did first-class work with regard to education, to the civil servants, and to Archbishop Temple and his advisers. Now, there is an even wider conception of religious education than there was in

751
those days. If those really interested in teaching, and those who consider that children should be instructed about Christianity, are to educate them adequately, it is necessary to explain the traditions, the history and the way of life of our country. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would agree with that.
I should like to refer to the West Country. In Devon they have been discussing this matter a great deal and have accepted and adopted what is known as the Lancashire Agreed Syllabus. The guidelines are to go to all the schools, both county and voluntary. It is very interesting to know that local authority representatives as well as the teachers' representatives, together with those who represent the Churches, insisted at the Agreed Syllabus Conference that the syllabus chosen should clearly have the stamp of Christianity. From my inquiries I understand that in the West Country, and in particular Devon, the great majority of parents and teachers alike wish religious education to continue to find a place in the curriculum of their school. They wish this subject to be treated as professionally as any other subject, both in the county and the voluntary Church schools.
When attending prize-givings I have been particularly interested in the number of prizes that are given for scripture. This shows an interest which is not so well-known. In the CSE, 0 and A level examinations in 1975, 98,500 children took this subject, so there is an interest even for examinations of that type.
One question which worries me is that of teacher training colleges being closed. I hope that consideration will be given in particular to St. Mark and St. John—which is a new one in Plymouth—which went to Plymouth from Chelsea; to St. Luke's at Exeter and to the Rolle College at Exmouth. Those colleges all have high reputations for providing teachers who are adequately trained and, as has been mentioned by some noble Lords, there is a shortage of such teachers. In my hand I have an appeal, from a Church school which I know very well, against a reduction in the number of teachers. It says that it will not be allowed a teacher in the future. The headmaster writes:
752
"…but I am sure you will realise what a serious effect it would have here on the children's education and the health of my staff".
Like so many of these schools, it is working in a rather difficult area. The headmaster continues:
"You know the circumstances at St. Peter's far too well for me to have to list any of them, suffice it to say that they are still the same!"
That is an excellent school, working under very difficult conditions, and I hope that this appeal will be taken up by the local authority so that it can continue with its excellent work. We must also realise that the university departments are cutting down on religious education. In 1965, 88 per cent. were giving some form of religious education; it has now been reduced to 46 per cent.
Although local authority schools cannot turn out practising Christians, they can help children. It would seem to me that the real lead must be given by the Churches themselves and, of course, by the parents. Parent/teacher associations can be of help. The teachers work can be undone, or not aided, without the support of parents. Therefore parents should be encouraged to read Bible stories to their children in their homes, in the same way as they read fairy stores. The Spens Report in 1938 stated:
"No boy or girl can be counted properly educated unless he or she has been made aware of the fact of the existence of a religious interpretation of life".
It is interesting that in the United States of America religion is not taught by Constitution, but they still have a morning assembly in which the young children stand with their hands crossed on their hearts and sing national songs.
I should like to pay a tribute—and it has already been paid by one noble Lord—to the Nonconformists. I believe that they number about 12 per cent. of the population. When we remember the work that they do in Sunday schools in educating the young and even the older people, we must he very grateful to them—especially so in the West Country where they are so active. We must also be grateful to the Roman Catholics who have excellent self-discipline. I recognise the difficulties in some areas where there is a mixture of races. However, like the West Indian whom I mentioned earlier, many of them are active Christians and

753
in many schools the Moslems and others can have separate worship if they wish. I should like to see many more people from overseas going to teacher training colleges so that they can all get an interesting exchange of ideas as regards these different religions.
I am worried about the question of teachers who have Communist backgrounds. In Hong Kong there was a primary school in which a teacher with such a background had been working for three years—it was a school for the children of Service personnel. I gather that there was a struggle by the parents to obtain his dismissal. I am told that his views still linger in many of the minds of the children and that this has upset some of the parents.
I should like to conclude by reading from a letter from a retired coalminer which was published in the Daily Telegraph. He wrote:
"After a lifetime of Christian discipleship I am absolutely sure of the foundation upon which I have built."
This means that a happy man has written, and it is good to be reminded that Christianity is a way of life.
5.10 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to commence by adding my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Alanbrooke on his excellent maiden speech, and to add the hope that he will give us many more of a like nature. Some of your Lordships may remember that in kindred debates to this in the past I have quoted the views of the headmaster of a large comprehensive school in South-East London. I have known him for over 30 years, and I believe that he was probaby one of the speakers at the conference this morning to which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred.
In his school he has one-third West Indian children and one-third children of single parent families. When it was suggested that I should take part in this debate I naturally went to seek his views. I do not think I can do better than quote him. In expressing his support for the promotion of Christian teaching he gives two main reasons.
"One. I believe a large number of our black folk require it for their children—more than most people estimate. A large number of their parents
754
are positive witnessing Christians and many of them are distressed at the lack of witnesses in many schools".
I might add here that in a previous letter he wrote to me he said:
"A large number of my black children have a Christian tradition which would put many of our natives to shame".
I mention that because it rather fits in with what so many noble Lords have been saying in the earlier parts of this debate. He goes on:
"Two. And this is by far the more important—I think we may be seeing the ultimate decline in 'the family' as we have known it. Thirty per cent. of my children come from broken homes, 30 per cent. effectively from single parent families. When I gave this information in a talk recently one of my listeners (from the stockbroker belt, no less) told me this was the percentage in their primary schools."
This headmaster goes on to say:
"Now we have the doctrine in our schools of in loco parentis'. It is used, I suppose, as a test of care if a child gets damaged in classroom or playground. However, many folk, it seems to me, are now saying 'For God's sake take my child, because, try as I will I cannot keep my family together!'".
He ends up:
"The Christian faith is based on the Holy Family. Even non-religious people know this very well. Schools will need this Christian teaching on family life if the nation is to survive at all. If family life goes, so will the nation".
He says later that the proportion of 30 per cent. of single parent families which he has now in his school will, he reckons, become 50 per cent. in another 10 years. He then said in that particular message that he felt so strongly on the subject that he was going to lecture on it at the Church Schools Conference, to which I think the noble Baroness referred.
Your Lordships may have seen reports of the business and professional women's meeting that took place recently in Bournemouth, where they voted for the Government to set up an inquiry into the supply of qualified teachers in religious education. Mrs. Rule, herself a head teacher, is reported as saying:
"Religious education is being downgraded into education about religion. In the hands of atheists all religion can he denigrated while in the hands of Marxists all religion can be put across as a tool for the oppression of the workers".
Arguing against the theory that so many immigrants have a different religion and therefore we should not teach them Christianity, a Winifred Toothill said:

755
"If immigrants come to our land it won't do them any harm to listen to a Christian teacher: their parents can teach them their own religion".
Then from my neck of the woods, which is the same as Lady Vickers's—and I am sure she will have read this—there was a certain leader in the Western Morning News of 16th April which states:
"It would be fine if all parents were conscientious and took an interest in their children. It seems however, from the ever-expanding social services we have had to set up to compensate for the omissions of inadequate parents, that standards of family care are not getting any higher. This, as the cliché has it, is the fault of us all, society is to blame. Our progressives and intellectuals have been sneering at the bourgeois standards of responsible working class and middle class families for years. Their propaganda has worked so well that the results can be seen in the ever-growing numbers of divorces and one-parent families…"
It goes on:
"People who try to conform to the old-fashioned values of constancy in marriage and responsibility for their children are laughed at. For too long it has been the smart thing to pose as a rebel and to mock established values".
And what, my Lords, do we mean by established values other than our Christian values? We are still nominally a Christian country. If we do not teach Christian values in our schools regularly and from the earliest ages then history has taught us that it will be the end of any nation—that means this nation.
Take an example from a letter to The Times of 27th April, on the subject of erotic theatre. The writer there says:
"The critics have banded togther, to try and make it seem that nothing is obscene".
The writer goes on:
"It is impossible to uphold values in schools when adults are enjoying a barbarous culture".
By abrogating proper religious teaching in our schools we are now producing an amoral society. Amorality, to my mind, is the real danger. Immorality does at least signify that we know the difference between right and wrong. Amorality signifies that you do not recognise anything as wrong. As a confessed sinner it shows I know I have done wrong. How do I know that? Because I was taught my Christian Catechism as a child, not because I just made a study of comparative religion.
The Marxists produced their Little Red Book on education which is basically an attack on Christianity. I have quoted
756
from that in other contexts and I will not repeat myself in your Lordships' House today. In my Catechism envy, hatred and malice were sins; for them they are means to a political end. I do not think that atheists are the worst enemies of a Christian society. I think that that honour goes—and here is where I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—to the Humanists and the Communists; the latter who try to substitute their own "religion" for what they describe as the "opium of the people". In 1898 a namesake of mine wrote:
"The British Empire will last only as long as the British people have faith in themselves".
Bringing that statement up to date, I would say that the British will completely disintegrate, politically, administratively, and any way you care to mention, when they lose the last of the faith of Christianity on which their civilisation was built.
To save ourselves we must insist that our very young are taught the basic concepts of right and wrong; that is, we must reverse the trend which has produced the tendency towards the permissive society which we see enveloping us today. The commitments to teach Christianity must not be watered down to a study of comparative religions. That covers a multitude of sins, and the main damage has been done to that cornerstone of Christian civilisation, the family as the unit. Even our taxation system has favoured those living in sin and our death duties, or their modern equivalent, do nothing to encourage parental responsibility or the keeping of the commandment of honouring they father and mother.
Until we ensure that the young in our State schools learn the basic Christian beliefs, what chance is there of containing the advancing evils of the society we see around us? It is the failure of the Churches to get their message across that is producing a society with no mental discipline, and without that discipline you produce anarchy, and from anarchy comes, as sure as night follows day, the physical disciplines of tyranny and dictatorship. "Conscience doth make cowards of us all"—but it is the new conscience, not the Christian conscience.
Take as one example the treatment of our old people. The increasing demand for places in institutions for our old folk

757
shows that more and more people want to be rid of the responsibility of caring for their own old folk; another nail in the coffin of the Christian concept of the family. As I see it, this Godless society is educating a physically healthy generation of spiritual cripples.
5.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of BLACKBURN: My Lords, the subject before the House raises issues far wider than just the content of the curriculum used in our schools. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, in his requests asks that there should be an inquiry and it seems most essential that we should know what is going on, for I doubt whether we have sufficient evidence, because of the variation from one authority to another, to speak in other than general terms.
Lord Blake reminded us that the Education Act 1944 was passed at a time when the nation was still at war, and the memories of Pearl Harbour and Changi Gaol, the memories of Belsen and Dachau, of anti-semitic cruelty both before and during the war, the memories of obliteration bombing, whether of Coventry or Cologne, were fresh, and to leave out of an Education Bill any provision which would enable our children not only to understand but to desire the Christian values on which our society should be grounded was then unthinkable.
The purpose of religious education, as I see it, is to enable people to live not only in right relationship with their neighbour but in right relationship with their Maker, and to do so with understanding and willingness. At the opening of this House, we say in the psalms that the Earth is the Lord's and that the Lord is King; if these things are true, then moral education is not enough. To do justly and to love mercy is not enough. One can be just, but only just. To walk humbly with one's God is different and it is this dimension which is the purpose of religious education.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, in his maiden speech asked that in an inquiry some inquiry should be made of the young people themselves as to what they believed and what they were taught. In fact, there was a recent report of the General Synod Board of Education
758
entitled, Young People's Beliefs, admittedly made over only a modest sample but from that sample it was evident that many of our young people regard religion as essentially a private affair with little relevance to actual conduct. It is there —in the thinking of the young people of our land—that we find the evidence for the poverty of the religious education which we are giving, at least, some of them; not just in the content of the curriculum—not that I argue with Lord Blake about a desire for a greater Christian content—and it raises a far wider issue.
However, there is another side to this picture. Young people are capable of idealism and heroic unselfishness. They have a capacity to respond to challenge, a capacity to undertake adventure, provided that they are convinced of its value. I am sure that many of your Lordships know personally young people who, through Voluntary Service Overseas, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme or other schemes, give the lie to any suggestion that the rising generation is nothing but a collection ofsoccer hooligans. The young people capable of this unselfishness and heroism need and deserve the very best religious education we can give them.
I believe, as chairman of our board of education in the Church, that such an education calls not only for a Christian content but needs to be given with Christian conviction by a Christian teacher in a Christian context. Conviction and enthusiasm are infectious. I visited a county primary school in Lancashire recently, in which one of the teachers obviously had a flair and enthusiasm for music. That flair and enthusiasm was infectious and however much she may have known about harmony and however little she may have taught harmony to the children, I have never heard such singing from children; they had caught the teacher's enthusiasm. In the same way, the success and the worth of religious education depends not only on the ability to remember facts or even on the contents of the curriculum but on the competence and conviction of the teacher.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, argued that, as we now live in a multiracial and multicredal society, perhaps we have no right to insist on religious or Christian education. I believe that that argument

759
falls on two grounds. First, there is the right of withdrawal, with other provisions in the Act, and the non-Christian is not trapped, as it were, in an evangelistic net from which there is no escape. But far more important, it would appear that very many of the immigrants in our midst—and I do not mean just the Christian West Indians—want to understand the Christian basis of the culture in which they live.
Certainly, in the Church schools in Lancashire there is an overwhelming demand for places from our immigrant neighbours. Some of these schools have more than half their numbers made up of non-Christians and, having made inquiry, I have not heard of a single case of anyone who has wished to be excused either from the act of Christian worship in the assembly or from the religious education, which is specifically Christian. This would appear to be what the parents want, and we do well to respect their wishes.
My fear and, doubtless, the fear of the noble Lord who initiated this debate is that the children may not receive sufficiently clear teaching about the Christian faith upon which the society in which they live rests. There is a further point to which little reference has been made in the current educational debate. Not only is it right that all our citizens should understand the Christian foundation on which our society has been built, but they should understand the Christian foundation upon which the majority of our people wish the society of the future to be built. If we do not want this land to be a Christian country in the future, let us be honest and say so. The fact that we are a society not consisting wholly of Christians need not prevent our being a Christian society. That is something greater and far more elusive but, if we want the society of the future to be grounded on Christian foundations and if, though we may all depart from the Christian ideal, we believe that we should not argue that our policies should be based on anything else, then the future members of that society must be taught to think in Christian categories and to know what those categories are.
The content of the curriculum in our schools is certainly relevant here, but the competence of the teacher is equally essential, as also are his or her enthusiasm and
760
conviction. Reference has been made by two or three speakers to the need for greater initial and in-service training in our colleges, for enthusiasm is not enough; the task calls for competence as well. I should hate to go to a dentist whose enthusiasm outweighed his competence. However, we have recently debated the training of religious education teachers in this House and I have no doubt that the Minister will have made known the concern of the Members of this House that there should be more initial and in-service training in this subject.
Content in the curriculum. Yes. Competence and conviction in the teachers. Yes. A Christian context in the school I believe to be equally important. Given all four, the children of the future will not only know the difference between good and evil, will not only know which is good and what is evil, but will desire to choose the good and refuse the evil.
5.35 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I must fist apologise to the House for not being in my place at the start of the debate. I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, to my noble friend who is to reply and to other noble Lords that I had inescapable examining commitments at my university today, and they said that, in the circumstances, they saw no objection to my intervening. However, I apologise profoundly for my discourtesy.
I should like warmly to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, on his maiden speech. He is much to be envied for his fluency and calm and for the wealth of knowledge that he brought to the subject. We hope to hear him more often. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for having put down this Motion today. He is a very old colleague and friend and has very sensible views on this as on many other topics.
The reason for my adding my name to the lengthy list of speakers is that I want to say a little from the point of view of someone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has been a practising teacher all his adult life. In the course of my university work I have had occasion to go to a good many schools and to talk to a great many boys and girls and their teachers. In so doing

761
and as a member of the Church of England, I have come to some pretty clear conclusions about religious education, conclusions that I thought were by no means the accepted wisdom of those who set the trends on this subject. However, as I am following the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, I have discovered that I am in fact very trendy, for he and I appear to have come to the same conclusions. I must say that I had thought that my conclusions were, on the whole, a little old fashioned but I have now discovered that they are not but, rather, are very much in the fashion.
First, I am absolutely convinced from my own experience and from all the evidence that we have that moral standards are inculcated in the home and in the school by example, not precept. I think that the influence of a good man or woman, who is usually not at all a sentimental person but a tough, realistic and concerned teacher, is incalculably for the good. In my opinion, it does not matter, within very broad limits, what are the opinions that such a teacher holds, whether they be Catholic, Methodist, Communist or agnostic. Nor, I believe, does it much matter what subject it is that he or she teaches. It can be geography, games or mathematics. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it does not matter whether such person is actually a teacher; he or she might even be the sehoolkeeper. The example of people of sincerity, conviction, enthusiasm and loyalty will be admired and followed by the overwhelming majority of young people who come into contact with it.
The first major point that I want to make is that it seems to me that one cannot legislate for that kind of thing. In appointing people to a school, I believe that one ought to look for robust self-respect above all else, above even academic and other qualifications. However, I feel that that is something one just has to watch out for; one cannot legislate for it. In my view, it is a mistake to muddle up this kind of moral example—the influence of a person of good and powerful personality—with religious instruction. They are two different matters. I do not think that this distinction is always clearly drawn in discussions about religious education. Religious education is not ethical education.
762
It is true, however, that all children want to think about and discuss moral questions. It seems to me that discussions at every level from nursery school up to the sixth form and beyond will arise in very unexpected circumstances. I do not believe that one can plan moral discussions, saying, "Let's have a discussion about whether adultery is desirable" or something of that kind. That sort of artificial ethical discussion has really very little to commend it. I believe that all good teachers seek, and ought to be encouraged to seek, opportunities to get their pupils and students to think about moral choices of the sort that face us every day.
Again, I must say that I do not think that that is religious instruction. It seems to me that to confine the discussion of the ethics of truth and falsehood to the religious lesson would be absurd and damaging. Surely, it is most important that all teachers should encourage free and vigorous discussions of moral issues. I come to my third and main point—here I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and the right reverend Prelate: the culture of this country is deeply rooted in the teaching of the Church. That teaching is a body of objective knowledge. It is generally the facts of what the Bible says, partly the theological findings of later ages and different churches—in particular the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England and the Nonconformist Churches. The facts of what they believe are not in dispute. What they believe may or may not be wrong, but the facts of what they believe are clear.
This body of Christian knowledge in our culture is enshrined, for example, in the Book of Common Prayer, the Bible, English literature and English history. I think that English literature and English history must be a mystery to everybody unless this body of knowledge about the teaching of the Church is easily available, because right up to our present day that is what our culture has consisted of. I fear that the straighforward teaching about what the Church believes to be true—that is, the revelation of God in the Bible, the elucidation of the mystery of the Incarnation in the Creeds, and the heritage of Christian culture—is gradually dying out. People do not know with what it is they think they are disagreeing.

763
As a moderately progressive person, I am fully aware that we are now said to be living in a multiracial, pluralistic, multicreedal society. I recall that my maiden speech in your Lordships' House was on the new Race Relations Act, so I think that I speak where my heart lies in this respect. But I think that we must be careful not to exaggerate the degrees to which this country is a multiracial, multicredal society. The communities who have come here, especially the Jewish community who came to this country at the end of the last century, and during the terrible Hitlerite persecutions, and the Asians who came here in the 1950s and the 1960s—and, for all I know, my Jewish and Asian friends—do not want their children to be taught a "mishmash" of religious ideas, proving that in the end all religions come to much the same thing. For one thing, they know that all religions do not come to the same thing. They are about different things. They make different points. I am not now saying which is right and which is wrong. I know what I think is right and what, on the whole, other people think is right and what is wrong. But it is very important not to muddle up Hinduism, Moslem-ism, Christianity, and Judaism and say that they all come to much the same thing in the end, because, quite candidly, in very important respects they do not.
What is needed is a thorough understanding on the part of all minority communities in this country of what English culture has believed and accepted for well over a thousand years. Of course, everybody is free to disagree with that teaching, but it seems to me that at the very least everybody who is living in this country must be taught what it is with which they are disagreeing. It is important, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, said, that religious education should not become just a course in comparative religion. Comparative religion is a very difficult subject indeed. Eventually, all intelligent people will want to talk about world religions. It would he perfectly absurd if one did not realise that in large parts of the world people believe exactly the opposite of what we believe. That kind of discussion is bound to take place every week of the year.
I am not saying either that Christianity, or the version of Anglican Christianity
764
that I hold, has to be taught as the objective truth in the way that the findings of physics are taught. I believe that it is true, but I think that there is a body of objective teaching about what the Church actually holds to be true which is essential to the understanding of English culture as it has emerged over the past thousand years, and it is absolutely essential that this should be clearly and well taught, especially to the more able children, unfashionable as it may he to mention them.
As part of the campaign which the Prime Minister has initiated, and the Secretary of State is carrying on, and which has the enthusiastic support of Parties opposite—to raise standards in our schools and to raise academic standards as well—I very much hope that this point will be taken, and that the debate today will be widely read and discussed. Finally, my Lords, I apologise once more for my discourteous late arrival, and I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for the opportunity to join in this debate.
5.45 p.m.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I sit on opposite sides of the Chamber. We have opposite political convictions, but I should like to take the risk of following up just one aspect of the noble Lord's speech and to cross the is and dot the Is. I refer to where the noble Lord spoke about the liberalisation of Christianity. The subject of this debate is the lack of an adequate Christian content in religious education, and one reason that this problem exists lies in the quality of religious instruction given at our colleges of education. Too much of this instruction is disemboweled of its proper Christian content.
To most believers down the centuries it is obvious that Christianity is revealed religion. The Bible is a sacred text and the truths in it are to be taken on quite a different plane to those scientific truths which are reached by the rational means which are so much the norm today. Most believers, therefore, take on trust all the prophecies in the Bible and all the events in scripture which transcend the supposedly invariable laws of nature; for example, the Resurrection of the body of our Lord, and all the miracles performed by Jesus. Indeed, if we did not accept

765
the miracles performed by Jesus, it would become much more difficult to accept his extraordinary claims and his credibility as a divine person. Such a belief in the literal statements of the Bible, usually called Evangelical Christianity, has been subscribed to not only by simple minds, but the sharpest intellects.
Because this is not a debate on epistemology, I will not go far into such questions as why the rationalists are mistaken in assuming that the plane of truth on which Christianity operates is ill-founded, or again why rationalists are mistaken in assuming that the only plane of truth which has any validity is their own, particularly when it is so easy to present a rationalist case dishonestly by packing your cards. Not all forms of truth have to be reached by rational means. Apart from the revealed truth of Christianity, information may be genetically inherited. On these, and other epistemological topics, Mr. Edward Goldsmith, the brother of the financier, has many interesting things to say in his journal The Ecologist.
Rather than concentrate on these questions, I should like merely to sketch in what is the rationalist, or what is usually called the liberal, theology which is propagated at so many of our colleges of education, and give a little of its political consequences. Liberal theology springs from German Bible critics, such as Albert Schweitzer, who was refused ordination by the Lutheran church, and more especially Bultmann and others, who have all sought to demythologise the Bible. By this I mean that where anything is recounted in the Bible which runs outside the ordinary course of events, we are told that it never actually happened. So, for example, the miracle stories are written off as events that never occurred in history, and the only validity they have, we are told, is the symbolic truth which lies behind a mythical exterior. For example, the story in the Gospels of Jesus stilling the storm is given to mean only that Jesus had the power to still a troubled heart. Just as they deny the miracles from the Bible, so the German Bible critics are sceptical about the prophecies from the Bible. Bultmann says that Jesus could not predict his own passion, but the prediction, was, on the contrary, assumed by the early Church after the event and put back into the life of Jesus. The German Bible
766
critics are sceptical also about the incarnation. What primitive mythology it is, says Bultmann, to suppose that a divine being could become incarnate to atone for the sins of men with his own blood.
Much of the teaching of Christianity at our colleges of education has been imbued with this syle of thinking, and many of the books in the libraries of the colleges of education have imbibed the same poison. By way of illustration, I should like to give just a handful of quotations from one book of sermons published about five years ago by a prominent Anglican. I will not give the name of the author, or the title of the book; neither of these facts is pertinent to my argument. I will merely mention that in this book we are told that Adam's fall was not a historical event. There was no Garden of Eden, only jungle and fenland, and, in so far as man is good, he has always had a tendency towards sin.
On the subject of the New Testament, we are told that it is not easy to believe in the Virgin Birth; and, as to the divine paternity of Our Lord, the mystery of the Trinity is denied, where the author says that the Son could not be of one substance with the Father. On the Crucifixion, we are told that Christ died of asphyxiation, and not for our sins; and after the Crucifixion, the book continues, the story of the Resurrection is not to be confused with the empty tomb.
"It does not follow",
the author says,
"that because Christ was alive after death His physical body was raised after dissolution".
Thereafter, the story of the Ascension into Heaven is to be looked on as pure picture language.
"The only way in which the Ascension may be regarded",
the author says,
"is to take it to mean the ascendancy of Jesus".
In considering the political consequence of such a liberal interpretation of Christianity, the key point is the deity of Christ, on which a measure of doubt is thrown by Bultmann and the book from which I have just quoted. Once, as in the days of the old Arian heresy, the deity of Christ is denied, then Christianity becomes subverted into a world religion, and Marxism sails in

