Sitting of 6 December 1978

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

    Factories (Devon and Cornwall)
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional funds are to be made available to the Development Commission for advance factories and nursery factory units in Devon and Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I have yet to announce the Development Commission's grant-in-aid for 1979–80. This year £15·5 million was made available compared with £7·6 million in 1977–78.
    The Commission expects to spend about £8 million on factory building this year, more than twice as much as last year. Of this, about £1·7 million will go to Devon and Cornwall.
    Mr. Hicks: Does the Minister agree that, judging by past performance, his Department should be more aggressive in its negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the need to gain a reallocation of resources for this purpose, particularly bearing in mind what is given to similar agencies in Wales and Scotland?
    Mr. Howell: I should have thought that the fact that the grant went up this year from £7·6 million to £15·5 million—more than double—was an example of the Government's concern for the need for development. The hon. Gentleman must not ask for more public expenditure, and he must not ask for any reallocation of resources when so many of our social problems are to be found in the industrial cities.

    Liverpool Airport
    Mr. David Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available grants under the partnership programme for the improvement and development of Liverpool airport.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): The Liverpool inner city partnership programme contains no specific proposals for grants in relation to Liverpool airport.
    Mr. Hunt: Notwithstanding that answer, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Liverpool airport is vital to the future of industry and commerce on Merseyside? If he does, will he take immediate steps to make representations to his colleagues to stop the conspiracy on the part of British Airways and the Department of Trade to downgrade Liverpool airport and transfer its passengers to Merseyside?
    Mr. Shore: Such words as"conspiracy"do not help the case. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade presented to the House a White Paper following two or three years of serious discussion of what is the best framework for a national airports policy. Although I am appreciative of the role of Speke in Liverpool, I think the hon. Gentleman will recall that it was Manchester airport that was classified as playing the leading role in the North-West region.
    Mr. Loyden: My right hon. Friend will be aware of recent improvements at Liverpool airport. Does he agree that it is a vicious circle if an airport such as Liverpool which is trying to expand under the"C"category is at the same time faced with a lack of cash for the provision of proper terminal facilities?
    Mr. Shore: That is not a question for me, but, in so far as we are talking about the inner city programme and the Liverpool partnership, I think it is right to remind the House that the programme which has been agreed for the next three years does not contain proposals for improving Speke airport.
    Mr. Steen: Will the Minister explain why parts of Garston, which are five miles from the inner city of Liverpool,

    1397
    are included in the partnership? Is it because it is a highly critical marginal seat?
    Mr. Loyden: Go round Garston and have a look.
    Mr. Shore: Garston is really an enclave which has similar characteristics to the rest of the Liverpool inner city area. Garston was included at the express request, the unanimous request, of Liverpool city council, which the hon. Gentleman should know is not dominated by any one party.
    Mr. Heller: Is it not clear that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) reveals a total ignorance of the situation in Liverpool and of the fact that Garston happens to be one of the oldest parts of Liverpool, as are parts of Walton? If the hon. Gentleman really knew his area he would know that.
    Mr. Shore: I agree with my hon. Friend that anyone who knows the area —I know it too—will agree that Garston has many of the characteristics of the rest of the inner city area. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate, and the result of an objective consideration, that it was brought within the inner city area.

    Local Authorities (Government Grants)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amounts of Government grants to local councils over each of the past five years; and what will be the amount of grants for the year 1979–80.
    Mr. Shore: Over 70 different grants are paid to local authorities. By far the largest of these is the rate support grant. The 1978 rate support grant order now before the House envisages that the needs element of rate support grant for 1979–80 will be £4,715 million at outturn prices. I shall publish figures of needs element and of total rate support grant for the past five years in the Official Report.
    Mr. Wainwright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that the metropolitan district in South Yorkshire is dismayed at what has been happening there over the last two or three years, that there are large areas of dereliction and that there are pockets of high unemployment? Will he do more for this area to make certain that it gets
    1398
    its fair share, taking into account what has been missing in the past?
    Mr. Shore: I am aware of the difficulties in the South Yorkshire area, and in the Dearne Valley in particular. However, I remind my hon. Friend that under the rate support grant for 197–0, which we have just completed, Barnsley will gain the equivalent of a 2·2p rate, Doncaster a 1·2p rate and Rotherham a 2·7p rate. Thus, in terms of RSG, I believe that the area is being helped. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been able also to assist in approving the South Yorkshire canal scheme, to which I know that he attaches great importance.
    Mr. Pardoe: Has the Secretary of State, in assessing the balance of funds under the RSG to go to the rural and inner city areas, studied the report of the Child Poverty Action Group entitled"Rural Poverty "? Has he noticed that that report says that the problems in the rural areas will reach crisis proportions in the next five years and that, over the last 15 years, far too much public money has gone from the rural areas into the inner city areas?
    Mr. Shore: I am aware that there are problems in rural areas, and we try to help them in particular ways, particularly through the Development Commission helping with small advance factories in areas of unemployment in rural districts. I hesitate to come to more than a preliminary view at the moment because we are looking at the whole range of problems and reports connected with rural areas, but I would certainly not use the word"crisis"on the basis of the information that I have at present.
    Mr. Hardy: Although the grant for next year may be a little better than the unsatisfactory amount provided for the current year, does not my right hon. Friend consider that the present determination of rate support insufficiently regards the acute need in older industrial areas, particularly those with small communities and those in the coalfields, and that if their needs were adequately reflected the rate support grant arrangements for South Yorkshire would be much better than they are likely to be for next year?
    Mr. Shore: The rate support grant tries, above all, to identify and measure need

    1399
    in as objective a way as we can find. Although there are problems in the older industrial towns, taking the national picture which emerges through the RSG, it appears that the large cities and conurbation areas, and certainly their central districts, have greater per capita needs than the smaller industrial towns.
    Mr. Skinner: But is my right hon. Friend aware that in Derbyshire the local Tory newspaper, the Derbyshire Times, ran a story last week that he had deprived the county council and thereby the ratepayers of about £9·2 million? May I be assured that this is merely a question of redistribution, that the district councils, and the other councils within Derbyshire which also levy a rate, will get compensating amounts and that therefore that £9 million is a false figure?
    Mr. Shore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His question gives me a chance to make a general point and a particular one. In fact, the RSG total affecting the county of Derbyshire is an increase of 0·5p in terms of the rate, which is equivalent to over £750,000. But the main change, as my hon. Friend has suggested, is that the needs element will be paid direct to the districts, which I believe to be right. There is no reason why the county precept plus the district rate should change overall, but there will obviously be differences between the two. In some districts rates may fall, but in others counties must obviously increase the precept because they are no longer getting as much of the RSG as they did.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the RSG being allocated in as objective a manner as possible. Can he explain why the factors"persons over 65"and"persons over 75 ", which must have a major influence on the responsibilities of local authorities, are not used as determinants in the regression analysis in the needs element?
    Mr. Shore: I suspect that the reason is that there are other factors in the package which goes into the RSG needs element and which are reasonable surrogates for the factors to which the hon. Gentleman pointed.
    Following is the information:
    1400

    The figures, at outturn prices, are as follows:

    Needs element £million

    Total rate support grant (needs, resources and domestic element £million

    1974–75

    2,855

    4,384

    1975–76

    3,489

    5,788

    1976–77

    3,817

    6,295

    1977–78

    3,923

    6,470

    1978–79

    4,306

    7,055

    The figures for 1978–79 are based on the first increase order.

    Water Resources
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of water supply resources for England in 1979.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Assuming average winter rainfall, normal supplies could be maintained in most districts next year even if the summer is dry.
    A dry winter followed by a dry summer such as we had in 1975–76 would probably result in shortage in some parts of the country next year. However, this should be less severe than it was in 1976 because we now have more water in storage.
    In addition, the considerable number of schemes put into operation during the last two years have provided more storage capacity and an increased ability to transfer water within and between regions.
    Mr. Morris: Is the Minister aware that that assumption of normal winter rainfall does not seem well-founded? Is he confident that the water authorities—particularly the South-West authority—have taken action since 1976 to ensure that the people living there do not suffer from the extraordinary lack of water that they suffered in the summer of 1976?
    Mr. Howell: I am glad to report that, since we gave so much attention to the South-West two years ago, that water authority, with the full approval and support of the Government, has carried out 31 major schemes which have improved the situation there. In spite of the dry autumn in that area, assuming that we have average rainfall from now on and that people there continue to save water,

    1401
    we should be all right even in a dry summer.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that many of us appreciate the considerable steps which the Government have taken to improve water arrangements, but is he also aware that one need that remains is the production of a water Bill for the House to consider which will deal with the present gross anomaly affecting those who are not connected to main sewers?
    Mr. Howell: There is a need for a water Bill to deal with many of the anomalies left by the Water Act 1973. We hope still to be able to introduce it at an early stage.
    Mr. Alison: But what about the results of the famous, or infamous, court case in connection with Daymond, with the effect that there will be retrospective demands on some ratepayers going back four years? Can the right hon. Gentleman do something urgent about that?
    Mr. Howell: There is no need to, because most water authorities over-provided as an insurance against Daymond and have not been called upon to pay the amounts that they expected to pay. I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little out of date.
    Mr. Bidwell: Will the Minister bear in mind that he can always rely on some of my constituents to pray for rain in the event of another drought? Will he bear that in mind, in view of the beneficial results that it had last time?
    Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very well served in that respect in my own constituency.

    Rent Acts (Review)
    Mr. Brookeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the report on his Department's review of the Rent Acts will include recommendations relating to harassment.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): We have increased the maximum fine on summary conviction for harassment to £1,000 in the Criminal Law Act 1977 and at the same time strengthened the civil remedies in the Administration of Justice Act 1977. I cannot yet say whether
    1402
    there will be further measures emanating from the review of the Rent Acts.
    Mr. Brooke: Given the small proportion of complaints against harassment which reach the courts, does the Minister feel that the laws against harassment are operating satisfactorily?
    Mr. Freeson: There are some outstanding cases which reach the media, and we are concerned about them. A number are closely intertwined with alleged loopholes. I say"alleged ". Some concern loopholes in the legislation which we are looking at in the context of the review. We must bear in mind that many incidents of harassment are dealt with on a negotiating basis. Some local authorities have successfully established tenant-landlord relations officers who help a great deal in liaison, negotiation and settlement of disputes between landlords and tenants in the inner areas of London and in other parts of the country.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will it be possible in the forthcoming housing Bill to deal with some of the loopholes to which my right hon. Friend referred? Is he aware of the extent to which the decision in Somma v. Hazelhurst has made the application of the Rent Acts almost a voluntary exercise on the part of landlords? Will he take steps, as a matter of urgency, to remedy the situation?
    Mr. Freeson: We do not have it in mind to draft the prospective housing Bill to deal with matters arising under the Rent Acts review. As I have indicated today and on previous occasions, in the context of the Rent Acts review we are looking at various items of evidence about loopholes in the Acts which relate to harassment and other matters. In due course we shall no doubt be legislating on that basis.
    Mr. Scott: Is there not a substantial argument for a new court of first instance specialising in landlord and tenant matters, with the emphasis on reconciliation? Will that consideration be included in the Department's review?
    Mr. Freeson: Yes, indeed. We have already published our intention to consider the idea of a landlord-tenant tribunal. We have also indicated that in the review we shall be looking at the possibility of merging tribunals with rent officer facilities, but no conclusions have

    1403
    yet been reached. There are problems in this area. I should hesitate at this stage to say that we have come to a firm conclusion on the matter. Certainly it has played an important part in our thinking during the review.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister promise an early report aimed at restricting the landlord's right to harass and evict?
    Secondly, will he block such loopholes as were exposed in the astonishing case of Somma v. Hazelhurst, where the landlord obtained eviction because of a so-called licence permitting him to move in and use a one-bedroom flat tenanted by a young couple? Surely that is an abuse of the Acts. Will my right hon. Friend close the loophole?
    Mr. Freeson: The case to which my hon. Friend referred is one of the areas of concern which come under the general heading of loopholes which we are looking at in the review. We are concerned with the loophole cases which come to our attention, but it would be wrong to overstate the extent of the problem. The Rent Act as a whole, for the majority of tenants benefiting from it, is working well and smoothly. However, that does not mean that we should not look at particular cases which come to our attention.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister take the opportunity of the review to extend Rent Act protection to local authorities which are not housing authorities? Why should the tenant of a county council which owns a number of properties not have the same protection against eviction as the tenant of a private landlord?
    Mr. Freeson: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to public sector tied cottages or service tenancies. If he is referring to local authority tenants, I can tell him that we are going to deal with that aspect, as we have clearly indicated on a number of occasions, in the context of the prospective housing Bill. We propose to introduce security of tenure for public sector tenants.
    Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister for Housing and Construction understand that in this sector of the property market there are many aspects of concern about the diminishing availability of houses to rent? For the right hon. Gentleman now,
    1404
    after the life of an entire Parliament, to go on talking about a review which has been in existence for over three years is a scandal of complacency.
    Mr. Freeson: The review has not been in existence for three years. [HON. MEMBERS:"How long? "] If the hon. Gentleman had checked the record of our announcements about the review of housing policy he would have established that we announced our intention to undertake this review and formally to initiate it arising from that housing policy review. Indeed, we referred to it in the Green Paper, which I am sure all Opposition Members will have read word for word.
    On the general point about the reduction of rented accommodation, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's concern and no doubt his implicit desire to see such accommodation retained and possibly extended. Therefore, I trust that he will stop going round the country calling upon local authorities to sell rented accommodation.

    New Towns (Hospital Facilities)
    Mr. Corbettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what role he plays in an advisory or consultative capacity in the provision and maintenance of adequate hospital facilities in new towns.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I discuss particular difficulties with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services from time to time and this Department has regular contacts with the Department of Health and Social Security about problems associated with the development of health services in new towns. These liaison arrangements are supplemented by direct contact between new town development corporations and the appropriate regional and area health authorities.
    Mr. Corbett: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while this liaison is going on, new towns, including Hemel Hempstead, still do not have the bricks and mortar to provide the new acute hospital facilities which are urgently needed? Will he look at the arrangements to see whether he can persuade those responsible for the development of new towns to include hospital developments at the time of building amid all else that is new and splendid in the new towns?
    Mr. Barnett: I am well aware of the situation described by my hon. Friend. As he knows, I met a deputation from the Dacorum hospital action group in September, when the argument was impressively put forward. But, as he knows, the provision of hospital facilities is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I understand that proposals for the provision of facilities in the northwest district of Hertfordshire are now under consideration by my right hon. Friend and that my hon. Friend's concern is being taken fully into account.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is it not a farce that, for instance, the new town in my constituency was set up 10 years ago and that it took 10 years to get £200,000 out of the Department? Is not there now a strong argument for looking at every new town and providing proper, adequate facilities to meet what the Secretary of State called extra resources for disadvantaged persons?
    Mr. Barnett: I cannot make any comment on what may or may not have happened 10 years ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given some assistance from the new towns budget to make provision for the increased population that is being received by the new town in his constituency. As I emphasised, the provision of hospital resources nationwide is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, and he has to take decisions in the light of the growth of population in different areas, including new towns.
    Mr. Gerry Fowler: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that exactly the same situation obtains in Telford new town, this is a question concerning the machinery of Government? We want better planning machinery. Does he agree that it is a waste of resources to build houses to which people cannot be attracted because facilities in the area are inadequate?
    Mr. Barnett: I think that my hon. Friend is being a little unfair. I should have thought that, within the area of their responsibilities, new town development corporations do remarkably well in providing adequate facilities. It would obviously not be right for the full facilities to be provided initially, though they may be planned for the stage at which the
    1406
    new town development is completed. Considerations of that kind presumably influence my right hon. Friend when making decisions about the time that a new district general hospital or whatever may have been planned should begin.
    Mr. Hal Miller: As a result of the television programme which the Minister saw, does he agree that the lack of health facilities is the main preoccupation of the people of Redditch? Can he tell us what has happened to the working party made up from his Department and that of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, which the then Minister of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), told me he was establishing to remedy the problem that new towns are established without adequate health facilities, be they casualty services, health centres or hospitals, as in Redditch?
    Mr. Barnett: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer here and now, but I shall write to him on the matter that he has raised.

    Domestic Rates
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the likely average increase in domestic rate in 197–0 as a result of his rate support grant settlement.
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will he the rise in domestic rates in 197–0 as a result of his rate support grant settlement.
    Mr. Shore: The settlement is compatible with the national average of domestic rate increases remaining in single figures. I am assuming that local authorities will think it right to link their rating for contingency allowances to the assumptions made in the cash limits, and to plan to make some drawing from balances. It is for individual local authorities to decide increases in domestic rates, but I assume that the authorities will act with their accustomed responsibility.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Is the Secretary of State aware that the local authority associations and, indeed, most informed and independent observers are predicting that, inevitably, rate increases will be well up

    1407
    into double figures? Does he not recognise that, at least in part, this is a direct consequence of allocating the rate support grant largely on the basis of past patterns of expenditure by local authorities, so that inevitably those authorities that are wasteful and extravagant are encouraged and those that are prudent are penalised?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Shore: Do I hear a note of dissent from London and metropolitan Conservative Members to those cheers? However, I turn to both questions.
    I put it to the hon. Gentleman that treasurers and other commentators often make a gloomy prediction about the rates. Indeed, they almost make a habit of it. I believe that they will have an opportunity to reflect more carefully upon the situation as it affects their individual counties before they actually determine and strike the rate for the year 1979–80.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, he is really on to the usual and familiar problem of the proper distribution of the needs element of rate support grant between county, city and town. When we talk about an average national figure for rates, we mean an average. That means that some areas, although they have been greatly helped by the 2p safety net and other devices that we put in, will have to increase rates above the average. There should be no doubt about that in anyone's mind.
    Mr. Durant: Is the Secretary of State aware that in spite of the new system in the needs element Berkshire ratepayers will have a rate rise well into double figures? Is he further aware that the local authorities feel that he has provided insufficient resources to cover future pay awards, which is something that puts pressure on the rates? Will he resist the proposed pay increase for manual workers which appears as though it may go above 5 per cent?
    Mr. Shore: The pay question is, of course, a factor. But we have made plain our expectations in this area. The Government's pay and counter-inflation policies are implicit in the rate support grant settlement. In regard to Berkshire, I do not know what the local circumstances are which will lead to changes. The hon. Gentleman should remember
    1408
    what I said earlier, namely, that this is the first time that there will be a direct payment of the needs element to the districts. That may well mean that counties will have to precept more. But it does not mean that that totality of rates in the area will be greater.
    Mr. Spriggs: Prior to completing his assessment for the next financial year, will my right hon. Friend take into account local authorities such as St. Helens which have demolished hundreds of houses which were unfit for human habitation in order to provide decent homes for people?
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend can rest assured that housing factors which are relevant to the establishment of differential needs per head will be tested and included in the rate support grant system. Indeed, a housing factor is included in the package this time.
    Mr. Alison: The Secretary of State talked about gloomy forecasts. Does he recall that, although he forecast under double figures rate increases for this year, some rate increases were above that level? Wigan was a case in point, where the rates went up by 18 per cent., and in York they went up by 21 per cent. If, as Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman has a concern for the ratepayer, does he accept that he cannot deal in averages and that he must address himself to the problem of people who suffer massive rate increases? If there are to be rate increases of 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. this year, how can people be expected to accept 5 per cent. wage settlements?
    Mr. Shore: It is ridiculous for any Secretary of State, taking account of all the different circumstances of local authorities, to attempt to couch his forecasts in anything other than average national terms. An average is an average, which means that some increases will be below and some will be above. I therefore put it to the hon. Gentleman that in looking at particular figures—it may well be that this year, as in past years, and under previous Governments, there will be swings at both ends of the range—he should look at the total circumstance, including the actual size of rate bills which are paid on average in the areas concerned.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is deep feeling about the disparities in the rate support grant? For instance, in Sheffield, where I come from, where a good council has husbanded its resources very carefully over the years, people feel that they have been very ill done by. This is the talking point throughout Sheffield. Will my right hon. Friend look at this a little more carefully and explain more clearly the criteria on which he bases his judgments?
    Mr. Shore: I am aware that Sheffield, unlike most of the major cities, has had a small reduction in its rate support grant this year. There are reasons for that which, frankly, lie in the particular package of needs factors which have been identified. But, as my hon. Friend knows, I am willing to meet representatives of his city—they have already been in touch with me—to discuss the whole matter with them just as soon as we are free of the rate support grant debate.

    Local Government
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he expects to complete before Christmas his consultations with the local authority associations regarding local government reorganisation.
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received concerning the transfer back to major city authorities of powers removed from them in recent local authority reorganisation.
    Mr. Shore: The Government will be consulting the local authority associations and other bodies on the detailed proposals for organic change before legislation is introduced. I hope that these consultations can be completed fairly early in 1979. I have received representations on this issue from the local authority associations, from the nine major non-metropolitan cities, from a group of medium-sized districts, and from a large number of individual local authorities.
    Mr. Morrison: In his recent Guildhall speech the Prime Minister referred to restoring powers to the big nine cities, plus Norwich. Was he, in mentioning Norwich, implying that towns of that sort
    1410
    and size would, without exception, have powers given to them? If so, what will be the minimum size for a town before powers can be given to it? If that is not what he was implying, why did the Prime Minister mention Norwich?
    Mr. Shore: I should not want to incur Mr. Speaker's displeasure by again reading to the House the statement that I made on 3rd August, which I think the House will recall, in which I set out very carefully what I had in mind for the whole range of districts which would be affected by organic change. I should like to help the hon. Gentleman with his interpretation of the Prime Minister's remarks. What the Prime Minister referred to were the big nine which, in a sense, are only distinct from others in that for them we are prepared to consider restoring education as well as other services, such as social services.
    Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in one of the big nine—the city of Leicester—the Tory-controlled housing committee has this week recommended the slashing of the housing programme in this stress area from the original figure of 1,000 to 250? Does he not feel that this doctrinaire, despicable act is scarcely likely to encourage the return to Leicester of powers which in other respects it would be so welcome to have back?
    Mr. Shore: I heard of the recommendation of the housing committee in Leicester virtually to halve its housing programme this year. I believe that that decision has yet to be reported to the full council. That disturbs me because it is happening in far too many Conservative-controlled authorities where there is an undoubted need for rented housing. That is to be deplored.
    I hope that the House will appreciate my difficulty. Only a few days ago we allocated resources to each of the housing district authorities on the basis of their considered requests to us for their housing programmes. It makes for chaos to have these sudden changes and lurches in housing policy at the beginning of a housing year.
    Mr. Heseltine: Is the Secretary of State aware that the collapse of his public sector housing programme is taking place in Labour as well as Conservative-controlled

    1411
    areas because of the housing costs imposed by the Government?
    If the Prime Minister was referring in his speech at the Mansion House to the big nine cities, why did he refer to Norwich?
    Mr. Shore: In his Mansion House speech the Prime Minister was referring to our popular proposal to help to undo the worst nonsenses of the 1972 Act. That is what we intend to do. Our proposals go well beyond the big nine. For the social services, the proposals will include the possibility of Norwich and a number of other cities of a similar size regaining those powers which they were able to manage sensibly before.
    It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) should make that point about the housing programme. Between two-thirds and 70 per cent. of housing authorities are now in the hands of the Conservative Party. I he hon. Gentleman and his colleagues constantly urge that those authorities should cut back. The hon. Gentleman should not attempt to duck that responsibility.
    Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local authorities which are to have their powers restored to them will wish to congratulate him and the Government on their firm action against the extraordinary proposition from some county councils? They would appreciate it if the Minister could specify as soon as possible which powers are to be restored.
    Mr. Shore: I am anxious that the matter should progress beyond the stage that we had reached when I made my statement on 3rd August. That is what we shall be doing as soon as we embark upon the consultations. I believe that there is wide support on this side of the House, but I do not accept that this measure will not command considerable support from the Opposition.

    New Towns (Industrial and Commercial Assets)
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans for the ownership and control of industrial and commercial assets in the new towns after the winding up of development corporations.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: It remains Government policy that the Commission for the New Towns will own and manage these assets. I am still considering the terms and conditions under which local authorities could acquire some of these assets.
    Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people are worried that the transfer of control over industrial and commercial assets from a locally based new town development corporation to a national authority such as the Commission for the New Towns might diminish local influence and add to bureaucracy? Should not our ultimate aim still be the original one proposed by those of us who are connected with the new towns movement, namely to transfer the assets to the control of the local authority after the development corporations have been wound up?
    Mr. Barnett: I should make it clear that the Commission for the New Towns has undertaken to ensure that a large measure of responsibility rests with the local manager in each town or group of towns. Consultations are now taking place between members of the Commission and individual local authorities which are reaching their wind-up date or where the new town corporation has already been dissolved. The consultations are based on finding the right consultative arrangements between the local authority and the local manager of those assets.
    We recognise that such consultations might have to be at both officer and member level. My hon. Friend can rest assured that we wish the local authorities to have the maximum say in the way in which these assets are managed.
    My hon. Friend also asked whether the assets might one day come into the ownership of the local authorities. He knows our views about that. As these are taxpayers' assets, we believe that it would not be right or fair to other towns to transfer assets to those towns which were new towns. On the other hand, we have made it clear that we want to make it possible for those local authorities that wish to take over these assets, and can afford to do so, to do that later.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not enter into long arguments. I shall call

    1413
    one more hon. Member to ask a supplementary question and then I shall move on.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Why does the Minister not simply sell off those assets and save some public money for once?
    Mr. Barnett: Because I think that we have a better regard for the public interest than the hon. Member.

    Sewerage (North-West Region)
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has held discussions with representatives of the North-West water authority about the cost of replacing the antiquated sewerage system in the region; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I have had no direct discussions with representatives of the authority, but officers of the Department maintain a close liaison with the authority's management team on this subject. I understand that it is not yet possible to make any accurate estimate of the probable costs involved, and I can add little at this stage to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and Rochdale (Mr. Smith) on 27th July.
    Mr. Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the obsolete sewerage system in the North-West is a consequence of many years of neglect? Would it not be totally unfair if householders were called upon to foot the bill, particularly as the rate rebate formula does not apply to water rate contributions?
    Mr. Howell: There have been many years of neglect and it is a serious problem, particularly in the North-West. I shall be happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend, the local authorities and the water authority whenever they wish to do so. There must be more detailed surveys to find out what is involved before we can hold discussions. Householders will have to pay in one form or another, however the replacement is financed. I understand that the water authority has resolved to increase its capital programme over the next five years by about 50 per cent.
    Mr. Farr: Before regional water authorities are allowed to engage in huge and lavish public expenditure schemes, will
    1414
    the Minister devise a method by which they are more accountable locally for the money that they spend?
    Mr. Howell: I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman being in the Lobby with us when we voted against the Water Bill in 1973. There is a serious problem in our old industrial cities, which is caused by the collapse of underground sewerage facilities. That problem must be tackled. It does not involve the use of unnecessary or lavish public expenditure. That expenditure is essential in the public interest.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a frightening picture of underground dereliction in the North-West? Is it not crazy that under the water equalisation grants system the North-West of England will pay £750,000 to the national pool in order to subsidise areas such as East Anglia?
    Mr. Howell: When the capital programme gets under way in the North-West, the equalisation picture will be different. That is one reason why I shall be happy to meet the authority to discuss the matter.

    Housing Finance
    Mr. Nelsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what account is taken of the proceeds of sale of council houses to tenants by local authorities when his Department approves and finances the housing investment programmes of such authorities.
    Mr. Freeson: No account is taken of the proceeds of council house sales, or other receipts, when annual cash allocations under the housing investment programme system are determined for individual authorities.
    Mr. Nelson: Will the Minister rethink that policy? He does not accept the Conservative policy of enabling council tenants to buy their properties, but should it not be common ground that if we are to deal adequately with the homeless problem the degree and extent of council house sales should be taken into account in considering a council's housing investment programme? Would not that lead to a more dynamic investment policy and housing programme by local authorities?
    Mr. Freeson: Policies of indiscriminate sales do no good to people who are in

    1415
    need of housing. Secondly, on the technical point, to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests would produce double counting in allocations, because account is taken of housing receipts, from whatever quarter, in enhancing the total national budget for housing. To do it again when we come to the individual allocations of that national budget would result in double counting. It is an unnecessary device.
    Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wrecking policy of the GLC in housing is destroying any chance of London's housing problem being solved for many years ahead?
    Mr. Freeson: I am aware particularly, as I think I have said previously in the House and elsewhere, of the repugnant policy of touting empty properties around the market while people are in need of housing. We are studying the matter closely. If necessary, we shall be prepared to take action in due course.
    Mr. Heseltine: If the Minister for Housing and Construction is so concerned about the indiscriminate sale of council houses, does he intend to take powers to prevent it by the housing Bill which he is about to introduce into the House?
    Mr. Freeson: Our policy stands as it was stated quite clearly in April 1974, within three or four weeks of our being elected to office. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman advocates the need for more rented housing, he will take care to cease the practice of encouraging Tory local authorities to sell rented housing, for which he himself is claiming there is a need.

    Peak National Park
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any further applications from foreign companies for quarrying in the Peak national park.
    Mr. Denis Howell: There are no such applications before my right hon. Friend. Applications for planning permission would be made to the Peak park joint planning board in the first instance.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend accept from me that my motive in asking the Question was to try to ensure that people in the Peak park have
    1416
    adequate employment without this at the same time involving the destruction of the surpassing beauty of this area? Will he further accept from me that the scars being left within the park are horrific and far more massive than the average person understands? Will he ensure that there are clauses in any of these contracts to ensure that the ground is set right after the profits and the materials have been taken out? This is absolutely necessary as, for instance, the great area on the periphery, extending for miles between Buxton and Bakewell, looks like the mountains of the moon, frankly—and they are almost as big.
    Mr. Howell: I entirely agree with those considerations. My hon. Friend's opening comments very properly showed the balance which Ministers and planning boards must hold. In this respect I am sure that my hon. Friend will be as delighted as the Government are with the new agreement reached between the board and Dresser Minerals, under which that company has entered into a full bond guaranteeing absolute restoration of the 10 acres to be mined. We regard that development, upon which we have congratulated the planning board, as a very significant step in the direction in which we and my hon. Friend wish to go.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister reject the mercantilism and xenophobia of the Question by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), in which he refers to foreign companies only? Will he assert that the Government are in favour of both inward and outward investment and that considerations will be equally applied to both foreign and domestic companies?
    Mr. Howell: We apply the planning laws impartially between all applicants.
    Mr. Budgen: That is right.

    Water Charges
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about future charging for water supplies.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The basis upon which water charges are made is contained in the Water Act 1973, and I have no statement to make upon that matter at the present time.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Minister of State aware of the deep concern felt by many local authorities, including Berkshire county council, that the implementation of section 30 of the Water Act may cause a steep rise in domestic water charges? Without metering, does not the Minister agree that it is impossible to introduce a charge which is not arbitrary? In those circumstances, what proposal has he either to amend section 30 or to ensure that domestic charges do not rise at a time of pay restraint?
    Mr. Howell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing the attention of the House and the country to the likely effects of section 30, if that section continues to be unamended. The effect would be to transfer some of the weight of charging to the domestic consumer from industry as a whole, which would have rather serious repercussions. However, I am sure that individual metering of domestic water supplies in households is not the way to deal with that problem. It would be an extremely expensive operation and it would be an impost upon large families and the poorest families who are least able to bear that charge.
    Mr. John Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many water authorities are discussing exactly such matters as he has mentioned—metering, making charges for connections, and so on? Will he ensure that they stop making this kind of investigation and these studies and use the money thus saved possibly to devise a form of lavatory that uses less water, which would give them more saving and is technically feasible?
    Mr. Howell: I shall not comment upon my hon. Friend's last proposal—unless this new method of flushing which he has mentioned is intended to flush out the monstrous suggestion that we should have water metering. I assure my hon. Friend that the present Government have no intention of embracing any such policy.

    Home Ownership
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to bring forward in order to increase home ownership.
    Mr. Shore: From 1st December prospective first-time buyers can begin to qualify for benefits under the"home
    1418
    loan" scheme. I recently announced a decision to keep the value of the option mortgage subsidy at the same level as basic rate tax relief—33 per cent. The Housing Bill will include provisions on local authority mortgage rates and guarantees. I hope to expand the support lending scheme with the building societies. I shall continue to work with the societies to create a stable housing market.
    Mr. Costain: Is not the Secretary of State rather ashamed of that complacent reply, having regard to all that he has done to stop house purchases and all that he has done in regard to rent restrictions to stop houses being let? Does he not have some positive ideas to get better housing in this country?
    Mr. Shore: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned with the increase in home ownership, which I understand he is, he will have noticed that home ownership has increased about 600,000 in the past four years. He will have noticed, further, that we have introduced a scheme to make it possible for the first time for many people who are not particularly well off to surmount the first major hurdle of accumulating a sufficient deposit in order to begin to become home buyers. That is the purpose of the new home loan scheme which we have just launched and which I believe many people will want to take up.
    Mr. Litterick: Does not the Secretary of State agree, however, that the combination of a 12 per cent. minimum lending rate with a 5 per cent. maximum limit on wage increases is almost a classic formula for preventing young people from buying houses and, therefore, for ensuring that tens of thousands of building workers remain unemployed?
    Mr. Shore: The 12 per cent. mortgage rate is a very unwelcome development. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the number of people buying their homes has increased. Indeed, the number has been running at a record level this year, and that follows 1977, which was an all-time record year.
    Mr. Heseltine: Is not the Secretary of State aware that in each year of the present Government there have been 40,000 fewer new homes than in the four years of the previous Conservative Government? Is not he further aware that

    1419
    the single most significant step that any Government could take to increase the prospect of home ownership is to give a statutory right to council tenants to buy their own homes and, therefore, to enable those people who are at present council tenants to share in the massive personal benefit that has accrued to those who have bought their own homes in a property owning democracy?
    Mr. Shore: All that the hon. Member is saying is extremely obvious. He is saying that if I am prepared to contemplate a massive reduction in the necessary supply of rented accommodation, I can have an equivalent increase in owner-occupation. I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed. It is in the interests of our people that we should make available an increased supply of homes for owner-occupation and not deplete a necessary local authority rented sector.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time, I raised the issue of the future control of new town assets. It appeared that because of the length of the Ministerial reply you
    1420
    determined that only one supplementary question would be taken. As many hon. Members are extremely concerned about this very important issue, is it reasonable that because a Minister makes a reply which is viewed as being rather long those hon. Members should be deprived of the opportunity that would normally have been made available to them of questioning the Minister on a subject of this importance? I do not normally intervene in such matters but, with respect, I think that the circumstances to which I have referred were a little unfair to hon. Members.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we had already spent six minutes on one Question about new towns and that his Question on the new towns took another three minutes out of our full total for Question time. It is a matter of being fair not only to hon. Members who are still on their feet but to other hon. Members who have taken the trouble to put Questions on the Order Paper and are hoping that they will be called. If the day comes when the hon. Gentleman has the honour to sit in this Chair, I can assure him that he will find that at every Question Time people are disappointed by not being called.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL (BRUSSELS MEETING)
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Brussels which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 4th and 5th December. I apologise for the fact that it is a little long.
The main topic of discussion was the European monetary system and matters related to it. The Council agreed that a European monetary system should be established on 1st January 1979. The five Community countries at present in the snake indicated that they would participate in all aspects of the system, and France decided to join them. At the conclusion of the discussions, the Prime Ministers of Italy and Ireland said that they would need more time for consultations before reaching a conclusion on their participation in the exchange rate mechanism.
I explained to the Council that I would not be recommending to the Cabinet that the United Kingdom should participate in the exchange rate mechanism when it begins to function. I informed the other Heads of Government that we intend to work for a continuation of the exchange rate stability which sterling has enjoyed for nearly two years. I am arranging for the relevant document which was agreed to be published as a White Paper.
It was agreed that the United Kingdom would be free to join the exchange rate mechanism at a later date if we wish, or, of course, to remain outside it. We shall, of course, join in the development of the ECU and of the European monetary fund. All Community currencies will be included in the ECU. We are free to choose whether or not we wish to deposit 20 per cent. of our gold and dollar reserves with the European monetary cooperation fund against issue to us of a corresponding value of ECUs. That is a matter that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider shortly with the Bank of England. In taking a decision, we shall take into account the possibility that intervention in Community currencies
1422
could be helpful to us in maintaining the stability of sterling.
We shall participate in the enlarged Community credit which is linked to the establishment of the EMS. This will be without reservation in the increase in medium-term credit. As regards the short-term monetary support, which is more closely linked to day-to-day rate intervention, we have agreed not to call on the credit increase which is now being made, and our partners have agreed not to call on us. There is also provision for reciprocal consultation about important decisions concerning exchange rate policy between countries inside and outside the exchange rate mechanism.
At the previous Council meeting, in Bremen, I called for studies in the context of EMS about measures to strengthen the economies of the less prosperous member countries. This part of our work was less thoroughly prepared than the work on the system itself. The proposals which eventually emerged provided for additional loan facilities of up to 1,000 million European units of account a year over five years for less prosperous countries participating in the exchange rate mechanism, with a 3 per cent. interest rate subsidy. There was a limitation on these loans, that they should not be used for projects which might create distortion of competition within other member countries. Member countries not participating in the exchange rate mechanism will not contribute to the financing of this scheme.
I stressed the importance of Community policies, taken as a whole, contributing to convergence in the economic performance of members of the Community. It was doubts about the value of the proposals so far made that contributed to the unwillingness of Italy and Ireland to commit themselves. The Commission was invited to look into this whole question and report back to the next European Council.
As for the common agricultural policy, the Commission made a report recommending a rigorous price policy as a way of tackling the problem of surpluses, with a freeze on common prices for 197–0. The President of the Commission announced that the Commission would make its detailed proposals for next year's

1423
prices on this basis. The Council agreed to return to this problem and to establish the necessary guidelines at its meeting in March. There was a short discussion about fisheries, and the Commission was asked to make further efforts towards finding a satisfactory settlement.
Among other topics, I should report briefly on two. The first was the agreement to ask a committee of three, drawn from France, the Netherlands and Britain, to look at the way in which the Community works and make practical suggestions for improvements, with a view particularly to the prospective enlargement to 12. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has been good enough to accept an invitation to serve, together with M. Barend Biesheuvel of the Netherlands and M. Robert Marjolin of France.
Secondly, Foreign Ministers discussed the emoluments which should be received by directly elected Members of the European Assembly. They agreed that the emoluments should be based on those of Members of national Parliaments and be subject to national taxation. There will be consultation with the Assembly by the President of the Council of Ministers.
We were greatly helped throughout this long and arduous meeting by the skilful chairmanship of Chancellor Schmidt. We can be satisfied that our country played a constructive part in the months of discussion that led to the construction of the European monetary scheme. The initial decision has now been taken and it is for each country to decide whether the proposals now on offer are commensurate with the greater risks involved of going into the exchange rate mechanism.
The British Government hope that the greater stability which the dollar has enjoyed in recent weeks will continue and will help the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS when it begins to operate. We for our part look forward to participating in further work that remains to be done on both the internal aspects of the system and in its wider international implications.
The broad conclusion that I offer to the House is that well-constructed and effective international monetary arrangements can assist those who take part in
1424
them in certain circumstances but they can be no more than additional supports, and that in the end it will be the success of our own efforts in restraining inflation, keeping down prices, maintaining the stability of sterling and remaining competitive that will ensure the long-term well-being of our people.
Mrs. Thatcher: This is a sad day for Europe, in that the nine member countries have been unable to agree on a major new initiative which will affect us all.
There are three points that I want to put to the Prime Minister. First, is it not also a sad reflection on the performance of this Government that after four and a half years the Prime Minister is content to have Britain openly classified among the poorest and least influential members in the Community, and that along with them we must ask for assistance if we are even to contemplate joining the scheme?
Secondly, what really prevented the Prime Minister from joining the scheme? Was it economic weakness and lack of competitiveness, or are the reasons political, in that, whatever his own view, his party clearly would never have allowed him to join the system?
Thirdly, has not the Prime Minister come back from Brussels with the worst of all worlds—no reduction in the budget contribution, about which he himself has been complaining but which he himself negotiated and commended to the country in 1975; no reform of the common fisheries policy; no reform of the common agricultural policy; and no membership of the EMS?
Just what did the Prime Minister achieve for Britain in Brussels?
The Prime Minister: I think that basically there was no particular achievement on anyone's part. What happened was that national considerations of all the nine members prevailed over the attempt to bring about an international agreement. Britain was one of those that put its national interests in the forefront. On occasion that is necessary. But, as I think is well known in the House, there are many occasions on which international agreements, if we can secure them, are for the benefit of not only our country but other countries. On every occasion

1425
we must judge. The plain truth is that just as other countries judge their national interests, so we judged ours.
In her usual way, the right hon. Lady asked"Is not it a sad reflection on the performance of this Government?"If we are to improve our national position it would be as well if we all looked at our performance over the past 40 or 50 years. I have never been hesitant in saying that this country's performance has slid steadily backwards since at least the end of the First World War. I do not think that it helps to try to compress our performance into a period of three or four years, except for party reasons. I understand that the right hon. Lady must do that to satisfy those on the Benches behind her. What is important is that this country should become more competitive and should keep its rate of inflation down. I should like a little help from the Opposition now and again in doing those things.
The right hon. Lady also asked what had kept us out. I suppose that basically it was that we felt that the system as it was devised was too close to the original snake. It gradually acquired more characteristics of the snake as the negotiations went on. The right hon. Lady, who of course likes to draw a veil over her own experience in this matter, might contemplate, in the quietness of this evening, that she herself was part of a Government that went into a similar system and emerged very bedraggled after six weeks. We should at least try to learn from our history, even if the right hon. Lady prefers to forget it.
There are differences about this system which in my view make it more likely to succeed. There is the proposal to intervene when the rates become divergent —up to 75 per cent. of their normal rate —which I think will help, together with the establishment of the 25 billion ECU credit fund. That gives it a better chance than the original snake.
But I think that basically the final decision not to join was made simply for this reason: when the right hon. Lady's Government negotiated the matter six or seven years ago, they were informed, I am certain in good faith, and they accepted in good faith—I do not blame them for accepting the information; they just happened to be wrong, all of them—that the economies of the
1426
Community countries would converge before the transitional period came to an end. That has not happened.
The right hon. Lady may blame me for that. I have no doubt that she will. Everybody can judge. The plain truth is that the economies have failed to converge. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] I remind those who cheer that their convergence required not only action on our part but promises by the other members of the Community that they would take action to achieve it. Both those things have been missing, and therefore we decided that at this stage it would be imprudent to join the exchange rate mechanism.
Mr. David Steel: Does the Prime Minister agree that the apparent division of the Community into two blocks, one consisting of the stronger economies and one of the weaker, with ourselves in the second category, is itself most unfortunate, to say the least?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his description of the British role over these months as constructive does not appear to be shared by our Community partners?
I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the committee that is being set up, on which his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) will serve. What will that do that the Tindemans report did not, and what happened to the Tindemans report?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect in his first point. After all, up to now five members of the Community have been in the snake. Now there will be six, in the new system. I have heard no accusation of two blocks before, and there will not be two blocks now. At least, if they do exist now, they existed before.
I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on the question of our contribution. I do not think that he will find any informed commentator—he will certainly find no Head of Government—who shares his views about the attitude that we have adopted or the work that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done on the system—work that has been highly praised by all

1427
those who have been associated with the negotiations over the past few months.
Indeed, the President of France said yesterday that he thought that we had been extremely constructive in our approach and in what we had tried to do. I prefer to rest on that than on the jeers of an Opposition determined to try to do everything to destroy the Government's credibility.
Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his firm defence of British interests will command widespread support throughout the country, particularly at a time when the Conservative Party seems ready to champion the interests of any country but its own?
The Prime Minister: I am bound to say that when I listened yesterday to the Prime Ministers of France, Italy, Ireland, Denmark and Belgium—to name but a few—I detected no intention by any of them to depart from their national interests. I thought that I was modestly joining that bandwagon when I defended British interests on this occasion.
It is remarkable that the Opposition's spokesman on foreign affairs—of course, I expect it from the right hon. Lady—should regard it as a disgrace when we defend our national interests.
Mr. Powell: Is the Prime Minister aware that over a large majority of the public of this country the decision not to join the currency system will be received with relief and satisfaction? Is he further aware that the decision of himself and of the Cabinet will be taken as an earnest of the sincerity of their undertaking to maintain the control of Parliament over the essential economic affairs of this country?
Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman is voting Labour again, I think.
The Prime Minister: The control by Parliament of this country's economic and financial affairs must always be absolute, except to the extent that we ourselves decide formally to surrender a part of it, as we did, for example, when we entered the International Monetary Fund. I would not hesitate to recommend to the House a departure from our national sovereignty for an international monetary system if I thought that it would increase
1428
growth, reduce unemployment and make for better trading relations between the countries of the world as a whole or a part of them. But that must be a deliberate and conscious decision by this country and its people.
Mr. Roper: Taking into account what he has said, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will assure the House that the British Government will continue to play a full part in developing policy within the Community to ensure economic convergence between its members?
The Prime Minister: That is important, but it is also important that we should endeavour to have a rate of inflation, to take just one indicator, that is as good as those of our major competitors and partners in Europe. I regret that we do not look as though we shall move far in that direction during the next 12 months. I wish that we were likely to. We shall have to take other measures to achieve that, over a period of two or three years, in order to get where the Germans are now.
As for working out policies that will ensure the convergence of our economies, that, of course, is sensible. We have always said, in relation to the Third world, that we cannot have persistent islands of prosperity if we have a world of poverty. Likewise, we must have a better balance in the economies of the countries of Europe. The wealthy countries can contribute to this, but the main effort must be ours. That is why the Government are taking the steps that they are taking today, and we shall persist in them.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I accept the many sound reasons that the Prime Minister has advanced for the United Kingdom not joining the EMS, but did not he find it humiliating to be the leader of a country that is so weak economically and so third-rate that he was unable to join other small prosperous countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, let alone the big boys, such as Germany and France?
The Prime Minister: I do not welcome the fact that our national income is below that of the average in the Community, but I do not think that we should use words such as"humiliation"to describe it. What it should do is spur us on to a bigger effort, nationally

1429
achieved, to improve our performance. Anything that indicates how far we have to go and how far we have slid down is to my mind a very salutary reminder to all our people.
Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most Government supporters are not surprised that he failed to get the conditions that he so rightly laid down for British membership? Is he aware, further, that we congratulate him on having stood up firmly for the needs of the British economy? Does he realise that the conditions never will be met for achieving monetary stability in Europe through fixed exchange rates? Therefore, will he please abandon this will o' the wisp and concentrate on building up Britain's needs and Britain's economy?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I hope it is not true that the conditions never will he met in which we can have more exchange rate stability in Europe. I cannot depart from my strongly held view that it will be in all our interests if the conditions are met. That demands a big effort by us. It also demands assistance from the other countries towards the general convergence of the economies. I also hope that the European monetary system, although we have not entered the exchange rate mechanism part of it, will he a precursor to another attempt to get back to more exchange rate stability on an even broader basis with the dollar and perhaps with other currencies.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are disappointed at such an incomplete result of the EMS talks? Will he assure the House that in the months to come he will bear in mind the problems of business men dealing in wildly fluctuating currencies and try to ensure that the three wise men, of whom his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) is one, consider not only the position in Europe but the position of Europe in the rest of the world and perhaps—especially in the Prime Minister's case—our position isolated now from our European partners?
The Prime Minister: I do not understand the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question about our being isolated. It is a remarkable degree of iso-
1430
lation when my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) is invited to be one of the three who are asked to consider how European procedures should develop. That is a strange form of isolation. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that yesterday's result was a more incomplete one than was expected. I regret that. I wish that it had been more positive in some ways, because this is a set-back for a very bold initiative by Chancellor Schmidt, who was trying to raise the general standards throughout Europe. He has not succeeded so far, but I believe that another attempt should be made in due course. If the conditions are different, perhaps it will be more helpful to those who are not able to join the present system, and will enable them to do so.
Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's strategy and tactics, in very difficult economic circumstances, have been quite correct and that, although he has now made a tactical advance, it is imperative to resist the dogmatic demands of extremists on both sides of the EMS in order to retain the flexibility that is necessary for the future?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have managed to secure the necessary flexibility both to participate in some of the benefits—through credits—of the European monetary scheme while retaining flexibility on our own exchange rate, but I do not want that to be construed as an easy option to alter our present exchange rate policy, because that is not the purpose of the decision.
Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who applaud his standing up for our national interests do not regard the mechanisms of the EEC as internationalist in the true sense of the word and that it is the tact that it is supranational and wishes to become a large super Power that we distrust? In that respect, can my right hon. Friend outline to the House some of the obligations that would have been placed on Her Majesty's Government in respect of economic or financial policy had we acceded to the scheme for which he would have been accountable to the EEC authorities and for which, from now on, he will he accountable only to this House?
The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's attitude, which has been consistent all the way through, and his distrust of these instruments. But we are members of the European Economic Community. I wish, for example, that it would show a greater outward-looking vision through its agricultural policy, which is one of the most reactionary that I have seen. It is incredible that at the same time as discussions were going on yesterday about the way in which Ireland could be assisted to raise her standard—and not very large amounts were involved—we were presented with a report that showed that more than 8 billion units of account was to be devoted to agricultural support, surpluses and stocking during the next year. I agree with some of my hon. Friend's criticisms. However, I get off the train a few stations before he does on this matter.
As for the obligations that we do not now undertake, perhaps my hon. Friend will be kind enough to study the White Paper, which I hope will be published in the next day or so. He will then see in detail what they are.
Mr. Dykes: Is it not a sobering thought that those right hon. and hon. Members who are most delighted by today's news are the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)? Will the Prime Minister say quite clearly why there were good reasons for France to join, with an equally vulnerable currency, and why there were good reasons for us to stay out?
The Prime Minister: I do not wish to comment on France's decision to join. That is a matter for the President of France to decide. History will reveal whether the scheme is successful.
Mr. George Gardiner: May I ask the Prime Minister about the salaries of Members of the European Assembly, in which I should tell him that I have no personal interest whatever? How can he justify an arrangement by which the elected representative of the British people are to be counted among the paupers of the European Assembly, being paid in many cases less than the secretaries serving them? Is this an accurate reflection of the depth to which we have sunk, in economic terms, compared with our European partners?
The Prime Minister: I sympathise with the hon. Member in his desire to find something to criticise the Government about, but this was a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers in which all the Heads of Government decided that the most satisfactory way of settling this was that all members should receive the salaries that were applicable to Members in their own Parliaments. There was no reference to humiliation, poverty, disgrace or any of the other adjectives that come so easily to the hon. Member's lips.
Mr. Torney: I congratulate the Prime Minister on rejecting the EMS, despite the noises from the Conservative Benches to the contrary. Will he tell the House whether we can rest assured that there will be no sell-out of the British fishing industry now that EMS is well out of the way for the time being?
The Prime Minister: There would never be a sell-out of the British fishing industry. There were expressions of concern yesterday about the inability of the negotiations to proceed further because of international complications. There is a third group of countries outside the EEC which is waiting for treaties to be signed and agreements to be made. This cannot be done until we achieve a settlement on the British fishing industry dispute. As my hon. Friend knows, a meeting has been arranged between Commissioner Gundelach and British Ministers tomorrow. I hope that some progress will be made then.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister tell us how it serves the British national interest to set back the greater financial unity of Europe? Are we not involved in that? Looking to the future, the Prime Minister has fairly stated that he hopes at some stage to join such a currency arrangement. Will he tell us how he expects to get better arrangements with our European partners from the outside than he could have got from the inside?
The Prime Minister: It is no use mouthing slogans about the greater financial unity of Europe unless the system that is proposed meets the needs of all those who are invited to join it. That is where the previous Conservative Government went wrong last time. I very much hope that this scheme will prove effective and durable. However, we must judge that as we see it develop and unroll.

1433
As for being outside, I think that the hon. Member misunderstands the position. The scheme comes under the overall supervision of the Finance Ministers. Therefore, we are part of the scheme, to the extent that my right hon. Friend will be there joining in a number of these discussions, concerning, for example, the long-term development and matters such as credit, relations with the dollar, and the differences in the exchange rates. He will not be concerned with the day-to-day maintenance of sterling against the Community currencies. Therefore, in terms of the development of the system and the protection of sterling and European currencies, my right hon. Friend will be there playing his full part.
Mr. Marten: Will the Prime Minister tell the House, after his meeting in Brussels, whether there are any realistic chances of any radical reform—and I mean reform, not just price tinkering—of the common agricultural policy? If there is no chance of such reform, what does he propose to do?
The Prime Minister: This is a matter of semantics. I regard radical reform"as involving the destruction of surpluses, or at least the ending of the accumulation of surpluses. A price freeze, if the Commission put that forward, would contribute to that end. If we want changes in the policy it is important for us to make clear that the objectives of the policy are not under attack by us. The objectives are those that were introduced by Tom Williams into British agriculture 30 years ago, namely, a fair return for the producer and reasonable prices for the consumer. It is the failure to achieve these ends that we attack, not the objectives themselves.
Mr. George Grant: My right hon. Friend has stressed the inadequacy and the unfairness of the CAP at the meeting, but has he stressed the importance of energy policy, instead of the nationalistic further movement towards a common approach that exists today?
The Prime Minister: There are serious discussions going on to try to achieve a common energy policy and certainly we wish to make our contribution to such a policy. This is especially so in conservation and use of resources. However, we did not discuss that yesterday in the context of the EMS.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that despite today's strong statement and his refusal at this time to sell out on EMS, there are those of us who believe that in the interests of the working class this can be regarded as only a marginal, temporary victory? Is he further aware that he spoilt his statement by wanting to balance the books on behalf of the pro-Marketeers by accepting ECU, possibly laying down deposits and engaging a pro-Market banker to discuss the enlargement of the Common Market, presumably on our behalf as well?
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that, as so often happens, I do not agree with my hon. Friend on these matters. The judgment of the interests of the working classes should be based on increasing their prosperity, welfare and prospects for jobs, and ensuring that they can live decently. It is with those ends in mind that these matters must be judged. It is against that that I believe that it is worth while to get long-term stability in the monetary arrangements of those countries that have been so sadly destroyed since the Bretton Woods system broke up.
Mr. Michael Shaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in the European Parliament that considerably more money should be put into the European regional fund? This would enable help to be given to those areas in special need, at the same time as monetary co-operation is being sought by the whole Community. The Prime Minister has not said anything about this. Was it not discussed at the European Council meeting? If it was, would he support the views of the European Parliament?
The Prime Minister: There were proposals to ensure funds being made available to strengthen the regions, but it was made clear on behalf of those who contribute more than they receive that they were not willing to increase the budget in that way. That was an important influence on the desire of Italy and Ireland for further consultations. We would be glad to see increases in the regional fund, but, in view of the burden being borne by Germany and by others, it would be far better to restructure existing funds away from CAP support and into regiona assistance of this sort than try to increase the budget beyond the point that some countries are willing to bear.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call four more hon. Members from each side.
Mr. Watkinson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, under the system that has been agreed, there is a symmetry of burden on surplus countries and deficit countries? Will he continue to press for reform of the CAP? The problem of this policy will become even greater with the enlargement of the Common Market. Will he note that it is not simply a question of the end price system producing surpluses; there is large-scale structural capacity in Europe to produce food, which needs some form of national attention?
The Prime Minister: I promise that we shall persist with our attempts to get changes in the CAP. I agree that the problem will become greater with enlargement. That is why I said yesterday that if there are no reforms the CAP will break down under its own weight one day. It is in the interests of those who are benefiting from the system today, as well as in our interests, to approach this matter rationally.
Mr. Higgins: Does the Prime Minister recall a statement that he made some time ago about the objectives of the Government on North Sea oil? Is it not a fact that had he succeeded in those objectives we would have been sufficiently strong economically to join the EMS? What does he propose to do about this? Because of North Sea oil we are in a totally different situation from that in which we were five or six years ago.
The Prime Minister: I do not recall what I said about it, but I am sure that it was well judged and complete, and that it carried the assent of the whole House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to make certain that the resources of the North Sea should not be spent on current consumption. So far, we have done so. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must try to make better arrangements about this. But the Opposition have not proposed policies that are better than those of the Government for achieving this. I am very ready to be spurred on by them, but they will have to produce something better than they have done so far.
Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be welcome in so far as it stops the drift towards economic and monetary union and therefore supports Labour Party policy? Does he also accept that for a number of years he and others have been expressing determination to reform the CAP, but so far this has not been done? Thirdly, does he accept that we need to go further than simply withholding from EMS; we need to be prepared to make a unilateral declaration that if there is not more significant and radical reform, we shall be prepared to take unilateral action and withdraw from the EEC?
The Prime Minister: As a matter of tactics I would not commend what my hon. Friend says unless he is immediately willing to do so. I can imagine nothing more likely to stop rational discussion until that decision were made effective. I suggest that if he is going to do it one day when he rejoins us he had better keep quiet about it until the day that he decides to do it. I agree that we have not achieved what we would like on this matter. The walls of Jericho did not fall down the first time the Israelites marched round them—I yield to any Biblical scholar on this—but they fell down after a time, as I believe these walls will.
Mr. Crouch: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is not so much the judgment of the President of France about his performance in Brussels that matters but what is thought of the Prime Minister's performance in this House and the country? Will he tell us what he really thinks of EMS? Does he think that it was a proposal to help the more prosperous countries in the EEC, or a proposal that might have helped us and less prosperous nations to learn to live within our incomes?
The Prime Minister: It is difficult to sum up in a sentence. I think that the origin of the EMS lies in the disillusionment that was felt, in my view wrongly, last spring about the prospects for the American dollar and the American economy. That was the origin of it; nothing more high-flown than that. Whether it would yield benefits to our economy is a matter of judgment. It is the Government's judgment that at the moment it would not yield such benefits,

1437
and would place obligations on us that might result in unnecessary deflation and unemployment, as long as our currency was linked with other currencies that might themselves be affected by what happened to a third currency, namely, the dollar. If one of the strong currencies of Europe becomes a currency of refuge for the dollar, that makes it more difficult for others in this system. I am not ready at this time to take that risk.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Why should my right hon. Friend be criticised for refusing to increase unemployment in this country in order to strengthen the franc? What more do we have to do to prove our loyalty to the European idea when we have paid in twice as much as we have taken out since we entered the Community and we have had a consistent balance of payments deficit, so that other members of the Nine have benefited at our expense?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone with whom I discussed these matters over 30 long, wearisome hours yesterday was querying our loyalty or disloyalty. There were differences of judgment about the consequences of this scheme, and only time will reveal them. For myself, I very much hope that the scheme will succeed. I believe that it will be of benefit to the countries taking part if it does succeed, and could be the precursor to other and wider schemes. Whether it is or not, we shall have to wait and see, but there is no reason why we should hope for failure. Certainly, I do not.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Should not Britain's contribution to the stability of currencies be made through sterling and the adoption of wise disciplines in our economy? Why is it thought necessary or advantageous, or particularly dignified, that those disciplines should be imposed on us from outside?
The Prime Minister: I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Our future lies in our own hands. But it might be better if he were to address his question to the leader of his own party.
Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of the good wishes that my right hon. Friend has given for the success of EMS, will he assure the House that if that success is borne out
1438
and we then decide to try to join, our late entry will not harm us in the way that our late entry to the CAP did?
The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure what is understood by the word"entry ". The European monetary scheme is a scheme that will be supervised. The oversight will be joined by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor, together with the other eight members. We are there to influence its direction and its shape. What we are not joining is the exchange rate intervention system, which would place certain obligations upon us. We shall be able to shape the future development of the scheme in a way that would not be possible were we totally outside the Community.
Sir Anthony Meyer: As the right hon. Gentleman loses no opportunity to tell us of the successes of his Government in overcoming this country's economic problems, will he say what further successes he requires before the economy is strong enough to accept the disciplines that this system entails?
The Prime Minister: At this moment it is not a question of strength or weakness in relation to the mechanism it is a question whether the mechanism is well devised to stand the strains placed upon it. That is a matter of judgment. Some take one view and others another. We must allow the scheme to run for a little while to see who is right.

BILL PRESENTED
  FILMS
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins presented a Bill to amend section 6 of the Films Act 1960; And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time; upon Friday 19th January 1979 and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), shall apply to the Motion relating to the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1978 with the substitution of half-past Two o'clock or four and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph (1)(b) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL

    New Clause No. 1
    ADMINISTRATION OF SCHEME

    (1) For the purposes of administering the scheme, the Secretary of State shall call for tenders, and any person who wishes to contract for the administration of the scheme (including the Registrar) may submit a tender.

    (2) The Secretary of State shall accept the tender which in his opinion gives the best value for money, provided that he shall lay before Parliament a schedule showing the sums of money included in each tender which he receives '.—[Mr. Ridley.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.18 p.m.
    Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
    No. 20, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, after ' Registrar ' add
    ' and the responsibility for administering the public lending right shall be exercised through the British Library and through the Bibliographical Services Division's British National Bibliography and computer facilities known as MARC, which already records each new published book as it is deposited in the British Library '.
    Government amendment No. 63.
    Amendment No. 64, in the schedule, page 7, line 40, after ' fit ', insert:
    ' but not more than 10 in total '.
    Government amendments Nos. 65 to 68.
    Mr. Ridley: My first word is to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that amendment No. 66 is out of order because it makes no sense. It suggests that after the first"the"in paragraph 7(4) of the schedule, the words
    " Secretary of State and the "
    should be inserted. If that amendment were made, the schedule would read:
    "The Secretary of State and the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service ".
    Clearly, the Government have got the wrong"the ". They should have said the
    1440
    second"the"instead of the first"the I hope that such sloppy draftsmanship will not occur again.
    The Government amendments merely tidy up the part of the schedule which makes clear that responsibility for paying the pensions of the staff will rest with the Registrar, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The House will not wish to dwell on them except to comment that it ought to be possible for the Government to get their drafting right if they wish to make amendments.
    I want to make a plea to the Government that the administration of the public lending right scheme should be handled properly. I repeat a suggestion that I made in Committee which did not receive a proper answer. I believe that we aught to put the administration of the scheme out to tender.
    The skills of those working in the computer industry and the developing techniques are such that it is becoming a highly skilled area, and I am sure that many companies have developed the expertise to do this sort of work on a wide scale. Hitherto, the Civil Service has always sought to carry out all administration of such technical matters—there is no policy involved, it is a technical problem. I am convinced that we could find in the administration of the Civil Service a much wider application of the principle that I propose.
    My suggestion is that the Secretary of State should be required by law to put out to tender the operation of the scheme. Any company that wished to do so could submit a tender which would be open to inspection by the House so that hon. Members could ascertain that the Government had chosen the lowest tender. The Government have never seen fit to employ that fairly obvious procedure.
    We all remember the classic case when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) drew attention to the cost of planting the lime trees in New Palace Yard. He discovered that the cost of the Civil Service supplying and planting the trees was between £4,000 and £5,000 and he submitted a tender for £280. That was an example of the enormous savings that can be made by going out to tender. No ready answer was given by the Department responsible as to why it could not

    1441
    accept my hon. and learned Friend's tender. It started to cast aspersions on the quality of his lime trees as though there were some difference between public and private lime trees. All sorts of ridiculous criticisms were levelled at him.
    There are many more important matters than the planting of lime trees, including the administration of pensions and benefits, that could be put out to tender. I am referring not to the determination of policy but to the physical task of paying pensions and drafts to the recipients of benefits.
    The public lending right administration will be a simple task and there is no doubt that we could put it out to tender. In a way, it is our best opportunity for experimenting in this way because there is no question of an existing scheme of administration having to be replaced. If we had a staff of 35 or 40 and a new quango in full flood administering the scheme, there would be strong protests and lobbies to prevent any change. But that is not the case. There is no such lobby. We have a clean sheet and could put the scheme out to tender as a demonstration of what could be done.
    In amendment No. 20, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) suggests that the administration should be done through the British Library and the existing computer system known as MARC. His amendment does not go as far as the new clause, but that may be the right answer. The Government suggest that it should be done by the Registrar, and that may be the right answer. What is the harm in putting it to the test? Why do we not get tenders to see which is the cheapest? Let us be open about it. The Government claim that they believe in open government. Let them lay the tenders on the table so that we can see which is the cheapest.
    The cost of administering the scheme will be £600,000 a year. I accept that out of that money must come the salaries of the Registrar and his secretary and their office expenses and the cost of the work carried out in the libraries which must be reimbursed to library authorities. However, there will still be several hundred thousand pounds a year which could be the subject of competitive bids. Even if we saved only £10, it would be a worthwhile saving as an example of what could be done elsewhere. My impression is
    1442
    that we would save very much more than that. We might save as much as half the proposed cost.
    There is always someone in the world who has the up-to-date skills and knowledge to do the best job in the cheapest way, and he should be given the opportunity to tender to show that he can do that.
    Mr. Roger Moate: Might not the arrangement suggested by my hon. Friend be of benefit not only to taxpayers but to authors, who would stand to gain most from the saving in expenses which would result from competitive tendering?
    Mr. Ridley: That is right. It must be grievious to authors who thought that there would be £2 million available to them to find that 30 per cent. of that is to be swallowed up in administrative costs. Every penny that we can save in the cost of administration will increase the authors' share.
    I put it more strongly than that. We have been woefully slow in adopting proper techniques for ensuring value for money in public expenditure. There are many tasks where we cannot get comparisons with the private sector or which could not be put out to private firms to perform, but where they can be put out to firms they should be, if only to get a check price
    I remember questioning representatives of the Property Services Agency at a meeting of the General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee about their policy for checking the cost of the Agency's work on Government buildings —repairs, maintenance, redecoration, provision of tables, chairs and carpets and all the work of maintaining the fabric of the buildings in which the bureaucrats live. The PSA representatives continually stalled when they were asked why they had never had a check price from the private sector. They had no answer. They used words such as"not convenient"and"inappropriate ".
    I am certain that we should go through the whole public sector to see which parts of its activities are suitable for putting out to tender. The whole principle of tendering is that it is a way of achieving value for money and it leads to a constant check on whether there is efficiency in the

    1443
    public administration. Unless we are prepared to test our public administrative procedures wherever we can, we shall find that the growth of the bureaucracy takes place unhindered and unchecked.
    The enormous burden of public administration which has grown upon the shoulders of the taxpayers is, I agree, determined to a large extent by policies pursued as a result of decisions of the House, but a large amount of that burden is represented by purely administrative costs. The attention of the House should be directed towards improving the standard of efficiency where necessary and checking efficiency by obtaining check prices from the private sector.
    I can think of no better example than this unborn quango. It is conceived but unborn. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) is in the Chamber keeping a watchful eye on the development of this foetus, which I hope will suffer abortion now that birth control is no longer possible.
    We are putting into effect another quango. Let us at least try to make sure that there are disciplines upon it. There can be no more salutary discipline than that proposed in the new clause. I grant the Minister that my drafting may be capable of improvement, but, as I pointed out earlier, if there are drafting deficiencies the Minister is in the same boat as I am because his amendment is curiously drafted. I am sure that he will not hold any drafting deficiency against me.
    I hope that, contrary to the Minister's attitude in Committee, he will accept the principle behind the new clause and will arrange for outside firms to be allowed the opportunity to put forward schemes of administration that could be tested and priced to see which is the cheapest and most effective. The House should then be informed of the results of that competition.
    4.30 p.m.
    As I said in Committee, if the Government are not prepared to do that, I most certainly am. When the scheme is published and laid before the House, I shall write to the various software houses and computer companies and seek tenders. I shall then see whether I can get a
    1444
    cheaper price than the Government, just as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire did in the case of the lime trees over the car park. I shall hold the Minister to account for what he puts in towards the cost of this scheme when we discuss the Estimates. No discipline is as good as the discipline of having to obtain a job in full and fair competition. There is no reason why we should not do that in this case.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend the Minister of State would be ill-advised to accept the clause which has been so beguilingly proposed by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). His proposition rests on a misunderstanding of the true position.
    The technical investigation group made the recommendations which are the technical basis of the Bill. I was responsible in that direction during the accouchement period of the Bill. Neither I nor the group was ever reluctant to acquire the wealth of information that is available from private organisations on the subject. I commissioned a £28,000 study from a firm called Logica Limited, an excellent private organisation, which made an invaluable contribution to the investigation. Without that contribution the proposals that form the basis of the group's unanimous recommendations could not have been made.
    Two stages will be involved. There is the first, which begins at the 72 libraries that will be the basis of the whole scheme. The second stage will take place under the aegis of the Registrar.
    At the libraries, books will be counted as they are returned. It was realised that if the process were carried out when books were taken out it would cause delays at the libraries. Under these proposals the operator in the library can stack the returned books until it is convenient for him to process them.
    The process is carried out by means of a light pen which reads a bar code which transmits information on to a magnetic tape. The tapes are subsequently forwarded once or twice a week to the Registrar's office. At that point the Regisstrar will pass the tapes on to a computer organisation.