767
under a flag of convenience. The Kingdom of God ceases to be of another world; it becomes a kingdom of this world. The Second Corning becomes confused with social revolution, as Christianity, which should provide us with spiritual bread, proffers instead a political stone. Even though the liberal interpretation of Christianity may have these pernicious political consequences (none of us would like a social revolution, after which we should no longer be free to exercise our own free will). I am not going to advocate extreme measures—it is not fashionable to burn books nowadays—but I should like to ask the Government to consider what great personal distress is given to teacher students at our colleges of education who suffer from this liberal theology. Where their faith has been assaulted, these teacher students have sometimes broken down into tears. If you have a difficult personal life, it can bring you little comfort to be told that the story of the loaves and fishes and the five thousand had no literal historical reality. It is not only for sentimental reasons that I have instanced these cases of distress, but because the sufferings inflicted have the practical consequences of discouraging recruits and losing them to the profession once they have gone through with such a training. Then, as we have a democracy which has come into full flower we should like to keep it so, and therefore want to encourage the free expression of all shades of opinion. I should also like Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the evangelical form of Christianity is at least given a hearing, not at some but at all the colleges of education, and that the libraries of all the colleges of education should be stocked with books on evangelical Christianity.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves this point, may I say that I am following his speech with the very greatest interest. This is a new line that we have not had in either of our debates, and I think that what he has said is very interesting indeed. I am a little puzzled at what he is driving at, because he seems to me to be getting very near a demand for censorship. If one really thinks that there is a danger of high-level German critics making people who believe things unhappy because they shake their
768
faith, I am not sure that I do not think that his is a perfectly desirable part of free life.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, in politics you are much more likely to get what you want, not by asking for the whole of it but by asking only for half of it. Therefore, I should like to ask the Government, not to censor the books of German Bible criticism but to make sure that books on evangelical Christianity are also available in the libraries of all the colleges of education; because, as it is, some of the libraries of these colleges are practically devoid of these books, and in one or two cases this has been so because some intolerant head has thrown the books out. I am hoping very much that the Minister will look into this.
5.54 p.m.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, I should like first of all to do as I know we all wish to do, and that is to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, on his maiden speech. I know, too, that we are all particularly grateful, as I think we have shown by the number of us who have put our names down to speak, to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for having given us the chance of this inquiry. I am going to try to be as brief as I possibly can, because there are so many others, much better qualified than I am, who will follow. But may I first, as it were, declare an interest? For the first seven years after the passing of the 1944 Education Act I was a hack in the Ministry of Education, and I had the great privilege and pleasure of working, both with Labour and with Conservative Ministers, in what I still think is about the most exciting seven years that this country has ever had in educational progress.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? When he says he was a hack in that Ministry, is it his Christianity and his humility which prevents him from saying that he was head of the Ministry?
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, I was Permanent Secretary of the Ministry. During that time I had the excuse and the opportunity to wander round the country attending a lot of

769
conferences and meetings, as well as to visit a great number of schools and colleges. I was greatly impressed, and I shall always remember the seriousness with which one head teacher after another would wish to discuss with me (not because I was a hack in the Ministry of Education, but because they were interested to discuss it with someone) how on earth they were to work the Act in terms of the assembly at the beginning of the day and the religious instruction which they were to give under the Act itself. That seriousness of the teachers—not only the heads, but others, and in the training colleges as well—is one of the things that have permanently impressed me when I think of that period immediately after the Act. It was in accordance, I have not any doubt at all, with the general wish of the country and the general wish of the teachers of the country that the Act should carry forward the religious tradition which had been implanted before 1870 and before the State came into this matter at all. It was perfectly natural—it was not an imposition in any sense—that religious instruction should be prescribed as one of the parts of what was not then called the core curriculum.
I must secondly admit that I am quite out of date. For the last 25 years I have had no responsibilities of this kind in relation to the maintained schools, and I am therefore particularly doubtful as to whether my own impression is correct; but my own impression is as follows. First of all, things have got much more difficult now for all of us who believe in any sense in the Christian faith, than they were 25 years ago. This is not only for the reasons that were so interestingly adumbrated by the last speaker, but also because the world has exploded in its knowledge of all sorts of things that bear on religion and bear on, in particular, the Bible and the Christian interpretation of religion. Therefore, I think we should today all have more sympathy with the teachers and the head teachers and with the education authorities, even than I know we ought to have had, and did have, in the period immediately after the war.
But, my Lords, it is not all worse than it was. There are far fewer people, it is probably true, who belong to the churches or who attend church, but that seems to me to be much less important than what
770
is very forcefully expressed in the 20th chapter of the Annan Report, which we shall be discussing tomorrow. In one of the most thoughtful and, to me, obsessive reading parts of the Annan Report it discusses religious education. The report is quite emphatic that the concern for religion is great and strong at the present time. I do not want to take time daring to suggest what Annan had in mind or what perhaps we shall be touching on tomorrow, but there is no doubt that in many ways things have come the way of those who are concerned with the religious dimension. I think that broadcasting itself, both the British Broadcasting Corporation and ITV, are partly responsible, and the Open University is certainly responsible, for this spreading of the interest and the catching up of the interest of the young, caught partly by their experience with Asian, and extraterritorial religious movements. This makes the job of the schools and the teachers in them a more exciting one than it was in 1945.
From my own limited experience of being a governor of one independent school, I think it only fair to say that both at that school, and at many others of its kind, compulsory worship has become less a part of the school without losing the centrality of religion in the general life of the school. I think this would be the general experience of people—and I am thinking of boarding schools in particular—where compulsory chapel, no doubt, is still continued on Sundays in some schools but is very much less common than it was before the war. But that, as far as my observations go, does not mean in any way that the school has become less concerned in seeing that the children in the course of their time there do receive religious education.
If I may try to say what I mean by religious education, I want first to quote something said by a great schoolmaster about the purpose of education. It was William Johnson Cory. He wrote this in 1861 and it is out of print now; but if I can remember part of what he said, it was this. You go to school at 12 or 13 and, for the next five or six years, you are engaged not so much in acquiring knowledge as in making mental efforts under criticism. A certain amount of knowledge you can, with average faculties, acquire and retain. Nor need you regret

771
the hours you spent on much that is forgotten, for the shadow of lost knowledge at least saves you from many illusions. But you go to a great school not so much for knowledge as for arts and habits: for the habit of attention, for the art of expression, for the art of entering quickly into another person's thoughts, for the habit of submitting to censure and refutation; for the art of indicating assent or dissent in graduated terms; for the habit of regarding minute points of accuracy; for taste, for discrimination, for mental courage and mental soberness. Above all, you go to a great school for self-knowledge. William Johnson Cory may not be expressing what your Lordships would express if they tried in a few words to say what was the purpose of education today. But, for my own part, I have never found or could give you a better idea of what I think one of the purposes of education, what one goes to school for, ought to be.
One might ask: What part does religious education play in that? A very important part. The knowledge which Cory rightly said that you can with average ability acquire so as to retain is a crucial part of education in general and religious education in particular. It is knowledge of what the Bible says and of what the Christians have believed; of what Christ himself did and the transforming effect he had on his disciples, particularly after their not distinguished performance towards the end of his life, of what has happened since in terms of people and the societies that have been affected by Christianity—the art, the literature, the music, and all the other things which the noble Lord, Lord Blake, rightly said you cannot have an understanding of now in Britain without going back and knowing something about the religious context within which that creative work was done.
But the arts and habits—oh, how much more difficult!—that a school should be asked to teach, and the arts and habits which religious education, I think, has got to try to make available and give the children the chance of beginning to understand, are the art and habit of worship, of prayer, of meditation, of offering yourself, in all your imperfection, for the spirit to possess and be let loose through you. These are the religious
772
concepts, whether they are true or not, which are part of our religious heritage which I believe religious education ought, somehow, to enable every child who goes to school to begin to get the hang of. That is not so that he may have it for the rest of his life because he has acquired the habit at school, but because as he matures he may make a conscious choice and choose to reject those ideas and those habits or to make them a crucial part of his life.
I think that we can only send out a message of great sympathy from this House, and in my case of admiration, for the teachers who, in spite of all the odds, are accepting the new opportunities of 1977 and the years that lie ahead and are trying to give the knowledge that is part of the knowledge that a school should give and the arts and habits, including the religious arts and habits, which are also a part of an educated person when leaving school.
My own feeling is that no one can have full knowledge of a person except the person himself. No one, certainly, can go further than achieving what I believe is the end of the religious part of education, which is not self-knowledge but something even more important and difficult, self-transcendence. That is what I should like all children who leave our schools to have realised as being something which is at any rate offered by Christianity, which is practised by some people, which is perhaps far better practised by people who reject Christianity. But that self-transcendence is what we were born for, according to the Christian view, and according to many views which are not the Christian view. It should be possible for children to leave school able to know what would be meant by the commitment which, in due course, they are capable of committing themselves to; to be able to say with St. Paul:
"For this cause I bow my knees unto the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named; That He would grant us, according to the riches of His Glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in our hearts by faith; that we, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the length and breadth and depth and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that we might be filled with all the fullness of God."
6.8 p.m.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, for obvious reasons I will attempt to be brief even if this means omitting reference to noble Lords who have already made some of my points more eloquently than I can. I think at the outset I should make my position clear. I quote from This is My God by the famous author, Herman Wouk, in which he writes:
"Now the belief in God may turn out at the last trump to be a mistake. Meantime, let us be quite clear, it is not merely the comfort of the simple—though it is that, too, much to its glory—it is a formidable intellectual position with which most of the first-class minds of the human race, century in and century out, have concurred each in his own way".
"Each in his own way "—this is a Jew writing, but he expresses admirably the feelings of those of us who believe that there is some controlling influence infinitely superior to man. I have been in touch with the British Humanist Association recently and I believe that there is much that can in all humility be learned from its supporters; but I am satisfied that they are wrong in their denial of God and I remain a convinced Christian. This does not mean that I cannot see that so-called "Christians" can be superstitious, stupid and even, at times, I fear, positively evil. It does mean that I believe that only by following a policy of what I will call "enlightened" Christianity can the difficulties of today's world be happily resolved. So I also believe enlightened Christian education to be of the highest importance; although we must not, of course, forget the followers of other creeds. School education should provide the basis for learning throughout life.
There is not time here to analyse in detail what is wrong with our society today. I believe in many ways we are extremely fortunate, but that we have gone soft in our desire for a high standard of living (in the normally accepted sense of the phrase) and an easy life. I believe the nation, leaders and led, lack a sense of idealism for the future. With a stiffening of resolve I believe we could in fact have a better life and a happier one, and I am certainly no puritan.
We must look to our defences; we must regain spiritual confidence and determination and convince our opponents by example as well as precept that the wiser
774
course is ours. My noble friend Lord Gladwyn, when he spoke in the debate on human rights on 4th May (at column 999 of Hansard), with reference to the Eastern bloc, said:
"The only understanding possible is one firmly based on some ascertainable coincidence of interests".
I like to think that in time, in enlightened Christianity, that coincidence of interests could be found.
So then we have to consider what is the most intelligent approach to religious education for our children. Broadly speaking, there are three possible courses. First, negative, as practised in Russia. Children whose parents are trying secretly to instil in them some form of religious belief, can, if discovered—as they almost inevitably are—be taken away from their homes and be sent to atheistic boarding schools. Secondly, neutral, as practised in the United States. In their State schools I understand that it is forbidden to teach Christianity at all. I hoped to have full details of this, but some correspondence has gone astray and I have only bare facts. Thirdly, positively, as practised in this country, although in a rather halfhearted way, which is the reason for this debate.
In my attempt to discover just what is going on in our schools today, I am particularly grateful for a review of opinion of some of those connected with the Association of Christian Teachers in North Staffordshire. I refer now to what they say. To the question we are debating: "Is there considered to be a lack of an adequate Christian content in RE teaching in local education schools now?", the answers suggest that they think the subject is not taken nearly seriously enough. It was stated that the "agreed" syllabus in general use gives plenty of scope for "adequate Christian content", but there is often a lack of such content for one or more reasons.
First, there is a lack of qualified teachers—as was discussed in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago—and this is in part due to the low status of the RE teacher within the school and is part of a vicious circle. Secondly, there is a restricted time allocation which prevents proper academic presentation of even a limited syllabus. Thirdly, there is an

775
exaggerated desire to be "objective"and here I quote:
"We feel that the fear of accusations of dogmatism has made the pendulum swing too far against the presentation of positive Christian teaching and the validity of a personal faith. This is reflected in the approach and content of many recent text books."
And my informants go on:
"We feel that a large proportion of the nation's young people are impoverished culturally—and morally—by their ignorance of the Bible."
So far as multi-racial schools go, it seems reasonable that all children in Great Britain should learn what Christianity is—and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has made this point most forcefully—and in particular that they should become familiar with the Bible, which has played such a large part in our culture and literature, and that of many other countries; and other noble Lords have emphasised this point, too. I believe this should be the firm base on which to branch out, if desired, to specialist studies of comparative religion, Marxism and so on.
Assemblies in school are a more difficult problem. It is one thing for Sikhs or Moslems or Jews to learn about Jesus Christ: it is quite another thing to expect them to pray to God in his name. It is equally unsatisfactory to require pupils who consciously reject belief in God to participate in such worship. It should be realised, however, that the number of convinced atheists in our schools is very small indeed, and most pupils are more likely to object to assembly in the first instance because it is boring (or patronisingly didactic) rather than because of its theological premises.
I have been fortunate in being able to discuss the problem of school assemblies with the head of a large comprehensive complex. Although a Christian herself she is against the formal act of worship required by the Act of 1944. Personally, I cling rather more to the idea of a simple service carried out with dignity, imagination and beauty, but I do appreciate the difficulties in multiracial schools. I agree that assemblies must be relevant to life and not seem just a meaningless mumbo-jumbo. I am reminded how the hymn "Rock of Ages, cleft for me" was translated into a foreign language and
776
then back into English, to read: "Very old stone, cut in half for my benefit". This makes one wonder what the whole hymn is about, anyway.
The head I am talking about has carried out a most stimulating series of assemblies on such subjects as loneliness, a recent disaster or tragedy, the work of Amnesty International, the care of the aged and so on. This needs a great deal of preparation and sheer hard work and is admirable. It is significant, however, that she admits that after three years' endeavour they are faced with an exhaustion of local resources. It is impossible to be super stimulating all the time, and even a slightly humdrum service can sometimes, I believe, be acceptable and preferable to some of the alternatives offered.
Might I here humbly suggest that we, my Lords, put our own House in order. I do not blame the right reverend Prelates, but I submit that our daily form of worship is largely both uninspiring and out of date. Anyway, I end as I began. I am convinced that we abjure Christianity at our peril, and that we must ensure that ours is a living and developing faith. Our young deserve the best possible preparation not only for today, but also for tomorrow.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, before saying a few words, I should like to apologise to the House for my inability to be here for the end of the debate. I should very much have liked to listen to it but I have a pressing and previous engagement. I, with other noble Lords, am most deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for initiating this debate, and I am equally grateful to so many other brilliant speakers that we have heard this afternoon.
I was brought up in a religious home; it happened to be a Christian one but could easily have been of any other religion. It was God-fearing. From early days I realised that there was another dimension. One had one's parents; one had one's brothers; one had one's sisters—and I had a number of both—but there was also God. I learned that through saying one's prayers as soon as one could talk, one learned to have faith and to believe and trust in God at an early age, because prayer leads through learning to worship.

777
If one is lucky enough to have an early training in religion, one indeed is fortunate. I have found that through all the vicissitudes and joys of life the extra dimension—that is, of religion and faith —will always be there wherever one goes and whatever trouble one is in. That is why I think it is so vitally important that our children, and our children's children, should have the opportunity of religious teaching. Their whole way of life can be made the richer and the fuller if they have a training at an early age. From the inquiries that I have made I have not yet found anyone who is satisfied with the religious education in our schools as it is now. That is why I wholeheartedly support the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for an inquiry. I hope that the Government will encourge this.
What is taught matters as much as how it is taught. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I firmly believe that it is not possible for a teacher to impart his knowledge if he has no faith himself. We must therefore encourage those who see the need for religious education to take an extra course in this subject. As has already been mentioned, we know some teacher training colleges are to be closed in the foreseeable future due to the fall in the birth rate. I should like to ask the Minister precisely how many places there are now for the teaching of students of religious education, and how many there will be in the future when these colleges are closed. I understand that in the foreseeable future in the North of London students from the Polytechnic may be able to take courses at the nearby theological college. That seems to me to be an excellent idea, especially as it would give the students the right atmosphere in which to study.
The subject of religious education has been lying dormant for far too long, and too many Governments and too many Ministers have failed to grasp the nettle which perhaps it represents: it had always been left to somebody else. Our children deserve to be taught and, despite all the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said in his brilliant speech, I feel that at this time both parents and teachers are abrogating their responsibilities if they do not supply the means of learning to their children.
6.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of PETERBOROUGH: My Lords, we are about halfway through, so I will try to give the "halfway headlines". We are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, not only for arranging this debate but for having it today, which is the eve of the Feast of the Ascension of Our Lord. Therefore, our thoughts, helped by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, go up and beyond before we look among ourselves.
It is so evident from all that has been said that no one can be content with the way that Section 25 of the 1944 Act is working, nor with the way that in some places it has been deliberately designed not to work. That it works at all makes a very few all the more reiteratingly hostile; that it works less well than it should makes most of us here in this House, and most people outside, sad. "Sadder" and "wiser" go together and the question is: how wise can we be? If sadness flattens into despair, it will masquerade as realism —it always does—and it will say of Section 25, "Away with it, away with it!" But the fine art of the possible (and another, much better, name is hope) will look for revival and for reinvigoration and, up against a brick wall, will look for resurrection. I believe that sober reflection upon the schools of this country must extend to what they could be and to how they could so become, and not make school prospectuses read like obituaries.
There has been some well-advertised failure of nerve caused by the general and also well-advertised theological malaise and by barren ineptitude on the part of some teachers who have become uncertain of the things in which they might have expected to have been instructed. But lack of nerve has become more a habit of mind than a justifiable philosophy and I believe that the cure, pragmatically, is not too difficult; for the key to every school is the head teacher. On him depends all that goes on in the schools and the way in which it goes on. The aim and intention are to create in the minds of all who teach all things, and all who learn all things, imaginative curiosity, the sense of wonder and (in its proper meaning) the sense of poetry, creativeness, awe and worship, which in its lowest terms is the admission in all critical matters of the

779
possibility that one might be wrong and therefore that there is more to learn. When that is the aim, all goes well and all comes alive. When there is no such aim, even the teaching of eurhythmics can become like a danse macàbre performed at some undertakers' annual rally.
The greatest mystery is the mystery of Christ which, like nothing else, stretches the human mind. It is not only a mystery which confronts the human race but one which also makes the human race part of itself; and the need to see that every child is put into the way of instruction in the things of Christ is self-evident. I could go on for a very long time, but I shall not.
Let us, my Lords, look at what can be done and what can be encouraged. I go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Blake. Let the Government see that every education authority provides the necessary tools, which must always include, for instance, copies of the Holy Bible, and see that teachers are trained in sufficient quantities and are of sufficient quality to use them. It is so obvious that it is hardly worth repeating, but in these days nothing happens, it seems, except by repetition.
Also—and this I believe will remove much of the frustration from countless parents—let Christian people of sense and good will be encouraged to become school managers and governors. They can be an enormous help and encouragement to head teachers and, through them, to the teachers. Let them not be fobbed off with a lot of paper about the drains, the number of lavatories or the new school uniform. Let them also invigorate locally parent-teacher associations. I know, too, that there are not a few clergy and ministers who would gladly help in all that and more besides. The prickly professional pride of a few years ago which would stand in the midst of paralysis and call it progress is diminishing and I believe there is only a little sweeping up to do of the scene, clearing it of the clichés of indoctrinated agnosticism of a generation ago. We must not get hypnotised or fascinated by that.
I believe that a large part of what we want to do—and all of us can help to do this—can be done in the localities, in the parishes and the districts and within local authorities. We must see that no child is
780
denied the right to receive an honest and whole-hearted introduction to what the Evangelist calls, "The things of Christ". Most parents want this; all children have a right to it; and I am grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for starting this debate and for promoting the subtle and vital art of the possible.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, like everyone else, I would echo the last words, and indeed many other words, of the right reverend Prelate in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for initiating this debate and for the memorable speech which he delivered. I would say briefly that I support all his proposals, and if I do not dwell on them in the form in which he delivered them, it will be to avoid repetition. At any rate, I strongly support them. We have listened to many other memorable speeches, and we were all greatly impressed by the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, and the moving address of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. I suppose that those who are not old-timers in this House will not have heard a speech that held the attention of the House quite so closely, and carried people along so intensely, since Lord Birkett delivered that famous speech about the Lake District. It took Lord Birkett about an hour to make that speech, and the noble Lord, Lord RedcliffeMaud, took about 10 minutes to deliver his, which I think is a slight point in Lord Redcliffe-Maud's favour, particularly when there are 37 speakers. At any rate, it was a wonderful effort.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, is a master of objective teaching. He taught politics at Christchurch most objectively for many years. Now I come to think of it. I was his predecessor in that role and I do not know whether I taught it more or less objectively. At any rate, I taught at both ends. I started as a Conservative and finished up as a Socialist, and I hope that lf was still teaching as objectively at the end as f was at the beginning. So that, between us, we know all about objective teaching.
I must conform to the rules of brevity, like everyone else. On the last occasion, when I opened that Unstarred Question debate in February, I was dealing with what might be called quantitative questions, questions of supply. Today, we

781
are dealing with content—what one might call qualitative questions. But one cannot draw an absolute distinction between quantity and quality. To make only one point, there is little doubt in my mind —and I think that those who have looked into the matter closely, certainly those who have been involved directly, will agree—that a number of keen young Christians, who would otherwise teach religious education, are being discouraged by the fact that, by most standards, it is less Christian in content than it was a few years ago. I do not think there is any doubt that it is less specifically Christian. Some may think that that is a good thing, while others may think it is a bad thing, but I do not believe there is any doubt about the fact.
A few years ago, I visited what was a teachers training college, where teachers are now being trained in religious education, and there were a number of young people who had been attached to schools as part of their training. As a matter of fact, they had been attached to primary schools. I asked whether any of them had seen any Bibles in the schools and none of them had. So one cannot really say that the Bible is featured very strongly. There was none visible, although I cannot say whether there were any locked away in a cupboard with the key lost.
It was very interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, on the subject of liberal theology. I have read some of those German books—in English, I hasten to say. I always remember what Ernie Bevin said, when Molotov quoted some German Marxist writer—I think he was called Hilferding—and Bevin said, "I have read Hilferding and I found him tedious". That is what some people may say about some of these German writers who have tried to whittle down the New Testament.
I came across one brilliant teacher of more orthodox Christian education, whose book had been for a time banned in the college in which he was teaching. Later the ban was lifted. But I am backing up the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, in saving that, in many cases, there are very strong pressures exerted to prevent the kind of orthodox Christianity which would probably find favour among most Members of the House—certainly, those who have spoken hitherto. So that one must face
782
the fact that, so far as one can judge, a great many Christians who would he available for teaching religion in schools are frightened off by the atmosphere in many of these colleges. One cannot quantify that; I think that is simply a fact.
Why should we teach Christianity in our schools? We discussed last time—and I will not dwell on that at great length—the need for religious education of some kind. Personally, I believe—and I think that most people who have spoken, and those who are yet to speak, also believe—that moral education cannot be taught without religious education of some kind. We may be told that there are some Humanists, some of whom we respect highly—they are friends of many of us in this House — who are not Christians. In many cases, one will find that they have a Christian background. In some cases, they have a Jewish background.
In some cases, it works the other way round. My dear old friend and master, the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, Lord Beveridge, was brought up with no religion at all, but he finished up, as those who took part in a debate on Christian unity will remember, saying that while he could not join any particular Church, he was happy—to use a phrase now available in public schools—to be placed on the general list. That was someone who started without any religion at all, who finished up on the general list after the first 78 years of his life. The fact is that many Humanists in this country who have a Christian background are living on its capital.
I now come to the argument—and I will not dwell on it at great length, because it has been discussed by so many speakers—that Christian teachers must be whittled down, because we are now what is called a pluralist society. So far as that phrase is concerned, I can only adopt a word used by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the other day—fiddlesticks! Anybody who says that this country is a pluralist society is talking fiddlesticks. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, that was the strongest word that he thought was permitted in the House, so I use it in that sense. There is no doubt that the great majority of people want their children to be given some religious education, and in

783
the overwhelming majority of cases that means that they want them to be given a Christian education. It may be asked: what is the proportion of children who belong to non-Christian religions? What are the figures? The odd thing is that nobody seems to know. I have given 24 hours' notice to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and I really press the question: what is the proportion? I have made a number of inquiries from the various race relations bodies and no one can tell me. Indeed, they said that the Department of Education and Science discouraged that kind of information. So we must take it that it is a very small proportion. That seems to be conceded. Is anyone seriously going to say that the whole religious education of this country must be turned topsy-turvy to suit this very small minority? That would be quite absurd.
On the other hand, I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and others, that these people who belong to non-Christian religions—and I am not talking at all of the West Indians, because they are just as much Christian as we are—must be treated as being as important as anyone else. They are as dear to us as anyone else. There is no question of them getting inferior treatment. But it seems that at the present time they are fairly well satisfied with the kind of education that they have been given, though, in a sense, nobody is completely satisfied, whether or not they are Christians.
I inquired of the chairman of a borough where there is a very high proportion of non-Christian children, as to whether they had any complaints. He said that the only complaint he could remember was from Mohammedan parents, who objected to their girls going to school with boys; in other words, they objected to mixed schools. That was a point which clearly had to be dealt with. I have been told that some of them object to the wearing of gymslips, although the chairman did not say that. At any rate, the costume might raise some objections. Nobody however, is objecting to the Christian content. Therefore we must take it that there is no objection among the minority groups to the content of Christianity. Certainly they would object if an attempt were made to proselytise them, but in the
784
absence of that we must take it that they are broadly satisfied with what is provided. If, however, the time comes when they want their own schools in certain areas they ought to have them. They are as much entitled to the kind of religious education that they need as any Christians could be.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not saying that no comparative religion should he taught, but that I think it is being overdone—certainly in some cases among young children. However, to understand Christianity properly we need some understanding of other religions. Even if there were no immigrants at all, I would still say that some attention should be paid to the non-Christian religions. This has been brought out in various ways by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in his powerful speech. I always like listening to the noble Lord, if only because he is such a great admirer of Jesus Christ. All Christians must warm to him for the way he speaks about the Founder of the Christian religion. Quite apart from that, however, what he said aroused very deep interest as we listened to him.
As the noble Lord and others have said, since 1944 there has been an immense increase in the freedom of discussion. I do not think that there have been any epoch-making discoveries. In my humble way, I have been studying Christianity for more than 30 years and have not suddenly come across some remarkable writings. Bultmann wrote long before 1944. There has not been any cataclysmic revolution in thought in the last 30 years. In general, not only in regard to Christianity, we now live in an era of very free discussion—whether it is sex, my own Roman Catholic Communion, or any of our institutions. Mercifully, perhaps, our Monarchy seems to have survived without this kind of very brutal criticism being brought to bear upon it. However, we live in an age of this kind and there is no going back on it. Therefore, we must realise that teaching methods—whether in mathematics, history, religion or whatever—cannot be the same as they were 30 years ago. That is much the most important change which affects the teaching of religious education. It is much more important than the coming of a relatively small number of immigrants.

785
Therefore, whatever is taught must be taught in a way that is regarded as rational—at any rate, by older children.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, says that, on the whole, Christian ethics are, in his eyes—I am glad he felt he could say that—the highest form of ethics known to him. Therefore let us agree that, if we are going to teach, we should teach Christian ethics. Every good teacher is going to teach some system of morals. The dirty word now is "indoctrination". However, whether we call it indoctrination, instruction or teaching, no school would be much of a school that did not try to leave the children better at the end than at the beginning. In some sense, therefore, moral education is going to be taught in any good school; and it is taught. However, the question is, how much further can we go? That is the topic upon which the noble Lord, Lord Blake, concentrated and upon which he focussed our attention today. He has brought forward very strong arguments, including what one might call the cultural aspect, among others.
Although with much less experience and, if I may use the phrase inoffensively, with much less subtlety, perhaps I may follow what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. In the end the question is whether we can teach any kind of theology—simple theology, if you like. However, Christianity contains a very large element of theology. Can we teach a simple theology which is combined with rationality that people can investigate with their reason and that they can be satisfied with, even if it is submitted to the most severe discussion? We live in an age when anything which is taught to older children must be submitted to that test. It is impossible to begin to teach any complete philosophy of life unless we are prepared not just to stop at the ethics but to move on to some kind of theology. In the case of Christianity that means a fairly close study of the Bible. It could be called a return to the Bible, because there has been a wide departure from the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
Therefore I close with the thought that we Christians must be anxious to see that this becomes a much more Christian country than it is now—not that I say
786
that it is any less a Christian country than it was. This is not a question which we can settle. However, we must be anxious to ensure that this becomes a much more Christian country than it has ever been. If we are asking our young people to make Christianity the centre of their teaching, they must be ready to discuss it and to argue about it. It is no good hoping nowadays that they can impose their views on anybody. Today that is quite impossible. It must be utterly rational but, if possible, it must be inspired. It must be inspired by belief and, still more important, by love. I hope that we shall bring our children through a rational study to a belief in Jesus Christ and, finally, to a love of Him.
6.46 p.m.
Viscount INGLEBY: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in what he has just said, particularly in his call for a return to the Bible. Also I should like to support very much the noble Lord, Lord Blake, in the terms of his Motion. At the present time there are, no doubt, many children who do not go to Church or to Sunday school. Therefore the only opportunity they have of hearing the basic facts of Christianity is from their day schools. I agree so much with what was said by the daughter of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich: that every child has a right to know the basic facts of Christianity and how, if they do not have a right to know the basic facts, can they choose?
One of the themes that has run through the debate has been the discouragement which some religious education teachers feel at present. Perhaps the best course for me to take is to quote from a letter that I have just received from the head of a religious education department in a large London comprehensive school. This is what he says:
"If Christian people want Christian teaching in religious education, then it is very largely up to the Churches to sound the call to their people to consider this as a form of full-time Christian service. I don't think I can recall one solitary time during my 11 years of RE teaching when I have heard ministers suggest to their young people that they consider this form of service … It is just as tough as missionary work, in just as alien an environment, and even more demanding than preaching two sermons a week. The RE teacher may give up to 30 messages ' a week, to an uninvited audience, who know nothing, virtually, of spiritual things, who at the same time present the teacher with no end of behavioural

787
problems and who are growing up in an environment largely hostile to Christian values. So it is no soft option. It is hard, challenging, tiring, depressing work, but one that also opens up no end of opportunities for spiritual and moral growth among the young".
It is obviously a vital task to be an RE teacher at the present time. Let us do all that we can to encourage RE teachers and to pray for them in this vital work.
6.49 p.m.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, I should like to open with three short observations which are no formality. First, may I join noble Lords in expressing gratitude to my noble friend Lord Blake for the timely introduction of this debate and for the authority with which he has spoken. Secondly, may I say what a pleasure it is to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke. Many of us remember the distinguished service of his father to this country. It is nice to see him sitting here and speaking in his own right. We hope he will often do so. Thirdly, it is a privilege to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for this reason: that all your Lordships know he is somebody who practises what he preaches, particularly in the field of unity of the Churches.
Three months ago the noble Earl, Lord Longford, raised in this House the question of the supply of teachers for religious instruction in schools, and of course he is much too good a Parliamentarian not to know that in no time your Lordships will have shifted the ground of the debate from the mechanics, important though they are, to the basic questions. In our modern society—and it is now more than 30 years since the 1944 Act—is there a place at all for religious education? If so, what should be taught, and how? And is it not likely that unless Parliament underlines its support for the 1944 Act now, the trend which is visible at present will continue and religious education in many of our schools will first fade and then begin to perish by default?
As other noble Lords have done, I must give my own definition of religious education. It is not exclusive but it is one which gives a definite priority to the teaching of Christianity. What is the justification for that? I think we need look no further than this Jubilee Year and this Parliament. British Sovereigns at their
788
Coronations dedicate themselves to the service of the Christian God. Yesterday I was present at the magnificent service of rededication by the Queen to the service of God and, through God, service to her people. That was no veneer of convention. From that magnificent congregation and the people outside came an expression from the heart of a belief in a Christian purpose, expressed through our Queen.
Every day in this Chamber and in another place—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn reminded us of this—we beign our proceedings with prayer, and we say, "Prevent us, Oh Lord, in all our doings". That again is not a mere convention; it springs from a deep belief that there is some strength outside even the Parliament of this country, with all its powers, without which we should be a poorer place, a weaker place and a more faltering place than we are. When we talk about—as we do—Church and State, we mean the Christian Church. In that sense, therefore, Britain is a Christian country and our young citizens should be made aware of that inheritance and of the origins of it.
One must over-simplify because of the time. How should this religion be taught? I wish that the foundation of the knowledge of the Christian religion could still be given by the mother and father in the home, but for many economic and social reasons that is no longer done as it was before, and we can scarcely rely upon that situation improving. Although the young people of our country cannot, because of television, be unaware that religion exists, nevertheless if it is to be well taught the responsibility must increasingly fall on the schools.
What should be taught? I may be unambitious, but I would not require (at least in the primary schools and in the early years of secondary education) anything very complicated. I would try to find what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, described, in shorthand, as a simple theology. Therefore I do not advocate more than the teaching of the basic facts of the story of Christ and some of the consequences which flowed from the life of Christ on earth. They are transcendental and dynamic enough in all conscience, and yet many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our children are ignorant of them.

789
What are these facts? The fact that on any count Christ must qualify as the greatest man who ever lived on earth—at the lowest, far greater than any of the prophets; at the highest, divine. Our children should not be left ignorant of that fact, and at present too many are ignorant of it. Then there is the fact of course that Christ made a claim for man unique in the history of religions—the claim of individual salvation.
I remember—and I quoted this in another context—once being present at a meeting which was addressed by Miss Barbara Ward (Lady Jackson as she is now) and she was talking about the impact of Christianity on the Romans. She said this:
"The thing about Christianity which gave them"—
that is the Romans—
"the extraordinary sense of relief and power was the resurrection and the knowledge that God had become man and given men the power to break away from the wheel to which sin bound them. They were no longer being told to be good. They were receiving the power to be the sons of God".
That is an overwhelming message, the message of individual salvation. How many of our children know of the historical origin of that today?
Then the third fact is that from the teaching of Christ. not directly but evolving over the years which immediately followed his death, there came about a code of conduct of moral and ethical values which historically has had a profound effect on the history of Europe and the evolution of Britain's democracy. Our children should not be left in ignorance of all that.
Putting all those facts together, one can say that they are a proper subject for any school curriculum. Yet those facts are inadequately taught in very many of our schools today, and if the teacher likes to add that Britain would be a happier and more contented society if we did not kill, if we did not steal, if we did not covet, if we did not bear false witness and did respect our neighbours, I would not myself hold him guilty of indoctrination. This may be a simple approach but too many of our children are ignorant of these facts. It may be that in this modern industrial society, when I suppose man can claim that he is a creator in his own right, we may feel that we have got beyond the point when we need the kind
790
of external strength and support to which I have referred. If so, I think we are unwise: it is likely to be the pride before the fall.
Of course when we have a debate of this kind—and we have heard some of it today—there is always a rush of caveats. Other cultures will be offended; some parents and children will opt out; some teachers may evangelise; some teachers may be incompetent or so disinterested as to do more harm than good. There are such risks—certainly there are. There are difficulties, some of which were pointed out by my noble friend Lord RedcliffeMaud, for the teachers. But as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—and I am sorry he is not still here—it began to occur to me that if one really pays too much attention to some of these caveats one is in danger of becoming so broadminded that one fades away into dialectics, and from those dialectics one ends up with no purpose at all. Lord Brockway is a delight to listen to, but I am never quite sure what to do after he has finished speaking. Let us by all means teach as many religions as we can, but let priority be given to Christianity, because this is the religion of our country. If we are too diffident we shall get nowhere, and this is, in my submission, a case of nothing ventured nothing gained.
My Lords, I have attempted to show that religion has a proper place in any school curriculum on account of history and historical knowledge which is particularly relevant to the civilisation of Europe and to Britain, to argue that we have a positive responsibility to tell our children of these things, because far too many do not know, and we have a responsibility to tell them of the supreme promise of the Christian religion which is unique, that of individual salvation. They should know about it. They can—as I think Lord Longford said—reject it later. But my approach to this matter is that it is for the teacher to teach the knowledge and for the pupil to judge. I think our fear of teaching Christianity perhaps stems from distrust of teacher and distrust of pupil, and that is not a good basis for any action.
Finally. I have suggested that we dare not keep our children in ignorance of the code of conduct which has evolved from the teaching of Christ in respect of community living, because it has, and I

791
need not elaborate this; it has the closest connection with the kind of democracy which free peoples want to see. So I would myself strongly support the proposals of Lord Blake, and once more express gratitude that this subject has been given such a full debate in your Lordships' House.
7.3 p.m.
Viscount COMBERMERE: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for initiating this important debate. I should like also to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, on a memorable maiden speech. And I should like, as is customary, to explain my own interest in the debate. I lecture in Religious Studies at London University Extra-Mural Department, and I am a member of the Shap Working Party on World Religions in Education.
My Lords, there are five aspects to this debate to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. First, there is the question of total time available for RE in the school curriculum; secondly, there is the question of the way in which that time is spent; thirdly, there is the question of whether the total time available and the way in which that time is spent is desirable or adequate; fourthly, there is the question of the danger of indoctrination, which I believe is still not insignificant; and, finally, there is the question of the academic status of the subject, and, connected with this, the supply of adequately trained staff.
To take the first question, it is, I believe, generally recognised that the total time allocated for RE in local authority schools is very little, at least in relation to the time allocated in timetables for other subjects. It is difficult to generalise, but I believe that in most cases this involves at the most one period, and very occasionally two periods, per week, except, of course, in those few schools that make provision for the subject to be taught at 0 and A levels. Quite apart from other considerations, in most cases this means that the subject cannot be taken as a serious academic subject. It means that very few pupils take RE at 0 and A level. This in turn must have an effect on prospective trainee
792
teachers going forward to colleges of education. It means that for many of them RE specialisation is not a viable choice. This again affects the supply to schools of qualified teachers of RE.
In my view, the study of religion in its widest sense—by which I mean the study of Christianity and other religions—is as academically viable and as educationally important as any other subject, and should, on academic and on educational grounds, be accorded the same amount of time as, for example, history and geography. Religious motives and religious commitments have often lain behind man's noblest achievements, on the one hand, and behind some of his basest acts on the other. It is unthinkable that one should consider a child to be adequately educated without some knowledge of what has proved to be one of the most powerful of driving forces in human history, whatever one's views about the nature of that force. I wholeheartedly echo Lord Blake's comment when he said that education which misses out religion is not education.
The second question is: Given that the time allocated to RE is limited, what in fact is the content of the syllabus taught? In consulting my colleagues about this, one thing that strikes me is that it is virtually impossible to generalise, but the indications are that possibly up to 20 per cent. of local authority schools offer an exclusively Christian syllabus with a heavy element of pure biblical teaching. On the other hand, a much smaller proportion of schools place an equally heavy emphasis on world religions, with Christianity having a disproportionately small place. In the majority of schools, however, it would appear that while Christianity is predominantly taught more time is gradually being allocated to the teaching of world religions. In a very few schools Humanism, Marxism and other alternative life stances form a small part of the RE curriculum. I would stress, however, that this view of the general content and mix of RE syllabuses is purely a personal impression based on a few soundings taken, and other noble Lords may well have more concrete evidence based on deeper investigations.
Coming to my third point, perhaps I could turn now from a consideration of what is taught to a consideration of

793
what is desirable and adequate. In terms of the teaching of Christianity in particular, there is the view that schools can do little more than reflect the ethos of the society that establishes them, and that if that society lacks a specifically Christian ethos then it is up to the Churches to recall the nation to that Christian ethos. I agree with this view to the extent that it is not the role of the schools to convert the young to Christianity; rather it is the role of the Church to propagate faith. It is, however, and it goes without saying, the role of the schools to educate, and, in my view, one period, and occasionally two periods, a week is not enough to teach a child the elements of a subject which I submit is as important as history and geography.
If the country as a whole is unsympathetic to this, then I believe that sometimes it is necessary for those in a position to do so to take the lead in the field of education and so help form public opinion. But if it is right to plead that more time be made available for teaching about the basic features and ethics of Christianity, it is even more urgent that more time be given to RE periods if the view is accepted that religions other than Christianity should be included in the RE curriculum. Personally, I believe that it is right, and indeed essential, that children should be taught something of the basic features of those major religions which are so important, both in terms of past history and of present influence in world affairs; but not only because of this, for within our schools we will find Moslem, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist and Sikh children.
I would not wish to exaggerate the significance of this, but it is certainly not insignificant. Sheer commonsense alone dictates that we must take account of this and include in our school curricula sufficient provision for some of the elements of the major religions of the world to be taught. The deepest beliefs and commitments of people who belong to religions other than one's own must be of concern to those of us who increasingly encounter them. But this is only one reason for advocating the teaching of religions other than Christianity in our State schools. The study of religion in its widest sense, Christianity and other religions, is an important academic study in its own right, and spans a wide range of individually important disciplines. It
794
involves of course at advance level a knowledge of languages and an acquaintance with philsophy.
I believe that the study of religion can be justified purely on the grounds that what has moved man to some of his noblest deeds of self-sacrifice and to some of his most heinous crimes is of enormous educational importance. On a more spiritual level, man's understanding of ultimate reality, however expressed in different traditions, and his understanding of his own nature and of his relationship to that reality, is equally important in educational terms. To grow up unaware of these beliefs and traditions is like growing up without a knowledge of countries like India, China and Saudi Arabia.
A number of reasons, which are persuasive on the surface, as to why world religion or, as it is sometimes called, comparative religion should not be taught, have from time to time been put forward. For example:
"Comparative religion makes men comparatively religious".
is an oft-quoted comment by Ronald Knox, which in my opinion, underlines an entirely misconceived view of the nature of religious education. The aim is not to make men or children religious, or for that matter irreligious. The role of the school, as opposed to that of the Church, is to widen knowledge and not to strengthen faith. In any case, practical experience seems to indicate that confrontation with other religions appears to sharpen faith rather than diminish it.
However, having stressed the view that world religion should be included in any RE syllabus, I believe that as this country is still a Christian country and as it owes an enormous cultural and ethical debt to Christianity, then—as many noble Lords have previously said—that religion should form the bulk of any RE syllabus. Should other so-called life stances—Humanism or Marxism—also be taught and included in the RE syllabus? That is a debatable question. I believe that they should be taught, but should probably not be included in an RE syllabus, especially if time is limited. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if they were to be included in general studies classes.
It has been suggested that ethics alone should be taught—in other words, divorced

795
from any religious context—and that this should form the bulk or even sole content of those periods which are allocated for RE. In effect, this is a plea that only Humanism should be taught in schools, and in my view it is as intolerant as the insistence that only Christianity should be taught. To teach any one system of thought or any one religion to the total exclusion of anything else is really nothing more than a subtle form of indoctrination.
That brings me to my fourth point. Any suggestions of preaching Christianity, or for that matter any other religion, rather than teaching about it must be finally rooted out. A great deal has already been done in this respect, but I believe that there are still a few schools left where the aim is to indoctrinate and not to teach. The danger comes perhaps when the study of RE is turned from an objective study of commitment in others to an active propagation of the teacher's own faith because of his or her commitment.
But teaching without preaching does not merely mean the cold presentation of bare historical facts. Like any other subject, religious education must be imaginatively, enthusiastically and skilfully taught. It must also involve an understanding of what commitment means, but without the committed teacher imposing his commitment on his pupils. I wholeheartedly agree with a colleague of mine when he writes:
"By RE I mean education for a full understanding of what it means to have a sense of commitment, an aim well served by looking with empathy and insight at the piety, culture and life style of the major faiths that are part of present-day life in the United Kingdom and in daily news around the world".
Finally, to advocate more time for religious education in school timetables is useless unless there are competent, trained teachers to take advantage of it. I do not propose to go into the question of the supply of RE teachers, which was the subject of a debatable question in your Lordships' House some weeks ago. I would, however, spotlight one area where I believe the lack of provision for RE specialisation is a direct threat to the maintenance and raising of academic standards of RE as taught in our State schools. This glaring gap is in those university departments of education which
796
make provision for the teacher training of theology graduates. So far as I know, only six universities offer these PGCE courses for theology graduates. The implication of this for those same graduates who want to specialise in RE is that it is not a worth while subject. Ultimately, the health of RE as taught in our local authority schools must rest on its acceptance as an academically respectable subject. To gain this acceptance teachers, particularly graduate teachers, need to be trained in the subject.
To summarise: Given that an extended timetable is necessary, the teaching of RE must include the teaching of some of the more important beliefs of some of those religions which are represented today in this country. Of course aims in this direction must be modest. One must be very careful not to introduce concepts and ideas far beyond the age at which the pupil is ready to grasp them. That goes without saying and is a matter of proper teaching methods. It may well, of course, be said that enough time is already being devoted to art subjects in general, and that the schools now need to concentrate on mathematics and the science subjects, because we are desperately short of scientists and engineers in a world that does not owe us a living.
I fully appreciate that argument, but the question is really a matter of striking a happy mean. An understanding of the nature of man's beliefs through the centuries, his most deeply-held convictions and his codes of ethics which have been based on those convictions, is of the greatest importance in an increasingly materialistic, selfish and violent age. What is the object in turning out a scientific genius who is at the same time an ethical imbecile? Do we also want to have a nation of technicians who, for all their professional competence, at the same time are incapable of comprehending and appreciating the deepest beliefs and convictions of their fellow men?
7.18 p.m.
Lord GLENAMARA: My Lords, the Education Act 1944, on which our education system is based at present, marked the resumption by the State of an interest in religious education. The religious provisions in the 1944 Act were, in effect, a treaty between the Churches