    1445
    The Registrar could if he wished use the MARC computer, which is already owned by the British Library. Alternatively, he might decide to use a private computer organisation, sending the tapes perhaps to my constituency for ICL, which has its headquarters there, to do the computer processing.
    The small computers, which are located at 72 points, will do the initial recording work. I found during my examination of the scheme that the libraries were most enthusiastic. They discovered points about their pattern of lending which showed them that they could save considerable sums of money as a result of the knowledge provided by the scheme. The scheme worked well and benificently, and worked to the advantage of the authors and the libraries.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury will agree that, just as I and the civil servants used a private organisation that put forward a scheme that made loan-based PLR a practical proposition, the Registrar, too, could use a private organisation, and that therefore the hon. Member will decide against pressing his clause or his amendment.
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member has described one scheme in which he sees great merit. How does he know, however, that there are not other schemes that might be proposed by other companies which might have even greater merit? Is he saying that because he presided over one scheme, that is the last word on the subject?
    Mr. Jenkins: Of course, there would be a great temptation to do that. However, the technical investigation group was not recommending a particular scheme. Logica Limited is not committed to any one scheme; it sought to create something that was possible out of that which appeared impossible.
    The group consisted of representatives of authors—Ms. Maureen Duffy of the Writers' Action Group and Mr. John Coleby of the Society of Authors—a group from the Department of Education and Science, including Mr. Harvey, who acted as chairman, a most distinguished civil servant whose contribution to public lending right has not hitherto been recognised but should be, and a representative from the Central Statistical Office, who made a valuable contribution. In addition, there were representatives from the Library
    1446
    Association, the British Library, and the local authorities, including the Association of County Councils. In addition, Logica Limited was represented.
    The scheme that was produced was a practical one and will be presented in outline to the Registrar. When the time comes he will be able to employ the services of a private organisation if he so chooses.
    Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins). We wish to do everything that we can in the Bill to ensure that the limited amount of money that is available goes to those whom it is intended to benefit rather than to those necessary evils, if I may so describe them, who have to administer the Bill.
    It is true that the scheme could be more cheaply administered, for example, by a computer bureau, but I imagine—although I have no information on this point—that there may be some difficulties with the Civil Service. It may feel that it has an interest in the administration of the scheme.
    I should like the Minister to give a number of assurances. Will the computer work be hired out to the cheapest and most efficient firm available? If the answer is in the affirmative, that would go some way to meeting my hon. Friend's point. Will the Minister carefully examine what additional staff will be needed? Will he consider the figure of 35 to 40? Is it necessary to have so many? I am in sympathy with my hon. Friend, who always seeks to cut out unnecessary public expenditure. I hope that my hon. Friend will follow the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Putney and that, having elicited a debate on this topic and having heard the constructive reply of the Minister of State, he will seek leave to withdraw the motion.
    On amendment No. 20, it would be feasible and possibly cheaper to administer the scheme through the British Library's own computer, but it is not certain that that would help matters, since the Bill as drafted requires authors to register before they can become eligible for public lending right. Therefore, if

    1447
    the computer were brought into play, it would be necessary to go through the list twice.
    There is much to be said for Government amendment No. 63, since it would allow the Secretary of State to control the number of administrative staff and would help to avoid a quangoid burgeoning of bureaucrats—a hideous phrase to describe a hideous possibility.
    On amendment No. 64, I suggest that although 40 is on the generous side, 10 is perhaps on the mean side. It is a little too optimistic to think that this could be administered by such a small group of people.
    Government amendments Nos. 65 to 68 are not of great importance, but are tidying-up provisions.
    4.45 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I wish to deal first with the drafting point mentioned by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). New clause No. 1 deals with putting things out to tender. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will never put drafting of Bills out to tender because the drafting of the Bill is right. Had the matter gone out to tender, we might have been in some difficulty.
    The hon. Gentleman, in common with me, sometimes needs glasses. If he examines the amendment paper and the Bill, he will see that the definite article in the amendment paper has a small"t"and not a capital"T ". Therefore, the first"the"with a small"t"in the Bill is the"the"followed by the words on the amendment paper. The hon. Gentleman appears to disagree with me, but that is the way in which it has been done. If there had been a capital"T"for the definite article, the draftsman would have included it. Since the draftsman is right and the hon. Gentleman is wrong, we should let the official draftsman carry on with his work.
    I should like now to deal with the effects of the Government amendments which have been tabled for clarification. In Committee we discussed the rights and duties of the Registrar, and in Committee I said that, whenever we could, we would try to make the Bill as clear as possible.
    1448
    By these amendments we are seeking to carry out that undertaking. This makes the position clearer because, legally, if cases were to arise under the Employment Protection Act or other legislation of that nature, as the matter stands the Secretary of State would be the person answerable. From the point of view of administration, the person in charge of the registry, the Registrar, should be the person answerable. The form of words we have used is exactly the same form of words as we have always used to put the matter legally right. The other amendments, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said, are purely drafting to make grammatical sense.
    Let me deal with new clause No. 1 in detail. The hon. Gentleman said in Committee, and repeated the offer today, that he was prepared to put the matter out to tender. That was a bizarre suggestion when made in Committee, but his clause on Report is a little less bizarre because he wants the Secretary of State to put it out to tender. Nevertheless, the implications of the clause are totally unacceptable to this Government or indeed to any Government, for the reasons I shall give.
    First, the clause presupposes the existence of the Registrar. The amendment contains the words"including the Registrar ". Therefore, one sets up a body to create the Registrar and, having set him up, one puts the matter out to tender and allows the Registrar, with others, to tender for the job. There would be a needless administrative cost inherent in the clause. One is setting up a body and subsequently putting the matter out to tender. The difficulty in putting it out to tender arises from the fact—and this kind of consideration arises whatever Government are in power—that a private sector company will be operating in an area in which public money is involved.
    Mr. Ridley: Ah!
    Mr. Oakes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will hear me out. That is an inherent difficulty where a private sector company is responsible for the administration of money provided by the taxpayer. Things could go wrong with a private company which cannot go wrong with the existence of the machinery we are setting up. Let us suppose, for example, that the private concern to which this

    1449
    work went, went bankrupt. What would happen if through a mistake, maliciously or in error, that concern exceeded the funds provided by the Government? There would then be a direct charge on public expenditure just because that work had gone out to private tender. Surely Conservative Members would not want that.
    Mr. Philip Holland: Is it not a fact that in the United States in the early part of the 1960s the original quangos were not quite the same quangos as we now talk about in the House and elsewhere but private agencies set up to take advantage of Government contracts and existed solely as Government agencies? Does the Minister agree that they were set up privately and were non-governmental organisations as distinct from our national quangos?
    Mr. Oakes: It seems an extremely dangerous precedent to quote what was happening in the United States and the way in which Government money was being expended in the early years of the century.
    Mr. Holland: No, the 1960s.
    Mr. Oakes: Well, even in the 1960s.
    Mr. Ridley: Am I right in thinking that the Minister is against putting out to tender the construction of roads to firms in the private sector because that means that public money is being spent by private firms and there is the possibility that they might go bust? Is it now the Government's intention to nationalise all road building firms? That seems to be the logical conclusion.
    Mr. Oakes: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman is teasing me. Money is being provided by the Government and the recipients will be authors. If things go wrong, authors as well as the Government could suffer. I accept that things can go wrong with public or private tender. There is a real danger—I think that it is appreciated by the hon. Member for Chelmsford—in calling for tenders from those who wish to be responsible for the distribution of taxpayers' money.
    I appreciate that the purpose of the new clause is to save administrative costs. Bearing in mind the remarks in Committee of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I am sure that that is what is behind the new clause.
    1450
    However, it would not save all that much money. A proportion of the money would go to reimburse local library authorities for their expenditure. The new clause would not save an appreciable part of the £600,000. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) looks amazed. Within the administrative cost is the cost to local authorities of the services that they will provide in supplying information for the register.
    Mr. Moate: I reacted with amazement because I could not understand how a large proportion of the £600,000 could be reimbursement to local library authorities. The payment of a staff of 35 or 40 and an expensive Registrar will take the lion's share of the £600,000. The one thing that we have not had is a breakdown of the costs. If the Minister is saying that he has figures, that will help us to understand the breakdown. I hope that he will enlighten us.
    Mr. Oakes: I do not have the figures. The scheme has not yet been fully prepared. It is true that the office of the Registrar—especially when we take into account administrative costs, building costs and the purchase of computer time —will take the lion's share. The new clause would not bear on a significant proportion of the costs. Those costs would still have to be paid.
    I envisage that it will be the duty of the Registrar to provide the cheapest and most efficient service. In purchasing computer time it will be the decision of the Registrar, based on considerations of efficiency and cheapness, to go either to a public department or a private company. I assure the hon. Member for Chelmsford that there will be no interference with the Registrar's right to take that approach. It will be the Registrar's duty to keep administrative costs to a minimum. The purpose of the scheme is to provide money for authors and not for administrators.
    Mr. Richard Buchanan: It appears from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) that there is a scheme in draft. It would help our consideration of the Bill if my hon. Friend the Minister of State were to enlighten us by telling us what stage the draft has reached.
    Mr. Oakes: A scheme is being prepared. I am in difficulty because the scheme has to be prepared in consultation with a number of bodies. It is being prepared in consultation with authors, probably with publishers and others linked with authors, most certainly with libraries and library associations and individual libraries and librarians. It is difficult for me to deal with a scheme that has not yet been established. It is no use having consultation if a Minister declares what the scheme will be before it has been discussed with the other parties.
    The effect of amendment No. 20 would be to make the Registrar associated in some way with the British Library. I understand what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is trying to do. His purpose is to try to cut administrative costs by utilising the facilities of MARC, the machine readable catalogue, on which new books are entered into the British Library.
    The hon. Member for Chelmsford appreciated the difficulty at once when he said that all books are catalogued on MARC whereas an author has to register. Therefore, the two catalogues do not necessarily coincide. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Registrar, if he sees the need to do so and I feel sure that he will, will use the information available at the British Library. He may obtain copies of the computerised records for his own purposes.
    From the point of view of realising a financial saving, we would achieve nothing by giving effect to amendment No. 20. I have explained that the new clause and the amendments would not save any money. I have explained that there would be difficulty in a private company administering taxpayers' money. In the light of my explanation, I hope that hon. Members, having thoroughly explored the position in Committee and in the House, will feel able to withdraw the new clause and the amendments.
    Mr. Holland: First, I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) for missing his opening remarks. I was delayed by my activities on the Committee of Selection. It may be that the Committee's activities will be a great disappointment to many of my hon. Friends when tomorrow they receive their notifications.
    1452
    I must advise my hon. Friends that I fear that I am to be a slight disappointment to them. I am not altogether in support of what my hon. Friends are trying to do by means of new clause No. 1. It seems that they are trying to replace a quasi autonomous national Government organisation, with which we are now extremely familiar, with a quasi autonomous non-Government organisation. I know that there would be marginal advantages to the extent that the new clause might remove the potential sin of ministerial patronage. It would, if my hon. Friends are right, be slightly less expensive than the full governmental quango. However, it does not deal with all the other disadvantages of quangos, such as lack of accountability to the House and the inherent disadvantages of a body beyond the reach of Parliament that exercises power beyond the reach of Parliament.
    We should closely consider all suggestions leading to the creation of new official bodies. Until a few years ago the appearance of an official body in legislation was a rare event. The idea was"Let us set up an official body to do the job in an impartial and non-political way. What a spendid idea that is." Once or twice a year a new quango would be born, to the plaudits of everybody.
    Those preparing and drafting legislation came to the conclusion that the way to achieve popularity, to solve problems and to take some of the responsibility off the backs of Ministers must be to introduce impartial official bodies beyond the reach of Parliament. We have now reached the stage when every new Bill must have at least one more quango. Some Bills have several. It is to be regretted that hon. Members on both sides of the House condone the practice and acquiesce in the quango explosion. The time has come when Back-Bench Members must band together to exert the authority of the House against an Executive that appears to be intent on its destruction.
    That is not such nonsense as it may sound. Every new, unrepresentative and unelected quango—and the Registrar organisation proposed in the Bill is one of them—diminishes the power and the authority of Parliament. If the administration of the scheme remains in the

    1453
    hands of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Minister remains answerable to Parliament and the scheme remains broadly within the control of Parliament. There is precedent for this. If it is farmed out to a quango, we lose control. As the Minister said a few minutes ago, the Registrar will be answerable for the administration of the scheme, not the Minister and not Parliament.
    5.0 p.m.
    I come to the Bill too late to draft amendments on Report, but I see now how necessary they are. As we all know from personal experience, it is not possible for Members to scrutinise every piece of legislation that comes before the House. There is far too much legislation. It is an occupational hazard that from time to time we miss Bills that we really ought to scrutinise.
    I therefore appeal to the House to be vigilant, so that each of us, as we subject to scrutiny those Bills which fall within our normal sphere of interest, may be alert to the danger of proliferating quangos. Let us serve notice on this Government and the next Government that this House will not have its authority eroded in this way.
    Life continued for many hundreds of years in this country without these bodies —and certainly without all the bodies not yet set up, and without many that have already been set up. Let us be firmly convinced of the need before we set up any more of them. We could start with the quango in this Bill. At this late stage, the only way to achieve our objective of bringing the power back to this House and back to the Minister would be to persuade the Government to redraft or our friends in another place to amend the Bill suitably, or to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill in order to give the Government an opportunity to introduce a new Bill later in the Session. The Government have very little legislation and there will be plenty of time in which to do it.
    I regret that I cannot support wholeheartedly the birth of a quasi-autonomous non-Government organisation just to replace a national Government organisation. Unless the Government can offer a suitable alternative method of administering the scheme, within the reach and control of Parliament—that is my main theme—
    1454
    I may well feel bound to vote for the new clause as a protest, should my hon. Friends decide to press it to a vote.
    Mr. Buchanan: On Second Reading I indicated my association with libraries, and I hope that that will be borne in mind in relation to any intervention that I make today.
    I stressed on Second Reading that librarians were falsely accused of trying to torpedo the public lending right. Librarians, like everyone else, want justice for authors. My right hon. and hon. Friends have repeated that objective from the Front Bench. They have said that they want justice for authors. In concluding my speech on Second Reading I said:
    " I repeat that 1 am in agreement with the principle that authors should be properly paid, but the proposals in the Bill are unsoundly based and, if passed unamended, would not represent a proper remedy to the authors' problem."—[Official Report, 10th November 1978; Vol. 957, col. 1382.]
    That still remains the case, and the whirlwind passage of the Bill through the Committee has left some of us breathless. I can understand the point made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), in that he is trying to reduce the cost of administration. This aspect is troubling all of us. The cost of administration, running up to £600,000 out of £2 million, is quite preposterous.
    Although I cannot support new clause No. 1, I have great sympathy with amendment No. 20, which seems to introduce a principle of national co-ordination. I doubt whether the British Library could undertake the administration of it, but the proposal in that amendment runs very close to the proposal of the metropolitan associations, which indicated that by far the best way of doing this would be to pay on the books purchased, thus saving all the administration that will be necessary through the Registrar and his 45 assistants and the administration that will have to go on through the 70 recording points.
    The machine readable catalogue could be used to facilitate the proposal indicated in amendment No. 20. It would be much more economical and would, in the long run, leave much more of the money available for payment to authors. Much will he said about authors here, there and

    1455
    everywhere, but if we are serious about helping authors we ought to try to cut down the tremendous cost of the administration that is vested in the Bill. For that reason, I am very much attuned to supporting amendment No. 20.
    Mr. Ian Sproat (Aberdeen, South): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), because he speaks from a very deep knowledge of the library world, and the knowledge of librarians—of the Library Association—has been ignored so far.
    If one had to suggest the categories into which those connected with books outside of this House fall, one might say that most authors and most publishers ate in favour of public lending right and that most librarians and most booksellets are against. I may be wrong in supporting the concluding words of the hon. Member for Springburn in his Second Reading speech and in thinking that the Bill is"unsoundly based ", but I do not think that I am wrong. The other side is very powerfully represented in numbers outside this House, certainly to the same extent as the proponents of the Bill in this House, and yet so far the views of the other side have received very little expression in this place.
    I believe that there were 19 speeches on Second Reading, of which five were against and 14 in favour of the Bill. In spite of that, we had only one Member out of 16 on the Committee, for reasons that I quite accept. But it is a fact that the attitude expressed by the hon. Member for Springburn has not been expressed forcefully enough in this House. It has not been expressed forcefully enough to the Minister.
    I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and I sat through the Committee proceedings in 1976. At that time we were struck by the fact that the hon. Lady who was then in charge of the Bill, the Under-Secretary of State, started completely in favour of the Bill—as I presume the Minister of State still is—but by the end of it she was no longer advancing the same argument. She even admitted that she no longer maintained her first arguments in Committee—for example, the argument that high borrowing meant low sales, which underpin the Writers' Action Group case. She said that she accepted,
    1456
    after all the argument, that this was no longer true. That was a classic librarians' argument, if I may put it in that way. Therefore, I am particularly glad that the hon. Member for Springburn has come into the debate at this stage. I very much hope that we shall have his very important voice raised continually throughout the debate on the subject.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My recollection differs slightly from that of the hon. Member. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Minister reversed her position quite in the way that he suggests. What she said—and I think it is entirely true—is that at the moment libraries are very large purchasers of books. I think that she agreed, when the point was put to her, that at the moment libraries are perhaps the largest purchasers of books.
    Mr. Sproat: No doubt we can all refresh our memories by looking back at the Hansard reports of the previous Committees, but I seem to recall the Under-Secretary of State saying, in effect,"It is not my contention that high borrowings mean low sales to authors ".
    In short, she accepted what would be called in shorthand the"showcase argument, namely, that libraries would show people who might otherwise not have thought of borrowing books the excellence of those books. This meant that people then went out and bought books for themselves. It is a well-known argument. I have read the many words spoken in the two sittings in Committee and I do not recall any advance in this argument. It is, however, a classic component of this long argument that where there are excellent libraries we find high book sales precisely because the excellence of the libraries promotes sales. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) will confirm that Cambridge is a good example of this, as might be Oxford, Southampton or Aberdeen.
    Mr. Holland: It is common sense.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) rightly says, and I am happy to believe it, that it is common sense. There is a mutual stimulus between borrowing and buying, just as the playing of records on radio does not stop people buying records. That is the way it works.

    1457
    To save time, I will merely deal with three of the seven amendments. I want to speak about new clause No. 1. I should like to make some remarks in amplification of amendment No. 20, for which the hon. Member for Springburn has indicated some qualifying support, and I should like to say a few words on amendment No. 64, which deals with the number of civil servants to be employed in this new quango. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Carlton is present because he is the man, above all, who has alerted the House to the dangers inherent in the quango explosion. His presence here shows that he recognises, as I hope we all do, that another quango is precisely what we are setting up here. All the virtues, but also all the vices, which attach to quangos attach to this new commission or authority, or whatever it is to be called.
    Mr. Holland: My hon. Friend seems to be making the point that there is something strange in a new quango being set up by this legislation. I remind him that in practically every Bill that has come before the House this year at least one new body has been set up.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I wish it were not so, but the fact that it is is a greater cause for sadness. If we can now do something to diminish the power of the quango—we may not abolish it entirely, though that would be my hope—we will draw some of the teeth of this new body.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) wants the computer facilities which will be necessary put out to tender. As a principle, that is right. I disagree completely with the Minister of State, who says that by putting it to tender we will bring in private business and that will be Intolerable. I will deal with that argument later. My hon. Friend believes that one of the most offensive principles of this Bill—not the most offensive, but what might be called one of the second division offensive principles—is the cost: not just the fact that it will cost £2 million, but the way in which this money is to be spent.
    5.15 p.m.
    When I say that the cost is wrong, I defy anybody, including the Minister of State, to justify the spending of £2 million
    1458
    to give the average author £12. The ratio between £2 million and £12 is absurd, however much one agrees with PLR. The Minister of State showed a proper regard for the expenditure of public funds when he said that if we gave it to a private company this money might be misused or lost. If he felt that so sharply—it was the only argument he advanced, so he must have felt it—surely he feels the more sharply the fact that £2 million of public money is to be spent in order to give authors £12.
    It will not even give them £12 because, as was said during the Second Reading debate, tax has to come off that £12. What my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham also forgot is the fact that literary agents will be getting their claws into this money. We will be helping not just authors but publishers who will then not have to give their authors so much money because it will be coming from the Treasury. So, for £n we shall probably pay authors under £10 a year.
    Mr. Philip Goodhart: As my hon. Friend is surely aware, authors do not on the whole write books that are equally popular. What happens is that a few authors write books which sell in tens of thousands and many authors write books which sell very few copies. These are taken out of libraries very infrequently. So under the scheme a comparatively small number of authors will draw substantial sums, whereas the average author will get far less than £12 He will be lucky to get 50p.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend's opening hypothesis cannot be faulted. Many authors make much money and many make little. One of the objections is the fact that we are giving rich authors more money. That is a principal objection of mine to the way in which this £2 million is to be spent.
    We are talking about the cost of 400 kidney machines. We are always told that we cannot have more kidney machines because there is not enough money. Yet along comes an articulate and elitist body of rich authors and they get £2 million out of the Government just like that. I do not know why it should be so much easier for rich and healthy authors to get money like this from the Government than for sick persons in need of kidney machines, but the authors have

    1459
    managed it so far. One of our duties is to see that a proper sense of social priority is established. I do not believe that authors, rich or poor, rank at the top of the list of those who need Government help.
    I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is back again, as he will appreciate this point. We are to spend £2 million to give the average author £12, though it may be less. We know that one of the points of this Bill in the eyes of its progenitors—I think the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) likes to be known as the father of the Bill—
    Mr. Ridley: Who is the mother?
    Mr. Sproat: Perhaps my hon. Friend may care to speculate about that when he replies to the debate.
    If the aim of the Bill is to make an appreciable difference in the standard of living of authors—which £12 will not, but a greater sum might—what kind of sum are we talking about? At the minimum, we are talking about £1,000 a year. If the infinite expansion of this quango is to be such as to provide authors with £1,000 a year, we are multiplying by 100 the amount which must be put in. We are talking about a kind of British Leyland of the literary world. We shall have to provide about £200 million to give the average author £1,000—and £1,000 today is not all that much
    The distribution of cash as set out in this scheme—viz, £2 million of public expenditure for £10 to the average author per year—is crazy. But if we are to improve it along the lines suggested by the progenitors of the Bill—viz, a direct and substantial improvement in their standard of living—we are talking about a sum so gigantic, £200 million, that surely not even the most rabid supporter of the principle of the Bill could agree with it at a time of financial stringency or, indeed, at a time of financial lavishment. I suggest that even this Government might be able to find better ways of spending £200 million than on a lot of authors, many of whom are extremely rich and part-time anyway. That is one of the prime objections to the way in which the financial structure is organised.
    Another point concerns the £600,000 to be spent on administration. That is about
    1460
    30 per cent. of the total sum available. It is absolutely crazy. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) is not present. During the course of the last Bill one of the most valuable services which he performed in Committee was to tell us what happened in the Performing Right Society. I think that my hon. Friend is a musician and used to lead a band. Every time he played a particular melody, he would get in touch with the Performing Right Society and it would ensure that a certain amount of money for the performance of that melody went to the composer. I understand that is the principle upon which the Performing Right Society works. Yet the Performing Right Society, which I understand is not a Government body, has administrative costs—I am open to correction—which are less than half of what the Government are proposing here.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton rightly talked about quangos. He has vast knowledge of the whole miserable area of quangos. I suggest that to set up a new body to deal with authors' rights which takes up 30 per cent. of the money available when the Performing Right Society can do a similar job for less than half that amount is ludicrous. Surely that should start bells ringing in Whitehall.
    Mr. Ridley: No.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend indicates that it does not set bells ringing in Whitehall.
    Mr. Ridley: They do not care.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend may be right. At least, it is our job and duty to make them care. We must din into the heads of Ministers that, if they have so much money to spare for this area, they might spare a little more for other areas. I have already mentioned kidney machines.
    Mr. Holland: Is my hon. Friend sure that he has made the point clear enough to the House? There is a distinction to be drawn between the total amounts spent on administration by each type of body. In some instances it is public money and in others it is money provided by the industry or industries concerned. Is not that an important point?
    Mr. Sproat: It is a very important point. It relates to what my hon. Friend

    1461
    the Member for Carlton mentioned earlier, which the Minister of State did not seem to take on board. The original quangos in the United States, of which this is a kind of bastard offshoot, were private bodies. Presumably they were under stricter financial control than this PLR authority. That is the whole point. People ask"What are quangos?"I am open to correction, but I understand that originally quangos were non-governmental bodies, whereas they are now national Government bodies. My hon. Friend was entirely right to draw that distinction.
    Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend referred earlier to the Performing Right Society and compared it favourably, as I understand it, with the proposed Registrar on the question of the cost of administration. If we are to consider quangos, I suggest that the Performing Right Society is not a classic example which we would wish to emulate. Does my hon. Friend agree that that body, which was set up with statutory backing, has been virtually unanswerable on many aspects of its affairs? Considerable efforts have been made by individuals to try to change the voting rights in the PRS and many questions have been asked about loans to its executives. It has been difficult for individual members to produce the changes that they wanted. Indeed, it has been virtually impossible for Members of Parliament to question Ministers on those matters. Is not that a classic example of a quango at work?
    Mr. Sproat: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham has raised that matter. I should not like the House to be under any misapprehension regarding what I said about the Performing Right Society and its relationship to the proposed public lending right authority, or whatever it is to be called, which we are to set up. I do not—and I hope I did not—set myself up as a great defender of the Performing Right Society, because frankly I know nothing about it. I do not know anything more about it than—I did not stop speaking, so my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge should not laugh too quickly—what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter told us in the Committee, which was the percentage that was spent on administration, and what I have read in various publications about the problems that it is having re-
    1462
    garding loans, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham reminded us.
    I am not defending the Performing Right Society other than to say that if it can keep its expenses down to 12½ per cent., or whatever it is, I fail to see why the Government should set off by saying that administrative expenses for this authority could be 30 per cent. or slightly more. That was the point that I was making. Perhaps we may come back to other aspects of the Performing Right Society and its extremely illuminating parallel later. I do not know how illuminating it is, but at least it provides us with some parallel or comparison to put against this body which the Government are proposing to set up here.
    The hon. Member for Putney, the father of the Bill, in his few interpolations in Committee, was rather offensive to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. If I remember rightly, he called them barmy. I do not know whether that is a parliamentary expression, but it certainly sheds a new light on parental responsibility. I think that we all take with a considerable pinch of salt the knowledge and wisdom of the hon. Member for Putney on this subject.
    My hon. Friends may remember that the father of the Bill was the man who delivered himself of the immortal maxim in a Government circular that any work of 800 pages must be worth more than a mere essay. As far as I am concerned, that is almost the ultimate philistinism. Yet there sits the father of the Bill. Again, today, out of the bonded warehouse of his knowledge, he regaled us of the time when he was the Minister who put public lending right on the road down which we are still walking.
    The hon. Member for Putney made a rather more moderate intervention today. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, he suggested that the Registrar could put out to public tender if he wished. But the Minister of State contradicted his hon. Friend and said that that would be blasphemous in Civil Service terms because of the public money aspect.
    Where I disagree with the hon. Member for Putney on this occasion is that it is not just a case of the Registrar being

    1463
    able to put out to public tender the administration of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury wants a guarantee that he must put it out to public tender so that there will not be any suspicion of the Government perhaps not liking this company or another. The hon. Member for Putney mentioned International Computers Limited, in his own constituency, as being a company which might get the contract. Let us suppose that just before the Registrar was about to put out the tender, International Computers Limited were to pay its employees a 17 per cent. wage rise. Would the Minister of State then jump up and say"Ah, we all know that ICL has submitted the lowest tender, which means that we could save the taxpayer another £10,000 or give another £10,000 to the authors, but it is breaching Government policy and it will not get this contract any more than Ford will supply Government cars "? That is exactly a parallel situation. Therefore, in those circumstances, 1CL will not have its tender accepted.
    5.30 p.m.
    That is the sort of muddy road down which we are walking. That is why I back completely my hon. Friend's new clause, because he said that the administration of the system must go out to tender. If this is taken in conjunction with the second part of the new clause—that it has to be laid before Parliament—we will know exactly what is going on. I believe that in a later amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham requires all these sorts of details to be laid before the House of Commons so that we know exactly what the Registrar gets up to if this Bill comes into being.
    I shall not go into all the general arguments against quangos which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton so rightly, by implication, put before the House. There is the"jobs for the boys"aspect. Who would be the Registrar? Perhaps some aesthetic trade unionist reaching the age of 65, with an assistant to help him because he does not know very much about books. Or it might be the hon. Member for Putney. Perhaps he thinks himself extremely suitable not only to be the father but also to bring up the child. What could be more suitable in some ways? I do not know how much the hon.
    1464
    Gentleman knows about books, especially when one thinks of his famous maxim that a work of 800 pages—one thinks of"Forever Amber "—is almost worth more than any much shorter work—one thinks of"Torrents of Spring by Turgenev. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman still attaches himself to that maxim, but I shall not labour the point at this stage. Perhaps we can return to it later.
    Mr. Ridley: I tried to facilitate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) having an opportunity to become Registrar by removing the disqualification clause in the schedule which prevented hon. Members from accepting the post, but the hon. Gentleman did not support me. I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks that that is because the hon. Gentleman does not want to be Registrar or whether he thinks that Putney is such a rocky seat that disqualification will not worry him anyway?
    Mr. Sproat: I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that the hon. Member for Putney is not standing again in any case. Therefore, the second of my hon. Friend's options falls.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I shall not bother to correct many of the other massive inaccuracies in which the hon. Gentleman has indulged, except to deny them in a totally blanket fashion, but I must specifically deny the suggestion that I do not intend to stand again for Putney. I most certainly do.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. May I suggest to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) that he confines himself more specifically to the contents of the new clause?
    Mr. Sproat: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge tells me that he was guilty of wishful thinking. The only reason why I mention the hon. Member for Putney was his interesting suggestion, for which I give him credit because it went further than the Minister, that the Registrar would be able to put this out to tender. That was the point of bringing in the father of the Bill.
    Another point on which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury will elaborate further relates to the extraordinary doctrine propounded by the Minister that one cannot

    1465
    give public money to private companies. I thought that that was what section 7 of the Industry Act was all about. Perhaps it is about to be repealed. As my hon. Friend said, every road which has ever rolled over the acres of this green country has been built by private enterprise. Is there now to be set up a nationalised body, or is every council house to be built by corporation workers in future?
    This sounds ridiculous, but that is what was said—that one cannot give public money to private companies. The Minister does not seem to worry about giving public money to public companies. The shining example of British Leyland hovers over all our minds on this occasion. That does not seem to worry the hon. Gentleman. But the idea that one should not seek for the lowest tender because it might be a private company and that money given to the private company might go astray seems to me to hypothecate the most extraordinary and unlikely series of coincidences. It is certainly far more likely that the money would go astray if it was given to nationalised companies.
    Another point I should like to emphasise with regard to the offering of competitive tenders is that we are trying, and will continue to try, to save money. If £2 million is to be given to literary people, let it at least go to the people who write books. I have already indicated that publishers will no doubt get their sticky fingers on it. I know that literary agents will get their fingers on it, because the agent has not been born who never took less than 10 per cent. of any money which went to one of his authors —or, if he has, perhaps someone would introduce me to him.
    Therefore, for a start, we are subsidising publishers, agents and rich authors. That is another amendment to which we shall come. It is just as well that hon. Members see this in perspective.
    Mr. Stanley Cohen: And printers.
    Mr. Sproat: Printers might be a worthier cause. I think that amendment No. 4 deals with this matter and with book illustrators and so on. The point is that we should save what money we can. If £10,000 or whatever is to be saved, let us at least give it to the writers of the books. I do not think that they receive
    1466
    injustice, but, if injustice there be, at least let the money go to them. Let it not go to the administration and its £600,000 a year.
    Mr. Ridley: Is my hon. Friend aware that it would pay every author to give up writing books in order to try to get on to the staff of the quango, because under the Bill all 40 members will be paid more than any author?
    Mr. Sproat: That is true. If I were a poor author as opposed to being a poor Member of Parliament, I might say that this public lending right gives me £10 a year whereas it will give the Registrar £10,000 a year, which no doubt will be his salary, which will go up, index-linked, year after year.
    Mr. Moate: Much more.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend says"much more ". I was putting it modestly. But that it just another example of the injustice which the Bill enshrines.
    However, I want to pass on to other parts of this interesting series of amendments. I turn my attention to amendment No. 20 which relates to the British Library. The hon. Member for Putney gave an interesting, if all too brief, dissertation on the technical manner in which magnetic pens, bar codes and all the rest worked. Since I have put down this amendment in relation to the British Library and the British National Bibliography, or BNB as it is known, in somewhat technical terms, perhaps I had better say exactly what I mean.
    I should like to quote from the little leaflet which goes together with the subscription rates of the British Library so that the House may know exactly what this means:
    " British National Bibliography (BNB). Started in 1950, it is a weekly list of new British books arranged according to the Dewey Decimal Classification, with full author title and subject indexes. Now listing over 36,000 items a year, BNB is also published in two interim cumulations and an annual cumulation. Multi-annual Indexes and Subject Catalogues are available for three and five year periods from 1950. BNB is used for book selection, reference work and as a guide to cataloguing and classifications."
    " Reference books"is the key in relation to the Bill.
    In short, that is exactly what will be required. minus all the books that do

    1467
    not fall within the remit of the Bill. It includes reference books. The Bill does not include them, but that does not invalidate it, as the Minister of State seemed to suggest. He said that because the list contained more books than we shall be dealing with, the total list was invalidated. That is not so. If the list did not contain more books it would be invalidated because it could not then contain all the books that might be necessary.
    The list contains 99 per cent. of the new titles which are published in the country each year, including new editions of old works. For instance, a new edition of a book by Jane Austen published by the Oxford University Press would be included in the BNB list.
    The MARC service which is offered by the British Library uses magnetic tapes comprising all BNB MARC records which are sent weekly to subscribing libraries.
    My suggestion is not that this amendment is necessarily the right way to calculate the way that public lending right should be carried out but that it is a better and a cheaper way. It is a way which I understand the technical investigation group did not examine. I stand to be corrected.
    Will the Minister say specifically whether the TIG investigated that method? If the Minister does not answer, he will find that we are inclined to be a little less co-operative than we are at present. I remind the Minister that we are on the Report stage of the Bill. The Minister has a duty to the House to answer the questions. For various reasons, the Bill had a Committee stage the like of which no Bill has had for a long time. Only one hon. Member opposed the Bill throughout the Committee. The Minister had an easy time. He should now bend his mind to answering the questions that arise out of the Bill. I want the answer to a simple question. Later we might ask more difficult questions. Did the TIG consider this matter; if not, why not?
    The British Library has an excellent computer storage of all book titles. We know that the 72 libraries, by whatever method, will check the books that are taken out. Surely matching those selected library tapes with the British Library tapes and its computer service would be
    1468
    simpler than the method described by the hon. Member for Putney. He said that tapes would move from the British Library to the Registrar and the Registrar would then send them elsewhere.
    If we used the British Library, there would be no need to set up a new operation. We could have a Registrar, but he could be located in the British Library rather than in expensive premises in Grosvenor Place, London, SW1, where office space is £20 a sq. ft. The Registrar could be located in a building which is owned by the State. Why should we not use the British Library register and computers? The Minister of State's explanation was not satisfactory. He should have waited to see what other hon. Members had to say.
    The advantages involved in such a scheme should have been mentioned in Committee. The Committee would have been a better place to argue these matters. Unfortunately, I was not on the Committee and only one hon. Member out of 16 was opposed to the Bill. Therefore, we have no choice but to argue these points at this stage of the Bill.
    5.45 p.m.
    If the Minister were to avail himself of this solution, or a solution along these lines, there would be several advantages. First, there would be no need for new premises. Perhaps that is a small consideration. But I remember how the nationalised shipbuilding industry set itself up within a couple of miles of the House of Commons. The British Steel Corporation has expensive premises in London. The British National Oil Corporation has expensive and extensive premises in Glasgow and Aberdeen as well as in London. There would be a saving by using the excellent British Library.
    Secondly, we should not need so many extra staff. If we used the computer and staff facilities of the British Library, there would be a saving in staff and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, that is one of our main purposes, in trying to hone the Bill down.
    There could also be a saving because the BNB already has a list of the 36,000 new titles which are published each year. My suggestion would also spread out the cost of the computers used by the British Library. If they were given more work.

    1469
    there would be a saving and an amortisation of the cost for the library.
    Who can tell the exact amount of the possible saving? One librarian has told me that £250,000 could be saved if we used the British Library's facilities. That is a substantial slice of £600,000. I am not in the position to justify that amount, but the president of the Library Association suggested that sum.
    I hope that before these proceedings are through the Minister of State will be able to justify more sharply the £600,000 which is what he says is the likely administrative cost. I understood that when he responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham the Minister said that the lion's share would go to the libraries because of the extra expense to which they were put.
    Mr. Moate: It was I who used the phrase"lion's share"and the Minister agreed with me.
    Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said it was the"lion's share ". I agreed and said that a significant amount would go to the libraries.
    Mr. Sproat: I have always understood that lions get over half an amount. That means that we are talking about £300,000 which will go to the libraries.
    In Committee it was said that a fully panoplied civil servant, with his office space, salary and indexed-linked pension and the rest, costs the taxpayer about £10,000 a year. If there are 35 civil servants—there could be 40 according to the Government—at £10,000 a year that makes nonsense of the mathematics. The lion's cubs' share, or the minimum amount involved, is £300,000. The Government suggest that the minimum number of civil servants is 35 at £10,000 a year. That grosses out at more than the Government have calculated, and it is before we even start on the other expenses.
    The Minister mentioned another expense, that of paying the computer companies. That does not even come into the calculation. We are discussing only the first group of amendments, and we find that the Government cannot even do their mathematics properly. I hope that we shall hear more about that as the Bill proceeds.
    1470
    I turn now, very briefly, to the other amendment which I tabled which is included in this group of amendments, namely, the one on the number of civil servants. The Government, as I have already pointed out, say that the number of civil servants necessary to carry this Bill into effect will be between 35 and 40. I suppose that 35 to 40 is not a very great percentage discrepancy. I should be interested to know what the Minister envisages those 35 to 40 civil servants doing.
    What I am suggesting in the amendment is that the number of civil servants should not be 35, or any number between that and 40, but 10. I shall attempt to justify why. I think that 10 is a more reasonable number, both in terms of the general British taxpayer who will have to foot the bill for this public lending right authority and even for authors.
    Given that the principle is right—which I do not grant—and that the money should go to authors, I am, in my amendment, advancing the case of the authors by suggesting that less money should be spent on civil servants, thus freeing more money for the authors.
    Why do we need 35 to 40 civil servants? It cannot be because of the work that is done in the libraries. It cannot be because of what the hon. Member for Putney regaled us with, namely, the interesting electronic way in which all this recording will be done, the ticking off of the books, the transferring on to tapes, and the posting of the tapes. None of that will be done by these 35 to 40 civil servants. That will all be done by the library staff.
    What exactly are these 35 to 40 civil servants supposed to do? What is the basis on which the Government say"We want 35 people, each costing the taxpayer £10,000 a year "? That is a lot of money. What do we know that we have got? We know that there will be a Registrar. Exactly what he will do, apart from oversee the whole, we are not sure. No doubt he will be a kind of figurehead. When we have to entertain cultural delegations from Bulgaria and the junior Minister at the Foreign Office does not know who on earth he can call upon to sit next to the non-English-speaking poet who is the pride of Bulgaria, no doubt he will call up the Registrar and say"You are a literary man. Come along ". So that will

    1471
    be something for him to do. That will be a figurehead function for the Registrar.
    Of course, the Registrar will have one important and specific duty to perform which springs out of the Bill. There will no doubt be others about which the Minister can tell us, but one that springs out of the Bill is that it will be up to the Registrar to take responsibility regarding which authors are allowed to go on the list. This vital area concerns the question of authors living abroad, foreign authors, British authors living in tax havens, and so on, and authors of reference works, joint authors, compilers, editors or illustrators of books, 90 per cent. of which consist of illustrations. These are the sorts of people we shall consider in a further amendment.
    It will be up to the Registrar to decide whether they can go on the list and their heirs thereafter can have 50 years of benefit. So it is a very important job. The Registrar will be deciding a high standard of living or a rather less high standard of living for many people for many years. That will be his job.
    In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury —I am sorry that I heard only a few of the many words of wisdom which dropped from his lips in Committee—made some interesting points about censorship. I think that we became involved in the question of pornography or racially discriminatory books. Perhaps the hon. Member for Springburn, with his knowledge of libraries, will care to comment on this.
    As I understand it,"Biggles ", a creation of Captain W. E. Johns, is no longer allowed on the shelves of certain libraries in the state of South Australia. I have nothing against"Biggles ". He was one of my heroes of my boyhood. I loved the"Biggles"books. But will librarians now be able to say"We will not allow this author on our shelves "? The answer is"Yes ", because under the present system local authorities can decide the books that will be allowed to rest on their shelves.
    Let us suppose that a local authority decides that it will not allow on its library shelves the works of Captain W. E. Johns. Perhaps I should think of another example, because the good captain is, alas, dead. There will be other live authors
    1472
    whose books will be removed from the shelves. Suppose an outhor was removed from the shelves of one of the 72 libraries selected for deciding how the public lending right should be distributed. This is a serious point.
    Let us suppose that W. E. Johns, for the sake of argument, were still alive. I select him because his books have been banned. This is not a hypothesis; it is a reality. He has been banned from library shelves. I believe that the"Just William"books have been banned from certain libraries in this country.
    If librarians or local authorities ban from the shelves of certain libraries the works of certain authors, what will the Registrar do about it? How will he then be able to compute how much money should go to a particular author? I do not know the answer. Nobody mentioned it in Committee; the Committee stage was so short. I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, had he not been so breathless, would have done so.
    Here is a very important practical point. Local authorities have the right to ban certain authors, and if they do so in only selected libraries how do we then judge how much of the public lending right should go to such particular authors? There is another injustice.
    I do not suppose that many authors would be banned. I would not ban any of them, but none the less some are banned. If they are banned, that detracts from their ability to benefit under the Bill. This is, perhaps, a matter which we can clear up later, but certainly deciding which author will be allowed on the list is a very important power for the Registrar.
    Therefore, that is the first person out of the 40. We have accounted for one so far. Presumably there will be a secretary, so that is two. The secretary will write letters to the libraries saying"Thank you for sending us your magnetic tapes. We have now despatched them to the computer company." The secretary will no doubt be sending the computer tapes on to the computer company, or to the British Library if my amendment No. 20 were to be accepted.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If the hon. Gentleman is to embark upon speculation about the duties of the Registrar, he need go no

    1473
    further and take up any more time of the House because they are all set out in some detail on page 4 of the first report of the technical investigation group. If he had read those before he came into the Chamber, he could have saved himself and the rest of us a good deal of time.
    Mr. Sproat: This is a very interesting gathering. We all know that the Government like to impose upon people sanctions to which Parliament has not given approval. We know that many things go on underneath the counter. That is the way the Labour Government work. But the idea that one has to read every paragraph of some report produced by the hon. Member when he was temporarily a Minister at the Department of Education and Science a few years ago it absolute nonsense. What we are discussing is this Bill.
    The point I raised was that the books of certain authors are taken off the shelves in certain libraries because certain public authorities care to exercise censorship. I asked a specific question:"How would such an author get his just deserts?" In the case of"Just William"or"Biggles ", were Richmal Crompton and W. E. Johns still alive, how would they benefit? It is no use pointing to some report by the technical investigation group and saying that that is how it would happen. We are not discussing the report of the TIG here; we are discussing the Bill. In the Bill it does not say what would be done, and this House has a right to know.
    In my search for some 40 people—I will not go on speculating about who they might be—the Registrar is certainly the only person of whom we know. Presumably there will be an accountant to send out cheques, to work out exactly how much is owed and to get the information back from the computer tapes.
    I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends have read"Vote for Love"by Barbara Cartland. It is a very interesting study of the suffragette movement and how a woman fell in love with a Member of Parliament and how it changed her views on the subject of votes for women. That is perhaps a book that hon. Members might like to read. I have not read a great gamut of Barbara Cartland's works, but she is a very popular author, and no doubt somebody will have to work out how often her books
    1474
    have been taken out and how much she is owed. Therefore, we shall have an accountant to decide all that.
    So far, I have accounted for three people—the Registrar, his secretary and an accountant, or somebody who sends out the cheques.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is surely making rather heavy weather of this matter. There will be a careers officer for a start, to make sure that there is an adequate promotion structure within the quango. Then there will be a training officer. Then there will be a training college, probably somewhere up the Thames valley, I would think, where the staff will go for six-month training courses on a specially agreed programme. By the time that they have all, first, been promoted and, secondly, been trained, the number concerned in that will reach fairly near 40 before anyone is left to do any work.
    Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Holland: Probably the busiest executive of all will be the recruitment officer.
    Mr. Sproat: I bow to the superior wisdom, foresight and prescience of my hon. Friends. I have managed to find four people—not 40, which is what the Government are saying. So we still lack about 36 people. But perhaps, as my hon. Friend suggests, that is how the number will be made up.
    This is a serious question: how on earth will this group employ 40 civil servants? I have suggested five. Generously, I shall double it and make it 10. Ten is the number I have in my memory.
    I close these few brief remarks. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury on new clause No. 1. I hope that he will return to the argument. I must say that one abuses language to call the remarks uttered by the Minister of State an argument, but I hope that my hon. Friend will return to that, such as it was.
    I believe that the British Library has a much larger function to exercise in this matter than the Government appear even to have considered, let alone to have considered and rejected. I think that the

    1475
    number of civil servants, 40, even by the methods which the Government themselves propose in the Bill, is grotesquely high. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will feel called upon to press this matter to a Division later tonight.
    Mr. Moate: Perhaps I may say how much I enjoyed listening to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). He expressed very comprehensive arguments with his usual succinctness and brevity.
    I am also pleased to see the presence of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Miss Jackson), who led us so well through the earlier long Committee stage. I hope that her presence here is a sign of how this Bill will also proceed and that it will not finally reach the statute book this Session.
    I regret that at the moment my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), the Shadow Leader of the House, has temporarily had to leave us. He explained why that was so. There was only one point about which I had some doubts in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. He gave credit—if that is the right word—for the paternity of this scheme to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins). My hon. Friend suggested that the hon. Member for Putney was the father of the Bill. But, had my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford been present, I think that he, too, in accordance with his past remarks, would have claimed paternity. There is a dispute.
    In this case I suggest that we need to exercise the wisdom of Solomon. We have two persons claiming the same infant. I suggest that we tear the wretched document in half and give half to the hon. Member for Putney and half to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. Perhaps that would satisfy honour all round and we need have no more of the argument about parentage.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: The judgment of Solomon on the disputed child resulted in the true parent being found, and the child was not torn in half. Whilst I am on my feet, perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), a most distinguished
    1476
    Member, has had a lifelong interest in this matter. I would certainly assign to him the parentage of it.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Perhaps I can clarify this point. I regard my role in this matter as accoucheur, and the person whom I delivered was certainly not the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas).
    Mr. Moate: There we see how right I was to question the credit that my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Putney. It is a matter of some dispute.
    However, be that as it may, it seems that there has been a greater argument about parentage than about what this infant will grow into. Perhaps we as a House of Commons ought to consider far more what the infant will grow up to become rather than who actually gave birth to it.
    The Bill and particularly the matter that we are discussing in this group of amendments do a grave injustice to authors. Far from giving justice to authors, as many of the Bill's supporters have claimed, it is a cause of injustice to authors. It is something of a confidence trick on the authors of this country. It does a disservice to the British library system and to all the libraries throughout the United Kingdom. It is perpetrating something of a nonsense on the British taxpayer that he should be asked to pay an amount of £2 million to set up a scheme, of which one-third will go on administration.
    It does not make sense for the House to set up a scheme that would involve the payment of, at most, an average of £12 to an individual author but at the same time might involve the payment of at least £12,000 for a Registrar, heaven knows what to the assistant registrars, who are actually mentioned in the Bill, and heaven knows how much to the personal assistants to the Registrar and the inevitable secretaries to the personal assistants of the assistant registrars. We are in danger of putting a nonsense on the statute book.
    It is because I believe that the Bill is doing an injustice to authors, to libraries and to taxpayers alike that I have opposed it, will continue to do so, and support the new clause. The new clause at least goes some way towards remedying

    1477
    the situation. It could help authors. In that sense, therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about the way that they have reacted so far to this proposition.
    In a way, it is rather regrettable that the the Minister of State chose to speak so early in the debate. I know that sometimes it is suggested that this is done to help the House, but on this occasion it would have been better for him to have listened to the many arguments that have been advanced from both sides of the House so that he could then deal with those and, perhaps, even change his mind. I submit to the Minister of State that the argument that he put forward was not very strong and that there has been a very strong case instead put by the supporters of the scheme. However, I shall return to those points.
    I want first to deal with a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Putney. He brought to the debate the considerable experience that he gained from his work in setting up the technical investigation group and so on. In many ways we have been deprived of a constructive and detailed debate on much of this legislation. I shall not go into the reasons for that, but very often the supporters of the Bill have sat mute and have not given us the benefit of their experience and opinions. On this occasion, the hon. Member for Putney has been quite helpful.
    Mr. Sprout: He is the only one.
    Mr. Moate: Indeed. Perhaps he is the Bill's only supporter. It is extraordinary that he seems to be the only supporter of the Bill present today. This Bill is supposed to have overwhelming support, apparently, from the Government —indeed, from both Front Benches—but only one person has spoken in support of it. What about the Liberal Party, too? The Liberals are supposed to be in favour of it. Where are the Liberals? However, I shall not be diverted into that matter now.
    I want to deal with a number of the specific points mentioned by the hon. Member for Putney. First, he referred to the way in which the scheme would work in a library itself. He rather surprised me, because I had got the impression that the administrative burden on a library would be very little and that the use of light
    1478
    pens and bar codes would enable the recording of the loan to be done with the minimum of interference with the lending system. However, the way that the hon. Member described it implied that there could be a considerable burden and something of a delay in the handling of the books.
    I am only paraphrasing what the hon. Member said. What he implied was that a librarian would be able to pile up the books until a quiet moment arose later when he or she could then make the necessary entries. That presents a picture of piles of books waiting to be entered into the system. If that is to happen at a busy moment, it is understandable that many librarians would feel that this was a considerable interference in their administration. Therefore, this matter is certainly not as simple or as swift as we are given to understand.
    If the hon. Member for Putney wishes to correct that impression, I shall gladly give way to him. It seems to me that, if there are to be these delays, the cost of administration could be correspondingly greater.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: There is a great problem here. One is torn between a desire not to allow statements which are inaccurate to stand on the record uncorrected and an equal desire not to feed the hon. Gentleman's desire to talk the Bill out. It is a dilemma. But on this occasion I shall help him on one point. It was the estimate of those who were looking into what would happen in libraries, if my memory is correct, that the counting of the books could be done in slack times and that it would not involve a large number of extra staff. There would be a certain number of extra staff, but it was thought that in a small library the work of an additional half-person would be involved and that in a larger library the use would be greater. It was estimated that some additional staff would be involved, but the number would not be enormous.
    Mr. Moate: I can only express the hope that the pile of books will not be allowed to rise so high that half a person will have difficultly in reaching the top. I suspect that there will be severe recruitment problems for small libraries when they approach the local jobcentre and say"We would like some half-librarians "

    1479
    Half-librarians are going to be rather difficult to acquire. Even if the hon. Gentleman is talking about averages, that still represents rather a difficulty, because I think he will find that today one can get only complete persons, even with high unemployment, which will mean a rather larger recruitment than he envisages.
    If extra people are to be needed in these libraries, again we have to examine the costings put forward by the Government. They are already in need of detailed examination. If extra staff are to be needed in the libraries, with the additional cost that that will mean, I suggest that the figure of £600,000 that we have been given will need considerable uprating. I suspect that it is totally inadequate.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to the number of mini-computers that will be needed in the majority of the 72 libraries. Here again, we have not had as much information as we would have liked. I do not think that in our previous proceedings on this subject we went into whether a computer or terminal of some kind would be needed at every library. The impression is now being given that the Registrar would have to make arrangements for the installation of small computers at each sampling point. If that is so, it would be a considerable expense, and the House is entitled to know how much is involved.
    We have been told on previous occasions that more and more libraries are getting computers and that that will facilitate this whole system. It was put forward as a strong argument in favour of the scheme. But the impression that I have been given is that very few libraries have computer systems. One would like to see more—I am sure that such systems are desirable in themselves—but if very few libraries have them so far, that represents either a major impediment to the scheme or a considerable increase in expenditure. Again, the hon. Gentleman tended to play down the cost of the extra computers.
    The hon. Gentleman raised a point which I had not realised. It is that the registering of the loan would be made when the book was returned rather than when it was loaned out. It is an interesting point, and I am sure that he is right when he says that if a book is not returned it will not make a significant im-
    1480
    pact on the sample. On the other hand, one of the causes of the existence of the Bill has been the anger—quite unreasoning, I suggest—that a minority of authors have felt when their books have been loaned out and they have gained nothing for them. I think that they might feel more anger when they find that the person who fails to return a book does so in a way which means that the author will get no payment whatever for the lending out of that book. It seems an injustice that if a book is taken from the library the author gets no money for the loan of it.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Sproat: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) does not agree with the point that the author gets nothing. It is worth pointing out that at every stage the author has benefited from the fact that his book is in a public library. He may not get further benefit from the fact that it is borrowed, but he has already benefited, first, by the fact that he has received 10 per cent. of the price that the library paid for his book—if the book sells 5,000 copies or more it may be 12½ per cent. or more; secondly, he receives the advantage which accrues to many authors, particularly of first novels, that his book might never have been published at all for sale in the retail outlets—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is going very wide indeed of the new clause.
    Mr. Sproat: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am attempting to explain how authors benefit when their books go into the libraries. My hon. Friend said that authors did not benefit from borrowings. I shall give just one more reason from the royalties and economics of publishing. The third benefit is that the libraries provide a showcase which acts as a spur to the sale of books in the shops. Therefore, authors do benefit from borrowings from the libraries.
    Mr. Moate: I am grateful for that emphasis on a point that has been made on a number of occasions but which does not seem to have registered with the supporters of the Bill. Perhaps I can link it with the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), who rightly emphasised that

    1481
    libraries want authors to be properly paid. We all want them to be properly paid. One has to examine what we mean by"properly paid ", but presumably it means their being paid an adequate amount in relation to the merits of the works which they are having published.
    I suspect that there is a strong case for saying that at present many authors are not properly paid. Many are immensely successful and receive great sums of money, but there are many who, although extremely worthy, do not get very much, or enough on which to survive. If we are arguing that case, it is a grotesque travesty of justice to publish a Bill that excludes reference writers who probably do more work for less return than the average novelist.
    There is no justice in a Bill that sets up a scheme whereby the major beneficiaries are the Registrar and his staff, whereas the people who will benefit least are the authors most in need. It is equally an injustice to place this burden —particularly the cost of administration —on the taxpayer when the people who are really responsible for seeing that there is a fair return to the authors do not pay anything. I am referring to the publishers.
    I do not seek to heap coals on the heads of the publishers and to say that they are exploiting authors, but it seems to me that a situation has developed whereby the author is getting less from the publication than he should be, whereas the retailer, the publisher and the printer are probably doing quite well out of it. Perhaps the situation has got out of hand, and the Government should be concentrating on trying to find some way whereby authors get a better return from the market via the publishers rather than producing a puny pathetic scheme like this, which does not help but only pretends to help authors. Where is the justice of a Bill that pays only £12, on average, to authors, if they are lucky, but provides £600,000 at least in expenditure and is to pay handsome salaries to the Registrar and a large staff? Is that what the Bill is about?
    My main concern at the moment is with new clause No. 4 because I believe that it makes a genuine attempt to deal with this major problem. Much of the criticism of
    1482
    the Bill, inside and outside the House, has stemmed from the fact that there is a very high expense ratio, and the only way the Government can reduce that ratio is by increasing the amount of the central fund to an unacceptable level. That is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. I think that it was the present Secretary of State for Trade who said on Second Reading that if I thought that that £2 million would be increased dramatically and quickly I did not understand the Treasury. I take that to mean that we must expect the £2 million level to persist for some years. If it does, this expense ratio will be unacceptable.
    It disappoints me that the Minister of State and other Ministers are so obdurate in refusing any suggestions for improving the workings of the scheme. They seem to think that what they have is perfect. They seem to suggest that the Bill is perfect. Hardly an amendment is accepted, and the Government amendments are of a minor, drafting nature. No significant amendment is to be accepted. The Government believe that they have perfection. I do not believe that.
    The hon. Member for Putney argued that the technical investigation group had many experts, who had produced a scheme, and that that scheme must be right. That argument does not make sense. This is exactly the point at which Parliament should say"Stop. We do not want another quango. We must not let it go further." The hon. Gentleman said that the technical investigation group had gone to an independent firm and secured information in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) suggests.
    That is to misunderstand the point. Of course one can secure the services of experts and obtain independent advice at this point. But that is just the fertiliser that is spread around the land to encourage the quango to grow. Once it has taken root the plant will grow, and after that there is no control over it. My hon. Friend is saying that it is at the point of growth, or even before, that we should step in and insist on new disciplines being imposed upon such a body. Yet the Minister of State is totally obdurate, and no concessions are being made on this matter.
    If no changes are made, we shall see the growth of a large body. It will not

    1483
    be the biggest quango in the land by any means. There are many bigger. But it is another, coming into existence at a time when quangos are being condemned right, left and centre. Yet in a virtually empty House Parliament is allowing another quango to be born. No doubt another will be born tomorrow and another on Monday.
    Mr. Holland: My hon. Friend should add that quangos never wither and die. Therefore, the new ones are added to the total all the time and do not replace others.
    Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am very pleased that he is present, because I should like to refer to the excellent publication that he produced—we are all indebted to him for it—called"The Quango Explosion ", which contains very helpful information. It has an ISBN number, so presumably it will qualify for public lending right if my hon. Friend lodges it in a library.
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend must appreciate that the Registrar will certainly not accept that book, because it questions quangos. There is no doubt that it will be outlawed from library shelves by every library, because it attacks the quango system.
    Mr. Moate: I am fascinated by the thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) may join the distinguished ranks of those whose books have been banned from library shelves. We have heard of the banning of the"Biggles"books by W. E. Johns. I believe that Enid Blyton books were once banned in my constituency, presumably because Noddy would have an evil influence on the people who live there. I do not know whether the Registrar would have that power. Nevertheless, if my hon. Friend's book reached the library it would qualify for public lending right.
    My hon. Friend gave some very helpful information in his book, and I use that information to question some of the figures that we have been given. We have been told that 35 to 40 staff will cost the lion's share of £600,000. I wonder whether that is a true figure. I suspect that the amount could be much higher. We have not been given a breakdown of
    1484
    costs, so if we are to analyse whether the Bill proposes the right way to proceed or whether we should adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, of going out to public tender, all that we can do is to look at other quangos—
    Mr. Holland: Quasi-autonomous national governmental organisations.
    Mr. Moate: When we look at other quangos we find figures that give different results. I think that much of my hon. Friend's information comes from press reports—
    Mr. Holland: Very little of the material came from press reports. The bulk of the information came from answers by Ministers and from annual reports of the bodies concerned and other official sources.
    Mr. Moate: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It adds greater weight to what I am about to say.
    I take first the figures for the Commission for Racial Equality. We are told that the projected cost for 197–9 is £4,747,000, for 200 staff. If we try to work out from that what the Registrar of Public Lending Right would cost, with 40 staff—roughly one-fifth—we arrive at a figure of £900,000 not £400,000 or £500,000.
    The figures for the Equal Opportunities Commission are rather different. There the staff number 400 and the cost is only £2 million. For some odd reason, the Equal Opportunities Commission does not seem to have equal opportunities with the Commission for Racial Equality to secure the same salaries and pay for its staff. Nevertheless, we arrive at some very high figures.
    Figures for other quangos indicate that the cost of running an organisation with 35 to 40 staff would be much higher than we have been given so far. If we take a figure of about £10,000 a head simply for the bureaucratic costs, we are probably on the low side. That gives £400,000 at 1978 figures. If it comes into operation at all, the Bill will not do so until three years from the commencement date, which is likely to be 1979. We are talking about a 1982 figure. We must expect the £2 million to persist, because statements to that effect have

    1485
    been made for some time. What will be the cost in 1982 of running an organisation with 35 to 40 staff?
    The figures do not end with the matter of staff. There will be the cost of providing computer connections to 72 outlets throughout the country, which will be considerable. There will also be the expense of reimbursing the libraries for considerable staff costs. The hon. Member for Putney has now told us that in some libraries it could be one person and in smaller libraries it could be half a person.
    Therefore, the £600,000, the 30 per cent. ratio, could be much higher by the time we come to the operation of the scheme. The Minister of State should be able to give us the figures. The House is entitled to know exactly how the £600,000 is calculated. I should like to know what base year has been taken for the calculation of those costs. Is it 1978, 1979 or 1982? We must know how it relates to the £2 million that will be the starting point for the fund. We have not yet had the sort of information to which we are entitled.
    I should now like to explain how I believe the system suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury would be so helpful. The clause suggests that the whole matter should be put out to private tender, that we should ask outside organisations for their bids to administer the scheme. I suppose that that is something of a novelty, but it is about time we had a novel approach to the rising costs of bureaucracy.
    The Minister's arguments against the suggestion were very thin. I found preposterous his idea that things could go wrong with a private sector company and that therefore the Government could not possibly allow such a company to enter this area of administration. Do not things go wrong with public administration, day after day?
    The Minister then said something interesting, namely, that a private sector company might go bankrupt. That is exactly the point. If something goes wrong with a public sector organisation it does not go bankrupt. We never find out what goes wrong, because all that happens is that it spends more money and then asks the House for more. In this
    1486
    case, it might take it from the authors. If the Registrar spent more than £600,000 on administration, what would happen? The money would simply come out of the authors' fund. If the expenditure on administration went up to £1 million or £2 million, either there would be nothing left for the authors or the Registrar would come back to the House seeking more money from the taxpayer.
    6.30 p.m.
    If a private company put in a tender of £500,000 to administer the scheme and then spent too much money, the net result possibly would be bankruptcy. At least it would have to go to its shareholders to ask for more money. Would that be so bad for the authors? I suggest that it would be good for the authors. Would it be bad for the country? I submit that it would be excellent for the country. There would be a discipline which we do not have on a quango and which we do not have on public sector administration. One can find numerous examples. A good one is the direct labour organisations, where costs have soared time and time again. With private companies, had they put in fixed price tenders they would have gone bust.
    Then we have the Minister's argument that it is wrong for a private sector company to handle public money. I do not know how many billions of pounds are paid by the Government to private sector companies. The whole economy would grind to a halt if the Minister's principle were adopted. I have been striving to think of examples. I suspect that there are Government bodies using private security organisations. I believe that many such organisations are used at our airports. Presumably they are being employed to protect public money or the wages going to public servants. We do not hesitate to use them, and I suspect that they are an invaluable and essential part of our security arrangements. There must be many more examples where private sector firms are being used increasingly to handle public sector responsibilities, and it sounds to me an excellent idea.
    Not only is there a greater discipline on such a body to try to keep down costs, which will not exist with the quango operator, but there is a greater incentive on the organisation to try to administer

    1487
    the scheme efficiently. If the private operator has put in a tender of £500,000, it might be rather a competitive tender and might not make much of a profit for him. It is up to him constantly to search for ways whereby new schemes can be introduced, innovations can be encouraged, new computer techniques applied, ways of cutting costs found and methods devised to speed up payments to authors. All that would be encouraged because there would be profit at the end of the day for the man managing the system.
    It would not work that way with a quango. Once the scheme was set up, it would be regarded as perfection, in the way that the hon. Member for Putney has indicated already. There would be no incentive to change the scheme. If the costs rise further than expected, that will be sad and the quango operator will turn to the Government saying"I am afraid it is costing £1 million out of the £2 million to administer the scheme. The total sum will have to be increased to £4 million if we are to pay the authors." That is what will happen. That is where the growth comes in. That is where the civil servants start to generate more and more staff.
    I suggest that there is every encouragement to have a private tendering system and outside contractors to undertake this work. The hon. Member for Putney suggested that this could be done already, just as was done with the technical investigation group. The Registrar could go to an outside organisation and use its services. However, that is hardly realistic. I suppose it is possible that the Registrar might say that he needed only 10 staff and that all the other work could be put out to an outside organisation. With most of the work being done by outside firms, the Registrar's staffing requirements would be few. But can anyone imagine the Registrar, with authority to have 35 or 40 staff, deciding instead to opt for only 10 or 15 and to put out the work to tender? He might do both, but certainly he would not cut down on the size of his empire.
    The reality is that once a quango of this kind is established, we have no control over it. We have no control over its efficiency or over its costs. Above all, as
    1488
    I understand it, we in Parliament have virtually no control over or right to question its day-to-day running.
    Mr. Holland: I have made many attempts to ascertain details of the activities and expenditures of quangos. When I attempt to put parliamentary Questions to Ministers, I am always limited to asking who has been appointed and how much they are being paid. Beyond that, usually it is not the responsibility of Ministers to answer.
    Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend has made a powerful intervention. Every hon. Member knows how frustrating it is to attempt to put down a parliamentary Question asking about the activities of this or that Government organisation or quasi-Government organisation. Here we are setting up another one.
    Even though the Minister of State has spoken already, I am sure that he will be given the leave of the House to answer these important questions. Would hon. Members have the right to table parliamentary Questions about the day-to-day activities of the Registrar? It is not clear from the Bill whether he will be a civil servant. In the schedule he is described as being not a civil servant but very much under the thumb of the Secretary of State. That is the worst of both worlds. Because he is not under the thumb of Parliament, it is probable that we do not have the right to scrutinise his activities. That is quite unsatisfactory from the point of view of Parliament.
    If we do not have the right, does the Ombudsman have the right to challenge the activities of a person of this kind? If the organisation was not a quango but was part of the Ministry, a dissatisfied author or a dissatisfied librarian would have the right to take any grievance to the Ombudsman. When an organisation is set up in the way proposed by the Minister, there is no such right.
    It is not difficult to think of other areas of administration in which the Secretary of State is directly involved and where aggrieved individuals have been able to go to the Ombudsman and obtain redress. I refer especially to the Insurance Companies Act. Under that, the Secretary of State has considerable powers to disqualify certain persons from being principals of insurance companies. In such cases, because a quango has not been

    1489
    involved, the individuals have been able to gain satisfaction. Here, by setting up the Registrar as a quasi-civil servant, I suspect that he or she has been removed from the ambit of parliamentary scrutiny. I submit that that is fundamentally wrong.
    I deal now with the limitation of staff suggested in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. Earlier, I suggested that the Registrar could decide to put out to contract some of the activities of his registration bureau or whatever it is to be called. I submitted that, given the Bill, the probability was that he would do that and still increase his staff to 35 or 40.
    The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South makes a great deal of sense if one understands the possibility of putting out work to tender. The idea of limiting the staff to 10 is very attractive. There is then a greater encouragement for the Registrar to put out the work to tender. It is a constructive suggestion, and the Minister should think about it. In one sweep, he will remove the possibility of empire building by the Registrar, he will remove a continuing source of irritation to authors and he will encourage the Registrar to use the most efficient systems available to him for carrying out his duties. In that sense, he will be encouraged to use the latest techniques, to go out to computer firms and to put out the work to tender in that way. It would set an interesting example to many other organisations throughout the country.
    If the Government will not accept that suggestion, I turn to the other proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. It is contained in amendment No. 20, which suggests that the responsibility for administering the public lending right shall be exercised through the British Library and the computer facilities known as MARC. The Minister of State was less than forthcoming in his reply, yet this is a constructive suggestion. I do not suggest that the amendment is correctly drafted or posed in the right way. But it would have made a lot more sense if the whole scheme had been based on a desire to use the existing library services rather than set up this new bureaucracy.
    We have a British National Bibliography, which is a comprehensive indexing
    1490
    service of all books published every year in this country. We have the MARC system, which covers all books in copyright on a computer system. Therefore it makes sense to build on that rather than set up a totally new bureau with new computer requirements.
    The Minister of State said that one could not build the public lending right on to the existing programme. That may be so, but I am sure that the programmers would be capable of adjusting it so that the returns by the 72 libraries could be recorded accurately by the British Library. I do not know whether the British Library would welcome that. It might throw up its hands in horror at the idea. However, I have a feeling that that would he very much cheaper than spending £600,000 in this way.
    The Minister of State knows that over the years this Bill has caused some ill will among librarians. They do not like the scheme. So perhaps he should start again with a new scheme allowing for further consultation and based on the existing arrangements with the British Library. That would increase good will considerably and encourage libraries to co-operate in producing the most efficient and effective scheme possible. I am not suggesting that they will not co-operate anyway. I am sure they will, they are that sort of people, but the introduction of the British library and the existing computer techniques might be a great encouragement to them.
    I ask the Minister of State to look at this again and not to be so dogmatic and assertive about the scheme. There must be scope for thinking again throughout the remaining stages of the Bill. In fact, there is scope for second thoughts until the Registrar is set up and his staff recruited. Until then the Minister can look for new and better techniques. But until he finds them I fear that we are stuck with this wretched quango, and it will grow and grow. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford described it as an"evil necessity ". It is evil, but it is not a necessity.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was referring not to that but to the necessary evil of all administration that applies to all our activities. One must have administration, but I agree that it should be cut to a minimum.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Moate: I am glad that my hon. Friend corrected me, and I am glad that he agrees that this administrative exercise is excessive and should be reduced.
    It may be that the Government amendments are minor tidying-up ones, but I am not clear about their effect. I do not understand whether they mean that the Registrar's employees are civil servants. In fact, it is less than clear who is responsible for their conditions of service. These amendments suggest that the Secretary of State can dictate the numbers of staff and that the Registrar cannot increase his establishment without the approval of the Secretary of State. If he wants an extra secretary who will make his numbers more than, for example, 35, he must ask the Secretary of State. Do the amendments mean that thereafter the Registrar can decide on the pay, conditions, pensions and allowances of the staff?
    But as a result of the amendments we are also told that the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Civil Service will have power over these decisions of the Registrar. This implies that they will have overall responsibility for the pay and conditions of the staff. Will they, or will they not?
    This is an important question in terms of the Government's pay policy. We have the present situation in the nationalised industries where there is a dispute about whether they are applying Government pay policy. What is the position with this organisation? Will the Minister have power to say to the Registrar that he cannot give more than a 5 per cent. pay increase? If the Secretary of State has that power, it is ludicrous to suggest that these employees are not civil servants. If that is so, surely these individuals have the right to demand all the advantages of being civil servants. Are they entitled to index-linked pensions, for example? I am not clear how this schedule is supposed to operate and I hope the Minister will answer these questions if he gets the leave of the House to speak again—
    Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member should know that this is the Report stage and that I do not need the leave of the House to speak again. I shall speak again when he sits down.
    Mr. Moate: I look forward to hearing the Minister again, and with that expectation I conclude my remarks.
    Mr. Oakes: We have had a very long debate—
    Mr. Moate: It has not been long.
    Mr. Oakes: It has been a long debate, because we are talking about one new clause and two Opposition amendments. It was generally agreed that the Government amendments being considered were acceptable to the Opposition Front Bench, and Conservative Members did not object when I introduced them.
    I rose when I did because no one on the Opposition Benches rose to speak. and also because I thought it right to follow what was said by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). I forgot the trio of Conservative Back Bench Members who are as opposed to their Front Bench policy on this Bill as as they are to the Government. In future, I shall delay my interventions until later.
    Let us deal with the amendments before us. I shall concentrate on amendment No. 64 because I did not deal with it to any great extent earlier. That was because it had not been moved or discussed at that time. That amendment relates to the number of staff of the Registrar. We can only estimate the number of staff required. Hon. Members will accept that in the early years of the scheme there will probably be more need and demand for staff than in the later years. First, the scheme has to be established. Contact has to be made with the 72 library authorities. The authors will be registered and their applications for registration will have to be considered by the Registrar. All the administrative matters come at the beginning.
    I agree with hon. Members that it fewer staff need to be employed when the scheme is in operation, it will be part of the Registrar's duty to cut his administrative expenditure as much as possible. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) spoke of a tremendous growth in microprocessors. If some information can go directly on to a computer so that less human intervention is needed, it will be part of the duty of the Registrar to introduce modem technology, provided it is cheaper and just as efficient.