797
and the Government in order to end the religious strife which had marred English and Welsh education for very many years. The treaty was arrived at without any great difficulty in the immediate post-War atmosphere, when there was a universal desire for moral and spiritual renewal. In this respect, in ending the religious strife, the treaty has been completely successful.
The religious provisions consist of a requirement that religious teaching should be available in schools and that there should be a daily act of worship. Religious education in effect became the only voluntary subject on the school curriculum because both pupils and teachers could opt out of it. Like the 1944 Act generally—and it was a very remarkable Act of Parliament—the religious education provisions have proved flexible enough to accommodate all the quite profound changes in our society which have occurred since then. Despite what many noble Lords have said, considering the radical changes in the context in which religious education takes place, they have survived to a quite remarkable degree.
However, many of us, including myself, believe that the whole approach to the teaching of religion in schools—indeed, to the teaching of religion to young children—must now be re-examined because there are signs that it is not effective, and there are some signs indeed that the teaching in our schools at the moment is in effect counter-productive. But the context of the re-examination must be 1977 and not 1944 or 1870.
I want briefly to mention four changes over the last 33 years in the context in which religious education takes place today. First, infinitely better relations between the Churches. Many factors are responsible for this; Pope John, the Vatican Council, the ecumenical movement, the dedicated work of priests and ministers throughout the country and, not least, the much maligned agreed syllabus. I think that the effect of the agreed syllabus which has been taught for 33 years has not been sufficiently appreciated. Its purpose was to set out the biggest area of agreement between the religious denominations; the highest common factor. It is partly because of its success that its non-doctrinal approach to religious education is, in my view, no
798
longer necessary. That is the first change; the better relations between the Churches.
The second change is the growth of secularity. I agree with a number of speakers that it is possible to overstate, to exaggerate, this. Nevertheless, obviously there has been a growth of secularity. Before the War, almost everybody professed to belong to one Church or the other, to one branch of the Christian Church, and most people professed some kind, some degree, of Christian belief. Before the war—and I was teaching myself then—teachers could take these two professions for granted. They cannot do that any longer. But in one respect this is a gain. I believe that honest disbelief is very much better than a posture of belief, which we so often got before the war. This growth in secularity has coincided with the development of technology and the consequent affluence in our society. It is far too simplistic a view, as some noble Lords have stated, to say that it is because the religious teaching in our schools has declined in quality.
The third change in our society is the growth in Britain of a multicultural society because of the influx of large numbers of Asian immigrants. This has created enormous difficulties for social policy generally, but especially for education; and in education more particularly for religious education. But here again, as in the matter of the growth of secularity, I believe that this is probably much more of a plus than a minus, because we realise in this country, as never before, that we are citizens of a rapidly shrinking world. We realise that we share with other people from other countries of different colours from ourselves the same common human predicament, and we realise as perhaps never before that we must work together. The influx of Asian immigrants into Britain has brought home as never before that if religion means anything at all in 1977 it must be pre-eminent in finding common ground between people of all faiths, or none, to enable them to work together for the common good. I must say that the past record of organised religion in this respect is not all that hopeful, but I think there are clear signs of hope today.
The fourth change in the context of religious education in the last 33 years has been an extremely profound one, and

799
that is the upsurge of radical theology. I am sorry that all our brethren from the Bishops' Benches have gone. I do not think that anyone sufficiently realises the effect of that bomb which one of their number exploded on the schools a few years ago. The schools will never be the same after Honest to God. I do not think the effect of that has really been realised. Before John Robinson and Bonhöffer talked about religion and Christianity, I am sure that the parents of most of our children today believed that they could lead perfectly good Christian lives without accepting much or any of the miraculous side of the Christian story.
This upsurge of radical theology means that those who are engaged in religious education are faced with questioning as never before. We can lecture teachers here, but it is rather different in the classroom. After Honest to God, teachers are faced with the most radical but perhaps invigorating questioning by those who want to believe, and in some cases by those who have outright disbelief, but at least honest disbelief.
As I see it, in the last 33 years there have been infinitely better relations between the Churches; the growth of secularity, and with that, of course, the growth of autonomous morality. I think that as a consequence of growth in secularity there is a much greater reliance on autonomous self-generated morality as opposed to code based morality. Indeed, I think this change lies at the heart of the problem facing our teachers.
When the 1870 Act was going through Mr. Foster said this:
"…all of us would agree that morality can only be based upon, and derived from, religious belief".
Indeed, someone said that here today. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Few people, however, would hold this today. Many would agree, however, that Christianity probably offers the deepest moral insights; but for most young people today what is "right" and what is "wrong", in the vast area of decision-making where the civil law does not decide for them, is based on rational judgment and sometimes, unfortunately, on emotion only, and not on a Christian code or a Mosaic code. Other factors have contributed to this change—Freudian psychology; modern psychiatric practice;
800
the cult of the individual in schools, and so on. People today do not know as they did in the past, in the sense of being able to refer to a sort of moral ready reckoner what is right and what is wrong; and that faces our teachers with a tremendous problem.
This is the problem facing our teachers today then. Teachers of religious education have the most difficult educational task ever faced by any teachers anywhere. Large numbers of our teachers, however, regard it as a challenge to improve religious education and to give it relevance. Of course, their task is made all the more difficult because many people today question the whole concept of religious education, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, did today. Indeed, people ask whether religious education can have any relevance in the shifting sands of belief and commitment. Unless it has relevance to the acute and agonising problems facing young people—sex, drugs, identity, race, and so on—I believe that it would be much better abandoned.
Because religious education must have relevance to the lives of young people and to their decision-making, the relationship between religious education and moral education lies at the heart of what we are discussing today. Professor Jeffreys in a little book called, Truth is not Neutral wrote:
"The understanding of life comes before the formulation of theology".
The Bishop of Horsham in a letter to The Times put the point very well some years ago. He said:
"In a world which generally accepted the Christian view of life here and hereafter the clergy were able to propound the Christian faith in their own terms and on their own ground. They can no longer do this in a plural society. The Christian message has to be translated into secular terms on secular ground, a process the more complex as that ground now changes so fast".
As a number of noble Lords have said, in recent years there has been a great deal of research into the moral and religious growth of children; the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned Piaget and Goldman, and there have been many others. From their work there has emerged ample evidence that the post-1944 non-doctrinal Bible story approach based on an agreed syllabus is no longer working as it was intended to work. A great many of these people found in their

801
research, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, that the most ludicrous misconceptions grew up in the minds of children which bore no relationship to their world—to the children's world—much less to the world of mid-teenagers. They found that young people were abandoning the whole idea of religious belief with such moral teaching as was associated with it at school; they were throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Many older educationalists throw up their hands in horror when the term "moral education" is mentioned. They believed in the past that it was something which should emerge from the ethos of a good school and from the religious teaching. I believe that is not enough, important though it is. I believe there should be in schools the vigorous and uninhibited discussion of actual situations, of specific moral issues, in spite of what his director of education told the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norfolk this morning. The material for this is in the daily Press and in the Bible, and the Bible is a marvellous case book for this sort of thing.
There are those who would see this moral education as an alternative to religious education, but where up-to-date knowledge of the moral development of children of the kind r have mentioned is brought to bear in religious education, there need be no dichotomy whatever between moral and religious education; indeed, just the reverse. There was a striking report a year or two ago by the Social Morality Council on moral and religious education.
Thus, I think the contents of the periods in our schools labelled "religious education" should be much wider than the Bible stories, important though they are. They should not be identified with the deliberate attempt to inculcate dogma. Indeed, how patently ridiculous it is—the dishonesty of doing so!—to assert a dogma in a religious education period in a school when every other lesson positively encourages questioning and analysis, positively encourages the refusal to draw conclusions without sufficient evidence, encouraging unsubstantiated propositions always to be regarded as nothing more than hypotheses. Yet some schools do this.
802
Religious education and the associated moral education cannot in my view, in 1977, be seen in either ecclesiastical or evangelical terms. They must be seen in educational terms, and by that I mean that the object of them must be that of all education, the search for truth by teacher as well as by pupils; the humble but exciting search for truth with no pretence on either side. Above all, I believe that religious education in our schools in 1977 must be open for the expression or disbelief or doubt so that young people can grow up freely into whole mature people who can develop good relations with others, who can learn to live at peace with themselves, and who can grow freely into an awareness of the religious dimension of human life.
The British Council of Churches said:
"The aim of religious education is to deepen understanding and insight, not to proselytise".
It must enable the young person to know what are, and to consider as deeply as possible, the ultimate questions posed by human existence and by his own existence, and then to face those questions with courage, with hope, and, one would hope, ultimately with a faith of his own. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, that all faiths should be open to examination in the classroom. I believe also that the Christian faith, the Judeo-Christian heritage—the Christian answer to those questions—must be expounded today more clearly and more honestly than ever before because in 1977 nobody need pretend any more about religious belief.
That fact, that honesty is perhaps the most hopeful aspect of religious education today. If our youth achieve honesty in matters of belief or disbelief, as they are doing, it will be worth far more than the facade of religious belief, which often passed for religious belief in the schools in the past. So, my Lords, be of good cheer. There are of course many fears, but there is also in the present situation very much hope.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, we are having an extremely interesting debate and as it goes on it becomes more and more interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, made a fascinating speech and while I will not

803
deal with all the points he mentioned, I assure him that I listened to him with enormous interest and will read what he said in tomorrow's Hansard with keen interest. While I was a little gloomy halfway through his speech, by the end of it I realised that he was just as anxious and enthusiastic for the teaching of religion and moral principles as are any of us in this Chamber. The noble Lord speaks with enormous experience and, having been a teacher as well, his remarks have that practical knowledge which makes us listen to him with particular interest.
I was also enormously interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said because he put what was to me the point of view of the simplicity and definite principles on which I was educated and brought up—he probably was, too—and for that I have always been exceedingly grateful. I do not think anybody has yet spoken in the debate from the point of view of the Church of Scotland, and I thought I might comment somewhat from that point of view because it is the Church to which I subscribe and attend. I wrote to the Committee on Social Responsibility for the Church of Scotland and received a number of documents of considerable interest, but I will quote only one short paragraph because it is on this that the Religious Education Department bases its view:
"The purpose of school education should surely be to help children and young people to grow up into whole integrated mature people, with self-understanding and an awareness of others and of the universe around them and to help them to get as well equipped as possible with the mental and practical skills necessary to a full life. Education is preparation for life and living, not just a job, and in a free society it should encourage the next generation to be able to think for itself, while learning to appreciate the contributions of past generations. Religious education as defined above lies right at the heart of this concept of education".
I agree with that; we must do everything to enable the schools to fulfil that teaching and explanation.
We know, or have been told, that there is a great shortage of teachers of education. At the same time, one reads in the newspapers that there is a great surplus of teachers because of reductions in expenditure due to the financial position coupled with the fact that there are fewer children in schools. Would it not be possible to
804
see that some of those teachers who, I am sure, do not want to leave teaching are trained in the teaching of religion, where there would undoubtedly be a place for them in view of the fact that so many people say, and I do not think anybody has denied, that there is a great shortage of teachers of religion? If we believe what we are saying today in this House, it should be one of the top priorities to find and train teachers to fill this gap in the schools. We have been told that there is a great shortage of teachers of mathematics. Also, in listening to debates on education, I have heard that there is a shortage of teachers of scientific subjects. Let us put the teachers of religion in as high a category as those of the other subjects for which we are trying to find teachers.
I well remember the passing of the 1944 Act. I was not in Parliament at the time but, as your Lordships know, I have always been deeply interested in everything that happens in Parliament. I was head of a very big youth organisation and in the club movement—which was then in its infancy—we did our best to bring to the growing generation knowledge of what was going on. I particularly remember the interest aroused by the 1944 Act. I remember with what enthusiasm we watched the strong fight put up by Mr. Butler, who was then Minister of Education, for the inclusion of religious education in the Act. I was glad to hear many people in this debate say that they thought the move had been successful and of importance, and that it should be continued.
I should like to feel that, in this generation of young teachers and schools that are changing, we still have that enthusiasm for the teaching of religion, albeit by slightly different methods. My feeling that there is this interest in religion among young people—indeed, among all the people of this country—has been much encouraged by an experience that I had a short time ago. I was invited by BBC television to take part in Songs of Praise, a Sunday television programme. It was recorded last September and I had altogether forgotten what I had said. I was one of five people who gave a very short interview and I was asked to choose a hymn. I was interviewed in the parish church at home for something like a minute and a half. I do not believe that

805
it was any more than that, but your Lordships would hardly credit how many letters that minute and a half in our village church has brought me in the last three weeks. Indeed, the letters are still coming in, and I came into your Lordships' House on the Tuesday alter the broadcast and was greeted by every policeman, all the kind attendants who look after us, and so many of your Lordships saying, "I saw you on the television last night" It is an extraordinary thing that one and a half minutes on television can produce such a result. I am sure that many politicians would be very glad to get as good an effect in so short a time.
It is very encouraging that the programmes on religion—and Songs of Praise is one—should have this colossal following. Millions of people watch on a Sunday night. I should like to congratulate the BBC because I feel that they did the programme exceedingly well. Certainly, mine was a very remarkable experience; that is, it has been a much more remarkable experience since the programme appeared than it was when I recorded it because I was only one of several and I did not feel that anything particularly important would come of it. I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said about BBC television and sound broadcasting, ITV and, indeed, all the media and the enormous influence that they can have on this question of religious education. What is encouraging is to find so much enthusiasm for these programmes.
I look back on my own education, which took place such a long time ago that I have almost forgotten it, and I feel that I should have been very sad had I not been brought up in what might now be thought of as the old-fashioned habit of attending a chapel service every morning before work began and of being taught historically as well as religiously about the Bible, the history of religion. Apart from everything else, it was the greatest training in the English language that I had. I am glad that I was taught from the Authorised Version rather than any of the modern versions, which may be excellent but which, to me, are inferior in their language.
I agreed, too, with my noble friend Lord Home when he said that, generous as we should be and are about other peoples' religions, especially in a mixed
806
society such as we have, we are ourselves a Christian country. As did my noble friend, I yesterday went to the magnificent service in Scotland for the Jubilee celebrations. It was most moving and the crowds outside and the appreciation of the whole occasion were terrific. This was all based on the great Christian service which we had in Glasgow Cathedral and which your Lordships will be having in St. Paul's in due course. I do not believe that we should underestimate or denigrate that: we must appreciate that this sort of occasion is really part and parcel of our whole background in this country. It would be a very sad thing if we were to adopt the view of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—much as I appreciate his views on many others matters—that one can take a completely unbiased and detached view of all the different philosophies and religions which are preached.
Of course, we all respect the religions of those people who are now living in our country—Jews, Moslems, Buddhists and so on—and naturally one wants to see that they have every chance to ensure that their children understand and know about their own religions. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked whether any of us had ever been to a West Indian Christian service in a church. I do not happen to have been to one, but I see no reason why they should not conduct their Christian service as they wish, even if they do include drums, tambourines, singing, dancing or anything else. That is what they want and I cannot see why we should not allow them to have what they want.
I return to the point that I hope we can do everything possible to help with the training of teachers in order that our young people shall have the kind of religious training that previous generations have been used to, and that we shall encourage the media of all kinds to continue their excellent work in religious broadcasting in the many varied ways in which it reaches the public and children today. I also believe that we should have the courage of our convictions and carry on as enthusiastically on this particular subject as we have done in the past.
7.49 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, must be congratulated on his subject for debate at this time when

807
there is so much discussion generally on religious subjects. At no time that I can remember have religious institutions been called more in question or greater difficulties been encountered, irrespective of denomination, in recruitment to the clergy. All this can only come back to the question of religious education and especially that in LEA schools—the subject of this debate.
We have listened this afternoon to analyses of the difficulties of the agreed syllabuses and of obtaining and training teachers. It seems to me anomalous that teachers of religion in our LEA schools do not have the same career prospects as other teachers. Surely this is something that can be put right administratively. The shortage of trained teachers of religion is alarming, and it seems quite contradictory to close those teacher training colleges which provide them.
I was astonished when I learnt that in the village where I live the respective ministers of religion have no right of access to the children of their denominations, nor, as might be expected of them, to be able to watch over what is being taught; and this, I understand, is the case throughout England and Wales. I was all the more astonished because I lived for nearly ten years in the old Tanganyika before it gained independence. There, under the Colonial Office framed education ordinance of round about the same date, ministers of religion were specifically given access to children who belonged to their respective denominations, and took full advantage of it in the Government and local authority schools. Their teaching was a great success.
There seems to me to be some muddled thinking here. If, under the 1944 Education Act, the Christian religion is to continue to be taught—and there seems to be overwhelming evidence that this is the desire of the religious authorities, as well as of the parents—then it would seem to me that the first desirable action is proper machinery for collaboration between the Ministry and religious bodies, and at local level between those same bodies and the teachers. Where ministers of religion are given no responsibility and no chance to exercise their duties in respect of schools in their parishes, there is little that they can do; and there is a limit to what a head master or a head-
808
mistress, even a convinced Christian, can do without the collaboration of the clergy. But this action by itself would not have more than a trifling effect if there is no machinery to bring in the parents on whom morally the primary responsibility rests for the education of their children.
My Lords, when we were discussing what is now the Children Act 1975, I said that it was quite right that we should be taking immense pains to secure the temporal rights and prosperity of adopted children, and that, this being so, we had an equal duty to assure the spiritual rights and prosperity of those children. This, of course, applies to all children. No one supposes that we can give religious education to children in the face of the opposition of parents. Indeed, the Act specifically provides that parents may withdraw their children from religious instruction.
I notice with pleasure that recently the Minister, the right honourable Mrs. Shirley Williams, has been giving particular attention to the relationship between schools and parents, and has proposed for discussion a form for parents to sign that gives some account of both their rights and responsibilities in their relationship with the schools their children attend. I would think that what the Minister has proposed is entirely laudable, and I trust it may help her to bring home to the parents that the school cannot perform its function in a vacuum, but needs the active, constructive co-operation of the parents, not only in the classroom, but also in matters of discipline. It is wholly idle to expect schools, however well equipped, or teachers, however numerous or well-trained, to convince children of religious truths, without the active support and co-operation of parents. And teaching, as every teacher knows, is not simply by word, but also by example.
I have in my house a very remarkable series of reports, prepared in 1972–73 by the Reverend J. M. Ritchie, a distinguished Presbyterian authority on Islam, and currently a missionary in the Yemen, on the Moslem communities in Glasgow, South Shields, Bradford and Birmingham. These of course do not exhaust the number of Moslem communities that have grown up in this country in recent years. These reports were prepared by Mr. Ritchie for various organisations concerned with social

809
and religious work. In Glasgow, when the Moslem children are free from their secular schools, they attend a Koranic school for religious instruction on Saturday and Sunday mornings. One of the seven teachers actually travelled ail the way from Aberdeen to teach in it. Classical, or Koranic, Arabic is taught, as well as doctrine, in seven grades. In Bradford, Moslem religious teachers had an agreement with 13 schools—I do not know whether they still have—to teach Islam to Moslem pupils on certain days each week. This was provided parents requested it. In Birmingham almost all the mosques organised religious schools for Moslem children.
I wonder whether or not all ministers of religion, irrespective of denomination, could have free access with suitable agreement to teach in LEA schools the children of their respective denominations, where the parents wish for it, as the Moslem religious teachers do. I do not, however, wish to press the noble Lord who is to reply, for any immediate answer.
What I should wish to see, however, is this—and I feel certain that it is something that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, can support—that a clarion call should go out from this House to support the endeavour of the Minister to persuade parents to co-operate with the schools that their children attend; to awaken them to a new and fresh attitude to their responsibilities; to realise that their duty is as much to ensure the spiritual development of a child as his intellectual or physical development; to see that a child who is underdeveloped spiritually is as handicapped in life as a child who is handicapped mentally or physically. I say, my Lords, a clarion call for parents. It is one that has been made in recent statements by both the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. It is time that parents listened; and it is time that, having listened, they organised themselves for action in the manner both Church and State desire.
7.57 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for introducing it and for giving us yet another
810
opportunity to discuss what we were discussing in another relationship on 16th February. What we are doing today is treading the grapes again, and I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, that treading the grapes is a more arduous process than converting water into wine. Behind all the arguments which I have listened to today—certainly every speech from the avowed Christians—is the manifest unease among devout Christians about the fact that conventional and credal religions have indeed failed to grapple with the urgent, imperative problems of our time. If I may say so, they have lost faith in faith, and are seeking to restore it by law. It cannot be done. This is a secular State; I repeat that it is a secular State, and this is because, as we have heard, people are contracting out of the religious educational system which is permitted or laid down by the 1945 Act. That Act is an anachronism in which, as has been repeatedly said, the only two subjects imposed by law are religion and physical education. I would remind your Lordships—and I do not think it is possible to contradict it—that in 1945 that was a political deal to mollify the denominational schools and indeed the organised religious bodies.
I want to protest in a way against the general attitude which has been adopted—I am not taking umbrage at it; I am simply contradicting it—by many people towards the Humanists, as though we are in confrontation with religion. We are a long way past that. I am the President of the British Rationalist Press Association, and of course the Rationalist position over many years was indeed a confrontational situation. It is no longer. If your Lordships listen to my noble friend Lord Brockway, or any people who speak as Humanists, you will realise that it is no longer so. We are as deeply concerned—in fact, I would almost go further, and say that we are more concerned than some—about the situation which is developing where, in an increasingly materialistic society, a vacuum is being created by a lack or a denial of moral values.
We are for moral values. That is our business, if I may say so. We are an ethical body, and our branches are called ethical societies, and so forth. We do believe; and we are no longer, I assure you, attacking religion. We criticise the