    1493
    It is important that the maximum amount of money should not be spent on administration but should be channelled to the authors who are entitled to the remuneration.
    Hon. Members asked whether I could provide a better breakdown of the lion's share of the finance. The technical investigation group in its final report in 1975 gave percentages, and there is no reason to believe that the same percentages would not apply today. The report included some detailed estimates of the cost of the scheme. It showed that roughly 55 per cent. would be spent on the Registrar and his office and 45 per cent. on the libraries involved in the sampling.
    The report estimated that the total cost, at that time, would be just over £400,000. There has been an updating of the figure to the total cost of about £600,000, but the breakdown between the libraries and the Registrar's costs will be about the same. There is no reason to believe that the proportions will alter.
    That figure of £400,000 was based on an expenditure of £1 million. The sum of £600,000 is based on a proposed expenditure of £2 million. That is a significant improvement in administrative costs.
    Mr. Moate: On what year is the £600,000 based? Is it current cost or the cost that will apply when the scheme comes into operation?
    Mr. Oakes: The figure is on current cost. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South took me to task about the scheme being administered by a private contractor, as envisaged in new clause No. 1. The parallel is not the sort that he was giving, that of roads being laid and the construction company being paid for services rendered. A relevant parallel—I am certain that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) will agree because he nodded vigorously at the time, and I think that the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) will also concur—would be social security benefits being alloted to a private contractor.
    Mr. Ridley: They should be.
    Mr. Oakes: Or war pensions?
    Mr. Ridley: Yes.
    Mr. Oakes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that they should be allotted to a private contractor? The hon. Gentleman is going back to the seventeenth century. Certainly, this country has not seen such a system since then. I am sure that no official party in this House would ever want to see it. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has enlightened me on that. I was merely trying to make what I thought was a fair and reasonable point, namely, that it is wrong for private contractors to administer taxpayers' money for this scheme. The hon. Gentleman clearly has a different view. He and his hon. Friends clearly have a different view from their party and from every other party in the House if they want pensioners to be paid by private contractors.
    Mr. Sproat: Who said that?
    Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I cannot pursue the matter further, because we are so wide apart, but I do not think that it is proper for a private contractor to administer a fund in that way.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South raised the question of discussions by the technical investigation group when considering the British Library facilities. I am informed that it was discussed a great deal. In fact, a member of the group, Mr.D.T.Rogers, is on the British Library staff. Not only were the facilities discussed, but a member of the staff was sitting on the group to advise it.
    The hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that all members of the Registrar's staff—35 was the figure he quoted—would receive £10,000 a year, which would take up £350,000 of the administrative costs.
    Mr. Sproat: I said that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) had stated that the cost to public funds of the average civil servant, taking account of salary, index-linked pension, car and accommodation, was £10,000 a year. That cost to the taxpayer was not denied. I do not think that the Minister can deny it. I merely multiplied 40 by 10,000. That is how £400,000 would be eaten up.
    Mr. Oakes: I do not think that the cost of the registry, taking account of the work done and the salary of the Registrar, would average anything like that sum, for

    1495
    the reasons that I gave. There is a sort of exchange under which work comes in from the libraries and payments are made. Considerable use will be made of private or Civil Service computers. It is not a fair assessment for the hon. Gentleman to do his multiplication sum in that way. He has no grounds for arriving at that kind of sum.
    Although a large part of the hon. Gentleman's speech did not seem to relate to the new clause or to the amendments, he asked me, at considerable length, what would happen if a librarian banned a book. Let me emphasise that the 72 libraries are only a sample. In those circumstances, the book would not be counted in the sample. If the Registrar found that a number of the libraries directly feeding into him were being told by their councillors that a particular author should be banned, he would look into the matter. That would be part of his duty. He would look into why that was happening, but he could not stop the library authority, which is a power unto itself, from doing that. If the councillors of an authority said that an author should be banned, he would be banned. If a number of libraries were banning an author, the Registrar would obviously look into the matter.
    7.0 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked whether registration of a borrowing should take place when the borrower takes the book out or when he returns it. The TIG report suggested that the compilation of the record should be done when the borrower returned a book. The hon. Member for Faversham put a fairly cogent argument in favour of the compilation taking place when the book was borrowed. That is a matter which could be discussed within the scheme by librarians, authors and publishers, and, as a result of those discussions, a workable scheme will be brought into operation.
    We have had a long debate and I have tried to assist the House with the factual information which was required to answer the points made by the hon. Members who have taken part. I hope that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury will not press his new clause to a Division.
    Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put:
    The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 13.

    Division No. 10]

    AYES

    [7.02 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Alison, Michael

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hannam, John

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Hardy, Peter

    Ashton, Joe

    Cryer, Bob

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Davies, lfor (Gower)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Home Robertson, John

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Doig, Peter

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Horam, John

    Bates, Alt

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Beith, A. J.

    Dunlop, John

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Dunnet, Jack

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Durant, Tony

    Hunter, Adam

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Eadie, Alex

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Edge, Geoff

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Boardman, H.

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Evans, Gwyntor carmarthen)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    John, Brynmor

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Brown. Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Buchan, Norman

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Judd, Frank

    Buchanan, Richard

    Flannery, Martin

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Kerr, Russell

    Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P)

    Forrester, John

    Kilfedder, James

    Carmichael, Neil

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

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

    Kinnock, Neil

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Lamborn, Harry

    Cohen, Stanley

    Freud, Clement

    Lamond, James

    Coleman, Donald

    George Bruce

    Lee, John

    Concannon, Rt Hon John

    Gould, Bryan

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Graham, Ted

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Corbett, Robin

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Cowans, Harry

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Litterick, Tom

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Loyden, Eddie

    McCusker, H.

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Thompson, George

    McElhone, Frank

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Thome, Stan (Preston South)

    McKay, Alan (Penlstone)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Tllley, John

    Maclennan, Robert

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Madden, Max

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Wainwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Magee, Bryan

    Rooker, J. W.

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Roper, John

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Walker, Terry (Klngswood)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Ward, Michael

    Mikardo, Ian

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Watkins, David

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Selby, Harry

    Weetch, Ken

    Molyneaux, James

    Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

    Welsh, Andrew

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Sllkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

    Silverman, Julius

    White, James (Pollok)

    Morton, George

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Whltlock, William

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Newens, Stanley

    Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Noble, Mike

    Snape, Peter

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Ogden, Eric

    Speed, Keith

    Woodall, Alec

    Orbach, Maurlce

    Sprigs, Leslle

    Woof, Robert

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Pardoe, John

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Park, George

    Stoddart, David

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Parker, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Mr. A. W. Stallard and

    Penhaligon, David

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Mr.James Tinn.

    Perry, Ernest

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Radice, Giles

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    NOES

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Spence, John

    Budgen, Nick

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Nott, John

    Mr. Roger Moate and

    Goodhart, Philip

    Rhodes James, R.

    Mr. Ian Sproat.

    Holland, Philip

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.
    Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
    Bill, not amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered Tomorrow.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
  7.15 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.
  The purpose of the order is to extend for a further six months the availability of the powers provided by the emergency provisions Act. These powers were designed to meet an exceptional situation and I do not lightly ask for their renewal.
  But this is not a situation of our making or choosing. The House has recognised that in the past, and will, I am sure, continue to recognise it. It is brought about by the activities of a small number of fanatics who seek to impose their views through violence, knowing that they have no democratic mandate.
  If it is argued that the Act may diminish some civil rights, it can be said that it does not begin to compare with the destruction of human rights which terrorism brings. Is any human right more precious than the right to stay alive; the right to live in peace; the right to have a livelihood? These are the rights that the terrorists are taking from those who do not agree with them or will not submit to them.
  I have no wish to see the emergency powers retained for any longer than is strictly necessary. The terrorists seek to show that they can bring normal life to a standstill. The greatest single weapon of the people and the Government is our ability to show that they are not succeeding and never will succeed, that violence is irrelevant and pointless and that normal society and normal standards of decency and fair play will not be destroyed in Northern Ireland.
  If, therefore, I am asking today for a renewal of the present powers, it is because I regretfully believe that the need for them has not yet passed and that the situation still makes them necessary.
  I last reviewed the security situation for the House in June. I said then that
  1500
  we must look for the clear signs of progress in assessing the position. I predicted that we were unlikely to see anything in the way of dramatic change. Rather, as the security situation improved and restrictions eased, we should see a build-up of public confidence and a gradual return to normal living.
  I believe that this is what has been happening. The overall incidence of violence and terrorist activity has decreased and other matters are increasingly occupying the attention of the community.
  Since June there have been prolonged lulls in terrorist activity, alternating with sharp bursts of violence. I have no intention of indulging in false optimism, but the figures clearly indicate a continuing decline in the overall level of violence.
  So far, in the period since 1st July, a total of 27 people have died as a result of terrorist activity compared with a total of 49 in the first half of 1978 and 30 in the second half of 1977. The number of shooting attacks has continued to decline since 1st July, and the overall total for the year is 30 per cent. down on that for 1977.
  While bomb attacks are nearly 25 per cent. up on the previous year, mainly due to the two rounds of bombing attacks in the last few weeks, and the amounts of explosives used have risen sharply, cassette incendiary attacks are only 16 per cent. of the total for 1977.
  The bombing attacks which took place in a number of country towns on and after 14th November and on 30th November were a blatant attempt by the terror-rists to panic the community, and especially the business community, into calling for a reintroduction of the old security restrictions. I am pleased to say that they have signally failed in their objective.
  The Provisional IRA, having failed to achieve the slightest move towards the attainment of its goal, continues to indulge in violence for the sake of violence. In the past it has relied heavily on the tacit—and sometimes overt—support of some of the community which supports the Republican ideal. I emphasise"some"because there are many who embrace that aspiration who have consistently spoken out bravely and bitterly against the mindless terrorist campaign.
  But the support of the minority community for the PIRA is dwindling, and

  1501
  increasingly PIRA represents no one but itself. Its recent activities have been strongly and roundly condemned by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) as well as by Mr. Austin Currie, Bishop Daly, the Roman Catholic Bishop for Derry, and Bishop Butler, the Church of Ireland Bishop of Connor.
  As the police with the strong support of the Army maintain and increase their pressure, the terrorists have been forced more and more towards sporadic attacks mounted from ever less secure bases in the cities and in the remoter and sparsely populated rural areas, especially to the west of Lough Neagh and in the vicinity of the border in South Armagh, Fermanagh and West Tyrone. During most of this period, members of the security forces, on and off duty, have continued to bear the brunt of terrorist violence. Since last June, three members of the RUC and its reserve and seven members of the Regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment have died as the result of terrorist activity. Whilst these figures are much below those of two years ago, I regard every death as a tragic loss. I am sure that the whole House will wish me to express the sympathy of the House with the relatives of those who have died.
  We recognise how much the whole community owes to those men and women of the RUC and the RUC Reserve, the Regular Army and the UDR who continue to carry out their duties, often in difficult conditions, with such courage and fortitude for the benefit of all the people in Northern Ireland. Let us not forget either that death in the course of duty has come to the prison service, the fire service and the civilian search unit.
  In abhorring these senseless killings, we must not lose sight of the progress that is being made towards a more hopeful future. With the increasing localisation of terrorist activity, large areas of the Province are becoming accustomed to a relatively calm and peaceful existence. Unquestionably, there is a new sense of confidence which is not lost on visitors, whether business men or tourists.
  As the House knows, I am committed to the principle of fair and effective enforcement of the law by bringing terrorists to justice through the courts. This principle has been the firm founda-
  1502
  tion of our security effort since it was put forward by the Ministerial Committee on Law and Order in Northern Ireland which reported in the middle of 1976.
  As two years had elapsed since then, I thought it right this summer to commission a review of the progress made in the meantime and of how best this progress could be carried forward. That review has confirmed the extent of the progress that has taken place, both in the state of security in the Province and in building up the capacity of the security forces, especially the police, to achieve further progress.
  Having discussed the review with the Chief Constable and the GOC, I have concluded that the Government's present policy is the right one and that we must stick to it. I believe that all the main parties in this House agree with the essential objectives of that policy.
  The Government's purpose remains the achievement of police acceptance and effectiveness throughout Northern Ireland, so that the RUC can administer the law with a minimum of Army support. One cannot isolate security policy or make valid statements about it without at the same time remembering the wider context in which it must be set. The security situation is important, but it cannot be separate from political, social and economic developments.
  The security forces for their part must be always aware of the civil environment in which they operate. That is the framework within which particular decisions about specific security operations must be made.
  A central feature of our policy is the evolution of the RUC as a modern and efficient police force. I think the House will agree that it is immensely encouraging to see how much progress it has been making. It has moved a very long way in a comparatively short space of time, both in building up its numerical strength and in developing its specialist skills and its overall professionalism.
  The significant drop in the level of violence has meant that the number of charges brought against suspected terrorists has also been reduced. Nevertheless, 664 people charged in the first three-quarters of 1978 is a substantial figure. Of these, 46 were charged with

  1503
  murder and 65 with attempted murder. The great majority of these charges relate to crimes committed very recently. In September charges were brought against one person in relation to the bombing of La Mon House restaurant, which took place in February of this year, and further investigations are continuing into that episode.
  A large number of convictions has also been secured relating to offences committed a long time previously. In September alone, convictions were secured in respect of 26 murders committed two or more years previously.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman referred to arrests in connection with the murders at the La Mon House restaurant. Will he or the Minister of State say something about progress in identifying those responsible for series of murders in Newry where, I believe, an arrest was made some weeks ago?
  Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to establish the facts and convey them to the right hon. Gentleman later.
  The RUC is also increasing its efforts to deal with fraud and similar offences, whatever their origin may be. A specially trained fraud squad has been established. A criminal intelligence bureau of fraudulent activities has also been set up, aimed chiefly at company frauds.
  In common with other police forces, the RUC tries to prevent young people from becoming involved in anti-social or criminal conduct. RUC youth liaison officers keep in touch with schools and help teachers to prepare the children for responsible and law-abiding citizenship. At present RUC youth liaison officers are involved in about 90 schools throughout the Province.
  In order that the RUC should be able to meet is expanded role, my predecessor said in July 1976 that as a first objective every effort would be made to recruit up to the then establishment of 6,500. A major milestone was reached in October this year, when the strength of the regular force passed the 6,000 mark. The time is thus approaching when we shall have to consider whether present
  1504
  and anticipated demands upon the force would justify increasing the strength beyond 6,500—and, if so, what that increase should be.
  I am arranging for a study to be undertaken within the next few months. I cannot anticipate the results, but let me give renewed assurance that, should it establish that the present recruitment ceiling is inadequate to enable the RUC to meet its foreseeable commitment, that ceiling will be raised.
  I have referred to the role of the Army in support of the RUC. I have no intention of doing the terrorists' work for them by withdrawing Army support too early. But as the terrorists are increasingly obliged to concentrate their efforts in certain parts of the Province—leaving other areas in relative peace—the Army is able to concentrate its own efforts accordingly.
  A fifth resident infantry battalion was introduced into the Province in September, replacing a four-month roulement unit. This will provide greater continuity in important areas of activity.
  The UDR continues to play an important and increasingly effective role in ensuring the security of the Province. The recently announced reorganisation of the company structure in a number of battalions is aimed at improving that effectiveness still further while the build-up of the permanent cadre now gives the regiment a 24-hour capability in many parts of the Province. The permanent cadre is now 2,386-strong. Recruiting has gone well.
  Co-operation across the border between the two police forces continues to develop. The terrorists do not respect the border, and our joint efforts have to match that. Contacts now exist from the level of Chief Constable and Commissioner down to officers working in the divisions on the border. I am confident that they will make it progressively harder for the terrorists to take advantage of it.
  Allegations have been made in some quarters that the Army is operating a new policy of shooting first and asking questions afterwards. There is no such policy. The Army in Northern Ireland operates today to the same rules as it has done for years past. The soldier is no more exempt from the law of the land than is any other citizen and he has to

  1505
  be prepared to answer to the law for his actions.
  In accordance with that law, in carrying out his duties he is under orders never to use more force than is necessary and never to open fire if the situation can be handled by other means. These are the yellow card rules.
  It is an integral part of our policy that terrorists convicted in the courts should serve their sentences in the same way as all convicted criminals, whatever their aims and affiliations. I do not need to rehearse to the House the situation of the protestors in the Maze. They are claiming to be given special treatment in recognition that their crimes were politically motivated.
  The Government's reply is still the same. Special category treatment is being phased out. All these protestors have been convicted in open court by due process of law. No one is in gaol for his political views. Men who have murdered and bombed have no right to be treated differently from any other criminals.
  If the conditions in which they now live are obnoxious, they are entirely of their own making. The form of protest that they have chosen is revolting to any civilised society, and I must pay a sincere tribute to the prison officers whose dedication to duty ensures the regular cleaning and disinfecting of the filth for which these prisoners are responsible.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the activities of certain prisoners in H block, the conditions in which they live and the filth that they have created for themselves. Is he taking any steps to defeat the Republican and Provisional IRA propaganda which is at work in the United States of America among certain Congressmen? Strangely enough, I understand that the prisoners are gaining sympathy because of the conditions in H block.
  Mr. Mason: Yes, I am taking all measures to combat the propaganda wave that some are trying to mount externally—that is, outside the shores of the United Kingdom. They are getting little sympathy from within the Province and within Great Britain. I am trying to combat propaganda activity, especially in the
  1506
  United States of America. The visiting Congressmen who have been to Northern Ireland but who have not met any of the senior democratically elected leaders of the Province know full well that they would be rejected if they were to take up the cause of the Provisional IRA protestors.
  As the security situation improves, people's attention is drawn, quite understandably, to the operation of the emergency legislation. We are as conscious of this as anyone. Parliament never intended the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 to last indefinitely, and made it subject to renewal every six months. Parliament also conferred on the Secretary of State the power to continue by an order such as we are considering today all or any of the temporary pro visions which are in force, or to provide that all or any of them will cease to be in force. We have always kept it under close review in case there was either a need for intensification or an opportunity for relaxation. The Act is not a monolith, and we have never regarded it as such.
  The time will come therefore when the Government will be able to recommend to the House that the stage has been reached for one or more of the Act's provisions to be allowed to lapse as being no longer essential for the maintenance of order.
  I hope that that time may not be too far off, since, when it comes, it will be because the improvement has been sustained and the return to normality is accelerating. Each provision will have to be treated on its merits. I have no intention of leaving the security forces without adequate powers to deal with the situation in which they find themselves.
  Each time that I have to ask the House to renew the 1978 emergency provisions Act I consider with great care whether there is still a need for all of the provisions. I do not believe that the moment when we can begin to allow parts of the Act to lapse has yet arrived and I cannot say yet when it will arrive.
  However, I can promise the House that between now and next summer I shall keep the matter under the closest review, in the light of the way in which the security situation develops, and I shall not hesitate to recommend that this or that provision should be allowed to lapse

  1507
  if I judge that the situation warrants it. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights is examining certain aspects of the working of emergency legislation and I shall be very willing to consider its advice.
  I have devoted a large proportion of this speech to the subjects of the police and policing. I believe this is right. Just now I looked forward to the day when the Government could look positively at the possibility that one or more sections of the emergency legislation might be allowed to lapse. It is the RUC, with the help of the Army, which will take us to that point, and it is the RUC which will still have to maintain law and order when emergency legislation is no longer considered necessary in Northern Ireland. I ask those who call most strongly for the dismantling of the emergency structure to remember this. I ask them to give active and unstinted support to the efforts of the RUC to restore peace in Northern Ireland. That is what all but a tiny handful of people of Northern Ireland want and that is what they must have and what I believe they deserve.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. Airey Neave: The emergency powers are still needed in Northern Ireland and the Opposition agree to their renewal. I thank the Secretary of State for what he has said. I agree with his priorities.
  I have returned from talks with the security forces during the past two days, when I discussed all the principal aspects of security policy that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. I agree that there is now much more confidence among the people than there was a few months ago. That is to be noticed as one travels around the Province. I also saw officials concerned with the prison service. The right hon. Gentleman's comments about H block propaganda are extremely important.
  Despite the latest outbreak of bombing, the population is showing great calm. Unlike some people far from the dangers of Northern Ireland—the armchair critics —the people of Northern Ireland are refusing to be trapped by IRA propaganda. I notice that they are getting down to cleaning their shops and tidying their homes in a most calm manner.
  1508
  I agree that support for the Provisional IRA in the minority community is continuing to dwindle. I do not often find myself in agreement with The Irish Times, but its statement this week that the Provos have nothing to say to the people of the North is excellent. I was glad to read that.
  The appraisal given to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself in the middle of June that the terrorists are equipped for a long struggle has been sadly justified. We are seeing that now. During my two-day visit it became clear to me that relentless pressure must be retained on all terrorist groups throughout the next 12 months to keep them on the run. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that he may have to consider the nature of the emergency legislation in future, but relentless pressure must be the policy.
  Some solution must also be found to the problem of the godfathers of terrorism—we have heard a good deal about their operations in the last two days—and how they should be brought before the courts. This still remains a major problem. The Secretary of State and the House will know to whom I am referring. The bombings of the last two days have been coordinated. The source of supply is obviously a new bomb factory. The sooner that is identified and neutralised, the better it will be for everyone.
  It is obvious that the car bomb has returned to the scene. By the end of 1978, the number of bombs may well be as large as in 1977. On the other hand, the Secretary of State quite rightly said that the number of Army and civilian deaths has been kept down, presumably as a result of the great success of the security forces in catching terrorists during 1977. But he is right to tell the House that every death is tragic, and I pay the same tribute to all those who have so well served the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
  The security forces to whom I spoke clearly do not favour a general review or reappraisal of the fundamental elements of the existing policy, in response to the recent increase in violence. They are entirely in favour of the present policy of giving the main role to the RUC. The Army evidently does not wish to see soldiers acting as policemen again, or showing a considerable uniformed

  1509
  presence in the streets of the Province, and I entirely agree with that. The RUC is obviously ready, willing and able to go on enlarging its role, although I was told in Belfast of the shortage of men available for some routine work. I was glad, therefore, to hear the Secretary of State mention the question of establishment and a possible increase beyond 6,500, because this may be necessary for routine duties.
  I had the pleasure of visiting the additional resident battalion of the Green Howards in October. I was very much impressed by them. I think that their policy is right and I hope that there will be another resident battalion in Northern Ireland before long.
  Everyone to whom I spoke, including shopkeepers, felt that the security barriers should not be hastily re-erected, particularly in the absence of any significant demand for them by the traders and ordinary members of the public. A sudden re-erection of barriers would be greeted by the terrorists as a victory for them.
  The security forces lay great emphasis on the cumulative effects of their steady pressure on the terrorists. The word they use is"attrition ". I do not like that word very much but I think it describes the only possible security policy at the present time. It is a question of wearing down the terrorist groups operating in Northern Ireland.
  I now turn to what I regard as the most important problem today in Northern Ireland—that of the Maze and the propaganda protest campaign being conducted by the prisoners there. It is very noticeable, in referring to support within the minority community, that there are far fewer sympathisers than there would have been a few years ago. All of us here who are concerned with Northern Ireland affairs will remember that well. But we need some counter-propaganda, and the question is how this should be undertaken.
  There is no doubt that the object of the operation is to get at sympathisers in the United States of America, because funds for the IRA are drying up. I have had occasion to discuss this on television quite recently. I hope that members of the Government will take part in discussions on television on the subject, because the Opposition thoroughly sup-
  1510
  port the Government in what they are doing in standing firm against the protest. It would be a good idea if both Government and Opposition were to be seen standing together on those occasions so that viewers could realise this. I entirely agree with what the Secretary of State has said in the past, but I think that more public understanding of this would be a good thing.
  The greatest fillip which could be given to the IRA at this stage would be any concession to the current filthy protest campaign which it is carrying out in the prison. Any weakening would, above all, destroy the morale of the Province's 2,400 prison officers. This was pointed out to me yesterday by the Secretary of State's own Department. I was very much impressed by what was told to me in no uncertain terms by the officials to whom we spoke. We have good reason, I believe, for making this attitude clear outside the House.
  During the protest, prison officers in the three H blocks have had to endure enormous provocation from the protestors, as well as undertaking regular cleaning operations in order to prevent an outbreak of disease. Each cell is cleaned once every three weeks or so, I understand. I should like the Government—the Opposition will assist them—to declare their absolute determination to stand firm in the face of this blackmail, in order to convince the prison officials that their work has not been in vain. I know that this was the view of Mr. Albert Miles, the murdered deputy prison governor. Some Young Conservatives went over to see him just before he was murdered. They told me that he had said to them that any face-saving formula would be seen as an insult to the memory of his six colleagues in the prison service who had been killed. He was a fine man and, sadly, he was killed very shortly after he made that statement to those young people.
  The propaganda has to be met and defeated. The photographs of the facilities available in the prison should be widely circulated, as they are of considerable interest. There are education and recreation facilities which the protestors are denying themselves by turning their cells into pigsties. A good deal more use could be made of the photographs. showing the facilities and the nature

  1511
  of the accommodation, particularly among British officials abroad. They ought to be in possession of the facts.
  I know that our ambassador in Washington has made a statement, and I welcome it, but I hope that a more positive message will be given from Government sources throughout the world. The propaganda is being spread throughout the world. It is to be found not only in the United States but in Europe and in the Soviet Union. According to the propaganda, the prisoners are suffering ill treatment from the prison authorities and not from their own actions.
  Those are the most important points that I encountered during my short visit to Northern Ireland. We agree with the order and its renewal, and will give the Government our full support.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. William Craig: The Ulster people have had to endure almost 10 years of terrorism, and by any standards that is an appalling record of government and law-keeping. It is sad to have to concede this evening that there is still the need for strong security policies and the necessary law to give effect to those policies.
  It would be very wrong of us, even though we may feel frustrated and wearied by these problems, to place any difficulties in the way of restoring peace, stability, law and order in Northern Ireland. I complain about having had to endure this for 10 years, but I do not want the complaint to be interpreted as meaning that I do not recognise the enormous progress that has been made in restoring effective law and order in Northern Ireland. Indeed, this is the first occasion on which I can be so forthcoming in recognising the progress that has been made.
  But in recognising this progress I do not want the Secretary of State and his colleagues to assume that they can adopt a complacent attitude or feel that the problems are almost over, because we do not believe that they are over. We support the renewal this evening of the emergency provisions, but we are not concinced that that in itself is enough. We feel that, before the last shot can be said to have been fired, much more will have
  1512
  to be done by the security forces, and it may be necessary to look at the entire legal apparatus to enable the security forces to complete the job.
  The statistics that the Secretary of State has quoted are impressive and one cannot argue about them, but behind those statistics there is a lot of misery and much economic loss that we cannot ignore. We sometimes dismiss these IRA attacks as the acts of madmen, but there is a strange cunning in these acts of madness. As an example of what I mean I cite their reckless placing of a bomb on the shoppers' train from Dublin to Belfast. That had a very effective economic consequence. It was another blow at the commercial life of Belfast.
  I do not believe that the terrorists were oblivious to what they were doing. What they were oblivious to was the possible cost in human lives. This is the awful dilemma that we face. We must protect our economy and our people. We cannot afford to play politics or be curtailed by the consideration of what is good in terms of a propaganda war. People in Northern Ireland want to feel that everything that can be done within the legal framework is being done to defeat the IRA terrorists.
  The most significant sign of progress—here I heartily join with the Secretary of State—is the growth in the effectiveness of the RUC. Every law-abiding citizen in Northern Ireland rejoices at this, and we are now pleased that the Government are much more realistic and practical in their approach to the policing of the Province. It is a sad matter of record that it was the Government who undermined the effectiveness of policing in Northern Ireland.
  We rejoice that we are no longer concerned with politics when it comes to having an effective police force in Northern Ireland. The RUC has, against great odds, established itself in most parts of the community as a force that can be regarded with trust and with pride. I commend the Secretary of State for the speedy way in which he has improved the quality of equipment that is now available to the RUC and for ensuring the increased mobility of the force. However, I plead with him not to rest in his labours because much still needs to be done in providing additional vehicles and

  1513
  radio communications and in instituting a reappraisal of the armaments requirements of the RUC.
  I am confident that now that the RUC is seen to be in a position to do its job there will be no difficulty in attracting additional recruits. I have no doubts when I say that I believe the force needs to be increased in strength to 8,500—the experts will tell us the exact number—because 6,500 is not enough even to deal with the normal situation in the Province.
  The task of crowd control at football matches or other great public gatherings is sufficient to demonstrate the problem faced by the RUC. I am always jealous of the capacity of London's Metropolitan Police to muster, without any sense of emergency, large numbers of policemen to deal with great public gatherings. Dealing with such occasions in Northern Ireland always presents a crisis if there is any risk of a breach of the rule of law.
  So it is a matter of urgency to build up the RUC and to look at the recruitment of officer material for the force. A force is only as good as its leadership. I talk about leadership not only from the top but at every level in the force. There could be introduced with advantage special training and educational courses for recruits with officer potential in the RUC. There is one weakness in the development of the police as the prime law and order force in Northern Ireland, and that is the lack of adequate reserve power to deal with emergencies. I am talking about the day—I hope it will soon arrive—when we do not have to call upon the Army as an aid to civil authority.
  I think that the time has come to address our minds to the problems that will arise when that day comes. The Ulster Defence Regiment is a fine force, doing a wonderful job, but it has no long-term role in the policing of the Province. It is a regiment of the Army, and I believe that we should consider whether its character should be changed so that it can be an auxiliary force of the police rather than of the Army.
  Unless we face this fact, it is unreal to talk about establishing, once and for all, the primacy of the police in Northern Ireland. I should, however, like to pay tribute to the work that the volunteers in the regiment have done. I am in no way critical of the men or the job they
  1514
  are doing, but as organised now it does not fit into the pattern of the police organisation in the future. One further sign of progress is the nature of the Army's job in the Province. No longer is it performing the original absurd role projected for it of forming some sort of United Nations peace-keeping force. The Army can now be seen for what it is. It is there to help the civil authorities, and that is a barometer of real progress. I think that we should mark that up.
  What I want to say about the Army concerns the matter of reviewing the strength of the Regular garrison. It is all too easy for people who are fearful of the situation to be disturbed by routine troop movements. I should like to see the matter more clearly spelt out. What is the size of the Regular garrison normally stationed in Northern Ireland? Once that is established, and once there is a formula for relating that size to the needs of the Province, there will be less risk of would-be politicians distorting the picture when we have normal times.
  I cannot develop my argument without referring to the recent spate of bombings. It will be argued by the IRA and others that this indicates that there has been no progress in curtailing the terrorists. That is nonsense. I think that the recent bombings are illuminating, because it is clear to me that, for the first time in this long decade of violence, the IRA is more and more being pushed over the border. The Irish Republic is a safer place for them than Northern Ireland. Belfast is no longer in the front line, as far as we can see. It is the towns and targets more convenient to the border that are now in the front line.
  This situation causes me some concern —though I welcome and accept the Secretary of State's assurances that there is growing co-operation between the two police forces in the island—because I am not happy that enough is being done in the Irish Republic to curtail the IRA. It is an alarming fact that over the past 12 months armed robberies in the Republic have netted about £3 million to £4 million. I do not think it is reckless to speculate that the great bulk of that money has gone into the coffers of people associated with the IRA. I am sure that not all of that money is used for the good of the cause—probably it is helping some of the members of that organisation rather

  1515
  than the cause—but some of it is, I am sure, going to aid the cause.
  That sort of money concerns me. No matter how good the international community may be in helping to control terrorism, anyone who can spend millions of pounds can buy assassins and weapons. There is a duty on the Government of the Irish Republic to see that the law is more effectively enforced in the Republic and that these armed robberies, which threaten all of us, are brought to a speedy end.
  We have talked long about better cooperation with the Irish Government. At the end of the day we come to one inevitable conclusion: there will be no progress until the Government of the Republic not only take action in their own courts but adopt a policy of extradition. That in itself—the very act of subscribing to the convention for extradition—would be a massive deterrent, preventing many young people in the Republic from being sucked into something which is wholly evil and has nothing to do with a patriotic cause.
  That would certainly lessen the chances of the Republic being used as a hideout or haven for terrorists on the run. Unfortunately, at the moment, they seem to find this far too easy. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to make further representations to the Government in Dublin to shoulder their obligations in the name not only of law and order but of humanity, and to plead once more for extradition between the two countries.
  In the face of the renewed activity in Northern Ireland, we must consider what lessons can be learnt. It is well known that Gerry Adams, not long released from prison, is again playing a leading part in the IRA's campaign. It is a source of worry and concern to those who have done so much to get on top of the IRA that the organisation should be rejuvenated from time to time by the return of leadership of this capacity.
  That leads me to ask: are the sentences adequate for the situation in which we live? I do not believe that they are. A new approach needs to be taken to sentencing. Anyone convicted of an offence motivated by terrorism should receive a sentence for the duration of the campaign of terrorism or a fixed term of years, whichever is the longer.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: What is there in the Northern Ireland situation which suggests to the right hon. Gentleman that if it were possible to keep in gaol those guilty of terrorism there would not be young people aged from 14 to 17 anxious to take up the cudgels?
  Mr. Craig: I do not think that many young people are anxious to take up the cudgels. Many are being tricked and trapped into a situation which they find it difficult to get out of. When I deal later with the IRA's concept of humanity I might cite some examples of how young people, once ensnared, find it difficult to get out again.
  I was going to say that, as I read the situation—I know that I am not alone in this interpretation—it is only a matter of time until a further serious onslaught is made against the personnel of the RUC. We therefore have a duty to frame the law to provide the maximum protection for the security forces—not just the law enforcement agencies but the prison service as well.
  The time has come to reconsider the introduction of the death penalty for the murder of a member of the security forces or the prison service. I do not accept that it has no deterrent value. It has a real deterrent value. The Secretary of State may know about the prisoner who was confined to one of Her Majesty's prisons and was in danger of losing his life, on the instruction of an illegal organisation. That organisation told a prisoner who was already confined on four murder raps to eliminate the newly-confined prisoner. The man had nothing to lose and a lot to gain, since the IRA had told him"If you do this job for us, we shall see that your wife and children receive added benefits."
  Thankfully, the prison service has so far avoided such a crime being carried out within its confines, but this shows what happens when a man has nothing more to lose. The death penalty should be considered.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: I am not in full accord with the right hon. Gentleman and give no support to his call for the return of the death penalty, but is he aware that the case that he has illustrated happened on the other side of the political and religious divide and that

  1517
  I had to ring up the Minister of State to ask him to ensure that a loyalist prisoner would not be taken to the Maze, where he was in danger of being killed by his former UVF associates?
  Mr. Craig: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming the sort of situation that I fear might arise from time to time in our prisons. I was not aware that he had been of assistance in the matter, and I am grateful that he was prepared to help in that direction.
  I should like to refer to some of the consequences of these emergency provisions in terms of the ill-informed propaganda warfare which is now being waged. Some would have us believe that because of these provisions there is no due process of law in Northern Ireland. That is a wilful falsehood. There is fair trial in Northern Ireland. The absence of a jury, though regrettable, does not mean that the judiciary cannot be relied upon and trusted. The quality of justice administered by our courts is as high as one can find anywhere. Indeed, as a lawyer, I sometimes think that if my future were at risk I would rather have it decided by two or three judges than by a jury of 12.
  In principle, we should like to see trial by jury restored, but against the background of intimidation and the risk of losing one's life it is unrealistic to ask for that. But its absence does not indicate a lack of proper judicial process. All who are convicted are convicted on evidence which has been well and truly tested.
  I join the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) in asking the Secretary of State to stand firm on the Government's decision about special category status and to attack those who seek to promote its restoration. The Government's case is sound and should not go by default. I was horrified by the"Nationwide"television programme last night. The hon. Member for Abingdon did the best he could in restricted circumstances, but that programme was ill advised and inaccurate in many respects, showing a complete lack of knowledge of how a prison works.
  I could not believe my eyes or ears when I saw a mother being interviewed while on her way, allegedly, to visit her son who was on the blanket. The inter-
  1518
  viewer was putting words into her mouth. She did not know whether she would be able to see her son or, if she did. whether he would be given time to clean himself up. If he was in a dirty condition, that was entirely his own decision.
  What did not come out in that interview was that prisoners who rebel against the prison rules lose their privileges:stage by stage as punishment for their continued rebellion against authority. Last night's programme gave the impression —I believe deliberately—that privileges were being withdrawn for political reasons rathen than for the proper administration of the prison. The hon. Member for Abingdon sail all that needed to be said on that issue.
  There can be no yielding to demands for special privileges for criminals of this nature. They are common criminals. The only special thing about them is the extent of their degradation. Far from getting privileges, they merit the full severity which can be administered under the law. The great majority of people in Northern Ireland will support the Government in their determination to ensure that neither politics nor terrorist pressure shall lead them into creating unfair privileges for such criminals. It was a great mistake that special category status was ever introduced. I suppose that it was brought in because of the treatment that was necessary for those who were interned without trial. But it was a great mistake. A big price has been paid for it, and an even bigger price would be paid if there were any question of a compromise. It would be a betrayal not only of the prison service but of all law-abiding people in Northern Ireland.
  I hope that the Government will use all the organs of government to ensure that the truth is known, and I trust that the BBC will not again be given the opportunity to put such a one-sided, distorted picture before viewers in the United Kingdom.
  As has been said, we are dealing with people who have no comprehension of the meaning of humanity. It sickens me to hear pleas being made on their behalf on the ground that they deserve special treatment in the name of humanity. These people indiscriminately placed bombs in public places, not caring who or wits people were killed. Have we forgotten

  1519
  the horrible bomb in the Abercorn restaurant and in many other public places? The dead may be buried, but those who loved and cared for them have not forgotten. There are people living today who are badly mutilated. They have a very poor opinion of IRA humanity.
  The IRA attemps to justify the bombings and hoax bombings by going through the process of giving due and timely warnings when it suits it. Such warnings should not be regarded as acts of humanity. The warnings have been used to develop a system of disruption almost as massive and destructive as the bombs themselves.
  If anyone has any doubt about the character of these criminals, he should consider how they treat their comrades. Even a minor offence can result in the offender having a bullet in the knee. They think nothing of inflicting capital punishment as a penalty. If, in the exercise of their own law, they are prepared to hand out such punishments, they have a distorted sense of values if they claim special privileges for themselevs.
  I am not attempting to claim that two wrongs make a right. I am merely emphasising that, by criminal standards, these criminals are the worst in our society and do not merit any special sympathy or treatment. If prison conditions are intolerable for them, they are the result of their own actions.
  Compromises of a dangerous kind have largely been responsible for the people of Northern Ireland suffering for 10 years. The sign of progress today is that fundamental values and standards of right and wrong are no longer to be compromised. The RUC, the Army and many people are willing to lay down their lives to see that those standards are maintained. Far be it for us in politics to jeopardise what they stand for.
  I have no doubt that all my colleagues will support the renewal of these provisions on the basis that the Government will continue to exert themselves to bring peace and harmony to our country.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Many of us absolutely condemn the IRA for these dreadful atrocities. But should not the right hon. Gentleman mention and condemn the brutal
  1520
  killings by the paramilitaries who count themselves to be on the other side? Should we not make it clear that, from whichever side terrorism, brutality and killing may come, we condemn the groupings which do it? I think it is absolutely necessary to put on record that we are totally against terrorism from both sides.
  Mr. Craig: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman has said. I only hope that he is not trying to minimise the activities of the IRA. The IRA brought about this situation and, unhappily, produced this reaction. I agree that brutal murders by terrorists on either side are to be condemned. Terrorism cannot be justified in a democracy when people have the right to decide their future by the ballot box. The ballot box rather than the bullet is to be preferred.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Harold McCusker: Whatever else may be deduced about the wave of Provisional bombing—I accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said about how the IRA has suffered during the past two years—it patently does not represent the work of a few groups of ill-disciplined, politically motivated criminals or of isolated individuals within the Provisional IRA trying to put a brave face on the difficulty that that organisation has experienced in the past year in keeping up the momentum of the war. To that extent, it presents us with a more worrying set of circumstances than virtually anything we have had to face since Her Majesty the Queen visited Northern Ireland 18 months ago.
  This current phase, which is now entering its fourth week, has all the hallmarks of detailed planning and organisation. It exhibits a degree of co-ordination and discipline which clearly tells us that the terrorists have—we hope only temporarily —regained the initiative. There is no point in turning a blind eye and saying that we should not acknowledge it because we are doing our work.
  The widespread nature of the bombing also illustrates an ease of movement of equipment and explosives throughout the Province. That is worrying in the extreme and demands that far greater efforts be made in checking and monitoring people and vehicles. From my personal experience in moving about Northern Ireland, I

  1521
  have the feeling that road checking is not being pursued with the same vigour, or with the same resources, as was the case in the past.
  Detailed planning and co-ordination demands planners and organisers—" the godfathers ", as they were described by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). In a debate on security on 6th March I said:
  " These people form the vital component, just like the detonators in the bombs, the volunteers and the materials for terrorism which will always be available in Northern Ireland if One has the money for the materials and the history to generate the volunteers. So long as these men are at large, so long will the campaign continue."—[Official Report, 6th March 1978; Vol. 945, col. 1063.]
  On that occasion I asked the Secretary of State to consider whether the law could be strengthened to deal with these people. I join with those hon. Members who have asked him to consider whether the law needs strengthening to take these people out of our society.
  Another potential source of assistance and advice, quite apart from recruits, comes from among the people who are presently being released from prison on completion of 50 per cent. of their sentences. There must be people qualifying for remission as of now who six or seven years ago were found guilty of some very serious terrorist offences which at the time merited sentences of 10, 12 or 14 years. These were people who bombed and murdered. They were guilty of gross offences. They are now becoming available to the terrorists.
  Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the movements and activities of these people, who have been only conditionally released, are being adequately monitored? Just as important, is he now able to assure us, since he was not earlier this year, that if and when they are again apprehended and brought before the courts, the attention of the courts will be drawn in every instance to the fact that a sizeable proportion of their original sentences are to be served?
  I find it incomprehensible that during the past six or seven months the courts in Northern Ireland have released people on bail and have given suspended sentences to people who have been guilty of terrorist offences. I do not see how someone caught in possession of a weapon or
  1522
  bomb-making material, or who is an accessory to a terrorist offence, can be given a suspended sentence.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East said, now is not the time for softness. Like him, I do not believe that we can consider terrorism in Northern Ireland without taking into account the role of the Irish Republic. I know that some people think that I have a bee in my bonnet about the Irish Republic, but I share a common land frontier in my constituency with it, and I am seriously concerned about what is happening there.
  Despite what the Minister of State told me three weeks ago about the role of the Irish Republic, it is quite obvious that during the past few weeks many of the bombs and other materials have been run into the Province from Eire. This is evidenced not only by arrests in Northern Ireland but also by the good work of the civic guards in the Republic, particularly in county Donegal, where the civic guards probably saved Londonderry from a blitz during the past few weeks.
  Can the Secretary of State tell us whether there is a bomb factory in the Republic? Do the security forces know that or suspect it? Do the commercial explosives and detonators which are now used in the bombs originate in the. Republic? Do the various fertiliser mixes being used in car bombs originate in the Republic? Is it true that the home-made detonators which are now used in these bombs are being made in the Republic with professional advice and assistance?
  A substantial number of devices have been defused. We must pay tribute to those professionals who have done this very dangerous work and who over the past few weeks have saved Northern Ireland from a lot more damage. When those bombs were defused and examined, a lot of information must have been made available.
  I should now like to refer briefly to my constituency and to a number of disquieting incidents which have occurred there in recent times, which illustrate to me and my constituents that there is a growing confidence in the terrorist fraternity. I refer particularly to the fact that large groups of armed men have been able to roam around the border areas of

  1523
  South Armagh, crossing the border from time to time, abducting people, questioning them and in at least one instance beating them up. They made no attempt to conceal their presence or the weapons which they carried. They have acted in this brazen fashion, and are obviously confident that they will not be apprehended.
  Mr. John Dunlop: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is something of an anomaly that a short time ago a small unit of the special patrol group of the police strayed across the border at Clady in county Tyrone—a notorious Republican area—and were shortly detected by the army of the Republic and just as promptly turned back across the border? If the army of the Republic is so proficient in detecting an innocent excursion such as that, how is it that these other movements to which my hon. Friend has referred seem to go undetected, and that the IRA's free movement across the border continues unhindered?
  Mr. McCusker: I hope that the good work which has been done in parts of Donegal will be seen operating across the border in county Tyrone and county Armagh. As to the incidents to which I referred, that is not happening. But I am confident that those people would not behave in that fashion if the SAS was operating in South Armagh in the strength in which it was operating a few years ago. I hope that the Secretary of State and others will bear that in mind.
  I am convinced that these public demonstrations are taking place to undermine the confidence of the public in the Government's determination to defeat the terrorists. If those people simply wanted to abduct someone and question him, they had no need to do it in the brazen, public fashion in which they did it. I believe that it was done in that way for effect.
  Although the statistics for South Armagh are improving, they are still disconcerting. This year alone—and these are the forgotten people, many of whom come from the mainland of the United Kingdom—four Regular soldiers and one UDR man have been killed in South Armagh. Three civilians, two of them innocent Roman Catholics who were executed by the IRA, have been killed, as
  1524
  have two policemen. That is almost a dozen people killed in that small area of my constituency. That did not happen in 1977 when the full rigours of the covert activities of the SAS operated there.
  Those are appalling figures. If they were repeated throughout the Province, it would represent a death rate comparable with the worst years of the troubles. I appreciate that the SAS is a finite military resource, but I can think of no better task on which it could be deployed. It is not unreasonable to suggest that at least some of the stimulus for the attacks is caused by the Government taking action to reinforce Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom.
  Tonight's message to the terrorists should be"Forget your campaign of murder and destruction. It has had the effect only of bringing about what you least desire. You cannot bomb Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. You cannot bomb Northern Ireland into a united Ireland. You cannot win." The steadfastness of the Northern Ireland community has been shown by its refusal to be panicked by the recent outrages. That reinforces my view.
  8.29 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: My contribution will be in the form of a question which is at the root of what we are considering. Most of us are familiar with Irish history. We are well aware of the violence that has been part of the Irish problem for many years. One knows about the Easter Rising and many other occasions in Irish history when attempts have been made to solve the political problems with violence.
  The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) referred to democracy. Most Northern Irish people would like to conform to a system of democracy. It is out of the question to say that a democracy exists when some sections of a community are deprived of certain human rights. We are talking of a section of the community which sought to use the ballot box and to argue for equal rights in a variety of spheres. It was tempted by Governments and political parties to believe that they intended to carry out power sharing. Flow does that community feel when it finds that there is no such intention?
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is not in the

  1525
  Chamber today, has made it clear on a number of occasions that there is to be no power sharing as long as he is alive. The Government's position is clear. The Government believe that power sharing in Northern Ireland is essential if a peaceful community is to be created. That has been said from the Dispatch Box on numerous occasions.
  Mr. Dunlop: Does the hon. Member recall the power sharing Executive of 1974? A party which gained about 22 per cent. of the total vote handled 40 per cent. of government. That was good power sharing.
  During that time violence did not decrease but escalated. More people were killed and more damage was done during the lifetime of the power sharing Executive than at any other time. That so-called democracy is no solution to the violence. The violence will continue. The IRA has no time for that type of power sharing. Patently, it wants to destroy both Governments, North and South, and institute a one-party, Marxist form of government for the whole of Ireland. That is its goal.
  Mr. Thorne: Obviously the hon. Member's knowledge of the IRA's political position is better than mine. I was not aware that the IRA was a Marxist organisation intent upon establishing a Marxist form of government. But I agree that there are different interpretations of its aim.
  The hon. Member seems to be saying that if normality is restored in Northern Ireland we would have power sharing and establish civil rights.
  Mr. Powell: Try it here first.
  Mr. Thorne: I accept that there are limitations on civil rights in the United Kingdom. I did not vote for the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which the Opposition did. Some of my constituents have been subjected to that Act and their rights have, to some degree, been invaded.
  As I was saying, if normality were restored, power sharing and the establishment of human rights would follow, it is said. But statements from Ulster Unionist Members give the lie to that suggestion.
  Mr. Craig: I do not think that the hon. Member should waste the time of the House in making an assumption that has
  1526
  no meaning. The essence of democracy is that the people elect the Government of their choice, and we do not propose to depart from that.
  Mr. Thorne: With due respect, it is argued that we have a democracy in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Powell: But we have no power sharing.
  Mr. Thorne: We have a democracy in the United Kingdom with a Government in power at present for which only 27 per cent. of the electorate voted.
  That may be the right hon. Gentleman's conception of democracy, but it is not mine. If we are to have an argument about democracy, that is all very well, but I think that Mr. Deputy Speaker would tend to argue about that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has made some reference to my coming into the Chair. Perhaps he could assist me. I understand that what we are discussing is the desirability of continuing in force the temporary provisions of the Act. It seems to me as though we are having a general debate on the future and the past and on what the Government have been doing. In my opinion, that has nothing to do with the offences that are enumerated in the Act.
  Mr. Thorne: I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I lost my way in attempting to take up one or two of the points made by Opposition Members which were apparently in order at the time they were made, particular reference having been made to democracy in Northern Ireland.
  It seems to me that we are right to test the idea that, normality having been restored, we could expect the sort of things to which I have just been referring. The question then follows—this is why we are discussing the order, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are absolutely right: do emergency powers assist us to create the normality that we need in Northern Ireland as a preliminary to the democratic traditions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? As I said at the beginning, for me that is the key question, and the only question.
  What is the evidence? Emergency powers have been in existence in Northern Ireland for some years. We have

  1527
  heard from the Secretary of State that we are winning. I remember a very recent speech in which he said"We are winning." Someone over in Northern Ireland must have heard him, unfortunately. Also, someone may have heard what the right hon. Member for Belfast, East said earlier about there being no bombings in Belfast. I hope that there will be no reaction to that.
  Mr. Tom Litterick: I hope to goodness that they were not listening.
  Mr. McCusker: Does the hon. MemMember for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) really think that we or the IRA are so naive as to require the Secretary of State or anyone else to jibe them into bombing? They will bomb and continue to bomb and destroy without any excuse from us.
  Mr. Thorne: That is a very helpful observation relating to the point that I was making. If that is the case, how can we establish that emergency powers are in any way effective in preventing such a situation?
  I should like to put the argument the other way. Is it not just possible that by ending emergency powers we can begin to get a response towards bringing an end to the continuous reign of violence in Northern Ireland? The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is convinced that that would not be the case. I am not so convinced. It is because I am not so convinced that I have some difficulty in accepting this order. It is a matter for the Government to satisfy us that this continuance of the order will contribute to the restoration of the normality in Northern Ireland which we all seek.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) indicated earlier, no one on the Labour Benches is prepared to give any support or sustenance to the Provisionals or to the UVF. All too often, some Opposition Members seem to have certain preferences when they speak in this House. Condemning the Provos is one thing. Condemning the UVF is something about which we hear very little. It seems to me that that situation is no accident.
  1528
  I condemn both organisations and others for perpetuating the violence. The Government should grasp the nettle. They should say"We shall not renew the emergency powers but will rely on the people of Northern Ireland to reach a peaceful solution." But in so doing we have to address ourselves to precisely those points that hon. Members opposite wish to forget—power sharing and the establishment of human rights for all sections of the Northern Ireland people. No other way is possible to solve the crisis in that unhappy land.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) took us back to the Easter Rising. At that time, a republic was proclaimed from the steps of the Post Office in Dublin. It is only the Government that was then proclaimed that the Irish Republican Army and its political wing, Sinn Fein, recognised as a legitimate Government in the island of Ireland. The House may be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his historical allusion because it brings out clearly the point that the IRA is the enemy both of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland. It rejects the system of constitutional democracy that exists on both sides of the Irish border.
  From time to time we make our complaints about certain weaknesses that we see in the policy of the Irish Government in endeavouring to suppress terrorism. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) referred—I do not think that he needed to say that it was a bee in his bonnet—to what we have long said about the failure of the Irish Government to extradite terrorists, or suspected terrorists, or fugitive terrorists, and to sign the European convention for the suppression of terrorism. We have these complaints, but we should also acknowledge with gratitude the great efforts that the Garda Siochana makes in co-operation with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and it is a fact that we should always bear in mind that the IRA is our common enemy.
  I do not like this order. It is a painful necessity. But those who will the end of security must will the means. Those who want to restore peace and order must be prepared to confer large powers

  1529
  upon the Secretary of State and the security forces. But, because we confer those large powers, we must, and the House always wants to be vigilant for the rights and liberties of the subject.
  The hon. Member for Armagh referred to the courts. I want to say a word about the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. The office of the independent Director of Public Prosecutions was introduced in 1972. I do not accept a large part of the Amnesty International report of June this year, which made some grave allegations against police officers. So far as I know—perhaps the Minister of State can tell us something about the matter —Amnesty International has not been able to substantiate them.
  However, that is not what I want to address myself to at present. I want to speak about something which causes me concern and I believe will cause all hon. Members concern. I refer to the delays, which I am told are lengthening, in bringing accused persons to trial. There is much said on this score which probably is not accurate. When I made a courtesy call on the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh soon after his enthronement, practically the only political matter he raised with me was the number of persons in the women's prison there who, he said, had been there without trial for an excessive period. I put the matter to the Northern Ireland Office, which was able to give me certain reassurance.
  Nevertheless, the Amnesty International report says that delays of as much as 14 months have been reported and that delays of a year are common. The report suggests that the usual delay is six months. That may or may not be correct. There may have been an improvement since June, but I should be grateful if the Secretary of State or another Northern Ireland Minister would make it his business to consult the Attorney-General, who is also Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, to see whether there is something that gives cause for concern.
  There can be many reasons for delay. Sometimes the delay can be on the part of the police. We realise the heavy burdens that the Royal Ulster Constabulary carries. There may be a shortage of experienced officers. Witnesses may be intimidated. There may be difficulty in
  1530
  arresting other joint offenders. There may be allegations against investigating officers. There are all kinds of reasons for delay, but it is not something that the House can lightly accept.
  We should be vigilant for the rights and liberties of the subject, and we should also be vigilant and concerned for the efficiency and well-being of the security forces, without whom, as the Secretary of State said, no one in Northern Ireland would be able to enjoy the most important human right—the right to live peaceably with his neighbour. Incidentally, I was very glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army was here earlier, because I want to say something about him in a moment. We should be sure that the only forces of the Crown that are actively engaged against an enemy, a ruthless enemy, receive all the equipment they need in good time.
  I wonder how many police lives were lost because of the delay in providing the Royal Ulster Constabulary with armoured Land Rovers. There was delay because of industrial trouble at what was then called British Leyland. If industrial trouble was holding up vehicles needed to save the lives of members of the security forces or protect them from injury, an appeal should have been made to management and workpeople not to allow an industrial dispute to interfere with supplying the RUC. I believe that there would have been a response.
  I want now to raise what may seem a more trivial matter as regards supplying the security forces with what they need, but it will not seem trivial to those of my hon. Friends who have been out with the Ulster Defence Regiment in the cold and damp, whether on the border or in the Mourne mountains. I refer to combat gloves, a matter that I raised in the Army debate in May, when I asked the Government to give an undertaking that the combat gloves issued to the Regular Army in Northern Ireland would also be made available to the active ranks of the UDR by the onset of winter. I received a courteous letter from the Under-Secretary, in which he confirmed that it was the intention of the Ministry of Defence to provide the gloves as I had asked and that action was already under way. He said:
  "Arrangements have already been made to ensure that the needs of the regular element of the UDR will be fully met for this winter."