811
Churches, the organisers; we deny superstition; and we at least insist that people should be able to exercise their rational judgments about what passes for religious beliefs which are dictated or dominated by superstition. On a previous occasion, I said that as a scientific Humanist I regard the supernatural as something which we must or can (we shall never succeed, I may say) reduce by reason to the natural; that the supernatural can rationally be examined, studied and understood in terms of the rational. That is a long way beyond the limits or restraints of our present knowledge. By that I mean, for example, that whenever a scientist produces an hypothesis he says, "I believe, if I can prove it, that this is so".
So we are not really in a confrontation situation, and have not been for years. But what we do feel strongly about is the kind of questions which have been raised here and with which I still find it difficult to compromise. I think that the situation was made very clear in an admirable speech by my noble friend Lord Glenamara. I am sorry he is not here, because I thought he said everything that I would have wanted to say, and perhaps I should now sit down, because he did it from the point of view of a professional educationist—a man of great concern, a man of great insight and, as he demonstrated, a man who knew the nature of the educational problem we are discussing here. I agree with every word he said. I do not quarrel with religious education if in fact we know what we are talking about when we are talking about religious education. It is not religious instruction; it is not indoctrination; it is not proseletysing. Let us be clear about that. If we are talking about education in that sense, this is the reality that we are talking about.
We are not proclaiming that you can, in any structured curriculum system, encompass all knowledge and all the religions, and can go through and really study or define comparative religions. What we are saying is that people, and particularly the youngest people in the elementary schools, have of course got to have inspiration. You can call it religious inspiration or you can call it insight inspiration. You have to give children from their youngest years a sense of inquiry, which is their rationalism, and
812
a sense of (the word I have been using) inspiration. We have to have ideas, but they have to be properly motivated. I accept the fact that we live in a Christian society. We live in a Judaic Christian civilization—our background, our literature (as has been said very clearly and quite properly) and everything else. All our arts, if not our sciences, have come out of what was the Judaic Christian tradition.
There is no way in which we want to disentangle that—I am talking now as a Humanist—because this is part of the understanding, the knowledge and the concomitance of our experience, which must find its expression in what we do. But this is the year 1977, and, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, we have had something in the last 20 years. Lord Glenamara was talking about the revolution in the schools created by circumstances—John Robinson and others. That is far below the high theological discussions which were cited, because I feel that John Robinson has really entered into the spirit of trying to capture (I am not being disrespectful to him) the spirit of an age, a questioning age, and has tried to satisfy it.
What we are talking about here is something very profound. Let us face it: in the last 30 years we have had such a transformation of our physical and cosmic world that we are now no longer capable of whistling away or dismissing problems when we see the magnitude of those problems, which are not encompassed by anything which I know. I confess that I have had what Lord Longford was almost reproaching me with—a religious upbringing. I made up my mind quite early, I may say; but, nevertheless, I probably have "a hang-up". But it no longer encompasses it. It cannot encompass it; because we have to ask ourselves the most profound questions. It is not just the meaningfulness of life. We have to talk about the meaningfulness of life because it is the purpose of life, I hope, that we are talking about. But we are now dealing with the most radical change in the whole of the history of mankind.
I leave your Lordships with the problem of the atom bomb. That I leave to the people who can find a Christian answer to the atom bomb. But it is more than

813
that. In the last 30 years, as a result of man's curiosity, of man's questioning of nature and of man's material ambitions, or whatever, we now have a situation in which we have had (and I repeat what I said before) four revolutions in one, all impinging simultaneously on one generation. We have had the atomic age; we have had the communications and computer age; we have had the space age; and we have had what I hand back to the theologians (because one of these days we are going to have an awful problem with what we are going to do about it) and that is the bio-engineering age. What are we going to do when we can literally manipulate the nature of man himself? That is a real problem, and if religion can find me a glib answer I would settle for it. Meanwhile some of us have got to wrestle with the real problem of what we do to find restraints on the kind of vaulting ambitions or indiscretions, almost, of scientists who might in fact change the whole trend of mankind.
This is the kind of thing which you cannot, in fact, find—and I do not say this disrespectfully, because I mean it—simply by the comforts of religion. You cannot find it simply by saying, "That is something I can talk about hereafter". This is not something you can do where you are being confronted, literally, with the facts of a changing world—and part of that changing world is the nature of our education in this country in order to cope with that changing world. A part—I might agree a small part, or a relatively small part, although I attach a great deal of importance to it—is the nature of our multiracial society and our multicredal society, because in my book (which is not the Book of Genesis) you have a situation in which you have to understand this tiny neighbourhood which the world has now become—a crowded neighbourhood, at that—in which all our old barricades or defences are down. Whether it is in Southall, with the Indian living across the fence, or elsewhere, that is the world. Even the Indian in India is, for all purposes, living just across the fence.
We have got to come to terms and understand people. We need to find a way whereby, through a proper educational system, we teach the nature of Christianity or the Christian purpose and lay into it all we can of the Christian ethic.
814
I do not believe that the potential conflicts between children, black, white or yellow, are anything like the situation which may develop later. Presently, certainly, as people grow up in the schools and go into the universities, we must find some way in which our education, based if you like on the Christian tradition, does understand the nature of other peoples and other religions. You do not have to accept the other religions, but you must understand them. It does not mean that a monumental curriculum will be needed to achieve that. I have never found in my experience in going around the world that I had to know all about Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam. All that I had to know was that they were different, and to approach them in that spirit of difference so that I was not causing affront or giving offence, treading on people's susceptibilities or affronting their religion.
One of the great things that I want your Lordships to believe about Humanism—and I am sure you will understand it if you look at my noble friend Lord Brockway—is tolerance. I think that this is one of the greatest contributions we have to make to this debate. Tolerance: I accept your points of view; and I hope that you will accept ours and, above all, I hope that you accept the position of other people in this argument. The only thing that I am intolerant about, my Lords, is intolerance. I find that in some of these arguments we are once again building up a basis of intolerance. I do not want to be floppy in dealing with this question. I do not want our educational system to be corrupted; I want it to be reinforced. But I believe that it will be reinforced best if we recognise that we cannot impose religion by law.
8.14 p.m.
The Duke of NORFOLK: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House for having been absent from part of the debate, but I went to a requiem mass for Cardinal Conway which was said by Cardinal Hume. I thought it right that the English Catholics should have been represented at that mass to try to help restore some peace in that unhappy part of our kingdom. My Lords, I greatly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Blake, drawing attention to this subject. In a debate in the other place in March 1976 it was remarked that there was a great

815
need to maintain and improve the opportunities for religious education. The chairman of the Religious Education Council, Mr. Hogbin, recently in a discussion paper described the position of religious education as being more critical now than ever before. I believe that no reliable statistics are available, but I am told from the inquiries I have made that something like 60 per cent. of those now teaching religious subjects in the schools lack proper qualifications. I see one of the right reverend Prelates nodding agreement. My information is second-hand, but I have taken great trouble to try to get some details for this debate.
There is a lamentable lack of teachers' certificates or bachelor degrees of education being granted for religious education. The Council for National Academic Awards ought to be encouraged to attract teachers to take up religion as a specialist subject. Furthermore, all teachers in the primary schools of this kingdom should be required to follow a substantial study of religion so as to give them a proper background. Religion is now, in fact, being squeezed out at degree level from the academic and professional courses and has become a poor relation. A religious education teacher normally reaches only a Grade II or Grade III position and not Grade IV, as does a teacher in subjects like languages or mathematics. Furthermore, the Department of Education and Science have such stringent regulations in their training institutions that there must be a minimum group size before they set up a course in a subject. If there are not enough students at a college of education who are wanting to study religious subjects they are unable to pursue these courses and the course is disbanded.
It has also been suggested to me that during all this great reorganisation of education which is taking place throughout the schools in the country, the setting up of comprehensive schools and so on, opportunities should be thrown up for the organisation of in-service courses on religion so that teachers who qualify in other specialist subjects, subjects which are no longer in such demand, could re-train and be qualified in religious subjects as well. I understand that 20,000 highly-qualified teachers are unemployed at this moment. Many of these must be
816
willing to add religion as an additional subject to their qualifications. They could become very useful members of school staffs which lack such religious teachers.
Some teacher training colleges, as I believe they are now called, have flourishing diploma courses on religion. There is one such at this moment that is, in fact, in danger of being disbanded. It is St. Mary's College of the Sacred Heart at Fenham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Attention has already been drawn to this. Let me elaborate further. This college is the only Christian college giving Christian education in the North-East. It is not a college which is teaching Catholicism; also on its board is a Methodist minister. It studies the history of religion, comparative religion and religious history and there is much fruitful discussion on Humanism and ethics in general. I urge the Government most sincerely to consider whether it is right that a college that is so concerned should be at the moment under the axe of disbandment.
My Lords, there is another point that is kindred to this. Because there are so many unemployed teachers, vicars, priests and Methodist ministers throughout the Kingdom are discouraged from taking classes inside schools unless they have teaching qualifications that enable them to be teachers and to be treated as teachers. Why should this be so? Why should they not be encouraged by headmasters to go to the schools and to give, so to speak, extra-mural instruction in religion? This is happening in some schools but not in all schools. I know that there is a trade union problem here: church ministers competing with unemployed teachers. But surely if we are trying to look after the youth of our country it ought to be able to fit the two together.
It is patently obvious that the family is the basis of human life. I have spent 30 years of my life in the Army; I have seen throughout the world what the family unit is, and I know, as do all your Lordships, that the family—the husband, wife and children—provides the best way of bringing up the children to be the best human beings. It also applies to the generation above, in old age, for the grandparents to look after the children and themselves be looked after.

817
In Soviet Russia I understand that 66 per cent. of marriages break down. Such is the result of a lack of religion, and even a lack of humanism in their teaching. In our country I understand now that 33 per cent. of marriages are failing. I have no doubt at all in my mind that much of this can be traced to the lack of religious education in schools in the United Kingdom. In the past six months I have been to no fewer than six different schools situated all over the United Kingdom and I visited them on speech days, and so on. I have found that there has been the most wonderful increase in the way the children are educated in other subjects. But in practically every case the masters to whom I have spoken have agreed that we are not fitting our children out with a proper belief in religion, ethics and the family. We are sending them forth into this world not in any way as fully equipped as our forefathers were, and as we were, by belief in religion.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, says many remarkable things—and he certainly said some remarkable things when he attributed the defeat of the Nazis to Communism and Socialism. If he had been to Belsen, as I have, and to Buchenwald and seen the mounds of Jews and Christians, he would not have said such nonsense. The noble Lord has again left the Chamber; but I feel strongly when I know the persecutions which took place on Pastor Niemöller and the Roman Catholics, and the other Christians. For the noble Lord to suggest that the Nazis were defeated by Communism is a nonsense. I see the noble Lord opposite is wagging his head.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I intervene, please? My noble friend did not say that.
The Duke of NORFOLK: My Lords, the noble Lord is not here to say what he said. But I understood him to say that. From what I have seen in Christendom, the religions of Christendom have pulled Christendom together. I see Humanism as being part of Christendom now. In our ecumenism the religions of the world are getting together and the Christians are finding the same God the Father as the Jews have, and the same God the
818
Father as have the Mohammedans. I welcome the Humanists adding their ethics and morals to our Christian way of life, all combining to try and make the youth of our nation see that a proper way of life is something that depends on the family as the main basis of our lives.
My Lords, I welcome this debate and I hope that anything that is said by me or anybody in this Chamber will enable the Minister of Education, Mrs. Shirley Williams, to go forward in the very great work that she is doing. I have no criticism to offer at all; I think that the Government are doing wonderful things. The education of the nation has improved out of all measure to what it used to be. I have nothing but praise; I am not at all certain that comprehensive schools are not a great step forward. I am not certain of that point yet. I am only sad that some of the public schools and grammar schools might die without being taken into the system.
I want to conclude my speech, as a Roman Catholic and a practising Christian, by saying that I believe that the most important thing we are talking about in this debate is the continuation and support of the family. The family is the Christian unit on which our country will exist. May the day never come when we behave in the way I have seen in East Germany, where the working population take their children to a crêche and pick them up after they have finished work. The whole concept is inhuman and something I never want to see in our country.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, before the noble Duke sits down, may I support him to the extent of asking him this: Is it not correct, talking of Humanists, that Sir Thomas More, one of the only two Lord Chancellors—and I am told there were three by the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone —to be martyred and executed, and Erasmus, were Christian Humanists? The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, in an interview with Mr. David Frost, described himself as a Christian humanist. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is talking about a branch called British Humanists. I am not clear what they are saying, but they seem to be something different.
The Duke of NORFOLK: My Lords, I totally agree. I do not want to prolong this research into the proofs of the existence of God or ethics. I believe that the Roman Catholics—of whom I am one—share all the ethics of the Humanists and certainly of the other Christian Churches. When I commanded the King's African Rifles I had much dealings with the Mohammedans. I do not know the Jews as well as I should like to know them. I think that the whole of this Chamber believes in what I have been saying. Our differences are becoming fewer and fewer. But I am extremely worried, and so are many of the headmasters that I have seen, by the way children are leaving school without having understood the need to marry and keep their marriages going properly.
8.28 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, like other speakers in this House this evening, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for opening the discussion in such a notable speech, restrained yet positive in its impact. The words of his Motion have been most carefully drawn. They are:
"To call attention to the lack of an adequate Christian content in religious education in Local Education Authority schools".
I find myself in agreement with almost everything the noble Lord was saying.
I fully accept the implication that there probably is a dearth of religious teachers and religious education at the present time. It is likely that the pendulum has swung too far. We are largely a Christian society and we are proud of it. To me, the best of Christianity is love, kindness, and gentleness to replace violence and cruelty. This is not succeeding very well at the present time. It may be that the falling off of Christian belief and action is one of the causes of that failure. We should not take too much note of the fact that we are now a society which has in its midst Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, and others.
Here I differ somewhat from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who, as far as I could see, wants to take them all into consideration the whole time. I think we must treat them as good Christians should treat them—with kindness and respect. I have the feeling that in any
820
case quite a number of them are Christians, and many of them want to know about the Christian religion. I do not think we should give small children the impression that we think the religious beliefs of other societies and other cultures are the equal of our own. If those people come from other societies into our own, I think they must learn to live with our society. The Jews have managed it for many years in this country but not, alas! in other countries. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that his Unstarred Question on 16th February concerned the supply of teachers whereas today we are discussing the content of teaching; and it is to that that I shall address most of my remarks.
Having said all this, I am bound to say that in some respects, though this has been a notable debate so far, I have never known a debate go on for so long and yet evade most of the important issues. I suppose I shall have to justify that statement. A number of speakers in this debate, and also in the previous debate on the Unstarred Question, referred to the regrettable fact that the provisions in the 1944 Education Act as regards religious education were not being complied with. They felt that was a retrograde step and, greatly daring, I ventured to suggest that it might be a sign of progress. That Act is an extremely bad Act—almost as bad as some of the legislation which your Lordships have passed in recent years on some other subjects, such as the National Health Service.
The 1944 Act says in Section 25:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the school day in every county school and in every voluntary school shall begin with collective worship on the part of all pupils in attendance at the school…"
Then certain exceptions are listed; and Section 26—which, of course, follows immediately on Section 25, as your Lordships may have guessed—says this:
"Subject as hereinafter provided, the collective worship required by subsection (1) of the last foregoing section shall not … be distinctive of any particular religious denomination".
So we are left with the somewhat peculiar conclusion that there must be collective worship—but worship of whom or of what is not to be specified. That surely

821
earns a very high place in the world's record for reductio adabsurdum. Clearly, the law needs reform.
Because I sometimes make statements which dub me as an atheist or an agnostic, noble Lords may be surprised at what I have already said about Christian teaching, and so I shall now be quite explicit and say that, although I believe that the Christian doctrine, or rather the moral and ethical codes derived from it, is or are the best that mankind has yet produced, I cannot believe in a God who at the same time is omniscient, omnipotent and benign. I have seen little children die of leukaemia; I have seen families in which a son has progressively developed muscular dystrophy and died in his teenage years. I have known the years when pulmonary tuberculosis was a dreaded and deadly disease, remorselessly killing young people in their twenties and thirties. I have seen the discovery of streptomycin put an end to that. If there is some divine purpose which simple and stupid people like myself without faith are unable to understand, then why did the divine purpose suddenly change with man's discovery of streptomycin? I could give your Lordships many other examples.
The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, made a splendid speech, which everybody seemed to applaud. He was very keen that the facts of the Christian religion should be taught, and emphasised that a number of times. I would not dispute that with him, but he did not tell us anything about which facts should be taught. Salvation of the individual through the belief in Jesus Christ, for instance: does it mean that the Buddhists, the Hindus and others are not able to benefit from it? And the implicit faith in the Bible of a number of noble Lords has really quite amazed me. They do not tell us what part of the Bible they are going to teach to young children and yet, as I have said in this House before now, there are parts which compete with pornography in unsuitability for teaching to small children.
Perhaps, above all, nobody in this whole debate so far has mentioned a life after death. Is that not one of the facts of Christian teaching? Why are people so shy of mentioning it? Is it because they realise that large numbers—in fact,
822
I would think the majority—of people no longer accept the doctrine of life after death? I ceased to believe in it at about the age of five when I was given a little book by my mother, only to show me the kind of stuff that she was brought up on. That told me that the difference between a man and an animal was that man had a soul and an animal had not. I could not believe that a dog had not got a soul if I had one. I do not think, if there is a God, that He would have done that sort of thing. I find it extremely difficult to believe in some of those things, and so do a large number of people at the present time.
So what can we do? I would say we should discard collective worship for a start. I find it very difficult to worship a God who is apparently responsible for some of the things which I have alluded to at the present time. I would discard all sectarian schools as soon as possible so that we no longer perpetuate the early upbringing which divides Protestants from Catholics and leads to a repetition of the ugly religious warfare in Northern Ireland which, however viewed, is no advertisement for Christianity. Having discarded these, I would teach with fervour and enthusiasm the great principles of the Christian way of life with regard to morality and ethics, and I would make sure there is room in every curriculum for such teaching, because I think that if this gradually became the new pattern of religious education a new generation of religious teachers might appear.
8.40 p.m.
Earl WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for having introduced this debate, which has been an exceedingly interesting one. I have one regret, and that is that we did not really seem to start the debate until only a few moments ago, when we heard the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and the noble Lord, Lord Platt. If, as is quite unusual, the Motion to call attention to the lack of an adequate Christian content in religious education were put to a Vote, they might vote for it and say that we had very much proved tonight that there is a lack of religious content in education, and would have approved of that. But it is rather a pity that they did not come second and third, or fourth and fifth, on

823
the list of speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, nods his head, but he has more control over the Whips Office than we on this side have. But perhaps it could have been arranged in that way, so that we could have had a more active debate.
I shall not attempt at this late hour, with my complete inability to do so, anyway, to cross swords with such as those two noble Lords, but we must remember that they have contributed to this debate by pointing out that there is something for us to argue about. I believe there can be no doubt whatever that, if this Motion was put to a Vote, the Contents would have it, and the noble Lord, Lord Blake, would have an overwhelming majority. The noble Lord and his supporters, of which I number myself one, have argued that there is patently a lack of adequate Christian content in RE, which I believe is called RI in the Act. We deplore that and, as I said, if the Motion were put to a Vote it would be carried by an overwhelming majority, but it is only fair that the other side should be put. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, who I see has left the Chamber, quite openly said that the 1944 Act is an anachronism and should be abandoned. It is little wonder that the tremendous care which the noble Lord, Lord Blake, had obviously taken in preparing his speech, and the very devoted—I can use only that word—briefing that many of us have had from such bodies as the Organisation for Christian Unity, have resulted in a very well-informed debate about the subject which we are discussing tonight; that is, the adequacy or otherwise of religious education, and the suitability or otherwise of this Act which is still on the Statute Book. We should be thankful for that.
I thought that at this time of night I could not have anything to contribute and should scratch. But it is right that one should at least get up to say, "Thank you" to those who have organised this debate. I wondered what I should feel when we reached No. 27, which is my position on the list of speakers; whether I should be thoroughly depressed or full of hope. Despite the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, with whom I should still like to argue—but it is not good form to argue with him when he has gone to dinner—
824
and despite the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I am full of hope. I am not over-sad. I am sad about certain aspects. I have learned a great deal tonight. I came here to learn and not to teach, because I am not at all an expert on the subject of education. But I am sad about the low and declining status of the subject.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, may I intervene for one second? If the noble Lord will look at Hansard tomorrow, he will find that my last sentence or two is full of hope.
Earl WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that, and I am sure that that will be so. But I am sad at the consequent low morale of the teaching staff, at the lack of opportunity for these devoted teachers—so vividly illustrated in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby—who struggle along with so little hope of promotion, and at the fact that a generation may be growing up without knowledge (and I stress that word) which they will need, if they are to be complete men and completely educated.
But I live full of hope for the near unanimity of this debate—apart from those two very distinguished noble Lords, because I cannot believe that there were three very distinguished noble Lords, as I do not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is all the way with them; and certainly not the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, who is an ex-Minister of Education—about the fact that the neglect of this subject is wrong educationally, morally and legally; because it is in the Act and until we repeal it we have to do what it tells us to do. Also, the large number of speakers and the quality of the speeches fill me with hope. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, made a big speech and turned this into a Parliamentary occasion. I am proud to be here, because this debate will be remembered and we must thank him for that.
If I may take one or two others at random, the erudition with which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, developed his thesis, and his moving—one might almost say passionate—peroration moved me very greatly, and I thought that it was a great speech. Then there was the profound

825
and patent sincerity of two noble Baronesses, Lady Phillips and Lady Macleod of Borve, who both spoke briefly and most effectively. I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, but I accept what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said about it. But I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Home, and, if I may paraphrase something that he said about another noble Lord, it was a delightful speech and I was quite clear at the end what I ought to do about it. I shall probably not be able to do it, but I was quite clear what I ought to do. Taking part in this debate, we have had noble Lords who have held the highest offices in the realm—a Prime Minister and a Minister of Education—who have taken the trouble to come and address your Lordships, and, if any other proof was wanted that this is an important subject, that would be it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has just entered the Chamber. I should repeat that I was saying how sorry I am that the noble Lord's very powerful contribution, which posed the other side of the question, did not come on very much earlier in the afternoon, when there were far more people present who could have heard it and traversed it, if they so wished. Without going so far as to call this subject "mish-mash", which is a phrase that was used today, or "cotton wool", the noble Lord suffered a little from the "Please yourself what you think, and it will not very much matter" attitude. I think that that is wrong, and I am heartened in the extreme by the fact that we are not going to adopt that attitude tonight.
I have learned some new letters tonight, and I am very interested to learn the initials ESL. They are not Common Market initials, such as MCA, which were used in the Statement at half-past three this afternoon, and they are not the initials of a new and exciting drug—at least, I do not think they are. Apparently, they stand for Education in Stances for Living. All I can say is that I do not think that this would be a very popular or practical substitute in our schools today for the letters RE, or RI—and I am glad of it. Therefore I agree with all those who argued so well in support of the main theme presented by the noble Lord, Lord Blake: that it would be a betrayal of
826
education if we in this Western European country did not insist upon Christianity being taught when religious instruction is given.
I hope also there are real grounds for hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, winds up the debate he will be able to accept the main points which the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has made. If I may, I will remind the noble Lord of those main points. It is perhaps as well to remind him of them because they were made very early in the afternoon. First, there is no demand for an amendment of the 1944 Act, let alone for its repeal, but there is a demand for its implementation. I think that that would be the majority verdict of this very full House, with only a few dissentients. Secondly, we must find out what is happening about the teaching of Christianity—also we must find out what the parents think—and that can be found out authoritatively for us only by the Department. Then we need the Department to make a categorical statement, that if there is to be a core curriculum, religious education is to be part of it. The Minister should reaffirm that the teaching of Christianity is a clear requirement of the 1944 Act. If I may turn to the teachers, the House will ask that an assurance be given that the careers of the necessary specialist RE teachers are made more attractive for them. It goes without saying that there is a need for more and improved training so that qualified teachers may be available.
I mean no disrespect to the right reverend Prelates, who have made notable contributions to the debate, when I say that on the whole this has been a layman's debate. A large number of laymen have spoken about religion. We are always being told by the Church that it is the layman's turn now, that we must get on with it and that it is up to us to get involved. Well, we are trying to do that and I hope we have done it correctly. Anyway, for once we have done what we have been told to do! The real point is that the assurances that we so earnestly desire, and hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us in a minute or two, will not only make this a memorable Parliamentary debate but will make it a quite significant and important date in the ever-developing history of this country.
8.54 p.m.
Lord THURLOW: My Lords, I must thank the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, for having reminded us of the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Blake. I was proposing to begin by saying that I supported the proposals, and I am glad to be reminded of what they are. What I have to say is by way of being a footnote to something which the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said in his very remarkable speech. He referred, in the elegant language of the 19th century, to the distinguished educator who emphasised the importance in education of not so much the inculcation of knowledge as what he described as the arts and habits. The inculcation of knowledge is an essential ingredient in religious education today. However, there is a more important ingredient in religious education, and as this has not been given much emphasis I venture to bring it to your Lordships' attention.
What I have in mind—this is in flat opposition to the position of the noble Lord, Lord Platt—is the importance of a daily act of collective worship in schools. As noble Lords know and have been reminded, this is provided for by the 1944 Act. It has been suggested that this is part of the anachronistic side of the Act, but I strongly dissent from that view. No doubt most of the time in school has to be devoted to the training of the intelligence, but behaviour is determined more by deeper elements in the human make-up than the intelligence. Therefore students must be shown that there is a means of access to deeper influences, which means introducing them to this side of experience in a collective act of worship. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, referred to this briefly in her own experience.
The fact that all the boys and girls present at a daily act of worship in morning assembly are not totally committed to the proceedings is neither here nor there. It is a very important introduction to experience. This has been the position not only of Christians but also of Humanists. In 1965, the Christian Humanist Council said that not only do pupils have to be taught about Christian religion; they also should have the opportunity to see and be present at acts of worship. In practice, this means a daily act of
828
worship in the morning assembly. I realise that many aspects of the proceedings of morning assemblies require reconsideration. In many cases, there has been perhaps insincerity, perhaps monotony, perhaps irrelevance. All of these defects can be rectified, but do not let us throw out the baby with the bath water.
Again, new forms will have to be introduced to suit the various reorganisations that have been so notable, in particular the creation of the mammoth comprehensives. It may be necessary to split up the schools for assemblies, or even to go in for some form of house organisation. But there is, in my judgment, no alternative to this central act. It has been suggested that one can have tape recordings of services, or that the boys and girls can be carted along for occasional visits to church services, and that there may be classroom acts of worship. No doubt all of these kinds of activity have their place and value, but they cannot be regarded as a substitute for the central and very important daily act of worship in morning assembly.
In conclusion, I should like respectfully to endorse the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, that we should be unashamedly Christian in our education, and that we should not be diffident about emphasising that worship must play a central part in our Christian education.
9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, just to vary the preface a bit I will not begin by thanking the noble Lord for moving this Motion but rather by congratulating him on his courage in doing so. I remember what an imposing figure he struck in military uniform when he moved the humble Address, and today he showed himself to be a doughty warrior in another cause, because it takes more courage than some of your Lordships may think for the head of a college, even if he could already count on the support of one of his colleagues in the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, to challenge the conventional educational wisdom of today on this matter of religious education. I am not quite certain whether noble Lords, speaking either for or against the Motion, have done full justice to the degree in which the world of religious education

829
itself has been moving into an area not very much represented by the speeches today.
Now what is this conventional wisdom? I think it is something like this, that the Christian element in our British education should be diluted to a point where it is practically invisible; that Christianity, if it appears at all, should appear only as one of a number of religious phenomena. These are frequently held to include not only the great world religions but political and social systems claiming a totalitarian domination of their adherents, and that is perhaps the principal claim that they have to be considered as in any sense religions. There is the conviction that Christian belief today is such an anachronism that it is out of place in the State schools. I think possibly the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, might be ready to go along with that and will come to him in more detail later. And those who engage in teaching religion in a Christian setting must lean over backwards to prevent themselves giving the slightest hint to their pupils that the religion they are discussing might be worth serious consideration as a basis for life.
I should perhaps have been even happier with the noble Lord's Motion if it had stressed the need for, or the importance of, the Christian element in religious education in the State schools than it does when it concentrates entirely upon the lack of this element. That there is such a lack I firmly believe—and I shall come to that also—but I think it would be a pity if the whole of this debate took place without some recognition going out from your Lordships' House that we do realise the enormous efforts that are being made by teachers of religious education, both in colleges and in schools, to reappraise their methods and to bring them up to date in every possible way. I do not remember any decade in which there have been so many books and pamphlets and project studies produced within the world of religious education to assist teachers in this admittedly difficult task. I have a list of them in my notes but I will spare your Lordships that at this late hour.
Another encouraging point that I thought was perhaps worth mentioning was that this last Easter a conference of Christian educationalists was held at
830
Lincoln. It was held in Easter week and it was attended by 130 teachers of religious education, quite voluntarily, and their subject was Christianity in the classroom. Coming from Leicester I think I may claim to know as much as most people about the impact of the immigrant communities upon our social and educational life. Something like one-fifth of our population is to be counted in this category. My experience is—and this has been mentioned in the debate—that most of these representatives of Eastern religions are quite happy for their children to learn about our religion. I heard of a Moslem Imam who expressed the view that he was not at all afraid of his Moslem children learning Christianity in our schools; he thought the far greater danger was that they should learn atheism.
However, these encouraging features do very little to modify the real picture which is one that causes us—or very many of us—great concern. The size of schools has made the old-fashioned assembly virtually impossible and the presence of immigrant children (using that word for shorthand) provides a ready excuse for the abandonment of regular Christian practice. The common view is that the children come largely from homes where there is no belief and to ask them to sing hymns and to say prayers is to involve them in an act of hypocrisy. I think that needs a good deal of scrutiny. But in the limited time at my disposal tonight I do not propose to deal with detailed points of procedure or practice, either in the classroom or the assembly.
These are matters for experts, and they have been dealt with today by several speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I wish to address my mind to the fundamental question; that is, is there or is there not justification for teaching the Christian religion—and I do not mean only teaching about the Christian religion —in England today? Is the common bogey of indoctrination and proselytising or even evangelising a real bogey? What is the real truth about the very common assumption—supported, I am sorry to say, by some of our leading Christian thinkers—that it is a gross interference with the freedom of a pupil's judgment to teach the Christian religion as though it were something seriously to be considered as a way of life?

831
I readily accept, of course, that the children of other religions should not be subjected to any process of proselytisation and that their culture must be protected; but I think the children of ordinary British origin are sufficiently provided for by the withdrawal clause. That brings to my mind a gentle criticism that was made about Prayers in this House by one of the noble Lords from the other side of the House, and all I can say about that is that ample use is made of the withdrawal clause as far as that particular item in our programme is concerned.
The teaching of Christianity in our schools is assailed from two sides. There is first the charge that religious belief stands in a totally different relation to ultimate truth when compared with so-called secular subjects. This needs examining. If one takes the most obvious example, the truth of mathematics does, I admit, need a different definition from the truth concerning something like the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. There are plenty of other subjects, however, where the nature of proof in relation to truth or falsehood is of a much more subtle kind. When I was reading English at Cambridge—I am sorry to say 50 years ago—I had two instructors: one was a Dr. Tillyard and another Dr. Leavis. The name of the second will probably be more well-known than the name of the first. Those two teachers took diametrically opposite views of the poetry of Milton; Tillyard thought it was superb, Leavis thought it was second rate. But nobody would suggest that a difference of evaluation of that kind made the poetry of Milton an unsuitable subject for serious academic discipline.
It is a far cry from the university to the primary school, but the same principle applies. The fact that an element of human valuation comes into the consideration of a subject does not make it an unsuitable element in education. I think this is the point where I ought to attempt some kind of tolerant answer to the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. He said—and I am sure he was right—that he was a tolerant person, but he has the habit of expressing his tolerance in very provocative language. I was almost reminded of an adapted line of Tennyson:
"His tolerance rooted in intolerance stood."
832
But the big challenge that he puts—and he put this the last time when we had a little brush about these matters—is that the changes that have come over human life and human knowledge in the last 30 years or so are so great as to anachronise all that we have previously adhered to in Christian faith. Obviously this is not the time to get into a long argument over philosophical matters, but I think I could allow myself the opportunity to remind him—he knows it already of course; I am not doubting that—that the Christian religion has passed through a number of revolutions quite as great, I should have said, as the ones that we have gone through recently. To pass from the Judaic world into the Greco-Roman world, to pass from that into the mediaeval world, and then into the time of new scientific study, through the influence of Aristotle, to go through the Copernican revolution, to go through the Darwinian revolution in the matter of the origin of species, all these things have revolutionised the map of the world within which the Christian faith was thought to work. All I can say is that it is still here. I believe that it will be here through this revolution in human thought and through many to come. I hope that that is a brief answer to those who hold that religion, and particularly the Christian religion, is to be classed among the myths and the fairy tales.
Perhaps I could have one last little thrust on this and be allowed to say that there have been plenty of modern scientists, mathematicians and philosophers who have found it possible to adhere to their Christian faith in spite of all their knowledge. One who immediately comes to mind is Professor Charles Coulson, the late Rouse-Ball Professor of Mathematics. Everybody knows that many scientists find this link between their science and their religion quite possible. In fact, in Leicester University it just happens that we have found it much easier to get leaders for the Christian activities in the university from the scientists than we have from those in the humanities. I believe that to be a not altogether unusual phenomenon.
Whatever we may think about all that, we all agree that the Christian religion is one of the most striking phenomena in our history. Westminster Abbey is not

833
an illusion unless we have gone back to the Berkelian philosophy. Nor is the smallest village church. They exist and they are redolent with our national and continental history. To pretend that a child can be educated while remaining ignorant of the basic sources, history and tenets of the Christian faith is absurd. Nor should we swallow too rapidly the idea that even in our modern society Christianity is played out. The Archbishop of Canterbury was preaching recently at a great open-air service on the football ground in Truro attended by 6,000 people. Afterwards, a journalist interviewed him and spoke to him—as they usually do—about the declining congregations. The Archbishop of Canterbury said, either in these words or some others:
"Declining congregations, my foot! Any politician in England would be overjoyed to have 6,000 people to hear him on a Sunday morning".
Without boasting, I can tell your Lordships that last June I was able to offer his Grace 15,000 people on the football ground of Leicester. Therefore, the idea that we are talking all the time about something that is past is by no means the whole truth.
Before I conclude my remarks I should like to turn to the more subtle charge that the better the religion is taught and the greater the enthusiasm of the teacher, the greater danger there is of what is called proselytism, propaganda, indoctrination or evangelisation. For our purposes they all mean the same, except that they have different degrees of pejorative content. They all mean that children may be influenced in favour of the Christian religion by the way in which it is taught. That view is the stock-in-trade of the Humanist lobby, but many Christians who are aware of the importance of respect for the individual are ready to join with them in an attempt at neutrality in the presentation of Christian or indeed any other religious material. I find myself veering away from the views even of prominent Christian educationalists at this point. I approach the matter from the point of view of Sir Richard Livingstone who was one of the greatest educationalists of this century, who used to say that:
"Education was the habitual vision of greatness".
834
I see that as a clue to all subjects. Just to show your Lordships that there are educationalists who take a different view, I have seen with my own eyes a school test paper for girls of 15 years worded in this way:
"Write a list of all the swear words you know and say which ones you think are the worst."
That was not in my view the habitual vision of greatness. In arithmetic and mathematics greatness presumably lies in accuracy, exactitude, and in the beauty of economical logical arguments. In music it consists of the chance to appreciate good music, whether simple or of the greatest architectonic grandeur.
As I was preparing this speech I happened to see on my table Mr. Edward Heath's book, Music, a Joy Forever. I found myself asking whether it would be propaganda or proselytism if a music teacher tried to instil into his pupils not the mere rudiments of music but the emotional satisfaction that it could give throughout life. In literature, to which I have already referred, there must be a warm appreciation of the material and understanding of it by the teacher unless the subject is to become boring, and I think there are few who would hold that in teaching Shakespeare one has scrupulously to avoid suggesting that he was not at least a rather outstanding poet, a useful dramatist, and a rather good student of human life.
So it is with religion. I should expect in a Jewish school that the teachers would convey the grandeur of the message of the prophets and the lyrical beauty of the psalms. The Christian religion incorporates these but goes on to include the story of Jesus, told simply at first and then examined at later stages in education with all the critical scholarship of which many pseudo-intellectuals are totally ignorant. Is it wrong for someone who is teaching the Christian religion to approach it with at least that degree of enthusiastic appreciation that I associate in my own mind with those who taught me to love Keats and Wordsworth?
I think I must draw these words to an end, and I do so with some brief reference to the question of ethics. Several of your Lordships have made the point that, while hesitant about Christian dogma, you firmly were attached to

835
ethics, and some acknowledged that Christian ethics were the highest form that they had yet taken. I have to remind your Lordships that in the later 19th century and in the early part of this it was commonly believed that you could separate Christian dogma from Christian ethics: having thrown the dogma overboard, the ethics would still be there. But the ethics turned out to be rather like the smile on the face of the tiger after the tiger had gone. The ethics have not been conspicuous in the life of our country since the widespread neglect of Christian belief.
The last suggestion I want to make is that we especially want Christian education in schools because it would help solve our social problems, such as that of hooliganism. But I cannot sit down without expressing my own deep conviction that we shall never be able to control every action in the modern world without forces of police in such numbers as cannot be contemplated, and a degree of oppressive control which would never be acceptable in our free and democratic country. What we need is for every man to carry in his own heart and conscience something that will show a red light when he is doing something that he knows to be wrong.
Many of us and our fathers were brought up on the old Church Catechism. It had many faults but it had at least one or two plain statements about our duties to our neighbours, one of which was to hurt nobody by word or deed. Unless we can implant into the younger generation something that they will always carry with them, whether or not there is anybody watching them, I do not believe we will ever solve the problem. With those words, I will at last let noble Lords off this overlong oration.
9.26 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: My Lords, I wish at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. I have learned much from listening to the speeches this afternoon and I hope to learn much more when I read Hansard tomorrow morning. I do not share the rather pessimistic view that many noble Lords have about the
836
state of religious education in our primary and secondary schools today, though I should certainly support a proposal that it should be the subject of an independent inquiry. My experience, as the chairman of governors of a large comprehensive school, is that the Education Act 1944, as it relates to school assembly and religious instruction, is still acceptable to the great majority of parents and teachers, boys and girls, in spite of the very great changes that have taken place in the composition of many schools arising from immigration and the wider opportunities of participation and self-expression which both parents and pupils have today, contrasted with what they had 30 years ago.
In the school of which I am a governor we have many pupils whose parents were born in different parts of the world—in China, Pakistan, Persia, India, Nigeria, the West Indies and elsewhere—and almost all of these pupils attend school assembly and the great majority attend religious education classes, which we have twice a week. Incidentally, in this school it is possible to take O-level and A-level in religious education; I have heard in the debate that in some schools it is not. I am sure that both the morning assembly and the religious education classes help young people to appreciate the compassion, understanding and courage of Christianity down the ages and help them to understand one another and work together.
Although I have no doubt that there is room for improvement in the training provided for religious education teachers, I am not so pessimistic as some noble Lords about the standards of teaching in secondary and primary schools. As an examination at O-level and A-level, it is, for rather obvious reasons, not a popular subject for many pupils; unlike English, maths and foreign languages, it does not help one to get a job on leaving school. Although this is a rather obvious point, it is a real and practical one and, if this committee is set up, the kind of point that should be considered from the point of view of the pupils concerned. I hope that such a committee will hear the views at first-hand of parents, pupils and teachers, and that it will be in many ways informal and not the more formal type of inquiry to which we are accustomed. I thank your Lordships again for teaching me so much this afternoon.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for the fact that I was not able to hear his speech because, although the spirit was willing, I went to have something to eat and therefore was not able to hear what he said. However, I did hear the noble Lords, Lord Platt, and Lord Brockway, neither of whom, regrettably, is here. I felt that perhaps the two noble Lords whom I did hear should have an answer to their queries to some of us as to why we think that Christianity should be taught in schools, for that is the basic question that is before your Lordships' House.
Very briefly, I can only say how fortunate those three noble Lords are never to feel the need for spiritual assistance, because the basis of the individual Christian position is that the Christian is a person who knows that he cannot live without somebody to turn to either in an hour of need or in a moment of happiness or thankfulness. I do not want to enlarge on this: I believe that I have explained why, as an individual—and I speak for myself—I feel the need to live my own life so far as I can in accordance with a Christian standard. To put it very simply, it is only because we realise that we are sinners that we are Christians. If one were fortunate to be so good and kind as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, perhaps one might not need it, but probably most of us do. I think that it is because of this that most of us feel not only that we have benefited from knowing about Christianity but also that it is something that we want our children and—here I speak for myself again—our grandchildren to know about.
I should not like to feel that I lived in a country that deprived my grandchildren, whatever school they went to, of the benefit of knowing during their early school years about the life of Christ. Whatever they decide later on, they will, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich so well expressed it, have had the benefit of freedom of choice when they grow up. They can reject it if they like, but if they had not been given that knowledge they would have been denied a basic knowledge for living.
Looking now at the question of schools, one sees so much cruelty, so much bullying
838
between children, so many battered babies and battered wives, so much ill-treatment of the elderly in their own homes by their own families, that one must ask oneself whether Christian charity has completely gone out of the window and whether it is only a stance for living that is left. One must ask whether this is what explains why there is so much cruelty between man and man in what is meant to be a civilised society. Indeed, one is beginning to ask oneself whether we have the right any more to call ourselves a civilised society. Although Christianity may not be the answer, I believe that it is the duty of the Government to inquire whether it might not be a contribution to society and whether society has not gone this way precisely because Christianity is no longer being taught as a major subject in the school curriculum.
How are educationalists preparing their pupils for the life with which they will have to contend? What confidence is being given them to face the difficulties of life? Why is it that so many adolescents are bordering on attempts at suicide because of the terrible problems with which they are now faced? They have no courage and nobody to turn to. How many Christians know that they could only have survived a difficult period because they had something greater than a human being to turn to? I do not want to elaborate on this but anybody who has experienced this will know very well what I mean.
Teachers also have to cope with children from broken homes. What words of comfort can a teacher give to a child who has parents who quarrel, or whose father has gone off or is drunk and beats his wife? We all know of this kind of situation. What words of comfort can a teacher give to a child knowing that that child has to return home to such conditions? What happens now with all the increased material wealth that we are getting in this country? Has it really brought the happiness that people have expected of it? Are people not looking for something rather bigger and better and outside the wealth of materialism of the bigger car, more television sets, or whatever? Are people actually wanting some return to spiritual comfort, and is not that what they want for their children?

839
How do teachers manage to explain to their pupils, when they get to the age of 13 or 14, the great European architecture, the magnificent Gothic cathedrals, the paintings of Michelangelo—the Creation, the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel? How does one explain Bach, or the B Minor Mass—all the greatest works of art which showed man at his best when he was creating art for the glory of God, and not for his own satisfaction and enjoyment? How can a teacher really explain the beauties of these great works of art without knowing that his pupils already know about the basic beliefs of Christianity and the existence of a creator?
I do not see how they can really approach the subject with anything but humility, in order to be able to teach the children the real understanding of the intrinsic values of these matters. The Education Act itself was brought in at a time when there was obviously a great spiritual feeling in this country, when by 1944 we had already had our backs to the wall and realised that it was a struggle between a totalitarian regime and a world in which we believed, a world of freedom, as has already been mentioned by other noble Lords. Surely the basis of the Education Act was a very simple one. The two obligatory subjects were RI and PE. I was always taught mens sana in corpore sana—I think a fairly old Latin tag, and if PE was essential to the natural development of a child it was always understood that religious education, a spiritual background, was also part of the natural education of a child.
Under the other part of the Education Act parents are also meant to have choice. Most parents, of every kind of condition which I have come across, have always wanted religious education for their children. The very few who do not have always had the right under the Education Act to withdraw their children. So I really wonder on what basis religious education is now falling down in the schools. It has been admitted, I think by nearly all noble Lords from all sides of the House, and with all points of view, that religious education in the schools is in a very serious decline. This is most extraordinary. So far as I know, there has been no Act of Parliament to change the relevant section in the Education Act. There has been no campaign in the Press
840
to the effect that there is any unfairness, no equal opportunity, or any discrimination.
Why is it that religious education has fallen by the wayside? I must ask the Government whether it is perhaps because they are failing in their duty to ensure that religious education is being taught in accordance with the terms of the Act. Parents are certainly not demanding that religious education should no longer be taught. But I think it is regrettable that in the colleges of education there has been a condemnation of confessional teaching; that is, the teachers are now afraid to talk of Christianity, they are afraid to talk of the Bible, they are afraid to use the Bible in their teaching. I should like to know why this has happened. We have had a very long debate, but nobody has been able to say why there has been this change in the colleges of education. Why is it that teachers are afraid to teach Christianity? Why is it that they want to teach what has so frequently been called the mish-mash of comparative religions, or whatever it might be?
I still cannot understand what it is in the colleges of education that has made teachers take this new attitude to the teaching of Christianity. Even dedicated Christians say, "Of course, I mustn't teach Christianity as such, because it would be indoctrination. It would not be fair. It would not be objective." But, my Lords, life is not fair, it is not objective, and it is not just; and it is precisely for those reasons that, to survive in this world we need Christianity to be taught. The very fact that you teach a non-committal form of religion is in itself a commitment to nihilism. The very denial of teaching Christianity is exerting an influence, it is expressing a view. So you are already, by your very denial of teaching Christianity as a way of life, denying Christianity itself. This is one of the main points I should like to make, because it is certainly one which is supported by the vast majority of parents in this country.
My Lords, I should like to say a word about the multiracial problem, because I think it has been used very dishonestly by so many people as an excuse for saying that we have a multi-creed country. We have not got a multi-creed country. As has already been pointed out, there is a

841
vast number of immigrants to this country who are in fact Christians. Let us be quite clear about this. We believe in racial equality—nobody in this House would deny that; but let us also remember that immigrants come voluntarily to this country. They choose to come to this country; and, if I may say so, very often they choose to come to this country precisely because we are a Christian country, and precisely because we retain Christian values in our society. Whether or not they are Christians themselves—and I may say that I have quite a lot of experience of knowing very many people, of all races, who have come to this country—I have never heard one word of criticism from them about the Christian religion or about having had their children taught Christianity.
I would very strongly support the view which has already been expressed by, I think, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, that many Moslems would say, "We would rather our children were taught Christianity than nothing, or than atheism. We accept that it is different from ours, but it is a standard of values which we can understand". So I think this excuse of multiracialism is just another subversive way of trying to denigrate Christianity and stop it being taught.
My Lords, if Christianity is to be taught in schools—and I think the vast majority of your Lordships have shown your firm belief that it is essential for our children
842
and for society that this should continue—there must be sufficient teachers. I would strongly support the suggestion that the standards of teaching religious education should be supervised by the Department of Education and Science, through Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. Surely that is what they are there for. How many inspectors go round the schools to see how many hours are spent on religious education, what are the contents of the curriculum and whether the children are up to standard? This is a job for the Department through their inspectors. Certainly, if religious education is to be taught, I think that Christianity is the form of religion that the vast majority of parents in this country would wish their children to be taught, and I do not consider that there is any more democratic form of expression than the wish or rights of parents to choose for their children the education that they need. My Lords, much has been spoken about human rights, and in the UN Convention on the rights of the child one of the clauses is that children should have the religion that their parents wish for them, and that it cannot be forced on them by the State. I would regard this as a basic human right of any parents for their children. But certainly we know that in this country we cannot do anything without the support of the Government; so I very much hope that when Lord Blake winds up he will press his demands on the Government, knowing that he has the full support of the vast majority of your Lordships in this House.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, like others I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for introducing so admirably this immensely important subject. I think your Lordships also owe a debt to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who has said so much better almost everything I should have liked to say that she has shortened what I shall say by at least 50 per cent. Therefore, I am going to make only a very few remarks. But before making them I should like also to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, on his excellent maiden speech. I heard most of the speeches and I was particularly interested in his. We all have our own private heroes, and the first Lord Alanbrooke was one of the people at the time of the war for whom I had, without knowing him, a very particular respect.
I remember, at the time of Dunkirk, the shortest leading article that The Times has ever had which is relevant to this debate. I should like to recall it. It is almost the only quotation from a poem of immense length by Chesterton called The Ballad of the White Horse, which most people know. The verses were:
"I tell you naught for your comfort and naught for your desire
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.
Night shall be thrice night over you
And Heaven an iron cope.
Do you have joy without cause
And faith without a hope?"
My Lords, it does not sound a very optimistic promise to be given to King Alfred, as it was in the poem, a vision; but it was on the basis of that that he went out to collect people to win the battle of Ethandune. At that time, not unlike this time, he believed, with considerable justice, that Christianity was being threatened for the first time, perhaps, since its introduction into Britain by some very heathen and unpleasant powers. In order to show that that is not entirely inappropriate to the debate I should add that the poem ends, after he has, not perhaps miraculously but against all odds, won that battle, with another vision. A young man rushes in and says, "This is intolerable. The Danes have returned".
844
And he points to the White Horse and says:
"Do you expect weeds not to grow up again?"
Then there is a passage which I shall not weary your Lordships with, which includes the lines:
"I have a vision and I know the heathen will return.
They will not come with warships
They will not come with brands
But books be all their eating
And ink be on their hands.
But though they come in learned guise
As grave as a shaven clerk,
By this sign you shall know them:
That they ruin, and make dark".
That is the gist of what I want to say about the content of this debate which is concerned, first, with what should be the content of Christian education, and secondly whether it should be compulsory. There have been differences of opinion. It has been suggested that Christianity in this country is threatened by a sort of invasion by Islam, plus Africa, plus Confuscianism, et cetera, from all the immigrants coming in.
My Lords, I side very strongly, though more ignorant than most of your Lordships, with the view that the immigrants are no threat at all to Christianity in this country. I know that in the church which I go to when I am in London—not as often as I should—the treasurer of that branch of a society of which I have the honour to be chairman, the Society for Protection of Unborn Children, not a specifically Christian society, is a Pakistani. I think that over and over again one finds that with the later immigrants, as always happens in this country —and King Alfred himself (although I am speaking under correction) was an immigrant, or rather his parents were, the ancestors of Henry II. I agree that the threat has been coming for a very long time from—I think that the name of Professor Leavis was mentioned. I do not blame him but a lot of admirable, literary and scientific men with the best intentions have been undermining what Christianity has been saying.
That brings me to the subject of the content of what is Christian teaching. Tennyson is one of my favourite poets but I do not think he was always clear.