  1531
  I emphasise"the Regular element ". He went on to say that it would not be possible to provide them to part-time members of the UDR possibly until the winter of 1979–80:
  " My Department is currently examining what additional production capacity might be made available but I would not wish to raise false hopes that part-time members of the UDR will receive their gloves earlier than is currently forecast."
  I wrote back to the Minister and suggested that to get people to make the gloves might be a more useful piece of job creation than some of the others of which one could think. I am afraid that the Under-Secretary of State took that rather too seriously. He replied to me on 25th October, saying that
  " a new job creation scheme would not help to meet our immediate requirement for combat gloves more quickly."
  He then gave me a very interesting discourse on leather cutting and the four-year apprenticeship required for a cutter and said:
  " Even the more simple task of sewing the gloves together can require up to 10 months' training."
  He went on to reflect upon the difficulty of recruiting young people to the trade. But, he said:
  " One of the main suppliers of combat gloves is at present, with some Government assistance, training eight young people for full-time employment with the firm. The combat glove is a high quality article "—
  undoubtedly it is—
  " requiring considerable skills in manufacture…Our current orders, together with normal commercial work, will absorb the capacity of our two main suppliers until March 1979."
  He said that the Department was searching for additional manufacturing capacity and was having great difficulty.
  I shall not detain the House any longer with complaints about the supply of combat gloves.
  Mr, Litterick: Oh!
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) would like to go out with a unit of the Ulster Defence Regiment in the damp and cold and try to handle his weapon, assuming that he were given one, he would know that this apparent
  1532
  triviality is a matter which should be of concern to this House. I shall not weary the House any further with this correspondence. However, this does not show the proper sense of urgency in supplying Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland with what they need to defeat the terrorists.
  There are two other matters of concern in the Ulster Defence Regiment to which I wish to refer. There is some doubt whether it is really necessary to lay it down that no one shall serve in the regiment after the age of 55 unless he receives an annual extension, to a maximum age of 60, and that it is in the interests of the regiment.
  There are perhaps right hon. and hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) or even me, who if we were in a position to do so might be able to give service in the Ulster Defence Regiment and would not be too old for that. It is often the case that older people make up in maturity what they may lack in agility. In an irregular locally-recruited regiment there must be many tasks which could be performed by people older than 65 even, and I should have thought that flexibility should prevail in this respect.
  The other matter which gave some concern arose from the rumours—I suppose they are not true—that there would be an amalgamation of battalions. Since the report was made by the Army's Inspectorate of Establishments, I gather that there has been some merging of companies. However, there was considerable alarm in the UDR lest there be amalgamations which might tend to destroy important local associations. It is the local character of a unit of this kind which is most valuable.
  I agree with the Secretary of State that members of the Provisional IRA recognise no one but themselves, and that they seek power from the barrel of a gun because they know from experience that Sinn Fein stands little or no chance in democratic elections.
  The Secretary of State said that the Provisional IRA's atrocities had been condemned by the SDLP. He also quoted the Roman Catholic Bishop of Derry, Dr. Edward Daly, who spoke of the weariness of the Catholic—and, indeed,

  1533
  the whole—community in Northern Ireland of the Provincial IRA campaign. Bishop Daly said:
  " It is long past the time when those who promote and plan this campaign should realise this, and bring an end to the distress and heartbreak they have inflicted on the people of the North, Catholic and Protestant."
  Dr. Daly began his priesthood at Castlederg, which has suffered terribly in recent times. He spoke of the cruel and ruthless bombers and the decent, good people who are their victims. He went on to say that the perpetrators of these bombings were guilty of cowardly and totally immoral actions against defenceless and harmless people and that sooner or later they would have to atone and answer for their deeds. He added that no doubt there would be screams for public sympathy when that happened.
  The Bishop of Derry then referred to what is happening in H block at Her Majesty's prison Maze. He said:
  " As a person who is concerned about prison conditions and interrogation procedures here in the North, may I point out that atrocities such as those of last week further erode the little public concern that remains about such matters."
  It is a fact, and I do not think that any hon. Member in the House could deny it, that the self-inflicted squalor in H block has one purpose only—falsely to convict of brutality the Northern Ireland prison service, to whose devotion and sacrifice just tribute has been paid in this debate.
  There is only one thing that keeps the Provos in business—the lingering hope that the"Brits"can be bombed or bored out of Ireland. Unfortunately, there are those on this side of the water, as well as in this House, who call for the removal of British forces. This means surrender of the sovereignty of the British Crown and encourages that lingering hope which keeps the Provisionals going. I shall not comment on the motives of those who man the"Troops Out"movement, but all they are achieving is the prolonging of the troubles and the terror.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Litterick: I am not inclined to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) except to remark on the paradox of what he said. While he is anxious to keep British
  1534
  sovereignty over that foreign country called Ireland, he shows less anxiety on this score in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: I shall not refer to Rhodesia because that is beyond the scope of the order. I am anxious to maintain the democratic right of the people of Northern Ireland to self-determination. They should have the same right as that given to the people of Southern Ireland to determine their status and whether they wish to adhere to the union, democratically and freely, by voting.
  Mr. Litterick: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I can understand that he is not anxious to pursue the matter of Rhodesia. There may have been a slight error of emphasis in his closing remarks.
  I am inclined to agree with the statement of the Secretary of State that violence is irrelevant in the context of reaching political solutions, but I am also uncomfortably aware that I can agree with the Secretary of State quite easily because I am the inheritor of a political tradition in which violence plays a virtually non-existent part. In so far as it has played a part, it is in the distant past.
  It is easy for Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen to agree among ourselves that violence is more of a nuisance than anything else in the resolution of political problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) referred to the fact that not only are we in the ninth or tenth year of a war but that the Province of Ulster and the Republic of Ireland were created in, and out of, violence.
  While the Irish Republicans of the day were negotiating at gunpoint—that is, the British were pointing guns at their heads —the Carsonite mutineers were pointing their guns at the head of the British Government. By violence and the threat of violence, Ulster and the Republic of Ireland were created. Before then, most of the significant political changes in the relationship between England and Ireland occurred either as a result of violence or as a consequence of the threat of violence. I shall not bore the House by going through a historic catalogue.
  Even a simple matter like the saying of the Catholic mass in British prisons was

  1535
  conceded only after a series of what one would now call terrorist attacks in Britain and the death of several prisoners in British prisons through hunger strikes. That was violence over the simple matter of following a religious ritual in the prison system. It did not challenge the integrity or the sovereignty of the British Crown, but it did, apparently, challenge the right of the then British ruling class to decide to the last letter how Irish peopleCatholics—would run their affairs, even in British gaols. They were citizens like everyone else, but some of them had to die to obtain the simple right to say mass in gaol.
  While we deplore the violence in this situation and perhaps agree that violence is irrelevant to the solution of political problems, it might be less easy for an Irishman to agree with us. His experience of the resolution of political conflicts is decidedly different from that of Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen unless we reach far back into our own history where we discover as violent a past as anyone else has experienced.
  The Secretary of State claimed progress, as he usually does, but I wonder about that. He told me two weeks ago that there are six times as many people in prison in Northern Ireland as there were 10 years ago. I suppose that that is progress of a sort, but it is rather a bleak sort of progress.
  The Secretary of State went on to assert that the need for the Act is still present. I am not sure whether he said that he thought we had a fair and effective means of enforcement or whether he meant that he was aiming at producing or developing a fair and effective means of enforcement. I think that it is generally agreed, however, that the objections to the Act are that in its enforcement it is far from fair and efficient. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South that it is counter-productive. The very existence of the Act is counter-productive because it implies the systematic use of force by the State to produce a particular kind of order.
  I do not intend to go through the Act clause by clause, but let me give an example by quoting sections 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. They all say much the same thing. To the average British citizen they por-
  1536
  tray the key characteristic of this kind of legislation and for the average British citizen they provide sound enough reason for objecting to the use of this kind of legislation by the State in any circumstances.
  For example, section 11 begins:
  " Any constable may arrest without warrant any person ".
  Section 13 begins:
  " Any constable may arrest without warrant any person ".
  Section 14 begins:
  " A member of Her Majesty's forces on duty may arrest without warrant… whom he suspects".
  Section 15 reads:
  " Any member of Her Majesty's forces… or any constable may enter any premises ".
  We see"may arrest any person"and"may enter any premises"without warrant, and every Englishman, Scotsman and Welshman and, I hope, without too much confidence bearing in mind who is present, every Irishman will feel that this is basically wrong, whatever is being attempted to achieve by it. It will inevitably lead not simply to occasional abuse but to a systematic violation of people's rights.
  Whatever was happening before—and I do not want to dig that up—to heap upon it the opportunity for certain executive arms of the State to add further injustice will not lead any community towards the solution of any political problem. It will simply add fuel to the existing fire.
  I can give an example. There is a man in the public gallery who is observing the debate. His name is Brendan Gallagher. He has been arrested, under section 14 of the Act, more than 300 times. He was arrested 183 times in a 12-month period under that section, which reads:
  " A member of Her Majesty's forces on duty may arrest without warrant, and detain for not more than four hours, a person whom he suspects of committing, having committed or being about to commit any offence."
  One would have thought that after the first 100 times the security forces—that is the Army—would at least have been driven to the conclusion that whatever crime they suspected this man of committing, or planning to commit, it was not true, because they could not get any proof. But no, they went on to arrest him another 100 times, and then

  1537
  a further 100 times after that. In any other community in Britain, let alone in Europe, that would have amounted to harassment.
  The man to whom I refer has never ever been brought to court by the security forces. As he has been arrested over 300 times, hon. Members can work out how many times his home has been broken into and turned over by the Army. He has never once been arrested by the police. That seems to me a strange circumstance, because usually the local police know more about the local community and those who live in it than does anybody else. They are certainly likely to know more than the British Army, which, unhappily, is not regarded with brotherly affection by the minority community in Northern Ireland.
  Despite that knowledge, the RUC has never once invaded that man's home. It has never once arrested him on any charge, however spurious or difficult to sustain. But that has not deterred the Army from using its power under this Act to arrest this man more than 300 times.
  I repeat for the benefit of the Minister of State that the man's name is Brendan Gallagher, who lives in Strabane. The sheer number of arrests is evidence enough that he is being deliberately and maliciously harassed. It is the Minister's duty, on our behalf, to discover why successive regiments of Her Majesty's forces—and in the period of four years of which I speak many regiments have been involved—have systematically harassed Brendan Gallagher despite the fact that he is palpably innocent of any crime against any law—and even the law contained in the Act which is now before us, which is in itself a stupidity.
  I could stand here all night reciting stories of other Brendan Gallaghers, but I shall not do so because it seems to me that Brendan Gallagher himself can stand for them all. He can stand for the true meaning of this British legislation which has been forced on the Irish people.
  If the Minister can justify the Army arresting an innocent man more than 300 times, I think that my right hon. Friend had better warn the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary not to be so brave when abroad in their declarations about
  1538
  human rights. This man is innocent, and he is being got at. This Act is being used to destroy his life by making him a marked man. If that can be done to one man, I suggest that it can be done to anybody, because this legislation confers that kind of power on an executive arm of the State.
  We all know that the Opposition are keen to rise to challenge the Minister if they hear that a tax inspector has invaded somebody's premises to discover whether he is not paying his whack. In such a case they advocate the individual's rights with great vehemence, but I wonder whether they will be as strong in their advocacy of human rights in the case that I have put before the House.
  How many times do British soldiers have to arrest a man to pin a charge on him? It appears that 300-plus is not enough. How much time is being wasted on these multiple, pointless, stupid arrests? How much bad feeling is being created by behaviour of that kind?
  There is another section of the community to which reference is made from time to time but not, I suggest, in the proper terms. The harassment under the powers given by this Act is applied to very young people. I am talking about schoolchildren. What I am describing is being clone by the Army throughout Northern Ireland. Children are taken to police stations, held for a short while and then released. It happens virtually every day. No charges are laid. The children are taken in so that the Army can scare the living daylights out of them.
  What happens? The children develop a hearty dislike, not to put too fine a point on it, of people in British uniform. The British uniform becomes synonymous with being taken to an Army post, thumped and then thrown out. That is what happens.
  My right hon. Friend has a duty to answer for that sort of behaviour. The people who behave in that way, and those who make Brendan Gallagher's life unbearable, are acting on my right hon. Friend's behalf. He is allowing it to happen on our behalf. We in turn are allowing it to happen on behalf of the British people. I cannot justify that.
  I can find no political necessity for that sort of behaviour by an executive arm of the State. Nor, I believe, can my

  1539
  right hon. Friend. I do not think that tonight he will seriously try to justify that behaviour. I hope that he will seriously investigate the case of Brendan Gallagher. The Act is what Brendan Gallagher's life is all about. It is about giving irresponsible people powers which they never should have had in the first place. It is about relying on military power to get political solutions.
  My right hon. Friend's experience should have taught him a long time ago that there is no way in which soldiers can create a solution for politicians. Indeed, the opposite is invariably the result. The only thing that soldiers can do, however well-meaning they may be, is to mess up a political situation. They poison it and make it even more difficult to resolve. The Act is the underpinning piece of legislation. It virtually guarantees that there will be no political solution while it is on the statute book.
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) has spoken about human rights. We are all anxious to sustain those rights for all citizens of the United Kingdom. No one would put up a case to deny human rights. However, there are exceptional circumstances that require the curtailment of rights on occasions. Northern Ireland has had 10 years of violence. Some sympathy should be extended to the people in that long-suffering province.
  I recall the House being packed—I am not talking about the few hon. Members now in the Chamber discussing the war in Northern Ireland—when bomb outrages occurred in England. By heavens, hon. Members were to the fore on that occasion. They were virtually waving their fists in anger. Mr. Roy Jenkins, the humanitarian Home Secretary of the time who is now in Europe, said that in view of what had happened he had to take draconian measures to deal with the menace. Labour Members supported him. If a bomb outrage occurred in the constituency of the hon. Member for Selly Oak, he would be demanding strong action from the present Secretary of State. He would be demanding the introduction of troops to sustain the police.
  Mr. Litterick: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. If he consults the records of the House, he will discover that I did not back Mr. Roy Jenkins on the occasion to which he refers. I criticised him most severely.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman backed Mr. Roy Jenkins. I said that if a bomb outrage occurred in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he would demand of the Home Secretary that every effort should be made—
  Mr. Litterick: It happened.
  Mr. Kilfedder—to attack those who were responsible for the outrage.
  Mr. Litterick: Get it right.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
  It is strange that when the Provisional IRA campaign is not affecting people in England, Scotland and Wales, hon. Members are not in the Chamber in large numbers to give support to Members representing Northern Ireland and to give moral support to the Northern Ireland people. The Ulster people have sustained this attack on their liberties, their lives, their homes, their offices and their jobs for 10 years. The message from this House ought to be one of sympathy with them and congratulations to them on their forbearance and patience. Instead of that, the Ulster people would be right to be angry at what has just been said by the hon. Gentleman.
  In his speech, the Secretary of State spoke of the blatant attempts being made by the Provisional IRA to panic the community, particularly the business community, with its recent bombing campaign. He emphasised that there was a new sense of confidence in Northern Ireland. I cannot understand how the Secretary of State can say that. The people of Northern Ireland have great courage. They do not intend ever to be defeated by the Provisional IRA and bombed into an all-Ireland Republic, but they have no confidence that the bombing and the terrorism will be brought to an end by the present policy.
  The Secretary of State said that support for the Provisional IRA was dwindling and that its sporadic attacks were being made from less secure areas in Belfast and

  1541
  Londonderry. What evidence has he for that statement? Can he say that the police are now policing those areas in greater numbers? That would be the only evidence to show that the people were turning away from support for the Provisional IRA and giving support to the forces of law and order.
  Once again we had statistics, coldly given by the Secretary of State, almost like a doctor describing to a crowd of medical students the progress of his dissection of a body. We are dealing—this is the point which needs to be made constantly—with the lives and deaths of Ulster men and Ulster women. We are dealing with horrible mutilation and terrible devastation in the Province. For the past 10 years, figures have been trotted out regularly from the Dispatch Box intended to show that the Government are winning the battle in Northern Ireland. Once again, we have had figures of the number of people arrested in Northern Ireland, the number of rifles found, the number of convictions obtained, and so on. But the figures given by the Secretary of State do not convince me that the Government are winning, or, indeed, attempting to win, the war against the Provisional IRA.
  Once again, I beg to differ. I do not believe that the policy being pursued by the Government is right. The Secretary of State gave some indication that he was on the wrong lines when he declared that one cannot isolate security policy from political, social and economic development. This discloses, to my mind, the weakness of the Government, who seem to believe that the terrorists will be persuaded to cease their violence as a result of political or economic policy. This is sheer moonshine, because the terrorists will keep on fighting, taking lives, mutilating and destroying, because that is what they are hooked on. They want to be able one day to say that they have driven the British out of Northern Ireland and have brought Northern Ireland within an all-Ireland Republic.
  I have already said that the Provisional IRA will not defeat the Ulster people. Even if the British Government withdraw from Northern Ireland—and the Left wing of the Labour Party would love them to do so—the Ulster people will stand on their own two feet and face the Provisional IRA and whatever menace
  1542
  the IRA might wish to offer a decent, law-abiding people who, in fact, live on good terms with their co-religionists in Northern Ireland. The Provisional IRA has brought great havoc to the Province and has created a hatred which was not there before. Two weeks ago 14 towns in Northern Ireland were bombed and eight were bombed last week. Yesterday chaos was created in Belfast as a result of two bombs and three hoax bombs. Castlederg was devastated a fortnight ago and the whole of one street in Omagh was destroyed. The quantity of explosives available to the IRA has not been effectively reduced. For instance, a 150 lb bomb was defused in Maghera.
  It is against this background of renewed violence and destruction that I challenge the Government on their reduction of troops in Northern Ireland. I have said in debates this year, last year and the previous year that the Government should not reduce the number of Regular troops in Northern Ireland. But they continue with their policy, against the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
  I wish to give evidence of an ever-present danger facing the people of Ulster who have shown such remarkable restraint and fortitude.
  The name of Martin Meehan is well known to many hon. Members. He is one of the notorious IRA godfathers of violence and is believed to have been involved in the murder of 13 policemen. I have discovered that during the past week Martin Meehan has been in my constituency of Bangor, a quiet but highly-populated area where Protestants and Roman Catholics live happily together. All that the police were able to do was to stop him, search him and his car, and let him go. He is one of the leaders of the Provisional IRA who are manipulating young people and others and terrifying many of them into acts of violence.
  During that same week, last week, six men suspected of being members of the youth wing of the Provisional IRA, all of them from the Markets area of Belfast, were also spotted in Bangor. What were they there for?
  In view of the widespread bombing campaign in the 22 towns I have mentioned during the past two weeks, one

  1543
  can assume that Martin Meehan and the six suspected members of the Provisional IRA were not there just to take the sea air or taste the pleasures of that resort. They were, no doubt, making a survey of Bangor to discover where the security checks were only perfunctory and where targets were easily available.
  That is the threat to Bangor and its people. There are threats to other towns and villages throughout Northern Ireland. Many of them have already suffered terribly. Innocent people have been injured or have lost their lives and have had their homes and their jobs taken from them.
  I cannot function properly as a Member of Parliament representing Northern Ireland without protesting in the name of the people of Ulster by saying that more troops are necessary there. More action is needed by the Government to restrain the terrorists. Certainly action is needed to take persons like Martin Meehan out of circulation until the violence is ended.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: At the outset, I think it is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that on a number of occasions the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) mentioned an individual in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman said that that individual was suspected of having been involved in the murder of 13 policemen. That was a serious allegation, and it should not have been made in the House. If there is evidence that that person was involved in the murder of 13 policemen, or others, that evidence should be given to the security forces in Northern Ireland. It is not right that such aspersions should be cast in the House.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he suspected that Mr. Martin Meehan was in Bangor in his constituency to case the joint for possible bombings. That was another serious allegation which must cause some concern to the people who live in that area.
  Mr. Kilfedder: It causes me some concern.
  Mr. Fitt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I suggest that he should
  1544
  be more certain of his information before making such allegations in the House.
  I have no time for Martin Meehan. I suspect that at one time he was a member of the Provisional IRA. Anyone who has had any contact with that organisation does not have any support from me. However, it is unfair to name any person in the House if allegations cannot be fully supported by evidence.
  We are discussing an order made under the emergency provisions Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) said that we had had these emergency provisions for some years. As anyone in Northern Ireland knows, emergency provisions legislation of this description was first placed on the statute book in the Northern Ireland House of Commons in 1922. It was known as the Special Powers Act. From 1922 until 1929 it was renewed every 12 months by the Parliament in Northern Ireland. In 1929 the Government said that the Act should become a permanent part of Northern Ireland legislation. Therefore it was not of necessity debated every year in the Northern Ireland House of Commons.
  Throughout those years certain sections and provisions of the Special Powers Act were used against individuals in Northern Ireland. That did not stop the violence—it increased it. Every year, at Easter, whenever there was a Royal visit or if there seemed to be a heightening of tension between Republican and loyalist communities, the Act was brought into being, and though people were not charged they were interned.
  Looking back, we now see that such legislation as this is no guarantee that there will be a diminution of violence. The existence of such legislation was a big factor in the commencement of the civil rights movement in 1968. One of the demands then made was for the abolition of the Special Powers Act. It had been a running sore in Northern Ireland since the day it went on the statute book in 1922.
  The Special Powers Act was taken off the statute book in 1972 by the Conservative Government and replaced by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Six years afterwards, we still find it being renewed every year. I do not want to predict, but I am confident that this

  1545
  legislation is almost becoming part of the permanent legislation affecting Northern Ireland.
  After the Birmingham bombings, which killed so many innocent people, the House met in a mood of absolute hysteria and put on the statute book the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. The then Home Secretary said that it was draconian legislation. If that was draconian legislation for this part of the United Kingdom, this is draconian legislation as it affects people in Northern Ireland.
  Anyone who opposes this legislation is liable to be called a friend or supporter of the Provisional IRA. I believe that there are many people in Northern Ireland who have a respect for the law, who have a respect for the judicial system as it has evolved in the United Kingdom and Ireland over a thousand years, who have a detestation of every act of violence committed by the IRA, but who are still not prepared to accept such legislation.
  Such concern was expressed by my hon. Friends about the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act as it affected that part of the United Kingdom that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary thought it advisable to hold an inquiry into the operations of that Act. A committee was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Shackleton, who has since reported to my right hon. Friend. If such concern was expressed over the operation of that Act, I believe that it is just as necessary to have a committee or some means of investigation which would be acceptable to, and have the support of, the general public in Northern Ireland to consider the ramifications of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and decide whether it affects innocent people throughout the Six Counties.
  I believe that this Act has infringed and impinged upon the liberties of thousands of innocent people of all religions in Northern Ireland. It is those people in whose defence I am speaking tonight. I do not speak in defence of anyone who has engaged in acts of violence. I am speaking on behalf of the innocent people who have been caught up within this Act.
  In 1971, for the fourth or fifth time since the creation of the State of Northern Ireland, internment was introduced. In-
  1546
  ternment was the raw nerve of the Catholic community, because on each and every occasion when it was brought into operation it was directed solely and exclusively at the Catholic minority population.
  Mr. Robert J. Bradford: That is not true.
  Mr. Fitt: If the hon. Gentleman wants to contradict me, I am sure that he will be able to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye. I repeat that internment was directed exclusively at members of the Catholic community. During the war years there was one occasion when two or three Communists were caught up in it. Perhaps that justifies the disagreement which has been voiced by the hon. Gentleman. However, internment was the raw nerve of members of the Catholic community because they felt that these emergency powers, otherwise named the Special Powers Act, were being directed at them.
  Every hon. Member knows what a disaster internment was. Because of the ending of internment, we found ourselves in the position of having H blocks and special category prisoners. I believe that at present internment exists under a different name. I refer to the very long periods of remand. It is my belief that every accused person in the United Kingdom has the right to be brought before a court and either convicted or set free. I do not believe that it is justifiable, under any circumstances, to remand a person in prison for up to two years. However bad or overloaded the system, and however heavy the burden on the police or the Department of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland, two years is far too long. There have been cases of persons being remanded for up to two years, yet when they have been brought before the courts they have been found not guilty. In other cases people have been brought before the courts and sentenced to one year's imprisonment when they have already suffered two years in prison on remand.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that all those who appear in court have spent two years on remand. There was one exceptional case which involved all the possible judicial processes and

  1547
  which was finalised in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Fitt: I am saying that many people in Northern Ireland have been months and months on remand. The Minister of State says that there was only one case of a person being kept on remand for two years. We are dealing with draconian legislation. The Minister should not come to the Dispatch Box and say that we need the legislation because of what happened last week and the week before that. Ministers should be able to tell us how many people have been on remand for over six months or even over 16 months. I should be delighted if the Minister could disprove the figures which I have given.
  I urge the Minister to use every endeavour before the end of the debate to supply those figures. There must be somebody in the Northern Ireland Office, either here or in Northern Ireland—that is, if they are not all at Christmas parties—who can tell him how many people are on remand in Northern Ireland and how long they have been on remand. The House is entitled to know those figures.
  In Northern Ireland there is a tendency to believe that if a person is charged with a scheduled offence he is guilty. The Secretary of State referred to the person who has been charged in relation to the terrible La Mon House tragedy which so convulsed the population of Northern Ireland, such was its brutality and fruitlessness. What will be heard and read in Northern Ireland about that? It will be said that the charged man is guilty. Why did the Secretary of State refer to that case? The effect that it will have on everyone in Northern Ireland is well known. There is a tendency to believe that if someone is charged with a terrorist offence he is guilty before he is convicted by judge or jury.
  Reference has been made to the fact that other persons have been charged with serious offences. Instead of mentioning the La Mon House tragedy in the House again, the Secretary of State should do everything that he can to ensure that the person concerned is brought before the courts as quickly as possible and, if he is guilty, subjected to the full consequences of the law. Anybody who was involved in that dastardly, ugly affair
  1548
  gets no sympathy from me or from any sane section of the Northern Ireland community. He must be found guilty in a court and not convicted here by innuendo.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I seem to pick out the same sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State said that security cannot be separated from the political, social and economic development of Northern Ireland. That is exactly what this legislation is doing. It is looking for a military solution to a political problem. The more it continues, the more of a vicious circle it creates.
  I heard the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) advocate that the present RUC force be increased from 6,500 to 8,500. We have heard this before. I have already said that since 1922 we have had the Special Powers Act and over the past five or six years we have had the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. I am not quite sure what the military figure is and I do not think anyone in Northern Ireland is quite sure. There are all sorts of people who believe that the Army is being taken away very quickly and there is doubt about the effective numbers, but the last number that I heard was 13,000.
  Therefore, there are 13,000 members of the British Army in Northern Ireland, 8,000 members of the UDR and 6,500 members of the RUC. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East is advocating that the RUC force should be increased to 8,500. Next year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say"We now have 8,500 members of the RUC." Then more Opposition Members will say that we should bring that number up to 10,000. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) will then say that South Armagh, in his constituency, is not as well protected as it should be.
  Mr. Craig: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman prefers to have the Army doing the job of the police force rather than policemen doing a police job?
  Mr. Fitt: I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to understand anything of the sort. Perhaps he would listen to the argument which I am trying to put forward and the questions I am posing. Someone can then try to give me the answers.?

  1549
  I have already said that there are 13,000 Army personnel, 8,000 UDR men and 6,500 members of the RUC—and that last figure will be increased if we listen to the request of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East. Next year we shall come back to the House and we shall be told that things are going very well and that we have got more recruits for the RUC. We shall then be told that we are doing even better and have more recruits for the UDR. We shall not be too sure—as we are not too sure tonight—about the number of Army personnel.
  The hon. Member for Armagh will then say that his constituency seems to have been neglected by the Army and that there are not enough SAS men there. Therefore, again we would be off on the merry-go-round. Instead of 32,000 we shall have 34,000 this time next year, and the year after that 36,000 and the year after that we shall have 40,000, and we shall be no nearer a solution to the problem of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what, in his opinion, the optimum strength is for the different sections of the security forces?
  Mr. Fitt: There are 1½ million people in Northern Ireland, and I think we would need about half a million RUC personnel, half a million UDR personnel, and half a million others. At the moment there is no optimum figure. That is the terrible tragedy of it. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have no optimum figure in mind.
  Why are there so many Army personnel in Northern Ireland? What are they doing? Are they leading to a diminution of the campaign of violence, or are some of their actions calculated to escalate the tensions and emotions?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) quoted at length from the Act and referred to the power which it gives to the police and the Army. I suggest that an Army is not the weapon that one uses to grapple with the political situation in Northern Ireland. Many of the Army's actions are very serious whilst others can only be described as very funny.
  1550
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will have read a report in The Irish Times of last Saturday in which it was reported that a person who lived in Dublin was travelling to Belfast to visit relations. He was stopped late at night by an Army patrolman on the northern side of the border. Even at that time of night it was easy to see that the Army questioner did not come from Newry. However, the soldier asked the driver of the car Where are you coming from?"The driver said that he had come from Dublin and that he was going to Belfast to see his relations. The soldier, who, as I say, obviously did not come from Newry—he was West Indian—said to the driver"You are very far from home, are you not?"The driver of the car said"Well, you are not exactly sitting under a banana tree yourself." For that, the driver was dragged from his car and kept for four hours, the maximum permitted time that a person can be kept by the Army.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: Racism !
  Mr. Fitt: That is what I said. The West Indian should not have treated that Irishman in such an objectionable manner.
  The Shackleton inquiry into the prevention of terrorism found that 2,000 people had been detained at various ports of embarkation, airports and so on, in Northern Ireland and in Britain. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tell me—if not tonight, perhaps he will reply by letter—how many persons have been taken to the Castlereagh interrogation centre this year? How many were taken there last year? How many were subsequently charged, and how many were subsequently released? How long were those individuals kept in the interrogation centre? Was it one, two or three days? Was the extension of the prevention of terrorism legislation used when they were kept there for seven days? How many people were released without being charged? All this is relevant to one's acceptance or rejection of this type of legislation.
  Every six months, when the House is asked to renew this legislation, the Government seem to take the view"Anyone who opposes this is not living with reality. People should not be opposing this." The Government seem to say that people

  1551
  should be giving the Secretary of State, the Army, the police and all the security forces in Northern Ireland a blank cheque —" Go ahead. Do what you want." If we ever arrive at a time when this House is not prepared to stand up in defence of innocent individuals, the reputation that this country has had in regard to human rights will certainly have gone. That is why I am speaking here tonight.
  Over the past few days, I confess that I have wondered whether I should take part in this debate, because of the activities of the IRA over the past few weekends and how they have wrecked so many small towns in Northern Ireland, particularly Castlederg, which I know well. Many individuals have lost shops and homes in Castlederg. Condemnation has been levelled at the IRA by his lordship the Bishop of Londonderry and by many others. Rather than listen to that justifiable condemnation of those terrible acts, the IRA engages in exactly the same thing the next week and the week after that.
  I do not think that all members of the IRA are stupid. They knew that this debate was to take place here tonight. Perhaps they thought to themselves that that would stop me, the Member for Belfast, West, taking any part in the debate, and that after their actions I would be embarrassed, perhaps, in trying to level any criticism at this legislation.
  I believe that I am more justified than ever I was in standing on the Floor of this House and questioning this legislation, trying to ensure that it is not inflicted on those who do not deserve it. In Northern Ireland the powers of the Army are unlimited as regards the question of the number of arrests. I am not too sure of the figures that have been mentioned by the Secretary of State. I remember asking the same question on the last occasion when we debate the extension of these powers. What is the maximum number of times that one person has been brought into the interrogation centre at Castlereagh and released without any charge ever having been levelled?
  When people are repeatedly taken to that interrogation centre, even though they are innocent, when they are released they return to their place of employment, if they have one, and their
  1552
  employer will ask"Where have you been?"They will say that they were being interrogated at the Castlereagh interrogation centre, and immediately a suspicion is created in the mind of their employer, particularly if this happens on a number of occasions. The employer has the suspicion, and may be entitled to it, that that person has been engaged in some kind of terrorist activity. There is no proof, but it may lead to that person losing his employment. I know of instances where unemployed persons who, on the day they were supposed to sign the unemployment register, were in Castlereagh. When they returned that night, or the next day, or perhaps two or three days later, they were denied unemployment benefit for the days that they were incarcerated in Castlereagh. I do not believe that there is any entitlement to do that under the Act.
  My right hon. Friend will recall the occasions some months ago when protests were made in the House about the killing of a young man, John Boyle, in county Antrim, by members of the SAS. Since then—and I say this to show that this matter cuts across the sectarian and political divide—a constituent of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) has died in almost exactly the same circumstances. The same emotions were aroused and expressed about the circumstances of both deaths.
  I believe that any inquiry that was necessary into the circumstances of these two deaths could have been carried out within a day, or two days or three days, and certainly no longer than a week. But it has taken months, and now we hear that the papers in the Boyle case have gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions and it will probably take months before he delivers his conclusion as to whether there should be a criminal charge against those responsible for the death.
  That timelag is not acceptable in Northern Ireland. When a person is killed in such controversial circumstances, it is the duty of the Northern Ireland Office, with all the support that it has at its command, to swing into action and ensure that the circumstances are fully investigated and a verdict given within a week at the latest.
  One can make suggestions—I do not want to say to improve the Act. I do not

  1553
  want to see it improved. I want to see it abolished because I believe that it is eroding every standard of the legal system as we have known it in Northern Ireland and in these islands for upwards of 1,000 years. I do not believe that the Act on its own will lead to the defeat of the IRA. I believe that the longer it is on the statute book, the more it will create a vicious circle of circumstances which will lead to more young people joining the Provisional IRA.
  Only a very small and insignificant number of people give any credence or support to the men of violence in Northern Ireland. Those who are engaged in violence are not restricted to one section of the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South was right to query the rather selective condemnation by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, who seemed to be saying that it was only the IRA that was responsible for the trouble. One can remember clearly, particularly if one represents a constituency in Northern Ireland, the dastardly and foul murders
  1554
  committed over the past decade by the so-called loyalists and people who allegedly give their allegiance and support to the British connection.
  I do not believe that this legislation is justified as it stands. An inquiry into every section of the Act should be initiated to see whether steps can be taken to ensure that it no longer affects the lives of many thousands of innocent people, as it has done.
  I shall vote against the order. I understand that in a Division a few hours ago on the Public Lending Right Bill the vast majority of Members voted in one Lobby and only 13 voted in the other. I have no hesitation in predicting that there will be even fewer in the Lobby in which I find myself tonight. But I am not very concerned about the number of Members who will be there. I am concerned that with me in the Lobby there will be men of conscience who will have the courage to defy the requests made to them to give outright approval to the order, and who will be expressing their disapproval of this draconian legislation.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: I believe that when historians look back at the present episode of terrorism in Northern Ireland they will shake their heads in amazement that this House allowed it to continue for as long as it has. We should not be surprised if they do, because if we look back over the history of the past decade we see that Governments of both parties have strayed into all sorts of highways and byways. If the same attention had been given to the business in hand as you have given to seeing that we keep to the order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we might not have gone into those highways and byways, and the House, the country and the Government might well have decided to fight the IRA instead of talking to it.
  I am one of those who warned the Secretary of State many months ago that he needed to consider changes in the law to cope with the existing and developing situation. I know that in saying this I shall cause nothing but cries of horror to come from those opposed to any such movement, but the Secretary of State and the Government should remember that the same sounds were made when the legislation that we are considering was introduced, and we have heard them again tonight. But, despite what its detractors may say, the legislation has been very helpful in clearing up many of those whom the IRA leadership sees as its expendable cannon fodder, the young people of the Roman Catholic community used by the IRA to carry bombs, to do the shootings and murders and to carry out the stoning incidents. They are the people who have suffered. The godfathers of the IRA are still there. The Secretary of State will find that he has far more friends than enemies when he decides to defend the legislation and perpetuate it.
  In saying that, I realise that it is incumbent upon me to defend what I have just said. If the present powers have been effective, as I believe they have, we must see the exact reasons why progress in the war against the IRA has apparently slowed down. We must also see what improvements we should seek.
  The present position is basically that the godfathers, the leaders of the IRA, are free and those who did their bidding
  1556
  are dead, on the run, in prison or maimed. The parents, friends and lovers of those people know perfectly well that the godfathers of the IRA are free, and I believe that they, more than anyone else, desire to see the IRA leadership in prison—or, for that matter, dead.
  The Provisional IRA is the principal enemy and always has been. I am not doing what I shall no doubt be accused of, which is to concentrate on the Provisional IRA to the exclusion of all others, but it is the body responsible for the present wave of violence. It has always been in the forefront of the violence, and I believe that it always will be, as long as it is capable of playing that role.
  The privates of the IRA have been decimated, and one of the reasons for that decimation is the powers in the emergency provisions Act. Those that have not been captured, killed or chased out of the country have been turned into sleepers. As a result, the whole level of IRA activity is way down on what it was. IRA tactics have changed, as everyone knows. At present there is a mere trickle, with spates, instead of the roaring torrent that we used to have. It has been a trickle, with short, sharp spates. for a long time.
  In that period, I believe that those who make up the IRA leadership, who are not fools, have considered and assessed very carefully the strengths and weaknesses of the security forces operating within the present structure of law and the present Government policy to defeat them. I believe that the godfathers who have survived for this length of time have once more started to activate a small number of second-rankers. Some of those who recently have been captured in possession of bombs and bomb-making materials are the second-rankers, and that has not been happening regularly until the last two or three weeks.
  Therefore, I believe that the key to this whole episode is the hard core of the IRA leaders. I should like to draw attention especially to the fact that the members of this hard core do not like losing one of their fellows. If a leading member of the IRA is killed, the IRA no longer publicises him in its death notices as a colonel, a major, a captain or even a

  1557
  lieutenant. He is now described as a"volunteer ". He is never an IRA officer. I know, and no doubt the Secretary of State knows far better than I, that recently leading members of the IRA have been killed and, after their deaths, have been demoted from the rank which they held in that organisation.
  If we are to take out the hard core—and we must, because it is made up of the people who are the most dangerous element in the whole set-up—we have to change the law. They know that if they are picked up and they made no admission, the chances are that they would go free even though a member of the public looking at the published evidence would say that clear evidence of their guilt existed. If he makes no admission, a murderer goes free.
  I draw attention again to the case of Gerry Adams. He is a man who is known not only to the people of Northern Ireland but to all the world as a leading member of the IRA. There is a stack of published information about his sympathies and activities. Yet, when he got to court, the case against him could not be proved and he went free.
  On 23rd of last month, I raised with the Prime Minister the question of Messrs. McCartney and Doherty, who were arrested in Londonderry this year after displaying, on 29th January, an M60 machine gun and an Armalite rifle. The scene was captured on film, and these two men are shown plainly on that film. That evidence did not stick. It could not stick. They had to be released. They are two of the leading members of the IRA in Londonderry city, and they have been known as such for many years.
  It is no use any right hon. or hon. Member saying that the authorities have no proof. The proof is in the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland. It is in the communities in which these people live. The community has found them guilty, even if the courts have not, and we would do better to face the realities which exist on the ground in Northern Ireland.
  The truth is that these are cases which are very well known, and I have no doubt that the Secretary of State could list many more if he wished to do so. So we have to apply our minds to the question how
  1558
  we should deal with the situation, because the present powers which the security forces have cannot. The Government have long since turned their back on interrogation in depth, and they have replaced that only partially with the present legislation.
  If the Secretary of State knows that, he also knows that further powers are needed to ensure the preservation of life and property and, ultimately, freedom in Northern Ireland.
  I suggest a few improvements that could be made. There is one activity of the security forces in Northern Ireland which has been stopped and which should be resumed quickly. I refer to the operation of frontier vehicle check points. In the last few weeks where these check points were maintained in the Strabane area and in the Donegal—Londonderry border area, the IRA had less success than elsewhere. Indeed, from 14th November, when the rest of Northern Ireland was under fairly heavy bombing attack, the Army stopped an IRA car bomb coming in over the Mourne bridge into Strabane. The next day members of the IRA tried over the Lifford bridge and they were caught again at a vehicle check point.
  Looking at the pattern of bombing at that time and, indeed, since, one sees that there are paths out of Monaghan. These bombs are coming from the Republic. If one looks at the practical and strategic situation in Northern Ireland, one sees Monaghan, sticking up like a hand into the heart of Northern Ireland, as the natural place to launch attacks. There is no doubt in my mind that most of the bombs come in from that source and fan out through the Province by well-known routes along our excellent roads on their way to their targets.
  It was not wise to remove the vehicle check points. The Army does not like them, but they have been a formidable obstacle to the IRA in the past. The security forces have stopped operating these check points and they should start again.
  We must not retreat behind a cobweb wall into caged-off centres in the hearts of towns and villages. That is fatal. It is not only a psychological defeat for us; it is a psychological victory for the

  1559
  IRA. It will also tie up so much manpower that the IRA will have far more freedom to do its evil work and to travel widely and freely throughout Northern Ireland. Instead of hedgehogging, we must keep the men out in the country after members of the IRA, who are trying to drive us back behind the cages. But they are only cobweb cages, and one cannot keep the bombs out that way. One must stop them outside and stop them at the source.
  The new powers that I suggest have been suggested before. No doubt the Secretary of State will hear them again and again. I hope that some day he will listen and make use of them. News items, film, tape and photographic evidence should be sufficient to prove to a court that there is a case to answer. The people of Northern Ireland have seen these men taking part in marches and have seen their photographs in the newspapers. They have seen the statements that have been attributed to these men, and have heard their speeches on the radio and seen them on television. None of this has been sufficient, in any case, to secure a conviction. But the people of Northern Ireland are absolutely convinced—as are the people of Britain—that those involved are not only members of the IRA but are leading members. This should be sufficient evidence.
  The statements of convicted prisoners also should be admissible as evidence, as should statements made before justices of the peace, if some people are afraid to appear in the early stages.
  Opinion of character, statements of previous convictions and the reputation of the individuals concerned should he admissible as evidence in court. If this is hidden, material facts about the person's life up to that time are also hidden.
  Above all, we should make use of the sort of legislation that exists in the Irish Republic, under which the evidence of a senior police office is sufficient to secure a conviction. The House is prepared to accept that certificates from the Chief Constable in relation to damage caused by an illegal body are sufficient to authorise payment of hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation. Why can we not accept such a certificate to secure the conviction of some of those who are walking free and master-minding the
  1560
  terrorist horrors that we see in Northern Ireland?
  I hope that those suggestions will be considered by the Government. I do not want an answer tonight because such a reply would be a gut reaction. I want the Government to think about what I have suggested. If they do not extend their powers, they can go no further. The war of attrition against the godfathers will go on, but it will be so slow that the IRA will always be able to replace those men. We must rapidly take out of society and put into prison the extremely dangerous people who arc running the whole show in Northern Ireland.
  The emergency provisions legislation has been renewed far to often and the horror has gone on for far too long. I sometimes wonder what will be the reaction of people in Britain and Northern Ireland when all the files are opened in 22 or 23 years' time. I wonder how all those who have been concerned with Northern Ireland will feel at that time. I have no doubt that the present Secretary of State will come out of it a great deal better than will his predecessors. I hope and pray that the right hon. Gentleman will go on to enhance his standing by doing what needs to be done.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member from Derry—
  Mr. Wm. Ross: Londonderry.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman made a speech loaded with references to administration, where the bombs come from, the type of machine guns that are used, the courts and how to get men into gaol. There was the whole key to the utter futility, sense of hopelessness and political bankruptcy which emanate from the Ulster Unionist Benches.
  We shall still be discussing this legislation 10 years from now if Unionist Members continue with that sort of attitude, which contains not a pennyweight of politics. If that frame of mind continues to pervade our debates we may as well wrap up, because we shall be here for evermore, growing more weary as we listen to the sort of nonsense that we have just heard.
  I shall attempt to raise the level of the debate and politicise it. Ulster

  1561
  Unionist Members may grin, but they do not seem to understand politics. That is the harsh reality. They are bankrupt of political ideas. That is the key to the terrible tragedy of Northern Ireland. The Unionists have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
  I pay tribute, as the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) would wish, to the ordinary people of both communities in Northern Ireland. They are the sufferers and I have the greatest regard for their fortitude and the way they have suffered through all these long, weary years. I believe that they will suffer for much longer if some politics do not emerge from the people who have caused all the upset by their oppression of the minority community for so many years.
  Why was the Act passed? Does anyone think that the IRA will win? Of course, it will not, but it will carry on. The counsels of the Conservative Benches have told us at least 50 times that the IRA was being defeated. They are dreaming. The attrition can continue almost indefinitely, and it will continue until there is a political solution to this terrible problem.
  Not everyone in this country wants the British troops in Northern Ireland. I want them there because the two communities want them there, and the communities know more about the suffering than I do. There is a large and growing number of people in this country, however, who do not want them there. For the first time constituency Labour Parties are discussing this subject. That is the harsh reality. Northern Ireland has communal politics, not the kind of politics across a divide that we have here.
  An inbuilt majority was created in the 1920s by which a line was drawn round the majority Protestant group. Now the whirlwind is here because of that. Had that inbuilt majority not oppressed the minority, had it behaved democratically to permit the existence of ordinary political parties across the divide, the trouble would never have occurred.
  The Unionists want to go back to the Stormont that created this situation. They want to carry on in the same old way, oppressing the minority, which knows what they want. It is from that base that the IRA is sustained. The Unionists, who
  1562
  refused to allow power sharing to work, want to return to the status quo ante of which they were so proud, and very often they forget themselves and say that here.
  The situation that we now face has allowed these emergency provisions to be passed on every melancholy occasion that we have discussed them. For me they have only one real use. They enable me to write a few notes on the back page of the order. They are provocative provivisions that stir up far more trouble than they can possibly suppress.
  But there is no sign of any intention on the part of the Unionists to learn the lesson that the key to the problem, the only factor that will bring peace, is an extension of democracy to the minority community so that it knows that it will enjoy democracy. Only then will they refuse to make room for the IRA or any other group of terrorists.
  The only possible base for peace in Northern Ireland is for both communities to know that British democracy will obtain in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Powell: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Bradford: Absolutely.
  Mr. Flannery: Hon. Members should not be fooled by the"Hear, hears"from the Unionist Benches. They do not believe what I believe. They believe in communalist politics, by which that inbuilt majority does not extend democracy to the minority community, and that leads to the emergency provisions.
  Do the Unionists think that this outbreak would have taken place had they extended democracy? The minority Catholic community was kept in virtual subjection all those years. Whenever a minority is denied democracy, it will ultimately break out.
  The policies of the Government and of the Ulster Unionists share a common trait of absolute bankruptcy and utter futility. Never in this Chamber do we discuss the politics of Northern Ireland we discuss only the melancholy methods of suppressing the bombers. We have to find a solution that does not involve retaliating against the bombers, using the troops as policemen and the policemen as soldiers, but with no Catholics being recruited into those forces.

  1563
  The Ulster Unionists have no solution to this problem. I would dearly love to hear them discuss the politics of the Northern Ireland problem. The base of the IRA will be destroyed politically and not by any so-called emergency provisions. When the Catholic community has confidence that democracy is on the agenda of history in Northern Ireland, then and then only will the IRA base be destroyed and peace emerge.
  In my opinion, these emergency provisions have not a snowball in hell's chance of contributing to or solving the problems in Northern Ireland. I believe with all my heart that those who pass these provisions honourably believe that they will solve the problems or contribute to their solution, and I do not doubt their integrity. It is tragic that they take that view, but I believe that unless the politics of Northern Ireland are discussed, and unless both communities feel safe, the IRA will still be there and will not be defeated.
  If anybody can prove to me that the IRA is being defeated, I shall be delighted to have that information. The fact that the security aspect is better than it has been for a long time is no proof of the defeat of the IRA. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) talks in a melancholy fashion about guns, bombs, and how to prevent them, as though that is a solution to the problem. I believe that the whole atmosphere of this debate is one of futility and despair.
  I shall vote against these provisions, because I believe that they make no contribution to the solution of the problems that beset the people of Northern Ireland or in seeking to defeat the terrorists.
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. Robert J. Bradford: A good deal of the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) will strike a chord on the Opposition Benches. He castigated the House for not debating the politics of Northern Ireland and for not approaching the problem with political considerations in mind. I am mystified how he can reach that conclusion, because in the past Session some of the most important political considerations have been ventilated and reflected upon by the Labour Front Bench. I refer in particular to the pro-
  1564
  posal to increase the Northern Ireland representation in this House. Increased representation for Northern Ireland will have the most beneficial effect for Roman Catholics and Protestants. That represents a political advance, and one hopes that it will be completed this Session.
  The hon. Gentleman talked a great deal about democracy. The fact is that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has persistently advocated an upper tier of local government for Northern Ireland which, by its nature, would involve representatives from both communities. Members of that upper tier could represent their constituencies without any enforced power sharing or imposed solution from this side of the Irish Channel. That kind of progress, which has emerged in the course of debates in this House, refutes the pessimism of the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulties encountered by the minority community in Northern Ireland. I agree with much of what he said. However, the problem did not begin in 1920. If the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1793—devised and placed on the statute book by Englishmen, in the main—had been far-seeing, some of the difficulties in reconciling the Roman Catholic community in terms of sovereignty might not have persisted with the intensity that obtains at present.
  Do not level blame for that sort of mistake on either Stormont or Members of Parliament who now represent the Province of Northern Ireland. Hon. Members in this House must look to their own backyard to find the reasons for the great division between the Sovereign and the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland.
  I shall explain why many more Roman Catholics are not found in the police or in the UDR. It is not because men and women of that persuasion were not willing to serve. It is not because they were not welcomed into the Northern Ireland forces. It is a simple and yet sad reason. It is that the courageous Roman Catholic men and women—many of them living in border areas—who were prepared to join the UDR and RUC Reserve were singled out to be massacred and maimed. I do not blame any of them—those, that is, who survived—for having second

  1565
  thoughts. Do not let us by half truths imply that they were neither welcomed nor willing to serve in the forces of Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) invited me to return to the issue of internment and the people who were affected by that policy. There were four major experiences of internment in Northern Ireland. Two categories at least of those involved were not members of the minority community. The hon. Member for Belfast, West cited the first such category. In 1972, when I was called to a special synod in Belfast, headed by somebody for whom I know the hon. Gentleman has deep regard, an eminent cleric stated that we had to evolve a ministry to the Protestants who were interned and who would be interned in increasing numbers.
  I know that in advancing his arguments the hon. Gentleman tends to elaborate and exaggerate. I can understand that. He is a man of deep conviction, as we all are in Northern Ireland. However, at times the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate. In this instance he is definitely inaccurate.
  Mr. Fitt: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that on 9th August 1971, the day of the original internment swoop, 357 people were arrested in the early hours of the morning and interned, and that not one of those persons was a loyalist or a Unionist?
  Mr. Bradford: The hon. Gentleman is right. I live not a quarter of a mile from the area in which most of them lived. However, it was not many days before there was a balance of activity by the Administration prior to the present Administration. That Administration made some of the most dastardly mistakes, and they were contrived mistakes.
  I have three points to make relating to the order. First, I direct my remarks to the use of troops in Northern Ireland. It would be impertinent of me to try to advise the GOC in Northern Ireland how best to use his troops, or to advise the Minister how best that pursuit could be undertaken. I am not too concerned about trying to arrive at the right number of troops. I am concerned not with numbers but with deployment. On that score I feel that I have a right to comment.
  1566
  One thing which is conveniently forgotten by some hon. Members on the Government Benches is that terrorists in Northern Ireland, America, Italy or wherever terrorism has become endemic exploit above all the element of surprise. There is little point in placing thousands of troops in the streets and byways of Northern Ireland to become targets for the IRA. We should use more troops who can match the element of surprise. I am talking about covert activity. I have little conscience about reading of the death in combat of scores of IRA men, shot by members of the SAS and never again able to bomb or maim or devastate. The surprise enjoyed by these reprobates must be matched by a similar policy.
  Two groups can influence the future morale of terrorists. The first is the judiciary. For reasons best known to themselves, some judges in Northern Ireland have not been giving sentences commensurate with the crimes committed. Not far from my constituency a shop was destroyed. The cost of £250,000, had to be met by the taxpayers of the whole kingdom. The sentence for that crime was two years. In another case the sentence was nine months. People have received suspended sentences for crimes which have caused the most costly injury and damage.
  One judge—it would be dangerous to name him; he may not share my political views—has shown a tremendous example in giving sentences commensurate with the crimes. The judiciary have an important role in undermining the morale, the administration and the organisation of the IRA. I earnestly suggest that they look again at recent trends to see whether they are best using legislation to meet terrorism head on.
  The second group who could help to defeat terrorism is the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It is all very well for some eminent Roman Catholic clerics to condemn violence, but the significance of their condemnation is eroded when they also do everything they can to undermine the Secretary of State's and the Minister of State's determination not to be browbeaten into re-establishing political status.
  There is one other way, apart from airing their ludicrous views of H block, in which the hierarchy could help, namely, by recognising that a man or

  1567
  woman who kills a baby in a pram, or destroys an old-age pensioner, or blows a street sweeper to bits so that what is left of his body has to be buried in a plastic bag, should not be given a so-called Christian burial.
  It is about time that the hierarchy had the guts to say that anyone who does that does not deserve a Christian burial. I can think of no greater psychological effect on the terrorists who claim to share she religious views of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, whose religion I do not denigrate. There would be no greater impact created than for the hierarchy of his Church to say that people who perpetrate these acts will not receive the succour and comfort of the Church. I disagree profoundly with the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, but I believe that its hierarchy has a significant part to play in the obtaining of more settled conditions in Northern Ireland. It has not grasped the nettle in the past. I urge it to begin to grasp the nettle right now.
  I want to place the debate in perspective. The hon. Member for Belfast, West occasionally—I accept, unintentionally—creates the impression that what matters more than anything else is the safeguarding of individual liberties. I should hold that as the fundamental pursuit of every parliamentarian.
  The realities of Northern Ireland are that 1,827 people have been mutilated and killed and £260 million worth of damage has been done in that small Province. Those 1,827 people deserved the right to live. Those who have lost their jobs as a consequence of violence22,000—have a right still to be in work tonight. So when the hon. Gentleman talks about safeguarding and securing the liberties of individuals, like every other great cause in life it must be balanced by the greatest good for the greatest number.
  I am no blood-curdling politician, but I believe that this legislation is vital. Northern Ireland requires trained men whose task it is to encounter gunmen and to remove their effect and influence from society. The gunmen have not responded to the peace movement. The gunmen have not responded to the prattlings of Conservative Front Bench spokesmen in the last Administration who were flown
  1568
  over in RAF aircraft and given tea and sticky buns. The gunmen have not responded to any political initiative, even though we disagree with it, evidenced by the hon. Member for Belfast, West. They are blinkered and rooted to a narrow gorge of violence and debauchery. There is only one way to deal with such men, and that is to remove them from society.
  Having done that, let us establish that there is a political battle to be fought in Northern Ireland. There is a battle to be fought for the minds of the minority. My right hon. and hon. Friends have evidenced that we represent all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. We recognise, without shame, that we want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Many of the minority agree with that view. Many did right in the middle of the so-called 50 years of misrule in Ulster. About 71 per cent. of the community returned Unionist Members of Parliament, and there was not 71 per cent. Protestants in the constituencies. So then, as now, many of the religious minority agree with our political view and the progress that we have made in the House.
  The price for challenging the right of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom is that those people should not be given special places as of right at any discussion table or in any negotiations or political settlement. They have made their choice. They want Ireland as their home. They are welcome to it any time they want to move, bag and baggage. Whilst they remain in Northern Ireland they must accept the rule of Her Majesty in Parliament. Let us not confuse the religious minority with the political minority.
  We believe that we have made great progress for both Roman Catholics and Protestants. We wish that the order would obtain even greater progress by removing from Roman Catholic communities in particular those gunmen who have no interest in future efforts in this House to obtain a just and lasting peace as British citizens for both Roman Catholic and Protestant communities.
  10.46 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: It is a measure of the volume of bipartisan support for the struggle in this House against terrorism that my hon. Friend the

  1569
  Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) should have gone out of his way to encourage the Secretary of State to appear on television more often to speak about the H block issue. Normally, the Opposition spend their time complaining that Ministers have too much coverage on television.
  On this issue, as in so much else involving security, there is a genuine bipartisan—or multipartisan—approach. Of course, there will be differences of emphasis. But it is pleasant to see ideas that are proposed by Opposition Members taken up and implemented by Ministers.
  I listened with particular pleasure to the emphasis that the Secretary of State gave this evening to the building up of the fraud squad. Too many people have a financial vested interest in the continuance of violence. Over the years many millions of pounds have been diverted into the pockets of the Goldfingers of terrorism.
  The criminal ruler of Chicago in the days of prohibition, Al Capone, was able to terrify witnesses into silence and was finally brought to book by the income tax inspectors. We hope that successive Secretaries of State will be able to come to the Dispatch Box and talk not only of the convictions obtained for murder but of the convictions obtained for running protection rackets and other illegal financial operations.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that the regular cadre of the Ulster Defence Regiment has grown to 2,386.
  I note that exactly two years ago, in his maiden speech as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman announced that there was to be a substantial increase in the number of full-time members of the UDR. We welcomed that move. We had been pressing for it for many months. It has been a substantial success.
  Earlier this year I had an opportunity to see some of those full-time soldiers of the UDR on an operational patrol. They all had their combat gloves. It was a cold evening. Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and his description of the length of time that it seems to take to get gloves for the part-time members of the UDR, I hope that
  1570
  the positive result of this debate will be the rectification of this situation.
  There can be no doubt of the high quality of the soldiers of the UDR. There can be no doubt about the high regard in which they are held by the law-abiding members of the public. I note that they are also held in high regard by the law-breaking minority of the public, because during the past year members of the UDR. on duty and, particularly, off duty, have been favourite targets for terrorist attacks. I note, as does the hon Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), that it has only too often been the Catholic members of that regiment and of the RUC who have been the victims of these attacks.
  Membership of the UDR and of the RUC demands a high sense of public duty. For Catholic volunteers the pressures and the dangers are particularly high. In his maiden speech as Secretary of State two years ago, after the right hon. Gentleman had announced the increase in full-time members of the UDR. he went out of his way to—as he put it—encourage the political leaders of the minority party to encourage their people to join the UDR and the RUC. I am sure that we all regret that this has not happened. Any fresh initiatives on the part of the Government would certainly be welcome.
  Meanwhile, the establishment of the UDR itself has been under review. with the recommendation that there should be certain changes in the company structure and an increase in the number of senior ncos. What steps are being taken to implement these recommendations? Could the Minister of State tell us— now or later —whether any further increases are planned in the regular element of the UDR?
  I also agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) when he says that the time has come to think more deeply about the long-term role of the UDR. The need for this body of well-trained and well-disciplined experienced men will continue for many years, but its role may well have to change. It does not need a large committee to think about this problem. I note that one of the refreshing differences between the present Secretary of State and his predecessor is his comparative reluctance to set up

  1571
  special committees at the drop of a hat whenever a problem emerges.
  This evening we have heard calls from the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for a new look at the emergency provisions legalisation—calls made from two very different points of view. The hon. Member for Belfast. West said that he did not want to improve the legislation; wanted to abolish it. I want to see the legislation improved.
  I had an opportunity recently of talking to Mr. Robin Eveleigh, who commanded a battalion in Northern Ireland and who has written a most remarkable book,"Peace Keeping in a Democratic Society ", which reinforces my views that we have not got the balance of legislation right. I do not think that it is right for a single community in Northern Ireland, and I do not think that it is right for the security forces themselves.
  It is easier to renew legislation than to revise it. Renewal can be put through in an hour and a half. Revision will open Ministers to criticism from their nominal friends below the Gangway; it will take a lot of time and trouble. So there is a tendency to put it off. But it seems to me that the time to discuss the revision of the emergency powers legislation is not at a moment when there has been some fresh outrage but at a time when the level of violence, fortunately, is at a relatively low ebb, and the House can discuss matters more calmly than occasionally it has in the past. Alas, in the last few days, one has seen an increase in the tempo of violence.
  Mr. Fitt: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it could have been deliberate policy of the Provisional IRA to engage in this campaign, knowing very well what effect it would have on Members of this House? The next time this legislation comes forward for renewal, may we not have another, similar spate of violence?
  Mr. Goodhart: I suspect that the timing of the fire-bomb attacks was more associated with the visit of the Secretary of State to the United States in an attempt to get investment from there into Northern Ireland for the employment of all members of the community—something that the IRA does not want to see happen. Exactly why the IRA times its attacks as
  1572
  it does is not a matter about which I can make a guess, any more than the hon. Gentleman can.
  However, we know that the attacks took place. We know that what was burned and destroyed was not only shops and homes but the hopes and illusions that peace was coming and that we could get away from emergency provisions legislation. There is a need for it. There is a continuing need for the presence of British troops in Northern Ireland.
  We should not only pass the order; we should send thanks to the security forces. For two Christmases a special appeal has been launched for the provision of special comforts for the security forces in Northern Ireland. Last year it was organised by SSAFA and this year it is ogranised by The Daily Telegraph. I am grateful to both for the work that they have done.
  I note also that on both occasions the organisers have been surprised by the overwhelming response to the appeals. I am glad that the British public have said"Thank you"to our security forces. This House should say"Thank you"as well.
  11.2 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): It is only a few months since I spoke of my unwelcome record of having heard and taken part in more of these Northern Ireland debates in an official capacity than any other hon. Member.
  I did not hear today a speech from either side of the House that could convince me that we can do away with the special powers legislation. Just about every speech on life in Northern Ireland gave more convincing evidence that the powers, which nobody wants, are continually needed.
  In our last debate of this nature my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a particularly encouraging speech. If we look back over the past year we can see that his message then has been justified, and we view the speech he made a few hours ago in a similar light.
  There have been setbacks, of course, and we can expect more. But that is only natural when we are dealing with the mindless, senseless violence that is the trade mark of the Provisional IRA. No

  1573
  matter how much my right hon. Friend says it, the Provisionals do not seem to think that we mean what we say. The only thing we can do is to keep on reiterating it. Neither the Government nor the people of Northern Ireland will give ground to brutality and violence. We shall never recognise criminal thugs as political prisoners, and there will be no amnesty for the intimidators, the destroyers and the killers.
  We have never pretended that there is an easy solution or that the road back to normality will be smooth, but we believe that we are on that road; and that, as my right hon. Friend suggested, gives us growing hope for the future.
  The hon. Members for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) referred to the prison system. I agree that the House should put on record its thanks to the security forces, all types of them, in Northern Ireland for the thankless job that is being done on our behalf.
  The prison officers working in the H blocks have been singled out. There are eight H blocks, not three. Five are functioning normally, but there are three in which there is a dastardly way of protesting. All my sympathy goes to those who have to administrate the blocks.
  I am not trying to minimise the difficulties in the prisons, but I think that we ought to keep them in some kind of proportion. The special category population, for example, has fallen by well over 200 since this time last year and now stands at fewer than 600. When we started phasing out special category, there were about 1,600 people in the special category group. That number has now fallen to fewer than 600. Nor should it be forgotten that the 350 or so engaged in the dirty protest are among a total convicted prison population of 2,246.
  It must not be forgotten, either, that the protest is not, of course, about human rights. It is not about prison conditions, which are among the best in Europe. It is simply about a spurious claim on the part of convicted criminals for a so-called political status. What they seek is preferential treatment. Their motive is clear. They believe that if they secure recognition as a group of political prisoners, their sentences will in time be set aside. It is our task and that of this House to leave them in no doubt that they are wrong.
  1574
  The rule of law demands tht all prisoners should be subjected to a humane regime within a framework of rules that apply to all prisoners and not just some prisoners. That is what we are endeavouring to achieve in Northern Ireland, and that is what Parliament has endorsed. If we are to succeed in our aim of doing away with the cycle of terrorism in Northern Ireland, we must continue to make it absolutely clear that there will be no amnesty.
  I should like to have spelt out the prison system that we have in Northern Ireland, because it would stand spelling out. However, I am sure that the House will forgive me if I do not do that at this time of the evening. But I shall make available in the Library of the House at the earliest possible moment a straightforward statement of fact about conditions in the H blocks of the Maze prison.
  I should like to thank the hon. Member for Abingdon for his reference to the propaganda value of the H blocks and the Maze. This, of course, is a delicate matter which we have to keep in mind. I do not want to provide any additional progaganda. In Northern Ireland itself and within the shores of this island, I think we have got the message across to the general public that the squalor in which some prisoners are living is simply one of their own choosing. But I take the point about the propaganda value else-were and, as my right hon. Friend said, he is looking at this carefully.
  Our approach to the making of television programmes and to the media in general is simply stated. Any journalist is free to broadcast or write as he wishes about events in the Province. Although we may not always agree with the results, we do not believe in censorship or restriction. Many journalists can testify to the help and facilities which are given them in Northern Ireland. But I am sure that they will also testify to the fact that there is a need in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland to exercise discretion. Mistakes over here can possibly cause political embarrassment. Mistakes in Northern Ireland cost people's lives.
  Mr. Powell: In what he has just said, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would include the deplorable habit into which the press sometimes falls of not reporting events—things which have happened, even things which have happened

  1575
  and are attributed to the Provisional IRA —but of reporting threats of future action which are put out by the Provisional IRA, thus constituting themselves a kind of broadcasting organisation for the enemy of everyone in the Province.
  Mr. Concannon: I am saying that there should be an acceptable form of discretion exercised by members of the press. As I say, mistakes in Northern Ireland terms cause not political embarrassment but the loss of people's lives.
  The principal concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the safety of life and property in the Province. Where there is even the remotest risk of lives being lost or property being damaged, he wishes journalists to exercise responsibility and sensitivity in the reporting of events. There have been a number of cases in which it could be argued that programmes on television led to or perhaps unintentionally encouraged acts of violence. I believe that greater care is now taken by the media, and I welcome that. But there are occasions when some programmes abandon any concept of responsibility and sensitivity. We had an example of this last night when an item was transmitted on the BBC"Nationwide"programme which purported to deal with conditions in the H block at Maze Prison. As an example of one-sided presentation of an issue it would be difficult to equal. The programme acknowledged that the protest was a propaganda exercise, but it then proceeded to act as a perfect vehicle for Provisional IRA propaganda.
  It is significant that only a few days earlier the Northern Ireland region of the BBC in its"Spotlight"series presented a programme on the same subject which was balanced, accurate, critical in places, but at least informed. It did not attempt, as last night's programme did, to take sides.
  I must say at once that the"Nationwide"programme was balanced later in the evening by an excellent programme on the Royal Victoria Hospital, which I hope all hon. Members saw.
  After four and a half years in Northern Ireland, I have found that the people who are assassinated on their doorsteps are not just statistics to me. On many occa-
  1576
  sions they are friends with whom I have worked. I can certainly say that about Albert Miles, who was the deputy governor of the Maze prison. I can only say that the antics of one television crew before, during and after the funeral left quite a lot to be desired.
  Mr. Litterick: I did not see the programme in question last night. However, the Minister has chosen to use his ministerial prestige to make a judgment on what people in the independent media have done by way of interpreting the Northern Ireland situation. Can the Minister assure me that he has no ambition or desire to impose any kind of official censorship on our media people who wish to examine and interpret freely whatever political situation engrosses the attention of the nation?
  Mr. Concannon: I said that at the start, and I say it again. We have no intention of censuring or restricting in any way at all. In fact we help the press tremendously in Northern Ireland. All I am asking is for the media to show a little responsibility and sensibility in these matters. As I have said, we have a security problem in Northern Ireland, with a lot of policemen and prison officers at risk. Mistakes in making programmes like this will cause political embarrassment in the rest of the United Kingdom, but we can all take political embarrassment—it is what we are here for. What I cannot accept lightly is that such insensitive programmes as this in Northern Ireland could cost people's lives.
  Mr. Litterick: I appreciate what the Minister has said, but I hope that he, in turn, will appreciate that his comments so far have been general in character, and as a result—and I am sure that this is quite unwitting—he sounds like a member of the Politbureau in the comments he has made. [HoN. MEMBERS:"Nonsense ".] I am not finished yet. The Minister does himself an injustice in talking like that.
  Mr. Concannon: There are certain things that Ministers have to put up with, but I think it is a bit rich that my hon. Friend should come out with that. [HoN. MEMBERS:"He ought to be ashamed of himself."].
  Hon. Members have mentioned the reorganisation of the UDR and I should

  1577
  like to put their minds at ease. The reorganisation was carried out after a routine inspection by the Ministry of Defence inspectorate of establishments. It was recommended that, to make the most efficient and effective use of available manpower in the UDR, certain companies should be amalgamated. When company amalgamations take place, account will be taken of local loyalties and associations so that men who have been serving together may continue to do so. This rationalisation will help to ensure that the UDR is organised in the most effective way to meet the increasing operational responsibilities placed upon it.
  Men currently employed in non-operational jobs will be switched to more productive operational tasks. I stress that there will he no reduction in the overall strength of the regiment and the reorganisation will not reduce the need and opportunity for men and women to join the UDR.
  Mr. Flannery: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Concannon: I have given way already.
  Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman is giving a wrong impression to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Concannon: The way I have been treated by one of my hon. Friends makes me hesitate to give way again.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) asked about the average time that accused persons spend on remand. The average period for this year has been 40 weeks. Last year, the increasing success of the RUC resulted in a large number of people being charged with terrorist offences. One outcome was a steady increase in the number remanded in custody. This year, due to the reduction in the level of violence, the number of new remands has been lower, but a large number of accused persons still have to be dealt with by the courts.
  Strenuous efforts to reduce the backlog have been made by the three agencies directly concerned—the police, the DPP and the courts. My right hon. Friend
  1578
  has assured them of his concern to see waiting time reduced and to provide whatever resources and facilities may contribute to that end. There have been additions to the staff of detecting officers and to the staff of the DPP. The Lord Chief Justice is prepared to assign judges to preside at the six courts at the Belfast Commission and this arrangement will operate when there are enough cases ready to be heard to fill it.
  The Lord Chief Justice has taken a close interest in ways to shorten the period between the committal proceedings and the trial. He has taken a number of steps to enable court hearings to be expedited and has informed my right hon. Friend that, in consultation with his judges and the DPP, he has decided to introduce a new procedure that he hopes will help to bring forward the hearing of criminal cases.
  Under the new procedure, the defendant will, not later than six weeks after the date of his committal for trial, be bought before a judge in arraignment proceedings. That will enable the defendant's plea to be recorded and the court to obtain whatever information it needs to fix a date for the trial and will reduce the delays through unexpected pleas at a later date.
  We welcome the Lord Chief Justice's decision and my right hon. Friend, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, is arranging to appoint a court listing officer for criminal cases. That officer's task will be to seek to secure the listing of criminal cases for hearing at the earliest possible date, bearing in mind the availability of defence counsel, witnesses and so on.
  I hope that those steps will not only contribute to greater expedition in tie process of bringing accused persons to trial but will make it apparent to all that there is no question of delay being deliberately engineered by the Government or the prosecuting authorities. We are as concerned about this matter as is my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West.
  In order to dispel any misunderstanding, let me say that in a recent count only 73 out of 1,400 accused persons had been on remand for more than a year and the number of people acquitted later was in single figures.

  1579
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) referred to one man having been arrested by the Army more than 300 times. I take that very seriously. My initial inquiries have not turned up the case, but I shall follow up the matter and will write to my hon. Friend after I have completed my inquiries. I hope that he will take it from me that I shall follow through on that subject.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked about the progress of the investigations into the series of three murders that have taken place in Newry since September. The three persons killed were members of, or may have been thought to have some connection with, the security forces. One person has been charged in respect of one incident and police investigations are continuing.
  Cross-border co-operation between the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary has continued to develop. Regular meetings on matters of mutual interest are held between senior officers of the two forces in order to exchange information and co-ordinate their efforts against the common enemy, terrorism. The Commissioner of the Garda visited Belfast for talks with the Chief Constable in September. Such contacts will continue in order to build up the already impressive level of practical co-operation achieved between the two police forces.
  The Government believe that the best way to deal with fugitive offenders is by extradition. That is why we signed the Council of Europe convention on the suppression of terrorism. The Irish Government are aware of our views, but equally we are aware of their position. We shall continue to co-operate in whatever measures seem most likely within our respective jurisdictions to bring terrorists to justice.
  The RUC is alert to the possibility of extra-territorial prosections provided by the criminal jurisdiction legislation, and it will not hesitate to make full use of it when suitable cases arise.
  Many hon. Members referred to the godfathers. The hon. Member for Abingdon spoke of the godfathers of terrorism. We are committed to the proof of crimes in open court. There is no short cut. The answer lies in patient detective work.
  1580
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the CID is growing speedily in size and professionalism. As I have said before, it is not the system that is lacking. All we need is the evidence to put these people away, and when we get it we shall do so. But we shall do so through the courts. There is no alternative unless we revert to detention, which is so abhorrent to everyone and which we all consider to have been such a mistake.
  But with the godfathers there has to be the hit man. Before terrorist acts can be carried out, there must be someone to pull the trigger or carry the bomb. Such people must be held accountable. If we can neutralise the hit men and the carriers, the organisers will either neutralise themselves or be forced to do their own dirty work. Then they will become more vulnerable. That is when we need the evidence to present in open court.
  As I have said on the occasion of this debate in the past, I do not think that the situation is normal or such that we could even think of asking the House to drop these provisions. I trust that anyone who is thinking of casting his vote against the order is not doing so in the hope that it will be lost. I do not think that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland would forgive us if we did away with this legislation now.
  The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland would think that we had gone stark raving mad if we did away with this legislation. I know that hon. Members find it abhorrent. I do, too. I never thought that I would assume the powers that I have in respect of Northern Ireland. They are, however, used very sparingly—
  Mr. Litterick: They would not do in England.
  Mr. Concannon: Of course, but the same situation does not apply in England. If my hon. Friend had to work in the conditions in which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) operate, who have murders and assassinations on their doorsteps, he would agree that individual liberties would have to be forsaken. The people of Northern Ireland are willing to accept that.
  Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is to vote against the order.
  Mr. Concannon: I know that he is, but he does so with a tortured mind. He had not even planned originally to speak in the debate tonight. That indicates how worried he is about the matter.
  Mr. Litterick: My hon. Friend is still voting against.
  Mr. Concannon: I know, but my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West is honest enough to realise that if the House voted down this legislation tonight the only people who would thank us for doing so would be the Provisional IRA.
  Mr. Litterick: This is appalling. The Minister is accusing an lion. Member of dishonesty.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) has made a sufficient number of interventions from a sedentary position and when standing.
  Mr. Concannon: I do not intend to prolong this argument with my hon. Frend. I think we can continue it in other places. I wish that at times he would give some credit to his governmental colleagues who undertake a hard day's work, sometimes in trying circumstances. It would be pleasant if he would sometimes give us the benefit of the doubt.
  I commend the order to the House.
  11.26 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Freud: I am always concerned about the relevance of my party's interventions in debates on Northern Ireland. [HoN. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] I think I am wrong to he concerned, because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and it is right for Members of Parliament of all parties to be concerned about what is going on in the Province.
  The House regrets the fact that the Secretary of State once again is asking for the renewal of these emergency provisions. We all share his obvious distaste for the necessity of this legislation. We should all appreciate the prompt withdrawal of the provisions relating to the suspension of habeas corpus. In the House recently he assured hon. Members that as soon as the dispute among prison
  1582
  officers ended, the status quo would be reinstituted. The right hon. Gentleman rapidly kept his word.
  The statistics on violence may have given grounds for cautious hope, but this hope was extinguished by the wave of bombings from mid-November. Therefore, there is no ground for restoring the normal judicial process.
  Anybody who rises at this point in a debate should keep his remarks to a minimum. I am not here to extend the debate, but I wish to mention one or two points. If we are to agree to the extension of these provisions, it is essential that the detailed workings of the Act should be kept under constant review. The Secretary of State gave his word that this would be done.
  I am concerned about the isolated incidents—and I admit that they are isolated —such as the killing of wildfowlers. Because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, I found in my constituency many more wildfowlers who felt that they were more kindred to the wildfowlers who were killed than I found those who said"We come from Cambridgeshire, and they come from Northern Ireland." For that reason, I wrote to the Secretary of State expressing my concern, and he answered in a very proper manner.
  I believe that it is helpful to circulate reports about the workings of controversial provisions. It is the duty of us all to make it clear to people in the United States that any money contributed to Ireland is likely to fall into the wrong hands and to lead to ends which are not thought likely when the money is given.
  There are a number of specific points on which I should like to be assured that care is taken. I refer first to the detention of young people, and particularly to the detention of the mentally handicapped. I am concerned about the situation of the single judge who sits in the Diplock courts. I should like to see an investigation carried out into the possibilities of having a second judge or an assessor.
  I think that there is a definite problem in the number of Catholics being recruited into the RUC. I know that over the years the Government have used Select Committees for no better purpose than to procrastinate, but I should like a committee to investigate the small number of Catholics who have been recruited into

  1583
  the RUC, particularly as those Catholics who serve in the RUC tend to rise to high ranks.
  Encouragement should be given to all those organisations which support the diminution of terrorism, but I think that this has to be done with care. I have received, as I am sure many others have, the Peace People's pamphlet entitled:
  " The case for the replacement of the Emergency Provisions Act by normal judicial process."
  If one reads the pamphlet, it sounds a convincing enough argument.
  I have a copy of The Irish Times of 13th June, in which there is an illuminating article on the documents found in the flat of Seamus Twomey when he was arrested. One document contained instructions to prospective members of the Provisional wing. I should like to read two paragraphs of the advice that was given to these people.
  The document says:
  " The three-day and seven-day detention orders are breaking volunteers, and it is the Republican Army's fault for not indoctrinating volunteers with the psychological strength to resist interrogation."
  That has to be a very good reason for extending the powers for which the Secretary of State is asking.
  The dossier found in Mr. Twomey's flat ends with this statement:
  "Sinn Fein should be directed to infiltrate other organisations to win support for, and sympathy to, the movement. Sinn Fein should be re-educated and have a big role to play in publicity and propaganda departments, complaints and problems (making no room for RUC opportunism). It gains respect of the people which in turn leads to increased support for the cell."
  I have been concerned because colleagues of mine have reaffirmed their support for the Troops Out movement. I should deplore, and so would a substantial majority of the members of my party, any movement which could only encourage the men of violence in Northern Ireland. Those in my party who believe that any aim would be achieved by removing troops from Northern Ireland are in a minority.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 10.

  Division No. 11]

  AYES

  [11.34 p.m.

  Archer, Bt Hon Peter

  Faulds, Andrew

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Ashton, Joe

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Pendry, Tom

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Forrester, John

  Penhaligon, David

  Bates, Alf

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Bean, R. E.

  Freud, Clement

  Radlce, Giles

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  George Bruce

  Rhodes James, R.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Graham, Ted

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Hardy, Peter

  Roper, John

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hunter, Adam

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire!

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Snape, Peter

  Carmlchael, Nell

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spearing, Nigel

  Carter, Ray

  John, Brynmor

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cohen, Stanley

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Stoddart, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Kerr, Russell

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Concannon, Rt Hon John

  Kilfedder, James

  Strang, Gavin

  Cowans, Harry

  Lamborn, Harry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Tinn, James

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  McCusker, H.

  Urwln, T. W.

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  McElhone, Ftpnk

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  McKay, Alan (Penlstone)

  Walnwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Cryer, Bob

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Walker, Terry (Klngswood)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Dempsey, James

  Molyneaux, James

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Monro, Hector

  Whitlock, William

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morton, George

  Woodall, Alec

  Dunlop, John

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Woof, Robert

  Dunnet, Jack

  Neave, Airey

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Eadie, Alex

  Newton, Tony

  English, Michael

  Noble, Mike

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Mr. Joseph Dean and

  Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Mr. James Hamilton

  NOES

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Flannery, Martin

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lamond, James

  Selby, Harry

  Mr. Stan Thorne and

  Loyden, Eddie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Tom Litterick

  Madden, Max

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.

GLUE SNIFFING
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
11.46 p.m.
Mr. James Dempsey: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising the vexed problem technically known as solvent inhaling, but more commonly known as glue sniffing. I have done my best by writing to Ministers to get them to take a more active attitude in dealing with this problem, but so far without much success. Therefore, I feel that we should understand the nature of the problem.
At present, we do not know how many young people throughout the country are involved in this dangerous practice. But one district out of five in a large health authority known to the Minister has been sufficiently public-spirited, in co-operation with the Strathclyde police, to attempt to do something over the past two and a half years.
When I discussed this matter with the officers concerned, they informed me that in that time no fewer than 600 young people under the age of 18 had been looked at, examined and treated for this dangerous addiction to glue sniffing. Of those 600, a fair number were under 12 years of age. I was exceedingly distressed to learn that one in every six of those young people was a female, and the number is increasing. The gap between the numbers of young male and female glue sniffers is now narrowing. Indeed, doctors take the view that, though these figures may seem alarming, they are only the tip of the iceberg. Those figures were obtained and checked no later than Monday of this week to satisfy me that they were accurate. That is an indication of
1586
the nature and seriousness of the problem confronting us.
It is estimated that no fewer than 17 people have died in the past few years as a result of glue sniffing. In my constituency, for example, a few young boys who had been glue sniffing and who were feeling high lit a fire with petrol. That fire was thrown at a 14-year-old constituent who was so seriously burned that he died in hospital. That accident was a consequence of glue sniffing. It should indicate that something must be done quickly if we are to tackle the problem effectively.
I understand that the Minister's argument, as he explained at Question Time. is that health education is the answer. That might be the case from the preventive angle. But we fall down on the curative aspect of the problem. It might be possible to prevent young people from beginning to indulge in this practice, but what are we doing about those who are now addicted to glue sniffing? We need something which is more effective than preventive treatment. We require curative treatment.
A clinic has been established by a district in a large health authority area. I suggest that the Minister should consider duplicating that type of clinic in large industrial areas so that parents can take young people there without consulting a doctor or the police. At such a place young people could receive expert treatment for their problems. Even teachers, policemen and others of good will could take young people there when the parents are not co-operative. This is one of the ways of tackling the problem more effectively.
Another way of tackling the problem is by insisting that manufacturers do research into eliminating components that have these grave characteristics in commodities which are sold over the counter and which can, by misuse, adversely affect health or even be dangerous to life. Those steps could be taken voluntarily at present.
I believe that we should go even further. I still believe that these commodities should be prohibited to persons

1587
under the age of 18 years. I understand that the argument against that suggestion is that there are too many such commodities.
But the problem is due mainly to the misuse of a handful of products. Those products could be controlled and their sale to young people banned. That would narrow down the area that we should tackle. The argument that too many commodities are involved is not valid.
The same could apply to other items that are restricted to young persons. It is no trouble to find the component parts of alcohol and make one's own brew. But we do not say that we should not ban the sale of alcohol to those who are under 18 because they can buy the components. We still ban the sale of alcohol to avoid misuse of that commodity. We should do likewise with the handful of commodities which are the major cause of this problem.
If the 'Minister visits a chemist's shop he will find that pharmacists have wide discretion to withhold the sale of a number of goods to young people. That is the law. There is no reason why we should not give retailers similar authority to withhold those commodities which are thought to be harmful to the health of young people.
We are duty bound to do something. I am reminded of the recent case in Glasgow sheriff court where the deputy procurator fiscal prosecuted a retailer for wilfully, culpably and recklessly selling glue, the vapours of which—so the fiscal said—the retailer knew young people would inhale. Yet the sheriff could find only one decision, that of not guilty, because it was not against the law. But the sheriff said that this was a matter that Parliament should be considering. Here we see being reinforced the evidence that there is a need to tackle this problem in a better and more energetic fashion—and along the lines I am suggesting.
Even Her Majesty's Chief Inspector. of Constabulary, for the first time, in his annual report this year, spelt out the problem of glue sniffing and the dangerous trends and the effects that it was having on the health and the lives of young people. Even he said that this was a matter that may be worthy of legislation and consideration by Parliament. When we have the law speaking out, in view
1588
of the accidents that we have experienced, and when we see the effect in one particular section of a very large area, it is obvious that we should do something much more effective than we have been doing in the past.
I am not in the least impressed by the argument that we might publicise something if we raise it in Parliament. I do not think that we could give this matter any more publicity than it has had in the past few months. But it is wrong and an abdication of our parliamentary duties to sweep under the carpet something which has tendencies of that nature, and which creates dangers for the existence of our young population, without doing our very best to draw it to the attention of the authorities, to those who have power to take action, and to prevail upon them to take action as soon as possible.
That is why I have raised the matter tonight. This is not something that is peculiar to my part of Scotland or to the West of Scotland. Of course it is not, although, as I have said, I have had my own experiences of the matter. I repeat that I know of a boy of 14 who suffered fatal burns arising out of glue sniffing. But the problem is much more widespread I have had representations made to me from the West of Scotland, from the East of Scotland, from Northern England, from the Midlands and from Wales, all asking, in the name of goodness and of protecting young people from this dangerous addiction, that Parliament should act immediately, and be seen to be acting, in order to deal effectively with the problem.
I am hoping, therefore, that as a result of this debate the Minister will give further consideration to this matter. I hope that he will again examine all the prospects. I have taken up the matter with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Prices and Consumer Protection and for the Home Department in an effort to spell out the dangers arising from this regrettable practice and to make an appeal that the steps I have suggested, plus others which may emerge from a debate of this nature, be put into effect, in the hope that by implementing this action we can do something about the problem.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary mentioned the possible need for legislation. I do not have criminal legislation in mind. I believe that there is a

1589
need for caring legislation. Our police can only speak to those concerned and appeal to their parents to co-operate. They need teeth, for example, to send young people to the children's hearings. They are the authority that could examine cases and could prescribe and arrange the treatment to enable young people to overcome this serious challenge which could very well affect their health not merely for a few months but possibly for life.
It is in the interests of protecting these young people from this most dangerous practice that I hope that the debate and whatever may follow will result in creating immediate action by the Government with a view to giving these young people that protection. Of course, we require the co-operation of all concerned. I should like to see more co-operation from traders. We made an effort to persuade shopkeepers not to sell these dangerous commodities to young people, and even to put them out of reach in the stores. But we did not get that cooperation. One always got the few unscrupulous traders anxious to make a quick pound, and willing to sell such items to young people, knowing perfectly well that they are bound to injure their health and their possible future.
I hope that, following this debate, the Minister will decide that additional steps must be taken with a view to reducing the catastrophe of this dangerous practice and in the hope that we can eliminate it from the lives of the present young generation.
12.1 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I begin by totally rejecting the allegation of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that either I or any other Minister is trying to sweep this problem under the carpet.
Mr. Dempsey: I did not say that.
Mr. Ewing: I assure my hon. Friend that he is not the only Member who is concerned about this problem. For example, I have had letters from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who represents Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) and many others of my hon. Friends about the problem. I repeat that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie
1590
is not the only one concerned about this serious and vexed question.
I must in all honesty say that I sometimes wonder about the motives behind the raising of this problem. Even though f have begun my remarks by being rather critical of my hon. Friend, I am nevertheless grateful to him for raising this important topic. Like him and those other hon. Friends I have mentioned, I have been concerned for some time about this practice. But it is important to look at the matter in context.
First, it is important to be clear what we are talking about. Glue sniffing is a very simple term, but it is far too simple. What we are concerned about is the inhalation for the toxic effects of various volatile hydrocarbon solvents which are present in a considerable number of products in common domestic use.
My hon. Friend talks about banning sales of commodities. I shall not name them, but he would be astonished at the substances which are used in the practice, which we all regret. In addition to glues, there is a wide range of products which can be misused. I do not propose to identify them specifically, since I do not want to put ideas into the heads of young people. When properly used, all these products, including glue, are quite safe. and danger arises only from deliberate misuse, sometimes involving a plastic bag over the head in order to ensure that a greater concentration of the vapours is available for inhalation. We are dealing, therefore, with solvent sniffing and not glue sniffing.
I understand that the children who are misguided enough to indulge in the abuse of solvents do so because of the intoxicating effects. But unfortunately, as my hon. Frend has said, there can be, and sometimes are, serious consequences. Accidents through misuse of the plastic bag, or the inhalation of vomit, can result in asphyxiation, and this can be fatal. But quite apart from this, regular and prolonged indulgence in the practice can cause brain damage, or liver and kidney damage. There is at the moment little evidence to suggest that the practice is indulged in to this extent.
The pattern very largely seems to be one of limited and scattered outbreaks among groups of young people, and not

1591
a continuing and widespread habit. We do not have any reliable statistics, but we have had no recent reports from the police or from social work departments to indicate that there has been any recent increase in the practice. I am aware of the register of solvent users in the east of Glasgow, which has been the subject of press comment. My hon. Friend commented on it tonight. That register is maintained by the eastern district of the Greater Glasgow health board. It was started at the end of 1975 or the beginning of 1976 and is simply a cumulative record of the names of reported solvent sniffers since that time. The total now is about 600, but it is not known how many of the individuals recorded have now ceased the practice. It is important that I make clear that the 600 recorded on that register are there because they have been identified at one time or another as being solvent sniffers, but it is highly likely that a fair number of them have ceased the practice.
My hon. Friend has spoken about the need to legislate for a minimum age limit on the sale of glue. This clearly is a matter we have considered carefully over a period. In theory, to cut off the supply of solvents by legislating against the supply of these substances to children appears simple, but it is just not so. We all know the difficulty for police and traders in relation to the supply of alcohol and fireworks to the young. In the case of solvents we are dealing with a much wider range of substances, not only glues, which are in everyday use and are available in a very wide range of retailers.
Moreover, it is important to appreciate that many of the substances that may be used for sniffing are readily available in most households, and a number are perfectly proper substances for children to buy and use correctly. It is only when they are flagrantly and intentionally misused that they become dangerous, and in these circumstances the Government do not believe that it would be justifiable or practical to ban, for sale to children, substances containing solvents which the very great majority will use correctly and harmlessly. The wide range of substances capable of being misused also makes it doubtful whether a ban on sale to children would in fact limit supply.
1592
My hon. Friend mentioned the report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland for 1977, in which he said that the introduction of legislation might be considered in relation to unscrupulous or unsuspecting dealers in areas where sniffing is practised who, after being advised by the police to be cautious on the sale of solvents to children, continue to sell them. My hon. Friend quoted only part of the report. It is noteworthy that it also says:
"The police have been concerned about the spread of this insidious practice for some time and with the full co-operation of medical and social work services, children found to have been indulging are warned of the inherent dangers in the presence of their parents who are advised to consult their family doctor. These matters are handled sympathetically and confidentially with the welfare and safety of the child accorded paramount importance. Although the abuse of solvents is not an offence, repeated instances following police warnings to parents could indicate that the child is beyond parental control necessitating consideration by the Reporter to a Children's Panel. Combined action involving police and other agencies is at present the most realistic way to control the problem."
This last sentence is the crux of the problem and is the line supported by those closest to and most experienced in dealing with the problem. I cannot possibly condone the action of shopkeepers who sell solvent-based materials to children where there are grounds for believing that they will be misused; but I do not believe that there are many shopkeepers who would be so irresponsible.
I turn now to the steps which my Department and others have taken to contain and eliminate the practice of solvent sniffing. We believe the answer lies, as my hon. Friend suspects, in health education and in early identification of the problem when it arises. To this end, the Scottish Departments wrote on behalf of the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the health boards, in June and July of this year to all directors of social work, directors of education, chief constables and chief administrative medical officers in Scotland. These letters stressed the Government's view that health education, rather than legislation, was the best way of dealing with the problem of solvent sniffing and indicated that coordinated action by all concerned was required. It was also suggested, and I believe correctly, that care should be

1593
taken to avoid unnecessary publicity since this could be counter-productive and attract more people to experiment. The problem of solvent sniffing was not to be specially highlighted, but should be dealt with as part of a comprehensive programme of health education and in association with other problems of misuse, such as those related to drugs and alcohol.
The letters indicated three main needs in addition to the health education programme. These were, first, early recogtion of the problem by those likely to come into contact with sniffers. Professional staff have already been given a deal of information on this in the professional press, and in some areas, including Strathclyde, pamphlets for parents and others likely to be involved with children have been widely distributed. The pamphlets for parents are distributed by the police and social workers. The Scottish health education unit has also widely circulated, through education authorities and social work departments, a booklet on"Drugs and Young People in Scotland"which was published in November 1977 and which includes a section on solvent sniffing. More than 16,000 copies of this booklet have been issued. I take the view that awareness of the problem by those likely to be involved must have been increased very substantially by these steps.
The second need is knowledge of the action to be taken and the assistance available. Most cases are dealt with by counselling, but some require psychiatric help or medical treatment. In many cases the children involved in experimentation also have social difficulties manifested, for example, by truancy or juvenile delinquency, and some are already known to police community involvement branches or are under supervision to social work departments. The full range of facilities generally available to children in trouble are available to solvent sniffers. It is apparent from the evidence we have that the practice of solvent sniffing is more pronounced in areas of deprivation. The more that can be done to improve standards in such areas, the less I believe will be the incidence of solvent sniffing.
1594
The third need which was identified was co-ordination of local effort to provide information, training and services, and the letters suggested that the coordinating role should be undertaken by the joint liaison committees recommended for establishment between local authorities and health authorities. Where separate sub-committees have been established for problems of drug abuse, these sub-committees should also cover solvent abuse. Such arrangements have already been implemented in the particular problem area of Strathclyde, and with the increasing awareness of all concerned I am hopeful that we will shortly see the problem diminishing.
Perhaps, before closing, I should make clear the other possibilities for action which we have considered and have found unacceptable. The first would be to make the practice of solvent sniffing illegal. If an offence is created, people expect it to be enforced. There are one or two other possibilities, such as labelling of bottles and packages, all of which have been considered.
I want to assure my hon. Friend that we are just as concerned as he is. I want also, through him, to assure his constituents and those of every other hon. Member that we are anxious to see an end to this regrettable practice of solvent sniffing. We are not convinced at this stage that legislation is the answer to the problem. We are convinced that parental responsibility combined with health education is the answer. We hope that, as we move on in the way that we have been going, with the distribution of leaflets, with making available the services of the police community involvement departments and taking all the action that I have described, we shall be able to convince people of the advisability of stopping this undesirable, regrettable and very dangerous habit—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fisheries Protection
  Fisheries Protection
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  Colleges of Further Education
  Colleges of Further Education
  National Union of Students
  National Union of Students
  Full-time Students
  Full-time Students
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Court Hearings (Coventry)
  Court Hearings (Coventry)
  Magistrates' Courts (Case Adjournment Applications)
  Magistrates' Courts (Case Adjournment Applications)
  Custodial Remands
  Custodial Remands
  Imprisoned Women
  Imprisoned Women
  Convicted Young Persons
  Convicted Young Persons
  County Compensation Funds
  County Compensation Funds
  Drunkenness Offenders
  Drunkenness Offenders
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  PLANNING INQUIRIES (LEGAL AID)
  PLANNING INQUIRIES (LEGAL AID)
  DIVISIONAL COURT HEARINGS
  DIVISIONAL COURT HEARINGS
CIVIL SERVICE
  Recruitment (Northern Ireland)
  Recruitment (Northern Ireland)
ENERGY
  Gas and Electricity Disconnections
  Gas and Electricity Disconnections
  Conservation (Clay Industries' Paper)
  Conservation (Clay Industries' Paper)
  Energy Sources
  Energy Sources
  Indigenous Materials
  Indigenous Materials
  Gas and Electricity Boards (Welfare Officers)
  Gas and Electricity Boards (Welfare Officers)
  Ceramic Materials
  Ceramic Materials
EMPLOYMENT
  Blue Asbestos
  Blue Asbestos
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Wages Council
  Wages Council
  Carlisle and Cumbria
  Carlisle and Cumbria
  Waste Collection
  Waste Collection
  Tenants and Householders (Home Management)
  Tenants and Householders (Home Management)
  Operation Clean Up
  Operation Clean Up
  Feltham Goods Yard
  Feltham Goods Yard
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Mobile Homes (Review)
  Mobile Homes (Review)
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Domestic Rates
  Domestic Rates
  Local Authority Services
  Local Authority Services
  Urban Authorities (Assisted Area Status)
  Urban Authorities (Assisted Area Status)
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Housing Adaptations (Disabled Persons)
  Housing Adaptations (Disabled Persons)
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  European Community (Ministerial Meetings)
  European Community (Ministerial Meetings)
  Industrial Building
  Industrial Building
  Roads (Preston)
  Roads (Preston)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  London Housing (Council Responsibilities)
  London Housing (Council Responsibilities)
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Greater London Council (Housing Sales)
  Greater London Council (Housing Sales)
  Inner Urban Areas Programme
  Inner Urban Areas Programme
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Homeless Persons (Local Authority Action)
  Homeless Persons (Local Authority Action)
  Copper Tube
  Copper Tube
  War Room, Storey's Gate
  War Room, Storey's Gate
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Roads and Footpaths (Access)
  Roads and Footpaths (Access)
  Design Guides (Circular)
  Design Guides (Circular)
  Development Land
  Development Land
  Local Councillors (Design Problems Awareness)
  Local Councillors (Design Problems Awareness)
  Inner Cities Bill
  Inner Cities Bill
  Environmental Board
  Environmental Board
  Planning Decisions
  Planning Decisions
  Motor Vehicles (Government Purchase)
  Motor Vehicles (Government Purchase)
  Planning Inquiries
  Planning Inquiries
TRANSPORT
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  M18
  M18
  Port of London Authority (Appointments)
  Port of London Authority (Appointments)
  Dangerous Materials (Carriage by Road)
  Dangerous Materials (Carriage by Road)
DEFENCE
  Queen's Flight
  Queen's Flight
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Destroyers and Frigates
  Destroyers and Frigates
  Army (Motor Cycle Purchases)
  Army (Motor Cycle Purchases)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inland Revenue Prosecution (Leeds Crown Court)
  Inland Revenue Prosecution (Leeds Crown Court)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Motor Vehicles (Government Purchases)
  Motor Vehicles (Government Purchases)
  National Land Fund
  National Land Fund
  Borrowing Requirement (Funding)
  Borrowing Requirement (Funding)
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mater Hospital, Belfast
  Mater Hospital, Belfast
  Link Road, Cullybackey
  Link Road, Cullybackey
INDUSTRY
  Merseyside (Management Consultants' Report)
  Merseyside (Management Consultants' Report)
  National Enterprise Board (Financial Limits)
  National Enterprise Board (Financial Limits)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Government Factories
  Government Factories
  Cobalt Imports
  Cobalt Imports
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Birmingham and Midland Eye Hospital
  Birmingham and Midland Eye Hospital
  Eye Hospital Services, Birmingham
  Eye Hospital Services, Birmingham
  Community Health Councils, West Midlands
  Community Health Councils, West Midlands
  West Birmingham Community Health Council
  West Birmingham Community Health Council
  Eye Consultants, West Midlands
  Eye Consultants, West Midlands
  Consultants (N.H.S. Establishment)
  Consultants (N.H.S. Establishment)
  Whooping Cough Vaccination (Information)
  Whooping Cough Vaccination (Information)
  Sewage Sludge
  Sewage Sludge
  Drunken Offenders (Report)
  Drunken Offenders (Report)
  Working Wives (EEC Directive)
  Working Wives (EEC Directive)
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Detoxification Centres
  Detoxification Centres
  Dialysis Patients (Attendance Allowance)
  Dialysis Patients (Attendance Allowance)
  Family Planning Association (Publication)
  Family Planning Association (Publication)
  Cigarettes (Sale to Young People)
  Cigarettes (Sale to Young People)
  Unemployment Benefit (Service Men's Wives)
  Unemployment Benefit (Service Men's Wives)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Elderly and Infirm Persons (Care)
  Elderly and Infirm Persons (Care)
  Day Nurseries (Bradford)
  Day Nurseries (Bradford)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Pay Beds (North-West Thames Region)
  Pay Beds (North-West Thames Region)
  District Hospitals
  District Hospitals
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  India and Pakistan (Immigration Applications)
  India and Pakistan (Immigration Applications)
  St. Lucia
  St. Lucia
TRADE
  Leather (Dumping)
  Leather (Dumping)
  Shipping Lanes (English Channel)
  Shipping Lanes (English Channel)
  Common Fund (Conference)
  Common Fund (Conference)
  Stansted Airport (Ugandan Airways Flights)
  Stansted Airport (Ugandan Airways Flights)
  Anglesey Marine Terminal (Oil Spill)
  Anglesey Marine Terminal (Oil Spill)
  Company Liquidations (Wales)
  Company Liquidations (Wales)
EMPLOYMENT
  Trawler Operations (Deaths and Injuries)
  Trawler Operations (Deaths and Injuries)
SCOTLAND
  Uig Pier (Accident Inquiry)
  Uig Pier (Accident Inquiry)
  Detained Persons (Weekly Cost)
  Detained Persons (Weekly Cost)
  Munn and Dunning Committees
  Munn and Dunning Committees
  Muirdrum (Accidents and Fatalities)
  Muirdrum (Accidents and Fatalities)
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Land Use
  Land Use
WALES
  Employment Protection Act
  Employment Protection Act
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
  Vehicle Registration (Form V5)
  Vehicle Registration (Form V5)
  Advance Factories (Gwynedd)
  Advance Factories (Gwynedd)
  Rate Support Grant (Gwynedd)
  Rate Support Grant (Gwynedd)

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

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS: SEISMIC SURVEY
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: 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 have been able to assess the results of the seismic survey for hydrocarbons which was commissioned last year in the South-West Atlantic including the area around the Falkland Islands.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, we have now received the data from the two companies who were authorised to carry out surveys of the Continental Shelf around the Falkland Islands. The work of evaluation has now begun.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can he tell us the names of the two companies which have carried out the surveys, and also by whom they were contracted to do them?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, yes, certainly. It was last year that Her Majesty's Government and the Falkland Islands Council authorised two companies, Texas Instruments and Western Geophysical, to survey the area of the Continental Shelf around the Falkland Islands. Consent was, of course, conditional upon the companies making their seismic data available free of charge to the Governments.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord
110
for that reply, are we to understand that this was in no sense under contract jointly to the Argentinian Government? Also, can he say whether the area surveyed was indeed that of the Malvinas Basin, or can he describe in any other way the area covered?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, without notice I could not define precisely the area of the survey, but that is a point of fact on which I hope to satisfy the House, and in particular the noble Earl. On the first point, certainly not; this survey was commissioned by Her Majesty's Government, but, of course, the two companies concerned are free to sell the information on commercial terms to whoever applies to them for it. I understand that the Argentinian Government have availed themselves of this information independently of us, but on terms different from that which I have just described as appertaining to Her Majesty's Government.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, am I right in understanding from that that the Argentinian Government are making their own appraisal of the value of the survey and its results?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, exactly; I should have said that. We are having our own evaluation made of the two surveys, in particular of one of them. No doubt the Argentinian Government will be evaluating the data which have been made available to them separately by one or both of the survey companies concerned.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, did the Minister say that the Government had "commissioned" these firms to do this work? Therefore, are the Government paying for these surveys?—because he said that they were getting their reports free from these two companies. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether or not the Government are paying for this information and, if so, tell us how much?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention which enables me perhaps to qualify the word "commissioned" or to use instead the word "authorised." Last year the British Government authorised the two

111
companies I mentioned to engage in these surveys, the condition being that they made their seismic data available to us free of charge.
The EARL of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will undertake to lay in the Library of the House, or give in a Written Answer to a Question, a statement giving the area covered by the surveys? Will he undertake to do that?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I indicated earlier that I would seek to do that, and I shall do it in the way in which the noble Lord has indicated. Possibly he might consider putting down a Question for Written Answer, and I shall see what I can do.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, shall we ever be let into the secret of what was there?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we can all live in hope.

CAR PRICE INCREASES
2.40 p.m.
Lord PLANT: 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 by what percentage Ford and British Leyland have increased the factory prices of their vehicles each year during the last four years; and what are the factory prices of similar vehicles in the USA, Japan, Germany and France.
Lord LEONARD: My Lords, in 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 to date the ex-factory prices of Ford vehicles rose on average by 20 per cent., 16 per cent., 20 per cent. and 9 per cent. respectively, and those of British Leyland vehicles by 17 per cent., 23 per cent., 19 per cent. and 12 per cent. respectively. I regret that information relating to the factory prices of foreign manufacturers' vehicles is not available.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that to many people at least it seems that the price of cars in the
112
United Kingdom has increased two and a half times in four years, whereas General Motors and Ford worldwide have only increased their prices one and a half times? In view of the fact that Ford United Kingdom made £4,000 profit per employee last year, will my noble friend confirm that its car price increases will be subjected to scrutiny by the Price Commission?
Lord LEONARD: My Lords, I am not in a position to substantiate or to disagree with what my noble friend says about the prices of cars of General Motors compared with the prices of British cars. However, the Price Commission is a statutory body which in itself can check if it feels that the profits are not in keeping with the prices which are charged to the public. I do not think that I can speak for General Motors and the prices it charges in this instance.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that we in this country should be disturbed that plant owned by Ford in Europe gives a return of 98 per cent. whereas identical plant owned by Ford in this country gives a return of only 66 per cent.? It is that fall in the output here compared to abroad which affects the prices which can be charged and which, more importantly, will decide how successful the company will be in employing people in the future.
Lord LEONARD: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is getting into the area of productivity, which to me is a different question from the Question which we are discussing here.

TEMPORARY CIVIL SERVANTS
2.43 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have reached any decision about the possible extension of the limit of five years for service by tem-

113
porary civil servants since the replies given in the House on 7th June (Hansard, cols. 1229–1231).
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, a new Civil Service Order in Council, which came into force on 1st December, clarified the Commission's powers and strengthened their control over recruitment to all permanent appointments. Under this, the great bulk of short-term appointments by Departments now have to satisfy the Commission's open recruitment requirements whereas that was not essential under the previous rules. The new order also established that special advisers will not be required to resign solely on the grounds of having served for five years. Their appointments, which remain limited to the life of the current Administration, are self-evidently not permanent and therefore do not require the certification of the Civil Service Commission.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his Answer. Since a way now seems to have been found for making short-term appointments permanent in order to cater for the special political advisers, are the Civil Service unions satisfied that the traditional system of entry through the Civil Service Commission's open competition is not being eroded?
Lord PEART: No, my Lords, I cannot accept that. Indeed, noble Lords will understand that the previous Conservative Administration also appointed specialist advisers. I do not think this will alter the character of the Service. As a matter of fact, I do not have a special adviser myself.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that none the less no appointment was held for longer than five years, and that this is therefore a significant change? Does the noble Lord remember his replies to questions on 7th June about having a debate in Parliament before such changes were made? In his capacity as Minister for the Civil Service, is he intending to use a Parliamentary opportunity longer than Question Time in order to explain these developments and invite discussion?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think we can have a discussion through the usual channels. I am quite prepared to have a debate, but I think we must settle it that way.

FISH STOCKS: CONTROL OF FACTORY SHIPS
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: 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 take steps to limit the number of factory ships permitted off the West Coast of Scotland and to regulate their use in order to protect employment in west coast fishing ports, to conserve the stock of mackerel and to reduce the pollution of the coast.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, the Government have no plans to limit the number of factory ships. Purchases by these ships, which provide a valuable export market, have not prevented the home processing industry from obtaining supplies, nor have they affected employment levels in the industry. The fishery is regulated in the interests of conservation by means of statutory licensing which limits the quantity of fish which each fishing boat can land or transship. Because of the availability of the mackerel stock, however, large quantities of fish would, in the absence of the factory ships, have had to be sold for reduction to meal or oil at a much lower price. In the light of the experience of this year's fishery, my officials are considering with Ross and Cromarty District Council the possible introduction of further controls to prevent pollution.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I should like to ask whether the Minister is aware that last year there were six of these factory ships opposite Ullapool and within Loch Broom, and that this year there have been 25? Is he aware that this has caused a great deal of pollution to the coasts? Perhaps the Minister has never

115
smelled these things. The stink is absolutely appalling. Is he also aware that this is causing a considerable adverse effect to our own West Coast fishermen?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, of course the fishing season is now over, as the noble Earl will be aware, but I can advise him that Ross and Cromarty District Council intend to promote an order. I can further confirm that I am aware that pollution has occurred, which of course is one of the reasons why the district council seeks to promote the order which will come before us. I do not think I can say anything other than that the Government imposed a quota on each fishing boat this year in an attempt to contain mackerel stocks.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on a day not so long ago, perhaps six weeks ago, 35 Russian vessels were counted in Loch Broom, and that Ullapool was thronged with Polish fishing vessels?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, that may well be so. The point I was trying to make is that the season finished in October.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider the following, and will the Government consider action upon them? First, numerous foreign vessels which are not fishing vessels but processing and transport ships are causing pollution and nuisance, and the Ross and Cromarty Pollution Order, which has only just come out, is unlikely to go through Parliament before May. Secondly, unless something is done to control the catch by British fishermen, the mackerel is likely to disappear as the herring has.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the season does not start again, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will know, until next August. The Ross and Cromarty Order, one hopes, will be effective before that date. I was saying earlier that during the Scottish summer mackerel season the fishing quota allocations varied between 3½ tonnes and 5 tonnes per crew member per day. That was a licensing restriction. I should also advise the House that
116
fishery scientists considered that, for 1978, 450,000 tonnes could be fished, but of course the Government restricted that.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to say whether this kind of problem will remain with the United Kingdom Parliament, or is it likely to be devolved to the Assembly?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland remains with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, does not controlling Russian trawlers come within the responsibility of the Foreign Office?
Lord KIRKHILL: I am sure that is true, my Lords, but I thought the noble Earl was going to remind us of a debate at the time of our devolution deliberations when we wondered whether the Scottish Assembly could express a view on foreign affairs.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Devonshire and Cornish fishermen would not wish this little controversy to be confined to the Scots?
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH:My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind—this follows on the last supplementary—that the fishermen in the South-West, particularly apropos the mackerel stocks, are equally or more so affected by the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and that off Falmouth there are not only Russian factory ships but also Scottish fishermen with their purse seine fishing nets, removing the basic mackerel stock from the whole of the South-West?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I indicated that since October last they had moved away from Scottish waters.
Earl JELLICOE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that despite intense and expert activity off the West Coast of Scotland last summer I managed to catch only seven mackerel? More seriously, will the noble Lord undertake to keep under very close review the ques-

117
tion of the possible depletion of mackerel stocks both off the West Coast of Scotland and off the West Coast of England?
Lord KIRKHILL: I can give absolute confirmation to the second point made by the noble Earl, my Lords.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL MEETING
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the meeting of the European Council.

CHINA: RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM
2.53 p.m.
Lord RHODES Lord RHODES rose to call attention to the importance cf our improved relations with China; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, having gone through the throes of wishing I had never put down my name on the Order Paper, I wish, paradoxically, to thank those who have made possible my appearance here this afternoon and to thank those who will be supporting me in this debate.
Yesterday, as I was on my way to the station in Manchester, I passed the end of a street called Granby Road and for old times sake I turned in to have a look at it. There I saw the "To Let" and "For Sale" signs; the street in which the mandarins of textiles once held their business. Those were the days at the early part of the century that I can remember. I recall my father coming back from where he was a workman in a finishing mill bringing with him "chaps" which were pictorial identifications of the consignees; guaranteeing the quality of what was in the package. That was a long time ago, and I can remember people going to their work in a carriage and pair, something which people in this House cannot remember.
I make no claim to be an expert and my appearance here this afternoon stems from leading a delegation of all-Party Parliamentarians to China last June. I
118
stress all-Party because there is no one Party that can presume to represent this country when it comes to visiting a nation with 900 million inhabitants; it is an all-Party consideration. Some time ago I was at a function at which the then Chinese Ambassador was present and I heard in critical tones that it was a long time since an all-Party delegation had visited China. I was told by the Chinese Embassy that if I organised a group of Parliamentarians, it would be very welcome in China. That I did, and the delegation consisted of four from this House and six from the Commons.
Normally, Parliamentary delegations from this country are sponsored and financed by either the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Commonwealth Association, both of which are in receipt of Government money. However, the Chinese would have nothing whatever to do with the Inter-Parliamentary Union because the Russians are members of it. Nevertheless, the Inter-Parliamentary Union did a good deal of the organising for me and I pay tribute to Brigadier Ward, whose recent death was such a shock to us all; he was a fine soldier and gentleman with a flair for the job he did for the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
The delegation was unusual, in that every member did a piece recording his impressions; that broke new ground, and our decision to take our own rapporteur who understood the idioms and nuances of the Chinese language paid off handsomely. It is to be hoped that that delegation was the first of many. When the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Huang, was in this country—I hosted a lunch in his honour in this place—he said he would welcome many more such delegations.
So many topics could come up for consideration, but I will save time by mentioning only one. Future delegations could apply their minds to how the Chinese view the EEC. Although Europe has gone through the motions of signing an agreement the Chinese tend to regard the Community in purely military terms. For instance, there was not the slightest inkling that the Community might have to act in consort against low-priced Asian exports. This is only one of many instances of the need for the mutual exchange of information that could take place by means of Parliamentary delegations.
We might say that 1978 has been a vintage year in terms of relationships, the highlight being Chairman Hua's visit to Romania and Yugoslavia; the dancing in the streets of Bucharest certainly seems to have paid handsome dividends. The Governor of Hong Kong, for the first time, attended the People's Republic of China's National Day, an historic occasion. On 23rd October of this year two tremendously significant things happened. First, Mr. Teng, the Vice-Premier, signed an agreement and treaty with Japan. On the same day Mr. Vance from America visited Moscow. It is significant that never has a person representing America been received in Moscow in so friendly a way as Mr. Vance was on the day when the Treaty was signed between Mr. Teng and the Japanese.
Very significant. Perhaps more important to us is the great interest that the improvement of our relations with China has had on the thinking of the ordinary man in the street here in Britain. Not for years have I found reaction to an international event so enthusiastically received as the improvement of our relations with China in the past two years. The people of this country are thrilled, and they feel safer for it.
A week last Monday I attended in Brussels a meeting with DG IV, a group which has to do with competition. They told us—and my friends who went with me from this House will corroborate this— that we want to get away from the ordinary conventional manufactures. Of course, everybody is going in for industrialisation. We have not yet reached anything like the point of saturation, but we shall before the end of the century if industrialisation goes on at this speed. They gave us a lecture on what we should make. They told us that we ought not to bother so much about textiles, or steel, or coal. We should be involved in computers, something modern, they said. When I asked which one, I am afraid that I did not get an answer.
Having been admonished by the pundits in Brussels, I come back and think about what we are good at. What are the sophisticated things that we can make? The first thing that I can think about is the Harrier. Before we went on the visit
120
we were briefed on the subject by Aerospace, in the company of the Foreign Office representatives. We were loaded by Aerospace with pamphlets advertising the virtues of jump jets. They are trying to make us into their salesmen. It became a topic of interest at every important interview, and by now the saga of the Harrier has assumed classical proportions.
The question is: do we want to sell it, or do we not? Please can we have this unravelled? What are the strategic, political, and economic issues that Dr. Owen talks about? We are told that we must resist pressures from those who want us to sell, and to resist pressures from those who do not want us to sell. We are told that we must achieve a balance. What is it that deters us? Is it NATO? We can understand very well that we cannot sell unless the United States and NATO are in agreement. Is it because the Chinese have demanded too stringent terms, or are we afraid of the inference that a Harrier sale would be taken as a new alliance with China? Or is it simply that the Russians do not approve? Russia has issued warnings on radio and to foreign correspondents. Mr. Brezhnev himself sent a letter to Mr. Callaghan and to President Giscard. There must have been many Russian tongues in Russian cheeks when it leaked out about that correspondence, threatening us with the terrible consequences of selling Harriers to China.
But, my Lords, we cannot go on indefinitely being undecided about these matters. First it is on, then it is off. It is like a reluctant bride, or a child blowing the seeds of a dandelion. We shall have the worst of both worlds if we are not careful. Tell the Russians straight: we have arrived to do this deal, which is a straightforward defence transaction which contains no aggressive element whatever.
One of the greatest moves that could happen in this world today is to create the conditions so that 900 million people in China have at their disposal enough power to be able to take the drudgery out of farm work. This means electricity. We in this country have the wherewithal to make that so. Think of the generating equipment that we could turn out. But if, through the sale of a few Harriers, we

121
are precluded from taking that opportunity, we shall regret it for as long as we are a nation.
Let the Russians be told that this Harrier deal is chicken feed in comparison with the 350 nuclear "subs", the big Russian fleets in all the oceans of the world, and their deliberate ruinous commercial shipping policy. I am not anti-Russia; I really am not. I have done as much as anyone in my time to aid good friendship between the Russians and ourselves, but this is the time to do something about this question.
My next point concerns the leg of our contact with China; I am talking of Hong Kong. We know that it is an anachronism. We know that traditionally its survival has depended upon its usefulness to mainland China, as a vital link with the outside world and a useful source of foreign capital. The improved relationship between China and the Western world is already changing the role of Hong Kong, and its value in consequence is enhanced as a point of neutral contact. I have heard it described as having the attributes of a fluid flywheel, taking up the strains and stresses between Orient and Occident. That is a flowery way of putting it, but it is true. Today Hong Kong exists as a free zone of China under British management, and full advantage should be taken of this fact. Speculate for a moment on what would be the situation if instead of British management, the management was. German, or French, or what have you—put your own name to it. Think of how busy they would be. Hong Kong's future lies in the ability to meet three criteria: first, its relationship with the United Kingdom; secondly, its value to the people of China; thirdly, its ability to meet the demands of a more sophisticated and better educated younger generation.
What we are gaining from China or what we are able to subscribe in the opposite way to China, will depend in a large measure on how that is done in co-operation with Hong Kong. Our trade figures are pathetic. I wonder how many noble Lords in this House know the figures. I do not wish to bore your Lordships with figures because I want to sit down before long. Last year, £1,000 million worth was purchased by Hong Kong from China, while £4 million worth
122
was bought from Hong Kong by China. Hong Kong sells to Britain £400 million worth; Britain sells to Hong Kong £270 million worth; Britain sells to China £60 million worth. So Hong Kong and Britain together amount to £64 million worth. It is a pittance. The scope here is enormous. If it is properly handled and some energy put into it, think what can be done in expanding our trade and fulfilling a function as we should see it by taking the drudgery out of farm work in that great country. The Chinese would respond to this. The Chinese want us to. There are people responding to this challenge in Hong Kong, Anglophiles, like the Kadoories, who are doing this job for us. I refer particularly to the sale by us in recent months of the generating plant which will keep 2,000 men busy for four years in this country.
Not so long ago you could not discuss the future of Hong Kong with the Chinese without embarrassment, but now there seems to be no topic that you cannot discuss, so while I was in China I raised this question of the future of Hong Kong many times. The reply was always pat, and it was this: "Hong Kong belongs to China. We do not rate Hong Kong as a Chinese Province like we do Taiwan, but as a special case which we shall deal with all in good time, but we shall deal directly with London when we do". They go on to say that, so far as they are concerned, there is no treaty, which can of course be interpreted in two ways. The one I prefer is that there will be no loss of face in China if British management continues after 1996.
On the evening before I hosted the lunch in this House to the Chinese Foreign Secretary there was a programme on television called "Money". In that programme the question was asked, "What are the Chinese like when it comes to paying? That was a very sensible question. It might have been a Yorkshire-man's question; it might have been a Scotsman's question; but there it was. I was dying to give them the answer. My mind went back to the time when several institutions in Hong Kong asked me to go out and help them with their problems in 1967, when the bombs were going off at the beginning of the cultural revolution. They put me in the top penthouse at Jardine Matheson's place

123
for three weeks and asked me to help them. I made 14 speeches, trying to calm them down. Jardine Matheson made me an offer. They said: "We know that the Chinese in Hong Kong owe the Yorkshire wool industry £3,500,000. We know that there is a lot of unease about getting paid. When you go back, we would be very much obliged if you would go to the wool delegation and say to them that Jardine Matheson are prepared to liquidate all the Chinese debts". So I went back to the delegation, and I gave them the message. There was silence. Then up got one Yorkshireman and said: "My grandfather dealt with the Chinese, and he always got paid; my father dealt with the Chinese, and he always got paid; I have dealt with the Chinese for 50 years, and up to now I have always been paid. We will tell Jardine Matheson that we will not want their help; the Chinese will pay all in good time". And so they did— but what a recommendation!
The Chinese leaders face the challenge of four modernisations—industry, agriculture, defence and technology—and they are committed to doing it at high speed. But we do not want to underestimate what a disciplined population can do under strong Government. China is now committed to seeking assistance from foreigners —a complete departure from China under Chairman Mao. She aims at being one of the five major industrial Powers by the end of the century. To do this, the support she will need to get in technology and plant from Japan and the West will be enormous. But let nobody think that it is going to be easy: the Chinese are some of the cleverest traders in the world, and there is no doubt that they are adept at getting the best of a bargain. They are tough, and they will have to have tough suppliers.
I mentioned before that we are well down the list of suppliers to China. Japan, Germany, France and the USA are all ahead of us. The Chinese can pay. They know how to manage some of their affairs; and, in particular, production is increased prior to wages and salaries. I expect my noble friend Lord Bowden will have something to say on this, because he made a very notable contribution on this question when we were in China. When I was host to Mr. Huang during the lunch I mentioned, he stressed
124
time and time again that we must master the art of a new system of trading. The system of trading that he meant was barter and compensatory deals. We in London, at any rate, have these skills; we have been doing it for a long time. I ask the Government whether they are making it possible for this activity to receive all the encouragement possible in the near future.
My Lords, I have finished. I have touched on only the fringe of the subject. The noble Lords who accompanied me on that expedition are down to speak, and I have absolutely no doubt whatever that they will fill in some of the important items. But what I would leave with the House this afternoon is the necessity to be free and able to do the job of helping China to take the drudgery out of agriculture and expand their industry. Here is a great opportunity, and I sincerely hope we take it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, appeared to be in some doubt at the beginning of his speech whether he should have spoken today. I am sure that he is the only noble Lord who would now have such doubts. This is a crucial subject which he has brought to our attention at a very appropriate time and he has done so with that mixture of tough determination, commonsense and tact that one would expect from a noble Lord who is Lord Rhodes, of Saddleworth in Yorkshire, and who has yet been Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire.
I am not an old China-hand nor even a young China-hand, and unlike, so far as I can make out, every other participant in today's debate I have not been there. I therefore give only one undertaking: I shall not quote, or even make up, any old Chinese proverbs, because I think that a debate of this character must be based on hard facts and not get wafted away in a cloud of sentiment. We are discussing a country which occupies one-twelfth of the whole landmass of the world and provides one-quarter of its population, whose impact on the rest of us in the rest of the century is bound to be something of major importance. One can only guess at the number of people who will inhabit the country of China by the end of the century. Therefore I

125
take the view that it is entirely right that your Lordships should spend an afternoon discussing relations between this country and China.
I am sure that we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for giving us the benefit of his experience in leading his delegation and also for his work both before and since that time. It provides a good backdrop for the rest of your Lordships to focus your collective wisdom on this topic. I do not think that we want to look at it in a purely bilateral way. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will not do so, I think that we must look at the wider relationships between China and ourselves as expressed through our membership of the European Economic Community, and also we must take a view as to how China is developing its own perception of its role in the world and how that affects our interests throughout the various sectors of the world in which we have particular interests.
I should like to begin my brief remarks by anchoring them to two quotations from recent articles in The Times. The first is from an August issue and it reads:
"The motive for the Chinese decision to work with the industrialised democracies is hard-headed: a recognition that this is the best hope for providing China with the social and economic dynamism and the strategic security she needs for survival, let alone prosperity".
The second is from an October issue. It reads:
"… it is important to note"—
it is a report of a recent visit to China——
"that in a final session with Vice-Premier Ku Mu, in the course of a very wide-ranging discussion, he made it abundantly clear that readiness to supply required defence material will be an important factor in assessing a country's ' ranking ' as to its willingness to trade with China".
The first quotation was from an article written by the former Secretary of State for Trade, Mr. Dell, and the second from an article written by the noble Lord, Lord Roll, who I am sorry to see is not taking part in today's debate.
To me, those views reinforce the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, was making so strongly, because I think that when we are looking at the question of the Harriers and their sale we have to realise that this is not a matter that is limited to the question of those aircraft alone but
126
that it is part and parcel of the overall relationship that we have to develop with the Chinese. On that topic, I would only add one or two comments. I have heard that one of the factors leading to delay was that there had to be consultations with our allies. Have they finished—because if they have, what other respectable reasons can there be for a decision not being taken on the sale of the Jump Jet Harriers? Linked to this individual sale, there is the wider question of the sort of expertise that we have in this country and which the Chinese need in order to achieve the "four modernisations" (as they call them) by the target time they have set themselves. We have considerable expertise in hovercraft, in steelworks, in oil development and in petrochemical plant, all of which was discussed and, to some extent, agreed at the recent visit by senior Chinese Ministers. I believe that a target was set for our trade to quadruple by the year 1985.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will be able to fill in more details of this target date and what is now expected and planned by Her Majesty's Government. And I should like to link that question with a question that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, raised. It seems that for the Chinese the European Economic Community is much more than an economic club or, if you like, a trade association. They see it as an important political grouping, if not the most important political grouping, on the continent of Europe. I wonder how Her Majesty's Government now see the development of our trade relationships with China in this context. The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, said something about the framework agreement that was organised by, first, my noble friend Lord Soames and then Commissioner Haferkamp with the People's Republic of China. How will these negotiations on trade be split up between our own bilateral negotiations such as we have had recently and the framework agreements that the Chinese negotiated some time ago with the Community as a whole? The question I want to put to the Government is this: How are they going to ensure that British interests are best balanced between our own mechanisms and ways of doing things and those which the Chinese sometimes seem to prefer?—which are those of the Community.