845
There is his line:
"There is more faith in honest doubt, believe me,
Than in half the creeds."
He was meticulous about natural phenomena. Whether he counted all the creeds there are including Oogli, the Snake Goddess, and Oogli, the Frog Goddess, to see which had more faith or less faith, I do not know. I find that difficult to believe, in the same way as I find it difficult to believe the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who is another of my heroes. I can boast having been the only person in this House ever to have gone through a Lobby alone when the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was a Teller. The other Teller was the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I felt rather alone in doing that. I admire his views and courage on all these points. When some time ago he told us that he was an Agnostic and atheist, I found that difficult to reconcile, just as if somebody said: "This is a motor-car and bicycle".
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I never said that I am an atheist. I am not. I am an Agnostic.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, I am glad it did not get into Hansard. But the words I heard were: "I am an Agnostic and an atheist", but I will take the noble Lord's view of it. I think that he is the best kind of Agnostic that I know. He is ready to listen to questions of doubt. One of the most honourable positions one can have, short of opting for one of the great religions, is that. It is not something that can be taught in schools. You cannot teach people to become Agnostics. I think that it was Ronald Knox who wrote an Agnostic prayer which went:
"Oh Lord, for as much as without Thee; We are not enabled to doubt Thee; Help us all by Thy grace; Shows the whole race; Knows nothing whatever about Thee."
That was a good limerick but was also a serious statement about the Agnostic point of view. I should like shortly to question the implication of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that there is not so much difference in the forms of education that one hears about.
846
Religion is partly education and partly ceremonial ritual. If one is going to make fun, as one reasonably can, of a compulsory ritual like church parades—which have been abolished now, but which were once compulsory—some of your Lordships will remember in the Navy the routine for funerals was:
"As the corpse passes on its way to the mortuary, cemetery, deadhouse or what not every man will lower his head on his breast and assume a mournful yet 'opeful aspect."
Another one was:
"The words ' I believe' are purely cautionary. On the words In God the Father Almighty ' I want to hear them heels come together with a ruddy great click."
It seemed to me that the first of those was something which no serving sailor could object to: showing reverence to death, if he was good enough an actor to assume "a mournful yet 'opeful aspect". But I sympathise with "The words I believe ' are purely cautionary," because if I am told to bring my heels together I am presumably giving assent, and I want to know what I am believing in. If the words are followed by, "God the Father Almighty", and I know what is meant by that or have had a chance to learn at school, I am ready to do it. If it is to say that I believe in the perfection and infallibility of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—much as I admire him—I should be more doubtful about it. If it was in the complete integrity of President Amin, I should like to have the courage not to bring my heels together. I should not have that courage if I were in his power and I would probably do it.
Clearly, the words, "I believe" are quite a different matter. What we have been talking about is what Christians believe, what they ought to believe. It is a difficult question, because we have had so many different views of what is included in Christianity. My Lords, if there was time—
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, before the noble Viscount moves away from that point, he mentioned me and I think he has misunderstood what I was saying. In case other noble Lords may also have misunderstood my point, I should like just to say briefly that I was not saying that moral education is the same as Christian education. I think it is entirely different, but I was saying that there should be both in

847
schools. The point about moral education is specifically that it should be there for those who do not accept the Christian religion. I should like to go on to a very quick point mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles: what would G. K. Chesterton have said of Christian education which an imam actually thought would not harm his pupils? There must be something very wrong with Christian education if it is like that.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for telling me that I have misunderstood what he was saying. What Chesterton thought of them is to me neither here nor there. The question of Mohammedans being allowed to hear about Christian education seems to me as reasonable as saying that Christians should be allowed to hear about the Mohammedan religion. In this country, as has been made very clear, the priority of religious education should be given to Christianity only in so far as to show what it is. In their homes and in other places, other religions are going to be given full scope.
What I would suggest is that it is entirely wrong for people to be taught what is said to be Christianity, if it is not. The noble Lord is nodding his head, and I think he would agree. If one were as frivolous as Ronald Knox and introduced a prayer of an ultra Protestant saying:
"Jehovah, whose service was sweeter
When we've humbled Rome's harlot and beat her
In our strength be your hope,
And to Hell with the Pope,
And St. John and St. James and St. Peter",
that would not be a Christian education. At the other extreme—a more dangerous one—here I would agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. If you have a prayer which said:
"Great Trend which no dogmas express
Except more or triumphantly less,
Prove thy sympathy deep by not falling asleep
While invoking his timid address."
One may say that any religious view can be made ridiculous by being turned into a limerick, but I am not sure that that is so. One could have the limerick:
"Oh God, in your Fatherhood, bless us,
Oh God, in your Sonhood, confess us;
God's Spirit of Love, Descend from above,
And pardon, and heal, and possess us."
848
That seems to me to put the doctrine of the Trinity, which would have to be explained. All I am trying to say on that subject is that the form and the content obviously ought to agree, but the content is what we are talking about now.
My last point is that teaching of Christianity, either because it is too watered-down or because it is too extreme in one direction or another, can also be bad, as has been pointed out, if it is not well taught. Here I entirely agree; but the difficulty, of course, is to get enough people who can teach it, who really believe it and who are capable of putting their case to us. Here, if I may, I should like very shortly to back up a point which was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. He mentioned the teacher outside St. Alban's Cathedral. He was asking a pupil what a martyr was, and was given the right answer, "Somebody who is prepared to die for his faith". The right reverend Prelate said that the teacher replied, "Yes. I wish I would have the courage to do that myself". That seems to me—and I think that the right reverend Prelate was making the point—not to disqualify that teacher from being a teacher of religion, because—and here I want to emphasise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles—the unique thing about Christianity is that it is meant to help people who cannot help themselves, as better people can. So far from being a religion only for the good, it is a religion for the bad—
"I came not to heal those that are well, but those that are sick".
An interesting example, I suppose, of the first Christian proselytiser, the first statement of the Christian faith, is in four words of one syllable from St. Peter, when he said, "Thou art the man". The next phrase that is remembered by everyone is in five syllables, saying, "I know not the man". In fact, he did not, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said, behave in an exemplary Christian way then. Nevertheless, he did not despair of that, and we know the part he played in Christianity. If I may once again quote Chesterton, partly from memory, he said:
"When our Lord was looking around for a solid foundation on which to found His Church, He chose neither the brilliant Paul, nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a liar, a coward, a snob—in a word, a man."

849
That was the rock upon which he founded His Church, and the gates of Hell have not yet prevailed against it.
I have spoken for too long, but of course it goes on from there to St. Paul who gave the answer, "Not I, but Christ in me". That seems to be the summing-up of Christian education; that is telling, rightly or wrongly, what it can do. This is the last quotation that I should like to give, from St. Paul:
"I am persuaded"—
not "I am compelled"—
"that neither death nor life, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature is able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord."
To me, that is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and to all the questions which have been put. I do not pretend for a moment that I know it is the right one. I believe it to be.
10.4 p.m.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, the man who goes in last wicket down is not expected to stay for very long, and I hope that I shall not he an exception. First, may I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for initiating this wonderful debate. Before it began a noble Lord said to me that Lord Blake would say everything that had to be said, and certainly at the end of his speech I felt that that was so. Now, after another 31 outstanding contributions from noble Lords who know far more about the subject than I do, there is mercifully very little left for me to say.
I should like to express my admiration for the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Alanbrooke, and I should also, respectfully, like to say how thrilled I was by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. I am grateful, too, that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester alerted your Lordships' House to the strength of conventional wisdom: that it is impossible to teach Christianity meaningfully within religious education. I find in discussions in local church circles that this feeling is quite surprisingly strong.
Of the proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, made, the one that I should
850
particularly like to support is his plea for a circular to LEAs emphasising the centrality of Christianity and a study of the Bible within RE. I do so because I feel that RE should be God-centred, not man-centred. I believe that the prime function of RE should be to lay before pupils, from the Bible, the facts about God and His purposes for us and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and their meaning for us, and to give pupils the opportunity to make up their minds on the claims, challenges and new perspectives involved: an opportunity that may very well exist only through the teaching that they receive at school.
I should also like to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, said earlier about instances of one-sided teaching, which at times I feel borders on indoctrination—in particular, the teaching of the Bible and the miracle stories. As the noble Lord says, there are divergent views. Some people accept without question the description of these events and regard them as signs of God's salvation. Others hold that God acts only in accordance with the so-called laws of nature and that therefore these events must be either reconciled with the laws of nature or their occurrence denied or explained away. Those of us who have experienced the power of the risen Christ in our own lives naturally tend towards the first school, but we must acknowledge that there are scholars who, after much thought, incline towards the second point of view. In any case, in academic study questions must be asked and must be allowed.
It is natural that the point of view held by a teacher should colour his teaching. However, I would support what the noble Lord said: that there seems to be evidence that on occasion—here I refer in particular to college courses—only one side of the question is presented and teachers endeavour to impose their own views rather than leave students to make up their own minds. When this form of indoctrination has involved scepticism about the miracles, the effect has been serious. Students realise that to try to explain away the miracles of Jesus must inevitably lead to an attempt to explain away the greatest miracle of all, the Resurrection. To do this, as St. Paul pointed out in his Letter to the Corinthians, is to try to undermine

851
the very basis of Christian faith and, I may say, the very basis of Christian ethics.
There seem to me to be two main effects that this can have. First, it places a grave strain on individual faith. Some students may be strengthened in their faith, but others may fall by the wayside and be lost as potential teachers of RE. Secondly, a number of students of lively Christian faith may feel that there is little future in teaching RE if they are to be pressurised into conforming with views which they find it hard to accept. These are the very people upon whom the future of an adequate Christian content in RE depends. Therefore I suggest that any circular to LEAs might specify that within RE the Bible should he presented and taught with fairness and educational integrity.
So far as the Church is concerned, apart from doing all it can to encourage its own members to become teachers of RE, it may be that the best way it can help is by further involvement of theological colleges and Bible colleges in the training of RE teachers, on the lines of the link already formed between Oakhill Theological College and the Middlesex Polytechnic. I would hope, too, that the Government would encourage the building up of such links.
Finally, my Lords, the attendance here, and the interest and the speeches in this debate, have emphasised the importance with which your Lordships regard it, but as the noble Lord, Lord Blake, said in his opening speech, RE can easily become a "Cinderella" subject. I feel this is a great mistake. We live in turbulent times. There are struggles sometimes under the surface, and sometimes they come to the top. These struggles we may regard in various forms: we may see our society, our political institutions, our very way of life threatened, but I believe—although obviously I can speak only for myself—that many noble Lords would agree with St. Paul that the real struggle is not against flesh and blood; it is not an earthly battle but a spiritual battle for which, if we are to stand, we need the whole armour of God. I am convinced that it is of the highest importance that we should see that our children are offered this armour and not denied it by
852
our own default. Therefore I feel that, even if this debate were to achieve nothing else, it would fulfil a purpose if we sent out the message to RE teachers that the work in which they are involved is of paramount value.
10.12 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough said that he marked the halfway point in this debate, I found myself murmuring Drake's prayer, that it is not the beginning but the carrying through of any matter in which lies the true glory, for it is true that we really have had a very long debate and I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, cut short what I thought was a most interesting speech and I thank him for doing so. But I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blake, feels that it really has been worth it. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said that it is very important that Parliament should underline its support for the 1944 Education Act and I think your Lordships have been doing just that during the seven and a bit hours in which we have been debating.
This debate has had one other advantage: it has given us the benefit of hearing a really splendid maiden speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke. He spoke as a trained teacher; he had some views to give us and, better still, he backed up his views with some statistics. Those are three excellent qualities for ally speech, not least a maiden speech, and it really was a splendid performance. I only have one criticism: if the noble Viscount will forgive me for saying so, I think he has waited rather too long before he has opened his mouth in your Lordships' House and I know I shall be speaking for all noble Lords if I express the hope that he will return here soon and speak again.
Nearly 420 years ago, on the accession of Queen Elizabeth I, Members of the House of Commons—rather as we are doing now—metaphorically wiped the sweat from their brows and included these words in the preface to the Book of Common Prayer:
"And having thus endeavoured to discharge our duties in this weighty affair, as in the sight of God, and to approve our sincerity therein to the consciences of all men, although we know it

853
is impossible to please all; nor can expect that men of factious, peevish and perverse spirits should be satisfied with anything that can be done in this kind by any other than themselves; yet we have good hope, that what is here presented will be also well accepted and approved by all sober, peaceable and truly conscientious sons of the Church of England."
Perhaps the present Lord Butler and Mr. Chuter Ede felt a little like that when, after intensive discussions, they concluded the religious settlement of the Education Act 1944. I think it is worth bearing in mind, as other noble Lords before me today have done, that this happened at a time when this country had just experienced five years of total war. Churchill once wrote that as a young man he passed through an aggressive anti-religious phase, but his attitude, he found, was always restored by frequent contact with danger.
Churchill wrote in his book My Early Life:
"I found, whatever I might think and argue, did not hesitate to ask for special protection when I was about to come under the fire of the enemy, nor to feel sincerely grateful when I got home safe to tea."
Many of the people whom he led through five long years of war must have had their faith in a source of strength greater than themselves similarly restored. Therefore, I am one of those, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, who think that it was natural that the one item, apart from physical education, which was included in what today we call the common core of curriculum in the 1944 Act should have been religious education.
My Lords, if over 30 years ago there was then no body of opinion which ultimately questioned the 1944 settlement, the same is no longer true today. I think there are two questions which are heard frequently and have been heard in this debate again today. The first is: should not children be encouraged to make up their own minds? The second one is this: in a plural society, should not religious education be taught by way of the many world religions? I join with the noble Lord, Lord Blake, in believing that the reasons which prompted the authors of the 1944 Act to write in the religious clauses remain valid today, and I really do not think that the apprehensions which prompt those two questions have any grounds.
First, as noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said, clearly it is desirable that parents
854
should influence their own children religiously as well as socially and educationally. As my noble friend Lady Flies said, this is as much a part of parenthood, surely, as providing food and a home. Therefore, the question as to whether a child should be brought up in the faith of the parents really does not arise.
What does arise is what are the proper functions and limits of a religious upbringing to be. It is at this point that some people will cry halt and will assert that parents who practise the Christian faith are a minority of the population. This has been dealt with. It may very well be so. I thought that one of the interesting things which emerged this afternoon was that, in addition to the rather out of date statistics with which many of us are probably armed, we also had evidence from the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, who was able to tell us that the findings of the Cheltenham survey showed support from both parents and teachers for the Education Act provisions.
Whether it starts in the home, with the Church, or at school, a Christian upbringing surely has got to involve some knowledge, knowledge of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. I agreed very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, when he said that this must be taught well. I am no authority on this, but surely both our Lord and also the religion are both simple and complex at one and the same time. There has surely got to be knowledge of what Christians have believed in and what they have died for, and there has got to be a knowledge of the Bible. Lord Blake and many of your Lordships have so well shown that if a boy or girl does not have a knowledge of Christianity it is difficult to understand even the history of our own country or of the Western World. It is not just a matter of political history, but of art and of architecture, music and literature, and indeed social development as well. As Lord Home reminded us, Christianity is also an essential ingredient in the development and maintenance of democracy.
Of course, again at this point some people call halt and assert that the Christian religion should not be imposed on other people. Lord Brockway and

855
Lord Ritchie-Calder have put to us very strongly today the Humanist case: that to teach ethics within the context of religious education really is to teach with an unwarrantable bias. Perhaps that case was replied to most effectively by Lord Vaizey who said in essence that religious education is not ethical education, or by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who put it, I thought, very succinctly and touchingly when he said,
"To love justice is not enough, to walk humbly with your God is a different thing."
I think also an answer was given two years ago by the Chairman of the Headmasters' Conference, who is a Roman Catholic, Father Barry, the headmaster of Ampleforth, who said this in his address to the Headmasters' Conference:
"Many have recently drawn attention to the demands of a pluralist society and to the fact that compulsory Christian religious education cannot and should not be imposed on non-religious or other religious minorities, whether they are Jews, Mohammedans or Hindus. While there will be general agreement with that premise, there are grave doubts about the validity of the conclusion, that the right thing would be to abolish all specific religious teaching in schools. A syllabus for the comparative study of religion and of secularist philosophies is far from carrying conviction as a substitute for religious education. Such a study has much to commend it at the appropriate age, but as a substitute for religious teaching of the young it is likely to produce nothing but a confused vacuum. The argument that the syllabus will include a section about Christianity will not be wholly reassuring to Christian parents. It is one thing to teach Christianity. It is quite another to teach about Christianity with all the detachment appropriate to the study of the life cycle of the fish. A more useful suggestion might have been to bring religious teachers into the school at appropriate times to teach their own adherents."
At that stage, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, also charged religion with being irrelevant in the modern world of science. He said, "Let religion give a glib answer to the problem of the atom bomb". He added words to the effect that he might be impressed by that. I wonder whether the noble Lord—if he were still here—really meant what he said. I believe that if there were a glib answer to the nuclear problem, a man of the noble Lord's integrity, which I know very well, would not be impressed by it at all. I venture to suggest that he is not taking account of the true nature of Christian teaching.
856
I am no authority at all. Today I think I have learnt a great deal more than I could ever possibly impart, but I rest my case on a recent publication of the British Council of Churches called The Child in the Church which says:
"What does it mean to seek to create the Christian future? A religion can only encourage the personal freedom of its young people towards the future if the religion is free with regard to its own future".
Seven years ago the Durham Report put a very similar view when it held that if the teacher is,
"to press for commitment, it is commitment to the religious quest, to that search for meaning, purpose and value which is open to all men".
In that search, as many of your Lordships know very much better than I, pupils and students are absolutely bound to ask fundamental questions about such matters as life and death, hope and suffering, faith and doubt. To those questions the teaching of Jesus provides answers. Sometimes they are in the form of analogies and at other times they are in the form of further questions, leading to more knowledge and better understanding but never forcing the way.
Education is often referred to as being a continuous process—how well the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, knows that. I find it surprising that a Christian education should be regarded as other than compatible with this process and compatible also, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, I think, said, with a programme of moral education. Therefore, I believe that the nature of Christian teaching certainly is not indoctrination because, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said so eloquently this afternoon, although Christian teaching has so much to give, ultimately it leaves the individual free to decide.
However, in practical terms what does that mean for the teaching profession? As the noble Lord, Lord Ingleby, said, it means a very great responsibility upon the teaching profession. For surely the art of the teacher is how to communicate reliably and consistently with pupils while at the same time treating each individual pupil as a different person. In addition, unless the religious education teacher believes that he is a plaster saint, he will have many self-doubts about dealing in any depth with the questions that are bound to arise in any religious

857
education syllabus. In addition to that, although I must say that I am one of those who has very great admiration for many of the materials that are being produced these days, those teaching materials are never produced in the form of a rigid syllabus. Nor can the teacher of religious education sit back like a chairman at some committee meeting and discharge his or her function with fine impartiality. It is always a privilege as well as one of the problems of the teaching profession that they are bound to bring their personal influence to bear on those whom they teach. Anyway, young people will soon see through anyone who refuses to be committed to any values or who hands out a religious education syllabus with no personal commitment whatsoever.
These responsibilities presuppose a sufficient supply of religious education specialists, and the fact is, without going into any detail at all, that the supply is inadequate. My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the inquiry which the Religious Education Council is undertaking at the moment with the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education and the Christian Education Movement. Although that report is not yet complete, some of the findings are already becoming clear, and are cause for a considerable anxiety in terms of initial training, in-service training, and particularly for the future training of secondary school specialists.
My own conclusions from this debate are twofold: first, that although the questions which my noble friend Lord Blake has asked of the Government are all questions which call for a response, I should like particularly to support him in his call for an independent inquiry. But one word of caution: I well remember that before the Warnock Committee of Inquiry into the teaching of handicapped children was set up in 1973, one persuasive argument against a full-scale inquiry was that several reports on different aspects of teaching the handicapped had recently been published and it was arguable that this was a better method of proceeding.
But that same argument cannot be used about religious education. There is some marvellous work, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leciester was saying, in what one might call the development of religious education, but
858
I am not sure that there is a great deal of pure research, and anyway, unlike the teaching of the handicapped, there is no advisory committee to the Secretary of State on religious education. I believe that my noble friend's question should prevail, because there is so much we do not know and which the Government do not know in this field. The fact that this is the only subject statutorily taught, and is deficient in numbers of those qualified to teach the subject, must justify an objective inquiry.
This calls into question how seriously the Government—and I do not just mean this Government; I mean Governments of years back as well—have been taking their responsibilities for training and supply in this field. We have heard more than enough today to know that we need an inquiry into how the religious education sections of the 1944 Act are being carried out, and my goodness! there are many other questions which would keep a committee busy for probably a long time.
My other conclusion is that the religious education clauses of the 1944 Act should not be altered, for one very good reason. I wonder what on earth we would put in their place? With his sureness of touch, over 30 years ago Lord Butler provided for religious education with statutory arrangements which are flexible in that, if discharged properly, they can meet different needs in different schools in different parts of the country.
May I end, as I began, with the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer:
"It hath been the wisdom of the Church of England"—
Parliament said in 1558—
"ever since the first compiling of her public liturgy to keep the mean between the two extremes of too much stiffness in refusing and too much easiness in admitting any variation from it".
This debate has shown that, "to keep the mean between the two extremes", is not an easy task: it requires not only determination not to give way to every pressure group, it demands also sound common sense. It gives rise to questions of genuine and pressing concern, and for the opportunity to raise those questions we have the noble Lord, Lord Blake, to thank for this debate today.
10.29 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I think that the