127
There are many other topics which your Lordships will wish to consider in detail and it is a very wide range of expertise that is fielded in today's speakers' list. I was going to say something about the special position of Hong Kong, but the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, has covered all that I had in mind. I would however, reiterate his, questions about the view of Her Majesty's Government as to the special position of Hong Kong and the effect that the developments in the Chinese attitude will have upon it.
I should like to dwell for a minute on figures that do not have rows and rows of noughts about them and do not deal with trade but people. As well as the great part that this country can play in helping to modernise and develop sectors of the Chinese economy, we have a very important role in training, scientific and technical exchanges, academic programmes of various sorts, which could lead to a marked improvement in genuine understanding between people in responsible positions in both our countries. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will be able to fill in a little detail about what has been planned in this field. I understand that the Royal Society is going to act as the umbrella for a series of scientific and technical exchanges. This is something noble Lords would like to hear about, as well as the possibilities for the exchange of students and discussions on topics of mutual interest. If the Chinese officials express enthusiasm for information about how fish farming progresses in this country, I hope that the noble Lord will refer them at once to my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley.
There is a wide range of activities which can help cement better relationships between the two countries, some of them to do with trade; some of them political; some of them educational and scientific. We must use them all in order to make greater progress. Years ago it was the custom for people in this country to send china objects to China to be inscribed and fired with designs of their own choosing. My family motto—that of the Strachey family—is "Coelum non animum", which is half a line of Virgil, means "We change our habitation but not our spirit" or "wherever we are we stay Stracheys", to put it more crudely.
128
This motto was sent out to be put on a set of china. There was a technical problem. It came back: "Colum non animum", which means "Cabbage not mind."
I tell this story not as a retrospective criticism of Chinese craftsmanship, nor as a weapon for my noble friends to throw at me when they think I am making a vegetable comment, but because there is a historic relationship between this country and China—a trading relationship. As the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, reminded us, it goes back a long way. We must not be sentimental about this for the Chinese would not be sentimental, but there is some shared history and there are some shared objectives and some common purposes. While Chinese Communists are still Communists just as much as they are Chinese, there is increasingly the possibility of reaching agreement with them. While we must be realistic about our importance to them in comparison with that of Japan or the Federal Republic of Germany, or other countries whose trade is of a higher order of magnitude or of greater scale of importance, we nevertheless have this old tie and we are still—just—a member of the Community, and this is something that reinforces our trading links with China.
The best thing for me to do, my Lords, is to allow other noble challengers to joust at this subject. It has come up for discussion at a particularly appropriate moment. How difficult it is for us to read the newspapers and understand what wall posters really mean! We in your Lordships' Chamber or in Europe generally cannot judge what is going on in China at the moment. Any of us who attempted to extrapolate from our own experience or to wish in a woolly way that some deeply democratic movement were now beginning, would be likely to be wrong.
Nevertheless, if there is change towards stability and continuity and common sense in trading relationships, this will do more than benefit China—it will benefit stability in the world. If this debate has played a small part in giving your Lordships a chance to say what you feel about this matter from your experience, and the Government a chance to say what they feel now about the state of political develop-

129
ments in China, then I and all my noble friends will think that today's debate will have been very worth while indeed.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL MEETING
3.35 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the meeting of the European Council. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Brussels which I attended with my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 4th and 5th December. The main topic of discussion was the European Monetary System and matters related to it. The Council agreed that a European Monetary System should be established on 1st January 1979. The five Community countries at present in the snake indicated that they would participate in all aspects of the system, and France decided to join them. At the conclusion of the discussions, the Prime Ministers of Italy and Ireland said that they would need more time for consultations before reaching a conclusion on their participation in the exchange rate mechanism. I explained to the Council that I would not be recommending to the Cabinet that the United Kingdom should participate in the exchange rate mechanism when it begins to function I informed the other Heads of Government that we intend to work for a continuation of the exchange rate stability which sterling has enjoyed for nearly two years.
"I am arranging for the relevant document which was agreed to be published as a White Paper.
"It was agreed that the United Kingdom would be free to join the exchange rate mechanism at a later date if we wish; or of course to remain outside it. We shall of course join in the development of the ECU and of the European Monetary Fund. All Community currencies will be included in the ECU. We are free to choose
130
whether or not we wish to deposit 20 per cent. of our gold and dollar reserves with the European Monetary Co-operation Fund against issue to us of a corresponding value of ECUs. That is a matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider shortly with the Bank of England. In taking a decision we shall take into account the possibility that intervention in Community currencies could be helpful to us in maintaining the stability of sterling.
"We shall participate in the enlarged Community credit which is linked to the establishment of the EMS. This will be without reservation in the increase in medium term credit. As regards the short term monetary support which is more closely linked to day to day exchange rate intervention, we have agreed not to call on the credit increase which is now being made, and our partners have agreed not to call on us. There is also provision for reciprocal consultation about important decisions concerning exchange rate policy between countries inside and outside the exchange rate mechanism.
"At the previous Council meeting in Bremen, I called for studies in the context of EMS about measures to strengthen the economies of the less prosperous member countries. This part of our work was less thoroughly prepared than the work on the system itself. The proposals which eventually emerged provide for additional loan facilities of up to 1,000 million EUA over five years for less prosperous countries participating in the exchange rate mechanism, with a 3 per cent. interest rate subsidy.
"There was a limitation on these loans that they should not be used for projects which might create distortion of competition within other member countries. Member countries not participating in the exchange rate mechanism will not contribute to the financing of this scheme. I stressed the importance of Community policies, taken as a whole, contributing to convergence in the economic performance of members of the Community. It was doubts about the value of the proposals so far made that contributed to the unwillingness of Italy and Ireland to commit

131
themselves. The Commission was invited to look into this whole question and report back to the next European Council.
"As regards the Common Agricultural Policy, the Commission made a report recommending a rigorous price policy as a way of tackling the problem of surpluses, with a freeze on common prices for 1979–80. The President of the Commission announced that the Commission would make its detailed proposals for next year's prices on this basis. The Council agreed to return to this problem and to establish the necessary guidelines at its next meeting in March. There was a short discussion about fisheries and the Commission was asked to make further efforts towards finding a satisfactory settlement.
"Among other topics I should report briefly on two. The first was the agreement to ask a Committee of three drawn from France, the Netherlands and Britain to look at the way the Community works and make practical suggestions for improvements, with a view particularly to the prospective enlargement to 12. My right honourable friend the Member for Birkenhead has been good enough to accept an invitation to serve together with Mr. Barend Biesheuvel of the Netherlands and M. Robert Marjolin of France.
"Secondly, Foreign Ministers discussed the emoluments which should be received by directly elected members of the European Assembly. They agreed that the emoluments should be based on those of Members of national Parliaments and be subject to national taxation. There will be consultation with the Assembly by the President of the Council of Ministers.
"Mr. Speaker, we were greatly helped throughout this long and arduous meeting by the skilful chairmanship of Chancellor Schmidt. We can be satisfied that our country played a constructive part in the months of discussion that led to the construction of the European Monetary Scheme. The initial decision has now been taken and it is for each country to decide whether the proposals now on offer are commensurate with the greater risks involved of going into
132
the exchange rate mechanism. The British Government hope that the greater stability which the dollar has enjoyed in recent weeks will continue and will help the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS when it begins to operate. We for our part look forward to participating in further work which remains to be done on both the internal aspects of the system and in its wider international implications.
"The broad conclusion I offer to the House is that well-constructed and effective international monetary arrangements can assist those who take part in them in certain circumstances but they can be no more than additional supports and that in the end it will be the success of our own efforts in restraining inflation, keeping down prices, maintaining the stability of sterling and remaining competitive that will ensure the long-term well-being of our people."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.44 p.m.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that Statement—it is undoubtedly a sad Statement, not only from the point of view of Britain but from the point of view of the European Community as a whole —may I ask him to say what was the major factor: was it the weakness of the British economy or dissent within the Cabinet on all matters European which led the Prime Minister to refuse to participate in the monetary scheme as a whole? Secondly, I notice in the Statement the following words:
"At the previous Council meeting in Bremen I"—
that is the Prime Minister—
"called for studies in the context of the EMS about measures to strengthen the economies of the less prosperous member countries. This part of our work was less thoroughly prepared than the work on the system itself".
Why? Does this show that we have not got the influence we should have in the European Community? Is this a reflection of the amount of political capital which the Government have already used up and of its lack of influence, effect and "punch" in Community circles? Does this also not mean that the refusal by the European Council as a whole to agree on the Commission's Paper on the future

133
of the Agricultural Policy, with all that means to the advantage both of this country and of the Community itself, was not accepted? Is there not some cause and effect there?
Thirdly, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the Prime Minister made any proposal at the meeting about discussions between the Community, on the one hand, and the United States Administration and the Japanese Government, on the other hand, as to how to bring greater order into the world monetary system, of which the EMS was to be but a beginning and which is so essential if world trade is to recover and prosper?
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on these Benches greatly regret the failure to achieve a comprehensive European monetary system covering all the members of the European Economic Community. We appreciate all the difficulties, but we had hoped that the United Kingdom would be in from the beginning. It is clear that the question of the transfer of resources has been the main reason for the breakdown; and on that it would appear that Italy and Ireland were on our side and took the same point of view in the argument as we did. We certainly agree that the transfer of resources is very important, though it may not be achieved on the scale which is necessary until there is greater political and economic integration than there is now.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether there was any further discussion on the relative merits of the basket of currencies and the parity grid. Further, how will what is now proposed differ from the existing snake? Is it just a question of France joining the snake? What is the difference between the Italian and Irish positions and our own? Could we not have left our position open, as they left theirs open? Finally, I would hope in any case that the set-back will not be taken by the Government as an excuse for a passive attitude. I would hope that, together with Italy and Ireland, we shall continue to seek for a basis on which all can join.
3.48 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Soames, described the result of these discussions as "sad". Those participating did not use such a term. Chancellor Schmidt and the President of the Commission described the meeting as having "a limited success". It would be sadder still if, on a wave of some kind of ill-prepared euphoria, members of the Community were to join a scheme which was not durable and effective, because ultimately that would be more destructive than looking very carefully at a scheme such as has emerged.
I was asked particularly whether it was a weakness in the British economy which led to British failure to participate. I would remind the House that the effective rate of sterling has been stable for some 22 months, and that is the best sign that it was not weakness of the British economy which caused the British Government to hold back in relation to that part of the scheme which is described in chapter 3 of the Resolution of the Council, which will be published as a White Paper.
It was not dissent within some part of the British Cabinet. I explained just a week ago in the course of a debate following an unstarred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, that the Government had looked very, very closely at the details of this scheme because it is no good looking towards the distant blue mountains if you do not look down at the stones which lie at your feet. It was essential that we should look at the details and see whether or not the economics of the scheme made sense. The Government did that, and may I say that I think the House acknowledged on that occasion that the Government's approach, as evidenced by the Green Paper which was then published, was open, honest and clear to all and was certainly realistic.
I was asked particularly about that part of the Statement which referred to the lack of thorough preparation in relation to the concurrent studies. It is no secret, either to this House or to anywhere else, that the Prime Minister was the leader of those who laid great emphasis upon the need for effective steps to be taken within the Community to produce a convergence of economic performance and the proper transfer of

135
resources. It is not the fault of the British Government, which did as much as they could, that this work was not properly done. Indeed, evidence that it was not properly done can be seen in the serious disappointment suffered by the Italian Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister, when they arrived at Brussels and—I hesitate to say it—got the answer that they did in relation to this matter.
The Prime Minister has also led in relation to seeing the European Monetary System as being only part of a worldwide system, because, although a zone of monetary stability in Europe would be immensely valuable, worldwide problems will not be solved unless we come to terms with exchange rates with the dollar, with the yen and with other currencies.
I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said and thank him for it. The relative merits of the grid and the basket were indeed still discussed, and, as I told the House just a week ago, a compromise arrangement was put forward. It is a highly technical matter and your Lordships will find it fully described when the White Paper is published. It is in Chapter 3 of the document which is entitled The Resolution of the European Council, and your Lordships will see how a compromise arrangement emerged. But, in essence, my own judgment is that it was rather nearer to the grid than to the basket.
In relation to the difference between the approach of the Italians and the Irish, the position is this. They have reserved their position, and both the Italian Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister will go back to their respective Governments to discuss the outcome. I would expect their position to be announced in the course of next week, and the Council will hear the matter officially on, I think, 18th December. Our own position is absolutely clear and it is stated in the Green Paper. The Irish and the Italians obviously felt that if they joined the scheme, and if there was a generous transfer of resources to them, then they could live with the scheme, the Italians no doubt intending to take advantage of the rather wider band fluctuation which was permitted—the 6 per cent. band— and which it was thought they might have taken advantage of. We did not feel that the scheme which was agreed at Brussels
136
in relation to exchange rate mechanisms permitted us to join, and the difference is one which has been manifest all the time. Of course, there was nothing like any corresponding transfer of resources proposed in relation to the United Kingdom that the Irish in particular, and the Italians perhaps as well, thought they might get out of the Brussels meeting.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether we have not reached an absolutely ludicrous situation—leaving aside the specialists on this matter, and taking ordinary people like myself who are pro-European, but who occasionally have some reservations about the way things are going economically and even the way in which the whole concept of the Community is, in some ways, a rich man's club—if some of us who are still good Europeans, or Europeans anyhow, cannot state our reservations about what has happened, without being included in what has become, for bad Europeans, a new criminal class?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I count myself among these ordinary people. I certainly do not want to enter into a general discussion about the character of the European Community, which has been described by my noble friend as a rich man's club. Of course, those who are enthusiastic about Europe may well have reservations about what has happened. But, really, you cannot construct a sound edifice without good plans and without sound work at the foundations, and that is what is required here. Until we get it, we shall not have a system that will be durable and effective.
Lord ROBERTHALL: My Lords, I think that the Government have come very well out of a situation in which the economy behind them was far from strong. I think that we have done the best we could. But may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether I am right in supposing, from what he said about the White Paper, that all the details which have to be settled before the scheme comes into operation have been settled and will be in the forthcoming White Paper?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, for what he has said about the Government's stance here, and about how the

137
Government have come out of it. With regard to the details, I really am reluctant to pursue the matter of detail, because it is highly complicated, and, although I myself have had time, though not very much time, to read it and, I think, to digest it, it seems to me in a sense— although that is a non-economist's judgment—somewhat patchy. Some parts are much clearer than others. Some parts certainly have to be worked out and, indeed, there are calls in the resolution for legislation and for further discussions. What is clear—and I want to emphasise this to the House—is that we are participants in the scheme, but not in the exchange rate mechanism. We intend to play a part in the further consultations which will take place, in particular in relation to the increasing credit system and also in relation to the possible development of the ECUs.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether he will be kind enough to advise the Prime Minister, as coming from an old campaigner who has some idea of what public opinion is, to make this an issue at the next General Election and just watch for the result?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, that is an astonishing proposition coming from my noble friend Lord Shinwell. T recall that during the discussions on the Scotland Bill, he advised the House more than once that the people in Great Britain would not be able to understand that Act. If they cannot understand that Act, they will certainly not understand the European Monetary System, and I would hesitate to offer such advice to my right honourable friend. But I am quite certain that his advisers will draw his attention to what my noble friend has said.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does the Minister realise that, while our fellow countrymen may not have the perception of the Scots in being able to understand everything that is put before them, they still have common sense enough to distinguish between a hook with bait on it and a hook with no bait on it? It is a matter of great rejoicing for me that the Government have shied away from the possibility of taking the hook with nothing on it, because it gives the British people an opportunity to accept the challenge of
138
meeting their own destiny through their own efforts. Indeed, perhaps it would be useful if the Minister used this occasion to remind our fellow countrymen that the weakness which the Tory Party are seeking to exploit stems from the fact that this country gave all in two world wars, and went from a position of absolute supremacy to great weakness in defence of Germany and France, who are both seeking to exploit us and drive us into the ground, and to pretend that it was they who won the war and we who lost it.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if I may just follow my noble friend's analogy in one respect, there are too many people pretending that the European Monetary System is a bait with no hook on it.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, are the Government aware that the salary now proposed for British members of the European Parliament, much of which will presumably have to be spent abroad where the cost of living is very much higher, will, after deduction of tax, amount to perhaps rather less than that enjoyed by a competent shorthand typist? In those circumstances, do they think that they are acting in accordance with the Treaty in proposing to tax members of the directly elected European Parliament, and do they not fear in those circumstances that they may well be had up in the European Court?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, there has been a repeated expression of view, both in this House and in another place, that the pay of members of the European Assembly should not be excessive, and should not be disproportionate in relation to what the corresponding national Members of Parliament may earn. The result, therefore, will be that the salary for a member of the European Assembly will be the same as the salary for a Member of the House of Commons.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, although I think the House accepts that stable monetary arrangements are of enormous value and that we ought to do a great deal to secure them, is not the real lesson of this sad meeting that, without the Americans, we cannot get a stable international currency? Would it not be a good idea if the Prime Minister now asked the American Government to participate with Europe—

139
not as the great, superior dollar but as one with all of us—in making a really sensible monetary arrangement?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lord, I accept that the Prime Minister has always emphasised that one cannot, as it were, cut oneself off from the world currency situation. The Prime Minister has always seen the proposed zone of monetary stability in Europe as being a stepping stone, a support and a help towards arriving at a worldwide system which is stable. But that is not something which is directly under the control of the European Community, although, of course, discussions of that kind must continue.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the Minister note that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn——
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I hope the House will agree with me that it is always accepted that Statements are never made the subject of general debate. We have had 25 minutes on this Statement. There are to be a great many speakers in the debate. Therefore, we should proceed.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, as I was half way through my question——
Several noble Lords: Order, Order!

CHINA: RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM
4.1 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I rise to speak in this debate, mainly because I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, to be a member of his delegation to China. I speak first from these Benches because my noble friend, who is our spokesman on foreign affairs, was a member of a delegation to China led by Lord Chalfont and, with his customary diffidence, my noble friend Lord Gladwyn does not wish to speak before Lord Chalfont.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for asking me to go to China and also for initiating this debate,
140
because it gives me a chance to say how well he did and how suitable he was to lead a Parliamentary delegation. The Chinese adored the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, because they respect great age and also because they respect warriors. The noble Lord is very much both. I remember the very interesting and impressive interview which we had with Li Hsien-nien, a Vice-Premier of China. We sat in the customary circle. The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, was sitting beside the Vice-Premier, who is a man of 70—a young fellow who had been on the Long March and who is also a warrior. Looking at them, I found it very difficult to distinguish between them. They were obviously getting on like a house on fire. The more people like the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, who go to China, the better chance we shall have of reaching an understanding which will lead to a more settled world and to prosperity for ourselves in association with China.
I intend to give a personal impression of our visit because it is relevant to the subject. There were four Peers and six Members of the House of Commons on that delegation. None of us had been to China before, and it hit us like a bludgeon. It was quite extraordinary. One knows that the figure of 900 million is an estimate of the number of Chinese, but you do not appreciate what this means until you see them all coming at you on bicycles in the streets of Peking.
There were various incidents during our stay which are illustrative of the size of their problems. We were taken to see the great bridge—which was finished about 10 years ago—over the Yangtze River, which separates the North China plain from South China. I was a little bored; I thought, "Looking at bridges is not very interesting". This enormous bridge carries both rail and road traffic. Everything about it was explained to us. In a rather bored manner, I asked how far up river was the next bridge, and our guide said that it was at Wu-han. So I asked him how far up river that was and received the electrifying answer that it was a thousand miles up river. That is more than the whole length of our country.
Incidents like this brought it home to us that enormous problems are being solved. Before the Chinese built this great bridge they had a train ferry;

141
18 trains a day went across that great waterway. When we were there, they were pushing over 160 trains a day at a speed which, frankly, horrified me. The whole bridge appeared to shake. However, 160 trains a day compared with 18 represents an enormous increase in traffic. To that has to be added a great amount of road traffic. One could see that the problem was being tackled, despite the fact that when they were in the middle of building the bridge the Russians withdrew their technical assistance and advice. Nevertheless, the Chinese carried on themselves and solved the problem.
We were taken, as all tourists are, to the Great Wall. We thought that it was a very fine wall. Then, all of a sudden, it hit us that it did not stretch, like Hadrian's Wall, for 60 or 70 miles but that it stretched for thousands of miles and that the people of China, without modern technological aid, had built this wall some thousands of years ago. All this made the required impression upon us. It made us aware that we were looking at a phenomenon which is very little understood in this country.
As this House knows, I am a farmer. I had read and heard a great deal about the agriculture of China. On our arrival, we boarded a train at Hong Kong, on the border, and went to Canton. Our journey took us through irrigated agricultural land the like of which I had never seen before. Every inch was cultivated. We looked at it all the way during a two hour journey, and we began to appreciate that the Chinese system of agriculture had been in existence for a great deal longer than the rather vaunted agricultural system, both here and in America, under which we produce a great deal per man. The Chinese, however, have been cultivating these river basins for something like 6,000 years, and the land is improving; it is not being turned into a desert. The Chinese have enormous numbers of people working on the land and they are self-sufficient in food. They buy some wheat—and very useful that is to us—but against that they export rice. The food we had was delicious, although I doubt whether it is the kind of food that the 800 million Chinese eat every day.
142
We were taken to see the communes. Again, they shook our concept of what agriculture means. We went first to a commune outside Peking, the Red Star Commune. I shall not bore noble Lords with figures, but 83,000 people live in this commune—that is, 18,000 families. The total hectarage of the commune is 10,800, which is over 20,000 acres. The 83,000 people living in that commune work in the small factories, the repair sections, the hospitals and so on. In another commune in Shanghai 18,000 people live and it covers 1,000 hectares. That commune includes 19 small factories.
We were very impressed by the way in which the communes are operated more or less as self-developing capitalist units, producing their own factory goods and improving their methods of agriculture. We have a great deal to contribute in order to help the Chinese to improve not their methods of agriculture but their productive efficiency. I hope that the Chinese are sensible about it. From my conversations on this matter I think that they will be, although I should like to have had many more technical conversations. They appear to be going for the right things. We were standing on this great bridge and we looked down on the peasants working in the fields below. I must say I was jolly thankful that I was a Scottish peasant and not a Chinese one! They were irrigating, running with buckets of water slung on a carrier over the shoulders. They were harvesting by hand with sickles and they were carrying home the bales of wheat on their backs, and all this alongside a tremendous bridge which they had built themselves.
This is part of the whole concept of China—the two developments going on together. Eighty-five per cent. of the 900 million people of China live on the land. If they only improve their efficiency enough to get 100 million off the land into industry that will make them the largest production unit in the world— larger than the Japanese or the Americans —and I think they can improve and adapt their agriculture. I hope they will not go to the lengths that we do—in fact they cannot—but they can improve it in a different way, and before the end of the century they can make available something

143
like 200 million people to work in industry. That is a terrifying but exciting prospect and one that we do well to consider.
I do not want to go on for too long because there are so many people who wish to speak. But I think it is important to say something about the cultural revolution, the Gang of Four and the 10 years before the present Government took power. Everywhere we went we were told about the mistakes of the Gang of Four. For example, we were taken round a very good library in a university. The librarian was very proud and he had a book out for each of us from our own part of the world. He actually had a copy of Burns to show me that they knew about Burns. It was all that a library should be, and then we went through to the reading room and there were 400 young Chinese of both sexes with their heads down and working jolly hard. We said it was very impressive and he said, "Yes, at the time of the Gang of Four there would have been five or six or maybe a dozen, and the rest would have been out waving little red books and annoying honest men who were trying to do a good job".
Then we went to a textile printing factory which, unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, did not go to. That was extremely impressive and we asked how they got on during the time of the Gang of Four. The chairman of the revolutionary committee, who was the manager, said "Ah, well, when they tried to tell us that production freaks were bad we said, ' Well, if you do not produce you do not eat'. This appealed to our workers so we kept on producing." I think that private arrangements overcame many of his supply problems and certainly the Gang of Four were totally unable to influence the peasants of the country, who knew that food had to be grown, that seasons come and go, instead of peculiarities like this.
Another very impressive sign of the damage done to education and development during the last 10 years of the cultural revolution was given to us by the professors of medicine in a teaching hospital. When we asked them what were the political qualifications to get into the university, they replied, with grim determination, "Oh, yes, we accept that there must be political qualifications to come to this
144
medical school, but now before they get in they have to pass our entrance examination". My impression when going round was that all the people that we met—and we were privileged, of course, to meet a great many of the responsible people of the new China—did not want the nonsense of the last 10 years to recur; they wanted to go ahead and to get the country on to a proper footing, to produce and to get to a stage so that in the year 2000 they will be coming up level with the West.
The opportunities for us in China are great and the Chinese are wonderful people. It is important to look at how they feel today. As I have said, we had excellent young diplomats as our guides and we met and talked completely freely with a very large number of people throughout China. The impression that I have is that they are back happily in their old feeling of being superior people, for which they have a very large number of reasons, to wit their civilisation goes back at least 4,500 years and they have every right to look on us as barbarians, in a way. But the lesson of their technical inferiority in the last 100 years, which has led to a great number of humiliations, has been well learned. I think that now the young Chinese managers, diplomats and teachers who we met are regarding the humiliations of the last 150 years as a small hiccup in Chinese history. They now know that they are back on track and from now on they must be numbered among the great nations of this world, whose views and whose might must be considered. I am sure that we can deal with them and that we can be friends. It is very easy to be friends with people who are sure of themselves and sure of their position; it is very difficult to be friends with chaps who have a chip on their shoulder and an inferiority complex. The Chinese have not got that, and I am sure that if our experience is anything to go by we can be friends with the Chinese, which would be of immense benefit to ourselves and to the world at large.
4.17 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, the House is deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for the presentation which he has given us today. There is something delightfully colourful about thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes,

145
the great realist, meeting the realists of China, and I believe that a great play could be written on that subject with advantage. He has made a most penetrating analysis of what he has seen and we are grateful to him for the picture he has given, just as we are to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, a distinguished agriculturist commenting on a totally different kind of agriculture. It has been most enlightening and valuable to us to hear it. I endorse entirely what he said: the great thing about the Chinese is that they have no chips on their shoulders at all.
I have not had the advantage of being in China, but I have been in most of the countries on the borders of China and I have lived in a Chinese population in Singapore for a period of four years. It may be worth noting just what the Chinese do in Singapore and in Hong Kong when the opportunities are open to them. However, I will look at this picture from a rather more objective angle than we have heard so far because I have not been there.
I believe that this is a moment of very real consequence in the history of China. It is today perhaps the greatest enigma of the international scene and I shall be fascinated to hear how far the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will no doubt seek to explain just what is happening at the present time. Frankly, I find it confusing, but I am fairly certain that the Chinese have a great opportunity. We cannot judge much, but I think we can say that there will be a very real change in foreign policy.
In a sense, of course, the Chinese never had a foreign policy. They were the Middle Kingdom and the rest of the world was the outside world. They did not need a foreign policy, and when for the first time we tried to set up a mission there, going to immense trouble, we were eventually told that we could go back to our obscure and inaccessible island and stay there. Now they have changed this and they want relations, so far as one can see, with all countries in the world. It may be this is the first time this has happened in Chinese history. I think the previous opportunities they have had have to a great extent gone astray. They missed out entirely on the Industrial Revolution, and they did not miss out by accident: they missed out deliberately.
146
Their intensive education, going back 2,500 years to the classics, made them eschew anything to do with industry. It is interesting that basically our education at that time went back to a different set of writings 2,500 years ago. But we were not so narrowly based and we were able to take in the developments which were taking place.
From that came one of their troubles. The public utilities were provided by foreign countries with all that that meant, the extra-territorial courts, the control of customs, which left a legacy of much unhappiness to the Chinese. We thought of them early this century as very charming but highly ineffective people. Now that has changed. In fairness, the next stage was when the Empire fell. Sun Yat Sen, incidentally, seems to be the only figure universally accepted as of stature at the present time, but even his revolution with all the intentions of democracy did not get very far; wars, both internal and external, conflicts of Communism and nationalism, left a pretty unhappy period of Chinese history. I have very little doubt that this did much to assist the seizure of power by the Communists in 1949. The one thing they did leave, and it is one of major importance, is a common dialect, which I believe now is being learned and spoken virtually the whole length of China from one end to the other.
The extraordinary feature of the Communist régime, which, of course, came in with all the beastly brutality which invariably accompanies Communist régimes, is the instability of this period; they could not stay fixed on any one policy. The Russian period came, and very largely through the sheer clumsiness of the Russians it did not last very long. The 100 flowers period, the 100 schools of philosophy, was pretty short. The great leap forward does not seem to me to have achieved very much. As for the cultural revolution, except for its violence I do not know that anyone is clear about exactly what came out of it. In any case, we will listen to hear whether the noble Lord has anything particular to say. But it was, as Lord Mackie has said, a pretty unsatisfactory period of 10 years. Now they are coming out of it. It seems to me we are looking at this country, with its traditions, having imposed on it theories devised in

147
Highgate in this city and it is the impact of the one and the other which is going to determine what happens.
As has been said, it is the oldest continuous civilisation in the world, a highly educated body, and nowhere has education been sought more ardently than by Chinese students. I will not at this time elaborate on what is told but one hears of students of over 80 taking university degrees certainly in the earlier days. It is immensely proud of its high tradition. I do not believe that has been removed even by the last 10 years. But what I think is most significant to us is that it is united. Amidst the wars and other upheavals that have taken place there has been no separation movement; there has been no suggestion of Balkanisation, which, after all, we have had in Europe. In spite of the EEC, which may have the opposite effect, Europe has been greatly Balkanised this century. None of these sentiments exists in China at all.
I wonder whether we can be of mutual interest to China. This is, I think, the central point which we are discussing today. As has been said, they have a population three times that of the European Economic Community. Can we contribute to raising their standard of living? The dangers of a bad economy, the dangers which arise when people are widely and extensively dissatisfied, are great. I do not believe Hitler would ever have come to power if the German economy had been thriving in the early '30s. We can take that example in very many places all over the world at the present time. The question which I think we shall have to ask ourselves is, do we want to do this? Are we prepared to take the trouble? Are we going to do it in a thorough way? If we do, we must seek to understand China, understand that this country is different from other countries.
Its language is very difficult. I would like to ask how many people in the knowledge of the Foreign Office are learning Chinese. This is fundamental. It is all very well to have interpreters in Europe, but when you are dealing with a language which is wholly different in root and origin from anything in Europe I do not think you can ever hope to get the nuance of meanings and the basic sentiments of the people who are speaking. I believe that whether we take the trouble to learn the
148
language properly is going to be a fundamental question. After all, they know far more about this country than we know about China. The number of people speaking fairly competent English in China is probably much greater than the number of people in this country who speak Chinese. In my experience there are not very many people with the capacity to master both languages. I do not reflect on the ambassadors, men like, for instance, Sir John Addis, who was a great expert on China and one of our great ambassadors, and indeed our first ambassador in China. But are there many of those?
The second point I would make is on the question of living in China. If anyone is going to exercise influence, we want men of calibre who are prepared to stay there and live there from time to time over a long period of years. This applies equally to commerce as it does to official relations. I know it is not easy to persuade people to do this, but if we are going to understand the country that is essential. If I may venture to say so, far the best books on China, I believe, are written by missionaries, people who have lived there for a very long time. And indeed firms like Jardine Matheson, who have been there through thick and thin, are much more closely in touch with the realities of the country.
I am not arguing about going back to the early philosophies of Confucius any more than we go back to Plato and Aristotle in our discussions, though you can apparently still use the name of Confucius in China if you want to defeat a political opponent. Mao Tse-tung visited the tomb of Confucius, so I do not believe one can regard these as things departed from altogether. I would like to suggest this, if I may, particularly to the Foreign Office. They should not regard this as just another country. It is a quarter of the population of the world. It should really be regarded as a special case. Our relations with China must in the circumstances, I believe, always be, shall I say, sui generis, of its own kind. I do not think in any other way can we hope to meet the very wide and varied circumstances which that country will demand. I am not talking about preferences of any particular thing, but about the basic question of understanding the vastness and variety of the country.

149
I say this because I believe we have the qualities here to be able to provide something of value. We have ourselves standards of value, different, but respected, I am sure, by the Chinese. We have the knowledge of science, of technology, which they earnestly require and which they desparately need. I believe that we have the toughness. The Chinese are the toughest people in the world and they respect toughness in other people. I should like to add that in one of the more recent statements they speak of what they call "the four modernisations": industry, agriculture, science and technology, and defence.
Although the Chinese have taken certain actions through Communist channels before, I can see no sign of the Chinese wanting to extend beyond their Border at present—or should I say the Border as defined in the T'ang Empire. I must say that I believe that the anxieties which the Russians have in this respect, unless they are thinking of something like a preventive war, are wholly unjustified. In conclusion, there is a great opportunity here, and if we handle it well I believe that we can be of great benefit to future generations.
4.30 p.m.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for giving us the opportunity to debate briefly this evening the extremely important question of relations with the People's Republic of China. I should like if I may, and perhaps not surprisingly, to dwell on one specific aspect of those relations—namely, that complex of relations which involves international security and international strategy.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said in the course of his speech that the Chinese tend to see certain events in recent history as a hiccup in the broad sweep of history. It is important that we should realise that the Chinese have a different view of the rhythm of international affairs. They take a much longer view than we tend to take in the West.
I think that that was most vividly illustrated by a story which Dr. Henry Kissinger tells of an experience which he had in Paris at the time of the negotiations
150
about the Vietnam war. One evening after a long and hard day's negotiating, he and the other diplomats and politicians were sitting around in the home of their French host. They were discussing the events of the day when the French ambassador, the host, wishing to lift the level of conversation somewhat, asked whether they could have a short conversation about what had been the effect of the French Revolution on the political development of the world. He turned first to Henry Kissinger and said: "Secretary of State, could you say a word about the effects of the French Revolution on the political development of the United States?" Henry Kissinger, being an expert in this kind of thing, delivered a beautifully rounded lecture mentioning such names as de Tocqucville and Lafayette and reviewing all the political developments in the United States. It was an enormous success; indeed, so much so that the French ambassador, much emboldened, turned to the Chinese representative, a very wise and ancient gentleman, sitting next to Henry Kissinger. He said: "Tell me your Excellency, what has been the effect of the French Revolution on the development of your country?" After a brief pause the Chinese gentleman said: "It is too early yet to say."
I think that that example makes a real point, which is that the Chinese feel themselves to be part of a great historical development. They believe, as I believe also, that we are at present seeing a great and fundamental change in the balance of power in the world. I use the phrase "balance of power" not in the 19th century realpolitik sense, but in a much more practical sense. We are seeing real political and military power shifting fundamentally and we are seeing it, in my view, shifting away from the West. When I say that, I am not making some academic, analytical statement but saying that the safety of this country, the security of the Western world and the survival of our freedom are becoming increasingly at risk. That is what I mean by a shift in the balance of power.
We have only to look around the world at present to see all the evidence of that— it is clear and unmistakable for everyone to read. We can see it if we look at the changing military balance, in strategic nuclear weapons, in the land forces in

151
Europe, and in the maritime strength of the West and the Soviet Union. We can see it if we look at comparatively small changes—or so they may appear to be on the surface—like the shift of the ideological climate in Afghanistan. We can see it if we look for a moment at what is happening and what might happen— unless we are all very much more imaginative and careful than we have been up to now—in Iran, which incidentally has been the subject of the most extraordinary campaign of misinformation and disinformation and sheer misleading rhetoric in the Press and media of this country that has been seen in recent years. We can see if it we look at what is happening in Southern Africa and what might happen there if, again, we are not more courageous and more imaginative. If we cast our eyes to the Middle East, to the Horn of Africa and to almost everywhere in the world there is, for those who want to see it, evidence that the long-term security of the political systems to which we are committed and in which we believe is increasingly under threat. It is in that context that I believe we should contemplate our relations with the People's Republic of China.
In a few week's time I shall pay my fourth visit to the People's Republic in the course of the last three years. There has been a change of a fundamental and dramatic character in the attitudes of the Chinese to the outside world and I believe most sincerely that that should be matched by a fundamental change in our attitudes towards the Chinese. When I visited that country for the first time, the Chief of the Defence Staff of this country, Sir Neil Cameron, had just made a speech in which he referred to the "common enemy at the door of China and the West" and he said that the home of that common enemy was in Moscow. That seemed to me to be no more than a soldierly and accurate analysis of the current state of affairs and it caused a certain amount of uproar in this country; but shortly afterwards I had the opportunity of having a long and detailed conversation lasting several hours with General Wu, the Vice-Chief of the Chinese General Staff. I was enormously impressed by the breadth and depth of his knowledge, by the sophisticated nature of his discussion of the balance of power and the strategic factors that go to
152
influence it. He said "We may not necessarily have a common enemy, but we have common fears. You fear that your freedom and your political system may be threatened by the social imperialists of the Soviet Union: we fear the same thing. So, whether we have common enemies or not, we have common fears." He went on to say in a phrase of typical Chinese irrefutability "Therefore, as fear begins in the heart, we are allies in our hearts."
That was at the end of a long, complicated and sophisticated analysis of the strategic situation as he saw it. It seemed to me that it contained more than a grain of truth. Whatever is happening to the balance of power in the world, there is a very clearly defined and clearly identifiable common interest between us and the Chinese, but that is not to say that we regard their Communism as being any more admirable than the Communism of the Soviet Union. That is not the point in this case. The point is: whence does the threat come? As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was saying a moment ago, there is no evidence of any kind that the Soviet Union poses a threat to anyone else in the world now or, in my view, in the foreseeable future.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean the Soviet Union or China?
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, I made a slip which can hardly even be called Freudian. I am grateful to the noble Earl. There is no evidence of any kind that the Peoples Republic of China—and I emphasise that—poses a threat, now or in the foreseeable future, to the rest of the world. I think that those who are familiar with the articles that I sometimes used to write in The Times—if anyone can remember that newspaper—will realise that that was only a slip of the tongue.
I have had an opportunity, perhaps more favourable than that of many people, to study the military forces of the Peoples' Republic of China. I am convinced that their equipment, their training, their tactical doctrine, their strategic doctrine, their deployment and everything about them indicates that they are entirely devoted to the business of defending the territory of the Peoples' Republic of China. In my view, not only do they not

153
have any intention of operating outside the boundary of China, but I do not believe they would be able to do so effectively for any length of time.
Therefore, it seems to me that, when we consider the possibility of closer relations in the military sphere with the Peoples' Republic of China, we should not be too influenced by those who say that if we arm the People's Republic of China now, we may be producing a stick with which we ourselves will be beaten before too long. In my view, it is a possibility so remote as to be almost non-existent that, even if the People's Republic of China modernises its defence forces at the speeds it intends, it could pose a threat to anybody within the kind of time scale that makes any sense of reality in international politics.
So I would simply ask Her Majesty's Government to look at the possibility of our relations with the Soviet Union——
Baroness DENINGTON: My Lords, the People's Republic of China——
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, yes, with the Soviet Union and China. We should look at our relations in a much broader context than simply that of commercial advantage or the economic balance of power in the world: we should look at them in the context of the balance of power and the broad context of international security. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will assure the House that Her Majesty's Government have no intention whatever of being bullied by the public statements of Mr. Brezhnev. Quite clearly, Mr. Brezhnev is worried lest, for example, this country should sell the Harrier aircraft to the Chinese. Yet I think it is true to say that, if it is ever possible to distinguish between weapons designed for defence and weapons designed for aggression and offensive action, the Harrier—the Jump Jet as it is sometimes called—certainly falls in the category of a weapon designed for defence rather than for any kind of organised aggression outside one's own frontiers. I ask the noble Lord to assure us that the bullying pronouncements of the leaders of the Soviet Union will not in any way be a decisive factor when Her Majesty's Government come to make the important policy decision about whether to sell to
154
the People's Republic of China, either the Harrier or any of the other pieces of military equipment which they say they need and which I believe they need for the defence of their own country.
I also hope that Her Majesty's Government will not be too heavily influenced by the friends of the Soviet Union in this country, who, I am sure, will be lending their weight to the opposition to this kind of co-operation with the Soviet Union. In addition, I hope that whatever may be the views of Her Majesty's Government regarding the strategic arms limitation talks between the Soviet Union and the United States, they will not be too much influenced by those negotiations either. If it is suggested—as I have reason to believe it has been—to Her Majesty's Government that to engage in military co-operation with the Soviet Union might endanger the outcome of the SALT talks——
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, the noble Lord means China.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry. I have done it again.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, that is three times.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, I would hesitate to suggest that for "China" one should read "the Soviet Union". I hope that if this should happen Her Majesty's Government will consider what will be the advantages to this country of the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States and what would be the comparable advantages of co-operation with the People's Republic of China.
Clearly, what is needed here, of course, is a combination of realism and prudence. No one suggests that the attitudes and policies of the People's Republic are immutable. They have changed before and they might change again. I should be the very last to suggest that we should engage in the extremely dangerous policy of playing one great Communist power off against another. Clearly, that would be the most profound folly on the part of the West; indeed, it is a policy that would be rejected out of hand by the Chinese Government themselves. They do not want that kind of relationship with the

155
West. However, they want a recognition that there is a common fear and a common threat.
In the course of my conversations with General Wu, he made one extremely interesting comment which I thought was typical of the kind of imagery that the Chinese leaders like to use, when he said "We and you are faced with a dangerous and rampaging bear". He then said "I think that we should get together; that you in the West should look after the head and we in China, should look after the tail". I pointed out to General Wu that I thought this was a somewhat unfair distribution of labour, but at least he had made his point.
I think there is a common interest and a common threat and I shall simply conclude by expressing the hope that Her Majesty's Government will regard relations with the People's Republic of China not in the narrow context of commercial relations or economic advantage, not in the narrow context of pursuing some policy of detente with the Soviet Union, and certainly not in any narrow appreciation of the Chinese as a potential threat to the rest of the world, because I do not believe they are. I believe that the threat comes from elsewhere. I hope that in the context of that threat, Her Majesty's Government will conduct relations with the People's Republic of China with a careful appreciation of the threat which now exists to the political systems of the West and, therefore, in the long term, to the safety of this country itself.
4.48 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, the House will be under an obligation on two counts to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for initiating this debate. First, because it has given many of us the opportunity better to acquaint ourselves with what, in fact, is happening in the changed circumstances of China. I have no specific information at first hand to add to what has already been said, although I have tarried somewhat on the Borders of China, looked over the Wall and have taken the precaution of having a brother-in-law as a director of Matheson's. However, I am satisfied that there are facts behind the proposition that we should look at the importance of what is happening in China, and those facts are indisputable.
156
It is their importance which enables me to delay your Lordships somewhat by taking a little wider view of some of the implications which appear to me to be valid as we think of what these changes portend and what, in fact, they reflect. I heartily agree with those who have spoken in admiration of the Chinese people. It has sometimes occurred to me, ecclesiastically or theologically, that the Chinese people seem to be infected with a rather milder form of original sin than the rest of us. Indeed, noble Lords may remember that on one occasion in your Lordships' House the late Lord Montgomery, who had been visiting China, brought back with him evidence to that effect, which he shared with your Lordships.
The evidence that has been put before us this afternoon represents, I think, the fulfilment of what many of us have hoped for, and what I think is evidentially now apparent. In these 900 million people there are virtues and qualities which can fertilise the whole world; and we are necessarily the better that they have shared, or are beginning to share, most of these qualities in a larger context than that which surrounds their own enormous Cathay. Therefore, the importance of these changes, if they release into a wider sphere the qualities and the achievements of the Chinese people, whether under Communism or any other régime, is itself a virtue to be regarded and a blessing for which to be grateful.
The second importance seems to me to lie in the field of the ideological content of this change. I was brought up in the day of the great battle for the mind as between those who embraced a Christian view of life and those who accepted in broad outline the Marxist interpretation. I remember how difficult it was to contradict the monolithic idea of the Communist argument as represented by Marx—or perhaps more accurately by what Engels thought Marx had said. I was impressed by the argument, the analysis of what had happened, and I was attracted by the prophetic nature of what inevitably, also scientifically, was sure to occur.
This latest development in China is perhaps the final and necessary nail in the coffin of that monolithic concern with dialectical materialism as a scientific evaluation of the past, and as a completely

157
inherent prospect and prognosis of the future. With Berlinguer advocating something in Italy of what he is pleased to call a democratic Marxism; with Marchais in France talking in terms of accommodation with the bourgeois, and indeed the Vice-Premier of China, if that is his correct title, Mr. Teng Hsiao-ping, in a conversation with an American journalist only the other day, proclaiming quite categorically that the bourgeois had a necessary part to play in the future conduct of affairs in China and were to be lauded in so much as they played it correctly; the kind of Communism as represented by Allende—the late lamented Allende—to say nothing of the changes which have taken place within that small group, the Communist Party in this country; I take no particular comfort in saying how fissiparous is that process, but it represents in the latest events in China the total repudiation of the idea that prophetically the Communist argument is unanswerable. This is no longer so, and the Chinese people have been wise to see it to be no longer so, and are acting accordingly.
But to me far and away the most impressive and important element in this debate today is that to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has just referred. Let me introduce what I feel I must say on this particular count by reflecting that I could not find anybody in Australia, or Singapore, or Hong Kong, who entertained any hope that finally war as between China and the Soviet Union was avoidable. It was an appalling experience to find that even those who are most optimistic in other fields were calculating on an eventual conflict. For instance, the other day comment was made upon the treaty organised as between Japan and China.
Perhaps it will be of interest to your Lordships, if you are not already aware of the significance of that treaty of friendship, that in 1976 it was Mr. Gromyko who went from Moscow to Tokyo and there proposed a Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation which the Japanese were not prepared to sign unless they had returned to them the Kurile Islands, which the Russians had grabbed in the last days of the last war. That completely broke down. Thereafter, the Chinese and Japanese came together and consequently, as Joseph Harsch says in the New York Times, and I think it is un-
158
answerable, instead of Japanese technological capability being applied to the industrialisation of Siberia, that immense capability will now be applied to the industrialisation of China. And, said the Vice-Premier, "This is one of our ways of opposing on equal terms the hegemony", as he called it, "of the Russian menace".
I entertain very little confidence that that final catastrophe—and it may well be a final catastrophe—can be avoided. I take no comfort whatsoever from the conjectures offered so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I have meditated on this somewhat, and I intend to say that I believe that the present situation in China calls for a reappraisal on the part of all people of the pacifist argument. I do not necessarily agree with Arthur Koestler, who may be regarded on the one hand as a polymath and on the other as a man educated rather above his intelligence. I prefer the first of those opinions. I think you disagree with Arthur Koestler, particularly in his latest book, Janus, at your peril, but I am not competent to enter into the almost metaphysical arguments which he presents. However, I find substantially formidable, and almost convincing, his argument that the human species contains within itself a fatal flaw which can be as finally damaging and lethal as was the flaw that caused the end of the brontosaurus and the sabre-toothed tiger.
He believes it is our incurable practice of violence; and that we as a human species have a characteristic in our violence which is not shared even by the most predatory of what we are pleased to call the lower creation. An army of locusts will eat almost anything except another army of locusts. Human armies consume one another. Furthermore, I remember in your Lordships' House that it was none other than the noble Lord, Lord Snow, who presented the argument that with the increase of armaments and the present "overkill" of eight times, and the fact that within the next two years 12 more countries will have acquired the nuclear capability, the prospect, nay the certainty, of an accident with incalculable consequences is almost as certain as any calculation can possibly be.
I therefore believe that we are set upon a course which, unless it is varied and radically changed, may well prove both

159
Arthur Koestler, and the noble Lord, Lord Snow, as correct. I have no enjoyment in saying these things. I believe that the proliferation of arms and the execrable business of selling them is part of a fundamental process in our human make-up, of which the arguments so admirably presented by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, are a confirmation, and lead me to the conviction that in any discussion of these matters on such an occasion as this it would be totally improper to leave out that which is unquestionably a minority movement, and perhaps a very small one. I believe that the world is waiting for some community voluntarily to reduce to the point of non-existence its capacity to kill. If you say to me that this is crackbrained and Cloud Cuckoo-Land, I find no comfort in what is called the realism of the present situation.
I find that situation increasingly dangerous, and I just make my own statement of belief that we, who have been prepared in the past, to take such inordinate risks in the field of violence, depend for our future on our readiness to take appropriate and comparable risks, which might indeed produce immediate results of a very unfortunate and unpleasant nature. It could redeem this world from a process of inevitable catastrophy of which, it seems to me, the Chinese people at the moment are increasingly aware and are at their wits end to know how they can postpone this, though they cannot prevent it.
They believe—here I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—that there is a balance of power which can be achieved as between an emergent China and a more or less, from the point of view of arms, fulfilled United States. I believe this polarisation is lethal and mortal and, whatever may be the reaction of your Lordships, I cannot forbear to say that in my view the hope of the future is for human beings in China, America and the Soviet Union to say to themselves, "We have embarked on processes which are finally disastrous. We must at all costs abandon those processes". I have the cherished and perhaps foolish opinion, but nevertheless the real and sincere one, that in our reactions now to a changing China nothing could be more helpful and fruitful than to set an example which these
160
magnificent and wonderful people could follow and, in following, might well persuade even the most violent to follow in their stead.
That is my belief, and I think it should be included in any conversation on the emergent situation in China, of which China is the representative of a revolutionary situation in the whole world; and the pacifist attitude, difficult to understand, even more difficult to practice, seems to me to coincide particularly with the Advent season on which we have now entered.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am sure all will sympathise with me in having to speak following two such great orators as the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Soper. I am tempted to join in this debate first because I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, on his excellent report and, secondly, because I have had the opportunity of visiting China on two occasions, once in 1961 and again in 1973. I had the opportunity in 1961 to go entirely alone, which was advantageous because one sees far more in that way. In 1973 I led a Parliamentary delegation and we were very grateful to the ARIEL Foundation for their financial support.
I wish therefore to take this opportunity to thank my Chinese hosts for their hospitality and to say what a tremendous change I found between 1961 and 1973. There was greater prosperity, an increase in consumer goods, a healthier population; even the schoolchildren seemed to be taller, because they had been better fed, and the economy had improved. I also found an enormous difference in the approach of the Chinese people. For example, in 1961 one always had to interpret through a Party official. On the later occasion they were much freer and we are delighted to see from reading our Press that British correspondents can now tell us directly what is happening in China; in other words, the Press is much more open.
The fact that Lui Shao-chi and Teng Hsiao-ping are freely mentioned by name is very interesting, especially now that the latter is the Vice-Premier, Deputy Party Leader and Deputy Chairman. I suggest that in coping with this moderation programme, it appears that China is

161
concerned with the problem of devolution without impairing the strength of the communal cohesion and participation which has been painstakingly built up since the foundation of the New China in 1949, and it is important that these two should go side by side.
I understand that Mr. Eric Varley expects to visit China in the New Year to discuss projects which will carry forward economic co-operation between Britain and China, and the draft agreement reached during the visit of the Vice-Premier, Wang Chen, during November whereby both countries aim to achieve at the end of 1985 a level of trade in both directions which will, I gather, total between 8 and 10 billion dollars should be helpful to both countries; and when one discusses the question of defence—and, as Lord Soper did, the future—one must think what the present will be for the people, and we want to try to help to raise their standard.
I notice that both France and China have succeeded in getting large contracts to help the people of China. A particular point I wish to raise with the Minister is the lack of good reception we give to Chinese officials when they come here. When, for example, their Ministers go to Belgium they are met by the King and Prime Minister; in other words, they get the red carpet treatment. In France they are met by the President. Regrettably, we do not give them the red carpet treatment when they come here, and I would suggest that a Minister, the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps or somebody similar, should undertake to receive them because the Chinese are a very proud people and they have been received so much better elsewhere in Europe than has been the case in this country.
I should also be grateful if the Minister would comment on the controversial issue of arms sales to China. Was this matter raised at the European summit? I gather that President Brezhnev warned France and Italy about what he called the dangers of selling arms to China, and, following what Lord Soper said, I should like to know whether this matter has been raised and what has been the outcome.
It might be advantageous to mention what is happening in this country—what action we are taking here—because there
162
have been a great many outgoing organisations. I believe the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, mentioned the learning of Chinese. He will be pleased to know that recently 22 British postgraduates, 20 on scholarships, and six undergraduates have gone to China for over a year in connection with the language question. In addition, five English language teachers and eight delegations have come here to discuss this question. I understand we are to have the pleasure of receiving 14 incoming delegations, including the Foreign Minister, Mr. Huang Hua, and Mr. Wang Chen, the Vice-Premier. Also, at the invitation of the Minister of Education, it is anticipated that Mr. Lui Hsi-yao will be coming this year. One matter which the delegations have particularly asked us to deal with is the question of librarians, because they say—as we have heard the Russians are doing—they are still reading Dickens and they want to know something about more modern books. Accordingly, they have invited a number of writers to go to their country to give lectures, and I believe that will make for a better understanding between our two countries.
Another organisation, the Chinese People's Association for Friendship Countries, has recently visited here and Europe. The Arts Delegation, which produced six members whom I had the pleasure of meeting, was sponsored by the Chinese Ministry of Culture and they were received in Britain by the Great Britain-China Centre. I had the pleasure of seeing an excellent film of young people playing modern music, European music with one exception, and a charming boy aged eight playing the violin. While we may not be able to speak the language, we can get a lot of understanding by means of these musical entertainments because we both understand the same musical language. I gather that about 1,000 students will be coming for science, language and the humanities. I am sure that will be very popular here with us; we will entertain them and interest them, particularly in the humanities, as I am sure Lord Soper would agree. Furthermore, delegations are now going out to see about hotels—Wimpey in particular— and agricultural machinery.
It is interesting to note that the Chinese are being asked in their own country to achieve a degree of industrialisation in

163
22 years which took the nations of Europe more than 100 years to achieve. This will require unique working arrangements and the setting up of institutions. There will be far-reaching effects on the Chinese economy resulting from large-scale introduction of foreign technology and industrial plant. I understand that there are some 10,000 Chinese scientists and engineers already training in Western countries. It has been estimated that China will have to invest about 30 billion dollars for each 10 billion dollars spent on industrial plant. The burden will be enormous, and we wish her success.
As Britain is still a member of the EEC, I should like to refer to joint action with EEC countries. There is now an ambassador from China, Mr. Li Lien-pi, in the Community, and Sir Christopher Soames (as he then was) visited China in 1975. As a result of that, in 1978 there was a trade agreement between the EEC and the People's Republic of China. Getting together is of very great advantage, and I understand that this may mean that there will be a joint trade commission which will provide the right type of mechanism for future trade.
China is estimated to possess 30 per cent. of the world's main mineral resources, and Mr. Wang Jun-sheng, who visited Europe in 1977, stated that the Chinese Government would welcome proposals from European firms in particular for the exploitation and marketing of these raw materials. I consider that the EEC might, like Japan, have a barter agreement, exchanging plant and capital goods for raw materials. The possibility of an EEC consortium of equal partners doing business with China would be preferable.
I turn now to the question of technical needs. China is intending to triple her steel output to 60 million tons, to develop 10 iron and steel complexes, eight coal mines, 10 oil and gas fields, 30 power stations, six trunk railways and five harbours by 1985. This will mean tremendous activity on her behalf and, I hope, considerable help from Europe as a whole.
New market situations require new marketing concepts, and the EEC-China agreement should help both China and the EEC. The Europe China Association
164
has been formed, and I have just been told that I am to be the future president of this organisation. My contact began with a dinner party in the House of Lords and the annual general meeting held in London. I am sure that your Lordships will be delighted to know that now there is an international summer school which meets in Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. Last year the theme was Ideology in China, Past and Present. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, will be pleased to hear that one of the lecturers was on Christians in China, and other topics included Chinese communism and traditions, and China past and present. This year's meeting of the school will discuss China, medicine and the West. So I believe that we are trying in this country to gain better contacts. I should add that at the seminar there will be German-speaking Chinese, French-speaking Chinese, and English-speaking Chinese who will give classes in learning Chinese, a point which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and which I agree is very important.
I should like to end my speech by quoting what the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, said in a debate in this House on 30th November, 1977; as reported at column 1296 of the Official Report:
"The leaders of China are looking for a response from Europe … It is fundamental that in defining the European response the efforts of Community firms should not be stymied by political hesitation … that a political impulse should be given to Europe's relationship with China that engenders confidence, encourages initiatives, results in increased understanding and reaches for mutual esteem".
I am sure that everyone will agree with those last two words, that we all want to have mutual esteem, and I am quite sure that that is something we have in this House.
5.15 p.m.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, the only possible reason that would justify my intervening in the debate is that I was a member of the small group of people led by Lord Rhodes on our excursion in the month of June. I must begin by paying a tribute to him, our leader. He was immensely impressive. He organised the whole affair himself, and on more than one occasion when we met some of the senior Ministers—men whom I would regard as being as tough, as hard-hitting, and as fearless as any statesmen in the world

165
—he was able to hold his own, and in some cases give them rather more than they had expected. We were enormously proud of Lord Rhodes as an ancient warrior who knew from personal experience what it is like to be a trader, a warrior, and a statesman. We were most indebted to him.
It was for all of us a quite extraordinary experience, and as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said, it is only when one actually goes there and sees the place that one realises how enormous it is. The most striking single figure I can recall is that in the age group 20 to 50, which is reckoned to be the productive age group, the number in China exceeds the number in Russia, in Europe, in the United States, and in Japan put together. Furthermore, not only is there an enormous number of them, but those whom we met were acutely intelligent, diligent, and, what is more, in a very fundamental sense, disciplined and enterprising in a way which seems to have been forgotten in England since the end of the last century. They had supreme self-confidence. They knew what they wanted, and they had every confidence that they would achieve it. They seemed to be the most extraordinary workforce that this world has ever seen, and there is no doubt at all that whatever happens they will find a way to employ their talents and achieve great things. This is a most important first observation to have made.
There is no doubt at all that the whole economy of China is beginning to burgeon, but at the same time it is equally obvious that it is still in a rather primitive condition. For example, they desperately need to extend their irrigation works. Only about a year ago they finished a system of irrigation on a river which was first tamed by a man who has now become almost a saint and who started work about 2,000 year ago. However, they still need to invest greatly in irrigation, in the building of factories, in the improvement of agriculture, in the construction of coal mines, and in the development of airlines, railways and roads. In other words, they have an enormous problem to increase the effectiveness of their infrastructure before their manufacture can really begin. This seemed to me to be the most important single lesson we learnt. There is an enormous number of men and women
166
anxious to start work on the modernisation of their great country. Since 80 per cent. of the population work on communes, they are acutely aware of the dangers that would come from too speedy a mechanisation of agriculture which led to the possibility of 100 million unemployable Chinese in shanty towns all over China. No such thing has happened yet, and they have adopted a. rigorous policy for controlling the mobility of labour so that a man can hardly leave his commune until he has an assured position to which to go in a town.
Thus they are aware of the dangers of too rapid mechanisation. They have seen the effects that this has produced in other parts of the world, and they have learnt as best they can from the mistakes of the whole of the rest of the world, including in particular the mistakes of Russia. They know that Russia based its revolution on the assumption that the industrial proletariat must be the pacemakers, and they saw what happened to the agriculture of Russia as a result. They themselves have based their revolution on the supremacy of the farmers because they know perfectly well that the whole of the efforts of the rest of the world would not suffice to feed China were they unable to feed themselves.
Their agriculture is improving its efficiency, but it could be much better. More irrigation, more fertilisers and a certain amount of mechanisation would doubtless do wonders for it; but for many years to come the majority of Chinese will inevitably have to work on the land, as their ancestors have done for the last 3,000 years. They are aware of the fact that although, as they realise, theirs is the oldest of all civilisations, they have been surpassed by some countries of the West in productivity, and they are most anxious to make up the arrears.
When I was a young student I met an elderly Chinese physicist who told me that in the history of the world China had been the pre-eminent Power in armaments, in science, in the arts and in the fine arts except for brief periods of 100 or 200 years, during which other countries had temporarily taken the lead. He said, "We are in such a period today, but it will not last. If you do not see it, your children will—the day when China is again the greatest Power in the world". Having

167
seen the country and seen the rate at which it is developing itself, I am inclined to think that he was right. The Central Kingdom was to the Chinese the centre of the earth, and all other countries came to pay tribute to it.
Their ways are not our ways—we must accept this. For example, in Peking I was in a room almost the size of this Chamber, and I was told that it was a very historic room in which the final examination for the mandarinate took place. For more than a thousand years the Chinese chose their governors by a series of competitive written examinations. The particular point of this room was that the top dozen men in the final examination were brought in here to be examined again; they were put in order; and from the best candidates the Emperor chose the men who were to marry his daughters. In those days, Chinese Emperors were very much married men and every year they tended to produce a crop of marriageable daughters, and they were married off to their senior civil servants.
I asked our guide what happened if a particular couple had got together and the man who came out top wanted to marry the second daughter in order of age. He said that so far as he was aware this problem had never arisen in the whole of the history of China, because as far as he was concerned a civil servant who was offered the opportunity to marry the daughter of the Emperor married the daughter of the Emperor and did not argue about which daughter of the Emperor he married. This is perhaps evidence of a rather different attitude to life from the one which we have in the West, but they thought it perfectly normal and undoubtedly it worked for them. So I say that their ways are not our ways. They have selected their civil servants for a thousand years by requiring them to write what I can best describe in modern equivalents as essays, let us say on the quantum theory, in sonnet form—an extraordinarily taxing problem which they thought chose men able to go out and govern a Province. But I stress the point that, although some of their ways seem to us to be odd, they are the most numerous and the most industrious workforce in the whole world.
168
That brings me to the problem which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and the noble Lord, Lord Soper—the fear that the Chinese have of Russia. It seemed to me to be terrifying that they were prepared to contemplate an almost inevitable conflict, and they thought of it in terms of a battle in which the Chinese would defend themselves against Russia to the last Englishman and the last Frenchman. They felt, in fact, that they must ally themselves to Europe in order to contain Russia. I wondered very much whether in fact they had developed this almost hysterical fear of Russia because of a belief as a nation that at this particular stage in their development they had to have an external enemy, or an internal enemy like the Gang of Four, against whom to unite the people. They contemplated the possibility, they said, in case of war, that not only the populations of Western Europe but perhaps 400 or 500 million Chinese might be killed; and they thought that if that happened the survivors would be able to recreate the civilisation of China, which they felt to be the best in the world.
I feel that the argument that we should be prepared to let them have Harriers may perhaps have justification, but far more important is it, in my view, to help them to develop their industries, to help them to become rich, to help them relieve themselves of the fear that they are going to fight someone else merely to survive. They have, I think, an immense potential to become rich. They are a very cheerful people, and they are very willing to be friendly with us. I found in talking to them that in many ways they are, of all the oriental people I have ever met, the most like us in understanding, in background and in the way they think. I hope so much that we shall be able to exploit this fact to our mutual advantage, and that we shall not allow ourselves to be totally overwhelmed by this terrible fear they have of Russia and this desire they may have to destroy Russia even at the cost of the destruction of Western Europe as well as themselves.
Now, I should like to pass to one or two other points which became very obvious to us. The first is that, anxious though they may be to buy from us the best that our technology can give them in

169
the form of, let us say, new equipment for coalmines, new equipment for diesel engine factories and, most particularly, new equipment for their armament factories, much more than that do they want the ability to build these things for themselves. They would not in any circumstances contemplate a situation in which, in the long-term, they were wholly dependent on the Western World for what they regard as essential commodities or essential tools with which to create commodities. They need—desperately they need—to learn how to do it. That is why they are so terribly anxious to develop the contact—about which the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, spoke a moment ago—with our universities. They want to educate their people in the technologies in which we, really rather to their surprise, have the advantage over them at the moment.
They want us to help to educate their students, and they are prepared to send their students over here. But, to me, one of the most encouraging things of all concerns their universities. Their university system (I can perhaps be rather crude) is, I should say, about as big as ours, their population being perhaps 20 times as big as ours. Their universities, such as we saw—we saw very few—are perhaps as well equipped as ours were 20 years ago, but not so well equipped by any means as ours are today; so they know that they have a long way to go in developing their universities.
They therefore feel that there is much to be gained by collaboration with our own Open University. Three of their delegations have been over to see it already, a couple of ours have been out there, and I think about half a million Chinese have already been exposed to some of the text books which the Open University has at its disposal. Here, I think, is a wonderful opportunity for collaboration to educate men who can create the great industries which China will undoubtedly have before long.
We saw—and we were extremely fortunate in this—several of their schools for young children. I was absolutely amazed at the vigour, the skill and the charm of the little children who sang songs for us, who danced for us and so on. It was extraordinary to find a small girl
170
of about five years of age who came in and, with an enormously loud, clear voice which would carry right through the Albert Hall, announced that the children were going to sing. I wondered then, when I saw them, how they would ever be able to go and work in a paddy field or in a textile mill with this wonderful ability in the arts. I discussed this and they said, "We like to let them do this sort of thing now and we hope that, however long they live, they will continue to do it, as a hobby." They are capable of changing themselves and of rising above the enormously laborious work which they have had to engage in for so many thousands of years. They are capable of mass efforts which are sometimes extraordinary.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example. As you know, much of Chinese farming depends totally on irrigation; the dreadful disease of bilharzia spread all over China. It depends on a snail which haunts these irrigation ditches and which carries the parasite which produces the disease. About five years ago, one small county in China discovered that it was possible for them to exterminate the snails in their own ditches—and, therefore, to kill bilharzia. They triumphantly announced this to Chairman Mao. He said that he was so moved and excited by this information that he could not sleep. He rose at three in the morning and wrote a poem. You may think this a rather unimportant consequence; but six months later nearly 700 million Chinese were in the ditches, up to their knees in mud, exterminating snails—and bilharzia, apparently, has now been virtually eliminated, as have many other of the diseases which used to afflict the population; and to such an extent that one of our hosts at the hospital told me that they had the greatest difficulty in showing to their medical students cases of such diseases as tuberculosis, malaria, bilharzia and smallpox which had been destroying the population only 20 or 30 years ago.
They have made enormous strides forward. They are, potentially, the greatest nation in the world and we, as a small island off the shores of what is a small peninsula of the great landmass of which China forms part, must take note of them, help them all we can and hope to join with them in the prosperity which can be theirs. And we must—and this is

171
more important—do all that we can to try to prevent the holocaust which otherwise is held to be inevitable.
5.33 p.m.
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, on the 19th day of May, 1906, the San Andreas fault quivered and 700 Americans lost their lives in San Francisco. That became the most dramatised and publicised earthquake of the world. In 1920, an earthquake shattered the province of Kan Su and annihilated 200,000 Chinese. Seven years later, the same province was shattered by another earthquake which eliminated another 100,000 Chinese. And yet that province is as densely populated today as it was then. That anecdote, I suggest, illustrates the indifference of the English-speaking world to China; because scarcely a mention will you find in the Press of those Kan Su earthquakes. There was one in the 16th century which is alleged to have destroyed 800,000 Chinese. That is the kind of environment in which China has built up its culture and its philosophies over thousands of years. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, has said and emphasised with great clarity, they are people we must learn to live with but, above all, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, we must learn to respect and to acknowledge them never as inferiors but at the very least as equals. Certainly, culturally, they have a greater claim to fame than ourselves.
To me, China has always been one of the wonders of history, a part of the world that has always been on the defensive. It has never been really aggressive; it has been invaded but never destroyed and never really conquered. The whole history of China, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has been at pains to point out, has been one of defence, defence against intrusion. And it is really vitally important, as all speakers have pointed out, to recognise that China is not a threat to the peace of the world but that her peace has been threatened by the world. It would seem to me that we must be careful not in any way to approach China with any idea of hope that we can exploit them. That should be furthest from our minds. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, pointed out, we have certain things to offer which may accelerate the industrial development of China and, as Lord Chalfont has
172
assured us, this development will not be a threat to the peace of the world.
If I may be permitted to enlarge on that theme, I would make one or two other comments. The first is that my long association with Chinese geologists has always left me with a deep sense of gratitude and humility. I have always found greater ease in talking philosophically with Chinese geologists than I have had in talking to German geologists. It is, therefore, clear to me that any suggestion that we who talk about the natural resources of the earth from either a cultural or a practical point of view will receive great understanding from the Chinese. They think as we do. Therefore, I have no hesitation in making, through your Lordships' House, one or two suggestions. The first is that they would understand such a comment as this: that we of the West who invented the methods of mass production of iron and steel—Bessemer and all that—have come to realise that these techniques have come to the end of their day. They are too dependent upon natural resources like metallurgical coke which have rapidly become wasting assets; and we must move into a new field of metal extraction which employs the use of electrical furnaces. Conjoined with these, you must have cheap, abundant and reliable electricity, and, in addition, an understanding of how metals are being created in the earth's crust and which can be simulated in an electric furnace.
It is this kind of technology which, happily, we in Britain have at our disposal. In fact, we are its originators. It is a new form of metal chemistry which involves metals and organic matter and, in particular, waste organic matter, even town refuse. Utilising this biochemical knowledge, we are now able to demonstrate exactly the same processes that produce pure metals in meteorites. I shall not give a lecture on meteorites; I merely mention them because our Chinese counterparts will understand this philosophical approach to a whole new area of industrial development. The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, says that they will get there anyway in the end. Why should we not accelerate their progress by placing at their disposal all the advantages that we have in this country? We know of various ideas—yet we cannot develop them in this small island—such as the

173
conversion of coal into fertilisers, the release of biogenics from coal which accelerates plant growth several times, the release of trace elements on a balanced form in coal to create fertilisers. Why should we not give to the Chinese all this academic information which they can use, although we cannot do so? There would be no better way of cementing friendship without any trace of political influence involved by giving to them the products of our developments in this country and in Europe as a whole.
This brings me to another important point which is their sad belief that they are going to be invaded again, and they will need more food and more iron and steel for defence. I have mentioned new methods of accelerating the production of iron and steel and the creation of iron and steel furnaces which are different from things one sees bandied about in the Press today. They do not want another disastrous type of steel plant such as we have in South Wales, shockingly out of date and of limited life. What they want are the arc smelters which we can produce almost overnight for them.
When one looks at China as a vast exposed area of the earth, one has to remember that the great divide between China and Russia is the Himalayas. This is not without significance because the southward push of the crust which created the Himalayas has engendered into the rocks of China a tremendous network of minerals of great variety, far greater than is to be found in the more placid areas of the crust of Russia or America—a little like what happened in Cornwall but magnified a million times. So one can see in China the potential of all kinds of mineral resources. China need not be short of one single metal, it has the lot.
One may ask: "Does Russia know this?" It may come as a surprise to your Lordships that the geological maps of China are far better than the geological maps of America. They know where everything is; and the kindest thing that we can do for them is to go out there and accelerate what they will eventually get to know anyway. I was delighted that the delegation to China was led by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, because he symbolises everything that is British. I am not surprised at the success of this delegation. Those who have not read the report should
174
do so because it is a remarkable one. In conclusion, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, is to reply. He too symbolises to the Chinese all the best that we know as British.
5.44 p.m.
Earl DE LA WARR: My Lords, before I begin my speech I must declare an interest. My company sells flight simulators to China. Why this interest has to be declared will emerge during the course of my speech. I should like to join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for his splendid initiative which comes at such a timely moment. The history of alliances throughout the ages has been one, whether between nation States or great empires, of kaleidoscopic shifts. History tells us that normally these shifts in alliances have not been brought about by a community of ideologies; they have been brought about by mutual convenience and mutual self-interest. Some of them have been warlike and some defensive.
We are privileged to be watching the start of one of the great shifts of interest in history, something that will be a watershed, something that can alter the face of the whole world if only we in the West are astute enough and sympathetic enough to grasp the hand that has been held out to us. The context of this shift of opinion on both sides is the massive Russian imperialism with which we are faced. I do not think that this is the opportunity to go into this in detail. I shall content myself with reminding your Lordships that the Russians have in the field the largest land army that has ever been known in peacetime in the history of the world. I will remind the House, too, that at the rate they are producing submarines they bid fair within a short time to be in a position to control nearly absolutely the sea-lanes of the world by which we conduct our international trade. In these terms, the Western anxieties, the Western fears, have exactly the same quality as those of China. They are simply this: Both of us fear a land invasion by the Russians and at the same time a devastating sea blockade.
The only difference in our outlook is one of geography and not of ideology. For the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, gave so lucidly and so

175
admirably, I believe that the case in terms of Realpolitik for helping China to at least defensive parity is unanswerable, if that is a phrase—defensive parity—which the strategists would allow. Defencewise, the Chinese want from us just one thing: they want the Harrier. Your Lordships will now realise why I felt it proper to declare an interest. I beg the Prime Minister to hurry up with making up his own mind and that of his Cabinet. I beg him that he will not attach to our agreement to supply them terms that are too onerous for the Chinese to accept—terms either commercial or which will cause loss of face. We cannot afford to wait very long for this decision to be taken.
Before I leave the strategic aspect, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, whether he can help us over one matter which is bound to arise; that is, the running of the COCOM list. We all know that this list is an integral part of the Atlantic Alliance and that it is directed against the Communist countries. I know it will be difficult for the noble Lord to answer at this stage because there is a hypothetical element; but, if he could give us some indication of how the Government could deal with this not uncomplicated situation, I think we should all find it very interesting.
If the supply of arms represents the bricks of a defensive alliance, then surely trade is its cement—the thing that binds it together and gives it a lasting life— but I think we must remember that the Chinese trade approach has not been to the United Kingdom alone. We already know that they have an agreement with Japan. They have been to the whole of the West. We are not regarded, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, advised us, as number one in terms of suppliers. I believe it was only two or three weeks ago that a trade agreement was concluded by the Chinese with the French, who are very adept over the supply of goods and know-how, and also sometimes at forms of undercutting, of which we do not always approve. So, my Lords, in short we have to pull our socks up if we are to get our share of trade, our share of the export of goods and, perhaps more importantly, our share of the export of know-how of which we have so much.
176
I hope that your Lordships will not think it immodest of me if I tell you something of my own company's experience. We have been trading with China for some eight years and have been selling them flight simulators for their civil airlines. We had to find out for ourselves the mechanics of trading with the Chinese Government. We are now dealing with one of their Government buying agencies —specifically the engineering agency— and we have found that now we know the ropes it is all quite simple. We send our high-level salesmen and service engineers to look at our machines and see that they are looked at very regularly. We are discussing with them at this moment the supply of simulators for rather more modern aircraft; up till now it has been the 707 and the Trident.
We heard from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and from another noble Lord— I have mentioned this myself —something about the importance of the supply of know-how. It may interest your Lordships to know that our nearly wholly-British-owned television station in Hong Kong is during the next few weeks sending a delegation, led by its managing director and top engineers, at the request of the Peking Government to a number of big cities all over China, some of which are not normally visited, in order to see what they are doing and, I believe, to give them advice on how they may expand and improve their service. I believe that this is a very real thing which is being done now in supplying in the field of communications a form of know-how to China.
This leads me to devote just a few minutes to Hong Kong, about which, if I might say so, too little has been said in this debate. Legally, Hong Kong is a British Crown Colony, but in fact it is something pretty different. It is a sophisticated financial and trading centre. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, called it "an anachronism", for I do assure him it is no such thing. During the course of his speech I noted he said he had come to admire it, but it seemed to me that his admiration had a certain amount of reluctance about it, if I may say so——
Lord RHODES: My Lords, let me squash that straight away. I am an enthusiast. I have been there 12 times.

177
I admire them for their initiative and their enterprise. With regard to the word "anachronism", I think that most colonies are anachronisms nowadays.
Earl DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that I am largely wrong, but perhaps I could confine my comment to noting with regret that he should have used the word "anachronism". However, the noble Lord did say—and I should like to repeat this because it was a phrase told to me for the first time while having lunch in your Lordships' House with that great man, Sir Lawrence Kadourie—that in Hong Kong they regard themselves less and less as a colony and far more as what has now come to be known as "the free zone of mainland China". If your Lordships will think out that phrase, there is indeed a wealth of meaning behind it.
On their own account, by themselves and without any encouragement from this country, in the last few years Hong Kong has been growing very much closer to the Chinese. As some of your Lordships may know, the Chinese—that is, Communist China—have over 100 department stores in Hong Kong. Some of your Lordships may know already that the Bank of China has nearly as many branches in Hong Kong as does the Hong Kong Shanghai bank. They have a machine tool factory and they are just about to build a ship-repair yard. On the other side of the penny, Hong Kong is becoming a rapidly increasing outlet for China's exports. It is becoming a rapidly growing provider of finance for internal Chinese products. Indeed, there is at this moment a big project being looked at for the provision of a chain of luxury hotels in all the main cities in China. This is all coming from Hong Kong.
Finally, I should like to refer to something mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes; that is, the magnificent deal which is just on the point of being signed, which has been the dream for 30 years of that great man Sir Lawrence Kadourie, who is the chairman of China Light and Power, by which China Light and Power will build a power station in Hong Kong which will get its coal from mainland China and in return will probably supply electricity for nearly the
178
whole of the Kwantung Province. It is to be hoped that much of the equipment for this station will come from the United Kingdom. The Hong Kong Standard reported today that this agreement was just about to be signed, and there is a quotation from Sir Sidney Gordon, the deputy chairman, who is also my own chairman in Hong Kong, in which he confirms that this is about to happen.
What a great exercise in tripartite effort! Hong Kong is highly crientated towards the United Kingdom. Believe me, my Lords, it will play an enormous part in the expansion of trade with China, which has been the subject of this debate. But we can rely on the British connection only if our products, our services and our know-how are at least as good as those of our Western competitors, and I hope that this lesson may not be readily forgotten. So let us ensure that, both politically and commercially, we in the United Kingdom take the fullest possible part in this great new twist in the affairs of the world.
6.1 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise to the House for having to leave. My usual custom, if I take part in a debate, is to pay courtesy to the other speakers and sit through it, but I had a special meeting of the Procedure Committee which I had to attend. Hence, having made my apology, I shall not feel guilty for having missed some of the excellent speeches.
After listening to the noble Earl, may I say that his contribution has been constructive and full of realism. I suggest to noble Lords that they pop into the Library and pick up a copy of Le Figaro, and read the article by M. Robert Lacontre "La revanche de Teng", But what is happening? At the end of the article, M. Lacontre writes "It is one of the great mystifications of the century".
The noble Earl asked a pregnant question. He asked: What will now happen to COCOM? It is a long time since I tried to get Tridents sold to China. It is a long time since I had a discussion at the Foreign Office. Having knocked around that part of the world, I was often told to take a slow boat there and stay with those little yellow men. Suddenly, everybody is on the bandwagon, and I hope that a

179
wheel does not come off. We could not sell the Tridents because I suggested that they get a second-hand Trident from Pakistan, which they did. I never made money out of East/West trade, and I did my job full-time as a Member of Parliament. But there were opportunities to sell motor boats. "No" said COCOM. "No", said the United States of America. "You can only sell a motor boat with a forward screw. It must not be able to reverse". So we lost the opportunity of snuggling up to this mighty nation during its great Marxist period. Probably, we are all Marxists now.
Lord O'HAGAN: No.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords I did not ask for any contradiction. I asked for acceptance of the reality that we are snuggling up to the Marxists now. That is a fact, so do not say "No", unless you are going to agree that we have an open door. It has been pointed out by the noble Earl, who has experience, that China is trading with other nations. There are 150 other nations which are now on the Chinese bandwagon, and the British public, the British trade union and Labour movement, British capital and the bankers must realise that there is no sunshine movement into China for our goods, unless they are the tops, of first-class specification and delivered on time. If the British trade union movement and British capital want this market, they must honour contracts on time. We are not playing with a nation that is half soaked. It is a nation of the most shrewed people in the world.
I have had the opportunity over the years of knocking all round China from Outer Mongolia to the borders of Tibet, and seeing these people and admiring them, though not agreeing with all. They, too, can be cruel, just as we accuse the Russians of being cruel. Their prisons, too, have had political prisoners. Now those prisoners are being released. So the first thing, if we are doing this, is to have a conference of COCOM. It is no good blinking.
When we had a Question last week about selling a sophisticated piece of a computer to Russia, I wriggled in my seat behind the Front Bench when I found that the Answer was that we could not sell it.
180
Yet only a couple of weeks earlier, Russian airmen and American airmen were fraternising 1,000 miles up in space in the most sophisticated machinery in the world. Come on, come off it, unless we still want to walk about in the cold. If we do not sell to them, West Germany will. Let me give your Lordships a concrete example. We lost the penicillin market because it was considered strategic: the Chinese ultimately manufactured it themselves. We lost the ballbearing market, because we would not sell them ballbearings. They were strategic.
Foster Dulles and his ilk helped to keep this alive when he composed the domino theory. What has happened to the domino theory, under which all the Chinese were going to swarm, in hordes —those were the words then, not a great race—into Malaya and Indonesia. What has gone wrong? It is history . It is one of the quirks of civilisation that the friends of the last war are the enemies of the next. That is what seems to happen in the history of mankind. Man is a strange creature one of the nastiest animals on earth, which fouls its nest and destroys beauty. It is time that mankind steadied up, before we destroy this race of human beings.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord really correct in his explanation of the domino theory? As I understand it, the domino theory was not the idea that the Chinese would invade all the surrounding States, but rather that, one by one, the neighbouring States would become Communist.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: That is right, my Lords. That was the domino theory. The finger that pushed the dominoes belonged to the Chinese, so that they all fell down from the impetus of the Chinese. Thank heavens! for the then Sir Anthony Eden. I remember the Geneva Conference only too well, where there was a civilised Chinese leader, Chou En-lai. We had an agreement on peace. It is in Sir Anthony Eden's book Full Circle, on I think, page 113, which tells how he dealt with Dulles whom I called the Flying Bedstead of the Pacific. Every time he visited somewhere, he wrote a book about it after 48 hours there. This was a bad period and the advice from the Foreign Office and from the French was bad.

181
But having said that, I will pay tribute to the Foreign Office. Let us remember that during all that we put the steadying brake on the worst of America's financial approach to Asia. It was Ernest Bevin who, despite all the others, recognised the Chinese and we had a chargé d'affaires here in London when most of the Western world had not done it. That was a period in the Foreign Office when there was a common-sense approach. I shall not go into retribution, although I could. Now we have changed, thank God! But where are we to go from here? I am delighted with these improved relations, and I am more than delighted that my noble friend took the initiative. But I will tell your Lordships what worries me. If they did not want the IPU to back a visit to China, because the Russians are members of the IPU, let us make it clear that we cannot sever all our relationships with the mighty Soviet Union just because we are going to sell a few jump jets to China, unless we find that they are completely daft. There would have been no Europe as we understand it today but for 20 million dead Russians after Stalingrad and 35 million injured. Do not, in all the euphoria, forget that the Russians got the Jews out of Buchenwald.
Let us get the balance right. The Russians are no angels, nor are the Chinese; and the British are certainly no angels. Let us adopt a manly approach to the problem. Let us sell the jets. Let us get rid of these silly, so-called strategic limitations on sales. Let us improve our labour and capital relations. I do not want to name barks, but there is a magnificent opportunity for banks with courage—Warburg, Lloyds and others— to give trade credit to the Chinese nation. The noble Lord spoke of the imbalance in trade. The answer is easy. The Chinese do not have the currency. They need currency. Therefore, I pay a tribute to humble traders like Mr. Timberlake, with his monthly letter—which has been going on for years—on trade with China. Nobody has taken much notice of these traders, but they have courageously gone on building up little bits of trade and large amounts of trade and getting a foot into this market.
However, we should have no illusions. Britain is no longer a great Empire. Our goods will sell only on their quality and
182
merit. There have been great changes since the death of Mao in 1976 and the death of Chou En-lai in 1976, and also since the Nixon period. Whatever I may think of that gentleman, I do not intend to make any derogatory remarks about him, or to go into other issues. However, that was a vital leap forward which enabled the West to make new contacts with China. I should be a fool if I were not prepared to admit the greatness of that piece of diplomatic—not expediency, but greatness at that moment in history. Whatever else may be said of President Nixon, that is a medal which he can worthily wear on his chest.
We would not sell rolling stock to China, and that makes me laugh. I went by train from Peking nearly to Hanoi in a first class carriage. We could have sold China rolling-stock from Crewe, but, no, it was strategic. Therefore I travelled in comfort from Peking right to the borders of Hanoi, a four and a half days' journey——
Lord BROWN: My Lords, railway carriages have never been listed as strategic by COCOM.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, my noble friend should not argue with me. Rolling stock—must I repeat it?— was on the strategic list.
Lord BROWN: No, my Lords.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, we would not sell rolling stock to China, but the Hungarians did. What point is my noble friend trying to make?
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I am correcting a mis-statement.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, if my noble friend believes that, we are both making mis-statements. Why was this? It was the same bad period. We missed the opportunity to go and see what they wanted. We could have sold millions of 2¼ horsepower pumps to save women carrying baskets with water in them from the rivers. We sold a few of these pumps in Laos, and I watched them working. They had a couple of soldiers guarding one. It was beautiful but pathetic. Those pumps would take that kind of labour out of village life. We could have sold

183
millions of them, but they too were on the strategic list. We had to argue with COCOM. But let us skip that, since I am skipping three-quarters of my speech to please noble Lords.
Let us get a few facts about the EEC on the record. I want to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, although he is not in the Chamber, for the efforts which he made. The EEC does not, however, mean something for nothing. Conditions are made and they have to be kept. Since the cold war we have moved from table tennis diplomacy to across-the-office-floor diplomacy, which is a much more peaceful and hopeful sign for the world. Let us hope, therefore, that the sale of the vertical take-off fighters will not upset the Vienna talks and the movement towards peace in the Western world.
We cannot sacrifice the whole of the Western world to make a success of an attack on Russian Communism. What kind of civilisation do noble Lords think would be left in the world if there were a war in which 400 million people could be pushed into the earth? For Heaven's sake! wake up. Do not adopt that philosophy. According to an article in Le Figaro, Robert Lacontre says that Teng Hsiao-ping thought that Mao had become metaphysical. We have de-Stalinised Mao, and now we are forming a system of society that socialises the losses and privatises the profits in China, too. Think that sentence out! The Chinese businessman is one of the most honest of his kind in the world when it comes to paying his debts. So are the Russians. The old Manchester Guardian always used to say that Russian debts were paid on the nail. Chinese debts are also paid on the nail. We are dealing with a nation that is sophisticated when it comes to making payments. It is a nation of merchants. Therefore we must pull up our socks.
If I may speak about the EMS, there is a mythology regarding money which we have had since the 1930s. I have studied the May report for that year. One can pick it up today and read the same facts about imports and exports. The value of money depends upon the honesty of the workers, people and capitalists in the country in which they live, and nothing else. "A good day's work for a good day's pay" is an old-fashioned phrase,
184
but it is the basis of the security and soundness of our monetary system. We can disregard crawling pegs, snakes and all the marvellous expressions that the theorists put forward. That phrase is the basis of our security, and we can achieve it by means of trade in the Oriental parts of the world.
I shall end by saying this. The Chinese are poets, and their invective is wonderful. The very phrase "The Gang of Four" makes your back bristle straight away. The radical leaders—Chiang Ch'ing, who is the widow of Mao, Wang Hung-wen, the Vice-Chairman of the Communist Party, Chang Ch'un-ch'aio, a Vice-Premier and Yao Wen-yuan, a member of the politburo—were all in the Gang of Four. I hear people running around the Lobbies here shouting "The Gang of Four", but I do not think that three-quarters of them know who the devil they were, or what they did, or why they got into trouble. Let us skip all the euphoria, all the expressions. Despite everything, Mao will always be thought of with other great leaders as one of the leaders of mankind who changed world history and helped to topple the American, British, French, Portuguese, Spanish and other imperialism in South-East Asia.
A tribute was paid to China by Sir Harold Thompson, a Fellow of the Royal Society and Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at Oxford, and by Lord Bessborough, in excellent lectures to the Royal Society of Arts at which I think my noble friend was the chairman. They were excellent lectures. In his lecture Sir Harold said:
"A struggle developed in the Academy of Sciences between those who supported Mao and those led by Liu Shao-chi whose arguments were that scientific research was not in line with the country's needs".
That period has now gone. Sir Harold also paid a tribute, as did my noble friend, to the improving standards in the universities and of course Truman had the last word. There was a time when Chiang Kai-Shek was a friend of Britain and Truman said what he thought—we can read his life and his book. He said:
"I never changed my mind about Chiang and his gang. Every damn one of them ought to be in jail, and I'd like to live to see the day they are …"
That is rough talking for an American President and if we had not listened to

185
MacArthur we might not have had the same Chinese Communist trouble and we might not have had the dead in Korea. I stood in Korea with my hat off one evening when the sun was sinking in the West over the graves of the Gloucesters and the others: what did they die for? MacArthur was going over the Yellow River and then it was through Clement Attlee and the great Winston Churchill who flew out to stop the dropping of the bomb over the Yellow River. After that MacArthur was sacked and this is what Truman said about it. MacArthur, the General, dominated all thinking and Truman said:
"I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. That's the answer to that. I didn't fire him because he was the dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail. That's why when a good one comes along like General Marshall—why you've got to hang on to them and I did …".
We do not talk like that about our Generals or our Admirals—God bless them!—but the Americans have a different idea. They allow the Generals and the Admirals to dominate their thinking. Do not let euphoria dominate our thinking about China. China is a great nation, she will need our help but she has 150 other nations who are willing to help her if we do not. If we want to help her, work well and do well, because you will get nothing for nothing.
6.23 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in regard to what he said about President Truman. I always thought he was the greatest American President, far better even than his predecessor, and I had personal experience of some of the things that he said and did.
I should have liked very much to take up what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said about the necessity "or pacifism. I think that one day we ought to have a debate on that—whether the theory of absolute pascifism is valid or not, and if not, why not—and perhaps on that occasion there might be more of the right reverend Prelates on the Bishops' Bench to explain the view of the Church. I do not myself altogether share the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Soper. I think that the theory of Arthur Koestler, that there
186
is something inherently vicious and aggressive and violent in human nature which will actually lead it to destroy itself, like the brontosaurus, is derived from Oswald Spengler, who said that man is a beast of prey, a Raublier, rather deriving in its turn, I think, from Nietsche. It is a philosophical conception, but I do not myself believe that it is true. If it were true, then of course there would be no use being a pacifist because everybody would be eaten up by the aggressive human beasts irrespective of whether they were pacifists or not! So I do not believe in that, nor do I believe that the nuclear war is inevitable. I think it is quite possible that the horror of dropping the bomb—although of course one might be dropped by mistake—will probably put people off it or at any rate the great Powers, and they will never employ this horrible weapon. I think therefore that it is something that will ensure, if not peace, at least nuclear peace.
Having said that, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for initiating this debate. I read his report, to which my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie contributed. In fact all the members of the delegation expressed their view and I found it immensely interesting and stimulating. Indeed, I believe the impressions gained by that delegation were not very dissimilar from those of the mission with which I was associated, namely, that led by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when we arrived on the scene a little later. Anyhow, since I was never in China before, your Lordships might, for the next 10 minutes or so, bear with the first impressions of a complete non-expert. It is said sometimes that first impressions are the best! Let us hope so.
Well, the first and the chief impression that I received was the absolute, or apparently absolute, sincerity with which nearly all the people we met—and of course they were either people who were attached to our mission or officials of one kind or another—violently criticised the cultural revolution, which was usually associated, for fairly obvious reasons, with the activities of the Gang of Four. From what they said, and indeed from what I have read elsewhere, and notably in the highly interesting and brilliant book entitled Chinese Shadows by a Belgian sinologue called Simon Leys, the cultural

187
revolution was a national disaster amounting in certain districts almost to a kind of civil war. Very little was heard about this disaster in the West, and indeed I think many outside Chinese specialists were often led to believe, and possibly from ideological motives, that all was well and that the new China was going from strength to strength. If they thought that they were certainly wrong.
Basically, the cultural revolution seems to have represented a continuing effort, especially after Chairman Mao had been, as it were, affected by his age, to impose an ideological straitjacket on the whole Chinese nation which it was not willing to accept, and for some time that rigidly Marxist philosophy was reinforced by a sort of "emperor worship" or a reversion to the most ancient Chinese concepts. But after the death of Mao that magic obviously could no longer work. In any case, the totalitarian and levelling prejudices, if they may be so described, of the leaders of the cultural revolution evidently led to increasing discontent in all sections of the people, especially among the intellectuals. Perhaps this first impression was wrong, but the main thing I noticed was literally the passion with which the critics of the old order expressed their views.
Naturally, it cannot be denied that under the Maoist régime, whatever its failings, there were considerable successes, and the rigorous Marxist policy was in fact tempered from time to time, particularly perhaps under the influence of the still discredited Liu Shao-chi. In particular, of course, food was produced in sufficient quantities to feed the population, the health of the people also seems to have been excellent on the whole, fairly successful efforts were made to keep the birth rate down and some of the highly labour intensive public works were indeed remarkable. But it must be admitted that all this was at the expense of almost all the amenities of life and, above all, of every vestige of freedom. By all accounts too, industry was pretty inefficient and, as we know, the armed forces were deprived of all kinds of modern weapons and thus remained, and still remain, very largely out of date.
So the real question now seems to be whether the new and welcome emphasis on
188
freedom will be compatible with the huge new national industrialisation programme which is to be carried out, it would seem, largely with the aid of foreign money and no doubt also with the aid of foreign techniques or technicians. In theory there is no reason, surely, why this should not be so, even though we may have doubts that the progress will be as rapid as the present Government appear to think. It all will depend, presumably, on the general maintenance of order. We must all wait and see how the new political freedom, for such it is, is going to be translated into reality. There can be very little doubt, as I think has already been said this evening, that a kind of communism will continue, and the main question is, can it be Communism with a human face?
I think it was Napoleon who said that China was a sleeping giant and had better be allowed to go on sleeping. I believe his actual words were:
"C'est un géant qui dort; laisse le dormir".
I feel that, ever since the Communist victory in 1948, the Chinese have been such a giant, not wishing to have any contact, if possible, with the wicked outside world and only asking to be let alone to work out their own salvation. During the 19th century and right up to the end of the Second World War foreign Powers did their best to, as it were, drag China into some form of industrialisation on their own terms; that only produced, as we all know, misery and chaos. China then went once again for 20 to 30 years into isolation; and now, after about 30 years introspection, she is certainly striding on to the world stage, with what actual result nobody can possibly say. It seems that she is looking for help to Japan and to Europe. I should hope that there will be general agreement in this House, at any rate, that we for our part should do anything we can to help her in her forward march.
The second impression I had, and it was a very definite one, was the immense fear which all Chinese seem to have of, I will not say the Soviet Union, rather of the Russians. They all said that, of course, World War III was inevitable, but after considerable arguments General Wu, to whom Lord Chalfont referred, said, "Well, it is inevitable, but it may be postponed", which comforted us to some extent. I said, "You really must not

189
say, even if you believe it, that World War III is 'inevitable' because that has a very counter-productive effect on your European friends. "They said perhaps they would modify that; but they did say, and what I think Wu's view is, was that although World War III will almost certainly come it will probably not be a nuclear but a conventional war. If you think that out there is a good deal to be said for the general's conception; anyhow, I would have thought that myself.
In any case, since they are obviously terrified of the Russians, one of the things they want is to be helped in the build-up—and they cannot build them up themselves very much because they have not enough money—of their armed forces; enough, shall we say, to slow up any possible conventional attack on them from the North, to slow it up before the main parts of the Yangtse Valley, and so on, can be occupied. Even if it is occupied their argument is that the Russians would eventually have to go back to Russia, but that is another matter. Clearly what they want to do is to slow up this potential conventional attack. One of the things they have set their hearts on for that purpose is the purchase from us, because we are the only people who produce it, of the Harrier so-called jump jet aircraft. This cannot possibly be described as an offensive weapon. It would be no good in the almost inconceivable event of China attacking Russia. It could only be of any use if the Russians conventionally attacked China, and that is why they want it.
No doubt we will have to get the formal agreement of our allies, notably the Americans, but I believe that the Americans are willing. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will tell us if that is so or not. Possibly the West Germans may have objections on the grounds that such a sale might irritate or provoke the Russians; more particularly, as Mr. Brezhnev has said, our relations with the Soviet Union would suffer if the sale was effected. I hope and believe that the Government will not be influenced by such considerations. Harriers are a weapon which might be used in the event of some invasion of China, but not otherwise. So I hope that the Government will tell us tonight that there is nothing to prevent a sale as far as they know.
190
The idea that the Russians are suffering from a sort of claustrophobia and that if the Chinese are built up in any way they may one day feel bound to strike out, I find rather silly. How can you suffer from claustrophobia when you dominate the world from the Elbe to Vladivostok and have a very considerable chance of extending your influence right through the Middle East and then on to the middle of Africa? I hope when the Minister comes to reply he will tell us that the deal regarding Harriers is probable in the months to come, and that in any case aid to China in the difficult task of building up their armed forces is desirable, Soviet threats or no Soviet threats. Surely it is a good thing in principle for Europe to find firm friends somewhere, and I may say that any rebuff to the Chinese in regard to Harriers, which I think could very easily come about if we failed to sell them, would be a very serious matter. Why should we do it when this friendship is, so to speak, offered us on a plate?
I only add in conclusion that I, like my noble friend Lord Chalfont, very much appreciated the extreme friendliness with which we were greeted everywhere, even in places like Irumch the capital of Sinkiang where we saw the immense agricultural developments beside the Tienshan mountains and everybody working with sickles in apparent contentment. There, when we went into the stores, everybody flocked around and were interested and anxious to talk. There was enormous interest and friendship which I think was not just put about by the Government; it does exist and we ought to profit by it. We do not know, of course, what is really going on behind the scenes. What foreigner does? But that the largest, and in some way the most intelligent and most hardworking nation in the world, is now embarking on a new course seems, at any rate to us on these Benches, to be certain, and I believe that we in the West should do our best to help it on its way.
6.39 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I can assure you that my contribution will be very brief, and I think a little odd. First, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, on his most excellent speech and all the

191
information that he gave us. The reason I put down my name to speak today was because during the war I was sent out to China to help them. I think I am right in saying that none of the people who have been out to China fairly recently or during the last few years were out there at the time of the war. I remember very well, indeed, when I was in another place that we sent a small Parliamentary delegation out to China. The Chiang Kai-Sheks were, of course, in power then, acting like warlords in their administration, and Madame Chiang Kai-Shek was asked whether she thought it was a good delegation. She said, Yes, it was a good enough delegation, but there was not a woman on it. So while I was in another place our Whips of that day rushed round, and they suddenly said to me, "You go!" Therefore, I was flown out and it was a very dangerous flight, because of course I and the passengers who were with me were chased by the German airforce; when we flew over the hump to Chungking, with the brilliant American pilots, there I was. Therefore, I reached there chased by Japanese planes and, on the whole, it was rather a frightening period.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, when I finally arrived I admired the Chinese. By that time, of course, Peking was in Japanese hands. They had great problems, but they remained extremely friendly towards us. I can remember so well the first speech which I made to them after my arrival. I explained to them how short of everything we were after fighting the Battle of Britain. They understood the situation so well. I have always been delighted to have been a friend of the Chinese and I hope that I shall be for a long time to come.
I am rather sorry that I am now too old to return to China because I should like to see the development that has taken place. During the debate mention was made of the immense new bridges that have been built over the Yangtze. I remember that when I was in China we used to travel about in a bus and the bridges were so fragile that we never dared let a bus cross them with the passengers inside. We always had to get out and walk over the bridges. However, the Chinese were beginning to learn and it must be remem-
192
bered that they had never really come into contact with all our technical developments.
I also remember that at that time they were just beginning their education system. I was asked to go to some of their universities which I was extremely delighted to do. However, the people who came did so not to listen to me, but to get food because the Chinese at that time were very short of food.
I have enjoyed listening to the debate and I am very glad that in the future we shall be able to help the Chinese in their magnificent development. We have had a very long debate and there is nothing more that I should like to say, except how much I admire their success and how much I am delighted to know that they will continue their friendship with us. It is a magnificent country and the Chinese will do much towards helping to bring about stability in the Far East. It is marvellous to have a friend like China. I am delighted to have been able to listen to the speeches that have been made this evening, and close by saying goodnight and God bless the Chinese.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness DENINGTON: My Lords, I am sure that we are all deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for putting down this Motion provoking this interesting debate. Just a year ago, having always had great interest in Chinese matters, my husband and I were trying to understand from reading articles and newspapers what on earth was going on in China. During the ensuing year there has been a great deal more information, but at that time there was very little. We decided that there was nothing to do but join a study tour as a tourist and in that way try to have some kind of look for ourselves. It is because of that experience that I am on my feet now.
Noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, have referred to the modern developments such as bridges, hydro-electric schemes and irrigation schemes which have taken place. They are all extremely wonderful, but basically China is still a peasant nation and that is something that we must never forget. The Chinese toil incredibly hard and they do so with their picks and their shovels, because there is no mechanisation

193
at all. The removal of mountainsides to transform tiny narrow terraces cannot be achieved mechanically, but only by human labour. Those narrow terraces are changed into vast open fields where they can, when they have the wealth, put a tractor. They move mountainsides, they channel water and they fill in gulleys. They are revolutionising and entirely changing even the face of nature to meet the needs of man. It is all incredibly impressive. They are planting mountainsides, which up to now have been barren, with fruit trees, mulberry trees and so on. I stood and I looked at all that they were doing and thought to myself: What motivates them to work so hard?
The answer is that for the first time for centuries they have been freed from poverty, depression and the oppression of the landlord who has taken most of their crops—crops being their wealth. They are free for the first time from the threat of hunger. We met a man who, as a young child, had eaten the bark of trees during the famine and had been sold by his parents. Parents sold their children and their wives to people who were able to feed them because that was the only way of keeping them alive. That man is now about 70 years old—but it is hard to judge the age of such people when they work so very hard. Those changes have taken place not in human memory but in the lifetime of one man.
Mao, of course, distributed the land to the peasants, and that is the spark of the motivation. They must provide from their crops a certain quota for the State to feed the city people and so on. But after that the surplus that arises from their labour can be sold for the benefit of their own commune and their personal benefit. We were very interested to learn that they had money in the bank, that by their standards, they are becoming wealthy, and that they receive interest on their money in the bank. That was a revelation to me because one could not find that out from anything that one read. Having changed the face of nature and provided these wide open fields, they can now, with the money that the commune makes, get a tractor. There may be only one for miles around, but there is a tractor relieving the people of terrible human toil day in and day out. That illustrates the changing face of China.
194
There is an absolute ferment of activity taking place in the countryside to the people's obvious great satisfaction and pride but they are still retaining their basic values. The rhythms and basic relationships between man and man and man and nature give satisfaction, balance and stability. Now this basically peasant nation is in a tremendous hurry to equal the living standards of the West, to mechanise and to be equal with any of us. For far too long they have been cut off from the world and that is not entirely their fault. I think that we in the West have a good deal of responsibility for the fact that the Chinese were inward-looking—for example, they were not allowed in the United Nations and so on. Now they are in a great hurry. My fear is that the haste with which they want to reach our standards is likely to bring with it, or could bring with it, not only the problems from which we suffer—the problems of unemployment, of greed and of the "I'm all right Jack" mentality—but also problems arising from a new and different way of life for them, a way of life quite different from anything that they have experienced in all the centuries of their civilisation.
The rapid change in their lifestyle may so undermine their natural standards of behaviour that many of the values on which their traditional patterns are based may be weakened, and even, I found myself wondering, destroyed temporarily. We saw the sort of behavioural madness —and I can only call it that—that swept over them in the so-called cultural revolution, when they smashed things up, and they now deeply regret doing so. I fervently hope that the traumatic changes which they are about to go through— because this new way of life has hardly started yet—will not lead to violent swings in one direction or another. I think that that would be temporary, because; so great is their tradition of civilisation that after a while they would return to normality. I am really trying to say that if we see them going off the deep end—if I may be allowed to use such an expression—in one direction or another, let us be tolerant, let us wait and let us watch, and I think that they will return to sanity, as they have now.
Of course, much will depend on their leadership. It will depend not only on the political leadership but on the officials who are in charge and who, as we all know, in

195
every society are extremely influential. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, who said that they seem to be aware of the problems, and I think that they are aware of the problems. Recently a delegation visited us in our new town of Stevenage and I spoke to them there. It was plain that they do see the problems. However, it is one thing to recognise the problems but another to be able to deal with them.
I see the problems facing them falling under two headings; namely, technical and social. I shall deal first with the technical side. As we have all said, we should and we can offer every help. As we have said in this House this afternoon, in helping them we help ourselves. I think that our technicians and our salesmen will need patience. Some I have met have said: "It is terrible, you go mad because you can never, never get an answer. You wait months when there are jobs waiting to be tackled, but you cannot get an answer from the top because everything has to be referred up and up". I mentioned this when the delegation visited Stevenage. They said: "Yes, we know. We are aware of it. It is a very difficult problem. It is a matter of education because we have not yet had time to educate enough people who can be given responsibility and who can take profound decisions in the localities. But we are aware of it". I think that they must be very aware of it and should move on it as fast as they can.
However, it is in relation to the social problems which I can see arising where we can also help. Many of them—in time, all of them—will move from excessive toil to very considerable leisure. I would remind noble Lords that we, who think that we have been civilised for quite some time and who think that we have been educated for quite some time, have not yet learned as a people to use our leisure well. We see far too much mindless violent and destructive behaviour all around, do we not? We hear youngsters saying that there is nothing to do—and we have educated them from the age of five to 18 or even beyond. From our experience of industrialised life I think that we can make the Chinese aware that damage can be done to society by industrial modernisation. For instance, the car is both a blessing and a curse, is it not? It can so easily destroy city life, and the Chinese
196
should control it before it does destroy city life. Industrial pollution has killed the cherry trees in Japan, has created smog and has polluted the rivers. The Chinese must control it before it overtakes them, I and be aware of it from the beginning.
The lifestyles and patterns of their civilisation must not suddenly be swept away by building Western-style housing, because it would not be suited to their family pattern at all. I do not want to see their people what I call "pigeonholed" in warehouses, as our people are here and on the Continent. I pray that they do not allow their cities—and I think that they already worry a great deal about Shanghai—to become too big and, therefore, teeming with urban poor who have lost their social values, their sense of neighbourliness, community and all the rest. Unless they are aware of it and unless they control it, that could happen. However, I think that they are aware of it.
My husband and I went to the old capital of Sian on the silk route. The Chinese did not know who I was and I was asked by the guide whether there was anything that interested me particularly about which I should like to know. I said that I was very interested in planning and they arranged an afternoon with the city planners in Sian. They did not know I was coming, but to my astonishment they talked most knowledgeably about the London plan for its eight satellite new towns, and even about the details of the Stevenage plan. That was quite fantastic. Therefore, let us not underrate their study and what they know.
In their progress into the 21st century I sincerely hope that we shall refrain from assuming that our patterns of government are necessarily right for them. Other noble Lords have made that point here this afternoon. Maybe they can develop a non-violent society—a controlled society—that can move ahead along an agreed path after open discussion. As I said before, much will depend on their leadership. I think it will help if we allow some of the antipathy that we have to Communism not to prejudice our evaluation of what happens in the coming years. I have sensed what to me is an extremely helpful and wonderful attitude on this subject in this House this afternoon. I feel deeply grateful to have

197
been present to understand it. As a nation let us keep an open mind and have sympathetic understanding of and give support to the struggles that lie ahead of the Chinese. Together with other speakers, I believe that China has a great part to play in the future development of mankind towards a real civilisation where violence is not a dominant ingredient. I hope that this small nation of ours will give every assistance, to our mutual benefit and our mutual honour.
7 p.m.
Lord FULTON: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to be allowed to speak after the last speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, because I think that she said some things that I have felt to be missing in the course of the debate hitherto. I would be tempted to say let us call it a day: we have had a wonderful explosion of opinions and a very interesting debate, for which we have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes. But I put my name down to speak in the debate in large part out of deference to him. He conceived the project for a Parliamentary Mission to China; he raised the finance for it; he organised it, and, let me say, splendidly led it; winning the affectionate admiration of all its members and giving great and obvious pleasure to our Chinese hosts.
As your Lordships have had explained to you, one due that he firmly exacted from each member of the party was to write under a strict time limit a short piece giving his impressions of a first visit to China. Indeed, it was a request to which there was only one possible answer, and I think nobody defaulted. Although some of us—myself included—would, after three or four months, be tempted to change a good deal that one wrote at the time, I think Lord Rhodes is generous enough to be gratified by that because it is a sign that his initiative is still alive and fertile.
None of us had visited mainland China. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, I had been some 14 times to Hong Kong, but never onto mainland China. We saw only a part of its Western territories, so a proper humility is due from those of us who underwent this initiation: due as it would be from one who ventured to address your Lordships' House about the United States of America after a single visit which took
198
in only New England and the eastern seaboard, omitting altogether the deep South, the Middle West, and the Far West beyond the Rockies.
Of course one is not conscious of China only because one spent a week in it. It is one of the great issues of modern life. It is not new in modern international politics. We have disagreed with our American allies in our appreciation and explanation of the role of China in the world, and have put forward different suggestions for its incorporation into international machinery. But there is also, apart from its omnipresence in modern politics, a great wealth and a scholarly body of knowledge and writings about it.
I am not repeating idly the basic statistic that came from Lord Rhodes early in his speech: the population of China is variously estimated at around 900 million and one in five of the human race. It is variously estimated to rise by the mid-1980s to some 1,200 million plus or minus. It seems to me that the important fact to remember is that 83 per cent. of that population is rural, and engaged in agriculture or its ancillary occupations. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, our agricultural expert, has spoken from his special vantage point about the quality of the cultivation that we saw on our journeys, or were shown in the large communes we visited.
The great Chinese question of the future is the question of its agricultural industry and its organisation. I am not being critical but I think we have too readily assumed, in our discussion this evening that China is just like us but minus our industrial competence. China's agricultural background is its being, and I took away that impression not only from travel but from my talks with the young men with whom we had dinner and who opened their minds to us in a very frank and illuminating way.
What shall we see in the new China that we have talked about? Is it going to be a re-enactment of the history of agriculture in North America? The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did us a good turn by repeating the story of Henry Kissinger about the time-span of the Chinese. If you have lived and cultivated your civilisation for that number of thousands of years, being 20 years behind is not

199
awfully important, and that is what some people have said is the gap. We have to look forward and ask where this fifth of the human race is going in the next century. Look what has happened to America. Again I apologise for very brief statistics. There, a century ago, three-quarters of the population was rural and living on farms and now, by the application of modern technology, less than 30 per cent. of the population is rural and the farm residents comprise less than 5 per cent. of the total population of the Union.
If industrialisation is the objective—and America is a good enough example—is that what they are out for? Is that what they want to do in the course of the next century to the continent they inhabit? Do we really think that those who stood on board the ships going into New York and lifted their hands and saluted the Statue of Liberty, and all that that great nation stood for in the vision of the Founding Fathers, would feel that the exodus from the farms of the United States and the journey into California have been a realisation of that vision? Or have they not? I should be very much inclined to ask the question whether the Chinese—in my understanding of them, and I stand open to correction—really just want to go for industrialisation for industrialisation's sake.
Of course they know they have something they value, and feel that the rest of the world has not got, in their agricultural social organisation. I think they would be prepared—they said it; Lord Rhodes will confirm this—in the defence of what they have got (their Chinese nature, and Chinese history and civilisation) to lose 100 million, 200 million, 300 million, 400 million. But then there would be 400 million left not in order to become industrialised for the sake of industrialisation but for carrying on what China has stood for.
So that I think we cannot just suppose that they are saying, "Let us have industry. Help us to get industry." That is one scenario. It may be so. It may be that you have to take steps in order to defend yourself—and the Harriers may be part of them—which take you on a road from which there is no turning back. But I do not think I detected that they had
200
already given in to the idea that that was an inevitability, and that they were prepared to make that sacrifice, or would do it.
I was reminded, in listening to some of the earlier speeches, of a tea party that took place in Oxford when I was a young don there, with the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. We gave a tea party to Mr. Gandhi. He had come to England for a round table conference and we felt very sure of ourselves. He explained that we had not treated India very well—that we had left it poor—and while my memory is rather defective now and I cannot remember precisely what the average wage there was, let us say it was 2p a day. He said it had to go up to 4p, to which we replied, like dons to a pupil, "Has the world not learned that if you go from 2p to 4p you will want then to go to 8p and from 8p to 16p, and so on?" Mr. Gandhi replied, "No, that will not happen to us," and we agreed to differ. Unfortunately, he did not explain how it would be done when he said, "We are going to stop the process at a certain point."
I want to know—I should still like to find out by further exploration of the literature and consultation with the Chinese—what they feel to be at the root of the civilisation they want to defend at all costs, and in regard to which they invoke our help to hold on to. It is just possible that they might give the answer; perhaps there is another scenario to the one we have presented to ourselves in this debate. Will China, by its own choice, offer a new example and remain a primarily agricultural society, practising and improving the world's oldest industry, perhaps marginally emerging into the competition of the world's markets in manufactured goods to satisfy, for its own needs and purposes, including its defence, the means by which it will defend them, but basically remaining a people satisfied with the life of the countryside and with the values and social relationships which go with that, enhancing the traditional skills built up and transmitted over the millenia?
We have talked a good deal about the commune. It seemed to me that perhaps the commune was the best existing guide as to what they are after. In almost the whole of the rest of the so-called develop-

201
ing world—I know Africa a great deal better than I know China—the attraction of the city is the enemy of building a sound agriculture. In China the life of the commune uniquely keeps a hold not only on the agricultural workers but on the teachers, doctors, engineers and on the other managerial and professional men and women in the satisfying use of their professional talents and skills.
It is true, and we must face it, that there are in force in the communes restrictions on the movement and choice of occupation reminiscent of our wartime restriction on engagements, orders and the direction of labour. The question is whether these are part and parcel of an underlying acceptance of the life they make possible or whether they would be rejected with increasing freedom and prosperity. The evidence of one's eyes in such a situation must be regarded with great caution. However, what I saw—I think I can say what we saw—suggested no surliness or resentment. If one offered a smile one got a warm and welcoming smile back. What seems clear beyond doubt is that Mao's Communism—this should be said with great force—is poles apart from the Marxist form of Communism in the USSR.
There can be no dictatorship of a city proletariat in today's China because no such city exists. The commune's property as the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, pointed out, is the property not of the State but of the members of the commune. Its prosperity is their prosperity. The individual may hold private property, as she said, and he may own his house and a proportion of his income may come from his own labours in his cultivation of the smaller animals and their products. There seems no room for doubt that Mao meant what he said when he proclaimed that no policy should be enforced on the communes that did not appear to them to be clearly in the interest of their members. That was a tremendously revolutionary statement which, so far as one can see, he lived up to to the letter. This is the sharp point of distinction from the organisation of the Soviet State.
Granted it was Mao's intention to intervene to prevent the new China drifting into a direction like that of Russia, what are the prospects in the
202
future for his successors? Lord Rhodes has worded his Motion well in referring to the warmth of our country's relationship with China. Let us ask ourselves what we would wish China's part to be in the world—not what we would wish to do to China—of the 21st century. I leave it to others to discuss the questions of military power and power politics. Equally important is her influence on men's ideas of how best they should live their lives.
What has a small country like ours in common with the world's colossus? We have been for a long time at the forefront of the world's stage. We have emerged from an experience of empire that was unlike any empire produced in the history of the world by any of our human predecessors. It had a lot to be said against it that has been said, but it was not there for the making of money, it was not there to stay and it was not there to hammer into uniformity people who were created different and diverse in their talents and purpose. We have emerged from that experience, by which we were largely moulded, with a strong feeling of being different from our neighbours, whether in Europe or across the Atlantic.
That is not an anti-EEC remark but, rather, a gift we might give to the EEC— that diversity can be maintained in a form of union. Thus we are perhaps able to look with understanding and sympathy on the prospects of a China persistently inward-looking, absorbed in itself, unwilling to surrender to the uniformity of modern industrial invasion of human activity, determined to resist interference from outside, but equally satisfied with its traditional way of life, and prepared for great sacrifice, if that was necessary, to maintain and improve it.
I must confess that I gained from the contacts that I made a sense of an underlying detachment from the values of the world outside China. If there were time I should say a few words about how that is reconciled with China's appearance in Africa, particularly in the role of giving a helping hand to Julius Nyerere in his particular endeavours, in which he has greatly relied upon their assistance. How China's emergence into the world's market place—with all the convulsions that would bring it about, all her maintenance of self-containment in international organisations

203
and international affairs—goes will be of profound importance for the rest of us. If they choose not the path of growth, like that of the super-Powers and of most of Europe, perhaps the world will be enriched in other respects by China's, and possibly India's, example. What is important, particularly for us in our present predicaments, is to learn to emulate her in the strength of her convictions that she has her own role and her own purpose.
The strongest impression left to me from so stimulating an experience is the envy—that is not the right word, but I must use it—of such a prevailing confidence. It may be that we shall take from the next phase of China, and our relationship with her, a recognition that beyond the importance of earning our living we have lessons worthy of being taught to others, which we learnt over the centuries of our own history.
7.22 p.m.
Lord POLWARTH: My Lords, we have had an extraordinarily good debate and an extremely important one; I think it has been one of the best that I can remember in this House for a long time. If I had any sense I would at this stage simply strike my name off the list of speakers. However, I do not intend to do so for two reasons: first, there is the simple point that I have come all the way from Scotland in order to speak, and it would be a great waste of the taxpayers' money if I were not to do so; and secondly, the voice of commerce and industry has been singularly silent in the debate, with the notable exception of the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and I suspect of the contribution to come from the noble Lord who is to follow me.
A year and a half ago the deputy chairman of the Bank of China, Pu Ming, visited Europe and came to London. Some of your Lordships may have met him. He also visited Scotland, and I had the honour of being his host at lunch at the Bank of Scotland. It was an extremely friendly occasion. Nevertheless, at that time, so soon after the discrediting of the Gang of Four and the death of Chairman Mao, how little could we have foreseen the extraordinary opening up of China which has taken place in the 18 months since.
204
That visit of Pu Ming's was followed by an invitation to us to visit China, and I am glad to say that in June of this year the visit came about. In going there I had, I believe, two advantages. First, I was to go not as one of a large official mission, meeting large numbers of ministers and top officials, but in a group of only four, with therefore more time to look around and observe what was going on in general in the country. Secondly, my wife was able to go with me, which was an immense help in every respect, not least because she had spent some time living in China as a child 40 years previously, and had vivid memories of life there at that time, which she confirmed was in many respects not all that different from what she found upon going back. The visit was admirably organised in every detail, and our hosts and guides could not have been more helpful and courteous. Altogether it was a memorable and momentous experience.
Now, less than six months later, we have reached a milestone of very considerable significance on the road to closer trading relations between our two countries. When the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, did us the great service of putting down this Motion for debate, I doubt whether, even with his prescience, he could have foreseen what was to take place here in London today. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in a most refreshing contribution, asked, what about the banks and the opportunities for them? I can tell your Lordships that this morning there were signed here in London a series of agreements between the Bank of China and a group of the leading British banks, including, I am glad to say, my own and another Scottish bank, establishing lines of credit for 1,200 million dollars (that is over £600 million) in support of exports from this country to China. Technically, this credit is in the form of what we call deposit facilities. The British banks will deposit funds with the Bank of China here in London against specific contracts for the sale of capital goods and services. The repayment and funding of these deposits will be guaranteed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I believe it to be the first deal of its kind ever to be concluded with China with the support of an official credit insurance organisation.

205
Others have spoken of the great modernisation programme which China has set herself, and of the opportunities it gives us to increase our trade with her. Yet it was hard to see how China could import the capital equipment and the technology without which she could not possibly carry out this programme so long as she stuck to the principle that she would buy only what she could pay for by her exports and eschewed all borrowing overseas. Her fears were perhaps understandable, given the bitter experience of the burden of foreign loans in the past. I cannot resist quoting, as the noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, did to your Lordships in a debate not long ago, what one Minister said of them:
"He who has been bitten by a snake fears even a grass rope".
Even the grass rope now appears to have lost its terrors.
In the course of our talks there in June this year we saw the first signs that the Chinese might be prepared to consider forms of overseas borrowing, provided that they were clothed in suitable terminology. When the Dell mission was there a couple of months later things had moved quite a lot further. Now it seems clear that the Chinese are ready to become involved in almost any generally accepted form of financing, provided of course that the terms are right.
I believe that the deal signed today marks a very real step forward and that it reflects considerable credit on all involved. It reflects well on the Bank of China for its pragmatism and open-mindedness in reaching this solution; and I may say that I formed a very high respect for the skill and operations of its staff in London. It also reflects highly on the Export Credits Guarantee Department for its very vital part in the operation. Last but not least, if I may say so in all modesty, it reflects well upon the banks themselves for taking the lead on this occasion and having the finance ready in advance for those with the goods to sell; and I hope that Sir Harold Wilson's committee on the City will take notice of this.
For those with the goods, the opportunities are very great indeed. We have already seen some considerable deals in the last year; Rolls-Royce, with aircraft engines; John Brown Engineering, with
206
gas turbines; Dowty and Anderson Strathclyde, with mining equipment; and ICI in the general chemical field. Those are but a selection. However, we are only scratching the surface so far, and of course we are not alone in this vast market. Every advanced country is after it, and some countries, such as Germany, Japan and France, have a head start on us. Your Lordships will know of the enormous trade agreement signed with France the day before yesterday.
My Lords, the situation requires hard and continuous selling at a high level and constant personal contact, because it appears that the Chinese like to continue to deal with the same individual and get to know him. It requires prompt delivery, high quality and good service—we could not have had a better disciple of those than the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek—and the Chinese have made it quite clear that we have not always excelled in these respects. It is a highly competitive market, but I believe that the rewards can be great. Take the oil industry, particularly offshore. China has vast reserves of oil and gas which have hardly begun to be exploited, and is indeed at present exporting oil, although as she industrialises that may temporarily cease. She will certainly need to import skills, and probably equipment, too, to develop these resources, and here is a great opportunity for us to deploy what we have learned in the North Sea.
There is even now talk of accepting joint ventures with overseas companies—something that they declared completely unacceptable only a few months ago. There is the example of this deal, proposed by the American group Intercontinental, to build a chain of hotels in China, very much needed to cope with the growing number of business visitors and tourists; and, of course, the tourist trade is so important for them as an earner of foreign currency. Alongside this we are beginning to see other exchanges in the fields of education and students, as has been mentioned, of music and the arts. I believe that the BBC Symphony Orchestra is going to China next year. All of this will help to bring about a closer understanding with each other. At this point perhaps I could ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he can tell us what progress the Government and British Airways are

207
making on securing rights for us to fly into China, because it is of very great importance that we should have this ability.
Provided that our industry can compete, I believe we are in a very strong position to benefit from China's modernisation. The Japanese, of course, have a considerable advantage—a highly industrialised nation right on their doorstep—but memories of the past are too fresh for the Chinese to want to rely totally on Japan. The United States, for all its industrial and technological strength, is still partly under the cloud of Taiwan. So it is to Europe, and to us as a European country, that China most naturally turns as an ally, not just in the military sense, to maintain the balance of power against what she sees as the menace of Big Brother next door—and we have heard from experts on this—but in the industrial sense, too. But do not let us fool ourselves into thinking that we can have the advantages of such an alliance if we do not behave as Europeans; and I am bound to say that I do not think our position will be helped by the decision, of which we heard today, to hold back from full involvement in the European Monetary System, because of the enormous desirability of a stable currency for trade. I hope sincerely that it will not be long before we find ourselves able to join fully.
My Lords, others have talked about the importance of defence equipment on the Chinese shopping list, and I will not follow them far. Frankly, I cannot see that the Harrier and similar weapons are going to disturb the balance of military power: I think they are more likely to stabilise it. And even if readiness to supply military equipment may not be an absolute prerequisite for gaining non-military orders (and I do not believe it will be) I am equally sure that such readiness will count considerably for good in where orders are placed for ordinary trade.
Finally, my Lords, what are the chances that China can achieve this enormous advance to parity with the other developed nations by the turn of the century? For a start, I do not think we should be deluded by all the recent excitement and publicity, by things like the poster campaign, into thinking that there has been a fundamental change in the Chinese character and way of thought. I believe they are very much
208
the same Chinese who, over the centuries, have survived the vicissitudes of dynasties, wars and political upheavals. Nor should we be under any illusions that their opening of the doors to us stems from anything other than what they see as their own best interests.
What we are seeing, I venture to suggest, is perhaps a return to a period of normality stemming from a realisation that, despite their own vastness, they can no longer remain in isolation from the rest of the world. So we have a touch on the tiller, a slight change of course towards becoming a modernised industrial nation. What the consequences will be for their system and their society, with all the implications of more material prosperity, better education and more contacts with the outside world, I think we would be rash to try to judge. But given a period of stability (and those with long and close experience of China to whom I have talked in the last six months seem agreed that there is a good prospect of this happening) I believe they could well achieve what they are setting out to do—not necessarily within their time-scale; but, then, as we have heard from others today, time is not so important a factor for the Chinese.
My Lords, if I may venture to say so, I believe that as a people the Chinese are highly intelligent, industrious, disciplined, inventive, thorough, businesslike, shrewd and civilised—and, what is more, they have a splendid sense of humour. Towards the end of the tour, when I was beginning to get the feel of the game, in the course of a visit which one is always taken on to one of their temples we saw lined up a row of four immense, ten feet high figures of fiercesome warriors with bulging eyes and brandishing large swords. I thought I would just risk it, and I said to our guide, "I suppose those are the Gang of Four!". At this they absolutely collapsed in peals of laughter, and they went on telling each other about it for the rest of the day.
Certainly on our visit we found ourselves very much at home with them on the personal level, and came away with a high respect for them. Admittedly, they do not enjoy personal freedom in the sense that we know it, but, then, they never have in their history, nor do I think they expect it. Nor, I am sure, would anything resembling our form of

209
Western democracy work with them. Certainly from what we saw, they did not give the impression of being oppressed or unhappy as they went about their activities; and, whatever else their rulers have done for them, they are adequately fed and clothed, even if somewhat simply; they have the basic but essential medical services, and they are increasingly widely and well educated.
Bearing in mind that with all this there are some 900 million of them, a quarter of the world's population—a statistic which we must have heard from almost every speaker this afternoon, but one which we would do well not to forget—I would be inclined to put my money on their achieving their aim. For us in this country this is an enormous opportunity and challenge, and one which I think we would be most foolish not to grasp with energy and enthusiasm. Indeed, I think we ignore it at our peril What is more, we must grasp it now. A close trading partnership and a close trading alliance between our two countries will benefit not just ourselves but the entire Free World. So I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give every encouragement to the development of our good relations with China, and will do so ungrudgingly, not looking over our shoulder unduly. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I think, spoke of one of those he met saying that fear was a matter of the heart. I hope we will go into this relationship as a matter of the heart, too.
7.39 p.m.
Lord GEDDES: My Lords, my intervention in this debate starts not only (as has been the case with so many other noble Lords) with sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for instigating what I think we all believe is a topic of very real importance to this country, but also with an apology to your Lordships' House that I have not spoken here for almost exactly three years. I suspect that those three years of silence have been welcome, but I should explain that the reason has perhaps some slight relevance to this debate, in that for the majority of that period I have lived and worked in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is unique in so many ways, not least in fulfilling a role as an entrepôt and, to use a useful Chinese term, a go-between
210
between the People's Republic and this country.
I am very grateful that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has—I think, rightly— emphasised the role of Hong Kong, but I do not believe that this is the occasion to discuss Hong Kong other than as it affects our relations with China. I do not in any way assume or presume to be an expert on either Hong Kong or China, but, as I have said, I have lived in Hong Kong for over two years and, not entirely co-incidentally, I have had the very real privilege of two visits to the People's Republic in the last 15 months.
Many noble Lords have stressed the importance of China in terms of trade and international politics and defence. I would certainly emphasise most strongly that importance. In trade, particularly, we have trebled our imports and not quite doubled our exports in the period between 1970 and 1977. But, even so, the 1977 figures of £100 million and £77 million respectively are still lamentably small. It is therefore encouraging to anticipate the signing in Peking early next year of the draft trade agreement with China which foresees the expansion of trade to £4 million to £5 million between now and 1985. However, there are those who have already spoken in this debate—and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for his contribution—who are infinitely more qualified than I to discuss these topics, and I defer to their expertise.
Rather, I should like to highlight three other points: first, to emphasise the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in stressing the importance of cultural links, in which context I would rather sweepingly include the arts, education and sport; secondly, to dwell briefly—as did the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr—on Hong Kong's role relative to this context; and, thirdly, like the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, to give the personal impressions that I gained through my own visits. While cultural links will not directly contribute significantly to the most important balance of trade, I believe very strongly that they do now, and will increasingly, play just as important a role in enabling each country to gain that crucial element of trust and understanding in which trade can and will be

211
conducted to the mutual benefit of each party.
The record of cultural exchanges between the People's Republic and the United Kingdom is certainly improving, but it has still, surely, a very long way to go before it is adequate. I do not for a moment think that my statistics are—or are intended to be—comprehensive, but merely illustrative. Visits from the United Kingdom to China this year include, in no particular order: the West Bromwich Albion football team, a call by the QE2, delegations as varied as arts, education, librarians, the National Farmers' Unions, the Press Association, television, the combined Houses of Parliament, Kew Gardens, British publishers and three from medical and scientific bodies. In reverse, from China to the United Kingdom, we have had this year a medical delegation and, separately, the director of the Peking Cancer Hospital, a group of weightlifters, geologists, mathematicians, acrobats (including an acrobatic theatre), martial arts groups and an 11-member delegation from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
In the field of what might be called straight education, there are presently 20 post-graduate students in each others country plus, I understand, a further 50 to 100 Chinese students in the United Kingdom learning English, as against only a handful of English students studying Chinese in China. To an extent, as a result of the recent visit by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to China, the numbers of students exchanged will hopefully increase—and that must be good. However, so far as I can ascertain —and I shall be only too happy if any noble Lord or Her Majesty's Government can prove me wrong—there is a singular lack of co-ordination, certainly in this country, in organising cultural exchanges with China. My information is that the British Council——
Lord RHODES: My Lords, might I just say at this juncture that the Britain-China Centre has been responsible for a group of educationists who came to this country only a fortnight ago. They were really looking for information about the performing arts. I, myself, was host to them for several days in Manchester.
Lord GEDDES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes. In fact, he has anticipated the very body that I was going to suggest in just a moment who might co-ordinate such a function. There seem to be so many different bodies: the British Council, the Department of Education, the Royal Society, the Ministry of Defence and I do not know how many private entities and individuals all in on the act. I am in no way decrying their efforts. On the contrary, it would be a sad story if they were not so active; nor am I suggesting that such exchanges should only be under a central Government aegis. What I am suggesting is that there should be, to everybody's benefit, some co-ordinating body—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes; and my suggestion is that it could well be the Great Britain-China Centre—who could not only be informed of all intended visits and exchanges within the broad definition I have given to the word "cultural" but could thereby greatly assist each to the benefit of the whole.
Hong Kong, partly due to being so much closer geographically, is considerably ahead of the United Kingdom in respect of such exchanges. The visits this year by the Grantham Teachers' Training College to Canton and the Chinese Cultural Treasures Exhibition and the Canton City Orchestra to Hong Kong are each encouraging "firsts" in their own field.
With humility, I have seen for myself the evidence of China's ancient civilisation —a point stressed, I am sure, correctly, by many noble Lords—a civilisation that is, of course, a great deal older than our own. Now, after thousands of years of looking inwards, China is going through a very dramatic volte face in her attitude to the outside world—and I do not just mean in that context the marked change of attitude of the last two years. In this respect and in many others, Hong Kong has, I am sure, an important role to play in Anglo-Sino relations. It is geographically part of the Chinese mainland; it is not only tolerated but is now, I suggest, positively welcomed by Peking— a change in acceptability for which the present Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Murray Maclehose, and his colleagues, deserve great credit. Its trade with China—as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, told us in his opening address—is out of

213
balance to a very considerable extent: £1,000 million against £4 million.
While I am sure that Hong Kong remains anxious to redress that situation, its significance in this context is, I suggest, two-fold. First, it provides, together with invisibles earned through Hong Kong, an estimated 40 per cent. of China's increasingly important foreign exchange; and, secondly, I believe that it creates a sense of moral indebtedness. Many, including, perhaps, some here this afternoon, may scoff at this last point and I would agree that it should not be over-emphasised; but, at the risk of offending my many friends both in the People's Republic and in Hong Kong, the Chinese have long memories. In the East, and, particularly, with the Chinese, they do not forget a favour done, however long ago it may have been. Of course, the converse is also true and, while many noble Lords have already mentioned this point, I most strongly urge Her Majesty's Government to give a speedy favourable decision to Peking's request for the purchase of Harrier jump jets.
Finally, so far as Hong Kong is concerned, I would just say to your Lordships that while the United Kingdom could trade with the People's Republic if Hong Kong did not exist, nevertheless it does exist, it is a territory administered by the United Kingdom and it clearly has had and will continue to have an important role to play in cementing the United Kingdom's relations with China. In terms of trade, I suggest—and this has already been mentioned—that we should look at both two-way (Anglo/Sino) and three-way (including Hong Kong) traffic. A prosperous Hong kong is a surviving Hong Kong; Hong Kong can only survive through imports of food and water from China and those imports give China the foreign exchange to buy foreign and, we hope, British goods.
China is a country so vast that it almost defies imagination: a country of 900 million people in a land measuring, at its extremes, over 3,000 miles by over 2,500 miles. My two recent trips have taken me to Canton, Whampoa, Shanghai, Soochow, Hangchow. Peking, Tientsin and Hsinkang—but a fraction of the whole. However, even within that fraction, the topography, the wealth, the climate, the people and the language vary a great deal
214
with one all-important exception: everywhere I went—and several noble Lords made this point—first on holiday with my wife and two small children and, subsequently with a colleague on business, our reception was always of the most friendly nature possible. The big difference beween my visits of October 1977 and September 1978 was in the increasing degree of overt inquiry. I happened to be in Peking on 30th September this year, the eve of the 29th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic. Not only was I done the very great honour of being invited to the state banquet in the Great Hall of the People in Tie en Mun Square (I must admit, with some 3,000 other guests!) but I also had the chance to walk quite freely in the square afterwards when, for the first time as far as my British Embassy host was aware. we were approached by young Chinese who just wanted to talk English and, equally important, ask all sorts of questions about the West, including its way of life, its attitude to age of marriage, and its governmental and educational systems. The day before, I had been asked quite openly by my Chinese hosts when driving from Tientsin to Hsinkang to explain the membership and workings of your Lordships' House. I do not think I gave a satisfactory answer, but I tried my best.
I think one of the most moving and unlikely experiences I have had for many years was after our walk round Tie en Mun Square on 30th September when we stopped by the moat surrounding the Forbidden City and listened entranced to a young Chinese playing the solo part of Mozart's flute concerto. He was doing so entirely for his own pleasure. He was more than happy to talk with us openly on the musical scene in China. The effect of a fine warm autumn evening of superbly played music echoing off the walls and over the water of the moat was quite exceptional.
Particularly during my visit 10 weeks ago, the Chinese to whom I spoke were at pains to emphasise their technological disadvantage relative to the world outside them, their determination to catch up and the problems they would have in doing so in a way which would be as equitable as possible throughout the country. No visitor can hope to see or to understand China on a short trip or many trips; but

215
he can get a much better feeling for its size and the huge problem of modernising its agriculture by the simple expedient of travelling by train rather than plane. With my family I did so 15 months ago and, to a lesser extent, 10 weeks ago. The trains were clean and comfortable but, on their own admission, elderly.
Doing business with China is certainly different and, like travelling as we did, by train, possibly full of surprises; but it can also be immensely rewarding. At the grave risk of teaching my proverbial grandmother, I should like to say that the virtues of tact, patience and trust are all-important; but at the end of the line I certainly have never done business with a country which after all the hard bargaining is over, conducts itself on a straighter or more upright basis.
In my limited experience, I know of no other country in the world where the potential for trade is greater today than it is with the People's Republic of China. In his speech on 30th September, Chairman Hua Kuo-feng spoke of the necessity of
"putting to use the advanced experiences of foreign countries".
In my own experience, we have a first rate and very experienced team in our Embassy in Peking. In Hong Kong we have a unique advantage. In China today we have a people who, I sincerely believe, really want to be our friends. Let us use all that we know we have and a bit more besides to further our improved relations with China, not forgetting in that context the vital but unquantifiable asset of even better understanding through exchanges of people in a wide variety of fields. If asked, I for one would pay a further visit there tomorrow.
7.58 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this has indeed been a timely debate revealing the widest interest within this House and outside in the very important question of our relations with China. We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Rhodes for introducing it in so stimulating a fashion. The debate stems from another service which my noble friend rendered to this House and the country recently when he so ably led an all-Party delegation to China last June.
216
We have recently witnessed dramatic changes in China; when my noble friend mentioned to me that he had in mind to lead an all-Party delegation last June I instantly agreed wih him that this could only result in the very best gains for that country and for ourselves. May I in this connection join with him personally and on behalf of the Foreign Office in warmly paying tribute to the late Brigadier Ward who, until his untimely death a few weeks ago, served the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, with such single-minded devotion.
These dramatic changes in China have led a number of noble Lords to ask for an assessment on these developments from this Box. I should like to say this much, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said: It is too early just yet to say anything very dogmatic about these developments. Our contacts with the new leadership show that they have taken a firm decision to undertake what they called a new Long March to modernise the Chinese economy and play an increasingly active part in world affairs. Chinese leaders want a modern, prosperous, stable and secure China and to achieve this they are determined to transform their economy and society at home and to look for new friends abroad. The recent ferment has shown that there is a widespread desire in China, to which the leadership is responding, to bring back experienced leaders disgraced in earlier political campaigns to restore norms of legality lost from sight during the cultural revolution, and to involve the Chinese people in a freer debate about the ways in which to achieve their objectives.
The leadership evidently attaches importance to maintaining order and to preserving confidence in the continued commitment to the modernisation programme. It is indeed too early to say how this new departure, this new adjustment, will take them; but the signs are that a society is developing in this vast country which will be more open, one may confidently hope, more participative and more liberal, and one with which the West should find it easier to communicate at all levels.
The British Government, along with other Western Governments, welcome China's willingness to play a greater part in the world community of which she is