859
noble Lord, Lord Blake, must be pleased with the result of his Motion. We have had a serious and, on the whole, very good debate. My noble friend Lady Phillips, it seems a long time ago now, said something about the danger of cotton wool, but I think we have had less than usual in a debate of this kind. I think that one can thank noble Lords for, on the whole, having spoken about realities rather than what one often gets in a vague and difficult subject of this kind. At our last debate on this subject I expressed my astonishment at the certainty with which everybody spoke, and described myself as a stumbling Anglican with very little certainty in any direction. I feel tonight like Dean Inge who, when that eminent neo-fatalist was interviewed at the age of 96 by a rather brash journalist who asked, "And what do you think of your future, Mr. Inge?" replied, "To be quite honest, I am more confused than ever."
We have had three Humanist speakers, because I class the noble Lord, Lord Platt, as a Humanist; he confused us by his beginning, but he cleared us up by his end. We have had three Catholics and one Liberal. The three Humanists and the one Liberal were all against the 1944 provision, but everybody else, the Anglicans supported by four right reverend Prelates (who I thought made very distinguished speeches) were all in favour of no change. I will begin by answering the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who asked whether I could confirm on behalf of the Secretary of State that there was no question of altering it. This I do. My Secretary of State is quite clear that she has no intention of fiddling about with the 1944 Act religious provisions, at any rate for the moment.
I was very pleased not only with the quality of the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, but with some of the facts he gave us. He said that teachers, as a result of the Cheltenham Survey, were in favour of these clauses (the 1944 Act religious provisions) whereas many people have been saying that teachers were not in favour of them. Although we do not have total evidence—and, as I shall say later, that may be very difficult to get —he gave a piece of evidence of importance; and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, told us that in the West Country the people concerned were all solidly in
860
favour. So I think there has been a slight feeling on the part of—if I may so describe all of us—the militant Anglicans, of some shouting before we are hurt. That is not entirely the case of course, because there is something to complain about; but I do not think the teachers are in a conspiracy to do this down, and it would be wrong to suppose they are.
I intend to make only a few points because, with 36 speakers in a debate, it is absurd to try to answer them all at this time of night, and nobody wants one to do so. I wish to speak briefly about the suggestion by the noble Lords, Lord Sudeley and Lord Robertson of Oakridge, about, as it were, the wrong selectivity of books—the suggestion that books on one side were being provided while books on the other side were not. Noble Lords will realise that it is, and must be, for college authorities and lecturers in a subject, to decide on the most useful and appropriate selection from the books available. I do not think anybody would think that this is a matter for direction; it is certainly not a matter for direction by the Department, still less by the Secretary of State. However, I hope and believe students have not lost the ability to disagree with their teachers or to read books of their own choice. I thought the point was one that I had to answer as well as I could, and that is the best I can do. In so far as it is true, it is totally regrettable, but the remedy is to beg, borrow or steal a book oneself, and I think that is right.
In any debate about the Christian content of religious education one must acknowledge the major contribution which the Churches have made to education in this country over a very long period. For centuries, clerks in holy orders were the only men of learning and culture when those attributes were thinly spread, though over a population which had little doubt about the validity of what they had to teach. Today, mass education has turned the Christian Churches into a minority movement in this country.
A number of noble Lords do not agree on that. None of us has real evidence, but I feel absolutely certain about it. In my walk of life there is absolutely no doubt that it is a minority movement, and there is no doubt about it in many other walks of life which I observe; and

861
if one goes to country churches there can be no doubt about it either. But if it is not really true it does not really matter, because this country is still a Christian country and, as Lord Home said, the Jubilee celebrations and so on are, though I think a very slender link with Christianity, nevertheless a link. I think that people who go to look and cheer possibly have a faint feeling of the religion behind it. I do not think that it is more than that but, if it is, so much the better. Certainly, there is a reality there.
It is lucky that, when elementary education for all was introduced in the last century, the Churches had a central role in providing that education, at least so far as England and Wales were concerned. They had the experience; they often provided the buildings, and even the teachers. Their material contribution and dedication to the education of our children were acknowledged in the Education Act 1944, which recognised that Church and State each had responsibilities for primary and secondary education: the arrangements then agreed, which are still valid, reflected the concept of partnership between the various Churches and local education authorities. As I have already said, I reaffirm that there is no intention of dissolving this partnership.
One of the statutory requirements of the 1944 Act is that concerning the daily act of worship. This has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords and I feel that I should spend a minute on it. It provides a necessary reminder that religious education is more than a classroom subject and that it ought also to have some practical expression in the way the school community orders its life and in the ideals it brings before the pupils at the start of the day. Of course, the act of worship in schools can fall into that arid formalism which Samuel Butler so vividly conveyed in his description of family prayers in The Way of All Flesh. I am, however, persuaded from my own educational contacts that this gathering of the school community need not provide simply an overture of cheerful music, a formal roll call or an opportunity for school notices. Instead, it can be a rewarding occasion which brings staff and pupils together in reflection upon life's deeper purposes and sets the day in a context of shared experience, in which all alike can learn to respect the views of
862
others and to create something of value to the school.
I am interested by what has been said by a number of noble Lords today about parents from the minority communities being only too pleased for their children to take part in this kind of gathering. We know that, under the Act, if conditions are such that it is difficult for the headmaster to arrange, it is open to the local authority to arrange something on similar lines for smaller groups. Of course, parents have the right to withdraw their children if they want to.
The Christian Education Movement, of which my right honourable friend is a vice-president, has suggested that the way in which a school is organised and run carries messages about the values it supports and advocates, and has emphasised the importance of the school's task in social education. There may well be some common ground here with the Humanist view expressed in your Lordships' debates when noble Lords argued for the teaching of morals and ethics, of love and tolerance, of compassion and human fellowship. Here, I must say that I think that certain noble Lords—I believe that my noble friend Lord Longford is one of them—are quite wrong in suggesting that moral education cannot be divorced from religion. Clearly, it can. Whether it is exactly the same if it is, surely is a different point, but one cannot speak of many of the extremely good living Humanists who totally deny religion and insist that the two things must be connected. They must be for the Christian.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, if my noble friend says that I was clearly wrong, he is clearly wrong. Obviously, that is a matter of argument. I shall not stop my noble friend at 10.40 at night, but perhaps when he looks more carefully at my remarks he will see that I did not say what he thought I did. He may have been distracted while I was speaking.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Well, my Lords, my noble friend said so in the last debate, if not in this one. So many of these values stem from the ethics of the ancient religions, and particularly of the Christian religion, that I am encouraged to think that our aims and those of the Humanists are not too dissimilar. They are that a large

863
majority want young people to be given a code of conduct that will stand them and the community in good stead at a time when moral standards are under siege.
Ever since the passage of the 1944 Act, there has been continuing discussion over the nature and purpose of religious education. In that period one can see at least three changes of emphasis in the development of principles and practice in the subject, particularly in the county schools. These changes are also to some extent reflected in the agreed syllabuses prepared over that period. First, the "received tradition", so to speak, in religious education, which was embodied in the earlier agreed syllabuses, viewed the subject predominantly as the study of the Bible, which over the ages most devout Christians have regarded as the rock on which their religion was founded.
However, some teachers found in practice that they needed to relate religious teaching more directly to the experience and concerns of the pupils. This approach sought to relate Christian beliefs to the actual life experience of the pupil. This change of emphasis may be helpful in itself, but it can pass very easily into a study of personal and social problems in which it is hard to see what is distinctly religious, let alone Christian, about the work, or how it differs from social studies which might be undertaken by other subject teachers in the school.
It was perhaps in part a wish to establish more clearly the distinctive territory of religious education, as well as a growing awareness of the multiracial nature of our society, which has led more recently to a third development—a view of religious education as a study of man's religious quest, which should include not only an account of that quest, as expressed in the Christian tradition, but other major world faiths, too.
These three differing approaches are not to be seen as simply succeeding each other chronologically, each supplanting its predecessors. Rather, what has happened is that teachers have taken elements from all three into their teaching and their programme of work. The degree of prominence given to this or that aspect may vary with the experience of the teacher and his judgment of the needs and
864
capacities of his pupils. However, in the experience of Her Majesty's Inspectors these three elements are the common features of religious education in the county secondary school, and it is the Christian tradition which provides the major source material for the lessons.
Throughout these developments in the subject since 1944, there has been a general movement towards seeing the aim of the subject in the county school not so much in terms of an induction into the Christian faith, but rather as an introduction to the religious realm of experience, particularly, though not exclusively, through the study of Christianity. There are of course still differences of emphasis between, for instance, those like the noble Lord, Lord Blake, who would see the subject as being principally concerned with the Christian tradition, and those who would wish religious education to range more widely or to concentrate upon the ethical aspects of religion.
Today, my Lords, we have asked ourselves whether Christianity has a special contribution to make in this aspect of the work of our schools. With all respect to those of other faiths, or of no faith, I have no doubt that it has, nor do I think have most noble Lords present. It has been so entwined with the culture of this country as it has developed over the past century that it is necessary for pupils to understand the one so as to appreciate the other. No one religion has a monopoly of ethics, but many systems of ethics have distant origins, as, for instance, those recorded deep in biblical history. There is another very topical reason for advancing this view. In a country which has long had a Christian background, Christians have a special responsibility to teach reconciliation and the brotherhood of man so that we may welcome to our community those from other cultures and religions. This is indeed just as true for the voluntary schools as for the county schools.
It is already clear that a joint effort will be required if we are to fit our children to find their place in society with an acceptable code of conduct. In this we must not underestimate the influence of either the Churches or parents. Churches play an invaluable part in the conferences called by local education authorities to consider agreed syllabuses, and in inspiring

865
their more committed members to take up teaching. At the centre of every religion there are mysterious depths of belief which can be accepted only as an act of faith and, whereas these are of added significance in denominational schools, some awareness of their impact and influence ought also to be communicated within the agreed syllabus. Here I think I must pause to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Platt. I am sorry; he has gone.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Platt, asked me especially to say, and asked me to perform the Christian service of saying, that he had to leave, and to make his apologies.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I wanted simply to say to him that he had got stuck, clearly, on the problem of evil, which better men than he or I have been stuck on in the past. I was going to suggest that he might find Dean Rathbone's book—I think it is called The Theory of Good and Evil—helpful, but there is not an easy answer to the problem of evil.
My Lords, pupils are quick to sense insincerity in their teachers, and a teacher who is enthusiastic about the study of religion is more likely to arouse the interest of his pupils. There have been some very interesting comments on this from noble Lords. I think the right reverend Prelate spoke about the impossibility of stopping a committed man from speaking in a committed way. I do not think you can, and I do not think it is necessary to do so, although clearly he has to be careful exactly what he says.
My Lords, parents plainly have a major role in the education of their children. Though for all too many children the school is the only source of information and encouragement in setting moral and spiritual values, the example parents set in the home may be far more influential than tuition in school. For that reason it is good to see that many schools now have active parent-teacher associations which stimulate a healthy exchange of views and provide a welcome means of co-operation with common objectives; and in an increasing number of schools parents have an opportunity to contribute to the life and work of the school as managers or governors. Several noble
866
Lords and noble Baronesses have said how important it is that local people should do local work of this kind, and I could not possibly endorse this more strongly. I should also like to endorse what the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, said about the family. I spent a great deal of the early part of my life in an organisation which thought it was fundamental in human life, even though it was not a religious organisation; and it is probably common ground to most of us that the proper unit in society, I think, whether Christian or not, is the family.
Local education authorities, too, of course, have very special responsibilities relating to agreed syllabuses, and once again this is where the local individual can come in and pull his weight. Since the contents of these syllabuses should be widely known as an aid to understanding, authorities should satisfy themselves that, at the very least, all their teachers of religious education are aware of their terms; and, at a time when parents are increasingly wishing to be more involved in the education of their children, that copies, either for reference or sale, are generally available. Authorities may also wish to bear in mind the provision in the 1944 Act which gives them power to constitute a standing advisory council on religious education to advise them on the implementation of the agreed syllabus. These are all ways in which people locally can change the field in a way in which, in my opinion, Governments cannot.
I turn now to the specific proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and other noble Lords. I do not expect to give the noble Lord, Lord Blake, complete satisfaction, but I shall do the best I can. Noble Lords have urged the Government to initiate an independent inquiry into religious education in the county schools and the place of Christianity within it, possibly with the addition of a survey of parental feelings about religious education. I recognise, of course, the very real concern that underlies those objectives, but must tell noble Lords that such an inquiry would not be practicable, timely or, indeed, very appropriate. Because the circumstances of each school vary, both for religious worship and teaching, an inquiry of this kind would involve the collection and

867
interpretation of information from some 30,000 schools, and would soon be out of date. Assessment of this information could not be undertaken either by the Department or by Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
I also question the appropriateness of such an inquiry into so sensitive a subject, where, as I have indicated, a good deal of discretion must and should rest with the teachers, with the managers or governors of voluntary schools and with local education authorities, which are responsible for the adoption of an agreed syllabus and for ensuring that maintained schools comply with the law. But, in any event, a period when the entire curriculum and objectives of schools are under review within the context of the forthcoming Green Paper is not the time to consider in advance a more detailed examination of one aspect of the curriculum.
The current wide-ranging public debate on education was indeed the subject of the noble Lord's second point. As he suggested, some people have felt that the place of religious and moral education in schools should have been included. However, to concentrate attention in the first stage of the debate the emphasis was quite deliberately placed on the secular curriculum and educational performance. The importance of the religious and moral aspects of education was, none the less, fully recognised; those taking part in the debate included representatives of the major religious organisations in the country, and, as I am glad to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Blake, this aspect of the curriculum is being taken into account in the preparation of the Green Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, went on to suggest that my right honourable friend might issue a circular to all local education authorities declaring that the centrality of Christianity in religious education, together with the study of the Bible is in her view a clear requirement of the 1944 Act in the spirit, if not in the letter, of the law. While I am sympathetic to this view, we cannot consider the place of RE in isolation in advance of the Green Paper, where, as I have said, it will be recognised as a central part of the curriculum and will no doubt be considered in this light in the ensuing discussions. The
868
evidence is that the operation of the 1944 Act regarding agreed syllabuses has encouraged and disseminated curriculum development and fresh thinking in religious education. Moreover, it has provided for the decisions about this important area of the curriculum to be arrived at through local discussion and to reflect the particular religious and social character of the area for which the syllabus is prepared.
This principle of local determination means that the syllabuses may well vary in their emphasis. I am sure, however, that the view that Christianity should retain its central place in religious education would be widely shared and is reflected in virtually all syllabuses, including some new ones. Even so, if religious education is to assist in the educational task of preparing children for life in contemporary society, it is important to ensure that as well as introducing them to the Christian tradition, it at least acquaints them with the fact that there are other major world faiths by which men live.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked for an estimate of numbers here. I have asked the Department to do a calculation. It is not a guaranteed one. There are a number of not absolutely certain pieces of data. Their guess is that the number of non-Christian immigrants in schools would now probably be in the region of 200,000 and, in addition, there will be some 11,000 Jewish schoolchildren in Jewish schools and another 30,000 in non-Jewish schools. If you say 250,000 children out of a total of 9 million, this is about the figure. This emphasises the point the noble Earl was making that it is, indeed, a small proportion of the total educational problem.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I had no idea that the noble Lord would be so forthcoming.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am surprised that it was a surprise to the noble Earl.
I should like to venture some personal views at this stage. I feel fairly clear in my mind that we have to steer a narrow course between evangelism on the one hand and aloof philosophical neutrality on the other. The central tenets of

869
Christianity, as of all worthy religions, are versed in mystery and justified by faith. The whole question of redemption of the sacraments of baptism and of the Eucharist, are not subjects which can be dealt with adequately except by someone intellectually capable and spiritually convincing. This usually means a priest, as noble Lords and right reverend Prelates have said, and the appropriate time is in prepapation for confirmation, not in school. But a real study of the Bible is entirely suitable for teaching in class. Not only all branches of the Christian Church, but also all Muslims and all Jews believe in the unique significance of the Old Testament. Christians go further and believe that the New Testament is inspired.
Be that as it may, I certainly believe that the Authorised Version was an inspired translation and a knowledge of it is a priceless part of our heritage. I am all for it being included in English literature studies, as suggested yesterday by Mr. Howarth, but this should not be at the expense of its primary place in religious education. So, although I do not think lay teachers would or should normally try to teach the innermost mysteries of Christianity, they should, I am sure, study thoroughly and here and there criticise the Bible—pace the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley—so that their pupils know it well and know a little of what scholars think about it. This is something much more positive than a discursive treatment of religion in general, and if that is what the noble Lord is asking for, then I agree with him.
The noble Lord's fourth point touched on a whole range of matters relating to the employment of professional staff. My answer here has to be that this is not in the hands of the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will be aware that the organisation of schools and the appointment and conditions of service of teachers and advisers are the responsibility of local education authorities, many of whom have already appointed advisers on religious education. The noble Lord also drew attention to the need for a more attractive career structure for religious education teachers: this means that they should receive a proportional share of the more senior graded posts. But the formula devised nationally by the Burnham Committee for the allocation of
870
graded posts to schools determines, in effect, only their number in relation to the size of the school and the age ranges of the pupils. Local education authorities might usefully bear in mind, when they are allocating graded posts, the wider responsibilities of some teachers of religious education.
I ought to add a word about academic courses in religious education teacher training institutions to allay doubts that Christianity does not occupy a sufficiently large place in these courses. In fact, the student who is taking religious education as the major subject will usually have a substantial element of biblical study at some point. He will also be introduced to Christian theology, and although the range of studies has increased over the past 10 years, it remains the case that Christian studies, whether biblical, theological or historical, occupy a major part in these courses. This is an important point which has been questioned.
Lord ELTON: My Lord, there was a point on this area which I raised which is the great doubt that some of us have that students are being sent out qualified in theology but not in fact qualified to teach it in that they have not had method courses. I wonder whether this is a proper area for examination.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I will certainly put this to my colleagues and see whether I can give a reasonable answer.
In the General Certificate of Education examinations, the number of pupils taking religious education at Ordinary and Advanced levels has remained fairly steady over recent years, and there are also substantial entries for this subject in the Certificate of Secondary Education. Through its religious education committee, the Schools Council has given active encouragement to the development of new advanced level syllabuses in religious education, and no one who knows about these would have any doubt about the academic status of this subject at this level. It is for secondary schools to arrange their option schemes for older pupils in such a way that they provide pupils with genuine opportunities to take religious education as an examination subject, though one must recognise the

871
constraints of organisation, staffing and the size of teaching groups which, as some noble Lords mentioned, affect decisions about the range of examination courses which can be offered. We cannot afford to have teaching groups which are too small.
As part of his fourth question, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, asked that there should be proper opportunity for in-service training. My Lords, I gladly agree with those speakers who have stressed the importance of in-service teacher training in improving the quality of teaching. The Government are doing what they can. They have urged local education authorities to expand this form of training and it has made allowance in the rate support grant settlement for 1977–78 for some expansion. It is now for those authorities to respond: the Government cannot dictate local priorities or, within the present grant arrangements, earmark amounts for spending in particular directions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, wanted to know how many training places for religious education there will be in the proposed total of 45,000, and what degree of contraction there will be in this subject as a result. The amount of provision two years ago was enough to provide about 580 newly qualified specialists a year. The Government asked the colleges last year for planning forecasts of provision in 1981. These indicate a corresponding output figure of about 460. That is a 15 per cent. reduction, which compares with a planned reduction of 30 per cent. in all the specialist subjects taken together. There may be changes if the total is changed.
Obviously, initial teacher training is also of great significance. In our last debate on this subject on 16th February, many speakers drew attention to the importance of teacher training, which would equip young teachers, and not only teachers of religious education, to help their pupils to cope with the moral and ethical questions of the day. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, expressed anxiety that provision for teacher training in the subject will be inordinately hit by my right honourable friend's recent proposals to reduce teacher training numbers. These proposals are still the subject of consultation with the local education authorities
872
and voluntary bodies concerned; representations are being carefully considered, and decisions have not yet been taken. It is, however, unavoidable that some initial training provision will disappear in a contraction of the total system from 110,000 places in 1974 to a proposed 45,000 places in 1981, but the Government have already asked the colleges collectively to increase if possible the proportion of their total provision going into this subject and others, like mathematics, where teachers are short. There are indications that this will be done.
For reasons of ethics, history and culture, Christianity has a major part to play in education, and not only in religious classroom teaching; but it cannot now, and probably never could, claim an exclusive proprietary right to those aspects of our civilisation. In a shrinking world, to exclude the very real contribution of others would tie the hands and fetter the discretion of the teachers in those very subject areas which Christians are most keen to strengthen. Its inclusion need not diminish the Christian content: but it can emphasise its significance.
It seems to me that broadening the scope of religious education and giving its teachers a more demanding and relevant syllabus will do more for the development of a living Christianity than any retreat to the narrower dogmas of the past. I think that this, too, is what most parents want. It is what the community needs. Above all, it seems to offer all the children the best hope of a secure and enlightened future based on Christian values on which to build an integrated and multiracial society. Although I cannot ask the Secretary of State to institute an inquiry or circularise local authorities for the reasons I have given, I hope very much that this debate will itself act as a stimulus in these directions and be widely read, in particular by all local authorities, teachers, and other responsible bodies and that they all will consider carefully what has been said.
My Lords, may I end by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for introducing this debate, for asking very clear questions and for making an extremely moderate, clear and interesting statement. I think he will be pleased with the debate that we have had.
11.4 p.m.
Lord BLAKE: My Lords, I shall be very brief, I promise, at this late hour. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his speech and for his courtesy. Of course, I am not going to pretend that I am anything but disappointed by some of his replies to the specific points raised. It is a very defeatist attitude to take the view that an inquiry could never be made, that it is just impracticable for the foreseeable future. Also, I certainly do not think that the fact that the subject is a sensitive one, as the noble Lord put it, is a reason for not making an inquiry. I am relieved at his reply about the core curriculum; that seemed to me more hopeful.
I am disappointed at the noble Lord's reply on the third point that I raised; namely, the possibility of the Secretary of State's issuing a circular about the centrality of Christianity and the Bible. This would in no way preclude people from knowing about other religions. I wanted this particular emphasis to be made, and I think the Minister said that it would probably be generally agreed that Christianity should take a central place. In that case, I do not quite see why the Secretary of State should not say so in a circular. I should have thought that it would do nothing but good. I will not go into the points that he made about career prospects. It is rather a complicated and technical question. I would rather study in Hansard, in due course, what the noble Lord has said. I appreciate the point that it may not be entirely the responsibility of the Department. I was relieved and pleased at some of the things the noble Lord was able to say on the teacher training facilities, and the promises that he put forward.
I should like to end simply by thanking all the noble Lords and right reverend Prelates who have taken part in this debate. People of the utmost distinction have bothered to do so, and have stayed till a very late hour. It is very good of them to have done so, and I do not want to keep them any longer than need be. I would end by saying that I think that this debate has been worth while, and that there is a lot in what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said—that the mere fact of the debate, which will get publicised and known about, may have an
874
effect on what is happening as regards the Christian content of religious education in State schools. I thank all of your Lordships very much, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

RENT BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SUBSIDY
  TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SUBSIDY