217
an important member, both in terms of size and influence and because of her permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. We are ready to co-operate with China across a wide spectrum of activity—political, cultural, commercial, scientific and technological. The external policies adopted by China over the first couple of years have indeed underlined China's interest in Western Europe. That interest, in turn, has been partly dictated by China's determination to push forward with the rapid modernisation of its agriculture, industry, science and technology and defence—the four modernisations: everything goes by four in China, I sometimes think!—and to promote that modernisation China has decided to turn to foreign sources for much of the necessary equipment and technology. Foreign trade is being much expanded and China's formerly reserved attitude towards foreign credit and joint ventures has been considerably eased.
In seeking foreign sources of supply to assist in the modernisation of Chinese industry and technology, the Chinese leaders have turned first to Western Europe and to Japan. Their interest is reflected in the current very active series of visits, agreements and commercial contracts between their country and countries of Western Europe. The United Kingdom, I am glad to say, is playing a full part in this. We greatly welcome continued Chinese interest in improving contacts with the West, and particularly with this country, and we consider it is not only in the interests bilaterally of China and the United Kingdom but also in the interests of the West as a whole to reciprocate as fully as possible.
Both government and industry are promoting our commercial contacts with China with energy. As noble Lords will recall, the then Secretary of State for Trade, Mr. Dell, visited China in August, while delegations from both the private and nationalised sectors of British industry have also been going to China throughout this year. Indeed, over the past year the United Kingdom has received a number of high level visitors from China including the Minister for Foreign Trade, Mr. Li Ch'iang and the Minister for Metallurgy, Mr. Tang Ke, and China's Foreign Minister, Mr. Huang Hua, who visited us in October. Perhaps most significant in this context was the visit
218
last month of Vice-Premier Wang Chen, at the invitiation of the Secretary of State for Industry. He and his team, were able to make a general survey of British industry and technology, in particular of aerospace, shipbuilding and offshore oil.
We hope, too, that Premier Hua will be able to take up our Prime Minister's invitation; and tomorrow we shall be welcoming Mr. Lu Tung, the Minister in charge of the Third Ministry of Machine Building, who is coming here with a large team of aviation experts. Other areas of interest cover power generation, mining equipment, steel and steel plants. Deals have recently been concluded with British firms for coalmining equipment, petrochemical plants, steelworks consultancy, steam generators and plant for various other forms of manufacture.
In this connection, may I refer to the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that perhaps there may have been some comments about the reception accorded to our distinguished visitors from China. I have looked into this and really I do not think that this country has any reason to chide itself on the level and nature of the reception given to our friends from China. I have details here: Mr. Wang had discussions with our Prime Minister and with my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Industry, Trade, Energy and Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He practically became a member of the Cabinet! He was received by the Prime Minister at No. 10 and was also entertained to luncheon by His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, in his capacity as vice-chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board. Mr. Wang was also entertained by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Transport, and for Scotland, and by the Lord Privy Seal, as well as by Members of both Houses. The level of treatment, indeed, is fully in accordance with British protocol and, as one who has some experience in these matters, I would say it really compares favourably with that accorded by any comparable country to which the Chinese Government have sent their Ministers. We shall maintain, and endeavour to improve on, this record.
In the course of Vice-Premier Wang Chen's visit, both sides expressed their

219
firm desire and intention to develop economic co-operation between China and the United Kingdom. In particular, agreement was reached in principle to negotiate a long-term economic cooperation agreement, under which our two countries will aim to achieve between now and 1985 a level of joint trade of the order of £4 to £5 billion—that is £4 to £5 thousand million—and indeed in practice this might be exceeded. That figure compares with the present level of Sino-British trade of under £200 million a year. Since August we have achieved contracts of about that magnitude, and indeed the signs are that we are already well in flow with new contracts to achieve much higher targets than we have had in past years. However, the long-term target of £4 to £5 billion by about 1985 remains. It is a big target and, as a number of noble Lords reminded us and particularly my noble friend Lord Davies, it does not all depend on Governments. It depends on performance on the shop floor by management and by men.
I have been looking at the arrangements relating to credit. They compare very favourably with those accorded by any comparable country. I have considered with my advisers what the position is in regard to governmental aid, advice and promotion, and we are in very good trim, for a Government—as would any Government of either side—would have the necessary instruments of promotion to its hand now. But I am very glad that this debate has emphasised that not all the powers of government, or even of institutions in the financial world, can achieve this target unless we find in production, in delivery and in all the essentials of industry a match for the enablements that successive Governments have been able to provide. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry hopes to carry forward this co-operation by visiting China himself early in the new year.
Our readiness to co-operate in China's technological development was reflected in the signing during Vice-Premier Wang's visit of a science and technology agreement on 15th November. This is a broad and flexible framework agreement, designed to encourage co-operation in various fields of science and technology, by means of exchanges of visits and of scientific
220
information and other methods which are to be agreed on by the appropriate organisations, both governmental and non-governmental on each side.
On this point, perhaps I may refer to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who led for the Opposition on this occasion. Both the EEC/China and the potential United Kingdom/China trade agreements are indeed framework agreements. It is up to individual firms or organisations—one refers to private and to nationalised organisations—to pursue the opportunities thus opened to them. The framework is there and it may well be very strong indeed. The opportunities are there, but I repeat that they must be grasped by those who carry out the work, or say that they can carry out the work, and they will receive every possible encouragement from Her Majesty's Government.
Noble Lords have mentioned the possibility of defence sales. These were also discussed with Vice-Premier Wang and his delegation, and their visit did indeed clarify and confirm Chinese interest in United Kingdom defence equipment, including Harrier aircraft. On our side, we made it clear that the British Government are willing to discuss the sale of defensive military equipment, subject to appropriate consultations with our allies. This is where COCOM comes in. It is an organisation not set up by this country only, but indeed by 15 countries, plus Japan and minus Iceland. It is essentially a NATO organisation, and its purpose is to exercise reasonable oversight of strategic exports and to keep lists of goods and equipment in reasonably up-to-date order, so that the primary purpose of NATO is not subverted by a mistake in the commercial field.
I have had reason to look into this to see how it is working, and I am glad to assure the House, and those who have raised this matter tonight, that it is working extremely well. These lists are not sacrosanct from year to year, or indeed from week to week. They are constantly being looked at and adjusted, so that necessary exclusions are taken out and additions, which are inevitable with the march of technology and science, are added. But the point was well raised and I can assure my noble friend Lord Davies, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that we shall, with our friends and

221
allies, in the context of the purpose of NATO—that is, the defence of Western democracy—exercise this oversight responsibly, and with a view to giving the greatest possible margin of enterprise to the industries not only of our country but of the countries which are participative of the Paris arrangement. Noble Lords will recall that the Prime Minister has stated that Britain wishes to develop a broad and balanced political, as well as commercial, scientific and cultural relationship with China. This may well include some exports in the field of defence equipment, though we are not prepared to be only a supplier of defence equipment to China.
As part of the Chinese commitment to rapid modernisation, and as a condition of its success, the Chinese are reforming their education system, with the aim of encouraging high standards, and of creating an educated workforce and an echelon of fully trained scientists capable of taking China forward into the modern world. Again, China is prepared to look abroad for assistance with her educational programme, both in terms of sending Chinese students overseas and in inviting lecturers to China, and the United Kingdom is ready to make what contribution it can in both directions. It is gratifying to record that exchanges in the academic, scientific and educational fields are all developing rapidly.
I wish that I had time to give some very interesting facts and figures about the results of the agreement on an educational programme which stems from the visit of my right honourable friend Mrs. Shirley Williams, the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Very briefly, the Chinese authorities hope to send over 1,000 students to United Kingdom universities and polytechnics each year, though it will take time to build up to those numbers. In a reverse direction, we are discussing the sending of a large and increasing number of teachers of English to China; and in teaching English to the Chinese, I am quite sure that the Chinese will teach them the Chinese language.
On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, about whether we are doing enough to increase the number of Chinese speakers in this country to serve not only the Foreign Office, trade and the Civil
222
Service in an analogous department, but also industry and the professions, I believe that we are now alive to the need to do this, and part of the programme which is flowing from the very successful visit paid to China by the Secretary of State for Education and Science this year is to build up, both in China and in this country, mutual tuition of the two languages.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord if he has reached his peroration, but has he finished his remarks on the Harriers?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I had in my own estimation, but clearly the official spokesman for the Opposition would like a little more and, as always, I am prepared to oblige. As a result of Vice-Premier Wang's recent visit, the British Government are now in possession of more precise Chinese requirements for the Harrier aircraft. It has been the practice of this and previous Administrations not to discuss details of individual arms negotiations. Before a final decision is made, the views of Britain's allies must be obtained and consultations are now going on. I hope that that helps.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, will it take months, perhaps years, to consult our allies?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I am not disposed to argue on the basis of the time needed to negotiate, let alone decide. It takes two to negotiate, and it is not always one side that is a little tardy in providing the necessary data for decision. Suffice it to say that this is an immensely important matter, not only for this country but for our friends and allies as well. We have not, I think, been guilty of dragging our feet in the necessary discussions that must be the precursor of a decision in this field. The noble Lord did not interrupt me in my peroration; I wish I were that far on, for it might be a great relief to the House and, not least, to me if I were.
The noble Lord quite rightly placed great stress on the educational and technological exchange programme. An agreement of exchanges between the Royal Society and the Chinese Academy of Sciences has been signed. We hope to receive a greatly increased number of Chinese students in this country next year. Additionally—and I think that this is a

223
point which the noble Lord had very much in mind—the cultural section of our Embassy in Peking is to be substantially strengthened by middle level appointments and also by secretarial additions.
In other spheres, too, I am glad to note the other exchanges—cultural, sporting and private—which have all contributed to the strengthening of our links with China. They are much too numerous to list in full on this occasion. My noble friend Lord Rhodes intervened to give a very good example of how exchanges in this field are proceeding. I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said about the need for further co-ordination. There is always need for co-ordination of activities of this kind when more than one Government Department, more than one quasi-governmental organisation like the British Council and more than one private or near-private organisation is involved. However, I was very pleased to hear the tribute paid to the Great Britain China Centre for the fine work that it has done.
Our relations with China over Hong Kong are excellent, and this is clearly shown by a number of recent developments: the introduction of new air and surface communication links, the increasing number of visits to China by people from Hong Kong, joint ventures between Chinese and Hong Kong enterprises and numerous instances of practical co-operation between the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities, most notably the recent agreement by China to provide increased water supplies to meet the anticipated demand in Hong Kong over the next decade or so.
We are mindful that China attaches importance to developing relations with Western Europe as a whole. It places particular value on the European Economic Community and concluded an important trade agreement with the Community earlier this year. In looking to Western Europe to meet many of its new needs, China, following its habitual pattern, will spread around its orders for contracts, and we shall undoubtedly find ourselves in competition with our European partners and, indeed, with Japan for trading orders. This is a challenge to which we are happy to rise.
I want to make one important point very clear. As the Government have
224
repeatedly emphasised, the improvement in our relations with China is not directed at any third country. In particular, the Government want good and stable relations with the Soviet Union, relations within which we can pursue the vital interests we have in common in security matters such as disarmament negotiations, and also in trade. There is no influence without contact. We should expand trade with all countries, and perhaps especially with countries whose systems and philosophies may not be the same as ours. I do not believe that you can exercise democratic influence unless you are fully in contact at all levels, including that of trade.
In particular, the Government want the British-Chinese relationship so to develop that no other country feels that we are in any way eroding the relationship with that country. The normal development of Anglo-Chinese relations will not be allowed to impair constructive relations between the Soviet Union—and, indeed, any other country—and the United Kingdom. The Soviet Union, I repeat, will find us ready to pursue these relations at all times with energy, determination and good faith.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, do the Government really think that the sale of Harriers would seriously affect our relations with the Soviet Union?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are addressing ourselves to the question of Harriers and every other aspect of possible trade with China, regardless of what is said to us from outside. I was just coming to that point on which I have been pressed by more than one noble Lord, and I am very glad to say it. It goes without saying— but I am saying it—that we shall not allow any third country to tell us how we should manage our relations with China in any particular.
This has been a productive year for Sino-British contacts from all points of view. Many speakers have mentioned important points which I have not had time to mention. I shall refer to only one outstanding point which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, raised. It related to air services. Following the meeting in London between my right honourable

225
friend and the Chinese Foreign Minister about a month age, we have been actively engaged in discussions with the Chinese side with a view to finalising and bringing into effect the air services agreement which was originally initialled in 1973. Discussions to reach the point of implementation are therefore, as a result of my right honourable friend's discussions, now in train, and I hope that without much more delay I may be able to respond from this Box as to the satisfactory conclusion of that very important agreement.
In conclusion, I can assure noble Lords that the Government will endeavour to build on the contacts I have mentioned— the agreements that are in formation—in order to develop relations with China in accordance with the needs and interests of our two countries. Despite the great differences in our histories, our traditions and our attitudes—and we must always take full account of these—there is ample scope for beneficial co-operation and growing understanding in all fields. We shall do our best to develop a dialogue with China, not only for mutual reward but in the larger interest of strengthening international peace and co-operation.
8.29 p.m.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House for more than a minute, but it just shows how recent news can rapidly become out of date, My report, speaking of China, says that Communism is essential, because only by tight control can an exodus from the countryside be prevented. This is an experience which has been the bugbear of many emerging countries since the war. In this connection, I must mention that a fairly disturbing feature is emerging, news of which has been handed to me today, as regards immigrants into Hong Kong. At the end of November the figure stood at 60,030 whereas for the whole of 1977 the figure was 21,000. The illegal immigrants into Hong Kong are now twenty times more numerous than they were two years ago.
This has been a fascinating and interesting debate. The education that I personally have had during these last four years on the European Committee has convinced me that there is a headlong
226
rush all over the world to become industrialised and at some time or another there will be a really terrible stocktaking. Every single meeting that we have has to do with surplus production. When China is industrialising let her take notice of what the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, was telling us, because that philosophy ought to be considered. I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate and also all those who have listened so patiently to what we have said. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: CODE OF PRACTICE
8.32 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will try to secure widespread and influential support for a brief and well-publicised code of industrial practice with limited objectives including procedures for trades union recognition and procedures prior to industrial action. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in any community there are differences of opinion and conflicts of interest which give rise to dispute. The way in which a community resolves those disputes is one of the indicators of the standard of civilisation which has been attained in that community. In a highly civilised community we expect disputes to be resolved peaceably, quickly and fairly. In our own country in industrial relations there has been a tendency for ruthlessness, and in some cases violence, to be used in the pursuit of sectional interests. This is not in the interests of the community, and very often it is not in the interests of the workers concerned. For example, hasty industrial action in pursuit of higher wages which results in a strike of nine weeks means that in the remaining 43 weeks of the year there has to be an increase in wages of 21 per cent. merely to break even. Your Lordships will see from those figures that very often hasty action and long periods of industrial disputes have been not only not in the interests of the community, but also not in the interests of the workers themselves.
Of course the worker has rights. He has the right to withdraw his labour. I think that is unquestioned. But he also

227
has the duty to carry out the terms of any contract on which he has entered; and with rights there are also duties. Since unnecessary industrial action is not in the interests of the community, it is the duty of Parliament and Government to see that so far as possible conditions are created which avoid that kind of unnecessary action. It is the duty of Parliament and Government to see that people are adequately informed before they decide to take such action. It is also the duty of Parliament and Government to see that if there have to be group decisions on whether or not such action should be taken, there should be proper procedures and facilities for the taking of that decision. It is upon those assumptions that I have based my Question.
My Question is to ask the Government to
"try to secure widespread and influential support for a brief and well-publicised code of industrial practice with limited objectives …".
I stress the word "brief", and also the words "limited objectives". I want to deal with essentials only. I have in mind a code of practice which states that if negotiations have failed to resolve a dispute, as the next step there shall be some form of conciliation. I do not want conciliation to be used as an excuse for delay, and consequently I would expect there to be a time limit of, perhaps, one month or such other period as might be agreed by the parties. It must be kept flexible. If at the end of the period of one month the conciliator has not been able to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the parties, it would then be his duty to report and to recommend, and I would expect every worker involved in the dispute to get a copy of the conciliator's report and recommendations. That is the way in which I would keep him informed.
If the parties had in mind industrial action, I would also expect that before taking such industrial action they would have a ballot—a ballot to give proper facilities for everybody who is going to be involved, to participate in the decision. I believe that is essential because of the importance of industrial action upon the community. I would remind your Lordships that a ballot before industrial action is not new—the miners have had it for
228
years. So far as national stoppages are concerned, it used to be the case that a majority of 60 per cent. was required in a secret ballot; now it is 55 per cent. I am not asking for anything as big as that; I should be quite happy with a simple majority.
I was one of those who were responsible for piloting through this House the Employment Protection Bill 1975. Among other things, that Bill dealt with the procedure which would be followed when a trade union was seeking recognition which was not acceptable to the employer. Since that Bill became an Act we have had widespread publicity about it on occasions when the Act has not worked—in particular, Grunwick. But I should like to point out that the Act has worked in far more cases than it has failed. The number of employees who have become members of trade unions as a result of the influence of the Act or because of the procedures embodied in the Act, is far and away greater than the number who have failed to become members of trade unions because there has been some obstacle to the operation of the Act. We only hear of cases where there has been failure. For example, earlier this week the Guardian estimated that there had been 30,000 new members of trade unions as a result of the Employment Protection Act.
Lord TORPHICHEN: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord whether it would worry him to think that some of those members who have been obliged to become members of trade unions as a result of the working of that Act may not have wished to become members of trade unions? Does that worry him?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, if I thought that what the noble Lord has said is true, I would be worried. But I am convinced it is not true. In the trade unions which are concerned in what I would call the badly-organised industries —not badly organised because of any fault on the part of the trade unions but because of the way in which the workers are distributed, for example in the retail trades—because of the Act there have been opportunities of getting the opinions of the employees; because their opinions have been favourable to joining trade unions they have joined, and there has been recognition by the employers. Those are

229
the cases to which I am referring. But we have only heard one side of the case, such as Grunwick, because that is the side which gives rise to drama and the news. It is a side which is depressing. It means that the employer has not been prepared to accept the provisions which were made by Parliament in the Act, that he has resisted.
Why has he resisted? He has resisted, I think, because he has felt that with organisation in trade unions the employees would get some power and they would probably misuse that power. What he is afraid of is the misuse of that power. I, therefore, seek a brief and simple code of practice which would try to avoid misuse of the power, but at the same time would provide for obligations on the part of the employer, and in particular in respect of recognition of trade unions.
I would expect the kind of code which I have in mind to lay down that the employer, in the case of recognition, would not resist a ballot which was asked for by ACAS. I would expect the employer to agree that after the ballot, after the decisions had been taken by ACAS, after the employer had had the opportunity of appealing to ACAS against those decisions, he would accept the final decision of ACAS as obligation in industrial relations without resort to the higher courts. I would not prevent his going to the higher courts on what would be largely questions of law, but I would expect him to regard the machinery which has been laid down as fair and reasonable and something which he ought to accept in the last analysis. That is the kind of code that I want. A code which deals with the essential matters, but two matters in particular; the procedure before industrial action is taken by trade unions and the obligation of the employer in respect of the recognition of trade unions. Those are the things I want in particular. Whether it has anything else is another matter. But I want it to be simple and brief and something of which each worker can have a copy, not something for the lawyers.
I am aware that we already have an industrial code, but that industrial code suffers from two disadvantages. First, it is a comprehensive code, and because it is comprehensive it is ambitious and consequently it is more difficult to get it accepted. Secondly, it has the mis-
230
fortune to be associated with the ill-fated 1972 Act, and in saying that I believe that is simply a psychological disadvantage; I am not opposing it because of that, but it is a psychological disadvantage. If we earnestly require a better atmosphere in industry we should not allow psychological things like that to frustrate us in our attempts. But I would retain the comprehensive code. I would retain it as the comprehensive code, but in so far as there was a popular simplified code, such as I have in mind, something which could be published among the workers and of which they would have a copy, I would expect the comprehensive code to be amended so that the codes were consistent. There would be a simplified version and a comprehensive version, but they would be entirely consistent with each other and there would be no doubt and no confusion. I believe that is the way in which it is best to deal with that part of the problem.
I also believe that if we had a simplified code which was accepted and agreed by Parliament, by Government, by the CBI and by the TUC, it would be accepted by the workers. I believe the influence of those bodies together would be so great that it would be accepted. And those who challenge my belief I invite to submit an alternative. We have a problem here and we have got to be prepared to use public opinion to deal with that problem. That is the real objective of the code which I have in mind.
In conclusion I would remind you that this country has the talent and has the resources to be the richest country in Europe, but if we continue to waste our resources fighting with each other we shall never attain that position. If, on the other hand, we can look and try to find a basis of co-operation, so that we are cooperating with each other instead of scrapping with each other, I believe that we could be the richest country in Europe and that everyone of us would be a good deal better off than we are now.
8.47 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the reason for Lord Jacques's Question this evening should meet with a response from anyone concerned with trying to solve the dilemma of industrial relations in this country. I follow the noble Lord in

231
claiming that in inventiveness and quality of goods in this country we can hold our own against all comers. But at the same time some hard facts are continuing to tell against us. The number of days lost through unofficial strikes last year was almost as high as the peak figure of 1974. These frequent disruptions are a direct disincentive to production and to investment, and, as the noble Lord said, hasty action and long periods of industrial action are not in the interests of the employees concerned.
I should like to make it clear that I agree with the noble Lord that a code of practice, voluntarily agreed and readily understood, could go a long way towards preventing unofficial strikes. In fact, it would be unlikely that I would disagree, because, as the noble Lord mentioned, the 1972 code, for which my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley was responsible, recommended procedures for recognition and the settling of disputes, the two areas specifically mentioned in Lord Jacques's Question; indeed page 3 of the 1972 code recommended periodic revisions. But a new code based, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, suggested, on the 1972 code, which is still in effect, will only be successful provided there is a genuine commitment to the code.
The central question for the noble Lord replying to this debate is, if the Government accept Lord Jacques's Question this evening, how can this commitment be secured? At the moment ACAS has already issued three codes of practice; one on discipline, another on disclosure of information, and a third on time off for trade union affairs. Apart from the consideration that actually none of these three codes falls within the scope of the noble Lord's specification of "brief", the distinctive feature of the three codes is that neither the CBI nor the TUC can be held to be jointly responsible and therefore jointly committed to them. I believe as firmly as anyone that the voice of the individual employee or company should always be heard alongside the voice of the big battalions. But I suggest that, if a voluntary code of practice is to be made to stick, somehow ACAS must use its influence to secure joint agreement from the CBI and the TUC that they are
232
committed to such a code and will use their influence with their members to that effect.
This is no mere debating point, for the only alternative to voluntary commitment is the imposition of some form of discipline. I am not saying anything very revolutionary by that, because it is worth noting that each of the three codes so far produced by ACAS carries with it sanctions of some kind. But, if the discipline for that part of the noble Lord's code which will be concerned with recognition is to be regarded as fair and balanced, then I am afraid I must register my disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that I do not think it can be based exactly upon the Employment Protection Act 1975. Under Section 11 of that Act a trade union can refer a recognition issue to ACAS, but an employer cannot. If the trade union refuses to approach ACAS at all, then the conciliation process, about which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was talking and which he was recommending to us, cannot come into effect—there is, in fact, nothing that anyone can do. Meanwhile, the trade union may be demanding, strenuously, recognition from the employer, very possibly in competition against the interests of another union, backing the demand possibly by the threat of blacking and protected by the immunity against breach of contract which the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act provides. I agree that that is by no means frequently the case, but when it happens it is an impossible situation for any company or any commercial undertaking.
I cannot believe that the Government foresaw the effect which their legislation in 1975 and 1976 would have. If a code of practice, so far as it relates to recognition, is to be accepted as fair and balanced, will the Government give an undertaking that they are prepared to consult about the working of the recognition procedures under the Employment Protection Act, to review and, if after consultation it is found necessary, to amend?—for nothing would give a greater chance of success for a code on recognition than that the Government would be prepared to give that undertaking.
In his question the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, asks for the code to be well-publicised and I certainly support that

233
intention. However, here again that provision would carry with it the requirement that all who read and use it should regard such a code as being fair and even-handed. On these Benches we recognise the value of the services of ACAS and we certainly support the need for ACAS to have continuing responsibility. But, in respect of its responsibility for recognition of disputes, so far as reaching decisions and reaching consistent decisions is concerned, I am bound to say that ACAS obviously has run into some difficulties.
I think that a great deal of misunderstanding could be cleared away if the general duty with which ACAS is charged under Section 1 of the Employment Protection Act could be re-worded in a more balanced way. To the general duty of promoting the improvement of industrial relations, your Lordships may remember there is specifically added a single additional duty—that of the extension of collective bargaining. Certainly that is a duty of ACAS—of course it is, where it is appropriate—but that is not always the case. In addition, ACAS is concerned obviously with conciliation, arbitration and the safeguarding, I should hope, of the individual rights of employees. In addition to that, surely it would be appropriate to have spelled out in a code some clarification as to what sort of proportion of employees should be represented by a particular trade union, for ACAS to be able to make a recommendation for recognition.
In suggesting that, may I say that I in no way wish to detract from ACAS's discretion. I am saying that some guidance from ACAS on this subject would clarify matters for those using a code and would provide some public understanding of the basis for ACAS's decisions. When the noble Lord originally spoke on this subject during the debate on the gracious Speech a year ago, my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley also made much the same proposal in that debate. Indeed, my noble friend recommended that we should attempt, point by point, to try to tackle industrial relations problems in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, must have been using his very persuasive powers.
In his question the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has, I think, chosen perhaps the two hottest potatoes that he could have
234
laid his hands on. The second one of course is the procedures prior to the taking of industrial action. May I suggest that there are two elements to be considered here. The first one is to establish effective disputes procedures which will be honoured. The second one is to establish democratic procedures within trade unions for deciding whether or not to take individual action. As I understand him, in effect what the noble Lord has been saying to the House is that the presence of a simple code in the hand, understood by those concerned and by the general public, will contribute in itself to the honouring of disputes procedures. I agree, provided, and only provided, there is genuine commitment to the code.
At this very moment, or at least up until about 8 o'clock this evening, thousands of people have been unable to return home because of the unofficial strike on British Railways, in direct breach of agreement. If the noble Lord went to catch his train back to Portsmouth this evening, I say in all seriousness that it would be no good for him to show a copy of the code to the engine driver. There must be some commitment to the document and the procedures in the code, and then—and only then—can the code become effective.
However, I very much join with the noble Lord in saying that the procedure, which is absolutely inseparable from the responsibility of taking official strike action, is the opportunity for trade union members to express their wishes by way of secret ballot. I wonder whether the bread strike would ever have taken place if a ballot had been held.
At the weekend your Lordships may have noticed that the Sunday Telegraph reported my right honourable friend Mr. Prior's proposal for the Government financing of ballots if there is pressure from trade union members for a secret vote. I think that the advantage of this method would retain for union executive's freedom to negotiate, because clearly the executive's own membership would not press for a ballot while negotiations which could lead to a better offer were still being carried out; but this method, which is almost exactly the same as the noble Lord has been saying, would ensure something which is by no means always the case when a strike is called or confirmed these days— namely, that the members, or possibly the

235
union executive at its own discretion, have ensured that a majority actually supports the strike action.
The Government have a responsibility to reveal in this debate whether they believe that a code of practice such as that for which the noble Lord has asked could mark a step forward in recognition and bargaining procedures. I believe that such a code can do so provided it is accepted as fair and provided those concerned with it are committed to it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, who is to reply to the debate, can show that the two objectives of fairness and commitment can be secured, and that he may be able to announce that through ACAS action can now be taken to introduce a new code on recognition and disputes procedures.
8.59 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for having asked this Question and, so far as I possibly can, to support him in the matter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I recall that he made a similar suggestion in the debate on the gracious Speech a year ago, and following him then I expressed the hope that since the suggestion came from such an authoritative source the Government would give it the attention it deserved.
Since then, unfortunately, nothing seems to have happened. Indeed, it was with the aim of pressing the Government to take some initiative directed towards the achievement of at least one of the two objectives specifically mentioned in this Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—that concerning negotiating procedures—that I recently asked a Starred Question in your Lordships' House as to whether they would consult with the Opposition Parties, the TUC and the CBI with a view to drawing up an agreed code of practice under which disputes that were concerned with the interpretation of agreements already entered into should be settled by arbitration rather than industrial action. I think it is fair to say that that suggestion met with so much support from all parts of the House as to mean that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, undertook to convey to the council of ACAS your
236
Lordships' views. No doubt when he replies to the debate he will be kind enough to let us know where that matter now stands.
The request that I then made was limited. It took account of the clear distinction that is drawn in Europe between disputes of right involving interpretation of agreements already entered into, and disputes of interest. In disputes of right there is an obligation not to resort to industrial action before referring the issue either to a court of law or to arbitration. Almost invariably the parties to that agreement abide by the independent decision. Disputes of interest, on the other hand, arise out of a bargaining situation. They are typically when an existing agreement relating to pay has expired and a new one has to be negotiated. In that situation both parties retain freedom until a new agreement is reached. If the parties cannot agree on the terms of a new agreement, a dispute of interest then exists and it is open to both parties to take industrial action: the unions to call a strike and the employers, equally, to operate their lockout. Incidentally, even in disputes of interest, as I understand it, although industrial action is regarded as entirely legitimate, it is very seldom actually employed.
At that time my suggestion was confined to the proposition that in all disputes concerning the interpretation of agreements already entered into and whether they affect individuals or groups, in the last resort there should be recourse to arbitration which both management and employees would abide by. In this sense there is, I think, some difference of emphasis between the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and myself; I noted what he had to say about conciliation as opposed to arbitration. However, I very much welcomed—as did the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—the emphasis that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, placed on the importance of a secret ballot now being conducted before strike action is actually taken.
When we have reached the point when The Times Newspapers have felt obliged to suspend publication, at least largely because no adequate disputes procedure has been established and is adhered to, and when enormous damage is being inflicted on the country—for example, as

237
in the recent Ford dispute—-and when that industrial action is taken before agreements have expired and in circumstances where there is no dispute at all as to the interpretation of those agreements, I suggest it is high time that we, as a House, should call strongly and unitedly for the Government to take some new initiative in this matter.
On the question of trade union recognition, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said that there are recommended procedures already in existence in the code of practice which was associated with the Industrial Relations Act, which he said has been left intact in subsequent legislation. However, I agree with him that on this point also it would be helpful if some new Government initiative were taken designed, as he puts it in his Question:
"to secure widespread and influential support".
The words "and agreement" are not added in his Question, but I take it that they are implied in the phraseology which he has used.
As I understand it, he sees ACAS as the agent for administering a code of practice covering both the question of negotiating procedures and of trade union recognition. I acknowledge that that is the body which, under the relevant sections of the Employment Protection Act, is charged with dealing with questions concerning arbitration and recognition. Furthermore, because our failure in recent years to achieve the industrial stability that we so badly need is, in my view, due largely to the fact that so many different bodies have been set up by both Labour and Conservative Governments and then abolished or rejected by their successors, if it is at all possible I should like to make use of ACAS for the purposes that both the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and I have in mind.
I have some doubts—and I must express them—whether, having regard to the way in which ACAS is now constituted and operates, it has enough standing and its verdicts sufficiently enjoy the confidence of all concerned to be the generally acceptable agent that is required. Because, fairly or unfairly, ACAS is now viewed somewhat sceptically by many employers, it may be that it would be best that ACAS should show itself willing to submit itself, if necessary, even to some
238
restructuring. Certainly I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the relevant sections of the Employment Protection Act should be reviewed and, where necessary, amended so that as far as possible they satisfy both employers and trade unions.
It was partly with considerations such as those in mind that in my earlier Question I suggested that there should be consultation with the TUC and the CBI, rather than with ACAS in the first instance. I was glad at any rate to note the importance which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, attached to consultation with the TUC and the CBI, and the emphasis he gave to the force of public opinion in this matter, and in those respects I would agree with him. What cannot be tolerated is a situation in which the powers of ACAS are revised to suit only the trade unions, and are altogether isolated from the judicial process. For the rest, I should like simply to agree in principle with the proposals Lord Jacques has made concerning ballots on union recognition.
I find that in your Lordships' House I am increasingly advocating the search for a consensus in matters such as these. This is certainly not because I am in favour of compromise for its own sake. It is simply because I see no solution—and here I agree again with Lord Jacques— to our basic industrial problems until we are prepared to mark out some common ground on which to tackle them. The current case of Sanderson v. Fork Lift Limited has merely served to confirm me in that view.
Perhaps in support of it I may, in conclusion, call on the evidence of Sidney Webb, as he then was, to the Royal Commission on Trade . Disputes, which reported in 1906. This links up closely with the words with which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, asked his Question in the first instance this evening. The year 1906 was a significant year for Liberals, and indeed for the industrial development of this country. It may therefore be appropriate that it should be someone from these Benches who should quote Webb's words then. He wrote:
"I cannot believe that a civilised community will permanently continue to abandon the adjustment of industrial disputes, and incidentally the regulation of the conditions of life of the mass of its people, to what is in reality the arbitrament of private war".

239
I suggest that if we are to remain a civilised country and a democratic society it behoves us now to heed the warning implicit in those words.
9.10 p.m.
Lord MCCARTHY: My Lords, I should like to join previous speakers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for putting down this Question tonight. I am afraid that I cannot follow him in some of the things he said, and I should like to concentrate on that aspect of his Question which deals with recognition. I am somewhat sceptical now as to how far procedures can be improved by codes of practice. We used to believe this, and a lot of effort has gone not simply in relation to the 1971 Act but into many of the publications of the old CIR and now of ACAS to producing new model procedures through such things as codes of practice. One must be sceptical as to how far one can in fact make general provisions of this kind.
The trouble is that a good procedure is very much concerned with the particular circumstances of the case. If it is a good procedure, it fits well the particular circumstances of an individual industry or firm, and you cannot prescribe for particular circumstances in generalised codes of conduct. But, more importantly, whatever it may say about particular circumstances, it should embody certain shared understandings, certain beliefs which are shared between the parties, hopefully arising out of mutual trust between the parties to a procedure, and you cannot induce that by general codes of practice. I think most practitioners in industrial relations, and most people with experience of attempting to reform industrial relations in the last 10 years, would say that they are much more sceptical than they were, for example, at the time of the publication of the Donovan Report, as to how far one could improve disputes procedures by general statements of the sort that can be embodied in codes of practice.
Quite frankly, I cannot follow Lord Jacques in what he said in relation to strike ballots. Of course strike ballots have an important part to play in the methods by which trade unions consult their members. Of course there are many
240
trade unions which have long traditions of using strike ballots. It does not follow from this that there is anything necessarily better as a technique of consultation and gaining information about a ballot per se than a shop floor meeting. It depends on the circumstances.
In many situations, a shop floor meeting where people can explain what is involved and answer questions and answer objections is a much more sophisticated and flexible tool than a ballot. The problem is not whether we prefer ballots or shop floor meetings. The problem arises from the experience that we have had in these matters, and in particular the experience we had under the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, spoke about ballots on the railways. We had a compulsory ballot on the railways under the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and I should have thought that one of the things that would have ensured was that nobody on the Benches opposite would talk about compulsory ballots again.
The problem with ballots is that if you seek to induce them from outside, even through a code of practice, you are, however gently you may seem to do it, it appears to those involved, seeking to change the rules in the middle of a dispute. We have had much experience not simply in this country but in the United States of the fact that, if compulsory or quasi-compulsory ballots are induced or forced on trade unions in the course of a dispute, it becomes a matter of basic amour propre that the trade union shall win the ballot.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, my noble friend has not mentioned Germany, where ballots are universal and highly successful.
Lord MCCARTHY: They are universal but they are not imposed by law, my Lords, In other words, they are part of the system. I am saying that if you tried in a quite different system to impose it by law, it will be resented; it will be made an issue of principle and the overwhelming evidence from this country and the United States and from many other countries is that the unions will win and that, when they have won, you will be in a worse position than before.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, as I understand the Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the responses to it by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and myself, no question of the law has arisen? It was all covered by the code of practice that we together envisaged.
Lord MCCARTHY: My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying that there would be no compulsion—even the compulsion of demonstrating through a code of practice that this is the sort of thing that should happen—then he really seems to be saying that, since nothing will change as a result of the publication of that code of practice, I should not be bothered about it. If that is what he is saying, I accept his argument, though I do not think we should be getting much further forward.
I come to the question of what Lord Jacques said about recognition, which is a very different case It seems that here is a case where a code of practice could do a great deal. It is remarkable that successive Governments have been committed in general terms to the extension of collective bargaining by recognition support through legislation for the last seven or eight years—indeed, if we count the publication of the Donovan Report, it is 10 years—and we have had no idea of the sort of criteria or circumstances and in what conditions the Government would want to see recognition accorded to a trade union.
That is all the more: remarkable if we go back to the Donovan Report because, as I understand it, that broadly put forward three arguments in favour of statutory aids to recognition. The first was that collective bargaining was the best way of dealing with problems of settling terms and conditions and that therefore we should see an extension of collective bargaining. But the second argument was that the British system of collective bargaining was disordered and that in the past we had had a great deal of disorder and fragmentation on the issue of trade union recognition, particularly so far as blue collar workers were concerned, and we wanted to do rather better for white collar workers. Thirdly, I think the members of the Donovan Commission were much impressed by the fact that
242
it was put to them that the numbe of notoriously bad industrial situations in this country—particularly in the car industry, but not in that industry only— had begun to get that way because very strong employers' resistance was put up to trade union recognition in the early days.
The Donovan Commission were saying, "If we accept that collective bargaining is a reasonable way to settle terms and conditions and if we want to extend collective bargaining, particularly in the white collar field, in a rational and sensible, not a fragmented, way; if we want to do it in a way which will not create problems from the point of view of competition and inter-union disputes; and if we are to do it in a way which avoids a legacy of disruption and a tradition of resistance, we need some form of third party involvement", and they recommended the establishment of the institution which became known as the CIR.
It is not often that Members on this side of the House say this, but I wish to point out that in some ways some of those ideas found expression in the Industrial Relations Act 1971. That Act was not simply saying that you should recognise any trade union that came along or any trade union that had a sufficent membership; it did not simply play the numbers game. That Act said you had to try to find a sole bargaining agent, that you had to try to define a sensible bargaining unit and that the CIR, in deciding whether or not to extend collective bargaining in a particular firm, was entitled to ask whether a particular unit had the resources effectively to represent the workers.
So the reformist elements which were stressed in the Donovan Report, and which would, and should, have led to a clear code of practice on recognition found some expression in the 1971 Industrial Relations Act. The trouble is, as we all know, and has also been said by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that all the other provisions in the 1971 Industrial Relations Act made it unacceptable. It is perfectly true, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that even on the recognition side the 1971 Industrial Relations Act allowed employers to bring references on recognition to the CIR, but in the context of the 1971 Industrial

243
Relations Act they were bringing references the primary aim of which was to revoke sole bargaining agencies. That was swept away in the 1975 Act, but unfortunately nothing of a reformist nature was put in its place. So we had the repeal of the 1971 Act, and in its place we had the 1975 Act—the Employment Protection Act. As a result of this one can search through Sections 11 to 16 of the Employment Protection Act and not find any guidance, nor any principles. One will find nothing which tells what are the criteria which should be used in deciding whether or not to recognise a trade union under the provisions of that Act.
The theory of the EPA was that we could safely leave this to ACAS—that the ACAS council, which was to be a bipartisan council, roughly speaking 50 per cent. CBI and 50 per cent. TUC, would work out the criteria for recognition. I suggest that this was a very dangerous assumption to make. Recognition is a very controversial matter. It is not a matter upon which the trade unions and the employers automatically naturally agree. It is a matter about which they will naturally fall out. Therefore it was to be doubted whether the council of ACAS would find it easy to formulate an effective code of practice on recognition. That in fact has been the case. They have not done so. It is no criticism of them that they have not done so, because essentially and basically, in my submission, this was a task for those who framed the Act; and they did not do it.
The second assumption upon which the Employment Protection Act was based was that the council of ACAS would be given an unlimited amount of time in which they would be able to work out what the criteria on recognition would be because the judges would leave them alone. This is where naiveté really takes off. It passes my comprehension how anybody could believe that in a piece of legislation in the mid-1970s total discretion could be left to an extra-Parliamentary body—a QUANGO—and expect the judges of this country to keep their noses out. Of course, that is not what has happened. In fact every time the ACAS council, however slowly, however carefully, have tried to develop some criteria to decide between case A and case B, they have had to run the gamut of the courts.
244
The courts have taken a very simple view. It is easy for people on this side of the House to say that the courts have taken this view because of their prejudices. I should prefer to say that they have taken this view because of their ignorance. However, whatever the reason, the courts have taken a very simple view. Their view generally has been that you have to have the membership. It does not matter who you are. It does not matter whether by recognition you are to produce disruption in industry. It does not matter whether by recognition you are to add to the total number of unions. It does not matter whether you are to make the reform of British industrial relations—which was a central pillar of the Donovan Report— more difficult or impossible. If you have the membership, you get the recognition. This is a perfectly understandable, simple view for the courts to take. My point is that the main reason why they are able to take that view is because the Act does not prevent them from doing so.
Therefore, what I am arguing is that we should have a code of practice on recognition, and that this code of practice should go back to the basic assumptions behind the extension of State support for recognition in the Donovan Report, which are that we are not simply trying to extend the frontiers of collective bargaining; we are also trying to introduce a little rationality, a litter order, a little less competition inside the recognition procedures so far as the State is concerned.
People will say, of course, that this is in fact an undercover argument for supporting TUC unions against non-TUC unions, and to some extent it is, because if you are trying to rationalise, if you are trying to sort out, a complicated industrial relations structure, you will tend to support existing unions and you will tend to say, "We have far too many unions already, and we do not want to recognise any more". Nevertheless, I would argue that a sensible code of industrial practice on recognition would just as soon and just as frequently—in fact, maybe more frequently in time— come to decide between TUC unions on certain rational and sensible grounds as it would be deciding in favour of TUC unions as against TUC unions. But, whatever the consequences, it seems to me that we have got into a situation in which, so far as recognition is concerned,

245
we need a code of practice. I do not believe that code of practice can in fact be provided in present circumstances by the ACAS council: I believe it should be provided by those who frame the legislation, either in the legislation or separately.
9.26 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, it is a little difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, because as I see it—and he will correct me if I am wrong—he says, in effect, that codes of practice without teeth are not worth very much, that codes of practice with teeth cause resentment, and that therefore there should be no codes of practice except in the one area he has just been suggesting —a code of practice for recognition procedures, a subject to which, surely, his earlier arguments would equally apply. It seems to me a little difficult, therefore, to take his argument all the way.
Lord MCCARTHY: My Lords, the difference is that we have legislation dealing with recognition, and we have institutions, ACAS and the CAC, that have to apply that legislation, but we have given them no guidance. That is why we need guidelines. That is the difference.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, they need guidelines, but in the case of other people, such as trade unions and employers, they are not to have guidelines because guidelines will cause resentment. Perhaps I read the noble Lord wrongly. Anyhow, perhaps I could very briefly say (because there is not very much to say in addition to what has already been said) that it seems to me that there is a need for the sort of code of practice that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has proposed; and, with others, I think we can be very grateful to him for plugging away at this point. There are, however, several misgivings about how this should be carried out and how effective it would be; and in some respects I go along with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in saying that we have had not very good experience, for all sorts of reasons, of earlier codes of practice. I also go along with my noble friend Lord Belstead in one or two of the misgivings that he put forward.
The point about the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques,
246
from which I think we should perhaps benefit most is its brevity. It seems to me that one of the problems of the codes of practice which have been tried in this area is that they are too long. The shortest one, in some respects, is the 1972 one, to which reference has been made. That got itself a bad name, and it is really awfully childish of us that we allow that in relation to something which you find, when your read it today, is remarkably in advance of its time. A lot of what it says is even now not being practised by a lot of firms and by a lot of trade unions.
This code of practice is in fact a very good one, but it has 133 paragraphs and 28 pages, and people do not like reading that amount. The Employment Protection Act has produced three codes of practice from ACAS, each of which, at first sight, is longer than the 1972 code of practice, and each of which is on a narrow front; and 13 Departments of Employment leaflets covering other areas that have not been covered by ACAS. If you put them all together—and I have had a quick look—they are about 20 times as thick as the 1972 Code of Practice.
People have not got the time to absorb all that. Naturally they say: "Well, we will not pay any attention to that. It is a put-up job. The Government are trying to thrust ideas down our throats". They find arguments for resenting it, because, in part, they cannot be bothered or have not got the time to read the material thoroughly. These are all produced by earnest and very well-meaning people who want to make quite certain that there are no errors, that nothing has been missed out and that people cannot misinterpret what they should be doing. When dealing with codes of practice, the one thing they can be is brief and one can risk missing things out—which you cannot do with the law. Where we tend to go wrong is when we allow people who are familiar with the law (let alone writing it) to have a hand in writing the codes of practice.
I suggest, therefore, that if the Government are going to take active steps to pursue the line which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is recommending—and I hope that they are—they should look very carefully at his recommendation for

247
brevity and hire somebody to write the code of practice who is not a civil servant, not a lawyer and not a Parliamentarian, in the vague hope that he or she will put together something which is easy to understand and quickly read by busy people who may then pay some attention to it.
My Lords, having said all that, the nub of the matter (which we have all touched upon) is really trust and commitment. All the writing in the world— even if written by the clever and angelic creature that I have suggested—is not going to create that. But if the Government set a sort of pointer with the sort of guidance the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is calling for, that might help to encourage people who have to work together in industry to start to do a bit more trusting.
9.33 p.m.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I find myself in general agreement with my noble friend Lord Jacques, and I want to suggest an addition to his suggestion. Before doing so, I should like to take up some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. I thought he was extremely sceptical about codes of practice. With respect, I think he does not understand why they have been relatively unsuccessful so far. I go a long way with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in his explanation of this. What is missing in the minds of most employees at work is the knowledge of available means of dealing with such matters as industrial disputes differently from the customary way they have been dealt with in the past. I do not know how many copies of the original code of practice have been issued but I doubt whether 1 per cent. of the employees of this country have ever read it.
It is that failure to get it through into the minds of ordinary people in industry which makes it relatively useless. Incidentally, the continuing publication by ACAS of further additions to that code in separate booklets is in my view a disaster. There must be at least one booklet every year amended, so that any reasonable shop steward and employee interested in these matters has to have a collection of four or five in order to understand what it is all about. As I
248
understand my noble friend Lord Jacques, what he is after is a very abbreviated code that would be sent to every employee in the country, so that everybody would know that something was available as an alternative to these hideous disputes from which we all suffer. I could give instances of this. I am not going to do so because I have not much time, but one result of informing 76,000 doctors of what was going on in a huge negotiation of which I was chairman was that at the end of two years the unions were convinced it would not be supported by 20 per cent. of their members. It was actually supported by over 80 per cent. largely because they knew what was happening
I support the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in his scheme of getting a simple code into the hands of the people. With large bodies of people one can only get commitment first by publication, and second by understanding. I wonder whether that minority in the Ford Motor Company who, according to the Press, sought a ballot might have succeeded in convincing many of those on strike of voting for a secret ballot, if there had been in the hands of every one of those employees at some previous date a suggestion as to how ballots should be conducted in these circumstances, approved at national level. People do not know that there are alternative institutions to the age-old ones of battle which they use.
Now I should like to come to the additional contribution that I want to make to what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said. My text for saying this is the old Scottish saying: "Many a mickle macks a muckle". I am sure all noble Lords understand what that means: "many a little thing makes a big thing", to put it in those terms. I believe that many a right royal industrial dispute, particularly of the unofficial kind, is created by a growing collection of unresolved individual grievances. I know that the industrial code calls for grievance procedures. I am also aware that although many firms have produced some form of grievance procedure, some are extremely faulty. I will not go into the details of the faults; but one of the most common is to discipline a man and impose the penalty first. Then he is invited to appeal afterwards. That seems contrary to the rules of British law. That is a common fault: there are many others.

249
Many firms now have agreed, published and well understood appeals procedures operating in their area. I want to say briefly what I mean by an appeals procedure because it can be outlined very easily. A proper appeals procedure is a system whereby any employee who has any grievance can insist that he takes his objection to his manager's decision to the next manager up the line, and so on up to the most senior man on the particular geographical site on which he is working. If the employee continues to feel that injustice persists and he gets the backing of the majority of those who represent him, then a negotiation must take place at that level. The procedure must be fully deployed before negotiation of that sort commences.
If this procedure were universal, then in the first case from between 60 and 70 per cent. of these appeals would be settled at the first stage of appeal. I have had a great deal of experience of procedures of this kind. Secondly, many unofficial strikes would be avoided. Thirdly, the rapid settlement of what may be looked upon as tiny grievances but which never appear tiny to the individual affected, would make a substantial contribution to the improvement or morale throughout the ranks of the employees concerned. Such a procedure could not of course deprive the individual of his right under the law to appeal to an external tribunal against what he feels to be unfair dismissal. The code could suggest that it would be highly advisable that this procedure should be gone through before the appeal to the external tribunal took place.
My understanding of what is happening in these industrial tribunals at the moment is that they have not turned out too happily in many cases. Some of the decisions being taken are extremely unfortunate. The passing of all appeals for trivial and serious matters like dismissal through the internal procedure first would not only save a great deal of time for the tribunals and also for the unions and employers involved, but would prevent many of the cases going to the tribunals at all. Such, again, has been my experience.
I should like to see in the code suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, some reference, perhaps in an appendix, to the availability of a detailed appeal
250
procedure such as I have described so that every employee, if he likes to get hold of a copy of the code, can learn of an objective, logical appeal procedure which he can begin to promote with his fellows for adoption in the firm by whom he is employed. I think that would be a useful addition, because the start of many disputes is, to a much greater extent than is commonly realised, a combination of unresolved petty matters which eventually is turned into a matter of principle by the shop stewards and then becomes one of the disputes with which we are all too familiar.
I hope that in considering the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, it will be realised that simply for the Government, the CBI and the TUC to get together and agree a code on the lines suggested would get us nowhere. As I understand it, the essence of what has been suggested to the House tonight is that this should be a matter of putting a copy of the code through the letterbox of every employee in the country. That is the value of the proposal.
Lord MCCARTHY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he help me to understand? He said that a code of practice only helps if it is available, and in order to make it available he wants a copy to be put through the letterbox of everybody in the country. Surely a code of practice only helps if it is embodied in particular procedure agreements, and that only happens if those who negotiate those procedure agreements feel they have not got that already.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord is a much respected economist and adviser on industrial matters, but I do not think he realises that what goes in industry is what is felt to be real by masses of people—some 25 million employees. You can do all the logical scheming at the top that you want to, but it does not solve anything at the bottom until people know about these things; and the act of putting a code through letterboxes is very important.
Let me give an example of what happened three years ago. The Government asked the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the Daily Mirror team to produce a document on our dire economic straits. A lot of people sneered at that at the time but a document was put through every

251
letterbox in the country. What I noticed subsequently was that when a poll was taken it indicated that 70 per cent. of the trade union members in this country were in favour of a Government wage policy—which at that time was a very surprising result. I put that down to the fact that everybody knew some facts then which they had not known before.
9.44 p.m.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, there is a famous saying that "fools rush in". I have actually tiptoed into this debate tonight really for two reasons. I will expand on one of them right away; that is, that I suppose your Lordships who are still present are so used to these subjects that perhaps they under-express themselves a little. I must say that when I read the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, I was filled with enormous admiration and encouragement. That was because it seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was doing an enormously wise and forward-looking thing. It is so tempting in this subject to try to do everything at once, and to rush at the whole problem as though it were one, which surely would have meant returning us into a great argument about a whole lot of things in the Industrial Relations Act and so on. Whereas it seemed to me that the noble Lord was extremely wise in taking, as a first attack on this problem after all the arguments, something about which there could certainly be no offence given and I should have thought great encouragement taken. This is because it was right to start with something rather quiet, if I may describe it in that way, something not imposed on anybody, and even avoiding the whole vexatious question of where you go from consensus to orders. So that we owe him a great debt of gratitude for doing this.
My other reason for coming in is that, apart from my own personal interest in this matter, as an ex-diplomat I am perhaps over-sensitive to what actions in this country do to our reputation, or indeed to our prosperity, in our relations with other countries. I can assure your Lordships that this question of industrial relations is regarded around the world as far the most important crisis that we have to contend with as a nation, and it
252
even goes so far as people talking about it as the British disease. Therefore, it is of the most immense importance that we go on trying and trying again to gain a little ground—here a little and there a little—until we get finally, and it may take us decades yet, the right answers to these questions. There will, of course, always be discontents, but certainly, latterly, we do not seem to have been very successful as a country in anticipating them or in stopping them quickly when they happen.
Perhaps I may refer specially to the whole problem of balloting. It may be that some of your Lordships have forgotten that balloting for elections to Parliament was introduced—and I am happy to recognise to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that it was by the Liberal Party—in 1872, over 100 years ago. I should rather hope that, as a country, we were getting used at last to the idea of secret ballots in situations where an open indication of one's opinion was embarrassing. There is no doubt that there are sometimes rather dislikeable cases of action being taken on people revealing their hand, and this must much distort the answers given, particularly in a big crowd, rather suddenly, where people perhaps have not had time to make up their minds what they really think, and where there is a certain amount of fear in the air. I am very much encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said on the subject of the acceptability of balloting, and I think I am not over-interpreting him by saying that he would like to see this increased.
One other reason, and then I shall finish, is that I also felt that the debate was likely to be very learned and scientific and, obviously, I greatly admire the proficiency with which noble Lords have argued these matters. I should just like to finish my own very brief remarks by saying two sentences simply as a consumer and just to express the hope, on behalf of commuters, that people who are expert in these matters always think in terms of the person who arrives at the station and then finds that his train is not there. Here, again, if I may just conclude these brief remarks, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was so extremely wise, in that he pinpointed in his Question the matter of the stoppages of work which happen without the proper procedure having been observed first. So may I

253
express my obligation to all noble Lords for having been able to listen as a member of the public. Once again may I express the very strong hope that the Government will give the fair wind that it deserves to the Unstarred Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques.
9.50 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the hour is late, but the importance of the debate calls for a reasoned reply. In view of certain remarks which I shall make towards the end of my speech, I do not intend to go in detail into the points made by the various speakers. However, I am grateful to them all, because this debate is perhaps of far greater importance than some of us realise. It is a very serious issue, to which, unfortunately, the media does not give sufficient attention.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth. He referred to the British disease, meaning strikes and industrial unrest. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, also referred to strikes. I am not saying that everything in the garden is lovely, but Britain's strike record compares favourably with that of quite a number of countries. This is nothing to be proud about, of course, for we are not satisfied with the situation as it is.
The unfortunate fact is that industrial relations achievements never receive publicity, although every strike, large or small, is publicised by banner headlines. Although there are certain honourable exceptions, one of which is the Guardian, it is regrettable that the media does not give a little more attention to constructive efforts and achievements.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me how, if the Government accept an ACAS code, support for it can be secured. All ACAS codes follow upon close consultation with the CBI and the TUC. Both the CBI and the TUC have nominees on the ACAS council, and both bodies accept all ACAS codes. In this way, it will be supported. Furthermore, their provisions can be used at industrial tribunals, et cetera, as evidence of good practice. If, however, the noble Lord is suggesting penal sanctions, then I have to tell him that we part company.
254
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked me a question to which he certainly did not expect to receive an answer tonight. The noble Lord suggested that there should be a revision of the powers of ACAS. That is a matter for the Government to consider. I can say only that I take due note of the point. I thank all noble Lords for their very reasonable approach, and I am sure that their contributions will be appreciated in other quarters. In particular, I want to thank my noble friend Lord Jacques who asked for support for a code of industrial practice offering guidance on a number of matters. The Government share his view that codes can play a useful role. It was for this reason that Section 6 of the Employment Protection Act laid upon ACAS the duty of producing codes of practice to provide such practical guidance. I know my noble friend agrees with me that ACAS, an expert body in which, as I have already stated, the CBI and the TUC are represented, is the proper body for such a task.
As the House knows, ACAS has so far produced three codes of practice—on Disciplinary Practice and Procedures, on Disclosure of Information for Collective Bargaining, and on Time off for Trade Union Duties and Activities. These codes have been widely publicised and are having a considerable impact. The service also has the duty of providing one or more codes of practice to supersede the more general 1972 code of practice. ACAS is an independent body and the Government cannot tell it what to do. But I am happy to be able to tell the House that ACAS is currently working to prepare a code relevant to the matters which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in initiating this debate.
The Government are concerned that codes of practice should be widely publicised as well as being authoritative. To this end, Section 6 charges the service to prepare a draft of any code it seeks to issue, to consider any representations made on the draft, and to modify it, if necessary, before transmitting the code to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment for his and subsequently Parliament's approval. This House knows, from its debates on two of the ACAS Codes of Practice, the seriousness with which the service takes its duty to

255
consult widely and fully before producing a code. As well as hearing from parties thought by the service to have a particular contribution to offer, ACAS has issued its proposals for a draft code as a consultative document and allows time to receive written and oral submissions on its proposals. For its first code, it issued more than 40,000 copies of a consultative document, for its second it issued over 60,000 copies, and for its third it issued over 66,000 copies.
Points have been made tonight from these Benches and from the Benches opposite that individual members of unions should receive copies of this new code. But it is a fact that a number of unions already supply their members with copies of codes. Quite a number of unions do this and of course we would all agree that it would be desirable for others to follow this very good example.
Your Lordships will know that proposals in draft ACAS codes have sparked off considerable reaction. In addition to the oral submissions and queries in each case, ACAS has received very large numbers— in fact hundreds—of written submissions from important and representative bodies, employers' associations and unions, the CBI and the TUC as well as from individuals. It received more than 150 written submissions on its first consultative document, more than 140 on its second and more than 200 on its third.
I should mention that another reason for giving ACAS the job of producing relevant codes of practice is that this ensures not only that the code reflects the wide experience of ACAS, but also that the code will be applied in particular circumstances with the benefit of ACAS' advisory services. Your Lordships will know of the important function ACAS provides in the advice it freely offers to both sides of industry. Last year alone officers of the service made almost 9,000 advisory visits to places of work and conducted over 250 advisory surveys and projects at the behest of parties. For the service, a code is not a one-off document reflecting the particular concerns at the time when it was written; it is a document which can be applied by its careful and continuing commitments to the parties, employers and unions, who have to adapt to it.
256
On a more general note, the value of codes, as opposed to legislation, has been raised in the debate. I should like to make the Government's position clear on this. We do not see codes as alternatives to legislation in industrial relations. Rather, they supplement and amplify the legal framework. This is the case with the ACAS codes which I have mentioned, with the codes in the health and safety area, and in the Government's proposals on industrial democracy. At the same time, we are sensitive to criticisms that too many codes might prove indigestible. We think it sensible, in the general area of industrial relations, to rely on the good sense and experience of ACAS, whose day-to-day contacts with employers and unions put it in the best position to judge what are the priority subjects for inclusion.
I now turn to some of the more specific topics mentioned in the debate. Taking union recognition first, the Employment Protection Act itself lays down a procedure for parties and ACAS to follow when a recognition claim is made under Section 11 of that Act. As noble Lords know, this provides for reference to ACAS and lays on the service certain duties in handling a claim; for example, the duty to consult all parties who will be affected by the outcome of any reference. But the Act does not attempt to lay down a rigid set of criteria for application in every case. Rather, it was intended that provision should be made throughout for conciliation settlement by agreement, and failing this it was Parliament's intention that the service should have a wide discretion as to how best to proceed in any particular case.
This procedure has been widely used. Up to October, there have been almost 1,300 references to ACAS and already over half of these have been settled amicably. The problems which have arisen should be put into proper perspective. But I frankly admit there have been difficult cases and Grunwick is one of these. Here the employer refused to allow an independent survey of the opinions of workers by ACAS, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Jacques that this behaviour cannot be justified. Noble Lords will be aware that two Private Member's Bills were introduced in another place in the last Session of

257
Parliament to alleviate some of the problems which have arisen, but, unfortunately, because of Conservative opposition there, your Lordships did not have an opportunity even to consider them. However, the Government continue to keep the recognition provisions under review and will pay particular concern to the legal issues alluded to in this debate, some of which are still before the courts, and that must not be overlooked.
On the question of guidance to parties about what they should take into account in judging a union claim for recognition, ACAS has already in its last annual report indicated in some detail the factors which it finds relevant in defining the group of workers for whom particular collective bargaining; arrangements may be appropriate, and in assessing support for collective bargaining among workers concerned. I will certainly not recite all those factors this evening. Anyway, ACAS cautions that any particular factor is not decisive of itself. Different regard has to be given to each factor in different circumstances. I am sure this flexible approach to questions of union recognition is the correct one.
I now turn to procedures prior to industrial action. As we have seen today, and in the discussions following a Question from my noble friend Lord Rochester a few weeks ago, several subjects can be raised under this heading. First, there is the question of what procedures exist as alternatives to industrial action. Secondly, there is the matter of compliance with agreements, including fixed term agreements. Thirdly, there is the issue of the internal union procedure which should precede a strike. Fourthly, there is the role of arbitration. Noble Lords have illustrated tonight several other topics of this type, because all these questions become more complicated according to the type of industrial action under scrutiny. I share the sentiment of the mover of the Motion before us, a sentiment shared by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that a code of practice should be brief. But, my Lords, I would venture to say that any code which seeks to cover all the matters I have just mentioned will scarcely have limited objectives.
I shall now consider some of these matters in more detail. On the question
258
of dispute procedures, most employers and unions do have some form of procedural agreement for settling disputes. Disputes may be of two kinds, disputes about substantive issues to be included in any agreement, and disputes about the interpretation of existing agreements. This distinction was noted by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, who suggested that disputes about the interpretation of agreements were especially suitable for arbitration. However attractive this distinction is in theory, it does not in practice seem so important to the parties themselves. This was pointed out by the Donovan Commission and confirmed more recently by a survey of procedures in Great Britain whose conclusions were published by the Department of Employment in 1975. While some parties may use the distinction to identify arbitrable issues within their own agreements, I do not think too much should be made of it. Rather, I would agree here with the 1972 Code of Practice introduced by the last Conservative Administration, that parties should attempt to settle all disputes by use of their agreed procedures before contemplating industrial action. In practice, of course, this is generally what happens. Although the media concentrate on disputes, most industrial problems are solved through discussion between management and shop stewards or full-time union officials.
On the question of compliance with collective agreements, I am sure we would all agree that collective agreements, including fixed-term agreements, should be observed—and, in the case of fixed term agreements, observed for their full term. The Government would certainly endorse this proposition, and I am sure that the great majority of trade unionists and employers would agree with it. Clearly, the structure of collective bargaining will break down if this were not generally the case.
When we come to the question of internal procedures which unions should follow before their members take industrial action, concern has most recently been expressed about mass meetings. Many think secret ballots are a better way of taking members' opinions. The Government certainly share some of the reservations expressed about mass meetings and consider it would be preferable, in some circumstances, to use other means.

259
Of course some unions, like the National Union of Mineworkers—and there are a number of others—regularly use ballots, and others have rules requiring ballots before some type of industrial action is sanctioned. And we are all very much aware that whatever procedure is used by a union there is no guarantee that members will vote for industrial peace.
It seems to be generally accepted by the public that, in all the strikes that occur from time to time, if only we had a ballot there would not be a strike. That is sheer wishful thinking, because in point of fact we might have a ballot and a strike. On the other hand, some ballots may result in no strike. Therefore, the public at large should not get that impression and some leader writers and Sunday papers should take note of this fact.
The Government do not believe that they should attempt to intervene unilaterally in such matters and, still less, introduce legislation aimed at compelling unions to hold secret ballots on strike action. The experience of the last Conservative Administration, whose Industrial Relations Act had such a provision, showed that such intervention only serves to make this situation worse. The Government have repeatedly said they would be prepared to consider the question of financial assistance towards the cost of ballots—if the trade union movement were to come forward and ask for Government help. The plain fact is that this has not happened. The Government are quite willing, but there has been no request. But then we have no evidence that any union has decided, on the grounds of cost, against having in its rules provisions for ballots. I should like to say that unions are democratic and there is an indication growing that some union members and some of those taking part in the disputes would have preferred a ballot. All that I can say—and I have some knowledge of trade unions, as a rank and file member in the past—is that it is in the hands of union members. They must attend their meetings; they must assist in formulating decisions of policy, and if the rules do not allow them and they want to do so, they can change the rules. That is the position and it is up to them.
260
May I conclude with a few remarks about arbitration as a means of avoiding industrial action. Voluntary arbitration has long been a feature of our industrial relations. The State has provided for a standing arbitration body, currently the Central Arbitration Committee, since 1919. Collective agreements often include provision for arbitration and ACAS has —at the request of both parties—referred to independent arbitrators over 300 disputes in each of the last two years. In general, parties do agree to be bound by the arbitrator's award and in most cases they comply with it. But arbitration requires that the issue is relatively clear-cut, that parties agree on the details of what the real issue is and are willing to have it settled by a third party. One or more of these prerequisites may be lacking and so some other form of third party intervention, especially conciliation, may be appropriate. Here the importance of ACAS is widely recognised.
In the early 1970s the conciliation services of the Department of Employment was handling fewer than 1,000 cases a year. Now ACAS handles close to 3,000 cases annually and is helping to achieve settlements in three-quarters of these. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is a considerable achievement for which the service is to be congratulated. The suggestions made tonight for compulsory conciliation or for conciliators to make recommendations seem likely to be counter-productive and would undermine the success of ACAS.
This has been an interesting and, I would add, a vitally important debate which has covered quite a range of matters of concern to us all; we could have gone much further. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that work is in progress at ACAS on a code relevant to some of the matters mentioned today. I am sure that the views expressed today will be of considerable interest to the service. I can give the assurance that I have made arrangements for a copy of the debate to be sent to ACAS as a contribution to be considered in the formulation of these codes. Here this House is taking some practical steps to make its views known. I am obliged to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Of course, when the code is ready and it goes to my right honourable friend, it will come to this

261
House for debate. Then we can look forward to further constructive debates on this very important matter. Once again, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Jacques and all other noble Lords who have made a very valuable contribution to an important subject that is affecting the nation today.

  EMPLOYMENT: UNFILLED VACANCIES IN LONDON AND S.E. REGIONS
  EMPLOYMENT: UNFILLED VACANCIES IN LONDON AND S.E. REGIONS
  MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND NAUDICELLE TREATMENT
  MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND NAUDICELLE TREATMENT
  BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS: FINANCIAL RESULTS
  BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS: FINANCIAL RESULTS
  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM: EAST INFILL BLOCK
  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM: EAST INFILL BLOCK